There is glass in the sky

+++
I first stumbled across this theory from someone who calls himself “Lord Steven Christ”. Despite having a gigantic ego to call himself Lord Christ, and being of a heavy fundamentalist Christian slant with not much proof, I found he did indeed have some good evidence that there was glass in the sky. So credit due where credit is due, regardless of the source.

Since researching NASA’s weird and wonderful orbiting machines and their problems with the thermosphere, more evidence came to light to support this theory. Some of the evidence below is weaker than others, but still deserves a mention.
+++
Space shuttle nose cone
Space shuttle re-entry
Thermosphere
Ionosphere
Atmospheric elves
Libyan glass
+++

Space shuttle nose cone

The nose cone and front edges of the wings of the space shuttle are made of reinforced carbon-carbon; not used anywhere else on the vehicle (but also employed for the nose cones of intercontinental ballistic missiles).

Shuttle material
Only the nose and front wing edges are made of reinforced carbon.

Reinforced carbon-carbon is carbon fiber in a matrix of graphite. The carbon fiber gives it a tensile strength of 101 ksi and also makes it less brittle than the heat resistant tiles on the rest of the shuttle. Compare this to the roughly 65 ksi strength of aluminum which constitutes the shuttle’s frame, or the paltry 0.013 ksi of the Li-9000 ceramic tiles on the underbelly. It also doesn’t crack at extreme temperatures (up to 2000 °C).

Why are the nose cone and wing edges super-strengthened since there is nothing up there but a few atoms of gas? Re-entry perhaps? Firstly, there is hardly any atmosphere at that altitude whether going up or coming down which also opens a new can of worms regarding why the space shuttle should heat to 1650 °C when there is so little air in the upper atmosphere.

Secondly, the shuttle re-enters at an angle with its nose pointing up, not down, as seen below. It also launches at an angle, as seen from the inside of an airplane. This is highly suspicious in itself and leads one to presume that the shuttle flies as a projectile in a semi-circle arc, going straight up and then down again soon after. But this isn’t conclusive and also isn’t relevant to the point being made here.

shuttle launch
The shuttle launches at an angle which becomes increasingly parabolic.

shuttle_diagram_reentry[1]
The space shuttle re-enters at a 40° angle.
projectile-motion
Projectile motion is the likely trajectory the shuttle travels from start to finish.

IRDT-2 mission
The ESA shows projectile motion in a diagram for re-entry. Interestingly 100 km is the re-entry point, which puts this altitude as the likely location of the glass.

There can be only one reason why the shuttle is reinforced at its nose and front wing edges: it must hit something hard at some point on its way up. And looking at the numerous footage from balloons being sent into the stratosphere, we can see only black, which must mean this material is both hard and transparent.

The only hard and transparent materials we have is glass or plastic, and glass is usually a lot more brittle than plastic, which it would need to be for the shuttle to break through. We will also see later that it is glass rather then plastic which is in the sky.

+++

Space shuttle re-entry

On re-entry, the space shuttle heats to 1650 °C at 100 km altitude.

Why 100 km?

We are told this is so because those few air molecules present at this altitude (1/2,200,000 of the air at sea level) are compressed against the hull due to the shuttle’s hypersonic speed (30,000 km/h). These compressed molecules accumulate and can’t get away causing excess pressure and therefore heat; but there is hardly any air up there at 100 km. The shuttle should heat up at a much, much lower altitude where there is a lot more gas to get in the way… and yet it does not.

For this kind of temperature to occur at 100 km, there must be a lot of something up there to create this amount of friction; and glass fits the bill perfectly… or you can believe the steel-melting temperatures of the shuttle occur because of the compression of a few molecules of air trapped in the shuttle’s shock wave.

shuttle on re-entry
The shuttle remains the same size in the above photos, but the heat radiated turns it into a glowing blob, akin to an asteroid, eventually leaving a trail of molten glass behind.

Why over 1650 °C?

At what temperature does glass (silicon dioxide) melt? You guessed it… 1600 °C. This is why the underbelly of the space shuttle has to reach 1650 °C in order to melt the glass underneath, so it can fall through and re-enter. If the angle of the shuttle is too shallow, it bounces off the “atmosphere” (read glass) like a skipping stone and goes back into space, which is called skip re-entry.

The basic concept is to ‘clip’ the atmosphere at such an angle that the craft is ‘pushed’ back out into space, conceptually similar to a pebble skipping across the surface of a lake. Each time, the craft’s velocity is reduced so that it can eventually drop into the atmosphere at a low suborbital velocity.

+++
There is supposedly nothing up there for the shuttle to “skip” against… unless of course there is glass in the sky. If the re-entry angle is too steep, it could cause too much stress on the brittle heat-resistant ceramic tiles, possibly breaking a few of them, which would be fatal.

Also worth a mention is that later in the upward part of its parabolic flight (once broken through the Kármán line), the shuttle turns over exposing its most heat-resistant underbelly to the occassional steel-melting temperatures of the Sun allowing the shuttle to travel much further into the thermosphere than it would otherwise.

Also, according to NASA, the solid fuel booster rockets jettison from the shuttle at only 64 km, and the external fuel tank is released just short of orbital velocity. At what altitude is “just short of orbital velocity?” Just under 100 km. 100 km is the Kármán line, commonly used to define the boundary between the Earth’s atmosphere and outer space. The external tank has to be jettisoned at just below this height as it cannot penetrate the glass. Only the shuttle itself and intercontinental missiles can do so as they are the only ones with reinforced carbon nose cones (and front wing edges).

Potential commercial space flights, such as Virgin Galactic which use space planes, also only go as high as 100 km thereby not penetrating the glass.

Speaking of space planes, the Black Armadillo rocket burns out at 100 km and falls back down to Earth with only foam insulation behind the aluminum nose section protecting the crew from frying to a crisp. Admittedly, falling from 100 km doesn’t equate to the 30,000 km/h of the space shuttle, but as the top speed of the red bull free fall dive from 39 km was 1,357.6 km/h (1.25 times the speed of sound), the rocket will be traveling several times this as it descends. Aluminum melts at 600 °C, so the temperatures can’t be that high.

blackarmadillo_rocket
Only foam and aluminum protects the occupants from the heat of re-entry.
Virgin_Galactic
All commercial space planes never fly past 100 km. Why 100 km?

This magic 100 km figure crops up an awful lot when looking at “space”. Here is the next one.

+++

Thermosphere

Guess at which altitude the temperature of space starts to take off from -50 C to 200+ °C within a mere 10 km and then to 500-1500 °C within another 40? Yep, you guessed it: 100 km.

thermosphere
The thermosphere starts at 100 km.

How is this possible with a gradual decrease in air density? There should be no abrupt changes at all; no virtually instant increases in temperature at a specific height; especially one so drastic.

There has to be something solid up there at just above 100 km to absorb the infra-red rays of the Sun to cause such a drastic change of temperature from one side of that altitude to the other. Speaking of which, Dr. Christian from NASA’s own Questions and Answers session has said in space:

…thermal radiation is always there, and that is what a spacecraft uses.

+++

I know we aren’t to trust anything NASA says, but if there is nothing up there but a few atoms of gas, thermal radiation can’t always be there. At night, the Sun doesn’t shine and therefore there is no thermal radiation… unless “always there” means “only during the day”. The only way thermal radiation can be present at night is if there is something solid above 100 km to absorb the radiation when the Sun is shining and then continue to emit it when the Sun isn’t. Otherwise Dr. Christian is telling porky pies. Okay, maybe the latter is more likely to be the truth, but this “evidence” still needs to be mentioned.

+++

Ionosphere

The ionosphere exists from 60 km to 600 km altitude and is full of ionized radiation. An ion is a charged atom or molecule, and as we have seen there aren’t that many of these at 60 to 100 km altitude, let alone 600 km! Yet, some modern communication technologies rely on bouncing radio waves off this sea of ions, especially shortwaves (intercontinental communication) which only bounce off the “E” area, which is 90 km to 120 km high… surprise surprise. Our modern communications systems rely on fiber optics and the ionized glass in the sky.

sky wave reflection
Intercontinental communications bounce of the ionosphere 90 to 120 km up.

If the ionosphere was solely a product of our ionized atmosphere, then we would expect a gradual and uniform increase in density of ions as we got further towards the Sun. This is what indeed occurs until we reach a certain height… and what height could that be? Drum roll… Until just above 100 km. Who’d a thunk it!

ionosphere density
Just above 100 km, electron density goes skew ways. This shouldn’t happen if the only thing up there is an increasingly thin atmosphere.

Here is another mystery. The D layer (60 to 90 km) is due to the ionization of nitrogen and oxygen, whereas the E layer (90 to 120 km) consists solely of ionized oxygen. This is impossible. Nitrogen is 3% lighter than oxygen (it is just behind it on the periodic table). Where is the nitrogen? And more to the point where is all this gas coming from at all at this altitude? The ionized oxygen obviously comes from the glass which chemically is silicon dioxide.

Another ionosphere phenomena are the Aurora Borealis and Australis over their respective north and south poles. This game is getting a bit easy, but guess at what altitude these events begin to take place? Around 100 km. Funny that.

aurora-borealis-curtains-alaska
The lower border of an Aurora usually starts at 60 to 70 miles (96 to 112 km) high; exactly where the glass is.

+++

Atmospheric elves

Above the altitude of a thunder and lightning storm is another observed atmospheric phenomena called TLE (transient luminous event), believed to be electrically induced forms of plasma. Sprites and blue jets are nice and long events between 40 and 80 km up. However as soon as we hit 100 km, the plasma is shaped as a 400 km wide flat halo. What could be up there to cause the plasma discharge to flatten itself into a wide halo and dissipate in 1 millisecond? Something solid (and transparent).

lightning_elves
Elves are plasma discharges that hit the glass at 100+ km up.

+++

Libyan glass

There is a lot of this stuff in the Libyan desert stretching over 10s of kilometers. The transparent-to-translucent pieces are clear-to-opaque white or yellow-to-green in colour,because of the varying degrees of its meteoritic metal content (iron/nickel/trace cobalt) which is never higher than 2% of the overall material (98%+ silicon dioxide) and is the purest “natural” glass found anywhere in the world. A few have dark colourings in them which consist of these same meteoritic metals.

libyan-glass3
A typical piece of Libyan glass of 98% silicon dioxide.
libyan glass
The shape of the glass is unlike any other type of tektite (except Asian ones) in the world. This piece looks to have been chipped off another layer of glass.
libyan glass 4
The glass is very clear and pure with validated meteoritic dust inside a few of them.
libyan glass2
No iron content in this translucent piece.

+++

The consensus is that the glass is of meteoritic origins

Meteoritic origins for the glass were long suspected, and recent research linked the glass to impact features, such as zircon-breakdown, vaporized quartz and meteoritic metals, and to an impact crater.

+++
However, this is very vague (except the impact crater part, which we will see later is false). It doesn’t say if the glass came down with the meteorite or was formed by the heat and pressure of the meteor impact melting the sand. Despite heated controversy throughout the decades, the consensus theory for other normal tektites is the impact one.

Libyan glass however throws a spanner in the works. Saharan desert sand is 7% aluminum and 4.5% iron oxide. And the Nubian sandstone on which the glass rests is even more varied in composition with 15% Iron Oxide, with carbonate (carbon) and feldspar (potassium, sodium, calcium and aluminium silicon oxides) present! This is confirmed by another source stating that there are also small amounts (page 46) of siderite (iron carbonate) and chamosite (iron, aluminum, magnesium silicon dioxide).

The sand in the area has a reddish hue… …the red sand indicates a high iron content in the rock.

nubian sandstone
The Libyan glass field is an elliptical 130 by 50 km shape and rests on Nubian sandstone which stretches across the Libyan and Egyptian border.
nubian sandstone2
The red colour of Nubian sandstone is because of the 15% iron oxide present.

But every single piece of Libyan glass, all 1000+ tonnes of it, is 98% silicon dioxide and some of it is clear with no colourings demonstrating that there is no iron present at all (100% glass). Some pieces are as big as a football and weigh over 25 kg. All other tektites around the world are tiny (1-2 inches) in comparison, are only 60% glass, and occur in distinctive shapes as dumbbells, rods, spheres, disks, and teardrops; which Libyan glass never does.

Silica glass has been found at other known meteor impact sites, but the glass there is blackened and fragmented, and is embedded in a matrix of fused and broken rock. LDG seems too clear and pure to have been created this way.

and

…most Libyan Desert glass is much more dense and homogeneous than the well described porous and impure “impact” glass (impactite) found in such craters as Henbury in central Australia, Wabar in the Rub’al-Khali of Saudi Arabia.

and

The glass cannot have been fused from the local exposed sandstone.

+++
Of course it didn’t! Libyan glass and Nubian sandstone have different chemical compositions and ratios.
+++

There are also no impact craters in the area, but maybe they haven’t been found yet in the sand?

… there are no meteor craters detectable from satellite photos with a resolution of ~5m within 150 km. No Libyan Desert Glass has been found at the nearest meteorite crater, located in Libya, ~150km to the west.

+++
One attempt to place a large crater nearby has been dismissed by an expedition tourist visiting the site, who said:

In the photo, many bands and layers of sedimentary rock can be seen. This is not a hard cap of crystalline melt sheet on top of softer rock. I do not think that this is a crater site.

+++
So where does all this glass come from? It can only have come down with the meteorite; and since the meteoritic dust is found in the glass, this means that a meteorite must have met glass somewhere up there in the heavens. This is 100% silicon dioxide due to the many transparent and translucent pieces strewn about the place. The iron content of the white hot meteor blended with some of the glass to create the pale green/yellow effect, with a small part of the meteor cooling down enough (under 1600-1700 °C) to be trapped in the glass rather than being blended throughout.

So what is at least 1000+ tonnes of glass doing in the sky? Glass that is by far the purest form of “natural” glass ever found. In fact, the only other sources of naturally occurring glass in the world are normal tektites with 60% purity, fulgurites formed from lightning strikes on sand being 90 to 99% pure, and the volcanic rock obsidian which is 70%+ silicon dioxide and has a composition similar to granite.

obsidian
A variety of volcanic obsidian rock very similar to granite.
wabar.pearls.new
Saudi Arabian tektites created from the Wabar meteor hitting the desert. Notice they are small, black and differently shaped.
fulgurite
A typical fulgurite shape – a knobbly hollow tube.
fulgurite2
Fulgurites are hollow where the lightning burrowed through the sand.

The purity and structure of Libyan glass gives it some other remarkable properties with which man-made glass finds tough to compete.

This purity give the glass some remarkable properties. It can be heated up to 1700°C before it begins to melt, over 500°C higher than other natural glasses. It can be dropped into water when red hot and it will not disintegrate. High technology glasses struggle to do better.

+++
I bet.

The only reasonable conclusion is that this glass is not natural. It has to be man-made. It is a technology. Now, what is a technology doing 100 to 110 km in the sky around the entire Earth? Who built this technology and why? I’ve no idea about the first question, but I can answer the latter.

Apart from glass, the only other object in the heavens which can be demonstrated to be valid is the Sun. The moon (and possibly the planets) are likely optical illusions; and the stars are probably super hot ionized bits of the Sun (asteroids) stuck in the Earth cavity. This only leaves the Sun. This means all meteors/asteroids/comets must come from ejections from the Sun. We need to study meteorites and take out the silicon dioxide part and see if the remaining materials can shed light on what the Sun actually is… but more on that in the next article.

Bookmark the permalink.

344 Responses to There is glass in the sky

  1. scisci says:

    Hi how many PHD or bsc scientists have seen the effects in space
    first hand i cant be bothered looking not many i suspect
    just the woman?

    how many military astronauts , vast majority

    and we all should trust the military How many weapons
    of mass destruction found in Iraq – 0 one prominent in charge highly respected scientist
    killed himself because he knew as far as i can tell it was B***S**t
    how many solders both sides and non combatants died in that lie god save us

    View Comment
  2. Wise One says:

    It’s possible there is an impact crater under all that sand. Just look at how much they have uncovered near the pyramids at Giza. Something caused a huge amount of water (the Great Flood?) to destroy that area and cover it with sand.

    View Comment
  3. Schreck says:

    We will also see later that it is glass rather then plastic which is in the sky.

    Typo. should be “than”
    awesome site.

    View Comment
  4. Darren says:

    The Buzz Aldrin Selfie.
    Is this where the ‘ Glass in the sky’ is from ?
    Or is this UltraViolet Photographic Evidence of ‘The Central Octahedron’ Steven Christ talks about?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-WQwKgeVDg Short Version

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgrxfX4SvTQ Music Version

    Also can anyone guess where the Galaxy and Stars image is from,seriously , you wont believe it…. and it coul possibly open up a totallys fresh can of worms. im am currently doing a video.

    View Comment
  5. BlueMoon says:

    Objects on closed trajectories travel in ellipses, not parabolas. The shuttle has to travel in an arc sideways in a gravity turn because it needs to build enough horizontal velocity (17,500 mph) to orbit the Earth. It hits the atmosphere at the same velocity on its return journey, and that causes significant heating even with how thin the atmosphere is. The shuttle uses lift to skim through the atmosphere and give better control of the heating and deceleration; it does not bounce off of anything solid. Stones skip the same way.
    Your explanation of how the shuttle needs to get hot enough to melt through the glass fails to take into account other spacecraft. The first two Mercury flights were suborbital, but they reached about 190 km altitude, above where you place the glass layer. Being suborbital, however, they had no way to reach the
    The main point of interest about the 100 km altitude is that it is the start of significant increase in ionization, and thus temperature, due to radiation. This is also present at night due to how the Earth’s magnetic field channels particles.
    I would be happy to explain these things and others according to their official explanation if you or anyone else are curious.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      The shuttle uses lift to skim through the atmosphere and give better control of the heating and deceleration; it does not bounce off of anything solid. Stones skip the same way.

      So do meteorites. Do they intelligently control their heating and acceleration too?

      The first two Mercury flights were suborbital, but they reached about 190 km altitude, above where you place the glass layer. Being suborbital, however, they had no way to reach the
      The main point of interest about the 100 km altitude is that it is the start of significant increase in ionization, and thus temperature, due to radiation.

      Tainted sources (see other comment). All official sources of information are speculative due to them being caught with their hands in the cookie jar several times. Our job is to try and decipher what could be true and what could not be.

      The main point of interest about the 100 km altitude is that it is the start of significant increase in ionization, and thus temperature, due to radiation.

      Why 100km? Why is there a sudden increase in radiation at this height? Something must be blocking the radiation, otherwise there would be a gradual increase in radiation.

      View Comment
      • BlueMoon says:

        Meteorites do not use skip reentry, but the larger ones experience ablation which helps them cool somewhat.

        I’m not an expert in this field, but the reason for roughly 100 km is that it’s the altitude where turbulence stops and the components separate into layers. This is not because of a physical barrier, but because it is so thin that disturbances are not transmitted. The atmosphere is not nearly as smooth as you might expect.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Meteorites do not use skip reentry, but the larger ones experience ablation which helps them cool somewhat.

          Yes they do. If the angle is right, meteorites skip. They often bounce back into space as well.

          I’m not an expert in this field, but the reason for roughly 100 km is that it’s the altitude where turbulence stops and the components separate into layers. This is not because of a physical barrier, but because it is so thin that disturbances are not transmitted. The atmosphere is not nearly as smooth as you might expect.

          You are postulating that wind is the barrier to ionization, correct? So at around 100km there is suddenly no wind despite the air being gradually thinner from ground level to 100km. What is stopping the wind (turbulence)? The thinness of the air is gradual, not sudden. Atmospheric turbulence stopping at 100km is yet more evidence of a physical barrier. I must look that up (verify) and add it to the article at a later date.

          Not only that, but there is hardly any air up there at that height, yet there the ionosphere can reflect certain EM waves… not necessarily the AM radio skip distances, which as an explanation for AM horizon distances I found wanting, but much earlier experiments which sumstuff unearthed. I’ll have to look for them though.

          View Comment
    • me says:

      you’re trying to use reason and science with someone who’s entire world is clearly rooted in illogical thinking. you cant argue with crazy

      View Comment
  6. Darren says:

    Noooooo Wayyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!, ive found a video where in it you see the glass in space and they look like the pieces you have in this blog, its nuts !!
    and there are rectangular sheets of glass aswell right infront of the camera this is nuts, and the galss is see-through!!!! you can see the earth through the glass!…..this is crazyyyyyyy …..woooah and you wont believe what flies past very very close aswell , one of the circular creatures from the NASA The Smoking Gun Evidence video in your face…literally … and a flying shark machine space vehicle that flys by and i swear it has a dome on top at the front and theres only a beared guy sat in it looking at the camera WTF! and whats that…. is it…the real black knight in a single frame up close and a moon orb flying by and lights taking off from earth out into space wtfoook , the video is owned by a company that has the rights to it and ive sent them an email enquiring about buying the clip, wow this is dynamite, WH I AM GOING TO POST THE LINK here , listen every1 i use realplayer to download youtube videos ,and then from the realplayer i then drag the mp4 file into Irfanview , pause it (stop it from playing) then go to options and Extract all the frames into a previously created file. Look at all the individual frames , it gets very crazy near the end and there IS GLASS …BROKEN AND IN SHEETS The video is called
    Shots of Earth From Rocket 1959
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMeU0DW5G-o
    uploaded april 13 2014 .. its only had 15 views

    totally wild …. one more thing 2/3rds into the video watch the land what appears and notice how strange it looks, why the straight line and where on earth are we looking at ?

    http://www.britishpathe.com/video/shots-of-earth-from-rocket/query/earth
    heres a link to their website i downloaded the youtube video it is the clearest….THE GLASSSSS….WTF!!!!

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      You know, I think you have something here… big time.

      View Comment
      • Darren says:

        This may seem totally over the top but if you go to 0:55 in the video you see the dark V of land pointing downwards with the cloud on the left side and that mysteriously straight and angled white mass to the right . Well at the top left of the dark v there looks like a super country sized Balbeck stone , sloping up from left to right that leads up to a pyramid structure. Then opposite that, facing the five oclock postion , in the lower part of the v , what looks like a Collossal Spyhinx with an entrance at its feet with other structures behind and around joining back up to the Balbeck pyramid. Or are they mountains ? aRE WE SEEING BEYOND THE SOUTH POLE ( ADMIRAL BYRD ). Tiger Sharks and Stingrays in space wtf

        View Comment
  7. Darren says:

    Hey WH heres a link to Nato and a diagram of a round earth and where on it the ionosphere is, i dont know if its any use to you but….
    http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_114786.htm?selectedLocale=en

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Yes it is useful, thanks. Here is my take on it:

      1. Polar ionosphere cavity = hole in the glass at the north pole. I know there is one at the south pole. Not surprised there is one at the north pole too. I assume the top of that earth diagram is the north pole.

      2. Auroral heating region = the area the solar wind hits around both of the solstices because the sun is tilted 23.5 degrees at this time. It is also present nearer to the pole too which would also be the case throughout the year.

      3. Ion driven wind (at the north pole) = Notice how the ion fields are two circles turning together like cogs. This is the magnetic field of the Sun. The Sun’s poles are at the back and front (not top and bottom) of the Sun pointing within a range of 23.5 degrees either side of the equator, hence the reason for moving the ion fields in such a way at the north pole.

      4. E-driven downward flow and plasmasphere draining = electrical field or ions are moving down at night hence perhaps the near lack of upward bend of light during the night?

      That’s my initial take on that. Thanks a lot.

      WH

      View Comment
  8. Heteric weld hit says:

    About the bouncing radio waves, did anyone compare ice/glass and the ionosphere reflection ? I mean the index can’t be the same, right ?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I’m not sure about bouncing radio waves yet. I have to redo this article and look properly into the so called bouncing waves issue. It is because the explanation of the long horizon of AM radio is reasoned to be because of this bounce. However it looks to be logically because lower wavelengths simply have longer horizons. Whether radio waves bounce off the ionosphere is another issue. I would guess that a tiny bit does, but there must be a resonant frequency point where the EM wave of a specific frequency bounces the most off glass and ice. If we could know these two frequencies then yes I reckon we could determine the substance.

      I’ll look into this later. Oh I see what you did there with your poster name (anagram of the website’s name). lol

      WH

      View Comment
      • etheric weld hit says:

        There are specific radar equipments to measure the ice thickness so i was wondering if they could be used to measure the one under the 100 km glass sky. It’s all about frequency, so it could even be used to measure the thickness of the glass too.
        There are also altimeter radars based on the reflectivity aswell. In the concave model such radars could also be used in reverse, from ground pointing to the ice/glass sky, to measure their altitude.

