Wal Thornhill: Breaking News | EU Workshop

Wal Thornhill: Breaking News | EU Workshop


Breaking News: EU Update Well, they say that if you have
a dream, the universe provides. And I must say, the universe
has provided us here tonight because of the Rosetta mission and the things that have been
broadcast in the last day or so. So some of the material
here was actually, I copied off the web
yesterday morning. So this is really breaking news. And it’s not your usual breaking news
because it is critical of the news. Before I give you
those news headlines which you can see flagged by the
image here of the comet 67P, I’ll give you a little
bit of introduction. As all of you know now, Dave Talbott,
Don Scott, Ev Cochrane and I got our initial inspiration
from Velikovsky’s thesis that the solar system has
a recent dramatic history. And that unimaginably
powerful electrical events were observed in the heavens
by modern prehistoric humans. The evidence for this
is now overwhelming. My own passion since reading
‘Worlds in Collision’ in the 50’s, has been to understand the
science needed to explain the mytho-historical evidence assembled
by Dave, Ev and Dwardu Cardona. Dwardu is not with
us at this workshop but his voluminous research and
treatment of evidence is a must-read. It’s difficult these days to keep
up with the pace of new discoveries across all the sciences but it’s necessary due to the Electric
Universe’s interdisciplinary foundation. And the fact that
a real cosmology must be more than mere astronomy
and mathematical speculation. So it’s satisfying to see
increasing numbers of scholars, engineers and volunteers willing
to join the Thunderbolts Project. The principal aim of this Electric Universe
workshop is to inspire and encourage those who may become future
leaders in this great adventure. Some say it is perhaps the
greatest adventure in history because by recovering the
real history of mankind, we gain a clearer view of ourselves
and our place in the universe. And that clearer vision shows the powerful
role of electricity throughout the universe. I can’t stress enough how important that is
for our future in this Electric Universe. So welcome all to the adventure
of the Electric Universe. Robert Stirniman Robert Stirniman says, “Of all the forces we
know there is none stronger than a paradigm.” And now we have the
power of supercomputers to reinforce a paradigm
through virtual reality to the extent that it enshrines established
myth and blinds us to other possibilities. Nowhere in science is this
more evident than in astronomy where a modern creation
myth has been forged. Science has made the fundamental error of
discarding myths only to produce new ones. The fact is that science can
learn a great deal from myths and mythologists can learn
a great deal from science. That has been the foundation
for the Thunderbolts Project. Here’s a topical example of
computer generated mythology on behalf of the European Space Agency
for the Rosetta mission to comet 67P Churyumov-Gerasimenko. It shows that the aim is to
confirm what we already believe. It is not testing a hypothesis, it
isn’t considering any alternative so the data will have to be
force-fitted into the myth. That isn’t science! Once upon a time… – Really? This is a good one, I promise. What is the key
to life on Earth? – Water. Water. For a long time, the
origins of water and indeed life on our home planet
have been an absolute mystery. We began searching for
answers beyond Earth. Where could all this
water have come from? In time we turned to comets. One trillion celestial balls of
ice, dust, complex molecules, left over from the birth
of our solar system. Once thought of as messengers of doom
and destruction and yet so enchanting, we were to catch one. So there’s the myth. Of course, the Electric Universe version
is wildly different and more interesting as you will learn
over this weekend. And the Electric Universe story has been
able to predict surprise after surprise from space probes,
particularly comet probes. This is crucial to verify the insights
of the pioneers of the Electric Universe, Ralph Juergens and Dr.
Earl Milton who proposed the basic model of electrical
interactions between a comet and the Sun back in the 70’s. Now, what follows is a brief
statement from Jean-Pierre Bibring who is the lead scientist
for the Rosetta lander. Which shows the overwhelming
attachment to the myth of icy comets, in the face of images of a comet
that looks like solid rock. Oops, sorry, wrong way. There is no ice at the top, so it’s
covered by a mantle that we consider is essentially made of organic
material. That’s why it’s very dark. And this material is one of the key things
we would like to explore and analyze. There is no ice on top so it must be buried
under a thin crust. Have you noticed how many astronomical
mysteries are buried out of sight inside stars, planets,
moons, black holes? Where you can speculate all you like
and postulate anything you like. But I have some sympathy
for Jean-Pierre because he has been misled by his
teachers and colleagues into thinking that the mass of the comet equates
to the amount of matter in it. Of course, because the measured,
so-called, mass of the comet, suggests that it has only about a tenth to
maybe 0.25 the density of water. But mass does not equate
to the amount of matter as I’ll discuss in
a later session. Eyesight is our most important
sensory input in science. If the comet looks
like a tortured rock then that should be the first
assumption to act upon. We’ve had plenty of prior warning
from looking at earlier comet nuclei. But such is the power
of the paradigm that we are incapable of seeing
what is right before our eyes. It’s a case of; it’s not the things you
don’t know that caused the problems, it’s the things you don’t
know you don’t know. Before dealing with comet 67P… Where are we? Here, done that one, sorry. Here we go. Let’s just go back and see what was found in the very
first comet samples from the Stardust mission. It was full of
surprises, as usual. In the “Science” journal of
the 25th of January, 2008, Richard A. Kerr reported that first, “Not a single speck of unaltered pre-solar
material was found by the Stardust mission.” Two, “Wild 2 seems more related
to asteroids than comets”, said cosmochemist Larry Nittler. Three, “It’s changing the
way we think about comets”, said John Bradley of Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratories (LLNL). But it hasn’t changed at all, as you
can see from the earlier material. Stardust chief scientist
Don Brownlee said, “Rather than preserving the
original ingredients of planets, Wild 2 seems to be
