It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does the earth move and rotate on its axis?

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
If any of you can come up with any kind of experiment in physics, any kind of proof of any kind, to back up the heliocentric theory of the movement of the sun and planetary bodies, you will be instantly famous. Please let's hear it.

I've given four examples of experiments in physics which prove the earth is not moving, and some have sneered at them and claimed it just ain't so. But science itself has not denied the results of these experiments in physics.

In addition the Bible, God's own word, the account of the Creator Himself, the only one who was here when everything was made, the only one who is able to stand back and examine his own creation and tell us what is moving and what is not moving, God's own account in his miraculous Book the Holy Bible says that the earth was created first before anyhting else, and that the sun, moon and stars were not created until the fourth day and that they were created for the benefit of the earth, for light, for times and seasons, and to declare the glory of God.

The Bible says that God "hung the earth in space" and that He set the sun and moon and stars in their paths.

So I would invite anyone to examine the four experiments carefully with an open mind and consider that the preponderence of evidence supports the geocentric model, not the heliocentric model. Heliocentricity is just a theory, a mathematical model constructed to explain the movement of the stars and sun that we see. This model it so happens does not conform with at least four experiments in physics; nor does it agree with what God's word says.

The world is full of alchemy, superstition and pseudoscience. Evolution is a glaring example of such. Also the claim by Mr. GaliLIEo and Mr. Copernicus are bogus as well.

If they are not, then come up with one proof to defend this theory, this mathematical model of heliocentricity. It is only a theory.




posted on May, 12 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


Will you PLEASE read what everyone has already provided you?

Your exalted "Airy" did not prove anything. Except, his 'water telescope' proved that the 'aether' doesn't exist!!!

The other "Airy" experiment you keep misunderstanding was using a pendulum underground to determine the density (and thus the mass) of the Earth.

Airy flubbed the opportunity for Britain the prestige of being the first to discover the planet Neptune.

However, if one wishes to remain in a medieval mindset and remain unable to grasp a simple, elegant truth...then please immediately STOP using technology. No cars, no refrigerators, no electricity. AND, obviously, no computers.

Of COURSE a bunch of tales, started as an oral tradition (likely in the Stone Age) before anyone knew how to write, then selected into a tome by certain power-hungry individuals in what is essentially the Bronze Age, in order to control and wield power over others...this sort of 'book' should naturally be taken at literal face value. Which means, if it's all literal, then simply using a computer on a Sunday is likely punishable by death. (Whew! Just checked...it's Tuesday. Boy, that was close!)



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


Second reply, on another tack...

The very evident proof of the Earth's motion is shown because of the very precise measuring tools we have in today's sciences. It is now possible to measure the parallax seen as the Earth orbits the Sun, by measuring the angles that change when viewing certain nearby stars. No, the stars aren't moving (well, they are, but THAT motion is virtually imperceptable from our vantage). The parallax, when seen from two different points on the Earth's orbit (each six months apart), clearly show that the Earth moved, then moved back to 'approximately' where it began 12 months prior.

[Again, technically, since the entire Solar System is also moving as a whole, the Earth NEVER returns to the exact same place...but, because of the great distances, it is imperceptable]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


"In addition the Bible, God's own word, the account of the Creator Himself, the only one who was here when everything was made, the only one who is able to stand back and examine his own creation and tell us what is moving and what is not moving, God's own account in his miraculous Book the Holy Bible says that the earth was created first before anyhting else, and that the sun, moon and stars were not created until the fourth day and that they were created for the benefit of the earth, for light, for times and seasons, and to declare the glory of God."

Your faith in The Bronze Age Goat-herders' Anthology of Campfire Tales is admirable, but not science. It's just a book, highly edited, with selective deletions and additions to support the "party" in power at the time. You'll never know what it "really said", because you can't read the original. So you get the version that some looney Scot guy decided was correct. And you then decide the Universe is as described by a bunch of smei-nomadic, half-barbarian Bedouins?



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

You wonder why people get upset at people who promote ingorant and long disproven theories? Because it offends the idea that humans have generally overcome basic scientific ignorance. The question of whether the earth orbits the sun or vice versa isn't something that should be a question any more, there shouldn't be a need for any more debate on such a simple, basic concept. That there is a need for this debate with some people causes people like me to lose any hope that we had for humanity.

[edit on 21-4-2009 by ngchunter]


Sorry to cause you to have lost your hope in humanity.

I guess you have lost your hope in God's Word also since it contradicts the theories of Galileo and Copernicus? These men offered THEORIES, mathematical theories to explain the movement of the stars and planets. Other people offer other explanations, just as valid mathematically, even more valid than that of Galileo and Copernicus, and they do not contradict God's Word. You may think the Bible is a hoax, but I know it's not a hoax. I know it's true and that I can trust it and depend on it.