        And yeah sorry about that i do like anagrams a lot.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          I’m sure they could do something. Here’s another thought: Radar waves bouncing back from the moon take so long that they think it is 400,000 km away or something like that, right. But radar is going through glass/ice so… I’m sure something could be worked out.

          View Comment
          • etheric weld hit says:

            Another thought, to disprove convex earth and prove the concave earth. Two islands on the equator line, A is west B is east let’s say 50 miles away. Island A transmit a radio signal with an uni directional antenna (to focus the energy), parallel to the ground, pointing east. Because of the curvature on a convex earth, part of the radio waves will bounce off the water, island B should receive no signal. On a concave earth B island should receive the signal.
            That’s why depending on the distance (and the frequency), they HAVE to point the antennas to the ionosphere (ice/glass).
            Sorry i guess it’s not clear but i hope you got my point.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/7/

            Look under “Other frequencies of light” near the bottom of the article.

            View Comment
      • Darren says:

        i had a thought , could the stars be twinkling and seem to turn different colours because we see them through the glass ?

        View Comment
  9. Donald Sarty says:

    “The pole star is in the belly of the firmament”
    Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish are the only accounts that set forth the use of the firmament as a dam to control the water above the firmament. There is a world of theological difference between the two accounts at this point.

    The Firmament and the Water Above
    Part II: The Meaning of “The Water above the Firmament” in Gen 1:6-8

    Paul H. Seely

    Many creation stories from around the world
    mention a primeval watery beginning and the separation of a solid firmament from the earth,
    only Enuma Elish and Gen 1:6-8 mention the separation of the primeval water into two parts.
    Lambert, who sought to define as exactly as
    possible to what extent Babylonian thought stood in back of Genesis, noted the splitting of the water in Enuma Elish and in Genesis, and conceded:
    “These seem to be the only two examples of the splitting of a body of water from the area and
    periods under discussion (apart from Berossus), so a parallel must be acknowledged.”
    (22)
    This parallel is so unique and clear that even scholars who have tried to give equal weight
    to other cultural backgrounds in order to redress an overemphasis on the Babylonian background
    of Genesis have returned exclusively to Enuma Elish as the background which best sheds light
    on Gen 1:6-8.
    (23)
    Similarly, Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish are the only accounts that set forth the use of the
    firmament as a dam to control the water above the firmament. There is a world of theological
    difference between the two accounts at this point. In Enuma Elish, Marduk’s splitting of Tiamat
    and using half of her to make a firmament which serves (with the help of guards) as a dam to
    keep the water above the firmament from flowing out, is polytheistic and mythological. In
    Genesis 1, the creation of the firmament is monotheistic and a- (if not anti-) mythological. But in both accounts the “natural science” is the same: the firmament serves as a horizontal dam complete with sluices, to control the waters above. As Wenham wrote, “The separation of
    heaven and earth is a familiar theme in ancient cosmologies, but the control of the waters
    appears to be peculiar to Enuma Elish and Genesis.”
    (24)
    Enuma Elish is also in close agreement with Genesis 1 in that subsequent to putting the
    firmament in place Marduk set the stars, the pole-star in particular, in the belly of Tiamat, i.e., in
    the firmament, and created the moon and sun to divide the times and seasons (5.4-11). This is
    remarkably parallel to Gen 1:14-19. So even though Genesis 1 obviously repudiates the
    mythological and polytheistic theology of
    Enuma Elish
    , it also just as obviously accepts the underlying “natural science” of Enuma Elish as a foundational framework upon which to build its anti-mythological theology.
    Enuma Elish emerges then (along with the Egyptian data to some extent) as the primary
    historical source for defining the historical meaning of “the waters above the firmament” in
    Genesis 1. In the light of Enuma Elish(and Egyptian literature), what then is the historical meaning of the “water above the firmament”? The answer is that “the water above the firmament” was conceived in the ancient Near East not as terrestrial clouds, nor as a canopy of
    water between the sun and the earth, nor even as galactic vapor, but as a sea of water (Tiamat
    means “sea”) above a dam-like firmament which serves as a “ceiling” to the universe with the
    sun, moon, and stars beneath it.
    This historical definition of the water above the firmament as an ocean above a solid sky
    (under which are the sun, moon, and stars) is also the historic doctrine of the Jews and the
    Christian church. Jews and Christians alike distinguished “the waters above the firmament” from terrestrial clouds.
    http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/seelypt2.pdf

    View Comment
  10. trigun4 says:

    WH,

    You forgot to about Hole Punch Clouds, add it too. According to LSC hole punch clouds appear when you punch holes in the glass sky.

    View Comment
  11. Donald Sarty says:

    Subliminal message from an old atari game Super Breakout ?
    From the instruction manual and check out the game artwork

    Imagine you’re in a one-man space shuttle traveling through the heavens at the speed of light. You and your tiny ship are totally engulfed in darkness, except for the luminance of an occasional passing star.

    Suddenly, without warning, there’s a brilliant flash straight ahead. You check the radar screen. Nothing. Pretty soon there’s another flash, and another. Next thing you know the flashes have turned into one gigantic force field of some kind and it’s dead ahead. You check the radar screen again, still nothing.

    The colors in this mysterious force field are so bright, they’re almost blinding. And they seem to be in layers. But the strangest thing is that nothing shows up on the radar screen. What could that mean? Is it possible to travel through this mysterious force field or will you crash and be destroyed? And what about the layers? If you make it through one, can you make it through the next, and the next?

    It’s decision time and there are only a few seconds to think about it. Turn back or blast ahead and try to make it through the layers of the brightly colored force field. It’s up to you.

    http://www.vintagecomputing.com/index.php/archives/212/retro-scan-of-the-week-test
    Saw someone mention this game and had to find some more info, astronaut on cover with rainbows and shields, thought it was cool 🙂
    Been busy all summer, seen you have updated some info, nice WH

    Good to be back reading

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Cheers Don. I’m about to publish a nice easy read article which will hopefully answer everyone’s questions about the concave Earth (my opinion of course).

      Last night I added the DISCOVR EPIC camera supposed one shot photo of the Earth rotating to the “space machines do not orbit the Earth” article (near the end of the article). I nabbed the Americas image before they took it down so I could compare it to GOES-13.

      View Comment
  12. Whiskey Zero says:

    One other anecdotal comment regarding ‘Break on Through’ and that is it appears to be a metaphor like many things in art and music. Knowing what we are now discovering, consider some of the lyrics:

    You know the day destroys the night/Night divides the day (biblical reference)
    We chased our pleasures here/Dug our treasures there (this sounds like NASA)
    Everybody loves my baby/She gets high (as in altitude and also perhaps spiritually)
    I found an island in your arms/Country in your eyes/Arms that chain/Eyes that lie/Break on through to the other side (does this describe the model? CET? How our eyes deceive us with respect to perception/light/glass filter, etc…)
    Made the scene/Week to week/Day to day/Hour to hour/The gate is straight/Deep and wide/Break on through to the other side

    View Comment
  13. a1pha4ucker says:

    came across this tidbit re: Martin Armstrong (http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrong_economics_blog) and couldn’t help but think of you:

    He has some very interesting stuff on the correlation between solar ejecta and earthquakes and volcanoes on earth. The universe is a tuning fork.

    View Comment
  14. Whiskey Zero says:

    OK, this is mindblowing and makes a lot of sense on many different levels. It seems the ‘inner space’ for lack of a better term as opposed to ‘outer space’ (I’m reminded of that old ride at Disneyland called ‘Adventure Thru Inner Space’ for some reason, Club 33, Walt Disney, Masons, so probably another clue hiding in plane sight) is what NASA is really hiding. If I’ve caught up enough and got this down somewhat, I understand that glass filters the majority of the UV radiation, so this led me to reconsider some aspects of the chemtrail program. Let’s say TPTB have known about the glass ceiling for a long time and developed tech, the shuttle as you speculate, to punch through it to explore the other side. Creating holes in the glass lets in more bad radiation, those pesky ozone holes right? so there might be a grain of truth in the ‘chemtrail program is for your own damn good theory’, they just created the problem and provided the solution as usual…just throwing that out there, but back to the Shuttle, let’s say TPTB were designing an experiment to break through the firmament with a weapon, say in 1986, and knew there would be resulting fireworks in the sky so created the Challenger narrative ahead of time and then carried out their experiment, which could have been blasting a hole in the ceiling. An operation like that would serve many objectives, primarily to ‘Break on Through to the Other Side’ (Recorded August 1966, released January 1967, released prior to Apollo 1, Jim Morrison was the son of high level US naval admiral/Gulf of Tonkin incident) and brainwash us all at the same time.

    Now if there are holes in this glass, is their a repair mechanism, or is it degenerating and continuing to degrade, can TPTB use these holes they’ve created to go in/out? Are there holes above places like North Pole/Antarctica (another ‘ozone hole’ right?)/Florida near Cape Canaveral where the rockets blast off (Bermuda Triangle comes to mind, unknown energy streaming through)?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      “It seems the ‘inner space’ for lack of a better term as opposed to ‘outer space’ (I’m reminded of that old ride at Disneyland called ‘Adventure Thru Inner Space’ for some reason, Club 33, Walt Disney, Masons, so probably another clue hiding in plane sight) is what NASA is really hiding.”

      Yes, that is what I think too. The role of the agency’s marketing department is to convince us of “outer space”. Yes, chemtrails may be because of the holes in the glass. LSC has a video on that.

      “Let’s say TPTB have known about the glass ceiling for a long time”

      Since January 1944. Discovered by the Germans in 1943. I wonder what the allies thought of that when Werner told them. Can you imagine.
      http://www.wildheretic.com/geostationary-satellites/#Speculative%20history

      Yes, I was amazed when I read of the amount of 60s rock and pop stars who were the daughters/sons of military men. Was that Laurel Canyon?

      “Now if there are holes in this glass, is their a repair mechanism, or is it degenerating and continuing to degrade, can TPTB use these holes they’ve created to go in/out?”

      I speculate that they cannot be repaired (at least through normal means). And yes, well guessed, they do use these “windows of opportunity” to fly through – thank Steve for finding that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2QX_WCxF14 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJKBeFiHIgE (4:15 min show interesting cloud formations).

      “Are there holes above places like North Pole/Antarctica (another ‘ozone hole’ right?)/Florida near Cape Canaveral where the rockets blast off (Bermuda Triangle comes to mind, unknown energy streaming through)?”

      There is a 2 degree wide hole over the south pole which gives scientists unhindered views of space radiation when looking for gravity waves.
      http://www.space.com/25078-universe-inflation-gravitational-waves-discovery.html

      View Comment
      • Hamilto says:

        Regarding holes in the glass being repaired, wouldn’t it make sense that the glass would simply self repair by the amount of water on the other side? And the punch hole clouds would be formed by some of the water trickling out while the ice slowly re-freezes?

        The amount of water on the other side could remain constant by the heat radiation of the sun, slowly melting exactly the same amount each time before it re-stabilizes.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Yes. I had thought of something similar.

          The water would flow out it until it refreezes, which at -80 degrees C it should do pretty fast I would have thought. For meteorites (except those few big iron ones perhaps) the glass may even refuse after melting, as the cold temperature should seal it pretty quick.

          The amount of water on the other side could remain constant by the heat radiation of the sun, slowly melting exactly the same amount each time before it re-stabilizes.

          I hadn’t thought of that. Good one.

          View Comment
  15. Jarre says:

    Spokesperson Haarp Alaska says in old video they heat up the ‘ionosphere’ to …. tada 1600 degrees!!!

    It was in the time of the spaceshuttles, so maybe to softenup the glass to exit the glass karman line dome!?

    Source:
    HOLES IN HEAVEN HD – SECRET TESLA TECHNOLOGY HD Movie
    https://youtu.be/naYsTN-D7qA?t=5m29s

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Thanks for that titbit jarre. makes a lot of sense with glass in the sky doesn’t it? There is a lot more evidence to publish (4 times as much) than this article currently shows. LSC has nearly all of it

      View Comment
  16. NoahtheJew says:

    What a load of bullshit. The author of this topic is a retarded cosnpirist scumbag. He should take some astronomy and physics introductory classes before he spews bullshit like he did on this page.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Glad you liked it. 🙂

      View Comment
    • mobius says:

      Astronomy is false made bullshit. There is no fukn space. I bet you still beilive ur living on a ball earth also right? Being pulled down by gravity? Orbiting at thousands of miles an hour and yet water remains level yea? Physics? Pff! Lmao

      View Comment
    • Gene says:

      why the hostility and vulgarity? You mention the sciences but also include the English language to be used with precision, clarity, and dignity. Your comments do not approach a mental analysis but rather an emotional outburst instead. Why? Anger is a poor substitute for thoughtful discussion and reasoning. And to use vulgarity disparages not only the subject matter but the individual who uses it to the exclusion of rational thought. So please young man, conduct the matter consistent with your, as of now, mental abilities. Do not hide them as you did. Thank you.

      View Comment
  17. guest says:

    “This means all meteors/asteroids/comets must come from ejections from the Sun»
    How many tons of meteors fall on earth soil every year?
    «An annual Leonid shower may deposit 12 or 13 tons of particles across the entire earth».
    That might be about 72000 tons just for Leonids since the creation, assuming 6000 years for it.
    Isn’t it too much for our small Sun?”

    Comparing the weight of the sun to that of the earth, its entirely possible. The sun is 333 000 times the weight of earth, according to the space measuring folk. Volume is 1.3 million times earth’s.

    View Comment
  18. Korey B says:

    I was watching the meteor showers last night. It was the most amazing thing i’ve ever seen. There were two types it seems. One set was close by, whizzing by at amazing speeds and leaving what i can only call starlit trails, and only visible for a split second. This is what I typically think of as a shooting star. The second set were visible for anywhere from 5-30 seconds at a time. They were much slower moving and seemed a much higher altitude. They seemed to slide down what I might only describe or guess is a “dome” sort of invisible structure. They were fairly well lit, and moved relatively slowly, if one wasn’t looking for meteors one might think it was a distant or high altitude aircraft. In watching closely however it was pretty obvious that wasn’t the case. I could only surmise with my knowledge that one set was inside the firmament, and the distant meteors were outside the firmament… Anyway, it was just amazing none the less. I now more strongly suspect there’s a dome.

    View Comment
  19. x2m says:

    «This means all meteors/asteroids/comets must come from ejections from the Sun»
    How many tons of meteors fall on earth soil every year?
    «An annual Leonid shower may deposit 12 or 13 tons of particles across the entire earth».
    That might be about 72000 tons just for Leonids since the creation, assuming 6000 years for it.
    Isn’t it too much for our small Sun?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I was thinking about that, but I couldn’t find reliable figures for the actual quantity of meteorites that hit the earth or real size and amount of asteroids up there.

      What does definitely gel with the smaller sun are the sizes of iron meteorites (and glass/iron ones, which are smaller). The largest ones ever discovered were about the size of a small car (is nine feet long by nine feet wide by three feet thick) and weighed 66 tons say. http://geology.com/records/largest-meteorite/

      If the Sun is say 22 miles across and 1 mile thick (and square for simplicity’s sake), it is 22 x 22 x 1 cubic miles – 484 or 2.556e+6 cubic feet (2,556,000). The largest iron meteorite weighed 66 tons and is nine feet long by nine feet wide by three feet thick. A 12 ton amount of meteorites is about 5 times less than 9 by 9 by 3 feet or about 48 cubic feet, and that doesn’t include any water or glass in the Leonid shower. But the 2,556,000 cubic feet is only about 35 times the entire estimated Leonard meteorite shower over 6000 years – is that big enough? If not, we therefore have five options:

      1. Not all meteorites come from the Sun.
      2. The Sun is much bigger than 484 cubic miles – e.g. it could be 1000 miles across and 100 miles thick – 5.28e+8 cubic feet (528,000,000) or about 7333 times bigger than the estimated amount of Leonid shower over 6000 years.
      3. The Earth is much younger than 6000 years old.
      4. The Sun is much younger than 6000 years old.
      5. The average amount of meteorites that hit the Earth every year is much less than is estimated.

      I would go for a mix of 2. 4. and 5. Most certainly 2. Not 1. as the material of iron meteorites is always the same therefore it comes from one body. Probably not 3. as the vast ages of Noah and the pre-flood people would denote a longer pre-flood era than the present one.

      It could also well be that when the Sun was switched off around 1500 years ago which created the flood, it was replaced by a new one and possibly different type.

      WH

      EDIT1: Made a wrong calculation – now corrected.

      EDIT2: Interestingly, some scientists reckon that the Sun is shrinking by 0.1% per century – http://www.icr.org/article/sun-shrinking/
      Let’s say there is 100 tons lost per year of iron meteorites that hit Earth. So 100 tons is 0.001% of the Sun size therefore the Sun would be very roughly 10,000,000 tons in weight. 9 x 9 x 3 (243) cubic feet is 66 tons or 3.68 cubic feet per ton. Therefore the Sun would be 36,800,000 cubic feet in size. This gives us a rough size as an example. That is about 7000 cubic miles or 83 x 83 x 1 miles. You can play around with that, e.g. 27 miles across and 10 miles thick etc. That is if the Sun is a cube, 100 tons is lost annually, the Sun loses 0.1% of its size every 100 years and this diameter reduction has a direct relationship to loss of mass – The Sun would lose a lot more in its thickness before it effects its diameter size reduction. A circular Sun won’t be too different and I can’t be bothered using pi to work it out but its lesser size could make up for (and a lot more) the loss in thickness before diameter.

      As you can see, the figures tend to be in the same area as the estimated 22 miles diameter Sun I estimated in another article. That is only guesswork though so please take that estimate with a very large pinch of salt.

      WH

      EDIT3: Actually, let’s work out the volume of a sphere. If we half that, then we have the back of the Sun being flat. I like the theory that the moon is the concave back of the Sun. So, let’s half the volume of the half sphere to get a convex/concave Sun/moon object. Fair enough?

      Ok, So google tells us that if the sun has a 22 mile diameter (11 mile radius), the volume is 5575.28 cubic miles. A quarter of that is 1393.82 cubic miles. If we say the Sun is 36 miles in diameter (18 mile radius), then a quarter of that is 6107.255 cubic miles which is close to the 7000 cubic miles needed in the above hypothetical 100 tons per annum loss scenario.

      WH

      View Comment
      • Matt says:

        What if the sun was some sort of gas filter and spit out meteor like objects. Maybe it attracts stuff, compresses it, heats it up and spits out meteors, Sunspots are where they fall from, they cool down and break off. What if our atmosphere is actually creating the sun through some electric way. Like a concentrated area for plasma and electric currents flowing through our atmosphere

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Good to see you have your thinking cap on, but I don’t think so. Where is the plasma (electrical energy) originating from? And therefore where do meteorites come from? I think the Sun just experiences electric surges and spits out a tiny part of itself in the process (iron/nickel alloy).

          View Comment
    • LSC says:

      pretty sure all cyclic meteor showers are not even hitting the ground but scraping the glass and circulating back up to come back down in 12 months. Pretty sure what they tell you about them is bullshit.

      View Comment
  20. mike says:

    hi to all, i am new to this knowledge, but i have the mind and critical thought to say ,that this theory is very realistic, much more realistic than a sphere world, rotating around itself, spinning around a sun 150 million klms far away, holding this course for millions of years(how?), with a moon very far to can be hold by earth s gravity (how?) , holding steady position thousands of years..these all seem bulls#it to me , they are illogical…and billions of stars so far away that has no point to even think about them…the concave earth theory, looks more logical and reveals one thing…that there is SOMEONE who made this land for a purpose , which purpose, the rulers of the world are trying to hide from us…finally, i dont believe any more in aliens from outer space…its more logical for these beings, to come from our world..more possibly from very deep underground…

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      that there is SOMEONE who made this land for a purpose , which purpose, the rulers of the world are trying to hide from us.

      Yes! It’s the purpose I still am not sure about. There are positive and negative ones including those that are more neutral I suppose.

      …its more logical for these beings, to come from our world..more possibly from very deep underground.

      Yes, deep underground and other dimensions (realities) and I read a comment on a forum where someone claimed that they come from the “liquid” of which we are all apart but only see the energetic parts (waves) in the liquid. I interpreted this liquid to be the aether.

      WH

      View Comment
    • danya says:

      Or it could be, you know, gravity. The same force that holds matter to the earth.

      View Comment
    • D MacDonald says:

      Gen 1:9 and God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament and it was so.
      16:17 he made the stars also and set them in the firmament
      “The glass sea is therefore above the firmament”
      Rev 4:6 and before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal.
      Thess 2-2:1-12 For this reason God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
      Romans 1:20 for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and god head so that, they are without excuse.
      Psalm 96:10 the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved.
      The purpose of heliocentricity followed by Darwin, big bang etc is to blind people to the truth,, weaken their faith and condemn their souls. The greatest war ever waged is for you. That war was led by the Jesuit counter reformation, Leon Focault was a jesuit. Matius Vitelleschi was the jesuit general during the time of Galileo.
      From Joshua to king Hezekiah the word of God is geocentric.

      View Comment
  21. Arturas says:

    About shuttle and NASA i don’t think that shuttle or rocket in 1948 go through glass, Libyan desert glass is very pure and still it is very strong and very brittle material, soft normalized glass production on internet i can’t found information. Tempered glass is standard glass, very strong and very BRITTLE. Thickness of glass must be very thin to stop producing huge cracks in glass sky and if glass cracks big chunk of glass will fall on earth. So meteorites and shuttle go through glass very doubtful. I think they see leaping meteorites like frogs by observing night sky, and they make cover story of shuttle skipping re-entry story. It same cover story of not telling true like neutrinos, that makes 95% of dark matter (presumption), particles who have speed of light and no mass. a weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP), with a mass range from 100GeV 10000 GeV. They agree that neutrino is eth{e}r (close anagram for earth) that slow down ether (neutrino) to 0 m/s and you get solid matter and mass. Neutrino with light speed is media and media for light (massless matter) prorogation. You can find this BS mantra about relativistic that light is matter and matter is light.
    http://icecube.wisc.edu/news/view/239
    Annihilation of particles creates halo of light or missing 95% of gravity mass. Attached satellites to glass are very hard and impossible task from logistics point of view. All meteorology predictions made by computer simulations via telephone or internet by collecting data from thousand meteorology stations around the world. All meteorology weather patterns looks real time satellite photos, but they all made up by computers. Look Google map if you find map with very close cloud view it mean photo made from plane less than 10km height. They (NASA and governments) perfectly knows where we living, but they must made up this vast empty universe. My opinion best lie is sandwiched between true facts. Quantum physics is true mechanics is true and quantum mechanics is complete lie. And mantra goes as above so below like heliocentric lie about spinning earth around the sun.

    View Comment
  22. Another one that could be interesting for you:

    First Ever Glass Deposits Found On Martian Surface:
    http://www.popsci.com/glass-deposits-found-martian-surface

    View Comment
    • Seekfried says:

      Wild Heretic, thank you for all your information that you have put together, very interesting subject matter.
      If the earth is flat how would the seasons come about?
      Nobody asked this question so far.

      http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solar/seasons.html

      Any Ideas
      Thanks

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        Yeah, it’s not just the seasons, but the differing amounts of daylight and the midnight Sun, especially over Antarctica. In fact, I can’t get day/night to work on a flat Earth on the equinox unless there is some really, really, really skewered stuff with light going on.

        View Comment
      • Dr. Heath Motley says:

        From Eric Dubay.

        The Sun and Moon luminaries revolve around the Earth once every 24 hours illuminating like spotlights the areas over which they pass. The Sun’s annual journey from tropic to tropic, solstice to solstice, is what determines the length and character of days, nights and seasons. This is why equatorial regions experience almost year-round summer and heat while higher latitudes North and especially South experience more distinct seasons with harsh winters. The heliocentric model claims seasons change based on the ball-Earth’s alleged “axial tilt” and “elliptical orbit” around the Sun. Their flawed current model even places us closest to the Sun (91,400,000 miles) in January when its actually winter, and farthest from the Sun (94,500,000 miles) in July when its actually summer throughout much of the Earth. They say due to the ball-Earth’s tilt, different places receive different amounts of direct sunlight and that is what produces the seasonal and temperature changes. This makes little sense, however, because if the Sun’s heat travels over ninety million miles to reach the ball-Earth, how could a slight tilt, a mere few thousand miles maximum, negate the Sun’s ninety million mile journey, giving us simultaneous tropical summers and Antarctic winters?