loaded with materials first altered by the great
heat near the young Sun.” It doesn’t seem to occur
to these people that they’ve always thought the
planets were built from comets. It never occurs to them that comets
may have been built from planets. Comet theory hasn’t
changed one bit. It hangs on to the
solar nebula model but now with an ad hoc mysteriously
modified composition to match the data. Because here, they shoveled the
hot material from near the Sun out into the outer reaches where it
could be incorporated into comets. This is a pretty messy
kind of theory. But comet 67P here, from
10 kilometers distance, looks nothing like an
ice and dust aggregate. It looks like a piece
of a rocky planet! Which is what I said some weeks ago on the
Space News on the Thunderbolts website. And note the bright
spots up here, towards the center
and upwards a bit. The Electric Universe model of comets says that comets are
complex bits of planets, as you saw in that graphic
from Dave Talbott earlier. The conjunction of two planets,
if they come close enough, the electrical effects are to strip
part of the surface into space. The talking of bright spots. Here’s comet Hartley 2 in 2010, the comet rotates
every 18 hours. It was reported… or before I do that,
I’ll go through this list here. This is some of the
things that were found. The jet seemed to be issuing
from those bright spots. The bright spots seem to be atop boulders
or surface projections ― not fissures. The bright spots are generally featureless
― not just high albedo surfaces. And the jets issue orthogonally,
that is vertically from the surface. Some jets on this comet you
can see on the dark side. And one jet there where the arrow is,
seems to start and stop abruptly. All of these are simple effects that you
would expect from an electrical discharge but not from material issuing
from inside the comet through odd-shaped
vents and fissures. It was reported also, the amount of water
changed dramatically night by night and even within a single night in
some cases, doubling in that time. What surprised the
researchers was this; As the amount of water went up so
did the amount of the other gases and as the amount of water
went down the others did too. The fact that the gases all varied
together is somewhat puzzling because a large variation was found in the
release of carbon dioxide relative to water, said the head of the science
team, Michael A’hern. Researchers think that chunks
of water ice are glued together in the Comet’s core by the
frozen carbon dioxide which evaporates
before the water ice. The carbon dioxide gas drags,
with it, chunks of ice which would later evaporate to provide
much of the water vapor in the coma. This is an extremely
complex model, and ad hoc. In the Electric Universe
model, the gases in the jets are produced by spark machining
of surface materials, surface minerals rather. So the gases all vary together. The variation in carbon
dioxide, relative to water, could be expected from the movement
of discharge points or jets on a non-homogeneous
comet nucleus. And it is that same
surface electrochemistry that may account for the
extremely blackened surface. It may be hydrocarbons
or even carbon itself, but it doesn’t have to be. This is an opportunity for
garage experiment as to test, using clay and rock as the
target for a discharge. So here are some of the very
preliminary findings about comet 67P that were announced early yesterday
morning at a press briefing at the landing of the… …the craft that was supposed to
fix itself to the comet’s surface. Hi, Eric Hand,
Science Magazine. I was hoping to ask a question, I guess
maybe for Jean-Pierre or maybe Holger. A geology question. We are getting
slightly conflicting information. We were told, upon landing, that
we landed in very soft stuff. And, you know, we see from
the rover’s picture you know, this very soft stuff with mobilized
dust right in the middle of site J. But then we see these Shiva
pictures, maybe near a cliff wall, and things that really
do look like rocks. So I was hoping, one of you could
explain what these materials are and how they can be explained by being
made by comet processes, thanks. OK, what you are asking for is to try
to be ahead, one year ahead of us because we made this mission essentially
to answer the question you’re asking now. So it’s normal that we
don’t have the answers and probably the answer will demonstrate that
the question is not really well formulated. When you say a cliff for example,
it has some resonance in our head that the cliff is terrestrial
sort of cliff analog. We don’t think that we
have that sort of cliff because the material is
very low density anywhere. The density is 0.,
less than 0.5 globally. So the idea of having a very porous
material at the very top came from that to the idea that there is no reason to believe
that the crust is really a strong crust, as we thought in the past, on a
very low density material there. So that’s why we thought that finally
with the first images we had plus the Cosima measurement showing that the
floating grains were very fluffy, very porous that we might have
that when we land it. We are not saying that actually it’s not
the case, it might still be the case. You might still have some really
fluffy powder out of which you were, after rebouncing, again, the
ejection velocity is very low there. So I will not be more
accurate, that’s what I said. What we have found has not
demonstrated that we don’t have a crust, it has not demonstrated
that it’s a crust. Are you satisfied? Thank you. I am very happy when you
seem not satisfied. So I would follow you on that thought
that the rebounds of the lander is an indication of a higher strength
material that was a surprise to us. So with this picture of dust falling back
to the surface, building high porosity layers, I would think we fail to
explain the rebounds. So, but we have seen the variety of
surfaces there, this snowfield soft stuff, and we have seen this rocky-
like but no rock stuff which, which is perhaps a
higher strength material, we also see stuff shining
through a dust layer where the dust is wiped away
or following the gravity field and exposing a higher
strength material and this is something that we could
consider be the reason for the rebound. So bounce in there, find a
higher strength material and then get going for
the next landing. So there you go. It was low density everywhere,
this is the big hang-up. There are two things about that. One
is that gravity is not understood. I’ll be dealing with that
later in the weekend. All we have is a mathematical description
