Author Topic: Space is fake and gαy (Read 23266 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #105 on:** August 08, 2022, 09:13:10 AM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on August 08, 2022, 09:09:04 AM

Do you know if there's a full version of the interview so we can know whether or not the clip is pulled out of context?

Yeah, the allegation is that he was joking. Hard to tell for sure. If he was joking, it was very dry humor ... but then you'd almost have to be a native Pole with a better feel for their culture to cut through it. To me, the look on his face suggests that he's uncomfortable saying it, but who knows? ... between his culture and his personality.

If you look at 1:18 - 1:20, right after he's asked the question, he looks dead serious. At 1:22 he cracks a smile as he says, "I didn't expect this question." If the whole thing was just a joke, as the globers claim, I don't see him saying that part. Globers claim that the entire interview was a stream of jokes, but then why did he seem taken aback by this question? Then afterwards he has this almost worried look on his face, like ... why did I say that?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #106 on:** August 08, 2022, 09:33:07 AM »

from the globers about the interview:

Quote

In the interview, he received some ridiculous questions, and he answered them with equally ridiculous answers in a joking tone, including the question at the end of the interview where he was asked if Earth is flat. The General was surprised by the question, but he decided to play along and answered “it is flat” for a hilarious ending.

Sure, the "hilarity" was almost palpable. If the entire interview contained a bunch of "ridiculous questions," then why was he "surprised" by yet another one? Person who wrote this likely never saw the entire interview and was just making stuff up.

Where did he pick up on this "joking tone"? If there was a joke, it was dry humor and there was absolutely no "joking tone". Expression on his face and then the smile when he said "I didn't expect this question." suggest otherwise, that he was genuinely surprised by this last question ... after a string of ridiculous questions ... and he looked very uncomfortable.

Nor was "he asked if Earth is flat". He was asked if the earth is a ball in space.

Whoever wrote this, please provide a link to the full interview (since I've never been able to find it even through various offbeat search engines, such as Yandex) ... since you claim to have seen the entire thing. Otherwise, I'm calling BS and yet another lie by a glober.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #107 on:** August 08, 2022, 09:51:53 AM »

That pictures at the beginning is funny, with the Flat Earther holding up an FE map next to him, but there's another interview that an ex-Soviet cosmonaut gave on a Portuguese station where he says that no one has ever been to space. You can sense the hilarity in his answer as well.

https://twitter.com/ryaanfep/status/1326525775885955072?lang=en

Matthew · « **Reply #108 on:** August 08, 2022, 10:06:14 AM »

Quote from: Yeti on July 27, 2022, 03:10:22 PM

This pattern is even more striking when you talk about the sun. If they think the sun isn't rotating around the globe of the earth, you'd think their first priority would be to figure out what, then, it is doing up there and how. But no, all they do is say casually that it is somehow magically floating in the air, suspended in space, defying the universal attraction of all things downward to the surface of the earth. Not only that, but it is somehow propelled across the surface of the earth. What propels it? Most of them don't seem to ever have thought of the question at all. Then again, they claim it moves in a circular motion. This again is impossible, since any object we see moving through the air moves in a straight line, at least in the atmosphere of the earth. They can't even claim some gravitational pull makes it rotate somehow, since they reject such. But the weirdest thing is not so much that they don't have a way to explain even the most basic components of their theory, but the way they don't even see the need to do so, even when challenged on these things by globe earthers. They can only make statements like, "Just because I don't know doesn't mean the earth is a globe." What?

I'm not God. I don't know how he made the Sun, and the powers of Heaven. Maybe we're not yet qualified to know or interfere with these powers yet? Kind of like Man still doesn't actually understand what LIFE is -- yet it's there, undeniable, all around us! Why not just speculate about what the Firmament is made of -- or more to the point, what it's like to be God? How does God create stuff? Does He think about it? Why did God decide to create Creation when He did? What did He "do" all day long 15 trillion years ago?

See how silly those questions are?