But in addition to the account from the Creator Himself as to how and why he formed his Creation, we have experiments in physics which back up that account.

Your heliocentric theory is just a model. It has never been proved. You have not one single proof that the theory first postulated by Galileo and Copernicus are correct. They are hypothesis, theories, and in fact they are theories that have been disproved.

You see, most of what we've been told is true is NOT TRUE. We human beings have been lied to, deceived, bamboozled. No, we did not go to the moon. No the atom does not possess godlike qualities of self existence able to produce life from itself. Evolution is a sorry theory that not even the evolutionists believe anymore, and have moved to a new flavor in their theories of how evolution works, by punctuated equilibrium, by huge leaps. What a fraud, this pseudoscience.

People are just living in the land of magic and superstition and think they can create their own reality in their minds and whatever they want to be real will be real. They have no regard for God's truth, for God's laws, for God's own creation which reveals God in every way.

I've presented four experiments in physics. These are not goofy experiments done by little kids. They are experiments which revealed the laws of physics and can be repeated in a lab by anybody else. They were not one-time flukes. This is science, something that is observable. This goes out of the realm of theory and into the area of fact, rock solid fact.

So instead of the name-calling, the condescension, how about coming up with some experiments in physics that prove your theory, your pet theory that was first postulated by Copernicus and Galileo, a theory that does fit the math to a certain degree, but not totally and is no more mathematically correct than the systems worked out by other astronomers using the geocentric model.

The parallax thing does not work with a geocentric model, because you get negative parallax.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 



People are just living in the land of magic and superstition and think they can create their own reality in their minds and whatever they want to be real will be real.


Boy, you just said it, brother!!!

And, if I could fiqure out how to quote your comment that the 'parallax thing' doesn't work in a geocentric model I would....because it was priceless!!!

Thanks for verifying what nearly everyone else in the modern World knows already. Fundamentalist religious dogmatic stubborness is one of the most dangerous traits ever exhibited by Man.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth

Airy's experiment
by Dr. Neville Thomas Jones, Ph.D

.

"Many think it proven long ago that the World orbits the Sun. However, the results of two simple experiments, both performed in the nineteenth century, showed that it is the stars which move, and not the World. An experiment with a water-filled telescope was performed by the then Astronomer Royal, George Airy (after whom the Airy disc of diffraction theory is named), in 1871, which can be considered to be a variation of an earlier investigation by François Arago, performed with a moving slab of glass in 1810.

"Arago showed that either light itself or the luminiferous aether is dragged along by a moving piece of glass. Fresnel explained the effect by assuming it was the light-carrying medium (this is called Fresnel drag). George Stokes explained it via compression of the aether, but the important point is whether we can tell which one is doing the moving - the light source or the transparent material. When Arago investigated this effect with starlight, he concluded that the World (with respect to which the glass plate was stationary in this instance) was at rest and that it was the stars that were moving.

"The experiment subsequently performed by Airy was first proposed by Ruggiero Boscovich for testing James Bradley's heliocentric aberration idea of 1728. This, in turn, was thought up to explain the elliptical motion of the star Gamma Draconis, as observed by James Bradley and Samuel Molyneux, over a fairly long time period commencing in 1725. What was the result of Airy's experiment? Exactly the opposite outcome to that predicted in the rotating-World scenario. (Note that the experiment is usually referred to as 'Airy's failure' for this reason.)

"Just like Arago before him, George Airy proved that the World was stationary and the stars are moving. It does not matter whether there exists a luminiferous aether or not, because the dragging of starlight, as demonstrated initially by Arago, is real, irrespective of how we try to explain it. Both Arago and Airy showed that it is the stars, and not the World, which move (although Airy did not actually go so far as to admit this). In addition, we can say that Michelson-Morley, Trouton-Noble and many, many others have consistently demonstrated no motion of the World.

"Airy's experiment thus does not confirm the World to be just a piece of rock that hurtles through infinite space in who knows how many contorted motions, as Mikolaj Kopernik (aka 'Copernicus'), Johannes Kepler, Carl Sagan, et al., so zealously maintained."

[edit on 8-4-2009 by Salt of the Earth]

[edit on 8-4-2009 by Salt of the Earth]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
An earlier post on parallax for weedwacker.

You will find Dr. Neville Jones' article on negative parallax interesting since you think it to be easy to measure if you know how.

But check out Dr. Jones' article on negative parallax here: and you may like to go on and read the rest of his site as well. Especially the stuff where he roasts NASA and their phony space probe and Hubbell pictures are hilarious.

www.geocentricuniverse.com...