which is no help in understanding. Also, there is the possibility that
the comet may have a hollow center. Also the floating grains
were very fluffy. Well, electrical ablation of
surface minerals can cause that. A higher-strength material
that was a surprise to us, based on this erroneous assumption that
mass equals the quantity of matter. With this picture of dust
falling back to the surface, forming high porosity layers, we
fail to explain the rebounds. Well, dust is being removed from the
comet and moved around electrostatically as it is on the moon. It’s probably superficial
in most areas. It’s rocky-like
stuff, but not rock! Because it’s impossible, according
to the very low density estimate. This aspect is central to the Electric
Universe explanation of gravity. Mass is not equal to the amount of
matter, a fundamental error in physics. The electrical model as I said,
even suggests hollowness. And then there was this
interesting thing that was said, we also see this stuff shining through
where the dust layer is wiped away or fallen off following
the gravitational field. And exposing a higher
strength material. And this is something we could consider
could be the reason for the rebound. Well, the shining stuff may be the
coronal discharges from the comet. If so, they would be featureless
glows like St. Elmo’s fire, perhaps with bright points
at the active cathode spots, leaving behind a darker, blackened surface
that had been modified electrochemically. Anyway, congratulations to the Rosetta
mission team for a fantastic effort, shame about the
science mythology. It was interesting, the
following morning there was an ESA blog where geologists
posted the following comment, and since it was an ESA
blog we had to log in. I assume, he was
somewhat of an expert. He said: “It looks like the shrinkage
patterns of clay on the surface…” And this is the image from the lander
looking at the surface nearby. “It is quite possible that clay is
among the most abundant minerals on the panoramic
landscape of the comet.” Well, this is pretty
outrageous thing to say because clay includes
pyroxene and olivine which are high-
temperature minerals. Also, to make clay you require water and
a, more or less, planetary environment. He says it is, this form of clay is
quite common in nature here on Earth. He said, weathering causes erosion of topographic
highs and their deposition in basins, shallow seas and oceans. The effect of heat and
pressure changes the minerals like olivine into
clay and even cement and in the process captures and
sequesters atmospheric carbon dioxide. This last point is interesting
too because they could be the source of carbon dioxide as well
as the water in the comet coma. So we switch to the
Mars MAVEN mission which ducked out of the way
when that comet shot past. Just recently, comet
Siding Spring’s flyby, which was 87,000 miles above the
planet or about 140,000 kilometers. Debris from the comet added a temporary and
very strong layer of ions to the ionosphere, the electrically charged layer high
above Mars, this was the report. Such an electrical disturbance is
expected from an electrified comet with a different potential
to that of the planet and the closer the approach, the
more severe the electrical effects up to a Tunguska-type
event, or worse. In more recent news, it
calls into question our beliefs about how
planetary systems form. The caption for this
artist’s rendition says: “Astronomers have discovered an exoplanet
that is 10 times as heavy as Jupiter but orbits its star
in less than a day.” However, such a sighting should
be a relatively rare occurrence suggesting that physicists may have
to reconsider their understanding of how stars interact
with their planets. The existence of huge, Jupiter-sized
planets so near to their stars is a long-standing puzzle, since they cannot
form near to the star where it is far too hot. So the standard response is to say
they must form much further out, where it is cool enough for ices to
freeze out of the proto-planetary disk. This hypothetical protoplanetary
disk circling the young star, hence forming the
core of a new planet. And then, something then must move
the planet into a close orbit, and one likely mechanism is an
interaction with another planet or star. Well, it was the astronomer
Tom Van Flandern who showed how unlikely these
kind of occurrences are. So this is a highly speculative
and unlikely scenario. And given the number of hot Jupiters
discovered, this last point seemed strained. What’s worse, exoplanets have
been found orbiting backwards and over the poles of the star. The Electric Universe model
of star and planet formation follows the plasma cosmologists’, which is all
peer-reviewed material, whose theory has been supported by
recent infrared images of stars formed along glowing Birkeland current
filaments in molecular clouds. As Hannes Alfvén wrote: “Gravitational systems are the
ashes of electrical systems.” But the Electric Universe
models adds an… [a model, sorry] …adds an electrical fissioning mechanism
for forming hot Jupiters like this one that results from a new understanding
of the electrical nature of stars. This planet may be recently born,
instead of facing annihilation by crashing into the star, as
the article later suggests. And this recent report shows the
dogged application of the myth about planet formation
from a dusty nebula. It says, “These dusty disks, likely
created by collisions between leftover objects
from planet formation, were imaged around stars as
young as ten million years old and as mature as more
than 1 billion years old. It’s like looking back in time to
see the kinds of destructive events that once routinely happened in our
solar system after the planets formed. This is the kind of response you
get from one of the scientists. Here we see the myth of solar
system history stated as fact. But no two “disks” of material
surrounding stars, look the same. The report says the features
around the star HD 181327, which is the one on the
right top corner there, resemble the ejection of a huge spray of
debris into the outer part of the system from the recent collision
of two bodies. But when all you have is
gravity and explosions, your options are
extremely limited. The disks look far more
like corona discharges, which I’ve, you can
see below there. Which makes sense if we’re looking
down the barrel of a stellar z-pinch which is something that we’ll
be discussing in more detail, especially after Don Scott
has given his presentation. Also we only hear of accretion disks,
yet stars regularly expel matter. So the notion of expulsion disks
should be considered also. And here we have problems