I know that SOME or even MOST globers are ATHEISTS*, but almost NO flat earthers are. The "lowest life form" religious-wise in the Flat Earth community is the kooky new age type -- but they always have a "spiritual" bent. They believe in a higher power, and believe that human life has meaning. No materialists/atheists in the FE community, which is something at least.

How about we keep some awe and reverence for God's creation. Not everything is meant to be put in a test tube with the goal of completely wrapping our meat brains around it -- usually for purposes of manipulating and controlling it.

By the way, your paragraph above is a red herring. You're still thinking in terms of gravity. You think that even under a firmament on a flat earth, the sun must necessarily be "attracted" to the earth by Gravity. NO! There is no Gravity either -- that's part of the Ball Earth paradigm!

And I don't think you understand how arguing against Universal Propaganda works. Something as widely held as the Globe spinning ball paradigm has to be proven silly before people are going to listen to ANY "alternative" explanations. You can't just start with the alternate explanations. Until you show the gaping holes in the spinning ball paradigm...

Plus it's like 9/11. You can know that the 9/11 Official Story is BS but still not have the Intel about HOW EXACTLY the job was pulled off. Being able to provide all the details for "what really happened" is NOT required in blowing the lid off a HOAX. You still do the world a service by establishing that a given story is a hoax. Can you provide the truth then, afterward? It's NICE, it's IDEAL, IF YOU CAN -- but it's not always possible for various reasons.

As for your bit about maps, there are plenty of Flat Earth maps that I've seen many times, brought out when they talk about flight plans. Those maps seem to work better than the globe alternative. So they certainly exist, and were brought out otherwise I wouldn't have seen them!

*
"Most globers are atheists" might sound extreme, but I'm talking about practical atheism. How many people believe in evolution, that time & chance created everything, as opposed to the literal interpretation of Genesis? The former is atheism. I don't care if they go to some wishy-washy protestant service once in a while for NETWORKING and BUSINESS opportunities. If they don't modify their life, what they do on a daily basis, to follow God's commands, then they don't believe in God plain and simple. TL;DR: Only "fundamentalist" protestants count for anything. They are much more rare than "protestants" in general.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #109 on:** August 08, 2022, 10:56:57 AM »

Yeti, you're arguing for "smoking gun" type of evidence, but that only exists on a Perry Mason tv show. In real life, even murder trials (which are uber less complicated than understanding the universe) mostly rely on "probabilities" to find a person innocent/guilty. That's why the litmus test is "reasonable doubt" vs "100% positive". And a civil case requires only "more likely than not" evidence.

How much more does the understanding of the universe require assumptions, if a serious crime like murder can never have the full story proven (because no one is there to witness the entire murder or preparations or can read minds)? The very idea that NASA/freemasonic science dare to tell the world they know EXACTLY how the big bang happened or evolution works or how the sun/moon interact with the earth is RIDICULOUS AND NARCISSISTIC to the nth degree. It's a lie only satan would be unashamed to tell.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #110 on:** August 08, 2022, 11:17:21 AM »

Quote from: Yeti on July 27, 2022, 03:10:22 PM

This pattern is even more striking when you talk about the sun. If they think the sun isn't rotating around the globe of the earth, you'd think their first priority would be to figure out what, then, it is doing up there and how. But no, all they do is say casually that it is somehow magically floating in the air, suspended in space, defying the universal attraction of all things downward to the surface of the earth. Not only that, but it is somehow propelled across the surface of the earth. What propels it? Most of them don't seem to ever have thought of the question at all. Then again, they claim it moves in a circular motion. This again is impossible, since any object we see moving through the air moves in a straight line, at least in the atmosphere of the earth. They can't even claim some gravitational pull makes it rotate somehow, since they reject such. But the weirdest thing is not so much that they don't have a way to explain even the most basic components of their theory, but the way they don't even see the need to do so, even when challenged on these things by globe earthers. They can only make statements like, "Just because I don't know doesn't mean the earth is a globe." What?