        “The earth is a stretched-out structure, which diverges from the central north in all directions towards the south. The equator, being midway between the north center and the southern circumference, divides the course of the sun into north and south declination. The longest circle round the world which the sun makes, is when it has reached its greatest southern declination. Gradually going northwards the circle is contracted. In about three months after the southern extremity of its path has been reached, the sun makes a circle round the equator. Still pursuing a northerly course as it goes round and above the world, in another three months the greatest northern declination is reached, when the sun again begins to go towards the south. In north latitudes, when the sun is going north, it rises earlier each day, is higher at noon and sets later; while in southern latitudes at the same time, the sun as a matter of course rises later, reaches a lesser altitude at noon and sets earlier. In northern latitudes during the southern summer, say from September to December, the sun rises later each day, is lower at noon and sets earlier; while in the south he rises earlier, reaches a higher altitude at noon, and sets later each day. This movement round the earth daily is the cause of the alternations of day and night; while his northerly and southerly courses produce the seasons. When the sun is south of the equator it is summer in the south and winter in the north; and vice versa. The fact of the alternation of the seasons flatly contradicts the Newtonian delusion that the earth revolves in an orbit round the sun. It is said that summer is caused by the earth being nearest the sun, and winter by its being farthest from the sun. But if the reader will follow the argument in any text book he will see that according to the theory, when the earth is nearest the sun there must be summer in both northern and southern latitudes; and in like manner when it is farthest from the sun, it must be winter all over the earth at the same time, because the whole of the globe-earth would then be farthest from the sun!!! In short, it is impossible to account for the recurrence of the seasons on the assumption that the earth is globular and that it revolves in an orbit around the sun.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (124-125)

        “The seasons are caused by the Sun’s circuit round the Earth in a spiral ecliptic. In the Winter Solstice (December 21st), the Sun is vertical over the Tropic of Capricorn. Looking South from London, he appears to make a small circuit in the Southern sky, during the same period he is seen to cross the sky at almost overhead in Cape Town, thus causing Summer in the Southern Hemisphere. In the Summer Solstice (June 21st), the Sun is vertical over the Tropic of Cancer, (nearly overhead in London), while looking North from Cape Town, he appears to make a small circuit in the Northern sky, causing Winter in the Southern and Summer in the Northern Hemisphere.” -E. Eschini, “Foundations of Many Generations” (7)

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Thanks for that. I have read various explanations of fetters explaining the sun movements, but each has their severe problems. It is not to say that these problems cannot be overcome somehow, but I have yet to be able to do so myself. I’ll talk about this a lot later when I do a flat earth article.

          A quick example: I assume Dubay is imagining a Sun that is shining down on to the Earth from above like a spotlight? On the equinoxes, that Sun is directly above the equator. No problem so far. Yet, just about half the Earth experiences daylight, the other half night on these dates. This means that sunlight is practically a straight line from Antarctica to the north pole to Antarctica again to dissect day and night equally. How does sunlight do this? Is there a barrier along this “line” which stops sunlight going any further? Both the north and south pole see the Sun on the horizon (90 degrees) at these times. How is this is possible on a flat earth with the sun shining down on the equator. The higher the Sun, the higher the angle in the sky. Maybe they wish to take the fact that light bends? But this still doesn’t explain the straight line barrier between day and night.

          Do you see what I mean? problems, problems, problems.

          WH

          View Comment
      • carter says:

        if the earth was a flat in shape than that leads to something made not just came to be. meaning the seasons would be something just as well made.
        a flat stage does not just come to be from nature. if the earth is flat then we have to throw out so much of our research and understanding. the only reason the royalty of this place lied about it is about more land we don’t know of. Plato’s cave.

        View Comment
  23. SPACE says:

    There’s the story in Talmud: Thus, according to Rabbi Yonah, when Alexander the Macedonian {the Great} wanted, he ascended (on gryphon) up, until he saw the world like a ball and the sea like a plate. Because of this they depict him with a sphere in his hand, and a plate {discus} in his hand. Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah 18b

    I never believed in glass sky, but it may be some plasma condition. This round ball can be rakia (sky) with upper waters and beneath plate – lower waters, which is underground. Inside is this plate – which is Earth.
    Round Earth vision creates light/atmosphere which is inside this round ball.

    View Comment
  24. meow says:

    if you read the flat earth web site.
    it says some of the first Nuc’s ware tested in space!
    and they say we are in a Dome!
    did they use the nuc’s to break the dome?
    it would leave a lot of broken glass up their.

    I read a old sci-fi book that said the first space ship hit a globe around earth. they had to smash it to get out.
    and when they got to other worlds.
    they could not break the dome from out side.
    said it must be put their like a egg shell to keep the would safe until they get out by them selves!

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Yeah, Steve mentioned that with operation fishbowl or something to that effect.

      I think the glass is there for biosphere purposes rather than “keep the aliens out” thing. I’m a believer in other realities and such, but other worlds aren’t in “outer space” but “out of space”.

      View Comment
  25. JorgeMDQ says:

    HOLOGRAPHIC MATRIX FROM 5D

    Greetings!

    Our experience in 3D is holographic, and has been widely explain by Enrique Adame Tornel, as he was so many times taken from aliens who manage the holographic machine.

    To introduce you, I´ll tell that this machine was made in Atlantean times, when Nephilims were ruling Earth from the space and over the surface. This machine -called Spectrum (!) – was a galactic project, to experience the limitations and feeling of human beens IN 3D, and to learn how to live in pace among different alien races.

    The machine has a nucleus of a very big crystal, which is an inorganic been, that can manage souls. Aliens leave their bodies in ecstasy and the souls were sent to the holographic matrix.

    The matrix was intended to re-produce all what the earth in 5D was, so the experience allow many interesting relationships.

    But, there was a time when those aliens fight themselves, and the machine was stolen and carried to the moon. From then on, we live in a jail, holographic jail in 3D, cause it was nearly imposible to return to our 5D life, and the rulers did´t know how to operate it completely.

    They took advantage of this situation as we, as human been, experiment many kind of feelings, which are energy sources in 5D. So we also, have been harvest, as a war trophy.

    Also was said, the holographic is about 20 mts long, and the holographic earth is a balloon size. Not always was spherical, as for the experiences was not necessary, so some incoherences about what in this blog speak about.

    Human beens have been manipulated in many ways, in order to live asleep but the present situation has change a lot !

    In 1988, in times of the Harmonic Convergence worldwide, made a spiritual called to heaven and this cry was listened. We are in the process of returning back to our real lives. many help we are dealing with.

    One last thing to comment, in 2012, one of the ruling aliens wanted to disconnect the holographic machine, but here u r he did it, but human capabilities allow to survive and from there on we are leaving 3D …

    Open your mind if you need to understand what´s on planet Earth!!

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      …a galactic project

      Must be a very small project then 🙂

      Open your mind if you need to understand what´s on planet Earth

      Not a planet.

      Are you saying that this is a matrix world (hence concave) and the “real” world is heliocentric with moons and galaxies and planets and stuff which this matrix world is emulating? I suppose it is not a bad theory, but I have my severe doubts.

      View Comment
      • JorgeMDQ says:

        Hi Wild Heretic!
        Have you read about shamanism, Carlos Castaneda? You have there another point of view. In those books you will find about our reality!! It´s amazing. And more surprising is that both match … I´ll introduce you or whatever read this blog:

        For shamans the world is an illusion as it depends on what is called “assemble point”. Human been, for a seer is an energetic field of multiple colors (as an apple), they see it as fibers, alive fibers, that move all the time. What we percibe as reality is a bunch of those fibers that highlight into a ring that is over our energetic field, placed on our back, near 60 cm away. It´s brilliant, and when we sleep, this ring move freely, so we can percibe another fibers (another realities) also happens with drugs. Shamans learn to move this ring by will, so they can make incredible things … Books you can read will see that the main object for those shamans was to get free from 3D. In several books you can read how they did it.

        The problem is energy, to make this movement. Why ? Cause some alien beens from long time ago, have been eating our energy, remaining only the necessary to go on living. You can read about this in one of latest book of Castaneda.

        Well, all this introduction was to comment that Enrique Adame, as I mentioned earlier with the holographic matrix we live, says that even when we leave 3D (holographic as shamans do) they fall into 5D, but there planet Earth (called Xi) is devastated by old war that Nephilims have made eons ago, and they are not welcome…

        (It was so, till 2010, things have changed a lot.)

        So, we live in a reality that has too many failures, that you have got cleverly (!) and we must support this war to free ourself from slavery and the whole humanity. This is happening right now.

        (http://www.silverlegion.org/index.html) and many others sites…

        If you read or understand spanish, I have a lot of material to share from this Enrique Adame, as his blog is down, and I have it into the claud.

        As you can see we live in a very big lie !!
        Regards..

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Thanks for the link. I’m interested in that kind of stuff and it is interesting that shamans see the glass sky.

          I had read a few snippets from Don Juan. After what you have said I will definitely read the books.

          View Comment
        • Bob Buckingham says:

          You must have been all along an admirer of Armando Torres: and his fake book “Encuentros con el nagual” (youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7k4Wcc4p94
          Unfortunately, Jorge, you are still living in the past, like your prophet Armando Torres –a disciple of Castaneda–, both still gullible believers in the dreams of a nutter:
          Imagine my surprise when I learned that the most successful author of “Indian” books of all time was a fake. His name was Carlos Castaneda. He made a national and international name for himself, and made himself very rich, by making up whole stories about a medicine man who never existed. Hundreds of colleges used his books by the ton. And they are still using them, misguided though they are. He sold more than eight million copies of his books, starting with “The Teachings of Don Juan.” The Don was supposed to be a Yaqui medicine man who divulged his secrets to Castaneda in Mexico and in a bus station in Tucson. Unfortunately, there was no Don Juan, and Castaneda never met him. He made the whole thing up. It earned him a doctorate from the Department of Anthropology at UCLA. But once they learned about the fraud, they took the doctorate back—the only case I know of where this has happened. He eventually wrote a total of eight books, each one building on the last, until he was exposed. The popularity of the books in the 1960s proved that people wanted something mystical and mythical to believe in, apparently. He came out with his first book in 1968, in the height of the anti-Vietnam War, hippie, free love, yuppie period.

          Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/03/24/fake-carlos-castaneda-24168

          View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Deep research is always good. Thanks for that.

            So basically, Don got his info from third-hand sources and we don’t know quite what he made-up and what he read about?

            View Comment
  26. Alex says:

    If the glass found in the dessert of Libya comes from the dome, does that mean there’s still a hole somewhere in the dome above? Could we not just exit through that hole, rather than having to melt our way out?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I think it is easier to melt through with rockets considering trajectories and flight paths etc. A lot of rockets go to the south pole (a few to the north maybe, but I think they come around again to the south) and so let’s say from Vandenberg Airforce base you fire a rocket south it is going to contact the glass over the pacific I think. The hole or holes over Libya may not fit a rocket through it or it may be chips off the glass or it may be like Swiss cheese up there, I don’t know. It is just easier and feasible to send a rocket where you want the satellite to eventually end up then trying to fit through a possible hole in one location I would imagine.

      View Comment
    • JorgeMDQ says:

      I forget. The glass in the sky is what first shamans see when they leave 3D !

      View Comment
  27. riomar9 says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51DED8dcNkA

    The above video link is also another video you all should check out in case you haven’t. The astronauts name is Terry Birds or Burts, I’m not sure about the last name, but nevertheless, he also admits they can’t go beyond earth orbit, so they are practically, or literally telling us, they indeed have not gone to the moon. The second part of the video is actually the one I initially posted, and which is below this, my second post …check it out.

    View Comment
  28. riomar9 says:

    You don’t even have to be making all kinds of arguments and all that, to prove or disprove anything having to do with the so-called space flights.
    Here Is the URL for the video which says it all, and it was made by NASA itself, and the person who reveals the TRUTH, is someone who works for NASA himself, his name is Terry Smith, a rocket engineer, for those who wish to check it out in case you still haven’t done so:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE

    He talks about how the huge amount of radiation produced by the VAN ALLEN Belts, (which would fry the electronics and much else, aside from hurting the astronauts) is what keeps them from going any higher than 300-400 miles up, or higher than earth orbit, and also because of the Immense heat upon re entry, (which would be bout 4,000 degrees! F), That is what has, or would, make it impossible for them to go higher than that altitude, so they’ve never been to the moon, much less anywhere else, (if that can even be done)? Anyway you all, check it out, it’s real informative and revealing…TRUTH IS SWEET!!!

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      haha. I saw that a while ago and have already included and transcribed his words for inclusion in the geostationary satellite article coming up. Nice one.

      View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      What band and music video is that from?

      View Comment
      • arnott says:

        WH – I was intrigued by that video, as well. I’m sure you also noticed the man dropping the compass and angle? (Freemasonry reference for those that don’t know.)

        I know your interest and strength lies more in research and scientific questioning rather than cultural references, but if I have you pegged correctly, you also enjoy the latter.

        That being said, I’m starting to think that “concave Earth” is one of the earliest “big secrets” among the secret societies … not that it really matters. But I think sometimes they “brag” about their knowledge, and if so, we have a wonderful opportunity to take note of it and try to glean more information.

        Ever since coming across the concave Earth theory I’ve begun to notice symbolism that references some of these ideas — not necessarily that the Earth is concave, but along those lines.

        My Mom surprised me with a subscription to the Smithsonian. *Groan*. But the May 2015 cover really amazed me (link to cover). Toy astronaut in toy rocket, aiming a videocamera — which doubles as a TV — at the planets and stars. These heavenly bodies appear to us as black and white sketches, and only become vividly colorized worlds once they appear on TV. Quite blatant, IMO.

        Lady Gaga wears a hat with the NASA logo, only instead of that agency’s acronym, it is emblazoned with “DOPE”. Huh. Are we the dopes?

        Here’s an interesting one I’ve found — TV show Mad Men, season 7 episode 7 (!). The moon landing occurs in this episode. Several characters look through small telescopes to try to observe the moon, although obviously they won’t see be able to see any moon landing happening (which can be seen as symbolic, for they are the uninitiated, unaware “dopes”). But more interestingly to me, in Ted’s LA office, a concave Earth glove is prominently featured in the background of this episode. Sorry, couldn’t find any pics online. Maybe someone could take a screenshot …?

        I also note that this episode is titled “Waterloo.” Huh! So I looked up the dates of Waterloo, and realize that the moon landing occurred 158 years and 2 days after Waterloo. Interesting.

        Possibly a tenuous connection, but here’s what Whackipedia says about the “historical importance” of Waterloo:

        Waterloo was a decisive battle in more than one sense. It definitively ended the series of wars that had convulsed Europe—and involved many other regions of the world—since the French Revolution of the early 1790s. It also ended the First French Empire and the political and military career of Napoleon Bonaparte, one of the greatest commanders and statesmen in history. Finally, it ushered in almost half a century of international peace in Europe; no further major conflict occurred until the Crimean War.

        Just a thought — could the moon landing have been scripted as a symbolic end to the Cold War, meaning to be revived some ~50 years later in the Crimea?

        Hope this isn’t too off-topic for you. Thought you might find it interesting. If the CEM is correct, we’ll have a lot of dots to connect from all walks of life. I’m excited.

        View Comment
  29. Eric Williams says:

    Hey Wild Heretic, don’t know if maybe you have seen this before but I found it interesting, it being from NASA, thought it was kind of odd. Anyways check it out and let me know what you think.

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/14apr_zeroglass/

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Thanks Eric, that was useful. Interesting how all the experiments on zero g glass were done on a plane or via sound levitation. Surely they would have a blast furnace on the ISS and churn the stuff out 😉

      “Day is currently planning his next experiment in space–onboard the International Space Station–which he hopes will confirm his ideas. He’ll be melting and cooling identical glass samples in the same way on Earth and in microgravity.”

      Article was written in 2003, so I guess no ISS glass melting then. 🙂

      View Comment
    • bill says:

      i find your theory valid an interesting after looking at the un map can u please help me understand what happens wen we get to the edge of the of the circle/earth will we hit the glass. Does the government protect the outside boundaries. I also have researched from other websites the telescope expierement on water at 6 miles proving the earth is flat so it make sense i just cant comprehend all of it yet

      View Comment
      • bill says:

        Another question i have been tryn to comprehend this theory are u saying is if the the moon is underneathe the glass with the stars or is the moon outside the glass with the stars outside the glass? I just cant wrap my mind how the glass could be so clear with the ice underneathe u could get such clear images of the moon an other planets? Please dont think im tryn to discredit your work i am honestly jus trying to understand this. I also dont understand how we could be living in a concave structure an not see the glass from vantage points unless the water an continents filled up the bowl basicall level right in the middle. I do believe everything we have been programmed with is lies. I just am tryn to understand all this. Can u please help me understand this theory more

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Another question i have been tryn to comprehend this theory are u saying is if the the moon is underneathe the glass with the stars or is the moon outside the glass with the stars outside the glass?

          The visible effect of the moon and stars seems to be a low altitude phenomenon. But the source is probably much higher up, at least for stars that is, as they are looking to be located as a sphere in the center of the cavity. I’ve no idea about the moon as of yet.

          I just cant wrap my mind how the glass could be so clear with the ice underneathe u could get such clear images of the moon an other planets?

          Me neither. I have thought about that too. I honestly don’t think there is that much ice up there. Think of your freezer and how it gets a layer of ice at the sides. I picturing that sort of thing, maybe a couple of feet thick on average, and thinner or not existent in other places. Ice itself is very likely sutck to the glass a little because of the ice crystals in the mesosphere (mainstream knowledge) will adhere to the glass on the underside like your freezer. I know that roughly over the south pole I read there is a “hole” of about 2 degrees in the sky which allows for much better “viewing” and picking up EM waves etc. They call it the “southern hole” I think. My guess is there is a hole in the glass there above the actual hole near the poles in Antarctica.

          I also dont understand how we could be living in a concave structure an not see the glass from vantage points unless the water an continents filled up the bowl basicall level right in the middle. I do believe everything we have been programmed with is lies. I just am tryn to understand all this. Can u please help me understand this theory more.

          So far away and perhaps so high that due to the “disappearing stars” effect it is invisible. It is also largely clear I think as well.

          WH

          View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        I am not a flat earther. I don’t believe the Earth is flat.

        View Comment
  30. R. E. says:

    Regarding your first sentence Wild Heretic, I disagree and say that LSC is fundamentally not a fundamentalist Christian. He is on record denying that Jesus died on the cross/tree whatever. His beliefs – assuming he believes them – lean Islamic.

    View Comment
    • R. E. says:

      Also, he has several videos up where he gives dates for when the ice would fall / chaos FUBAR. Those dates came and went. The historical Jesus prophesied accurately.

      View Comment
  31. R. E. says:

    Has anyone else dissected a mammal’s eye? These skycentric earth diagrams look so much like the cross section of a sheep’s eyeball, including the firmament and poles. The concave surface of the eye is quite beautiful btw; it is iridescent blue-green mother of pearl that has rainbow-like depth.

    Maybe a look at a cross section of an eye will help solve this mystery. Maybe God is peering disapprovingly at us with his giant to Ing eyeball, daily! The all seeing eye indeed.

    View Comment
  32. Crokodale says:

    I do not understand how the shuttle would heat up before melting through the glass. Both when it does from under the glass and from above it. Does it just smash through, or do you have any other theory on this?

    Why is it so that the shuttle can take those temperatures (almost) but satellites can’t?

    I’m thinking that satellites could maybe exist, or atleast some, but I don’t know.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Somebody else asked that and it is a good question. Maybe it is comparable to how the meteorites melt through the glass. A meteorite is hot all over and melts through, perhaps the shuttle is the same. They say the upper part of the shuttle can withstand 600 C and the lower half and front 1600/1700 C or thereabouts. Maybe the friction of the glass heats up the shuttle to glass melting temperatures from below and the front and so it just melts through. That’s my guess anyhow. I also realized that the glass can’t be very thick if meteorites melt through.

      The shuttle can withstand those temperatures because of ceramics.

      View Comment
      • Crokodale says:

        That’s possible, and I realize now how dumb I was for saying that satellites can even exist out there. You explained that well enough in the other article.

        It’s scary how little we know about our world. How was it created and all of that. The glass sky and conave earth theories just explain it all, and even things not yet explained by mainstream science. I have yet to find any major error in any of the two.

        View Comment
    • Will says:

      How do you expect a meteor to heat up enough to pass through the “glass” when there is less particles in space to cause friction to the meteor, than there is in our own atmosphere? How do you expect this perfect ball of glass to be levitating perfectly around the earth? even if the spaceship reached the temperature to melt the glass and pass through it,How could you guarentee the glass’ ability to return perfectly back to its original shape after changing from a solid to a liquid form? glass would not turn instantly from a liquid back to a solid and would in the end drip down onto the earth. these are all questions that deserve answers if you have any hope of proving your glass theory.

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        1. The meteor is white hot to begin with as I have theorized it to be part of the Sun ejected due to an electrical surge. The meteorite has come from the thermosphere after all. If a meteor hits the glass at an acute enough angle it will slide along the glass like the space shuttle or nose cones of ICBMs and melt through, otherwise it will disintegrate (unless it is really big) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQV3ZPMd7FQ

        2. Gravity balance is my best guess. In concave Earth theory, gravity is a push. Over time there is an accumulation of iron from meteorites as well which may or may contribute to any magnetic effect. With this theory, the danger is that if too many holes are in the wrong part of the glass, an imbalance may ensue. I personally don’t think meteorites create a hole, but melt through. The shuttle and ICBMs though, I am not sure. The amount of glass is incredibly large though and so the imbalance probably has to be fairly significant. If, and it is a big if, gravity does not emanate from the center of the earth cavity, but the Sun instead (precesses very close around the center), then maybe the glass oscillates in altitude at different times of the day at different locations. Maybe this could give us low and high pressure climates? Just an idea to throw out there.

        3. Yes, just like the Libyan desert glass or other glass-rich tektites such as Moldavites. I’m not sure how the Libyan desert glass fell. Notice how tektites are often surrounded by a glass layer in a semi-cicle ball shape exactly as they would if the meteorite had melted through it. (I was looking for a photo of that for ages. Thanks dude.) http://artsstudio.online.fr/tektites.htm
        http://artsstudio.online.fr/Tektites2/Al3.JPG

        Sometimes tektites are pear-shaped or “tear drop”-shaped. Drippedity drip drip hahaha! Splash baby, splash it on.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tektite#mediaviewer/File:Two_tektites.JPG

        It is impossible to prove that there is glass in the sky unless I get a lift and exit the nose of an ICBM intact! That would be epic. It would be like walking “the” glass. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mn4vHDk9n4 I don’t know how I would get back though 🙂

        WH

        View Comment
  33. lydios says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGel1QRjZEE

    Rare optical illusion creates THREE SUNS in the sky in Mongolia

    View Comment
  34. Christopher says:

    Hi,

    Could someone help me to understand if a shuttle mission has actually gone above the glass sky on re entry how could it melt through the glass if it is skimming along it at such a high velocity? It would be always make only a brief surface contact, not enough time to melt through. I get how it could break out but wouldn’t it have to do the same to come back through?

    The other question I had regarded the incorrect southern arc of the sun in the NH above the tropic of cancer. Of all the evidence to make someone question the heliocentric model, this would seem irrefutable, has anyone confronted an astronomer with this incorrect location of the sun during the summer solstice. What could they say? What answers have you guys been getting from a so called expert. Thanks again for all this great information, I am very grateful to everyone involved in this amazing truth.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      1. I say it has, but others say it hasn’t. Whatever you fancy. Do rockets work in a vacuum? Etc.etc. Good point about the melting through. Must think on that. Maybe it is both a melt and a breakthrough. Really it would breakthrough, but melts the glass behind it before it does so. My best guess.

      2. Unfortunately someone on cluesforum has put forth a visualization that makes the Sun arc work in the heliocentric model. Don’t worry, soon I will revise that article and add to it.

      View Comment
      • x2mm says:

        I always thought (as I let a comment on YT to LSC) that the argument of southern arc was incorrect. But, as LSC beleaved it, maybe it was me that did not understood it.

        View Comment
  35. sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

    Atmospheric elves and sprites

    The scientists and wiki fail to mention this phenomena does NOT need storm clouds or any clouds for this process as it is seen in clear skies also 🙂

    View Comment
  36. Jessie says:

    Hi WH,

    This is my first comment and I have so many questions, but I have one with which I’d like to start. What are your thoughts on the composition of matter? Like quantum mechanics? I’m going to be 24 in 3 days and the last few years of my life have been full of cognitive dissonance. Everything I’ve been taught is a lie or plain wrong. But it’s given me a new thirst for knowledge, and you have provided some very intriguing subjects to ny attention. 🙂

    I await your response and enjoy your weekend!
    -Jessie

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Hi Jessie and how are things? Merry Christmas and all that.

      Gosh, I’m not too sure. My feeling about the micro is that a lot of theories can be correct, or partly correct, but they are different perspectives of looking at the same thing. It’s a bit like looking at a checkered board showing a picture. One person may only be concentrating on the black squares and swears he sees an elephant, whereas another is only looking at the white squares and is seeing the space in between instead… or something like that.

