Let us See...

[ktlight]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCuxfAGH-M0

"Published on 21 Oct 2014
What do you see? The images on your screen are of a dirty snowball. At least, that is the story that scientists and educators have promoted to our youngsters for roughly half a century. Do you believe what you’ve been taught, or do you believe what you see?"

[Ernie Nemeth]

Yes, this a very real problem. I come across it sometimes. Like last night, watching a documentary on the asteroid belt. The vid claimed the asteroid belt could once have held a planet the size of Saturn. Since I was twelve, when I compiled a list of all pertinent facts about our solar system that I then memorized, I was lead to believe that the mass of the asteroid belt was less than the mass of Mars. This got me so mad I thought I'd burst a blood vessel. I mean, how can I find the truth if I've been lied to about the basic facts that make up my foundational set of facts? How many other lies are in my data set that make it impossible for me to ascertain the truth of even larger truths. I know this is what we're all talking about here but sometimes the task seems daunting. I'm 56, do I even have the time to unravel all the falsehoods taught to me as truth? I, like many here, pride myself on my ability to discern truth. But how can I sense truth if my internal gestalt is filled with lies?

[Harley]

Hi rebel,

If I may, I'd like to direct you to the site of James M. McCanney, M.S. (http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/)

Excerpted from his bio (http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/Bio.HTM):


In 1979 he joined the faculty of Cornell University, Ithaca N.Y. as an introductory instructor in physics. It was during this time that he had access to NASA data returning daily from the Voyager I and II spacecraft as they traveled by the planets Jupiter, Saturn and beyond (as well as data from many other space craft). It was here he recognized that his theoretical work regarding the electro-dynamic nature of the solar system and universe had its signatures in the new data that was streaming in from the edges of the solar system. All standard science continued to look at gravitational explanations for the working of the planets, moons and other objects of the solar system, while Mr. McCanney was applying his electro-dynamic scientific theories, and ventured to say for the first time that comets were not dirty snowballs. His papers were published at first in the standard astrophysical journals, but soon he began to receive resistance from the standard astronomical community and within a short period of time, the journals would no longer publish his theoretical work. Mr. McCanney was removed from his teaching position because of his beliefs regarding the electro-dynamic nature of the solar system.

His theoretical work additionally stated that comets were not dirty snowballs, but were large electrical “vacuum cleaners” in outer space. The comets were drawing in vast amounts of material by way of powerful electrical forces and there was potential for very large comets capable of disrupting the planetary structure that was already in place.

During this time Mr. McCanney established himself as the originator of the theoretical work regarding the electrical nature of the cosmos for which he coined the term “THE ELECTRIC UNIVERSE”, which today is being proven correct on an ongoing basis by space-probes returning data from outer space.

In the mid-1990s Mr. McCanney’s work was recognized by a group of high-level Russian scientists who had measured but did not understand electro-dynamic effects around Earth and in the solar system. They translated all of his papers to date into Russian. These are being taught at the university level as the leading edge of research in this field. It is only due to the ongoing and intentional efforts of NASA that his work has received such little attention in the western scientific community and press.

[Ernie Nemeth]

The site you referred me to is indeed an informative site. I listened to a radio show about a comet soon to become a moon of Mars. Interesting. The web site leaves a bit to be desired though - difficult to navigate - its worse than Bill Deagle's site!

Also, there is no summary of his seminal work. Understanding The Electric Universe Theory is paramount to who gets the credit. But again, I understand how he might be miffed for not be respected or given his just desserts by the scientific community. It reminds me much of Hannes Alfven, Worlds- Antiworlds in that his work never got the attention it deserved (damned big-bangers!). Velivcosky is mentioned. His work is still controversial to this day (don't bring him up with Wade Frasier, you might be banned from his thread).

Darn, I'm late and out of time. Will have to continue later...