with stellar evolution theory. And it’s a recurring theme in science
reports over the previous months. But here’s the latest one about
stars in globular clusters. It’s generally believed that all stars belonging
to the same globular cluster were born together, from the same interstellar
cloud and at the same time. Strangely, however,
this is not the case. It appears that the more information astronomers
acquire about the stars in Omega Centauri, the less they seem to understand
the origin of these stars. The evidence discounts the
stellar evolution model. Globular clusters have
multiple main sequences. This is pretty odd. Two groups of stars with, either, an
age difference of 1 to 2 Giga years or a significant difference in their
carbon-nitrogen-oxygen content and a difference in
helium abundance. Astronomers found that the bluest
stars contain more heavy elements than those of the
redder population. And these are all supposed
to be the same age. This was exactly opposite to the
expectation and they led to the conclusion that bluest stars have an overabundance
of the light element helium. They are in fact the most
helium-rich stars ever found. But why is this so? The team suggests that this puzzle may
be explained in the following way; First, a great burst of
star formation took place during which all the stars of the
red population were produced. These stars transform their hydrogen
into helium by nuclear burning. This is a standard story. Some of them with masses of 10
to 12 times the mass of the Sun, soon thereafter exploded as supernovae
thereby enriching the interstellar medium with blasting it everywhere
in the globular cluster. Next, the blue population stars
formed from this helium-rich medium. This is really a crackpot
theory, when you look at it. It’s incredibly
unlikely and complex. It’s not been shown that the dispersal
of heavy elements by supernovae can be enough to form second-generation
stars in significant numbers. The EU says, the
Electric Universe model, there’s a tight alignment of the normal
vector to the disk of globular clusters with that of the disk of
satellite dwarf galaxies. So they’re tied together
in some interesting way. They seem to have had the same birth process
by ejection from the core of the galaxy, based on Halton Arp’s observations of
ejection of quasars or nascent star clusters from the galactic core in
the plane of the galaxy. And this meets neatly with plasma
cosmology models of spiral galaxies. So globular clusters appear to be a
form of nuclei of dwarf galaxies. I won’t go on about the
stellar ages and composition. The Electric Universe model of stars shows
it to be incredibly complex and untestable, and it is invalid. When I got the news on April
23rd, earlier this year, that a flare had been detected
by Swift and it was coming from a nearby flare star called DGCVN,
I was initially very surprised. Swift doesn’t normally detect
flares from nearby flare stars and DGCVN is a
relatively unknown star. There are a few things
we know about DGCVN. It is an M-class star,
also called a red dwarf, and is located only about
60 light-years away. It’s a dim little red star. It has a luminosity that’s about one
thousandth the luminosity of the Sun. It has a mass that’s about
1/3 the mass of the Sun and a radius that’s about
1/3 the radius of the Sun. The largest solar flare ever recorded,
happened on November 4th, 2003. It was so powerful that it
overloaded the sensors measuring it but later calculations
put it at an X45. Flares are classified
according to their strength, the smallest ones are B-class,
followed by C, M and X, the largest. And X45 flare is a
very powerful flare. DGCVN’s flare, however,
was much larger. We can estimate how big the flare on DGCVN
was with respect to this solar scale. It would have been an X100,000. So this is several orders
of magnitude larger than the biggest solar
flare we’ve ever seen. The flare that Swift
triggered on from DGCVN, was only the beginning of what turned out
to be a fairly extended series of flares. A flare event, if you will,
that lasted almost 20 days. This was a very different
star than the Sun so we don’t really have to worry about
this happening in the present day Sun. The young Sun, such large
events may have occurred. In the present day Sun, the
activity levels are much lower. The fundamental reason that
DGCVN is more active than the Sun is, it’s a very young
star, 30 million years, it’s rapidly rotating, young
stars are born that way. And rapid rotation is one of the key
ingredients which powers activity. The faster the rotation,
the greater the activity. While not a threat to us, the
massive flares of red dwarf stars can help us better understand the
flares produced by our own Sun. They are also of interest because red
dwarf stars are often orbited by planets. Some data suggest that 40% of red
dwarfs have super-Earth-type planets orbiting in a habitable zone,
where liquid water is possible. If this is true, then they are good
candidates for supporting life. However, the habitable zone around
a cool dim star like DGCVN is much closer to the star
than the Earth is to the Sun. When planets are
closer to their star, they’re more susceptible
to anything the star does. For instance, if the star flares, the
planet is much closer to the star and it can be hit by the radiation
or the particles that get ejected from the star when this
flare process happens. If you happened to be on a
planet around an M dwarf when one of these
large flares went off, you’d be having a very bad day. I wanted to finish on this slide because this has significance
for what we will be talking about when we discuss Proto-Saturn,
later on the weekend. Because all of the story about the ages
of these stars and how they behave and that the, our own, Sun is not
likely to do this kind of thing, is based on erroneous science. None of it is valid. However, there are certain aspects
that I just want to point out before my time is
completely gone. The light curve that you saw there
showed rapid onset and slow decay followed by lesser
pulses gradually falling. And that’s typical of lightning
or an electrical discharge. Red stars don’t have the photospheric
granulation to regulate their discharge so this is the only way they can respond
to changes in their environment. And they do so by changing in
size and by expelling matter. And I would suggest that that red dwarf
was actually giving birth to a satellite. It may have been of planet size. I think this is the way in the Electric
Universe that these things happen and it has significance for the story of
Proto-Saturn which we’ll discuss later. Thank you. Thunderbolts.info

