Where I am from, they would tell you to look up at the sky and see the stars—balls of gas millions and millions of miles away. They would say to visit them, you need to travel light years; light goes really fast, and a year is a long time, so the distance light goes in a year is really far. These are not distances that you or I can readily conceptualize apart from equations. Stars are distant, the story goes, and we can't actually see what they are doing right now. Rather, we're looking into the past, seeing dim "light echoes".

Certain stars behave differently; that is because these are planets. Likewise, you may see airplanes, satellites, and other objects in the night sky—that's how the story goes at least.

In the night sky, you can view the moon. But curiously we only see one side of the moon. The "dark side of the moon" is hidden from us; due to how stuff rotates, we only see one side of the moon.

Visiting an observatory or looking through a telescope, you may be able to confirm facts like "Mars appears reddish" or that some pattern of stars (constellation) has indeed moved from here to there in the sky.

However, there seem to be an absence of "intermediary photos"; we are lacking in missing links from what we can observe and confirm with our strongest lenses/cameras available to normal people here on Earth and the images that cost parties like NASA ga-ba-jillions of dollars to produce. For some reason, despite having really good cameras, images of space use a lot of computer graphics. Curiously, the quality of the images (c.f. photographs) we have of "outer space" seem to parallel graphics and image manipulation technology capabilities which we know Hollywood and now big video game studios have.

Some additional observations/questions:

• Why does the moon in the daytime appear as a transparent disc, roughly the size of the sun? ¹
• Why can't I find any photographs of satellites in space? ²
• Why do "satellite TV" dishes get pointed at nearby towers, rather than upward towards where you would expect a thing in "low orbit" to be?
• Why does the United Nations' flag depict a disc/flat earth?
• Why does the earth look pretty disc-like/flat in actual video footage? Note too how lens distortion and other optical effects can change how we see "lines"—e.g. a GoPro is a "wide" lens, whereas if you are taking a portrait, you'd typically use a narrower setup.

We are told that we are living under "secular" governance, or that there is a separation of church and state here in the United States. I think that this is not the case—rather we have a state religion that asks for complete faith in the Astronautic fathers; that is, that we unquestionably believe the reports of very few people who are literally federal agents to construct a worldview. ³

The implications of adapting the NASA religion are far reaching. Firstly, an account like the "big bang" presents the idea of creation ex nihilo; stuff just coming to be. Everything is regarded as fluid/changing, bolstered by the speculative theory of Darwinian evolution (and a million variations thereof; it is not a unified account). ³ While you can try to cope and reconcile this with a traditional religion view like many Roman Catholics and liberal protestants try to do, this train of reasoning leads to the view that God created death. So you must believe that creation is good "just because" trying to smash these things together.

For a while I tried to reconcile the NASA worldview with an interpretation of the Bible I was taught. But as described above, stuff didn't really line up with my intuitive understanding of what is "good". Why not embrace a Buddhist position where all life/creation is suffering that we must somehow transcend? In Internet lingo, MAKE IT STAHP!

Providentially, through studying "science" further—learning "how the sausage is made"—I came to understand how empty a lot of the "knowledge" of our day is. ⁴ Quantifying/counting stuff and applying a formal model doesn't imply you understand something better, just that you've created a system to try to optimize for something. Consider how Chipotle might have a speedier setup for ordering certain types of burritos, but it doesn't "solve the burrito problem" any better than less corporate options; doing more sales of a particular form doesn't mean you found the "best burrito model".

As issues came up, I began to ask simple questions based on observations, like the ones I brought up here. Simultaneously, I began to learn about the esoteric/occultic leanings of many key figures in our scientistic era. For example, you can look at the history of psychonautics and how bad brits interested in drugs and eastern mysticism have influenced American culture in all sorts of areas—entertainment/arts/music, government, education, and so on. You can find public information on how Jack Parsons, a key figure in the US Space program, as into creepy Aleister Crowley occultism.

"Science" has never been separated from "religion", though the specifics of how scientia and techne (from which we get the word technology) are done and split up have changed. In 2021, the cult of STEM (Science Technology Engineering Math) effectively means learning/practicing the Babylonian arts of our current age—trying to numerically predict the future, attempting engineering a stable society. ⁵

Filtering Technological Applications from Worldview

Lots of the "science" of our era produces no practical results. For example, there is no real "practical" application of Darwinian evolution. Believing some speculations about bones you've never seen and other unfalsifiable claims passed as facts will not influence your work beyond maybe getting you fired for being a "science denier". You can lay bricks, carve wood, program computers, make trades and so on without a care in the world for hominid this or that.

Similarly, it practically doesn't matter if you believe the world to be round or disc-shaped. Experientially, the world is flat; you know if you jump up, you will fall back down to the ground. It doesn't matter if you explain this with "gravity" and other equations.

Globe-zealots may get angry at you and tell you that their worldview is obvious. But if you approach the world with child-like wonder, asking simple questions, you will find that lots of the scientia of our day isn't accepted based on solid proofs, but rather on trust in authorities.