Parallax as you describe it is based on the heliocentric model, which gives a huge base from which to measure a parallax. With the geocentric model, you get a negative parallax.

Parallax, based on using a base of a triangle as large as the supposed orbit around the sun, to prove heliocentrism. How convenient.

Take the geocentric model and what do you have? NEGATIVE PARALLAX.

Check out Dr. Neville Jones, a renowned physicist and a couragous pioneer in smashing through the matrix of pseudoscience and alchemy and NASA's hocus pocus scams and lies.


[edit on 12-5-2009 by Salt of the Earth]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

FACT NOT OPINION



I invite people to examine these four experiments in physics that prove the earth is not rotating or orbiting from Malcolm Bowden's website (see below):

"(a) The Michelson-Morley experiment (Enlarged 19 June 2004)
Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely experiment. It was carried out to check that the velocity of the earth round the sun was about 30km/sec as it moved through the aether. When it found hardly any movement at all, the result stunned the scientific community! Little of this reached the ears of the public and this result had to be "explained away".

"(b) The Michelson-Gale experiment.
(Reference - Astrophysical Journal 1925 v 61 pp 140-5 - I forgot to put this reference in my book!) This detected the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth! Thus, the Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the earth around the sun, yet the Michelson-Gale experiment measured the earth's rotation (or the aether's rotation around the earth!) to within 2%! This surely speaks volumes for geocentricity.

"(c) "Airy's failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's "speed around the sun". Airey filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

"(d) The Sagnac experiment(Reference - Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) Sagnac rotated a table complete with light and mirrors and camera with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table between the mirrors. The rotation of the whole apparatus was detected by the movement of the interference fringes on the target where they were recombined. This proved that there IS an aether that the light has to pass through and this completely destroys Einstein's theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for this reason that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists. More recently Kantor has found the same result with similar apparatus."


More proofs that nullify the so-called "proofs" of the helios of the Coriolis forces and the Foucault pendulum: (also from Malcolm's website):


"THE ROTATION OF THE UNIVERSE

"Ernst Mach proposed that it is the weight of the stars circling the earth that drags Foucault pendulums around, creates Coriolis forces in the air that give the cyclones to our weather etc. Barbour and Bertotti (Il Nuovo Cimento 32B(1):1-27, 11 March 1977) proved that a hollow sphere (the universe) rotating around a solid sphere inside (the earth) produced exactly the same results of Coriolis forces, dragging of Foucault pendulums etc. that are put forward as "proofs" of heliocentricity! This paper gives several other confirmations of the superiority of the geocentric model.

"Thus, there is evidence that the earth is NOT moving around the sun, but either the aether is moving around the earth carrying the planets with it, or the earth is spinning on its axis. The most likely model is that the aether is rotating around the earth as calculations show that if it did not, it would rapidly collapse upon itself."


www.mbowden.surf3.net...

check out his video here:
homepage.ntlworld.com...



Nobody knows better how creation happened than the One who did the creating. Since none of us were there at the time, this is the very

best

proof of all. Those people who claim to believe the Bible but choose to believe those who, without any proof at all, claim the Bible is wrong about origins, should examine themselves to see if they are really "in the faith." As to believing science instead of the Bible, the two cannot and must not contradict each other.

The Bible itself speaks of "science so-called," and we see a lot of that kind of "science," with the global warming chicken little BS, the eugenocists who want to kill 90 percent of us off, the ones who want to improve on God's design of men and inject some bug, animal and reptile genes into the human DNA to maybe cook up some X-men or Spidermen, or

greys

. The ones who think adding industrial waste (ie fluoride) to the drinking water is going to make us all healthier, who think we need Prozac and ritalin and statin drugs and that we should be injecting little babies with mercury, formaldehyde and aluminum laced with cancer viruses and other ghastly microbes --

"Science-so-called" that supposes we can fly around the universe in a treehouse made of roofing paper, scotch tape and gold foil, and buzz on through the Van Allen belts without any damage 12 times. Yet these same brilliant people claim think we need to spray the skies to keep the sun out, and slather ourselves with sunblock to keep the sun away too -- all this kind of "science so-called," not to mention the kind of science that thinks matter has godlike properties of self-existence, eternality, and ability to form infinite life forms and infuse life into them.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


How about you demonstrate that you can refute the "conventional wisdom" that the Earth rotates and is not the center of the known Universe. Care to even try that?



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Ah, I found where your copy-pasta comes from. Another Creationist Nuthatch.


