Betelgeuse,Betelgeuse,Betelgeuse is acting strange. is it about to explode into massive supernova

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I mean stuff like vulcanisn, pressure, time, etc.

They make alitropes of elements not new or heavier elements.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: putnam6

The rebirth of Osiris the king.. Soon peeps will know why the ancients worshiped the stars.

One reason it was their HDTV their computer, or phone, it was their entertainment. Makes complete sense some were able to watch and relate to and see the patterns and attach extreme significance to all of their occurrences. and we haven't even touched on the alien green skin angle?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: putnam6

Oh, we'll have an excellent seat when Betelgeuse blows, whenever that happens, or rather whenever we finally see it from 640-odd years away. I love looking up at the stars and realising that we're all looking back in time whenever we do that.
By the way, IIRC we don't need to worry too much about Yellowstone, as the magma chamber seems to be crystallising in places, meaning that parts are cooling. No, it's the next caldera forming event that we really have to worry about, North-East of where the current caldera is. That hot spot moving, or rather North America is travelling over the hot spot. But I digress.

It's a good point LOL and I definitely put Yellowstone on my disaster/apocalyptic possible scenarios. As far as the shifting hot spots don't those literally move at centimeters a century or some other ridiculously low number? We certainly don't know enough to come close to predicting if and/or when they either, unless there are overt foreshocks. Even that isn't a certainty. Speaking of celestial events plenty of theories about planetary alignment causing seismic activity. It's somewhat aceopted even if there is disagreement about the degrees

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I believe that the OP was correct on the post about heavy elements but did not explain what was actually meant.

Elements heavier than iron are not formed by geological processes but need more neutrons than are found in supernovae. The speculation was that neutron stars could produce heavier elements if they merged. Until a few years ago it was just an idea.

And yes, the gravitational waves do not travel faster than light but that part happens prior to EM burst of the nova. That is why they were watching that area of space. When it looked like a merger was imminent they pointed a telescope in the direction. When the kilanova was confirmed by both gravity and EM radiation then other telescopes were pointed. That is where the radio telescopes confirmed the spectral line for strontium (??) and validated that neutron mass elements over a certain size were created in neutron star mergers.

Those elements drift around, get picked up by comets and what not, then fall into gravity wells as planets are formed. That is where the heavier elements are formed. They are “natural” on the planet but come from space.

Nuclear synthesis is the term (I think). And there is some debate about even the source of copper which is also natural to the environment!

Here’s to hoping that one lifetime is enough of a wait for the fireworks!

I believe the OP understands astrophysics barely beyond a high school level, literally the old adage JOATMOK at best. However, they are completely enjoying the supremely educated and experienced contributions herein. Because I know the OP also wished their worst subject wasn't mathematics, but it certainly is

FWIW this is how ATS used to be, some schlub starts a basic thread on a basic thought, and then the greatness of ATS takes it to a whole other level.

It's greatly appreciated and makes me research this topic even more, LOL like the neutrinos, where the last time I recall them being mentioned was in the movie 2012, which is the height of my knowledge.

Can't blame the American school system here I had competent math and chemistry teachers, but it always seems like those classes were early in the morning, and I got behind and never catch back up. 10th-grade chemistry was the first class I ever got a C or worse in and I got a D in 1st quarter and barely got that, sitting between Janet and Sylviana didn't help my concentration level either. Had a lot of fun but, have virtually zero retention 40 years later.

If Betelgeuse is 700 ly away, it might have gone supernova 699 years ago and we won't know about it 'till next year.

originally posted by: 2Faced
I think this quartet links will surely intrigue you. I find that they all compliment and confirm eachothers claims

1. Diehold foundation, Douglas B.Vogt - ice age series YT -
2. Suspicious observers, Ben Davidson - Disaster cycle YT -
3. Hidden Inca Tours, Brien Foerster - material evidence YT -
4. Thunderbolts Project, Tallbot/Thornhill e.a. , archetypal evidence and EU theory (IMO probable science of the future generations) -

I can't say anything about #1, but I've heard 2, 3, and 4 spout copious amounts of completely incorrect crap, so if that's what you want to hear, by all means check them out. It's possible they may even say something correct once in a while, but usually, it's nothing but pseudoscientific BS.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


I beg to differ.
#2
Ben Davidson isn’t afraid to be challenged, and uses peer reviewed material. Please give an example of what he’s wrong about and we’ll investigate.