      I had a brief look at quantum mechanics and again I am not sure. I saw alternative explanations to the double slit experiment which seem reasonable. Having said that, I like the idea that the observer can alter the outcome at the subtle level. It kind of gels with “glitches in the matrix” experiences and parallel worlds. Certainly there is a big unknown area to do with other worlds, vortices, leylines and EM fields crossing etc. By “other worlds” I mean other realities which exist here and now but in a parallel universe. How that works I am not sure, but I think it is a big factor concerning the non-military vehicle UFOs and the underworld. It could even be that UFOs are a type of stand alone vortex tech which allows for dimensional crossing, or maybe they need the natural Earth vortices to transfer. They could be making an EM environment from the occupants’ home environment, like a bubble of protection, but allowing them to observer this reality.

      I am interested in that because I had one of those vortices in my previous rented house which I suppose on a certain level could be classed as “haunted”. I knew on an intuitive level it was there. I just “knew” exactly where it was (halfway through the bathroom wall adjoining the two semi-detached houses). Here’s the observation: There is a wooden bathroom cabinet against that wall with a screw sticking out the side. My wife used to hang the cotton wool pads on that screw. The pads were in a long cylinder-like plastic package with string at the top. When I entered the bathroom, after about 1 or 2 seconds, the pads would rotate about an eighth of an inch one way and then the other back and forth. Each cycle was about 2 seconds long. The radiator wasn’t on in the bathroom and there were no external heat or power sources I could discern. I showed my wife the same phenomenon and it happened with her too, both alone and together with myself. So perhaps vortices need observation or participation to operate or work? Are they all alternate fields? Don’t know.

      Leylines might be the intersection points between two EM fields – sort of like the Hutchinson effect. We have an H-field inside the Earth cavity which is one electromagnetic field. The H-field is rotating anti-clockwise (the electric current direction part) and also moving vertically upwards (the magnetic direction). But there is another EM field (the Sun) which is pointing at the equator and so is at right angles to this H-field. I am convinced its EM field is alternating every 6 months. I’ll show you why I think that in the next article (split into two). These two fields are captured by the Sun and “radiated” or imprinted onto the Earth’s crust. Leylines may just be the intersection points or vectors between these two fields. This vector range would be a curved triangle ranging from 0 to 90 degrees in alignment. Are these intersection points where the vortices are formed and located?

      Just some food for thought.

      View Comment
      • Andrew says:

        Interesting that Nagaoka Postulated a “Saturnian” model of the atom with flat rings of electrons revolving around a positively charged particle. Indeed much of Quantum and Atomic Physics seems to have roots in the occult and ancient pagan societies dressed up for modern times.
        The irony is even two thousand later, the world is just as deceived and clueless to their origins and just rehashing the same old same old given some credibility by calling it “Science” nowadays.
        Neils Bohr was influenced by Taoism and NASA is obsessed with Ancient gods and the kabbalah
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6MIWMJ243A

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Interesting Andrew. Also, I found out recently that even the “great” scientific men of yore have been greatly misrepresented, such as Newton who thought that gravity was a push by the aether (spirit) according to the letters he wrote. Then Karol said that on a Russian forum someone claimed that Copernicus had originally said that the Earth is concave, but Karol couldn’t follow up on that lead.

          View Comment
    • Clark says:

      Hi Jessie,

      I recommend ‘Shift of the Ages’ by David Wilcox. A comprehensive view of what ‘matter’ is and how it manifests from a fourth dimension. I think you will LOVE it! It is available for free. Search, download and enjoy.

      Clark

      View Comment
  37. Hoi Polloi says:

    If you believe that much of the shuttle program from their drawing, do you also believe the fake videos? I know that you do not.

    So, I must earnestly ask you, why do you choose to believe their technical descriptions of crafts used in hoaxes, and of unclear consistency? Do they not also describe in their technical descriptions impossible systems of thrust “through space”? Are you sure the “carbon-carbon” nose isn’t being used as their back up story for an almost entirely hoaxed series of events?

    I like your (and/or Lord Steven Christ’s) description of Libyan desert glass, since that is something we should be able to travel to and investigate for ourselves. But nobody is allowed within miles of those dubious “shuttle launches” and it will probably remain the same for future launches of whatever “satellite missions” NASA claims to be running up.

    For me, it also raises the question of how the glass heals itself. For if the meteorites do “make it through” (as there is some evidence for impacts from above throughout known history, as questionable as it all is) why do we not witness the permanent irregularities in the sky, which would cause light to reflect off of the edges of holes? A perfect sky at all times, to me, means the glass is either ethereal or not there, and only becomes glass as it enters the physical world.

    This would also make sense because anything heavier than hydrogen that isn’t supported in an ionic field (as clouds are supposed to be, I guess, according to some Flat Earth forum discussions) would risk instability and “bouncing” or “wobble” without introducing, perhaps, another force to stabilize it.

    There may yet also be explanations for Libyan desert glass.

    To me, the existence of a present and Earthly physical glass is less likely. To me it’s more likely you can explain your theory with the existence of a field of some kind that — when descending to Earth — becomes physical, suspending the meteorite elements in its body.

    Existing outside the physical world with which we are most familiar, it may perhaps also escape the majority of electro-magnetic effects associated with phenomena we know. In such a case, we might only see its electromagnetic effects and bending of light.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      You mean a natural glass sky, as there is glass in meteorites? I think the whole shebang is artificial. If we can’t see the glass now, then I doubt we can see its holes either.

      I know the cluesforum position that everything to do with space is fake, but I draw a line at the early shuttle missions. The later shuttle missions could easily just be a dog and pony show, but I don’t think they were from 1979 to 1986. To me it makes no sense with the shuttle’s unique specifics such as its insulation with ceramic plates. I mean why bother? Why not just send up another tin foil can and play let’s pretend? I think they sent up the shuttle to get through the glass to just verify their theories on what they thought the Sun really is and any other readings above the glass and the thermosphere, Van Allen Belts etc. I don’t think they have a long time window though on getting those readings. Half an hour? I’m not sure if they are manned either. Once they got their verification then the later shuttle launches could just be for PR, like the rockets before them. My take is that by the late 40s at the latest, they knew they were up against a firmament and that space travel would prove very difficult. It took them 32 years to get through, with satellites and the rocket moon landings as mere PR stunts to keep the funds flowing and to keep the mainstream Newtonian heliocentric physics model firmly in tact. The reason for this model I think is to make sure that no electric universe model could thrive which could lead to “free energy” and other very “upsetting” technologies. If we found out how the Sun is powered for example, then maybe it is easy to replicate on Earth, unlike fusion lol.

      Just my opinion though. Only the military at a certain intelligence level could tell me the truth.

      View Comment
      • Icecoldsun says:

        Great thoughts, WH. Makes sense to me, especially the part that TPTB don’t just want to think, they wanna KNOW. So my guess is, similar to yours, that they already got what they wanted from the SS-programm (nice abreviation, isn’t it) before the Challenger accident, with which their focus changed (once again) to turn it into a big money making scheme and deception (a place in which they seem to be very, very good).

        Your thoughts on FE are also very compelling to me. Slaves cannot be ever allowed to use something that important like energy for free. Instead, they have to be kept under constant stress and duress, fighting aginst each other in wars and endless competition.

        I guess that’s why they also have such a hate against the “FREE market”. Bad enough breathing is (still) free. 😉

        View Comment
      • Hoi Polloi says:

        You have given me much to think about. Thank you. I do believe you are right that there could be a true intelligence gathering mission that had to be covered up by a fake motivation. I applaud your recognition of the facts. CluesForum.info will probably maintain its stance that it is unwarranted speculation without proof, however I eagerly observe the speculation evolve into a cogent theory that may well be our best replacement for NASA’s hogwash.

        I am right now thrilled and excited by the “Heaven and Earth Gabrielle Henriet, from 1958” post/PDF, which I am presently enjoying. I noticed that they mention nicks and scrapes on the surface of the solid in the sky. This, to me, is a very realistic picture of whatever solid that may truly be up there. Although it could easily be guessed and/or assumed there would be an imperfect shape to it, and so it may only lend credibility to the author’s creativity rather than their credibility.

        I am not dismissive of this. Thank you for asking us to use our heads correctly when re-thinking the world.

        View Comment
    • lydios says:

      I like your thoughts regarding glass becoming physical when descending to earth…
      Lao Tzu says heaven is not the wide blue sky,but the house of creative… We must strive,he says,for the return to the form before the handing down of the heaven and earth…
      So according to him,there are these layers :the Tao,
      the Tao releases the heaven(the creative house) and the heaven releases the earth… Both heaven and earth are subjects to mortality but Tao (the true essence,the one primordial spirit,the oktahedron pyramid according to us) is eternal,it exists through itself…Its the meaning.It needs no force ,it has no force and needs no polarity to exist.

      View Comment
  38. SPACE says:

    Here’s one more scientist, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Victor_Appleton that discovered, that radio waves bounces in upper layers of atmosphere. Appleton layer.

    View Comment
  39. sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

    NASA Astronauts know there is a Firmament above and cannot breach it
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TEEWxqzx3M&feature=youtu.be

    Apollo 8, the first manned mission to the Moon, entered lunar orbit on Christmas Eve, December 24, 1968. That evening, the astronauts; Commander Frank Borman, Command Module Pilot Jim Lovell, and Lunar Module Pilot William Anders did a live television broadcast from lunar orbit, in which they showed pictures of the Earth and Moon seen from Apollo 8. Lovell said, “The vast loneliness is awe-inspiring and it makes you realize just what you have back there on Earth.” They ended the broadcast with the crew taking turns reading from the book of Genesis.

    William Anders:

    “For all the people on Earth the crew of Apollo 8 has a message we would like to send you”.

    “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
    And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
    And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.”

    Jim Lovell:

    “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
    And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
    And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
    And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.”

    Frank Borman:

    “And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
    And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.”

    Borman then added, “And from the crew of Apollo 8, we close with good night, good luck, a Merry Christmas, and God bless all of you – all of you on the good Earth.”

    genesis1a

    That xmas message about creation and the Firmament was the best thing nasa has ever said or done, what a message, millions were listening worldwide, NASA telling us there is a Firmament above and the waters within, the whole thing is about the message of the Firmament above and Gods creation.

    View Comment
    • sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

      I thought i forgot to mention. it was 1968, before the shuttle, i still can’t imagine the shuttle breaching the firmament if the firmament is holding an ocean, all the pressure within it would be quite hard to navigate with the amount of thrust and power needed to navigate through massive water pressure and the vacuum at 130,000 feet, where would the shuttle hold all this fuel for such an insane mission and back.
      Sorry to be a pesk, that crosses my mind every time i hear sat or shuttle or rockets in space

      View Comment
      • sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

        I can see it possible if there is no oceans above, maybe there is a rule and we are not allowed to breach the firmament, the “protect the shield” usaf slogan comes to my mind

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          If there is an ocean of water above the glass, then nothing obviously penetrated it. But I find it very hard to believe there is water up there above it; a bit of ice this side of the glass, sure, but not water or an ocean of water. How can visible light from the Sun get through that much water? The water would have to be 100% pure and 100% still… and then is it possible? I find it hard to believe that the water would be 100% still as there would be turbulence from the heating and cooling down from the day/night cycle and the more speculative idea of the electric current from the holes near the poles which causes the Sun to precess and be switched on. How does infra red heat from the Sun get through the water?
          http://www.dartmouth.edu/~etrnsfer/water.htm

          “Water owes its intrinsic blueness to selective absorption in the red part of its visible spectrum. Lower purity, distilled water gave an almost identical spectrum. The absorption below 700 nm in wavelength contributes to the color of water.”

          So, water absorbs infrared.

          Genesis is very interesting, as apart from the water bit, it would seem to fit concave Earth theory well. However, after looking into the bible it seems that its translation is based on a heavy theological rhetoric. They have left things out and translated words to suit their theology. It seems there can be many different translations of the same word. This is a huge topic and not one to talk about here, but I would like to go into it later.

          I’ve been looking for an absolute literal translation from the most complete and oldest ancient hebrew manuscript for a while now. I thought they didn’t exist, but it looks like someone has done it after all – google “Mauro Biglino” – http://www.vigli.org/Biglino/Mauro_Biglino.pdf
          I don’t agree with everything he says, but it is interesting. I don’t think we will ever know who put up the sulfur lamp and the glass sky. Maybe it was the gods, but I have a sneaking suspicion that this is above their pay grade. The “gods” may be just remanents of an Earth cycle of the one before the one before the flood… or maybe not.

          View Comment
          • sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

            Thanks for that WH, was curious, just trying to make a little more sense of what is inside the firmament, this is the most mind bending subject ever, i learned alot from your work and your comments, sorry to be a nuisance brother 😉

            View Comment
          • surprised you don’t understand my model. there are 2 glass firmaments. the first at 100km then the celestial crystalline sphere. this definitely contains water. I’ve been there. sigh. never mind.

            View Comment
          • why are you so dense sometimes? the sun is between the glasses, so sunlight is not going through the celestial ocean.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            I know your model, thanks Steven.

            I was just trying to explain this passage: “And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.”

            There is one firmament here, not two. And then there is problem of creating the Sun well before the waters were divided.

            “And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
            And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.”

            So did God create the Sun in water and switch it on in the water then create two glass firmaments to give the Sun some breathing space? Even if the 100km glass layer were created later, the Sun must still have existed in the waters (and be switched on)… or Genesis has been mistranslated to fit a monotheistic theological perspective, and what we think of as God has nothing to do with the bible at all – http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/genesis.php

            View Comment
          • no. the light is not referring to the sun in genesis 1:3 on the first day.
            The sun comes AFTER the division of the waters in 1:14 on the 4th day.

            The initial light is the light at the top of the pyramid.

            This is simple stuff here…

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryHHqDGptHQ

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Ah, I see now how you have incorporated genesis into your model. So it is the octahedron which was made under water, then a glass firmament was placed around it, then gravity took place so that the waters outside the glass fell down to the crust, and finally the Sun was made and switched on. The 100km glass would then be made later after the flood. Is that right?

            Funnily enough, I am all for the 100km layer being made later and there being another glass layer up there because it may fit with Pangea, unless the expansion of the Earth also expanded the glass as well. The Hopi have 4 ages recorded (3 expansions), and the Aztecs 5 (4 expansions). If there is an expansion with each age, there could be 4 or 5 glass layers up there at a height depending on how much the Earth expanded.

            It is an interesting thought. Think of the creative power and the type of engineering project this entails. It makes me wonder a lot who or what is behind this and how they did it. Is it on a level of instant materialization, like spirit, or a virtual computer program? It is the most incredible feat of engineering, even more than making the Sun IMO.

            View Comment
          • but you’re right about what people think about God because… I ALONE AM GOD.

            and most people do not accept that.

            View Comment
          • Bob Buckingham says:

            I find so damn hard to fathom the murky ocean of your mind. On the one hand you try to demolish that enormous anthill the science of our spatial program has built (and I had read all your posts). Do the ISS and satellites above the earth exist or not? You are selling like from a new evangelist the all-revelatory golpel of that other snake oil vendor, Lord Steven Christ. You are a shill and all your answers –coming from the desk of God– aren’t neither Indian beer nor lemonade. Why don’t you tell all those who believe in the NASA programs or the legion of religious misfits what your bag of manna is all about. What is in your mind?: “eine verdammte Nebula, Zuckerwatte in der niemand beißen kannt” (like we say in German). What is your reason to praise the miracle wonder ability of the patron saint of the lost causes, admiring the sophisticated technology of a space shuttle built with the sole purpose of scratching a hypotetical glass covering the earth? Have our rockets reached the ionosphere or the thermosphere?… hell no! Therefore why don’t you say so to all those charmed birds to whom you repeat platitudes as “I don’t agree with everything he says, but alas! it is quite interesting” You know what man, you are disappointing, you are a gambler, you don’t show no damn cards, for you are neither with God nor the Devil. You are a journalist, a jolly stand up comedian. Like Jay Leno. The only time I heard you saying something solid, not vaporous is: ‘I do not believe in the flat earth’. But you are like Saint Peter, denying your association with Jesus Steven Christ ––trying your very damnedest not to get your ass burnt dismissing the absurd to camouflage the ridiculous.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Sheesh Bob, calm down there matey. I’m not with anyone… kind of. I’m not a shill either.

            Here are my solid convictions – the earth is concave (you live inside), the earth isn’t flat or convex, there is a glass sky, and light very likely bends upwards.

            I suppose you could call me a journalist of sorts. I research stuff on the web and see if I can join the dots with logic. Sometimes I can change my mind a little on things after researching; sometimes previous convictions become further enforced. I am fairly flexible and won’t defend a label no matter what so to speak.

            WH

            View Comment
      • R. E. says:

        Yes and the bible says that no man has gone above one of the firmaments.

        It also says not to fear; the wicked and fearful won’t understand. It says that we, mankind are the enemy of God, not Satan who is our enemy and not God’s enemy. Once we have understanding, we have peace. I think I understand now what NASA has been doing by duping us. And not just NASA — this is a giant game.

        View Comment
  40. lydios says:

    I had a revelation thought today.
    Actually the glass sky is an inverted bowl/curvature towards us.The opposite way that steven describes it.

    And that makes the Sun look like arching .Its not the sun rising and setting.Its the glass sky that makes this effect.Its not the sun arching its the glass arching .Aka you see the curvature of the glass sky.

    Forget most of the stuff about concave earth.Yes we might live inside a small cavity but the earth isnt perfectly concave.Its most likely we live inside a small concavity like the size of the holes of the moon and when you get out you have the poles.

    I really like this map. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orlando-Ferguson-flat-earth-map_edit.jpg

    View Comment
    • lydios says:

      “And that inverted Bowl we call The Sky,
      Whereunder crawling coop’t we live and die,
      Lift not thy hands to it for help — for It
      Rolls impotently on as Thou or I.”

      View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I don’t think the glass arches in a convex fashion because as I move along the ground, the glass arch would continually move with me to produce the same effect. For an arch to work, it could only be one big arch over a flat or bowl earth, not a concave one. Apart from the problems of the flat/bowl earth, I can’t see how the sun arcs would work in this case.

      View Comment
  41. Invisible shield found thousands of miles above Earth blocks ‘killer electrons’

    “It’s almost like theses electrons are running into a glass wall in space,” said Baker, the study’s lead author. “Somewhat like the shields created by force fields on Star Trek that were used to repel alien weapons, we are seeing an invisible shield blocking these electrons. It’s an extremely puzzling phenomenon.”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141126133829.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fmost_popular+%28Most+Popular+News+–+ScienceDaily%29

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Yeah, I saw that via Don’s YT channel. I wonder if that means that there could be a second glass layer up there, or have they mixed it up with the first one? Mmmm.

      View Comment
  42. Jonathan Glassel says:

    Russian Scientists Claim That Algae Lives On ISS Exterior (Update)

    http://nasawatch.com/archives/2014/08/russian-scienti.html

    I originally saw this on RT. Can’t find that story, now but as I recall the Russian Cosmonaut reported the algae on the outside window of ISS.

    If the Russian knew he was in the water tank, why report it?

    I wonder if that broken glass is self healing? If not, I would imagine we have been losing a lot of air, possibly enough to grow algae on the outside window?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Nasawatch lol! 🙂 Never heard of that site before and it looks like it has been up since 1997.

      My best guess is that they are trying to introduce the “life from space” theme, and then go on to “aliens” and such like perhaps.

      That lot need more than watching. Maybe Steven could do some smiting. 🙂

      View Comment
  43. sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

    Copied from the book Heaven and Earth Gabrielle Henriet, from 1958 (link to pdf at bottom)