THE BASIC SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS FOR GEOCENTRICITY

This subject generates far more heat than light in Christian circles. Invariably the reaction is emotional because Christians do not want to be tainted with the labels of "scientific ignoramus" and such like. I here set out the basic arguments that are given more fully in my "True Science Agrees with the Bible" - Appendix 10.

(1) BIBLICAL SUPPORT.
There are many references to the sun "going down", "arising" etc. NOT ONCE does the Bible ever refer to the earth rotating or going round the sun. Those who say that the Bible is only recording the "appearance" of the movement of the sun are -
(a) having to ADD to the most obvious meaning of the understanding of the Bible passage; surely we can trust God to mean what He says and say what He means - as He does throughout the Bible.
(b) are adopting the same position as liberal critics who have tried to destroy the Bible by saying that many of the sayings of Christ were "adapted to the simple understanding and low education of His hearers" and that we are more educated today to correct what he said - or such like. The Bible is true in its normal sensible understanding of its statements. We say sensible because we do not literally interpret what are clearly allegories and metaphors - this is usually used by critics to ridicule Bible believers.

(2) THE SEQUENCE OF CREATION
There is a major Biblical problem facing Bible-believing Christians who believe the earth goes round the sun (heliocentrists). In the six days of creation, the sun is not referred to until Day 4. Most contend that it was created on Day 1 but only became visible on Day 4 so that they can have the earth going round the sun from the very first day of its creation. The problem is that the same word is used for the creation of the sun as for other material or animals in Genesis 1. "Bara" and "Asah" are both used for creation and there is no distinction between creation from nothing and creation from previously created material. Both words are used of Man's creation.
To say that the sun had already been created before day 4 is to twist the scriptures beyond acceptability in this one specific case to save the heliocentric position - and Hebrew scholars agree. If this interpretation is used in this one instance, why is it not used for all the other verses in Genesis. It would make nonsense of the whole record of events.

So the Hebrew insists that the sun was created on Day 4. How then did the earth rotate around a non-existent sun for three days? And when the sun was created on Day 4, did God give the earth a jolt and send it on its circular route around the sun? Surely the most obvious explanation is that the earth was created FIRST of all the universe - as the Bible says - and the universe rotated around it - with all the planets created later on Day 4. How this could take place scientifically we examine below.

(3) SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS
Geocentrists are ridiculed as "unscientific" and "getting their science from the Bible". However, there are four experiments which clearly point to a geocentric universe. Only the Michelson-Morley is ever referred to; the other three are hardly ever mentoned in our universities.
(a) The Michelson-Morley experiment (Enlarged 19 June 2004)



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


There's nothing in the Bible that discusses the center of the solar system, galaxy, or universe. It was just something some self centered Christians deduced by themselves. Everything your discussing is interpretations even the Vatican has given in and excepted the fact that Copernicus was right.
There are things that a geocentric model of the solar system can't explain.

Foucault's pendulum provides a demonstration of the daily rotation of the Earth.

Copernicus used the orbital motion of the Earth to explain the
apparent motion of the other planets which leaves axial rotation to
explain the daily cycle.



For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct
Issac Newton

Because Newton employed false reasoning for the resolution of the
apparent orbital behavior of the planets by using a hypothetical
observer on the Sun,it left no way to explain axial rotation by using
the original Copernican reasoning.We see the daily cycle because we
are on a rotating Earth just as we see our orbital motion by seeing
the Earth overtake the other planets,there is no other way to explain
it except from a moving Earth.

The aberration of starlight is a shift in the apparent positions of stars caused by the motion of the Earth as it revolves around the Sun. Then you have the annual parallax of stars. The heliocentric model of the solar system also follows from Newton's laws of motion and gravitation, and has been demonstrated practically by a large number of spacecraft.

Now i realize because you truly believe this geocentric universe because you think the bible tells you this i know your not going to change your mind it took the vatican 400 years and you dont have that long. Because of this my advise to everyone is he doesnt want to discuss it his beliefs are set so dont bother trying.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Im assuming that the sudden shock of not orbiting the sun threw ATS's servers out of whack, causing the OP's registration date to show as 5 days late.


And to answer the question somewhere in this thread of "why should it bother you if people dont believe we are moving through space?".

Its true, I personally couldnt care less if its us moving, or everything else. But it does bother me, and a lot of people, any time outright stupidity is allowed to spread.

Sure, you can pull out some doctors who have this theory, and offer up seemingly scientific reasons for it. Im sure you could do the same for any theory. Im also sure theres a million more who disagree, also with scientific reasons for it. What makes someone go with the 1%, when 99% of other evidence goes against it?

Desire to be different?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Ah, I found where your copy-pasta comes from. Another Creationist Nuthatch.