#3
Brien Foerster indeed has some way out there theories, specially his sound resonance stuff. However, I used an example showing two statues that have clearly been affected by a tremendous source of heat. He shows multiple sites with the same heat damage. He also shows that there was a pre deluvian civilization, by pointing out that the most advanced megalithic and polygonal building methods are at the bottom of some structures, and becomes progressively less advance on top, meaning they used to have advanced knowledge to shape their blocks so precise you cant even get a rizla paper between the joints, and after a flood the ruins were rediscovered, even the natives mentioned that, and rebuilt, using much cruder methods to shape inly small blocks, and later the spanjards used cement. In fact, he shows much more actual and factual evidence then you might think. It really pays to watch his material and shape your own opinion, in stead of “hearing” it from others, including me for that matter. Take the time to listen and watch.

4#
David Talbott
When it comes down to the thunderbolts project, I challenge you to watch “symbols of an alien sky pt.II”, especially the part about “Vales Marineris” and how it came into existence. The archetypal and physical evidence (scaloping, rim craters, line craters, plasma discharge effects etc.), shown along with the theories, are very hard to dispute. Even with limited knowledge on the subject, it is plain to see their theory makes a lot more sense compared to what theories the established scientists came up with. Some science is actually really suppressed, whether you want to believe that or not, and in this case it has been for sure. There’s too much evidence to deny it. Whatever the case, Thunderbolts project, imho, is bonafide and, certainly in case of Vales Marineris, right. No matter what so called in-house and other subject matter experts may say to the contrary. Again, I can only advice and recommend you to watch more of their work, make up your own, informed, mind.

For all we know, it went supernova 200 years ago. Or, it won't for another 50,000. That's the problem with space. We're always looking at the past.

It is best to go with science on this, instead of all the doom porn.

If Betelgeuse goes super nova, we will not know it for about 650 years.

WHEN Betelgeuse explodes into a supernova, it will not affect our solar system or the earth as it is situated about 650 light years away. Astrophysicists have predicted that we would have to be within 50 light years of an exploding star for it to affect us.

It will be the brightest star in the sky for a few months, however.

originally posted by: 2Faced
I beg to differ.
#2
Ben Davidson isn’t afraid to be challenged, and uses peer reviewed material. Please give an example of what he’s wrong about and we’ll investigate.

We'll investigate? Who is "we"? You can't investigate yourself?

At 3 minutes in this video, it's explained that Ben does indeed use peer reviewed papers where he flashes an image of them on his screen. Then if you had actually read the papers, you would know it's not at all unusual for Ben to completely misrepresent what they say.

Suspicious0bservers is a Pseudoscientific Doomsday Cult


Look at the comments to that video. One of them is by @yuanli3731 who says he is the author of the paper mentioned in the video at time 7:10. Look at what the author of the paper says:

I am the second author of the paper you talked about at 7:10. When this was brought to my attention, I was shocked. We scientists tend to ignore all the pseudoscience stuff, but maybe we should pay more attention in the future. We work so hard to educate the public, but these conspiracy pseudoscientists are undoing our work. Thank you, Professor Dave, for taking your time to debunk the conspiracy theories. And just in case there is any confusion, our paper is about clouds in the interstellar medium, and has nothing to do with any of the doomsday BS.

So there you go, the author of that paper confirms it is not about what Ben is claiming, and it's just one example among many.

#3
Brien Foerster indeed has some way out there theories, specially his sound resonance stuff...

It really pays to watch his material and shape your own opinion, in stead of “hearing” it from others, including me for that matter. Take the time to listen and watch.

Once I know a source is bad, it makes no sense for me to spend any more time with that source. So you can say maybe the guy is wrong about a, b and c, but check out d, maybe he's right about that. You're certainly entitled to do so if you choose, but there are plenty of reliable sources where I don't have to risk the high probability that if the guy is so wrong about a b and c, that he's probably got errors on d too.

Here's a review of his book which is largely plagiaraized, but the original parts which are not plagiarized are often wrong. You probably won't bother reading this but here is a link in case you do want to read it:

Review of Brien Foerster’s ‘Beyond the Black Sea: The Mysterious Paracas Of Peru’

Technically, the plagiarism in the book probably approaches 90%...After a few pages, it quickly becomes easy to detect where he plagiarized versus the apparently rare moments where he had his own thoughts. Typically, these few thoughts were illogical, unfounded, and without citation to data.