    THE SOLID DOME OF THE SKY

    From the earliest times it has been believed and said that the heavens were not an empty space, but a solid surface. The Chaldeans and Egyptians regarded the sky as the massive cover of the world; and in India and Persia it was thought to be a metallic lid, flat or convex, or even pyramidal. Up to the 17th century the earth was always regarded as the centre of an empty sphere with solid walls; and on this account, it was always represented with a cover. This indispensable complement, however, was eliminated upon the advent of the theory of gravitation, for con­venience sake, as a solid dome limiting the space round the earth would have rendered impossible the extravagant motions of the planets which were sent revolving in the air at phenomenal distances. Thus from this time, the fact universally accepted for thou­sands of years that the sky is a firm surface, complete­ly disappeared.* Nevertheless, the possible existence of a solid vault over the earth is a question of great importance in view of the tremendous consequences which would result from this fact, if it happened to be true. There is no doubt that the general reaction is one of incredulity; but, on the other hand, it can be con­sidered that it is not without reason that the ancients believed in the existence of the material vault of heaven; nor without reason, either, that this notion should have been consistently handed down through the ages since the earliest times up to the I 7th cen­tury, in all parts of the world. The only alternative would be to be able to prove the fact, but it would cer­tainly appear at the present time that there is no means of doing so. It may be discovered, however, that a solid dome effectively exists above our heads, in an indirect and quite unexpected manner, which the erroneous interpretation put on the composition of the planets had not so far permitted to do. It can be stated at this juncture, by anticipating on the next chapter which deals with this particular subject, that the planets are not solid, opaque masses of matter, as is believed. They are simply immaterial, luminous and transparent discs; and in view of these circum­stances, it is plain that the craters, asperities, moun­tains and valleys which were thought to exist on the surface of these imaginary masses, are the topo­graphic features of the solid vault of the sky which are illuminated and thrown into relief by the luminous and transparent discs which we call planets. It is also to be realized that the lens of the telescope creates an appearance of convexity which, standing out in relief, conveys the impression of a spherical mass, but this convexity effect is merely an optical illusion. The dome of the sky can be seen not only through the transparent satellite discs of the earth with the help of the telescope, but also with the naked eye, in rare circumstances, it is true, i.e. when it is lighted by flashes of lightning during night thunderstorms. By a remarkable chance and in similar conditions, the author has seen the vault of heaven entirely illuminated, and has even been able to observe it steadily for several minutes, due to a rapid succession of sheet lightning discharges providing a perfect and continuous visibility. The remark may now be made that, if the ancients maintained that the sky was a solid mass, it was for the reason that they had ascer­tained the fact in the same circumstances, as many observers will now be able to do in the future. The possibility, therefore, of taking photographs by night of large areas of the vault of heaven can now be fore­seen, particularly in those parts of the world where owing to the frequency of thunderstorms, there are numerous opportunities of doing so.The aspect of the vault was that of a rather steep, slightly sloping dome of pyramidal shape, and it appeared to be composed of a bright metallic dark grey matter, uniformly showing small regular inequalities like lead which has been beaten or chiseled. The larger details, particularly the craters, were clearly visible against the background; but the most impressive circumstance yet, was the incredible nearness of the vault, the highest point of which did not appear to be, at the most, any more than sixty kilometers from the earth. It may be recalled in this connection that in one of the texts of Homer, it is stated that the height of the bell-shaped vault which surrounds the earth is only twice that of Mount Olympus, approximately six kilometers. This esti­mation, evidently impossible, and which must have probably resulted from the exceptional purity of the atmosphere in Greece which may be deceptive, gives, nevertheless, an idea of the manner in which this question of the distance of the vault of the sky from the earth, to which we shall return later on, is to be envisaged. It results, therefore, from the foregoing explana­tions, that the existence of a dome of matter encircling the earth cannot be denied ; and this fact completely revolutionizes the present day concepts on the outer world. The earth is not freely suspended in space, but it is resting on the floor of a cavity whose walls sur­round it on all sides. The sidereal expanse does no longer extend over unlimited and undetermined dis­tances. The dimensions of our Universe are now known to be restricted, and they are confined by the circular wall which encircles the earth. It is by this obstacle that the radar waves are reflected; and we may also recall, in this respect, the theory of Heavi­side leading to the existence of an upper, wave- resisting atmospheric layer, which is no other than the solid vault of the sky. There is absolutely no solid body between the earth and the dome of heaven, since the constellations, like the planets, are nothing but luminous phenomena. The meteorites are obviously fragments which become detached from the vault and reach the earth. These masses when analysed prove to include a high percentage of metal, from which we can conclude that the inherent brilliance of the sky is due to the presence of metals in its composition. (WH: close). The fact is that the earth, at the beginning of time, must neces­sarily have become separated from the adjoining mass which constitutes now the vault of heaven; and, therefore, the parts now divided must contain the same elements. All the metals and ores of the earth are consequently present in the surface of the sky. A n association is actually made between metals and the sky, since the latter is instinctively compared to lead and copper in very hot countries where broiling temperatures intensify its metallic action and render it more perceptible.In classical literature there are two specific refer­ences to the metallic nature of the sky, apart from the one to be found in the Egyptian cosmology, but the former may not be independent of the latter. First, we read in the poems of Homer that star-strewn Olympus, dwelling of the Gods, is made of glittering bronze; and secondly, in the Old Testament, the prophet Job gives what may be regarded as an exact definition of the sky when he proclaims it to be a mirror of metal. It is to be observed, in this connec­tion, that when poetical reference is made to the silver mirror of the moon, it is the metallic surface of the dome appearing under the transparent disc which, in reality, may be described as a silver mirror. It may further be remarked that in the mythology of the Orient the attribute of the sun goddess is the sacred mirror. This is another association with the true nature of the vault; and it must be admitted that the latter, especially when it shines and sparkles under the sun, undoubtedly looks like a mirror.It has frequently been observed that there is a resemblance between glass and the sun. In the 6th century B.C. Empedocles regarded the sun as a vitreous body which collects and reflects the light of the ether, but has no luminous power of its own. The British astronomer Palmer, in the last century, held the view that the sun is a lens which, he also said, transmits to us the rays emanating from the Almighty. It is further known that Ptolemy in his system of the constitution of the Universe, speaks of the existence of a crystalline sky, i.e. a sky in the nature of a transparent mineral substance. (WH: wow!) One may think, in this connection, that it is not impossible that due to the heat developed by the passage of the sun’s disc, there may be a fusion and vitrification of the siliceous materials contained in the vault, so that it becomes coated in certain places with a layer of glass, which would communicate to the solar disc by transparence, identical properties, so that it might become similar to a lens. The presence of dross or slag similar to that formed on fused metal has also been observed on the surface of the sun, which is really, owing to its transparence, the foundation of the sky, and this seems to confirm the possibility of thermal and chemical reactions taking place among the elements which compose the vault.It can now be understood that the light and the heat which appeared to be produced by the sun do not proceed from this source, but are due to a burn­ing glass effect which is generated by the brilliant metallic surface of the vault under the luminous disc. Under these conditions, all the vivifying and bene­ficial properties which are attributed to the sun must be transferred to the solid dome of the sky, as well as the rays. These are not the sun’s rays, but they are the rays of the metallic surface of the vault.It is also obvious that the electrical discharges which produce lightning take place between the mass of the earth and that of the dome of the sky. It can further be surmised that parts of the dome expand, and split or explode under the stress of the passage of the intense electrical currents and of their dis­charge; hence the short detonations called thunder claps, which are later amplified into loud rumblings, and reverberated in the interior of the vast cavern which contains the earth. It can further be remarked that crashes of thunder are always immediately followed by a metallic resonance similar to that of bronze or brass; and it can be said that this particular resounding, which is clearly perceptible, is certainly produced by the metallic walls of the vault which are made to shake and vibrate under the stress of the detonations.The ancients have said that rain is part of the waters which exist on the other side of the vault and which pass on to this side through cracks. It may be remarked, in this connection, that rain is always dis­charged at the end of a thunderstorm, that is, after the sound of the splitting of the dome, otherwise the thunder, has been heard; and this fact would seem to substantiate the theory of the ancients. Lightning is a phenomenon which results from the electrification of the vault; but it must be explained that the luminous branches and ramifications which are observed in what is called forked lightning, are not lightning at all, strictly speaking; neither do they traverse the atmosphere as is believed. They corres­pond to luminous electrical currents which travel in the vault of the sky itself where they follow irregular tracks, probably metallic veins; and it can also be seen that they adopt the convex shape of the vault.These currents contribute eventually to the accumu­lation at a certain spot of the quantity of electricity which is required to cause a discharge towards the earth, which occurs then in a direct line.The comets, meteors and shooting stars are pheno­mena which also have their origin, like the so-called forked lightning, in the mass of the vault. The author, definitely, knows this to be the case. Comets are spontaneous luminous manifestations which are created by electrical reactions occurring in the vault of the sky, and this explains their unexpected and sudden appearances, as well as their rapid and erratic movements, indifferently direct or retrograde. The passage of a comet is not accompanied by sound, that is to say that there is no electrical discharge like in the case of lightning which causes the vault to split and detonate. It can be surmised that lightning takes place in the thickness of the vault, whereas a comet is a surface phenomenon. The orbit of comets which may be seen to sweep across the vast expanse of the sky is described as parabolic. This means, in fact, since the passage takes place on the surface of the dome, that the orbit follows exactly the curvature of same and acquires, therefore, a seemingly para­bolic shape.The formation of comets seems to be due to the influence of the satellite discs of the earth as they pass at certain points of the vault of the sky; other­wise, when they occupy ceiiain degrees of the zodiac, particularly the 29th degree of Sagittarius. In the case of Encke’s comet of December 21st, 1795, the sun was at the 29th degree of Sagittarius. In that of Brook’s comet of November ll, 1911, Mercury was passing at the same degree, and again for Donati’s comet, October 2nd, 1858, it was Mars which was effecting its passage at this very spot. The same remark applies, moreover, to the 3rd degree of various signs, particularly Gemini. In the last case mentioned, that of Donati’s comet, Uranus was at the 3rd degree of Gemini. For Hailey’s comet which returned on March 4th, 1910, Mercury was at the same degree; Venus at the 2nd degree of Libra; Mars at the 2nd degree of Cancer; while simultan­eously Saturn passed at the 29th degree of Aries, etc. All these circumstances, which cannot be coinci­dences, point evidently to the existence of a mathe­matical law governing the formation of comets, through the combined agencies of the satellites when they pass simultaneously at various degrees of the zodiac ; and since the satellites have a regular motion * it follows that the periodicity of comets, if it does exist, may be due to this fact.Shooting stars are not to be confused with the stars in the ordinary sense, which form the constellations and move at a very slow pace. They are luminous manifestations which glide rapidly on the surface of the vault of heaven, without any electrical discharge towards the earth. They are, thus, related to vault lightning, especially as they sometimes can be heard to emit crackling sounds like sparks. Meteors are also luminous phenomena resulting from electrical reactions which occur in the vault of the sky. It has been observed that they are frequently accompanied by detonations and by a sound similar to that of thunder, which is, therefore, caused by the splitting of the dome, so that there can be no doubt as to their real origin. It has been calculated that the height of meteors never exceeds 90 kilometers, and this figure confirms the estimate which is given fur­ther on of the probable distance of the vault of the sky from the surface of the earth. (WH: not bad). From the ancients we know that the heavens at the beginning of time were adjacent to the earth, which is consistent with the primeval dislocation from the surrounding mass; and that they were progressively lifted in the course of ages. This rising of the vault could not have been very great. The mere fact that the latter can be seen through a telescope under the satellite discs of the earth, as well as with the u n ­aided eye, as stated previously, indicates that it can­not be very far away.

    It is not true, either, that man’s eyesight can cover an infinite distance, even with the help of the most powerful instruments, keeping in mind at the same time a possible magnifying effect due to the different densities of the various atmos­pheric layers, so that it must be accepted that the dome of the sky is incredibly low. If it were at an enormous distance, meteorites would disintegrate and become pulverised, and rain be volatilised before reaching the earth.There is not, and there never will be, an absolutely reliable method whereby the exact distance separating the surface of the earth from the sky may be ascer­tained. It is very doubtful, as a matter of fact, whether the laws of physics which apply to terres­trial conditions, would be still valid in the case of the upper atmosphere and of the spaces adjacent to the top of the dome, but certain data can be taken into account.The height of the Heaviside layer, which is the dome of the sky, has been measured by the time taken by radar waves to return to earth. This distance has been given as being from 40 to 50 kilometers in the day-time, and 90 kilometers during night-time; but the figure obtained for the day may be considered unreliable, since it may well be believed that an acceleration takes place in the propagation of the waves due to the heat of the sun.It is known, on the other hand, that the thickness of the atmosphere has also been measured. But the atmosphere is invisible, and since the dome is the only surface on which the eye can rest, it is clear that the thickness of the atmosphere means the height of the dome. In the 11th century the Arabs, by measuring the duration of twilight, assuming that their method is acceptable, established that this thick­ness is 92 kilometers; (WH: impressive) and nowadays, by the same method, a figure of 64 kilometers has been obtained. A similar indication comes from Ceylon where the inhabitants claim that the dome is there particularly low, being only 40 miles high, i.e. 60 kilometers from the earth; and it does not necessarily follow, whether this statement is based on conviction only or not, that it is untrue. This figure is also consistent with the impression of the author who has seen and observed the dome of the sky during a sufficiently long period of time to enable its probable distance to be judged, as well as humanly possible; and the con­clusion is that the distance separating the surface of the earth from the sky, and which may vary in some places, does not exceed 80 to 90 kilometers. (WH: impressive). The first telescope used by Galileo, which was of his own construction, had only a three-fold magnifying power. Nevertheless, he could with this small instru­ment see the eminences of the vault, described by him as being the mountains of the m o o n ; that is to say, that instead of saying 80 to 90 kilometers, 50 to 60 might be nearer the mark.The vault of the sky may not be absolutely rigid, but may at intervals, alternately recede and advance, so that under these conditions the changes of atmos­pheric pressure would obviously result from the vary­ing heights of the vault. (WH: interesting).

    The azure colour of the atmosphere may be due to the presence in the surface of the sky of certain metals or of their alloys, which provide a blue colour­ing matter, such as copper oxide or cobalt. This lat­ter metal, particularly, which is used for producing blue coloured glass, is found in very large quantities in meteorites, and its colour could be diffused by the sun on to the atmospheric layers, even if they do not completely reach the top of the dome as the latter could cast a reflection from a distance.It might also be inferred that the reddish tint of the transparent disc of Mars is due to the fact that the part of the dome which underlies its orbit con­tains iron oxide which provides a compound of this colour.

    CHAPTER FIVE

    T H E I M M A T E R I A L N A T U R E O F T H E S A T E L L I T E S O F T H E E A R T H”
    THE satellites of the earth are not masses of matter.They are luminous and transparent discs without substance. The moon, in particular, conveys the im­pression of being an ethereal manifestation, and the uncertain and illusive character which is usually associated with this satellite results precisely from its immaterial nature.….
    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Heaven%20and%20Earth%20%28Gabrielle%20Henriet%29.pdf

    View Comment
    • sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

      Wow, nice editing WH, thanks for fixing that up, when i read this chapter i was blown away, considering the date published it was decades before we discovered sprites, this person was well informed so i had to pass this onto you, again nice editing, easy to read

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        I know. It’s very impressive that this all came from 1958 I think. All he had were the ancient sources. No internet, but then again no bullshit NASA either. I mean, he isn’t 100% in line with this blog or Steve, but he is close. The Ptolemy one blew me away.

        Ptolemy in his system of the constitution of the Universe, speaks of the existence of a crystalline sky, i.e. a sky in the nature of a transparent mineral substance.

        Don, this might explain why a lot of the old maps are concave as they based this on the geocentric astronomy of Ptolemy’s Almagest which seems to have been the number one book on Astronomy in the middle ages (which is the real time of Ptolemy, not 100 AD etc.)… or maybe not as I think he was an advocate the classic geocentric model. I wonder where the source maps came from… pre current cycle?
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy#Astronomy

        View Comment
        • sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

          She also had another book The Solid Vault of Heaven by Gabrielle Henriet (Dec 1963), she is on facebook too

          View Comment
        • sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

          Yes, i ‘d like to find out how old those concave earth maps are and how did they accurately map the land masses centuries before balloon flight, some of these cartographers were amazing, what did they know

          View Comment
        • sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

          Thanks WH, going to add these links and info to my CET maps video, he was a master thinker

          Ptolemy’s astronomical studies were the foundation of his ideas about mapmaking.

          For some forty years he made the astronomical observations which are the basis for the Syntaxis, which has since become more commonly known as the Almagest, Arabic for “The Greatest.” This book is the synthesis of Ptolemy’s scientific theories about the universe, where a spherical earth resided in the center of a spherical heaven. Ptolemy rejected the idea that the earth turned on its axis. In Brown’s words: “He admitted that it was a convenient explanation of the behavior of the heavens, but nevertheless ridiculous” (Brown, 1979, 59). We should not laugh too much. Many centuries later we still say that the sun “rises” in the morning and “sets” in the evening, just as it was thought to do in Ptolemy’s view of the universe!

          [Opening text of Ptolemy, Almagestum. Venice: Petrus Liechtenstein, 1515.]

          Ptolemy’s studies in astronomy led to his principles for mapping on a precise framework. Identifying particular star locations as points on a grid requires the same techniques that are used in mapping the earth. The Almagest includes instructions for making a celestial globe with a system of coordinates (grid) for 1,022 stars, and the identification of 48 constellations. Further, Ptolemy proposed a system of dividing the 360 degrees of the globe further into the “minutae primae” and “minutae secundae” that became our minutes and seconds. The principles laid down in the Almagest are fundamental to mapping the earth, and it is significant that Ptolemy wrote the Geographia after he had completed the Almagest (Dilke 1987, 183).

          No manuscript copy of the Almagest dating earlier than the twelfth century is known, when a Greek manuscript of it was translated into Latin by Gerard of Cremona (Dilke 1987, 177). At the time it seems to have evinced little notice by scholars.

          https://www.lib.umn.edu/apps/bell/map/PTO/WRITE/alma.html

          View Comment
    • SPACE says:

      In this book author says, that heaven consists of metal.
      So it is in Bible, Genesis 8.2: “the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained, and the waters receded from the earth continually.” There’s Rmban commentary: heavens became like iron. Special wind blew, in Hebrew wind sometimes have meaning ruach – spirit.
      Also Leviticus 26.19: “and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass.
      Deuteronomy 28.23: “And the heavens over your head shall be brass, and the earth under you shall be iron.”
      It may be, because people of middle east is heavily related to water of wells. They even have prayers for rain.

      Also in the book it is said, that south-west part of Earth is lower.
      Did you know sacred lake Titicaca? It’s Surface elevation 3,812 m and it has tropical climate! I checked Rocky Mountains – it has snow caps. All mountains above 3000 meters in the world have snow caps, except Andes.

      View Comment
  44. Andy Brooks says:

    I would be interested to hear your analytical response on Felix Baumgartne’s skydive from 128km.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDg6tcalkl8

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Yeah, this has been a discussed a little bit before. Someone commented here that they blatantly used fish-eye lenses and pointed the obvious out. I’ll see if I can find the comment. I think it was Nils. The other point was that he landed very near to where he took off and yet went 128000 feet high. How high do you have to go before the Earth moves under you (in heliocentric theory)? That’s all I have on that. I don’t think the footage was faked per say, as some think, but I’m open to arguments otherwise.

      Here it is:

      “Submitted on 2014/05/14 at 7:31 pm

      Explanation why I think this footage

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjXvV0JBE0k

      uses wide angle lens:

      ––––––––––––––––––––––––––

      This is what we are seeing during the whole footage:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUY5dhawKiQ

      Not by the use of a digital effect but through the optics of the wide angle lens, they used.

      The horizon is curving in- and upwards while the object, the camera is attached to, rotates
      2m:00s following , 2m:15s following, 3m:00s till the end of the footage.

      While “earth” is in the center of the lens, the wide angle effect makes earth/the horizon look convex.
      When earth “moves” from the center to the border of the lens, the horizon seems to turn concave and the black space/sky bulges with the same effect – the illusion to be convex.

      As you can see at 2m:15s the ejected unit is unnaturally bent aswell – by wide angle lens!

      Please have a look at Felix Baumgarten space jump:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDdFlhzNq8o

      Same there. They use a wide angle lens – both, on his “spaceship” camera and his helmet cam aswell. His spaceship is unnaturally bent 0m:15s.
      While Felix and his cam are rotating, you can watch the same as in the other footage: The horizon is curving in- and upwards depending of being in the center or the border of the scene. Really extreme at around 5m:00s. We can see a perfectly spherical heaven there too.

      Well, they have to use those optics, to fool the audience. Felix disappeared from the public after he jumped. I am sure he is knowing the truth.

      I am not certain yet, but I guess that windows of airplanes are lenses aswell. Besides from reasons of air pressure their form might have optical reasons, causing the illusion of a convex horizon.

      3.bp.blogspot.com/_wg6cfmBqC24/TOfZrJz9iJI/AAAAAAAABcY/SMbwvnTAsHo/s1600/Flugzeugfenster02.jpg
      Look how the wing on the left of the picture its curved upwards. Surly this this has physical reasons while flying. Maybe that has optical reasons, while fooling aswell 😉

      1.bp.blogspot.com/-hgNbEeyrvRM/UZynTQFmXBI/AAAAAAAAAtQ/Rk7O_Jy-guU/s1600/photo.jpg

      Back to the Space Shuttle footage: Too bad, the camera was attached to the fuel tank and not to the shuttle itself.
      Otherwise we could have see it passing the glass sky ;-)”

      View Comment
  45. journeymann says:

    Object ON Glass sky??

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2weONSffhi8

    On Monday at approximately 1 p.m., something strange happened in the small, seaside town of Wonthaggi. A resident by the name of Carol spotted an unidentified rainbow object in the sky.

    View Comment
  46. journeymann says:

    Object ON Glass Ceiling ???

    On Monday at approximately 1 p.m., something strange happened in the small, seaside town of Wonthaggi. A resident by the name of Carol spotted an unidentified rainbow object in the sky.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2weONSffhi8

    View Comment
  47. Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

    I found this from a comment on one of Steve’s videos.

    http://vimeo.com/110535098

    Looks like a meteor hitting the glass.

    View Comment
  48. journeymann says:

    Hey All,

    Amazing thought provoking ideas and discussion. I have only just in recent days come across this topic and have been slowly working my way through the information. Yes, at first glance it seems total nutballs crazy. My first reaction when I saw a title to LSC video on “Concave Earth, Glass Ceiling” was something like… “say….whaaaaaaaaaat?” Because I have NEVER heard of this before till now. But as someone with an open and inquisitive mind I wanted to see the information before passing judgement or verdict. I mean How many times in history have we got it wrong, and been proven otherwise? To think we already know all that is to be known is arrogance. And how can we anyway… I have never been up higher than a commercial flight. I don’t actually KNOW from personal witness what is “out there” and the only pictures we have of the “globe” are nice artistic “perfect” images that get used over and over.

    The evidence for us not being told the truth by NASA, Media and Govt on a regular and consistent basis should already be understood as established.

    Its not “conspiracy theory” to point out incorrect, unscientific details presented as fact. We have a right know the actual reality of the world and environment we live in. If things are not making sense, we should be able to ask why without harsh personal attack.

    And it does not matter how many people believe a lie… if its still a lie. I do believe that movie s deliberately reveal and show us things, and the amount of Movies and TV shows that point out some of the things being discussed here is enlightening. “Dark City” “The Truman show” “Chicken Little” “Under the dome” and others that escape me right now.

    To simply attack and discredit new ideas because all the facts are not yet in and neatly laid out on the evening news, is childish and based in fear. Is all this crazy? Maybe… but what if its not?

    Keep doing what you do guys, and thanks for having the balls to say what you think, and to put this info out there. Maybe you could collaborate and put together a Documentary on the origin of this and best main points you have so far? Cheers.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Cheers Journeyman. I’ll be adding to some of the prelude articles after the next 2 or three articles are written. I mean in concave Earth thesis, we already have two extra serious problems with heliocentric theory, namely bendy light and the eye-level horizon. There is also another slam dunk with the stars moving faster than the Sun (4 min less per 24 hours) which sculelos has already gone into. So there is already three extra main points there to add. It is getting more and more ridiculous. Then there is the moon. Wow, lots and lots of stuff to add there which again is indirect evidence against any convex theory. Problems abound.

      View Comment
  49. dizzib says:

    CXST amateur rocket launch in May 2004 claims alititude of 72 miles / 115 km altitude

    http://www.ddeville.com/derek/CSXT.htm

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      There are a couple of others that claim 120 km as well. I had a big list from a website of a lot of amateur rocket flights, but I don’t know where it is now. Whether true or not is unknown. Another point is the glass is very roughly at 100km so I would give it a bit of leeway. I never saw an amateur rocket test past 120km though… so far. I’d say they just got to the glass and came down again.

      View Comment
      • Saros says:

        Just worth noting that measuring the altitude is not exactly clear-cut, and perhaps a claimed altitude of 120 km is in fact 60 km. This miscalculation might not be intentional, but simply due to the imperfection of the measuring tools/methods. To sum it up, it is not easy to measure the exact altitude with precision.

        View Comment
    • “The official altitude of 72 miles was derived from a high precision 3-axis accelerometer (Crossbow, CXL25LP3) and 3-axis magnetometer (Crossbow, CXM113). Two back-up accelerometers provided additional sources confirming the vehicle exceeded 62 miles. ”

      Accelerometers are unsuitable to determine high altitudes…

      wiki:
      “An accelerometer alone is unsuitable to determine changes in altitude over distances where the vertical decrease of gravity is significant, such as for aircraft and rockets. In the presence of a gravitational gradient, the calibration and data reduction process is numerically unstable.”

      Magnetometers are only useful in determining the magnetic field based on a set standard of magnetization already achieved at that supposed altiude. WHo determined the magnetic field at “72” miles? My guess is NASA.

      wiki:
      “Magnetometers are measurement instruments used for two general purposes: to measure the magnetization of a magnetic material like a ferromagnet, or to measure the strength and, in some cases, the direction of the magnetic field at a point in space”

      Speaking of high altitude rockets, see my latest conversation with NASA scientist Richard Cohen, where I play for him the 1949 Bumper v2/WAC Corporal audio. He admits it was fake too!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoLON2j4h-o

      View Comment
  50. Interview with Jeremey Leblanc, brilliant young man.
    I plugged your website in the chat section, WH.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1tdLVsJweI

    View Comment
  51. finally got around to resolving the star streak illusion.
    this explains it perfectly…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DNuB2J5x0I

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Very interesting Steve. I wonder what the mechanics are for the retrace refraction effect. In other words, how is the glass causing this convex look exactly?

      If you can give some more detail I may be able to look it up on the internet and get more mechanical info.

      View Comment
  52. Funny we as a public believed they can send a 28,000 pounds rocket to 250 miles high at 5,000 mph, don’t ya think? Where are the logical people?

    Watch the V2 launch footage, that heavy piece of junk can’t reach more than 1,000 feet before curving.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l38VMTYpa_8

    View Comment
  53. Normal person says:

    Air resistance, anyone?

    View Comment
  54. Andrew says:

    Please bear in mind how we have been brainwashed into believing false things via the ancient Solar Cult who want us to believe in aliens and that we a just a drop in the ocean of a trillion light year Universe via the Disney productions of NASA. Follow the propaganda and fakery rather than the money.
    Why assume a concave Earth is a “prison” built by aliens as surely this plays right into hands of the fakers who can put their satanic new age spin and alien new age indoctrination onto this as a gatekeeping device. Is this not still another way to prepare you for you project Bluebeam? as Satan is masquerading as your Saviour from your “prison”
    Guys, Jack Parsons from NASA fame was a self confessed Satanist and deception is Satan’s game. Please observe the God hating Satanic symbolism themes and names throughout NASA to even the names of the Rockets and Shuttles. If you can perceive some of Satan’s deceptions such as Heliocentricism and his false religion dressed up to look like “rational” science then he will add more layers. NASA are crazy deluded satanists and deceivers who hate God and try to reach the heavens and replace him much like the Tower of Babel and we know how that ended.

    View Comment
  55. kara says:

    Fascinating thoughts/work here. I spent most of yesterday reading and much of the night waking up with questions. This all puts a whole new spin on Prison planet and the Earth is quarantined theories. This glass ceiling is another sphere within the Earth sphere, right? And inside this sphere is the light bulb sun and all the planets? Which is really/possibly a projection, is this how a hologram works? If The stars and planets are a projection, why stop there, maybe everything is?
    Have you ever heard of Tom Campbell and his Big Toe (Theory of Everything)

    So how did we get inside this sphere to begin with (I realize you can’t answer this) but it reminds me of Dr Seuss and Whoville. Is there a way out? So this would mean there is no inner core filled with magma? How thick is the surround of the concave sphere we live on. Could we dig our way out? Or there is a tunnel coming out of the poles?
    If the Hollow Earth Theory is a possibility, what you are saying here is that it IS the reality. We are living in a Hollow Earth?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Yes, from what I have read there is a way out without dying apparently. If you can find passage through the underworld then it seems it is possible. However, the stories I have read make this journey very precarious and to be done only with a guide or at least go heavily armed and not alone if it is through artificial passages as you don’t know what kind of beings you will meet and all of them don’t like you on their turf so to speak whether friendly or hostile.