One possibility:

The following video is worth watching to get some theories on just what the stars are, and the motion of the planetary and luminescent bodies in the sky
https://tv.gab.com/channel/yafer/view/what-on-earth-happened-part-x-602962980ad6f0deab1657e4

"How the Sun and Moon work on the FE model"
https://www.bitchute.com/video/QbFn6topycHC/

Even Scripture talks about the sun, moon, and stars moving in a circuit above the earth. Just because we don't know the precise mechanics of it doesn't make it any less a reality.
Yet, accepting some explanation that is based upon assumption after assumption just because some atheistic scientists said so is even more foolish. At least in the former the FEarther has the humility to state that he doesn't know. Rather than make positive claims about the nature of the world based upon theoretical assumptions and pagan notions of the world. You have to first break down the assumptions of the dominant cosmology before you can work to build up an alternative. And even then, there are people working on that alternative, like Rob Skiba, who have been censored into oblivion.

Tradman · « **Reply #111 on:** August 08, 2022, 12:23:01 PM »

Graphic looks like a launching space shuttle while wearing the hat, but the true source and intention becomes obvious when you flip it.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #112 on:** August 08, 2022, 12:34:59 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on August 08, 2022, 11:17:21 AM

One possibility:

The following video is worth watching to get some theories on just what the stars are, and the motion of the planetary and luminescent bodies in the sky
https://tv.gab.com/channel/yafer/view/what-on-earth-happened-part-x-602962980ad6f0deab1657e4

"How the Sun and Moon work on the FE model"
https://www.bitchute.com/video/QbFn6topycHC/

Even Scripture talks about the sun, moon, and stars moving in a circuit above the earth. Just because we don't know the precise mechanics of it doesn't make it any less a reality.
Yet, accepting some explanation that is based upon assumption after assumption just because some atheistic scientists said so is even more foolish. At least in the former the FEarther has the humility to state that he doesn't know. Rather than make positive claims about the nature of the world based upon theoretical assumptions and pagan notions of the world. You have to first break down the assumptions of the dominant cosmology before you can work to build up an alternative. And even then, there are people working on that alternative, like Rob Skiba, who have been censored into oblivion.

Quote from: Tradman on August 08, 2022, 12:23:01 PM

Graphic looks like a launching space shuttle while wearing the hat, but the true source and intention becomes obvious when you flip it.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #113 on:** August 08, 2022, 03:40:45 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 08, 2022, 10:56:57 AM

Yeti, you're arguing for "smoking gun" type of evidence, but that only exists on a Perry Mason tv show.

Indeed, modern science is almost entirely made up of theory ... despite the fact that they try to present it (especially to the "lay" folk) as undisputed fact. Big Bang theory, Theory of Evolution, Theory of Relativity ... they're all just theories even by their own admission. And they go with whatever theory seems to explain the most facts ... except when they don't and it's about a philosophical/religious agenda. But many of these theories have things that falsify them.

So, for instance, their theory of gravity and most of their theories are in serious crisis. Even Kaku admits this.

They had to completely make up the notion of dark matter because their cosmological theories have turned to garbage.

So how did they get to the point that Kaku describes? ... by refusing to let go of the pet theories they invented based on their atheistic agenda.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #114 on:** August 08, 2022, 03:49:37 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 08, 2022, 03:40:45 PM

So how did they get to the point that Kaku describes? ... by refusing to let go of the pet theories they invented based on their atheistic agenda.

Yep. This, in essence, is what the problem is. They've committed to a specific position based upon their own religion's cosmology and now have to literally make everything up wholecloth, scientific method be damned.

That's why I keep hitting on the point that just because "the math" supports their theory, does not mean it translates to reality.

I'm reading a book right now that cassini has referenced called "Pythagoras or Christ?" by A.A. Martinez, and it notes this same point regarding the Pythagoreans building up a vast philosophical-religion (and cosmology) that doesn't necessarily agree with what the historical Pythagoras even taught, and it's claims about the world conflict with common observation and the conclusions of other Philosophers like Aristotle and Plato. It's the same problem here where at the Renaissance they started construction of their cosmology on a faulty foundation (occultism, pagan sciences) and now have to maintain this "Tower of Babel" which is crumbling at the seams.