83 Replies to “Wal Thornhill: Breaking News | EU Workshop

  1. Great talk Wal. Showing up the really poor math guesswork to be the rubbish that it is. The EU is bringing back the real scientific method which is Observation, Measurement, Lab Experimentation & Prediction that Proves Correct. Long live Real Science. 

  2. Excellent! Thank you for sharing this event. The hubris displayed by the ESA scientist was very sad.

    The idea that the massive flare was an expulsion of material on a planetary scale was insightful and startling. Hopefully we will see evidence of a new satellite there soon?

    I appreciate the revelations I've experienced from the Thunderbolts project and the newly found interest in science I have. The EU cosmology is fascinating and very plausible. I am extremely interested interested in the S.A.F.I.R.E. Project progress and hope you can update us.

    I look forward to more talks from this workshop. Thanks again guys and ladies.

  3. "It's a rocky surface….but not rocks"  These fatheads are telling us to not believe our eyes.  It must be difficult for Mr. Thornhill to contain himself in the midst of such idiocy.  Frenchy got noticeably irritated that the questioner in the news conference had the audacity to point out the obvious.  His response was essentially that the scientists can't answer any pointed questions yet because they need time to formulate more elaborate models, schemes and fantasies to further obfuscate the fact that they really don't know WTF they're talking about.  Well done again Thunderbolters.