      Interestingly there is a passage to Purgatory through a “cave” in Ireland that was blocked off in the 1600s. I believe this could be an actual place (where the physical laws are a bit different) and is perhaps quasi-spiritual.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Patrick's_Purgatory

      This is just one example of entering the underworld. I wouldn’t do it personally, unless you have nothing to live for here, but that is just me and not you. Search on the internet for entrances to the underworld (the American Indians have one or two places) and decide if you want to investigate further.

      View Comment
      • kara says:

        Thanks for your answer WH. Mostly I want to better understand what the glass in the sky is. I can’t imagine it being anything else but a sphere within the sphere, but you haven’t talked about it that way.
        I don’t see how it can be a ceiling if it follows this concave form and is there straight up no matter where you start from to get to it.

        I also don’t understand why it’s there if things do break through it, like meteors, and space shuttles. Is it there primarily to reflect the light, the planets? Is it used for making a hologram?

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          It’s for the sulphur lamp Sun light-bulb.

          Meteorites melt through and so does the space shuttle on re-entry, but I have it that the shuttle smashes through on the way up. Not sure on the effect of that latter process on the Sun and the vacuum.

          View Comment
  56. OneOfTheSheeple says:

    Paul/Sam
    there are few holes your text.

    – “You can NOT argue with the optics of a telescope!”

    Are you stupid,or are you calling us stupid?
    Optical Telescopes use lenses!
    They bend,focus etc….in other words,they manipulate light..just like a microscope.The planets & “galaxies” are there,they are just way smaller.They are tiny!

    “Are you trying to teach the world that all these people are idiots, who cannot even calculate the distance of an object and size of an object through a telescope? Keep in mind such telescopes can be used to accurately measure the true size and distance of objects on Earth”

    Nope.U cant calculate the size of a object using a telescope.
    Nope,they are not.You need to look up what geodesy is/how is done.

    -Granted NASA faked the Moon landings, lacking adequate technilogy in 1969. It is also fairly clear they faked almost everything before and after that enormous Psyop. But not everything is faked! I recently saw a video by a man in Italy who bought a balloon online for his son’s tenth birthday. He and his son, family and friends sucessfully sent this balloon more than 33,000 metres up (in the video, Hudson’s Bay in Canada more than 4000 km distant is visible) from Italy. That is far higher than your supposed “glass ceiling” isn’t it? Also, the exact specifications of the video camera they used are given and NO they did not use a wide angle lens! Clearly in that video, the Earth is quite spherical.

    NASA footage is fake.
    I had a look at that video too.
    Now some simple school math:
    glass sky – 100 km OR 100 000 meters
    balloon got up to – 33 000 meters,OR 33km.
    So,balloon got approx. 1/3 on the way to the glass.
    Where did you see the “spherical earth”?
    I saw convex horizon,strait line horizon and concave horizon.
    So either the Earth is a sphere,flat,and concave at the same time,or – sushi (understand fish-eye).

    I am truly sorry if i am destroying you dreams about spaceships.It is not easy to look trough the lie.Not everyone can handle the truth,and we here are just scratching it.

    Best Regards
    Fellow human

    View Comment
    • Paul says:

      I will check this after. However, i am fairly sure YOU changed your definition of the height of the supposed theoretical ‘glass sky’ right after your FIRST definition (by which of course, i mean your definition of its specific HEIGHT) was clearly proven WRONG. Are you really any different from the fraudsters at NASA!?

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        Why so angry? The ionosphere is 90 to 120 km high and that is the glass sky. Suck on that sweet chops.

        Other phenomena are around the 100km and that is that. Lump or leave it but don’t get angry on my blog and expect a civil reply.

        And where have I been “proven wrong”?

        I couldn’t care less you don’t like being in someone else’s laboratory. You ain’t in Kansas so just suck it up and don’t do wrong.

        WH

        View Comment
  57. Andrew says:

    Paul wrote: “8) How does it explain how pilots fly from one continent to another without realizing they’re flying in an inverted Earth? In an inverted Earth, wouldn’t they have to pull their throttle back all the time to adjust their hight or could they still fly in straight lines over long distances or how must they be flying without even realizing the whole deception?
    A concave or convex model makes no difference to the plane as it’s always in level flight perpendicular to the center of gravity in both models. Likewise it’s why planes don’t have keep flying lower in a convex model in level flight so as not to gain height.

    View Comment
    • Paul says:

      Andrew, aka LSC and Wild Heretic (also LSC), i see that you have no interest in honest debate or reasoned argument, since you have carefully cherry-picked items from my posts and left only pieces which you feel are appropriate. The very fact that a human being on video states he is “the LORD God” is more than sufficient evidence to mandate that man to be medicated with useful medications that can help him recover from psychosis which he clearly is suffering from (but will not admit). I have seen these medications work, as they saved my family member from suicide and death caused by a chemical imbalanece in his brain, plus his own inability to resist temptation as he chased after the meaning of secrets controlled by the misinformed and manipulated so-called lluminaati (who themselves are led by Lucifer or Satan if you prefer, though the majority are unaware they are being controlled by a nonhuman entity with supernatural powers). I do not accuse LSC of being a madman lightly; much of what he says is very interesting and SOME of what he says may help some to finally acknowledge the lies. NASA and the military industrial complex have repeated for centuries; but LSC your creditbility is lost once you state that you are not only the returned Jesus Christ but in fact you ARE God the LORD i..e. The Father you even say in your video about the glass sky that you are “the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls” and this logically and rationally is purely insane. If i were God, who created all things and have INFINITE power, i would be sorely tempted to teach you a lesson you won’t forget!!

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        Andrew, Wh and LSC are three different people.

        View Comment
      • Andrew says:

        As WH has said i am not LSC and neither is WH. You should know bearing false witness and lying is a sin. About the only thing i can agree with in your post is LSC is a blasphemer. I cherry picked a rare rational part of your post questioning basic physics as you don’t seem to have a grasp of it and is necessary to know in understanding the model presented.

        The rest of your post is just a paranoid irrational rant, yes LSC’s heresy and blasphemy is no brainer to any Christian but you hardly come of any better yourself with your false charges and Judgment’s.
        I am very suspicious of your motives and the usual game played by the perpetrators is to connect genuine research and truth to conspiracy or religious “nutters” and boy did your rant keep driving that point home.

        A concave Earth can’t be true because LSC is a madman, is that it? let’s see some deductive logic to prove that point. So then you falsely accuse myself and WH of being LSC because were not “mad” enough for you?
        Tell me is that not highly suspicious? Showing us your true colors and motives now are we? Not only the fallacy of ridicule by association but telling fibs that we are the association.

        Your obviously prefer the Satanic NASA, Big Pharma and fallacious reasoning and outright lies to to make your points.

        View Comment
  58. Paul says:

    LSC is a madman. He won’t mind me saying this; they said it of the true Jesus also. But this mere mortal’s blasphemy that he is Jesus Christ is beyond insane. So what if the Earth is flat and/or concave (LSC, can you make your mind up which?). Even if this were true (and i have read many of your articles, LSC. Interesting that your header page features the whore of Babylon, with her wineglass full in front of her!) it is irrelevant. True Christians don’t care what shape the Earth is or how precisely the end of the world will come; or whether the sky is made of glass or not. True Christians do care, however, about febrile imposters calling themselves God. LSC whoever you really are, you need to be on medication for psychotic delusions. By the way, i have two questions for you regarding your statement that there are no stars or planets: 1. What about the millions of amateur astronomers who have video showing planets like Mars, Saturn, etc in revolution and clearly of planetary size? You can NOT argue with the optics of a telescope! Are you trying to teach the world that all these people are idiots, who cannot even calculate the distance of an object and size of an object through a telescope? Keep in mind such telescopes can be used to accurately measure the true size and distance of objects on Earth; why should those same optics become unreliable and even false, when sighting objects outside the Earth? 2. Granted NASA faked the Moon landings, lacking adequate technilogy in 1969. It is also fairly clear they faked almost everything before and after that enormous Psyop. But not everything is faked! I recently saw a video by a man in Italy who bought a balloon online for his son’s tenth birthday. He and his son, family and friends sucessfully sent this balloon more than 33,000 metres up (in the video, Hudson’s Bay in Canada more than 4000 km distant is visible) from Italy. That is far higher than your supposed “glass ceiling” isn’t it? Also, the exact specifications of the video camera they used are given and NO they did not use a wide angle lens! Clearly in that video, the Earth is quite spherical. The only reason you get away with your illiterate ignorant rantiings (off your meds i assume) is because they sound so logical (after numerous edits) and you look like a half-intelligent person (but be honest; i don’t mean to insult you but it looks like you did not graduate beyond High School. Is that correct?). If you can answer my two questions without frothing at the mouth, it would be great! By the way, here is the link to that video: http://youtu.be/E12m9sygpxs

    Appreciate your thoughtful reply.
    Sam

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      So what if the Earth is flat and/or concave (LSC, can you make your mind up which?).

      Luckily due to recent breakthroughs I can help LSC in this regard. The Earth is concave but with a flat orientation towards the sky on the north/south axis only, very likely due to the gyroscopic nature of the space within the Earth cavity.

      That is far higher than your supposed “glass ceiling” isn’t it?

      No, glass ceiling is +/-100,000 metres up.

      Also, the exact specifications of the video camera they used are given and NO they did not use a wide angle lens! Clearly in that video, the Earth is quite spherical.

      No. We can’t tell by viewing it in a camera because a slight tip up and down shows the horizon to be either concave/flat/convex. We would need something like a clinometer on a level surface to determine if the horizon bends. So far results from tall buildings show horizon is always flat. Look at your video at 7:53 – concave horizon? Then very briefly flat then convex. http://www.wildheretic.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/concave-horizon.jpg. Does this mean the Earth is concave? Of course not. A fish eye lens only extremely accentuates this issue.

      What about the millions of amateur astronomers who have video showing planets like Mars, Saturn, etc in revolution and clearly of planetary size? You can NOT argue with the optics of a telescope!

      We can assume any size and distance we like.

      View Comment
      • Sam says:

        Hi Wild Heretic…or is that LSC also?

        How do you know how high the theoretical glass ceiling is, if you have never been there, nor sent any instruments there to detect it? I am just using your own reasoning or logical approach. Your information about the possibility that the Earth is a large vacuum chamber is very interesting indeed; however, wouldn’t the supposed “glass ceiling” need to be extremely thick in order to contain pressures that are unquestionably enormous?
        Also, in another section (last page of your website), you reply to a woman from Toronto regarding her essential question about pilots flying aircraft:

        8) How does it explain how pilots fly from one continent to another without realizing they’re flying in an inverted Earth? In an inverted Earth, wouldn’t they have to pull their throttle back all the time to adjust their hight or could they still fly in straight lines over long distances or how must they be flying without even realizing the whole deception?

        Your answer:
        It much easier to ascend in altitude in a concave earth, if you’ve ever been in an airplane you may have noticed that it doesn’t take much ascending thrust to reach high altitudes. They, for the most part, can simply cruise to reach say 30,00 feet, after an in initial thrust upward. If they really were hovering over a convex sphere, they would have to keep the plane inclined constantly, and burn a whole lot more fuel.

        After reading your simplistic answer, i cannot understand why or how you would think as you do. I have travelled extensively and have flown an aircraft. Today’s software-driven automated machines called “aircraft” use automated algorythms to precisely adjust the “true height from the ground” as the plane flies: there is no need for a pilot to manually adjust the height of the aircraft. In fact, it is not difficult to imagine the plane as a ball bearing magnetized and attached to a circle of metal; if you push the ball bearing, it obviously will maintain the same distance from the centre of the circular disc, all along its trajectory; this analogy illustrates how a plane automatically maintains a fixed height above a convex surface.

        I find LSC’s material very thought-provoking, however, what i will not accept is that he dares to presume that he is the Creator. I suppose he created himself, then? Does he even know how to drive a car, or fly a plane? Has he travelled around the world, and OVER the South Pole (this has been done several times and there is plenty of photo and video evidence to prove that this Pole exists).

        Jesus warned us that false Christs will appear; Stevie is just one of them. I really cannot comprehend how he can be so foolish to believe what he does, except that he is trusting in a huge lie. The end result will be eternal hopelessness for him, if he continues to despise Jesus and continues to provoke the true LORD of all things, who created everything (glass sky and all, if it exists).

        Your point about the balloon; i am certain human beings have gone higher than 100 km and taken photos (but where are they then?) of the Earth…but unfortunately, all the photos or illustrations i have seen to date appear to be paintings, computer drawings, or other fakes. This provokes me more to question what the lying fascists at NASA and the Rockefellers (who funded the Nazi Party, Zionism, Communism and all the other diabolical deceptions of the fake Jews aka The Synagogue of Satan) are trying to accomplish with all this brainwashing (since their stated goal is to depopulate the Earth by 80 per cent then why bother with the brainwashing?), more than it makes me wonder if there is a glass sky or not.

        Yes i agree, Jesus stated that no man has been to Heaven. But i believe (and i think most Christians who actually think believe) that the Lord meant the place where God dwells; not the sky above the Earth. For this reason (and many others), i think LSC badly needs to start taking his medication, before he hurts himself or some other innocent party. I know what i am talking about: i have known others personally who were entirely psychotic and truly delusional.

        Thank you for your cogent answers. If i could afford to charter a jet to go over both Poles i would do so; but at $100,000 a flight it is just too costly for me right now.

        By the way, regarding my telescope question, i really do not accept your logic, which seems quite flawed: you reply that we can assume any size and distance we like, about a far object (in this case a light in the sky we call planets) but is it not true that mathematically, the optics of the lenses in the telescope prove that the object imaged mathematically has to be a certain size and distance from the viewer?

        Are you implying that ALL mathematical logic and theory from the time of the Phoenicians until Pythagoras and others is entirely false and corrupted? Please be serious.

        Look forward to your replies,
        Sam

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          I am not LSC and do not share all of his beliefs and research. Please use his youtube or facebook account to pose your questions.

          WH

          View Comment
          • Paul says:

            Hi WH sorry about the bit about implying you are LSC. I assumed that LSC as he calls himself God (therefore logically cannot say he is a follower of Christ ergo he is an anitChrist, which actually means “instead of Christ” not “against Christ” as many Christians and others mistakenly believe) would have had no choice but to create another online advocate (WH) in order to create the impression of support. You can remove my comment if you like.
            To remain on topic, one objection i have to the idea that there is a glass sky (or some form of physical blocking surface not necessarily entirely solid like glass) is that the rockets and the shuttle that have been sent up beyond 60 miles must travel at least up to 11 km per second to reach a geosynchronous orbit (well, i have not mentioned the word “globe” have i so i am not a “fucking retard” according to LSC lol) and if indeed this newsbyte from NASA (and others) is actual fact (come one, that fucking rocket weighs a collosal fucking amount of shit, this cannot be denied!! Many people watched the physical rocket lift off and not on tell-lie-vision; so it must be a fact that something fucking heavy was boosted up quite a few miles; at least some of that is true!) then i find it difficult to believe that ANY object (in particular the main fuel tank and its solid rocket boosters weighing approximately 20,000 tons at apogee) or the shuttle itself, weighing perhaps 70 tons, travelling at 11 km per second (think about how fucking fast that really is) would not have a ‘slight problem” when it hit this supposed “glass wall.”
            Any material, even a few mm thick, would instantly destroy the shuttle on impact. There is no arguing this. Every one of us knows what it is like (unless we are lifelong Mennonnites) to see an insect hit a car windscreen; and this is only at 100 km/hr. At 11 km per second, the shuttle, its occupants; and the rest of the tonnage would be shredded instantly in one glorious massive fireball spread over many miles. I know what LSC will reply, however; he will simply state that the purported “glass ceiling” is located at 100 km..which supposedly the shuttle never went above. Well, whether this is true or not he cannot prove it; since he has never been (except in his dreams) beyond the Earth; and in any case, he just has no real evidence (nor do you, WH) that conclusively proves the theory of a glass ceiling in the sky. All of your excellent proofs and evidences can ONLY show a correlation; they are not causation and definitely NOT proof. Sprites, for example, appear to show a solid object that stops the further propagation of ions upwards. However, why does it have to be SOLID? Perhaps the Van Allen belts start at 100 km also? Why can they not be responsible for this apparent physical ceiling that ‘stops’ a Sprite from propagating further? Your other evidence such as the Libyan glass is also quite thought-provoking; but there is a verse in the Old Testament where God points out the reason He created man and the Heavens and it is for man to populate them. God showed this to me some years ago, when i was frustrated with not understanding the purposeless of life lived for mundane things such as career, marriage, money, possessions, power, etc. i don’t know if LSD is familiar with this verse.
            Cheers
            Paul

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            You may have a point about the shuttle hitting the glass… or maybe not.

            A .308 rifle bullet travels at 1838 miles per hour according to this fellow. A standard round is made of solid lead with a copper cover according to these folks.The lead apparently deforms in the air it is so soft and so is probably a filler just to add weight rather than keep the copper’s structural integrity. When shot through glass a few millimetres thick there is no loss of structural integrity of the bullet according to these pictures.
            http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FPnjph3glLY/T2xWAoUBz0I/AAAAAAAABTA/NrrC3T-SDuA/s1600/bullet.jpg
            http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/bullet-hole-19303366.jpg

            The tensile strength of copper is 70 mpa. Copper piping is pretty malleable. If the pipe is long enough you can bend it with your hands (after helping out my plumber one time).

            Let’s have a look at the shuttle. The nose cone and wing edges are reinforced carbon carbon which has a tensile strength up to 700mpa – tens times that of copper. It looks like it travels at 7.8 km/s (17,500 mph) above the glass… or so they say (ahem, cough).

            The speed and strength of the shuttle’s material should see it shoot through the glass like a super fast bullet without any deformation I would have thought.

            View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Hey, while it is now half-time in the world cup knock-out stages I’ll reply more extensively even though these questions aren’t directed at me.

          How do you know how high the theoretical glass ceiling is, if you have never been there, nor sent any instruments there to detect it.

          I don’t. It is speculation based on logic and evidence.

          however, wouldn’t the supposed “glass ceiling” need to be extremely thick in order to contain pressures that are unquestionably enormous?

          That question has been asked before. Three reasons for the glass: 1. There’s not much air pressure at 100km as the air is a calculated 1/100 of the air density at ground level. 2. The glass has exceptional integrity – “Libyan glass can be dropped into water when red hot and it will not disintegrate. High technology glasses struggle to do better.” 3. Gravity.

          Although there may be valid reasons for relative scale comparisons there is always the vacuum bell jar – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce7AMJdq0Gw
          If this thin glass can withstand all that air above it with a vacuum the other side, maybe the glass above our heads sans gravity can do the same with the above three points thrown in to boot.

          How does it explain how pilots fly from one continent to another without realizing they’re flying in an inverted Earth?

          and

          this analogy illustrates how a plane automatically maintains a fixed height above a convex surface.

          See Andrew’s answer above.

          Your point about the balloon; I am certain human beings have gone higher than 100 km

          I speculate that the only publicly-known craft to break through the karman line with human passengers is the space shuttle for reasons in this blog that I have also already mentioned.

          I also have no problem with the poles etc. I do not think the Earth is flat or a flat disk.

          By the way, regarding my telescope question, i really do not accept your logic, which seems quite flawed: you reply that we can assume any size and distance we like, about a far object (in this case a light in the sky we call planets) but is it not true that mathematically, the optics of the lenses in the telescope prove that the object imaged mathematically has to be a certain size and distance from the viewer?

          Light decays over a distance (supposedly due to the inverse square law). To determine the distance of an illuminating object we would have to know 1. the intensity of the light source and 2. the amount of light we receive.

          The unknown is point 1. So like I said it is an assumption. Is a star X intensity and X thousands of miles away or X zillion intensity and X zillion of light years away?

          Are you implying that ALL mathematical logic and theory from the time of the Phoenicians until Pythagoras and others is entirely false and corrupted? Please be serious.

          No I don’t. But you may be interested to know that latitude and longitude is determined by mathematicians using the concave Earth model with the theoretical Sun rays shining from the centre of the Earth.

          View Comment
          • Paul says:

            Hi WH,
            Thanks for your time to respond. I notice LSC hasn’t responded to my questioning his being the supreme being yet, nor any of my other points. But i guess when he has time in his infinite patience, he might find it needful to respond. Your last point is astounding: No I don’t. But you may be interested to know that latitude and longitude is determined by mathematicians using the concave Earth model with the theoretical Sun rays shining from the centre of the Earth. This is a revelation to me personally. I suppose that means almost ALL our “modern understanding” of the universe etc is based on Copernican mathematics that were promulgated and enforced by the Vatican Secret Police (never mind the Mossad and Einstein) to ensure that the world population remained sufficiently illiterate, uninformed, and dumbed down (with injected toxins, occult “medicines or poisons,” and total control over all information sources via all firms if media and entertainment? This would support your contention that the present status quo was financed by those who idolized Galileo. Not sure if i am making sense here; but from my few years of research on NASA and many years following the creation of the NWO (i have lived and worked on several continents from East to West and the NWO grow daily and incrementally. For example, recently in Singapore the PAP government which is basically fascist implemented a law that requires ALL ‘news websites’ to pay a fee (called a ‘performance bond’) of &50,000 up front to receive a license to operate by the government. If that company then publishes any article the government doesn’t like, it must remove it from the internet within 24 hours. Talk about a police state! While the people of Singapore may not agree (some are vocal about it), there is nothing they can do, as they have for years allowed the PAP party to take 25% of their pension monies and taxes and spend it wastefully on the Songapore military. The tiny island state of 5 million is actually FIFTH in the entire world (about 170 countries and counting) in terms of military spending (or about $30,000 annually per person). In effect, Singaporeans have allowed their government to build them a nice, safe prison house. They are not allowed to own arms or even speak out in public against the government; and this model has been promulgated and financed by the SAME fucktards who are building the NWO and who, with Lucifer’s supervision, started and built the United Nations and its NWO. Anyway, i am rambling. To get back on topic, would it not make more sense to actually measure the Earth using satellites? Rarher than relying on an archaic and decrepit model created three or four hundred years ago?!? You or LSC i am not sure whom, prompted my serious questioning of the entire modern universe paradigm, when i looked at the Earth image on Wikipedia and noted, as you pointed out, that the supposed photo is from 1969! This simply does not make any sense, especially considering that more than $500 billion has been given to NASA by the dumbed-down US population…couldn’t they afford to take ONE legitimate updated photo? My questioning has also been prompted by the excellent materials presented on cluesinfo.com forums and i now firmly believe that the entire Moon expedition was totally fabricated.

            To get really on topic, i think we all need to prepare for the destruction that is planned against those who will not accept the lies sold by the NWO and its many agencies and agents. Each of us must prepare a place of refuge, well-stocked with supplies for many years, and access to fresh water. We will also need a great deal of reliable weapons and ammunition in case we need to protect ourselves (building underground is probably the safest solution) and the training needed to use such weapons well in a lethal manner. The USA in particular has clearly been targeted for destruction, in particular, Christians who believe in Jesus and God sincerely, and who wish to live simply, not worship money, and who wish to help their neighbors. These people (not the ones who are dumbed down) are the only ones who might actually provide sufficient force to kill off as many agents as possible attempting to force them into the prison camps…anyway….he that is forewarned is forearmed.

            View Comment
        • Michael says:

          Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass? Job 37:18. I agree he is being blasphemous, but His views of Earth are biblical, if you take it literally, to me it proves God, and He needs to get his act straight.

          View Comment
    • Well, WH looks like the folks are getting us confused.

      People, listen to me, this is not my website, the Wild Heretic is not me. He holds similar foundational beliefs with me concerning the concave earth and the glass sky at 100km high, among other aspects to the model. We do not agree on every element of the concave earth model, but I respect his intelligent conclusions in many areas, but not all. If you want to contact me you can email me.
      steviethefox@yahoo.com

      I will refrain from responding to your blasphemous comments about my divinity however.

      thank you.

      View Comment
  59. Daniel Date says:

    http://news.yahoo.com/company-successfully-tests-space-tourism-balloon-191909889–finance.html

    Can you get one of these balloons and test a glass sky? Mabye shoot a gun at it?

    View Comment
  60. Daniel Date says:

    I like your stuff but this seems to be the weakest article to date.

    Do you actually believe the sky is glass or is this just brain-storming a theory.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I’ll be bolstering this article with a couple of more pieces after the next article is published. Have a look at LSC’s 22 (or is it now 23) points on the glass sky. I don’t agree with all of them such as bi-refringence from the glass and the causes of the rainbow for example, but ones like the Schumann Resonance are good IMO.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-nvuTSP3z4

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZZ7MWrAtfc (Schumann)

      And yes, despite the immediate incredulity we experience, I do believe this. The next article is more speculative but even more far out… until you look at it and realize that it isn’t far out at all.