Philothea3 · « **Reply #115 on:** August 13, 2022, 04:03:47 PM »

Is this kind of photographs real or also CGI? I think I read that with a telescope that you can easily buy online you can see similar things too, maybe not as clear, but still visible.

St Giles · « **Reply #116 on:** August 13, 2022, 06:56:42 PM »

Quote from: Philothea3 on August 13, 2022, 04:03:47 PM

Is this kind of photographs real or also CGI? I think I read that with a telescope that you can easily buy online you can see similar things too, maybe not as clear, but still visible.

A lot of what a large expensive observatory on top of a mountain can see, let alone a giant telescope in space, cannot be seen just by looking through an easily bought telescope. The size of these telescopes greatly magnifies the light allowing otherwise invisible gas clouds and galaxies to bee seen. On top of that, they use cameras to take exposures lasting several minutes up to a few days long, which magnifies the brightness and detail by an enormous amount. Huge difference between the NASA scopes and ours, but they can just as easily fake images too.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #117 on:** August 13, 2022, 07:22:39 PM »

Quote from: Philothea3 on August 13, 2022, 04:03:47 PM

Is this kind of photographs real or also CGI? I think I read that with a telescope that you can easily buy online you can see similar things too, maybe not as clear, but still visible.

Of course, I hold that they're fake. I don't agree that you can take these types of images with a telescope, but we certainly have the technology to create them. So it would all depend upon how much someone trusts NASA not to be lying. I saw someone posting on a forum who claims to have expertise in astronomy (who is not a flat earther) who said he had been excited to see the images, but then was gravely disappointed that they seem to be fakes. He said something about stars with different numbers of points in the same images. He said that the number of points on starts is an artifact of how lenses work, and he said that it's impossible for the same telescope to create a single image with starts that have a variable number of points. I can't confirm or deny this, but his comment was never addressed or refuted by the resident self-proclaimed astronomy expert on the forum.

In any case, what has long perplexed me about images of this kind. Do you know the kind of bandwidth that would be required to download such HD images from "space" down to the earth? This would be a challenge with a fiber connection, would probably take weeks across one of those old modems people used to have, and to get the kind of bandwidth required to transmit these images within less than a couple of months to me is simply incomprehensible from the distances they claim that Webb is from the earth.

Another thing that puzzles me. They spent $10 billion on this thing. Reportedly it only has 68GB of onboard storage capacity. That's far less than your average home laptop has (typically at least 250GB now). Based on the Webb image/data sizes, that's enough for maybe 200 images before the internal storage would be full. But how long does it take to transmit that much data from as far away as Webb allegedly is? Even if it were possible to transmit that kind of data from that far away, the rate at which it could transmit it couldn't keep up with preventing the storage from getting full. Finally, there's the claim of a 25.9 Gigahertz signal. OK, but we're not beaming this across a house or even a couple houses. Webb is allegedly a MILLIONS miles away. It would take a long time for any given pixel to be transmitted a million miles, but how is that signal pinpointed to be received by a single receiver ... when both the telescope and the earth are allegedly in motion? It's also well known that the higher Gigahertz signals, while they have higher bandwidth, also have LESS RANGE. Just see it in your typical home WiFi router. Those usually have an option of either 5 or 2.4 GHz. 5 gives you better bandwidth, but you have to be a lot closer to the WiFi antenna to use it because it has a poor range compared to the 2.4 GHz. I simply don't see how it's possible to transmit that amount of data reliably from a million miles away, to a targeted receiver, on a NARROW band (required for higher data rates). These aren't like radio signals where you could blanket many square miles with them.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #118 on:** August 13, 2022, 07:50:36 PM »

Quote from: Philothea3 on August 13, 2022, 04:03:47 PM

Is this kind of photographs real or also CGI? I think I read that with a telescope that you can easily buy online you can see similar things too, maybe not as clear, but still visible.