  4. Thanks for the upload Thunderbolts! Am always looking forward to your videos and I hope you will be uploading more videos from the workshop.

  5. Wal Thornhill and David Talbott are modern science leaders who have courage and insight and most importantly….Vision. I hope that one day the receive all the credit they so richly deserve. 

  6. Wal Thornhill does a superb job (as usual) at shedding some much-needed light on the flawed mythology that is pervasive throughout contemporary cosmology.

  7. 16:36 Thornhill has said this a few times now in past videos that gravity and mass is not well understood (as well as that mass is not equal to the quantity of matter). Hopefully he can clarify what he means with something more concrete, but I expect he will mention what he's said in past NPA & EU conferences, that G (the constant, not g) varies with the electrical stress in a body. That's where a charged comet would fit into his explanation, and if so, it may allow for his hollow comet theory. I think he's advocating for a hollow comet to try and draw parallels with hollowed rock formed by electric discharges, like fulgurites (hollow and formed from a thunderbolt discharging into the earth) and discharges into hematite. And if you can draw that parallel, you can test it in the lab with controlled electric discharges into rock. But a hollow comet is a subsurface theory of comet67P that can't really be confirmed, just like subsurface ice claimed to be below the comet can't be.

    I'd really like to see the thunderbolts follow their theories on comet geology up with clear experiments of discharges into rock that tout the features that are being predicted in the theory.

    Stuff like the side by side shot of comet 67P with hematite created by an electric arc in "Rosetta Mission Update | The Rocky Comet" @ 2:50 is good, albeit very blurry.

  8. The thing that first drew me to EU was its integration of science and myth. Integration is both the process of Wisdom and Wisdom itself. Hope more videos are forthcoming.

  9. I love this talk because it touches on many specific examples of dubious surmises being squeezed out, ex post facto, from premises that are faulty to their foundation.

    Congratulations to Wal for his spot on his (per usual) predictions pertaining to the Philae lander encounter with 67P!

  10. Mr.Thornhill, I am sure you have already considered the reason why it has been so difficult for these alternative theories as they are called to gain any mainstream attention. I am sure you are aware far more so than I am of the flaws in electrical theory, but in any case, considering the seemingly impossible task before you, I commend your efforts. 

    as the old saying goes: the truth is indeed far stranger than fiction, and at the same time I would add, there is in it an ominous familiarity – one of empire. 

  11. Wow…  I said way back in the early 90's that stars probably cough up planets once in a while.  My intuition may be closer to truth than "main stream science"…  I should not be surprised anymore.

  12. Could you imagine where we would be right now if the astrophysicists followed the EU theory for the past 100 years? We would have Tesla's free energy and a whole host of devices designed to take advantage of free energy. People would have better more productive lives and more of their wealth in their pockets instead of in like Enron's pockets, a lot of suffering would be ended. And as an extra added value we would have a proper history of the past to examine and understand perhaps leading to better understanding of ourselves and why our world is so screwed up today since obviously it is because we have little or no reliable knowledge of our past. Doesn't it just piss you off to no end that a bunch of jerks suffering from terminal obstinance are going to keep that from us in the name of normalcy bias?  I tell you what, it makes me furious. How many more hundreds of years will the EU adherents argue with the granite headed butt lickers that are willfully ignorant? I say we don't have "hundreds of years". They've been arguing about it for 100 years already. Do you really think we can afford to play around with their nonsense much longer? We need to address some serious concerns here on planet Earth and so far no adequate answers have been provided by the corporations who's main goal is to make a buck, not "help humanity". That's like Goldman Sachs Lloyd Blankfein saying he's "doing God's work" ripping off the masses and then laughing at how we're all stupid like Eddie Bernays thought about all of us. I don't think words and arguments are going to quite do it, hasn't worked so far after 100 years.

  13. Hmmmmm…A "higher density material."  Good grief.  This is just like Wal predicted in the summer.  Wal said they'd be flailing for explanations and that's what's happening.

    One thing we know for CERTAIN now.  Those scientists at ESA have proven something once and for all:  they have higher density material between their ears…much like Kaku and Susskind.

    Guys…check out the DG CVn video…they actually make that video showing the star with a surface and loops ejecting out and going back in to the surface.  

  14. Very interesting Wal, especially the large flares. No wonder there are many reports of aliens here on earth living underground or underwater! Are not being alone is looking more real all the time! If the reports are real, they likely have a better understanding of GRB's also which are much more survivable in an underground habitat.