I have never seen this website. My quotes are my quotes. Other people's quotes and websites are theirs.

And your teenaged insults of the Bible, coming as they do from your worship of Satan as your own byline states your beliefs as being a Cabalist, add absolutely nothing to this forum.

If you want to bring something (like some factual information or ideas) to this forum besides juvenile insults that show how much you hate God and hate the Bible, as if anybody really cared, it would be helpful. If not, the moderator needs to cut you off, or maybe your mother needs to know that you are messing with the family computer.

There are too many people posting in here who have nothing to say but jeering and mocking. Just imagine somebody having an opinion that is contrary to the vast majority of people. Just laugh yourself silly. But you are the biggest fool of all for following the Prince of Darkness, who is destined to eternal hellfire. It's more sad than funny, pathetic really that anybody would make such a choice, but all our world leaders seem to agree with you that Satan is the way to go.

The most religious of all people, the Satanists, always looking over their shoulder to see if their "god" is going to slit their throat, and looking ahead for victims to exploit and hurt.

[edit on 13-5-2009 by Salt of the Earth]



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


Your posts are word for word from that site or another one just like it. I used to teach at a University, I know how to check for copypasta.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


Your posts are word for word from that site or another one just like it. I used to teach at a University, I know how to check for copypasta.


I think you are about 15 years old and that you smoke pot and play D&D and go to seances.

I suppose I should be flattered that you think I'm not capable of writing the things I write here. They pop into my mind and off my fingers like breathing.

I have never looked at your websites or even heard of them. If I wanted to copy from them, I would do so and put quote-marks around them and tell people to go read from them.

I don't need to copy people's opinions about the Bible because I have plenty of my own opinions that I've discovered are usually more on the mark than most pastors, and I can type faster than I can speak. Of all the things I have ever read or studied, none was more extensive and complete than my study of the Bible, the book you hate and mock. I know a lot of scripture by memory and if not I can find it in a flash in my Bible.

The Bible promises power and love and a sound mind, which means I don't have to pretend to be something I'm not or go sleezing around "borrowing" people's quotes as my own.

I have however put up plenty of websites and quotes from people who are more scientifically and technically knowledgeable than I am about geocentrism, but when it comes to what the Bible has to say about this subject, I don't need to copy anybody's opinions, written or otherwise, and believe me I have no problem whatsoever expressing my opinions in writing.

ha ha ha

Cut and paste.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Fundamentalist religious dogmatic stubbornness is one of the most dangerous traits ever exhibited by Man. -Weedwhacker

Preach on to the faithful! Can I get an AMEN? Hallelujah!



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
Fundamentalist religious dogmatic stubbornness is one of the most dangerous traits ever exhibited by Man. -Weedwhacker

Preach on to the faithful! Can I get an AMEN? Hallelujah!


Ever notice how they pick and choose which parts of science they're okay with? I mean, where in the Bible does it say anything about indoor plumbing or tempered steel hammers. But those are things that are okay because they're important. It's the fatal hypocrisy of the breed.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
There's nothing in the Bible that discusses the center of the solar system, galaxy, or universe. It was just something some self centered Christians deduced by themselves. Everything your discussing is interpretations even the Vatican has given in and excepted the fact that Copernicus was right.
There are things that a geocentric model of the solar system can't explain.


The Bible is completely geocentric and explains everything. The first pages of the Bible are about origins, starting with the creation of the earth. The stars, sun and planets came later, on day four. The Catholic church does not go by Scripture. It goes by tradition and by what the pope says, so I don't put the Catholics to be an authority on God or the religion.


Originally posted by dragonridr
Foucault's pendulum provides a demonstration of the daily rotation of the Earth.


The pendulum is not allowed to swing freely. If it were, it would go haywire. I don't know what the pendulum demonstrates, but it's origins are occultic and tied in with the Jesuits and the Secret Societies.


Originally posted by dragonridr
Copernicus used the orbital motion of the Earth to explain the
apparent motion of the other planets which leaves axial rotation to
explain the daily cycle.


Right. It's a model. Tycho Brahe and others came up with models also, geocentric ones. NASA computes its launches using the geocentric model because the figures work out the same either way, but it's much simpler to do it geocentric.

As to parallax, you get negative parallax using the geocentric model, so this proves nothing.

[edit on 13-5-2009 by Salt of the Earth]



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 




The pendulum is not allowed to swing freely. If it were, it would go haywire. I don't know what the pendulum demonstrates, but it's origins are occultic and tied in with the Jesuits and the Secret Societies.


I think you are pulling our legs. Please, god, please tell us you are joking.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join