I think some of the images are certainly touched up for the "wow factor" and to appeal to the image of space that people have been sold. But I think some are real. Just not of the nature or on the scale of what they claim

The one attached below looks fake to me.

St Giles · « **Reply #119 on:** August 13, 2022, 11:20:05 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 13, 2022, 07:22:39 PM

Of course, I hold that they're fake. I don't agree that you can take these types of images with a telescope, but we certainly have the technology to create them. So it would all depend upon how much someone trusts NASA not to be lying. I saw someone posting on a forum who claims to have expertise in astronomy (who is not a flat earther) who said he had been excited to see the images, but then was gravely disappointed that they seem to be fakes. He said something about stars with different numbers of points in the same images. He said that the number of points on starts is an artifact of how lenses work, and he said that it's impossible for the same telescope to create a single image with starts that have a variable number of points. I can't confirm or deny this, but his comment was never addressed or refuted by the resident self-proclaimed astronomy expert on the forum.

In any case, what has long perplexed me about images of this kind. Do you know the kind of bandwidth that would be required to download such HD images from "space" down to the earth? This would be a challenge with a fiber connection, would probably take weeks across one of those old modems people used to have, and to get the kind of bandwidth required to transmit these images within less than a couple of months to me is simply incomprehensible from the distances they claim that Webb is from the earth.

Another thing that puzzles me. They spent $10 billion on this thing. Reportedly it only has 68GB of onboard storage capacity. That's far less than your average home laptop has (typically at least 250GB now). Based on the Webb image/data sizes, that's enough for maybe 200 images before the internal storage would be full. But how long does it take to transmit that much data from as far away as Webb allegedly is? Even if it were possible to transmit that kind of data from that far away, the rate at which it could transmit it couldn't keep up with preventing the storage from getting full. Finally, there's the claim of a 25.9 Gigahertz signal. OK, but we're not beaming this across a house or even a couple houses. Webb is allegedly a MILLIONS miles away. It would take a long time for any given pixel to be transmitted a million miles, but how is that signal pinpointed to be received by a single receiver ... when both the telescope and the earth are allegedly in motion? It's also well known that the higher Gigahertz signals, while they have higher bandwidth, also have LESS RANGE. Just see it in your typical home WiFi router. Those usually have an option of either 5 or 2.4 GHz. 5 gives you better bandwidth, but you have to be a lot closer to the WiFi antenna to use it because it has a poor range compared to the 2.4 GHz. I simply don't see how it's possible to transmit that amount of data reliably from a million miles away, to a targeted receiver, on a NARROW band (required for higher data rates). These aren't like radio signals where you could blanket many square miles with them.

Yeah, the 25.9ghz doesn't make sense, but our common 5.8ghz transmitters are most likely running round 5-200mW of power is my guess, and not often above 1-5 watts for special use, but they wouldn't want a lot of power going to a transmitter on such a telescope. I could see there being a different number of points on the stars if different onboard cameras were used that specialized in different wavelength ranges, but I don't get why there would be points anyway. Maybe points are better than a full halo. They are caused by an imperfectly round aperture: the edge of the aperture blades cause them, but it is possible to make curved blades to eliminate the points. I don't think the telescope really needs much storage space since it is supposed to send back images as soon as possible. If it is only taking deep space images with multi day exposures each, then there is plenty of time to transmit each picture.

Author Topic: Space is fake and gαy (Read 23266 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Space is fake and gαy

Ladislaus

Re: Space is fake and gαy

Ladislaus

Re: Space is fake and gαy

Matthew

Re: Space is fake and gαy

Pax Vobis

Re: Space is fake and gαy

DigitalLogos

Re: Space is fake and gαy

Tradman

Re: Space is fake and gαy

DigitalLogos

Re: Space is fake and gαy

Ladislaus

Re: Space is fake and gαy

DigitalLogos

Re: Space is fake and gαy

Philothea3

Re: Space is fake and gαy

St Giles

Re: Space is fake and gαy

Ladislaus

Re: Space is fake and gαy

DigitalLogos

Re: Space is fake and gαy

St Giles

Re: Space is fake and gαy