 Click For First Page Of This Chapter
I studied this problem of earthquakes in the USA and was shocked at the findings of what is about to happen. I expanded the investigation,
taking into account small islands as a model, and became extremely alarmed at the lack of observational thought which had initially explained sciences' postulation on the
subject. For although an observation had been made, as to where land might drift from, a central locality, the principle of observation for small land mass, those islands we just mentioned, was not really catered for.
Smaller land masses appear to have popped-up out of nowhere, and so, an associated thought needed to be applied. Science, and vulcanologists immediately suggested volcano activity. But if we are honest, this vision of small island land mass doesn't really fit a sensible paradigm. As a lot of these smaller islands do not, and did not contain volcanic activity. Therefore, as I studied a large flat atlas one day, I became increasingly alarmed at the abundance of earthquake activity centralised tpward an equatorial point.
By that, I mean 95% of all earthquake phenomenon was occurring around a central, planetary belt of our earth's surface.
When the thought struck me, I simply couldn't believe what I saw. And instantly, I began to investigate more lateral thought. I immediately inspected the rest of the planets in the solar system, and was greeted with Saturn's magnificent rings. I realised at that point, all planets were producing a high level concentration of gravity at those central points. And by including the elementary laws of spin, a surface depreciation could be included in the equation. But what I had to do, was show definitively though, how earthquakes might manifest, and even with strong, some might even suggest, copious evidence, from a scientific community, I needed a logical appraisal. Which I found that by viewing our earth's rotation.
The moment we see the earth's spinning action, we should understand that what happens is, gravity inflicts its universal and cosmological laws mainly on one side of the planet's surface. We might like to think of it like buckling our trouser belts!
If we were to feed the leather of the belt, through the buckle, and pull it back tight on itself, we would see the flesh of our stomach all folds in the same direction. And if gravity produced the same effect as the belt, only on cosmological terms, what we would have, would be the evidence, that planets make a slow, progressional path towards our star, with their size literally shrinking as they lose distance from the Sun.
By this time, I was on a roll. How could I have been so stupid not to have realised its implications previously?
Suddenly, as I watched a TV programme later that evening, on Dinosaur extinction, it all became apparent.
Not only had I found the foundation of planetary construction, but I had also found the very route to life as we might understand it today. For the first time ever, I decided the dinosaur had no more been irradiated by a big meteorite, than Britain had been constructed by the Pixies.
And so, a meteor didn't kill the dinosaurs then?
Let's get this whole argument into perspective, and upset a few people here. For this section, I won't even be polite. Enough people have had their intelligence insulted for a long enough period, and it's high time it stopped.
At the moment, the accepted view of Dinosaur extinction, goes something like this: 65 million years ago a large asteroid, about 10k in diameter impacted against the earth's surface, sending dust and debris in to the earth's atmosphere, and caused massive climatic change in weather patterns, that inevitably led to the extinction of the dinosaur.
But why it should kill dinosaurs, and not other reptilian, which were around at the time, is a mystery, as is the reason why it did not kill off bird species which were also apparent.
It was a very selective impact in other words, where a solid, un-intelligent object with no power to think, became choosy in its attack, and what it decided to kill. And that is not only unlikely, it's profoundly bloody ridiculous.
But once the theory gained moment, certain elements of science saw an opportunity, and cynically usurped a gullible public, fleecing them out of hundreds of millions of pounds of tax payers money for research. Other scientists endorsed the idea, as it gave them an opportunity to inform the public of impending doom, and gain money for more research into how we might protect ourselves from impacting astronomical objects.
The main proponent of exacerbating the idea was the Americans, the White House in particular, under Ronald Regan.
Continued
|
|
|