  15. Thanks for exposing the government funded scientists that rely on covering up the truth to keep there pay checks, coming.  Every lecture by Thunderbolt project makes it harder to cover up these untruths. 

  16. I am so grateful for the Electric Universe theory, because I never had a clue about the B.S. NASA tries to spoon feed us with their fictitious theory of the Universe. I used to believe their nonsense until I came across the EU theory guy's and then I realized NASA theories don't make sense, not because they are so much smarter than me, they don't make sense because they actually don't make sense. Now that I'm learning about the Electric Universe, I have more confidence in my own judgement and perception of the Universe and the science behind it and I no longer need main stream science to spoon feed me my science, because I am no longer an intellectual infant and can think for my self, thanks to the thunderboltsProject !

  17. tantalizing taste…looking forward to future releasesfrom this conference…hopefully while we still have internet availability.

  18. Why is it taking so long to get all the EU Workshop videos up? Is the rumor that this all has to go through the, Jesuits first real ( lol )? Looking forward to the latest from Dr. Scott!    —   Aside: Been looking at videos of petroglyphs from the Grand Canyon (an electric excavation?), around Utah, Arizona and Colorado. The Squatting Man and others are all there. So sad and tragic.

  19. Great all around presentation. Ya know the Rosetta team got real freaking quiet all of a sudden. last thing they announced was tarpons firing and then harpoons not firing and the thing bouncing off the rock (maybe the harpoons bounced off too). they announced 7 out of 3 molecules had carbon and then they never released the drill data from the surface. What is clear is that magnetic fields and currents are all around us and observable in the cosmos

  20. ESA staffers' faces staring into a freshly opened can of wriggling worms. Regretting, regretting, too late boys, can't undo Rosetta and Philae, face the music.

  21. Also deuterium Molecule was found on 67p which is a by product in electrolysis of electrical  discharge of the hydrogen atom being separated from the oxygen atom through the exchange of electrons in an electrical current.

    This assuredly happens through electromagnetic induction caused by the magnetic field lines of the comet crossing the magnetic field lines of the Sun
    http://rt.com/news/213363-rosetta-ocean-water-asteroid/

  22. UBER BIG CHEERS!!!!!  Woot Woot!  Definitely some very exciting news indeed!!!  

    And as always, Wal Thornhill kicking butts and takin' names!  😀

  23. Is it possible that asteroids and their cometary cousins are like the GEODES we see here on earth?  Is it possible they are hollow, as the E.U. model suggests?  

    Could we formulate a prediction in order to determine the hollow nature of a cometary body, say, drill and expect to find a core of quartz crystal, and then perhaps open space?  

    So very exciting!  😀 

  24. There is nothing more irritating then trying to listen to a speaker that WHISPERS his presentation. Next time you have a mumbling speaker use the caption option.

  25. I never liked the big bang Theorie, and   if it is not true, is the cosmological constant real and not a blunder at all ?  Also I find it interesting that Newtonian law is used to launch rockets with satelites into Lagrangian orbits; where to look for evidence. The giants of science may be wrong sometimes but they are what inspired us to be interested and to question. I like it that the electric universe model is not offering to tell us how the universe  began and insult us by saying they are finding out what happend in the first trillionth of a second after nothing. At Cern they are only finding out what they did just now. Theories are not facts, to present a theorie as a fact is a lie.I like what Wal is doing  nice one

  26. So Dark Matter could be electro magnetic force  not gravity, and Dark energy is an hallucination of abstract math  as is dark flow black holes etc

  27. "The hidden reservoir, apparently locked in a blue crystalline mineral called ringwoodite,"
    i read they found an ocean under our ocean,,  ;p

  28. What is that if You KNOW but You do not KNOW, its like if it could be than it should be. Evan a smart people as You can see,can not explain, so the question is do they have understanding or comprehension or if any knowledge about it, or do they go an make it as a phenomenon. It sound like a lot of bla bla bla, it sound like political speech a lot of hot air. They have serious problem with specific works patterns of G, and haw is it form or cumming from. Its like they do not know for sure what happen on Monday, but they speak very assuredly about what took place billions years ago. I will have to call this simple BS. TH

  29. Maybe solar wind protons combine with etched oxygen from surface and manufacture water on the  spot. Cold fusion?

  30. Can Thunderbolts please increase the loudness that you record with, so many of your vids have to be played at full volume just to be able to hear it.

  31. Common sense, truth, clarity… this information is liberating, refreshing and fills me with hope for the future. Thanks Wal Thornhill for the enormous effort and your undying determination to bring us out of the dark ages.

  32. So other planets and moons can have water and ice, but not comets? What is this guy's theory about the origin of our planet's water, anyway?