In addition to copy/pasting text, Foerster occasionally changed certain data within the passages that he disagreed with to suit his own apparently preconceived notions.

That's just a short excerpt, you can read more if you're interested, but I don't find anything he says credible and that review should give some idea why.

4#
David Talbott
When it comes down to the thunderbolts project, I challenge you to watch “symbols of an alien sky pt.II”, especially the part about “Vales Marineris” and how it came into existence. The archetypal and physical evidence (scaloping, rim craters, line craters, plasma discharge effects etc.), shown along with the theories, are very hard to dispute. Even with limited knowledge on the subject, it is plain to see their theory makes a lot more sense compared to what theories the established scientists came up with. Some science is actually really suppressed, whether you want to believe that or not, and in this case it has been for sure. There’s too much evidence to deny it. Whatever the case, Thunderbolts project, imho, is bonafide and, certainly in case of Vales Marineris, right.

You're entitled to your own opinion, even if it's wrong.

As for science being suppressed, if there's some motivation, maybe, like big drug companies might not want to share all their data on negative effects of a drug if it's making them a lot of money...I can understand that motivation. However I don't understand any motivation for scientists to not want to have an accurate dscription of Mars geology. Big Pharma isn't making or losing any money on that. You mentioned Ben Davidson uses peer reviewed sources (even though he isn't truthful about what they say), but who has peer-reviewed Talbot's work? I submit it won't pass peer review because he would have to explain how sufficient voltage and current could be generated to do what he claims, and he can't explain that.

Not only that but I've looked at the electrical arc pits created in labs and the claim that a similar process made craters, and while you can make more or less a round shape from either process, the electric arc pits simply do not resemble the craters beyond that on close examination.

The whole thunderbolts project is a pseudoscientific scam, not just Talbot but everyone else in that field has no credibility and lacks a scientific approach. I think Talbot even admitted he doesn't have any science that predicts things like real scientists do:

The Electric Universe Acid Test

GPS satellites in orbit around Earth are also dependent on relativity theory, so I asked the conference host David Talbott if EU theory offers anything like the practical applications that theoretical physics has given us. No. Then what does EU theory add? A deeper understanding of nature, I was told. Oh.

So no models, no predictions or the few predictions they make turn out to be wrong, that's why it's pseudoscience.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: 2Faced
I beg to differ.
#2
Ben Davidson isn’t afraid to be challenged, and uses peer reviewed material. Please give an example of what he’s wrong about and we’ll investigate.

We'll investigate? Who is "we"? You can't investigate yourself?

At 3 minutes in this video, it's explained that Ben does indeed use peer reviewed papers where he flashes an image of them on his screen. Then if you had actually read the papers, you would know it's not at all unusual for Ben to completely misrepresent what they say.

Suspicious0bservers is a Pseudoscientific Doomsday Cult

Look at the comments to that video. One of them is by @yuanli3731 who says he is the author of the paper mentioned in the video at time 7:10. Look at what the author of the paper says:

I am the second author of the paper you talked about at 7:10. When this was brought to my attention, I was shocked. We scientists tend to ignore all the pseudoscience stuff, but maybe we should pay more attention in the future. We work so hard to educate the public, but these conspiracy pseudoscientists are undoing our work. Thank you, Professor Dave, for taking your time to debunk the conspiracy theories. And just in case there is any confusion, our paper is about clouds in the interstellar medium, and has nothing to do with any of the doomsday BS.

So there you go, the author of that paper confirms it is not about what Ben is claiming, and it's just one example among many.

#3
Brien Foerster indeed has some way out there theories, specially his sound resonance stuff...

It really pays to watch his material and shape your own opinion, in stead of “hearing” it from others, including me for that matter. Take the time to listen and watch.

Once I know a source is bad, it makes no sense for me to spend any more time with that source. So you can say maybe the guy is wrong about a, b and c, but check out d, maybe he's right about that. You're certainly entitled to do so if you choose, but there are plenty of reliable sources where I don't have to risk the high probability that if the guy is so wrong about a b and c, that he's probably got errors on d too.

Here's a review of his book which is largely plagiaraized, but the original parts which are not plagiarized are often wrong. You probably won't bother reading this but here is a link in case you do want to read it:

Review of Brien Foerster’s ‘Beyond the Black Sea: The Mysterious Paracas Of Peru’

Technically, the plagiarism in the book probably approaches 90%...After a few pages, it quickly becomes easy to detect where he plagiarized versus the apparently rare moments where he had his own thoughts. Typically, these few thoughts were illogical, unfounded, and without citation to data.

