While there is no moon to drive people mad or turn them into werewolves, the moon-hoax has tragically succeeded in robbing us of our senses for so long. Fortunately, the ground-breaking research undertaken by THE MAD REVISIONIST has uncovered and dismantled this hoax. Yet there remains an even greater hoax perpetrated against the world, and unlike the moon-hoax, in the light of day- and all the more dangerous for that. In the final stanza of Auden's Funeral Blues, yet another piece of poetry relied upon to establish the existence of the moon, the poet laments, "Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun", and this latter suggestion should interest any serious revisionist scholar. Like so many revisionists, I do not know very much about the field of study to which I propose to contribute. More glaring than any "sun", however, the sun-hoax, I argue below, is so obvious that it can be recognised by laymen and open-minded "experts" alike.Scientific waffling
As with its partner the moon, theories and fables about the sun have been constantly changed and retracted by the embarrassed scientific community, always on the verge of exposure. In ancient times very silly things were fabricated about the sun in many cultures around the world in order to sow confusion. These myths include elaborate and outlandish accounts of the sun really being a woman riding in a chariot across the sky, and other such nonsense hardly worth mentioning.
Along with the moon, the sun was said to revolve around the earth, which according to the Ptolemaic system lay at the centre of the universe. Nicolaus Copernicus, the astronomological establishment's big hero, later argued that the earth revolves around the sun. Needless to say, Copernicus' ideas have also been substantially revised by modern science, which describes in vivid detail how the sun too and its solar system traipse about the universe. New models of the universe, however, are also constantly being conjured, and it seems as if the subject of dispute, the sun, hangs in even more suspect environs.
Mathematical impossibility
Secondly, as with the moon, if the sun existed, a horrible apocalyptic collision with the earth would be expected. While the moon would have to plummet into the earth, since our planet supposedly revolves around the sun, we should expect to come crashing down into the sun. While the moon is said to be 384 000km from the earth and the sun 149 600 000km from the earth, the sun is much bigger than the moon. The moon is said to have a diametre of 3476km, the earth a diametre of 12 756km (at the equator). Since the sun supposedly has a diametre 109 times that of the earth, it has diametre of approximately 1 390 404km (109 X 12 756). To compare in ratio the supposed sun-moon diametres and supposed sun-moon distances from earth, divide 149 600 000 (sun-earth distance) by 384 400 (moon-earth distance), and also divide 1 309 404 (sun diametre) by 3 476 (moon diametre). The respective distance-diametre ratio is then approximately, 389.18 : 376.70. The supposed larger distance from the earth, is compensated by the supposed sun's larger size.
Concerned that we may realize this, the astrological community admits the swallowing of the earth by the sun, which we are told will expand over billions of years until it wondrously explodes as a supernova. Need I say more?
Chemical absurdity
The sun is said to be a ball of burning gasses. But is not oxygen necessary for even the tiniest flame to burn? Inconsistently, the scientists describe space as lacking this oxygen.
Nevertheless, if the sun could burn, this would entail consequences which are not apparent. If the cold, small moon can affect the oceans and form tides, surely the massive sun, burning at millions of degrees at its core, would evaporate all the oceans, let alone melt the very crust of the earth and all those, including revisionists, living on its surface.
Lack of eyewitness evidence
As for eyewitnesses, the sun is said to be very difficult to look at. This means that there are NO reliable eyewitnesses. This is clearly problematic. As for photographic evidence, once again as with the moon, no photograph was taken of the sun before the 19th century. The sun appears indistinct in most photographs - that is if the developers even return pictures featuring the sun, which they suspiciously dispose of as "faulty".
Clear photographs of the sun used in textbooks are always produced with modern telescopes, containing the necessary devices used to view (read: fabricate) the sun properly. The telescope manufacturers along with the organisations which use the telescopes, those very organisations which propagate the moon-hoax, have an interest in their being a sun, and so their evidence cannot be accepted as authentic.
There are many others who benefit from propagating the sun-hoax. These include those who have interests in its sister moon-hoax and all the many listed elsewhere on your sight, in an e-mail comment poignantly titled, Stop promoting the sun conspiracy!
While strict revisionist standards will not accept moon-landings and moon-rocks as evidence of the existence of the moon, I am prepared to drop my standards and beg for any evidence from a sun-landing or a tiny sun-rock. I advise anybody who either has landed on the sun or has a sun-rock in their possession to contact THE MAD REVISIONIST as soon as possible.
Tan,
from the Sun.
Back to THE
MAD REVISIONIST
THE MAD REVISIONIST:
We do not recruit; we convince. Truth has no need of coercion. We invite
your support and submissions.
|
|