  33. Well, Mr. Wal's voice is almost too low to be heard but the truth is deafening.

    Those bums are picking their marbles failed after failed after failed prediction.

    "comets are made of ice" "oh they aren't all ice as we thought but it's a soft shell" "oh it's not a soft shell but I swear there's ice in there!" "fuck you its black ice! black grainy and hard ice! we know how the dust settled after philae bounced off the SOFT ICE, we swear! it should fly away but it didn't but we know why! we're just not telling you!"

    Damn whiny scientists fighting the evidence up their noses. That's why crackpots take their limelight with Nibirus and Hercolubuses.

  34. The Computer Generated Mythology…Funny they seem to imply the person giving this narrative is/has GOD like power. Seems strange to me.

  35. He pretty much says a cliff is not a cliff if it is made with low density materials. I dare him to jump off a 200 foot cliff of bubble wrap and see if he splatters less than he would off of a 200 foot cliff of granite. ;p

  36. When one becomes well aware that Santa Claus is but a story for little brothers, sisters, other children, it is hard to keep a straight face when the tale is purported by authorities.
    Wal, work on the straight face; hard to do as it may be. You are in the public eye.
    The rest of us are laughing hysterically.
    The little people, not yet ready for the truth, warrant our empathy.
    Namaste and care,
    mhikl

  37. I can only imagine as soon as the landers ice pick harpoons tried to stab into "the dirty snowball" surface, instead of the planet type material that was present, the lander was jettisoned off the surface again with an unexpected tumble to its current position! Idiots!!!

  38. When they claimed Earth's water came from Comets I always thought that was rediculous ~ anyone could see that Comets ARE too hard to contain water, plus when they hit, no water appears ~ fire those dumb ass's !!!

  39. This YouTube page definitely deserve a lot more subscription that it has man brilliant presentation even a five year old can understand

  40. What is the movie clip with 'Littlefinger' in at 4:39 ( I know its not LittleFinger, but I best remember that characters as the actor in Game of Thrones)…

  41. If I remember right Wal said, "I feel some sympathy for the lead astronomer, Jean Pierre Bibring", and I can understand this as Jean is being paid by funds that come from mainstream investors who want to keep things the same in spite of the information coming in, so even though Jean maybe and quite probably is a genuine scientist he must do what he's asked by those who pay him. So now matter what he finds, at least at this point, he has to answer to those who feed him, should the funding come available Jean Pierre Bibring may well be happy to work on a thunderbolts/electric universe project.

  42. At 15 mins the ESA "scientists". I find it impossible to listen to these people, they are witchdoctors not scientists. Disgraceful individuals.

  43. You are most open minded person in scientists society. my theory is a Quantum Mechanics Universe. QMU is rejecting most of the Big Bang theory including, Newtonian gravity, GR and SR of Einstein, and flat universe. my theory is complete theory that can answer the origination of everything, such mass of the Universe.

  44. ESA is a shifty bunch aren't they, specially froggy "It tiz ow you say Rock-like, but not a rock, perhapz a higher strength material "I like cheese , ribbet" Is that thing in the purple dress a Tranny or something, or just really manly?, something about it looks strange and I don't want to be accused of being a gender bigot or something like that, so I call it – it! Does look like a man trying too hard to look feminine . It looks like it should sound like Rocky Balboa … Yo, Joey …. trow me dat hammer!

  45. Sorry, but this thing looks like it's an engineered object,  with a plasma engines, the fact that the jets start and stop implies a control event.

  46. not only Darwin and evolution but airforce also proved aether exists, Nikoli Tesla correct we have been sold sea beaches in central Arizona.

  47. Guys, give more thumbs up! What Gives? Anyway…. this is AWESOME!! I'm so happy I found this hidden information that clearly explains so much more than the current WRONG scientific model of the universe! I'll be telling everyone I meet about this for the rest of my life!! SO COOL!

  48. Such information like this,as being very Close to the truth-means everything to me..Really..)..

  49. if there shall be life on a planet-you have to look for Solar systems,with a hot Star,and a Cold Star-and the planet will end up in the middle..)..But-This IS VERY RARE!!!

  50. I hope I live long enough to see Nobel Prizes awarded to Wal and key movers in the project! A little justice can go a long way.

  51. id love to see an animation of the complete process of a satellite being birthed/ejected from a star and the proposed starting shape of newly born planet. does it come out in one rough pc and just get crushed into a sphere as it develops gravity? hmm but astroids/comets have gravity and dont ball up so im missing something. im sure this is a waste of a comment as no one will see it since this vid hasnt been posted on in yrs. lol

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *