Dear Phil,

Thank you for taking the time to write an article that contains some good arguments, and is actually not offending or insulting.
Most comments posted on YouTube by those who are trying to “defend science” are non-descriptive, without argument, insulting and only show the poster’s short attention span and frustration. Not your article, it has been written with some patience, and you at least seem to appreciate my efforts and my goal.
I’m trying to show that we, the solar system and the galaxy are all miraculously part of life… the sad thing is that visitors coming from your article page, will start watching the video with their “debunk glasses” firmly attached to their heads, and will undoubtedly miss a point that they might have gotten otherwise. They proudly repeat after you “there’s so many things wrong”, and they still don’t have any idea what they’re talking about. And by the way, “David Icke is also on his site” is not really a scientific argument.

I am not a scientist, nor do I want to become one. But I do consider myself to be a researcher (and a Dj obviously). Curious as I am, I want to know stuff.
I also find that, for some, science is a kind of religion. If there is “PhD” behind a name, then “he must know” and “you can’t possibly believe you know better than him”. I strongly disagree with that mindset. I am prepared to disagree with anyone, regardless of their title.
I’m also aware of the fact that, if a “real scientist” publishes research that do not match the mainstream scientific belief, they are quickly labeled “pseudo” on Wikipedia. To name a few: Tom Bearden, Dr Judy Wood, Bruce Lipton. That’s this nice thing called “peer review” – it turns science into a democracy.
Luckily I do not suffer from “peer pressure”, I have no funding that can be withdrawn, so I’m free to go ahead and research and find whatever I find.

Having said that, in this case one of my questions was “how do we move through the galaxy”.
And to my surprise (as pointed out by Stephen 431: “good luck finding better illustrations or animations of how our star system is moving“) there was no such animation.
I spent quite some time trying to find a “real scientific model” of some sort, I researched NASA’s archives for diagrams and data, and I could only find bits and snippets, side-views and top-views, but as far as I could tell NOBODY in the history of science & astronomy has even tried to give us “the full picture”.
That led my to ponder the question “do they even know?” So I went ahead and gave it my best shot.
I found out that my findings “resonated” with everything I knew about life so far… so yeah maybe some numbers are off, I accidentally switched two orbits just before rendering, there less up/down motion in one revolution… my point is still my point.

Also, to my surprise most folks were unaware that we even move through space – somehow all the schooling has led them to subconsciously believe that after 365 days the earth returns to the same point in space! This is incredible. Way to school people, science! I’m glad that my helical video at least enlightened some folks on that topic, and that the idea of a “space journey” resonates with some folks.

In the end of the article you state that the video “appeals to some sense of how things should be“. This reminds me of another area of science that has claimed many “pseudo” victims. It’s this thing called… “Life”.
Let’s face it: science has NO clue what life really is. Science also has no answer to the question “why are we here?”. And here’s the catch: it’s IMPOSSIBLE to try and research this area in an honest way, based on science, and come up with any answer… at all. Simply because ANY answer is outside the realm of science, and thus science will reject it.
So for example: if I (regardless whether you agree with the helical model or not) point out the similarity between the helix in DNA (that is one of the keys to human life) and our solar system (which is currently supporting human life), our galaxy (which is currently supporting the solar system).. then “science” will probably respond with skepticism, laughter or insults. I am, however, trying to use science to find meaning in it all.
I’m looking forward to the day that science comes with an explanation for phenomenon like telekineses, telepathy, empathy (although they have discovered “mirror-neurons”, woohoo!), consciousness (tough one) and life or the meaning of life.
So, maybe my video “appeals to some sense of how things should be“, and I’m convinced it has something to do with the refusal of science to cover the areas I just mentioned.
Science is still viewing the Universe as a huge clockwork, made up of matter, and bounded by “rules” and “laws of nature”. I strongly disagree with this view. You cannot leave consciousness out.
I consider myself to be a spiritual person, who believes in a higher consciousness, karma, life after death & spirits. Just like the Mayas, the native American Indians, the Buddhists, the Taoists, the Aboriginals, the African people…. It almost seems like everyone on the planet is spiritual, except science? We are NOT brain cells and skin.

Nikola Tesla: “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”.

Then there are these “rules of physics” and “laws of nature” – they are a man-made concept. Although they are based on scientific observations, they are also based on the assumption that these observations cover “all there is”. They cannot be called “laws”, they should be called what they really are: observations. They only hold up until new observations are made.

So if I summarize your article correctly, these are the errors you find:

– a vortex is not a helix
– the bobbing up and down is not every 26,000 years but every 64 million years
– we travel at 60 degrees, not 90 degrees (although in my galaxy video I correctly display the current 60 degree angle so we can debate on that)
– precession does not affect the sun
– the sun does not ‘lead’ the solar system

Still not bad for a Dj. Since no one else ever tried.

I think we can agree to disagree on the ‘lead’ point. I’m convinced that our solar system is not “flat” (and I’m not just talking about the slight orbital inclination).
I am currently trying to reproduce the retrograde in a “flat” solar system, and it can’t be done. There’s “depth” in the retrograde loop, pointing downwards, and in a flat system this is impossible. However, if I use the “non-flat”, cone-shaped Bhat model (with the sun leading and the planets trailing behind) then I can easily reproduce this observed phenomenon. “The claim that the Sun is at the tip of the solar system with the planets trailing behind is also demonstrably wrong” – well, it can be demonstrated to be right.
Scientist or not – I will post this ‘retrograde animation’ once it’s finished, and yes there will be music 😉

There’s one other thing: there’s this little image in the article:

Have you ever considered that the earth’s “fixed” tilted axis does not “feel natural”, since the axis always points in one direction?
That it seems “off” with what we know about physics of spinning objects and rotation?
We take this earth axis tilt for face value, because it is the only explanation we have for seasons… but would the earth not rather behave like in the image if it’s axis was tilted?
Just putting this out there. I’m not talking about precession, but about our yearly revolution.

I hope people enjoy my videos, and do not take them for “absolute truth”, but as an incentive to go out there and start researching stuff.
But my goal even more is to show that there is more to science than matter, atoms and clockwork – the Universe is a miraculous place where everything is connected.

DjSadhu