      CET article is probably the best one, and this will also be reinforced soon.

      View Comment
      • Daniel Date says:

        Its pretty hard to follow LSC’s videos, possibly comprehensible if he stopped smoking meth.

        Wouldn’t a glass sky prevent us from receiving vitamin D from sunlight? I hear typical window glass blocks this.

        Look forward to your updates.

        View Comment
      • Daniel Date says:

        Yes this study states that UVB (Vitamin D producing) radiation spectrum is 100% blocked by all forms of glass:

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19614895

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Good question. It could be that the Sun behind the glass gives so much uvc and uvb, that most but not all is absorbed by the glass. It could be another reason for the protective glass layer and it is this wavelength that creates the ionosphere by reacting with the glass. In fact it looks like it is uvc and parts of uvb that is ionising – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation#mediaviewer/File:EM-spectrum.png

          After a very quick internet search reveals: http://ehs.uky.edu/docs/pdf/fs_uv_0001.pdf

          Sunlight falls into the UVA region, which is known to be the most common form of UV. The Earth’s
          Ozone layer intercepts all of the UVC and between 97-99% of the UVB, varying by geographical regions.

          Guess what height the ozone layer is? Yep you guessed it. 100km high 🙂
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer

          I will have to add that to the glass in the sky article. My theory is that it is the radiation from the Sun (now discovered to be uvb and uvc) which is ionising the oxygen molecules in silicon dioxide (glass) creating all the ionized oxygen and the ozone layer. Nitrogen is lighter than oxygen and yet is always below the ionosphere.

          I would need to look at the amount of uvb radiation emitted by the light source in the experiment you mentioned above, but it does seem that the Sun above the glass layer must produce a lot of uvb so that 97% is blocked.

          However, the diagram comparing a sulphur lamp and the sun spectrum I have on my website is the same for the sunlight spectrum in space (according to the official sources). http://sciencequestionswithchris.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/sunlight_wavelength.png. The sunlight spectrum from space is above the glass. That is the reason why the sun has so much blue light (uvb and uvc and the sulfur lamp starts at uva (350nm). The glass blocks it! If a man-made sulphur lamp was as big and as powerful as the sun then we would also get a tiny amount of uvb too… or do we because it is so small, we don’t register it.
          UVB output (<380nm) is only 0.14% of the total light emitted from a sulfur lamp according to one manufacturer - http://www.plasma-i.com/sulphur-plasma-light.htm .

          Thank you Daniel. You have found out the reason for the lack of higher wavelength blue light in the sulphur lamp – The glass.

          A sulphur lamp is only an analogy for the actual sun, it isn’t the sun itself. Our friend Donald E Simenak says that analogies are dangerous. 97-99% compared to +/-100% uvb block between the glass in the sky and the glass around a sulphur lamp is very close indeed. To find the variable(s) which make this difference I can immediately think of 1. the scale of the Sun/glass/cavity comparing the thickness of the glass and power of the light source. 2. The make-up of the glass. 3. The electrical atmospheric circuit where there are supposed to be lots of positive charge along the ionosphere.

          I would go for the first one as the variation from 97 to 99% ozone uvb block is due to the intensity of the sunlight which of course depends on the altitude (angle) of the sun as it arcs through the sky. Another reason would be the incredible odds that we have just enough uvb for vitamin d production, but not too much to burn us to a crisp. If the Earth were a random event the odds on this happening would be extremely small. (There are loads of other extreme probabilities like this in nature, but anyway). It looks like the size of the sun and thickness of the glass relative to the sun and the Earth cavity was carefully planned by the engineers.

          “Greater thicknesses of glass implied less radiation transmitted, but without a significant difference”

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19614895
          We only need an insignificant difference (1%).

          Also as a side note, the sun is redder than a sulphur lamp due to the atmosphere it seems:
          http://sciencequestionswithchris.wordpress.com/2013/07/03/what-is-the-color-of-the-sun/

          This is the true color content of the sun. The sunlight that we experience on the surface of earth has been filtered by the atmosphere and is slightly different. The atmosphere tends to scatter out blue and violet more than the other colors. As a result, direct sunlight on the surface of the earth is slightly redder than sunlight in space.

          The above picture of the “sun in space” spectrum lacks the extra red light which the diagram on my article has, so it looks like the extra red light was never there to begin with.

          Excellent question. The article is now complete.

          View Comment
          • Daniel Date says:

            Cool. I’m about convinced.

            Does that mean we need to prostrate ourselves daily before the Lord Steven (identity) Crisis’ personal god live-cam.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Hahaha. No. Like sumstuff, I avoid that side of him like the plague. Don’t forget, we need to look at the evidence more thoroughly that Steve presents before coming to any conclusions. I’m happy with some of it, but not with others much (the ones that I have looked into properly that is)

            Myself I don’t find personal beliefs (including my own) important. I hope to stick to rational but inspired thought with hopefully a little grace from God and hope for the best. We’ll see.

            View Comment
          • thanks again for the support!
            I was posed this vitamin D question the other day, maybe it was Daniel. I just didn’t care to answer. But it looks like you answered it perfectly. Sorry about the plague I present, though. 🙂
            But maybe the rainbow (sunbow) is just too obvious a result of the glass sky for educated people to accept, along with the embarrassment associated with it for overlooking it. And birefringence, well, I wonder how you’d explain the offset displacement of the quadruple rainbows without a birefriengent glass material.

            http://www.missteribabylonestar.com/wpimages/wp32ab41f2_06.png

            Keep in mind, WH, I DO see an element of ego in your work as well. 🙂

            View Comment
          • you really cannot have the Libyan Desert Glass element in your article to prove the glass sky while denying birefringence, WH. just saying…

            http://www.missteribabylonestar.com/wpimages/wp6eb676b8_06.png

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Bifrigence is there Steve, just I think it is due to water saturated air, not the glass. My thoughts in full are in the next article.

            Don’t worry about it Steve, I’m a great admirer and the more chances at goal, the more goals scored so to speak. (I’m all world cupped out at the moment 🙂 )

            View Comment
          • Bifrigence is there Steve, just I think it is due to water saturated air, not the glass. My thoughts in full are in the next article.

            Nope, it’s the glass. I think the problem with you and sumstuff and all other people who believe in the concave earth and glass sky, is ego, pride, whatever you want to call it. I really just recommend abasing yourselves and realizes I just may be who I say I am. thanks.

            View Comment
          • Daniel Date says:

            LSC says that the government fired a rocket that put a hole in the glass?

            Is it tenable to go to the location of that event and see if ridiculous amounts of UVB is pouring through?

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            If they did do that, then it would have been over the ocean is my guess.

            Now that really would be a hole in the ozone layer! 🙂

            View Comment
          • Daniel Date says:

            Now Steve, the problem with a modern “2nd Coming” is that the scripture clearly defines the 2nd coming as having occurred in 70AD and no later.

            Matthew 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.

            The Sign of Jonah is 40 days until the destruction of a city.

            Ezekiel 4
            3 This will be a sign to the people of Israel.
            6 I have assigned you 40 days, a day for each year.
            7 Turn your face toward the siege of Jerusalem

            30AD Crucifixion : 70AD Siege.

            Anyone who turns their face toward the Siege of Jerusalem cannot believe in a modern Second Coming.

            View Comment
          • Daniel, try to imagine meeting up with me someday face to face.
            Can you imagine that? I know it gets kinda scary creepy, like the plague. 🙂

            Right now you’re at the luxury of the filtered walls of the internet world, as is everyone.

            But just in case you come to the logical conclusion that many prophecies did not happen yet in light of understanding the concave stationary earth with a glass sky, with ice attached to the glass, and that how the “hail will sweep away the refuge of lies”, even the lies of your preteristic denial of reality, then all the better are you prepared to meet you making with the contrition you do not show yet.

            View Comment
          • Daniel Date says:

            The 2nd Coming was a prophesy for that generation. Example:

            Revelation 14: (The 144,000)
            4 offered as firstfruits [536. aparché] to God and the Lamb.

            Romans 16:5 who is the first convert [536. aparché] to Christ

            Here we see that the 144,000 of the Apocalypse (obscured by translation bias) are actually the “First Converts” to Christianity, and thus cannot exist today, and thus there is no “Apocalypse” today either.

            So it isn’t like, only all of a sudden we are greatly lied to.

            It just hasn’t been until the computer that we can properly translate Greek, Hebrew, cross-reference it, and figure out wtf is going on in the minds of the illiterate goat-herders that wrote it.

            View Comment
  61. Andrew says:

    I am pretty much a Geocentric as opposed to Heliocentric and most of this is new to me and i can’t deny much of the evidence you present. Being a coast lover and using binoculars from various heights i have experienced the anomalies of a convex earth myself. My Question is how did they know the conditions or temperatures or even the physics the other side of the glass dome to know the shuttle would still be hot enough in breaking through from the other side back to Earth? I admit the shuttle can either be experimental in learning these things or a complete Hoax. We still do not really know if the shuttle did in fact manage this feat even they were experimenting or if the shuttle is a complete hoax.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Just speculation Andrew. It’s based on the ceramic tiles of the shuttle being able to insulate it to 1500 degrees C and more even. No other space object has it and so they wouldn’t have gone to this trouble just to pull the wool over our eyes IMO. If they were just doing that then the moon landing equipment would do just fine lol. 🙂

      My guess is they blew a hole through the glass much much earlier, probably in the 40s.

      View Comment
  62. sceppy says:

    There’s no need to hold up a dome. The dome rests on the atmosphere as a final ice build of helium and other light elements in a sort of fully expanded sort of dormant state, which is the reason it became ice, anyway.

    It’s a ground build up of super dense matter that expands from the bottom to the top in a push on push motion. There is no pull, except in the word we use to view what we see as pull.
    The truth is, nothing pulls – it pushes.
    No gravity needed. Gravity simply does not exist.

    Air pressure is responsible for what happens to everything on Earth. There is nothing we can see – past the ice dome, except blackness to our perception, as beyond the ice dome, it is really a true vacuum.

    Remember: a vacuum does not suck: a vacuum is devoid of all matter.
    What I am saying is; space does not exist in how we are told. What exists, is inside this Earth cell we are part of.

    There is no weight without human invented scales that we put numbers to.
    You weigh nothing when you step onto those scales. Your weight reading is dependent on the atmospheic pressure pushing your body into the ground, with your feet the last line of defence to stop that.

    They tell you that mass and weight are different. The truth is, weight does not exist until you make it exist by using a scale. Mass exists to the eye. To know the density of that mass, you have to weigh it.
    We weigh density.
    I renamed it denpressure as the real gravity, because that’s what gravity is. It’s atmospheric pressure on any object where you can only find the density by measuring it on a man made scale.

    Gold is very dense and a small bar of it weighs heavy on a scale, where as a sponge weighs very little. Why?

    The reason is not gravity, it’s denpressure.
    A sponge already has the atmospheric pressure within it in huge amounts. It’s mostly equalised with the pressure it’s in.

    Gold resists the atmospheric pressure upon it’s surface area. Basically it pushes back.
    Man made scales are already set to zero, because they were built under atmospheric conditions, so in reality, the weigh plate is resisting around 15 psi of pressure upon it but is set to zero as part and parcel of being under pressure to start with.

    The gold bar is already taking up it’s own area of atmospheric pressure. It’s pushing against that 15 psi it is in, which it resists.
    When you add that to the scale, your gold bar will measure a weight of whatever pressure pushes down onto it, which will force the already equalised scales down further.

    A sponge will register minimal force, because it’s porous, or shall I say, the air pressure it is already in, it is resisting very little of it because only the fibres are under that pressure as the main pressure is already equalised inside of the sponge.

    If you were to put that sponge under a super press, you would end up with something like a lentil sized density of what was a sponge. This is all the atmospheric pressure is really pushing down onto, so naturally it will register virtually nothing on a big scale and a little on delicate scales.

    That being said: if you keep pushing things up from the ground, the atmosphere will push back and the severity of that push back depends on the ability of the object to resist it’s full force.

    I explained how and why the ice dome works…I think, here. If not, it must have been on the other site.

    In a nutshell…let’s imagine the Earth is half an orange in a vacuum. No dome and no life. Just half an orange in suspended animation.

    For us to live, we need a dome, so to gain one, we need vibration/friction to start.
    Underneath the Earth in and around the centre, there’s a molecule fight, because it’s so compressed, it’s like us being crammed on top of each other and trying like hell not to be the one that’s crushed, so we try to expand our bodies by using energy to fight our way out.
    Imagine this at super pressure and imagine the ensuing friction/vibration.
    If we were dense matter, we would start to glow due to that friction.
    Enter the Earth sun, which now starts to super heat and glow inside the Earth and in doing so, it expands the matter which goes into super friction and is spewed out as it expands into various other forms of elements.

    You form fluids from solids, then smaller fluids that we see as gases, all being pushed up as the pressure on them decreases.
    Eventually it becomes less condensed molecules packed with various life giving released elements and gases/fluids which rest on the top of the solids and heavier liquids.
    As this happens from the centre outwards, it forms a skin….an ice skin due to the molecules constantly separating under friction/agitation which is now separating more expanded elements which get pushed up further until eventually the last elements (maybe hydrogen/helium) get pushed to the top and become dormant. Basically they cannot expand anymore, so they skin up or ice up.

    So now we have a sky that are molecules in a fight, pushing on each other. The superior amount in the atmosphere are all pushing back onto the solid ground and oceans which is resisting them.

    Push a mass of matter into that from under the ground (like a human being for instance) then that matter has to push against that pressure each time it grows into it.

    There’s lots more to it but hopefully this can open up some minds to see where I’m going with this.

    Basically people – you are so strong it’s scary. Unfortunately, we don’t appreciate how strong we are because we are used to the environment we find ourselves in.

    It’s why we have most likely never been higher than about 80,000 feet, human wise, no matter what craft.

    You need oxygen just to climb Everest. You need to acclimatise just to go to some different country at a higher elevation, because your body is used to heavier pressure upon it, so having lighter pressure upion it means your lungs and heart have to work harder to take in the oxygen you are used to as the oxygen you find yourself in, is more expanded, as in, it’s broken into other elements and made the area less dense of it due to expansion.

    There is no space. No planets, no stars, no space meteors, no space aliens….nothing, EXCEPT light waves through prisms reflected off a nice big perfectly mirrored dome that is heat swept to keep it clear and the suns waves move over it.

    The huge telescopes know what’s up there in a fashion, That’s why they can predict helium/hydrogen, etc icicle falls that you see as comets, that simply glow and evaporate back up over time depending on how big the icicle is and where on the dome it drops.

    In a basic nutshell, that’s my take on it and mine only, so it’s not to say my thoughts are THE thought as WH and LSC have some excellent views on it all, too.

    Somewhere in between all this, the truth is there. Picking at it will ultimately light that bulb very brightly and with all effort that’s went into this stuff from the above mentioned as well as others: that light is getting brighter by the day.

    Keep thinking outside the box folks, because the more minds on it, no matter how it may look….ultimately something can click each time and the jigsaw can take on a fuller picture.

    View Comment
    • Icecoldsun says:

      Great post, sceppy. The earth as a cavity / Dyson-Sphere is still somewhat hard to accept (after believing 40+ years the exact opposite), but the arguments speak for themselves.

      You write “There is no space. No planets, no stars, no space meteors,” Having accepted concave erath theory, that is only logical.

      And then, “no space aliens” – Well, I have my doubts. Look up Lloyd Pye, e.g. I’m pretty convinced there are beings, more evolved than us, among us, and they do a pretty good job in hiding from us, though (very rarely) making mistakes.

      Let’s assume their existence for a while. The question is: Are they earth-bound just like us or can they leave this cavity / live in other cavities … ? Are they just another instance of the control system in order to run this farm (That is what the world is basically to me)? It seems that there is a strong force operating that will do anything in order to keep mankind asleep and in slavery. Is our cavity’s creator just a big “farmer”, living off our energy (the “Matrix” comes to mind)? And/Or is he preparing us for something?

      What do you think?

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        My opinion is that the vacuum is real. Stars, comets and asteroids are real physical objects in high ionized temperature states when close to the Sun (plasma). But planets and the moon are probably not actually physical, but an aetheric phenomenon of which I am unaware.

        My take on “aliens” is that they are other dimensional (I hate that word lol). There is also a very strong underworld theme which probably overlaps this “altered space” issue.

        I like the farm theory a lot, at least on a certain level. I think the resource is our emotional energy or drive… the meaning of life so to speak. There is a ton more I could say on this but will refrain for now. Have you read Robert Munroe’s book, Far Journeys?

        View Comment
        • el guapo says:

          “Aliens” are snakes … Genesis 3. “Outer space” DOES NOT EXIST so they are not “aliens.” Whatever is here has been here all along because “here” is all there is in God’s creation. They’re hiding behind “outer space” because they don’t want us to know their biblical origins. The bible VERY CLEARLY categorizes them as “animals” and under man’s dominion. This is the whole basis for the conspiracy (EVERY conspiracy) and the root of all evil in the world.

          On a side note, I don’t think “gravity” exists. Why would it? The whole basis for gravity is attraction toward the density of a solid object. But there is no solid object. Why couldn’t the atmospheric pressure provided by the glass sky account or what we call gravity? It’s a pushing force, not a pulling force.

          View Comment
  63. sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

    Someone sent me this link about Gill Broussard’s work and the large glass dome he talks about and depicts (and far more)
    He is saying that a 210 ft thick diamond spherical wall is the only material that could withstand the pressure of earths atmosphere

    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/p28y41l8vvwj0vb/AAAzxvBJcWY6R2uSDrOvPgpMa/P-7X%20Video%27s#lh:null-THE%20NEW%20JERUSALEM%20%26%20EDEN%20–%20Fictional%20or%20Real.flv

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I’m having difficulty viewing those videos.

      How does he come to that conclusion?

      Diamond is carbon. There is no carbon in glass which is silicon dioxide which is the same as the Libyan desert glass.

      I doubt it is very thick at all. The air keeps itself at the rim for the most part I would imagine due to gravity. The glass barrier would be enough just to stop it naturally drifting out to the vacuum and being stratified from 100km to the 6000km center. So the glass would put pressure on the air to condense the stratification into 100km, but the pressure needed may not be that much more than the natural gravity pressure anyway if that makes sense.

      Or maybe gravity keeps it all in check pretty much. Not sure to be honest. It is something to think about.

      The reason for the glass could have been at the Earth cavity’s manufacture and development. It is difficult to know as we don’t know the order and methods of creation.

      E.g. Before the sulfur lamp was put in place, and as the cavity was made with the manufacture of the glass at 100km, there may have been air present throughout. It could be that cavities exert a natural spin in the space inside just because of their geometry. In which case, the air we know as the atmosphere would have been mostly pushed in against the crust already. The glass would then be put in place and the air left inside the glass had to be burnt off with magnesium mainly (like the old vacuum tubes), hence all the magnesium in the glass in meteorites. So it could be that the reason for the glass was to form a barrier so that a vacuum could be created which would allow the sulfur lamp to burn “indefinitely”.

      Just a guess.

      This also begs the question, if they have broken through the glass (going up) several times from 1979 till before the space shuttle program ended, then unless the glass was repaired, there would be an air drift through the holes which would cause atmospheric changes. By how much I am not sure.

      Interesting is that if you google “changes in the atmosphere since 1979” you get a lot of websites saying their records on recording the lower stratosphere (10km to 30km) began in 1979 due to “satellites”. Could this be because they were worried about atmospheric changes due to the space shuttle breaking the glass in 1979 (year of its official launch)?

      Also, is the Sun protected from any small amount of hydrogen (lightest air) drift by a second layer of glass? Or is the glass repaired by either us or forces unknown, or is the slight gas drift so minute and lacking in density as to not matter at all?

      Questions and more questions.

      View Comment
      • sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

        Thanks wanted you to see the short clip it’s not any proof you can delete the post
        His view was based upon the new jerusalem as i went further into it. Entertaining though for 3 mins

        View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I don’t believe in planet x and all that nonsense. In fact, I am a big non-believer in any “balls in space” theory, be it heliocentric or geocentric.

      View Comment
  64. Could the idea that our eyes see upside down but our brain tricks us into seeing right side up have something to do with the illusion?

    maybe someone could shed some light

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I had thought about that Mathew when I was writing about the horizon, but I came to a dead end. However, I didn’t really give it a good perceptive go at it and so you may have something there.

      I think I ruled it out as the object is say the right way up and then it is turned upside down on the retina and then the brain rights it again, so the original object was the right way up to begin with.

      View Comment
      • Thank you for your prompt reply
        I am very curious about your extended study in this area of science
        Being aware of the many illusions placed on the mind, the eye and our everyday senses coupled with the duality of nature (good/bad – light/dark – love/hate – legal person/natural man, etc) in every place we have looked on this planet, I find it curious that we are complex recording devices right in the middle of every spectrum
        We hear/record right in the middle of tones
        we see/record in the middle of the light spectrum
        We are (in scale), right in the middle of the smallest we know and the largest we suppose
        the video you posted of the “changing” convex/concave nature of the horizon with the chair/balloon marries up with this line of thinking
        The dualities of concave or convex exist but it depends on your relativity to it as to whether it is “knowable” or “tangible” to our senses
        I have studied pole shifting for many years and was sure this was an answer to some big questions in my own mind. Maybe not now
        I am challenging myself to look elsewhere for answers

        Thanks for your candor and insight
        Very thought provoking

        View Comment
    • just another late thought,
      perhaps…
      1. the line of sight being longer than the curvature of the earth is a reason given as to why we see curvature in reverse
      2. the universe self replicates the same idea on different scales
      (galaxy/hurricane/black hole/vortex – solar system-atoms structure – rivers and veins in a hand or a leaf….)
      and typically when it does change “scale” using quantum as the example, the rules change drastically
      like the wave/particle dual slit experiment wherein the particle/wave function was collapsed by the mere act of observing it or measuring it
      Maybe mans’ scale on earth is too large to see the illusion collapse so to speak
      almost like when it is postulated that once around the event horizon of a black hole, the whole sky and everything under you is seen in a circular shape directly above your head…fish eye lensing to the max
      just a few scattered thoughts

      View Comment
  65. greek man says:

    Hey >

    I was thinking too much about the whole model>
    So when i entered sleep i could pass some messages to my conscious side>

    The only that i remember is the word polishing_glazing>
    In greek its a more complicates and specific word that describes
    the process of edit metallic surfaces for the aim of protection of the atmosphere”s corrosion and also for the aim of specular gloss>

    So obviously there has to be a mechanism in the universe to polish the glass sky so the visibility can continue to be clear>
    Can you somehow fit this into your thinking and the new system?
    Also can you look into cerium?
    “” Cerium oxide is an important component of glass polishing powders and phosphors used in screens and fluorescent lamps””

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Never thought of that and it is a good question.

      Let’s see. Off the top of my head – heat? Mmmm maybe not.

      Although with the very little atmosphere up there at 100km, does it need polishing at all? Something to ponder at least.

      View Comment
  66. Donna says:

    the person who calls himself “Lord” is not a “heavy fundamentalist” – he believes he is a god and is a heretic.

    What is “proof”, after all? Science is a religion and God is truth.

    Scripture provides the proof that you attest to.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I’m not going to discuss the bible on this blog; although I may change my mind in the far future. You can post anything you like from “scriptures” in the comments section if you feel it is relevant however.

      View Comment
  67. Added a couple more pieces of evidence for the glass sky..
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-nvuTSP3z4

    View Comment
  68. Isn’t is intriguing that you cannot see the glass sky? Well remember that verse in Job 38:19 “and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,”?
    WELLLL….
    there’s a little phenomena called “Dark Space Phenomena” that happens inside an electrified plasma charged glass vacuum tube.
    There is Faraday’s Dark Space, Aston’s Dark Space, Anode Dark Space and Crooke’s Dark Space.
    In Crooke’s Dark Space there is a dark space all over the inner walls of the glass tube, hence there is this same phenomena surrounding the glass sky, I would assume on both sides, making the glass sky virtually invisible when it is not illuminated by the plasma discharge of the auroras.
    http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/981758142.Ph.r.html
    “Now the glass walls of the chamber are also covered with negative electrons (remember the quartz is not conducting and so the electrons normally are trapped on the walls) and for the same reason there will be a dark space all over the inner walls of the chamber because these electrons repel the electrons from the plasma just as the negative electrode does. This is a qualitative explanation of the dark-space phenomenon. This can
    all be shown quantitatively with a very complex mathematical analysis which I think is unnecessary for your purposes.”
    http://www.g3ynh.info/disch_tube/misc/crookes_disch.gif

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Cheers for that Steve. The glass sky should be very charged if it is crystal quartz and not just ordinary glass, merely from the compression of the rotating “aether” against it as quartz exhibits a piezoelectric effect under pressure. The same must also apply to the Earth as wiki says that the Earth is supposedly mostly made of quartz.