In addition to copy/pasting text, Foerster occasionally changed certain data within the passages that he disagreed with to suit his own apparently preconceived notions.

That's just a short excerpt, you can read more if you're interested, but I don't find anything he says credible and that review should give some idea why.

4#
David Talbott
When it comes down to the thunderbolts project, I challenge you to watch “symbols of an alien sky pt.II”, especially the part about “Vales Marineris” and how it came into existence. The archetypal and physical evidence (scaloping, rim craters, line craters, plasma discharge effects etc.), shown along with the theories, are very hard to dispute. Even with limited knowledge on the subject, it is plain to see their theory makes a lot more sense compared to what theories the established scientists came up with. Some science is actually really suppressed, whether you want to believe that or not, and in this case it has been for sure. There’s too much evidence to deny it. Whatever the case, Thunderbolts project, imho, is bonafide and, certainly in case of Vales Marineris, right.

You're entitled to your own opinion, even if it's wrong.

As for science being suppressed, if there's some motivation, maybe, like big drug companies might not want to share all their data on negative effects of a drug if it's making them a lot of money...I can understand that motivation. However I don't understand any motivation for scientists to not want to have an accurate dscription of Mars geology. Big Pharma isn't making or losing any money on that. You mentioned Ben Davidson uses peer reviewed sources (even though he isn't truthful about what they say), but who has peer-reviewed Talbot's work? I submit it won't pass peer review because he would have to explain how sufficient voltage and current could be generated to do what he claims, and he can't explain that.

Not only that but I've looked at the electrical arc pits created in labs and the claim that a similar process made craters, and while you can make more or less a round shape from either process, the electric arc pits simply do not resemble the craters beyond that on close examination.

The whole thunderbolts project is a pseudoscientific scam, not just Talbot but everyone else in that field has no credibility and lacks a scientific approach. I think Talbot even admitted he doesn't have any science that predicts things like real scientists do:

The Electric Universe Acid Test

GPS satellites in orbit around Earth are also dependent on relativity theory, so I asked the conference host David Talbott if EU theory offers anything like the practical applications that theoretical physics has given us. No. Then what does EU theory add? A deeper understanding of nature, I was told. Oh.

So no models, no predictions or the few predictions they make turn out to be wrong, that's why it's pseudoscience.

Because it’s a bit much i’ll try and answer your points in segments.

First, let’s start with the last, thunderboltsproject.
Have you personally watched the full episode of “Symbols of an Alien Sky pt.II”?
If so, could you please explain what is wrong with this particular theory (Vales Marineris), without referring to others?
Where, in your personal opinion, does David Talbott drop the ball? You come across as an intelligent person, so I am sure you should be able to explain in words a dumbass like me can understand. But don’t come with “the burden of proof lies with me”, I ask you to watch and come with your own opinion. So no videos of people who could be biased.

Here’s the episode I am talking about:


I’m not trying to be a smartass, but saying established scientists can’t have it wrong, or can’t be lying, or purposefully leaving out certain points, is a bit strange, since we’ve just had a pandemic that is being fought by making people sicker, and making more victims than the actual virus. While saying the “cure” was 100% effective, and saying there will be only a very small fraction of the population that would have severe side effects. Whole droves of certified and qualified people were threatened with loss of livelihood and even being placed in nuthouses, and an even bigger drove BLATANTLY LIED, then so can the debunkers.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: 2Faced
I beg to differ.
#2
Ben Davidson isn’t afraid to be challenged, and uses peer reviewed material. Please give an example of what he’s wrong about and we’ll investigate.

We'll investigate? Who is "we"? You can't investigate yourself?

At 3 minutes in this video, it's explained that Ben does indeed use peer reviewed papers where he flashes an image of them on his screen. Then if you had actually read the papers, you would know it's not at all unusual for Ben to completely misrepresent what they say.

Suspicious0bservers is a Pseudoscientific Doomsday Cult

Look at the comments to that video. One of them is by @yuanli3731 who says he is the author of the paper mentioned in the video at time 7:10. Look at what the author of the paper says:

I am the second author of the paper you talked about at 7:10. When this was brought to my attention, I was shocked. We scientists tend to ignore all the pseudoscience stuff, but maybe we should pay more attention in the future. We work so hard to educate the public, but these conspiracy pseudoscientists are undoing our work. Thank you, Professor Dave, for taking your time to debunk the conspiracy theories. And just in case there is any confusion, our paper is about clouds in the interstellar medium, and has nothing to do with any of the doomsday BS.

So there you go, the author of that paper confirms it is not about what Ben is claiming, and it's just one example among many.

#3
Brien Foerster indeed has some way out there theories, specially his sound resonance stuff...

It really pays to watch his material and shape your own opinion, in stead of “hearing” it from others, including me for that matter. Take the time to listen and watch.

Once I know a source is bad, it makes no sense for me to spend any more time with that source. So you can say maybe the guy is wrong about a, b and c, but check out d, maybe he's right about that. You're certainly entitled to do so if you choose, but there are plenty of reliable sources where I don't have to risk the high probability that if the guy is so wrong about a b and c, that he's probably got errors on d too.

Here's a review of his book which is largely plagiaraized, but the original parts which are not plagiarized are often wrong. You probably won't bother reading this but here is a link in case you do want to read it:

Review of Brien Foerster’s ‘Beyond the Black Sea: The Mysterious Paracas Of Peru’

Technically, the plagiarism in the book probably approaches 90%...After a few pages, it quickly becomes easy to detect where he plagiarized versus the apparently rare moments where he had his own thoughts. Typically, these few thoughts were illogical, unfounded, and without citation to data.

In addition to copy/pasting text, Foerster occasionally changed certain data within the passages that he disagreed with to suit his own apparently preconceived notions.

That's just a short excerpt, you can read more if you're interested, but I don't find anything he says credible and that review should give some idea why.

4#
David Talbott
When it comes down to the thunderbolts project, I challenge you to watch “symbols of an alien sky pt.II”, especially the part about “Vales Marineris” and how it came into existence. The archetypal and physical evidence (scaloping, rim craters, line craters, plasma discharge effects etc.), shown along with the theories, are very hard to dispute. Even with limited knowledge on the subject, it is plain to see their theory makes a lot more sense compared to what theories the established scientists came up with. Some science is actually really suppressed, whether you want to believe that or not, and in this case it has been for sure. There’s too much evidence to deny it. Whatever the case, Thunderbolts project, imho, is bonafide and, certainly in case of Vales Marineris, right.

You're entitled to your own opinion, even if it's wrong.

As for science being suppressed, if there's some motivation, maybe, like big drug companies might not want to share all their data on negative effects of a drug if it's making them a lot of money...I can understand that motivation. However I don't understand any motivation for scientists to not want to have an accurate dscription of Mars geology. Big Pharma isn't making or losing any money on that. You mentioned Ben Davidson uses peer reviewed sources (even though he isn't truthful about what they say), but who has peer-reviewed Talbot's work? I submit it won't pass peer review because he would have to explain how sufficient voltage and current could be generated to do what he claims, and he can't explain that.

Not only that but I've looked at the electrical arc pits created in labs and the claim that a similar process made craters, and while you can make more or less a round shape from either process, the electric arc pits simply do not resemble the craters beyond that on close examination.

The whole thunderbolts project is a pseudoscientific scam, not just Talbot but everyone else in that field has no credibility and lacks a scientific approach. I think Talbot even admitted he doesn't have any science that predicts things like real scientists do:

The Electric Universe Acid Test

GPS satellites in orbit around Earth are also dependent on relativity theory, so I asked the conference host David Talbott if EU theory offers anything like the practical applications that theoretical physics has given us. No. Then what does EU theory add? A deeper understanding of nature, I was told. Oh.

So no models, no predictions or the few predictions they make turn out to be wrong, that's why it's pseudoscience.

—-continued

Scientists lie because they have grants they depend on, and need to be able to work. If they go against the narrative there’s a chance they will not be receiving grants, and won’t graduate if they come with “pseudoscience”, if that pseudoscience threatens peers who had it wrong all along for instance. I am certain similar situations happened in the past too. If I am not mistaking, the vatican would punish people for having certain theories, that are now common knowledge. Some of those people had no qualifications whatsoever by the way.