      I think the glass would be charged anyway, whether quartz or not from the Sun… oh wait it is, what am I talking about – the ionosphere lol. 🙂

      View Comment
  69. Muertos says:

    The biggest problem I have with this article is, that the very base itself is wrong. It’s ben altered. Your graph of the temperature shows the right graph, but the axis have been altered. The temperature actually increases gradually up to ~300km MUCH slower than the 20 to 50 km rise (which would contradict your points) and THEN shoots up like crazy. Why is that to you?
    Plus all of this happens mathematically because the forula this is all based on (density of a gas and all of the effects of it) are dependent on the height exponationally, don’t they?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Hi Muertos,

      Are you talking about the thermosphere? As far as I can read on the internet, it starts at 90-120km in the sky, pretty much the same altitude as the glass which is just another strange phenomenon that occurs at the Karman line.

      Could you post a link showing me the correct version of the graph if the one in the article is wrong? What I like about the data on the graph is that there is a massive increase from -60 to 200+ degrees all within 10km. At 110km is where the glass is and absorbs the radiation from the Sun cooling the very thin atmosphere under it. At least that is my take on it.

      However, I think you are right about the calculation bit. I don’t think the temperature of the thermosphere is physically measured, at least not past the possible altitude of the space shuttle, which is only several hundred km I think. It may have been actually measured up to these altitudes, or maybe not; and if it had, is this the data we are being given? I suppose it would depend if the people calculating the thermosphere temps know about the glass (i.e. military, NASA etc.) or are they just members of the public at university. If it is the latter, then this piece of evidence on its own is extremely flimsy. If this is the case however, with the other evidence of the glass presented, it would mean that their calculations would likely be wrong as they hadn’t taken the glass layer into account.

      I think I may have thought about that when I put this part up, but it still belongs here as it is yet another phenomenon that happens around the magic 100km mark.

      Thanks for your comment.

      View Comment
  70. Robert says:

    Hi. What about the van allen belts.Van Allen radiation belt is one of at least two layers of energetic charged particles (plasma) that is held in place around the earth by the planet’s magnetic field.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I haven’t looked at or thought about the Van Allen belts. I really couldn’t comment on it unfortunately. Questions I would ask is – How were the belts discovered? How far away are they supposed to be? What exactly do they say that they are made of etc.?

      View Comment
  71. confronted George Noory yesterday at the ufo conference here in town.

    🙂

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la6H94yzuzQ

    View Comment
  72. Glass sky has BIREFRINGENCE!
    causes double rainbows and comet tail splits…
    http://prntscr.com/2fw99e

    View Comment
  73. sumstuff52 says:

    Not evidence but an event, I’ll never forget the day i had a argument with David Morrison, NASA’s Senior Scientist, he attacked my comment on a nasa video, i checked his YT channel, it had no info, like a ghost channel, i enquired about his channel and everyone said that was nasa’s morrison (you can’t have a ghost yt channel back then hiding the joined date,etc), we had a heated dispute i mocked him and said “you wouldn’t know the truth if you hit your head on the glass ceiling at the karman line”, he deleted my comment immediately and HIS CHANNEL, that was in January-February 2013, i think i hit a nerve of whoever that user was, and the yt users were baffled when he was gone, comical

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      That lot are hiding big perspective changing information and technology. I think Steve and I had uncovered two biggies (apart from the Earth being concave) with the glass sky and the sulfur lamp Sun. I bet you there are others though. If NASA doesn’t have them, then I’m sure another segment of the military industrial complex does. E.g. There is a video on You Tube showing an “invisible” soldier in Iraq wearing a light-bending suit of sorts. People claim it is fake… but what if it isn’t and is just one of a long line of gizmos and information the military possess?

      http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22invisible%22+soldier+&sm=12

      View Comment
      • sumstuff52 says:

        Yes, i saw that vid awhile ago, i keep on thinking in my head that the advanced military is a decade ahead in technology as each YEAR passes by, so if the military is a century ahead in technology than they show us, it could be possible for them to have the tools and toys to manipulate the skies and our minds, imagine what they have hidden ready to use on the blind masses, NASA and the MILITARY and all the agencies and banks and churches are all in on this no doubt, all about mind control, money is nothing to these control freaks 🙂

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          I would imagine money is no object to black projects. Central banks (and ordinary banks for that matter) make up money from nothing, and since 97% of money is digital and a monopoly controlled by the banking system I would be very, very surprised if they didn’t have an “infinite” account. Because if I was them, that is what I would do.

          I would also put forward that they have their own branch of mathematics, science and engineering projects that don’t have much in common with the mainstream stuff taught at our educational establishments. I think this is because there is a strong incentive for them to find the advantage and no barrier but themselves to find it. There are no careers at stake, much less ego, money no object etc., appropriation of new “dangerous” discoveries under the false banner of “national security”. I would be extremely surprised if they were not way, way “ahead” of common knowledge.

          View Comment
    • R.E. says:

      As I’m sure you are now aware, NASA is stocked with actors from the same large families that all know and are loyal to one another. This is their typical behavior.

      http://www.wellaware1.com

      View Comment
  74. Double suns, Superior Mirages – Horizonal Refractive Crease caused by Glass Sky.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJvRjVFVutY

    I mention you in this video as well. 🙂

    View Comment
  75. Google Reveals Camera Artifacts Attached to Glass Sky (Concave Earth)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWg10xVYOz8

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Very interesting. The “highways” look to be where they have melted through the glass. Maybe not though.

      The others look like reflections of the glass.

      View Comment
  76. Anonymous says:

    Research alchemy. The answers are there

    View Comment
  77. sumstuff52 (D. Sarty) says:

    USAF Protecting THE SHIELD (The Karman Line / Earth’s Firmament / Glass Sky)

    http://decryptedmatrix.com/live/us-space-command-the-proof-is-in-the-patches/

    Looking at these patches i see concave earth models and the karman shield, excuse the david wilcock, interesting read though even if fictional?

    View Comment
    • sumstuff52 (D. Sarty) says:

      David Wilcock “When you view the patches of US Space Command or Navy Space Command, they picture the Earth surrounded by two circles, similar to the typical depiction of electron orbitals around an atom.

      This symbolizes the Quarantine — which protects us from the bad guys.”

      When i look at the patches i see the inner circle as the Karman Line, the Quarantine(as the USAF puts it) as i see it is earth’s Firmament, we are all quarantined by the Firmament/Glass Shield

      View Comment
      • sumstuff52 (D. Sarty) says:

        David Wilcock “When you view the patches of US Space Command or Navy Space Command, they picture the Earth surrounded by two circles, similar to the typical depiction of electron orbitals around an atom.

        This symbolizes the Quarantine — which protects us from the bad guys.”

        When i look at the patches i see the inner circle as the Karman Line, the Quarantine(as the USAF puts it) as i see it is earth’s Firmament, we are all quarantined by the Firmament/Glass Shield

        this is the best example of the patch with approximate earth(sea level) to karman line distance
        http://decryptedmatrix.com/live/wp-content/gallery/space-command/top-hand-sharpen-the-sword-strengthen-the-shield.gif

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Could be. The first thing that springs to mind is electromagnetism?

          View Comment
        • Boy, what a bunch of yuk that Wilcock spews out, but anyway, as far as strengthening the shield, I have a gut instict that HAARP and chemtrails play a part in keeping the ice mantle that’s attached to the glass sky, from falling prematurely, either by using radio waves or electromagnetism in HAARP’s case, and in chemicals (baruim, aluminum, strontium) to absorb man-made heat from reaching the ice in the chemtrail scenario.

          View Comment
  78. Cail says:

    Glass sky.

    Earth does not rotate.

    Fake moon.

    I’ve seen videos where the sky has been determined to be an LCD screen and the “sun” is a disc, likely about 18 miles wide.

    ‘Bout time someone said it, and it is a HORROR: we are likely inside the Earth. This place is likely a zoo. John Lear said that nothing is private. You are being watched all the time, and even your thoughts are not private.

    Thank you for your research.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Yes, I’ve thought about that. Different thoughts enable us to see different colours or flashes out the corner of our eyes. You know what I mean.

      I must admit, I like the Zoo theory a lot. Many years ago when I thought of the funny and eccentric things that people I know/knew said and did, I used to say out loud “Man this place has to be a zoo. I’m surrounded by stars. Is this some cosmic comedy show I’m on?” And when you think of all the completely different cultures and races situated in their own areas of Earth I often thought that people where in zones like different animals in a zoo. Their cultures also seem in some ways very artificial and copied even. And then there is A.Fomenko’s great book “History: science or Fiction” which purports that there is no evidence for mankind going back further than 1000 years and that the “Jesus” character (or one of the people this character was based on) lived in either the 11th, but more probably the late 14th century. Now we learn we live inside the Earth and there is a glass sky and an artificial Sun. Come on… where are we really?

      View Comment
  79. hey ya WH, check this out…
    Weather “Sats” on the Sky 🙂
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cjECjmMZ-Y

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Very interesting idea Steve.

      In fact, I’d say you are on the money.

      Geostationary satellite that only moves 1000 miles in a year. It solves the thermosphere problem and ionosphere barrier conundrum, as the satellite is below the glass layer.

      We know the Earth doesn’t rotate, but imagine if it did. How ludicrously difficult would it be to sync a satellite so that it is falling at the same rate as the Earth and with its rotation. To me, it sounds unbelievably hard.

      Luckily we know the Earth doesn’t move or rotate and so anything put up there falls back down again. So either geostat satellites are bullshit or Steve’s theory explains it. I’m going for Steve’s theory right now.

      It would still be a difficult job to attach something to the glass, without breaking the glass. I wonder how they did it.

      Also, I remember seeing Euro countries launch relatively small rockets to put up satellites above the Earth. They wouldn’t have to be big as they are only going up 100 km lol.

      Steve, no wonder you had disappeared for a while. I was hoping you were busy researching something.

      Good work.

      Oh, and this also means (as you’ve stated) that the glass very slowly rotates East to West which is exactly the right direction we would expect if the aether spin were affecting it. I actually wondered way back if the glass was rotating or stationary… now we know.

      View Comment
  80. JohnyBravo says:

    Great site!

    I don’t believe in coincidence. On the 7th of october I ‘discoverd’ the theory about the concave earth on a way i can’t exactly remember or reconfigure how i came there. But what i know was the first thing that sparked my interest via the Tamarack plumbline experiment. Then Steven Christophers site and then… with date of publication of the 7th of october the ‘wildheretic’. Awasome! I think (i believe) there is a communication goin on on a cosmic level or something like that. Anyways, that’s not what i wanted to contribute here. Just as a sidenote.

    I would point you to a youtube vid about the re-entry of the spaceshuttle Columbia in 1999. Interesting fact is that the re-entry speed was 15,000 mph on ‘re-entry of the atmosphere’ Funny isn’t it?

    Also interesting to me is that Felix Baumgartner was feelling no resistance in the first part of his freefall from ‘space’ and the fact he felt no resistance made him spin and roll. It was also his explanation for not having the experience of high speed/velocity during this first part of the freefall. I know it was ‘only’ from a hight of 30 or 40km but nevertheless interesting i think

    Hope the link works
    Youtubevid

    Sorry for bad English, not first language

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Welcome JohnyBravo.

      Enjoy the articles. They are big, but hopefully worth the read.

      I’m still researching the next one.

      Just saw your youtube vid of the shuttle coming down at night with that continuous “plume” the whole way behind it as it melts through the glass at 100km. Great find. Thanks.

      View Comment
      • JohnyBravo says:

        To clarify why i thought 15,000 mhp was ‘interesting’ is because I read in your artikel 30,000… but after re-reading it, that was in km/h.

        It makes my reaction look like there’s no ‘new’ insight in it… which is true after all 😉

        The Baumgartner case is interesting in nevertheless because of multiple things. One thing is the use of wide-angle lenses tilted or pointed downwards given the impression of a convex earth. Nothing new here either because you explained that allready. But there is a scene where Baumgartner is opening the door/hatch from the capsule where the horizon is flat as a ruler. That is because the inside lens position is perfect horizontal.. so no tilt up or down.

        One more interesting thing is some of the words Baumgartner says when he’s standing on the edge of his capsule

        “The whole world is watchin now and I wish the world could see what I can see…”

        Wait a second… there is a serious contradiction in his words and we are led to believe that we can see what he can see isn’t it!? Or is he aware of the fact that what we see a ‘lens distorded’ reality and he wishes the world could see the reality!? It’s all in the details, it always is 😉 Just my 2 cents

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Interesting.

          If people in a hot air balloon see a “bowl” shaped Earth beneath them 1 mile high, then there is no doubt Baumgartner saw the same, if not much more acutely at 25 miles up. Maybe this is what he is referring too as the cameras were everywhere around him and we could see what he could apparently see anyway.

          Just a thought.

          View Comment
  81. Saros says:

    I just ran into an article about the Chelyabinsk meteor, and I am wondering if it fits within your theory. It had a weight of 570 kg when they first measured it. It looks like a rock not like glass. Here is the article: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/16/chelyabinsk-meteor-russians-lake
    Also, I remember from another article of yours that you mentioned that perhaps the satellites are in fact asteroids orbiting the Earth. It is a bit confusing as I don’t understand how something orbits under the glass sky and where it came from if it is not made of glass. What if the sky is not made of glass but just covered with glass and let’s say ice? Unfortunately, there is a lot of questions and few answers…

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      I’ve no problem answering those questions Saros. And by the way, feel free to ask as many questions as you like. If I can’t answer them then it may lead us both on to new discoveries perhaps.

      My theory is that all asteroids/comets/meteors etc. come from Corona Mass Ejections from the Sun and are mostly made of iron/nickel/(a touch of cobalt) alloy (which is the main component of the Sun machine).

      http://www.wildheretic.com/is-the-sun-a-light-bulb/

      A meteor the size of the Russian one would have to be an iron meteorite (nearly pure metal). It is all explained in the above link.

      I’ll explain the mechanism of orbiting (including comets and asteroids) in my next post with everyday videos. It is so simple, it is criminal. (But we won’t go into the criminals just yet lol 🙂 )

      View Comment
      • Saros says:

        Thank you for the quick reply. Actually I remember that you proposed earlier that the Sun is the origin of the asteroids. It just seems strange that those asteroids keep orbiting around the glass sky, and as it seems underneath. And if the satellites we see at night are in fact asteroids then they have very stable orbits too. Also, where do the asteroids hide when we cannot observe them anymore. I don’t think they always burn as they often come back in long cycles. How do you explain that? Same goes for the comets.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          No, it’s not strange at all when you know the underlying mechanism behind the rotating aether. I’ll explain this mechanism in my next post.

          Orbits are usually stable I think as I will demonstrate very soon. Sometimes the asteroids don’t quite remain in orbit because they are pushed out too far in their orbit and burn through the glass and come down as meteorites.

          The asteroids orbit the Sun in the rotating aether. They don’t burn because they are in a vacuum, but they are white hot (1500°C+). They only burn below the glass with the air in our atmosphere.

          I’ll explain it much better in my next post.

          View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Sorry, I didn’t answer all your questions there.

          “Also, where do the asteroids hide when we cannot observe them anymore.”

          I think we can only see asteroids in low orbit because all energy, including light, reduces in strength according to the inverse square law. That’s why you can see a plane about 6 miles up, but not one 10 miles high for example. It is the same for sound and other energy. E.g., why can’t I hear a car beeping its horn 10 miles away, but I can hear it 500 yards distance? I also can’t hear the plane’s engine roar at 6 miles up, but I can if I plane spot at an airport.

          http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-squarelaw.htm

          It is the same for the visibility of the Sun. For example, in the balloon videos the Sun looks a lot bigger, brighter, and whiter than when we view it from the ground. Same principle. At some point, there is so little light that neither our retinas, nor camera sensors can differentiate between the illuminated object and the background anymore.

          Another titbit, is that the only difference between a comet and an asteroid is the shape of its orbit. An asteroid has a circular orbit around the Sun and a comet an elliptical one (bulges at one side). Because the comet moves out of a circular orbit, it hits the glass and bounces off again, like the space shuttle did if the angle was too low on re-entry (skip re-entry I think it is called). As the comet skims the glass, it produces a tail, and increases in illumination due to the friction with the glass, just like the space shuttle when it re-enters.

          The comet’s elliptical orbit around the sun isn’t my idea but also stated by astronomers.

          http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~bds2/ltsn/ljm/JAVA/COMETORB/COMET.HTM

          Don’t worry, I’ll demonstrate both types of orbit in a video someone else has made that has nothing to do with space, but shows the exact same principles behind the aether’s mechanism.

          This would also explain meteorites perhaps originating from comets where their orbit is too elliptical and so instead of bouncing off the glass, they push through instead.

          View Comment
  82. Scud says:

    Hello TR!

    Splendid blog you’re developing here!

    I accidentally bumped into Steve’s work, I think about 4 months ago and initially took ‘Earth does not rotate, is not a planet’ YT vid (whilst searching for all things ‘classically geocentric’) with a large dose of scepticism. However, I found that I couldn’t stop thinking about it and so spent quite a bit of time checking the various claims that Steve makes and yeah…I’m now a devout, ‘inverse universer’!!

    What we need to do is somehow generate enough independent and credible interest into either recreating the Tamarack mine plumb bob experiment or Morrow’s ‘rectillineator’. No idea how we’d go about doing such a thing (even though both are very straight forward)…dunno, just thinking aloud.

    Anyway, best of luck to the both of you. I’m currently writing up another piece for clues forum where I backtrack on my assertions concerning geocentricity somewhat…well it was OK I guess, just that I had it all the wrong way round!

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      Great to see you drop by Scud. I was hoping at least one member of cluesforum would eventually.

      Hey, my journey started with your massive post on your thermosphere contradiction, so if it hadn’t been for you, I would still beeeeliiive! 🙂

      I can’t see the mines experiment being repeated unless we can get together and get a chief engineer from one of the active mines on our side.

      The rectillineator is also a massive undertaking. I’ve finished my lengthy analysis on that experiment from celluar cosmonogy and it was hard going. I had to revise it about 5 or 6 times before I got absolutely right. At first I thought it would be easy to copy, like putting a bit of scaffolding together, but far from it.

      Scud, you are one of the few that will actually change their model when the evidence is presented. I suppose we are just laymen with nothing to lose, unlike our establishment “friends”.

      Good to see you “on board”. The next two articles will I hope be worth the wait. I’ve nearly finished the first one.

      (I pop on cluesforum now and again, but don’t have time to contribute at the moment).

      TR

      View Comment
  83. Ahem says:

    Right in our faces 🙂

    Wernher Von Braun (Operation Paperclip – founder of NASA) knew the sky was glass…

    Before he died he requested this verse on his gravestone….

    Psalm 19:1

    ” The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. “

    View Comment
    • wow man says:

      thanks for pointing this great site out he has a plethora of info here as well as yours does, thanks again

      dsarty

      View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      Thanks Steve for the you tube vid mention and your own effort in adding me to your web page.

      My story leading to Concave earth theory (CET) is this: Around 1996 I saw Simanek’s work on Tamarack mines and saw that if Palmer/Morrow were right then we would live on the inside. I also had a niggling feeling they were correct but couldn’t prove it. However I soon slipped back into brainwashed mode because we are constantly bombarded with “outer space” themes. They put this theme in a lot of movies, even those with nothing to do with space (like the Flintstones film).

      Then last year I was reading the great debunking work on cluesforum.info and someone called “Scud” did a great hit piece on heliocentric theory that with John Galt’s observation was impossible to refute. That opened the door again completely, like a hammer to the head. So I started looking for more evidence on CET and found Steve’s webpage on the glass in the sky. I thought, ok, the bible quotes weren’t tickling me pink so to speak, but he was showing actual evidence for it which made it likely. Lastly, in Jan this year I couldn’t find any stars in the amateur videos of the heavens not that far up and someone mentioned to me about the moon (or planets) not reflecting light as a sphere should, and I thought aye, aye, the sun is the only body up there that I can verify as being a solid object… and then it clicked… wait a minute… glass around a vacuum with a light in the center! Come on! It can’t be, can it?

      So I looked at meteors, which must come from the sun as there is verifiably nothing else up there. If the glass component can be taken out I may be able to figure out exactly what the sun is. I mistakenly looked at magnesium as a filament at first, but that didn’t match at all. I reluctantly looked at sulfur thinking the theory might be a dud one after all and lo and behold I couldn’t believe what I was reading. When I eventually got round to writing about it, lots of other info beautifully slotted into place as I was researching different parts of the theory.

      The next article is very important also, so this may take a little time. I’d rather churn out one good article every 2 months than 1 throwaway one every week.

      View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      Steve, I think you are right about the Sun being convex. That would make a lot of sense in terms of reflecting more light. It would mean the sun may be shaped like a lens after all.

      I won’t mention anything about ice from the glass as I haven’t looked into it, and for me and the articles I wish to write don’t need me to. I have a lot of work to do with concave earth theory, so I will stick to that for now.

      View Comment
      • Yeah, Totalrecall, it must be convex facing us. I originally had it concave as well, even going against my Vision of seeing the back side FLAT. I tried to reason that in the vision there must have been a UPPER glass firmament in the celestial ocean that was flattening out the back side. But it just never quite jived especially looking at the infrared images of the front side. Obviously, if it is not spherical and the front denotes some type of “rotation” with the sunspots, there must be some type of illusion happening where perhaps the spots are moving along on some type of conveyor belt across, or perhaps the solar telescopes are merely being patched together from different part of the world to fabricate a “rotation”. But however they are moving, I stand convinced the back is dark and flat, my eyes did not deceive me. And now with your sulfur lamp analogy, it makes even more sense that it is directional, and convexly spreading light out to the maximum area possible. The light “ring” around the sun, which I saw from the back side, can even be seen in the front imagery they show, which is rather suspect if it were a spherical object. Also the parallel light rays, which were hitting the back, flat diameter denotes the sun is receiving energy from someplace behind it, and also denotes the sun probably has a magnetic poles to it. As far as your next article, yes by all means go with what your reasoning brings you. I have made a few videos on how the glass sky creates an opposition (false vault) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFXqIVXvrkg in curvature, to the sky which you probably have seen by now. What I find difficult to simulate in 3d however, is that the light within the Earth is bending so it’s hard to show the refractive inversion I mention. I will be glad to see your future work for sure!

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

          “What I find difficult to simulate in 3d however, is that the light within the Earth is bending so it’s hard to show the refractive inversion I mention. I will be glad to see your future work for sure!”

          I also find it hard to picture or try and translate in my mind how the curvature of the light from the Sun hits the Earth exactly. For quite a while I was struggling as to why we see the sky dome and not the concavity. But I think I may, and I say may, know why we see the sky as convex. I will reveal that in part 3, (I haven’t finished part one yet lol). It’s just a hypothesis, and it may not be the correct one (with regards to the reason behind the convex dome). I will definitely look at your false vault proposition though. Any help goes a long way.

          Steve, are you sure you saw the back of the Sun as being flat? If it was completely dark at the back how would it be possible to tell if the back had a small smooth and polished curvature like that of a convex lens? It doesn’t really matter to be honest. It’s not an important detail.

          I was thinking today how similar the Sun looks to an eye. What if the carbon electrodes are shaped like an arc similar to the pupil of an eye. It might explain all the “Illuminati” symbolism of the eye above the pyramid etc. Pure conjecture, but I’d just throw that idea out there.

          View Comment
          • yes, flat. the way I could tell were the parallel light rays going across the midsection. I did not detect any curvature whatsoever. The only curvature I suspect is the front side where we see imagery of it, if indeed it IS imagery of it since we cannot trust the establishment.

            A completely white disc moved behind the sun, which I knew was the moon. So I saw a total eclipse from the other side.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

            Yeah, we definitely can’t trust imagery from the establishment. At one time I was trying to find out when those videos were released of the sun with its fiery tongue rolling out so it made the sun look like a giant fireball. That kind of imagery looked very cgi to me. I don’t remember seeing any of those types of images in the 70s/80s. If the first image of that type of sun came out in the computer age, that would be a major red flag.

            View Comment
  84. wow man says:

    the creator created a firmament to protect us(crystal/glass shield) it is natural

    a female canadian astronaut saw this firmament and was terrified while approaching it, she had a hard time at the podium trying to avoid telling what she saw and kept fainting at the podium when asked what she experienced, this was on global tv in winnipeg

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      I’m working on it Roy. The next article is a big one, both in scope and “left-fieldness” if that is a word. It should be ready by the beginning of next week.

      View Comment