If it were just pits and arcs, I’d perhaps would have come to another conclusion/opinion, but in my opinion, there’s much more to TBP’s explanations, for instance, there’s also the archetypal “evidence”, and they do show scaled down lab experiments with plasma discharge that reproduce the results shown in large versions, and the same effects are found in archetypal depictions, like the stickman for instance, or the way aligned planets would look like seen from earth, and cause large electrical static discharge, after “worlds in collision” (velikovsky). Even though it’s a remote chance, nevertheless it could happen, it is entirely possible that certain planets in our solar system had different orbits than today. Some event could have caused planets to move from their normal orbit, or came to be in their current orbit.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Anyway I'd say it's a topic of ongoing research but the data collection and pace of progress in astronomy is fairly rapid, so we will have better guesses in the future of how much of the heavy elements come from what processes.

What we do not know is how the universe in the first 5 billion years played out. Were stars so massive that they went supernova in a much shorter period of time at a much greater intensity? Betelgeuse is like 700 times bigger than our sun, but what does a star a million times bigger do?

—- continued

If it was only one aspect I would not think they’re on to something. It’s the fact that they are able to explain the existence of many aspects.

It’s the Scaloping, the way sides seem eroded by water, but actually look more like it was done by electric discharge, because water leaves distinctive markings not seen in Vales Marineris and Hebes.

It’s the Positive and Negative “streamers”, caused by electric discharge raising mounts and carving rivers. Reproduced in lab in the 1800’s by George Lichtenberg, effect is scalable.

It’s the negative to the north, positive to the south issue. It looks like one half of mars was excavated and the matter deposited, or rather strewn, on the other half. Electricity could have caused it.

It’s Hebes canyon
No inlet or outlet on the surface, so apparently no water erosion.

I could go on with a couple more, but I made my point in this regard and my point is; they (TBP) present evidence/theories that fit many visual aspects found on mars, and they at at least offer a very good and plausible explanation for their existence. The only stumbling block imo, is explaining/proving how certain planets could have come so close to eachother, that a massive electric arc could stretch between the two planets and carve out massive canyons. It is all a (theoretical for now) possibility however.


a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Topcraft

Ah, the simplest theory of all. Think we’re past that at this point in history. The whole science thing since ancient Egypt and all.

This is the oidest story. The death and rebirth of the king. A cross in the circle.
Science a tool of the matrix. To keep you thinking certain ways. A mind virus of sorts.
An indoctrination to remove our understanding of the mythical and unseen world. See this is the language of the elites. You are fed it in your films. your music. Its hidden in the symbolism occultic practices/ exosteric books. schools and societies. Much of what is written across many different cultures tells the same stories. All the same stuff..

Betelgeuse, which is also known as Alpha Orionis

Osiris the king

Shiva the destroyer.

Has many names..

a reply to: putnam6

Not it's not 'about' to explode
It could be up to 100,000 years from now or more

originally posted by: ziplock9000
a reply to: putnam6

Not it's not 'about' to explode
It could be up to 100,000 years from now or more

Well, in galactic terms 100,000 years is next to nothing in terms of time, so yes, 'about to' is a fair description.

The illuminati already knows that Betelgeuse exploded around 666 years ago and we're just waiting for the wave.

They first confirmed the star had exploded and told the world in their usual manner, through Hollywood movies, with the release of the 1988 film Beetlejuice.

The blast from the star will inundate our solar system with energy and the power cosmic, allowing mankind to metamorphosize into a new telepathic state of being, bringing in the Age of Aquarius.

The illuminati planned to counter this awakening with the release of the Coronavirus. The term corona being another sick play on words they like to use, as they are referencing the outermost layer of a stars atmosphere.

The vaccine was created to either nullify the beneficial effects of the anticipated cosmic blast or make it outright lethal to the general population.

The doses given to the elites were crafted to amplify their cosmic power, so they can enslave those who resist, vaxxed and unvaxxed alike.

To further cement the fact that their plans are still in full swing, we have the greenlight of Beetlejuice 2.

It's showtime.

With the environmentalists screaming about global warming and this supposedly "the explosion would release a huge amount of dust and gas into the atmosphere, which could cause a decrease in global temperatures" the net result should be the Earth in the Goldilocks zone and be 'just right'!

a reply to: CloneFarm1000

Erm...
Well, that was... interesting?
In the off-chance that wasn't a parody, the Illuminati knew how exactly? Telepathy? A note from aliens?

Just as we visibly observe it from a given direction optically, the other parts of the EM spectrum should be coming from that same direction as well, ergo if it radiated anything other or with more energy, we would know. Now as many already have pointed out, it could already gone supernova in the past, but what also has been pointed out, we won't know unless radiation (including visible light) reaches us.