Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't)

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:42 am

Continuing on my own little personal moon mission ... *ahem* ...

What kind of moon lighting is not possible in a setting where light behaves as we are told and the Moon and Sun and Earth have the relationship NASA claims? Is a "top" crescent possible?

Under the lighting conditions as follows, a "top crescent" moon should be possible, should it not? Please correct me. This is merely an amusing thought and I would love to behold the typical beauty of a "top crescent" moon when it happens, and admire it. Please help me in this simple quest for a simple Internet search results page. What search terms should I use? Which latitude must I be at? I assume Ecuador would be a good place to start.

Given we are on the white dot on the equator depicted here, the Sun is in our sky and the Moon from our perspective is taking the curve around the equator, in other words "rising" to meet the (all-too angular) rays of the great reticent orb, there should be nothing preventing the Moon from being lit 'from the "dark side" first' — in short, giving us a mostly dark bottom and middle area but very bright sliver on top as we might see on a snapshot of the horizon depicted in the upper right frame.

moon_crescent_up2.GIF

Don't worry, I am sure many of these pictures exist, with a top sided thin sliver crescent and a clear horizon line for comparative angle. I am merely slightly bored of the half- or quarter-moon in daylight pics, or the crescents pointing left or right. I have a personal passion for rare beauties, even if that makes me silly.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5054
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:38 pm

What is the official explanation for the Moon glowing in the umbra during a lunar eclipse? Why do we have the famous 'blood moon' at all, if the Moon is supposed to be in total shadow during this time?

It's particularly strange if you think about the fact that the Moon's shaded features are barely discernible when the rest of it is glowing ostensibly due to sunlight. If it's the Sun's light causing a Moon in lunar eclipse to glow so well, then the light must be either ricocheting off of the Earth or bending around it, according to the given model where Earth and the Moon are round balls lit like spheres.

If that's the case, though, one would expect the shade of a typical Moon's face to be immersed in a bright light, unlike the shadow we do see. Is the direction of the sunlight somehow playing a role? Is the Moon giving off an 'afterglow' of thermal light because it is so hot during a full moon (which is when lunar eclipses occur)? Are we to believe that the Earth's artificial lighting of its cities at night is causing a more discernible glow to the shadow-enveloped Moon?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5054
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread postby lux on Mon Oct 13, 2014 3:50 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:What is the official explanation for the Moon glowing in the umbra during a lunar eclipse? Why do we have the famous 'blood moon' at all, if the Moon is supposed to be in total shadow during this time?


Is this what you're asking for, hoi?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_shadow#Color_of_lunar_eclipses
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

How is the Moon Lit? II

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Thu Oct 16, 2014 10:42 am

Thanks, lux. Their explanation seems to be the rather noncommittal "refracting or bending" of the Sun's light around the Earth. This seems like a good opportunity to do some further speculations about the elephant in the room that mainstream science has not addressed: light's behavior as opposed to other physics' behavior.

HOW IS THE MOON LIT? II

Continuing from the previous problem about the lighting of the Moon vis-à-vis the Sun (proposed in my earlier post: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1424&start=270#p2388703) and taking into account numerous other problems brought to our attention by members like scud and Totalrecall ("Wild Heretic") I would like to propose a simpler solution to the bending of light we are experiencing than reconciling it with the obsolete Copernican system.

The problem was stated like so:

Image

Light (if directly from the Sun, which seems logical enough) seems to hit the Moon as if the Sun were higher in the sky than the Sun is observed to be. "Refraction" has not been perfectly accounted for, and nor has the perfect appearance of a "flat Earth" compensating against the "actual round Earth". Hence, light is making some very radical curves that do not apply to our other observations of the heavens or Earth.

However, a simple solution has occurred to me recently, which causes new questions to be raised if it is indeed the solution. The concave Earth model may offer some parallel/supportive explanation.

If the Earth is a concave surface with no detectable 'outside' as the Koreshians and some Nazis believed, light must necessarily be moving contrary to observation. It must bend depending on where you are positioned in 'height', which makes at least as much sense as the phenomenon of the horizon rising to eye level no matter how high you go up in an airplane. A convex behavior of light informed by concave behavior of geophysics may lend itself to the idea that a balance between the two would create an even and "logical" lighting of the Moon that we observe askew due to a convection of light.

moon_sun_dance_7.GIF

If the observable cosmos as a whole are "contained" or — more accurately — observed from our place upon a concave surface, many possibilities arise. I do not necessarily think this forces a systems model for the universe to be like the Nazis proposed or like Totalrecall or the "Steven Christ" character proposes, nor does it necessarily reject those models or squish the universe's physics into Mostafa Abdelkader's perfect mathematical warping of modern observation. What could be happening is something like it, though — where Earth is more concave in some physical laws but convex in others. If we are finding ourselves firmly wedged in mainstream science, we can borrow the same kind of imagination such science uses to explain magnetic fields around the Sun, Moon and Earth. What if light followed and was bent drastically by such (beautiful) patterns of electromagnetism rather than "refracting"? I won't illustrate the mainstream model here because it will be a distraction to the model I am trying to illustrate using words.

If you wanted to be forgiving, you could suggest that gravity may be arriving here from a different dimension than light. This would explain the physical proofs for a concave "pushing-force" gravity from a point in the center of a concave Earth model. But it would also excuse the fact that our Earth and Moon and Sun act roughly like orbs in the amazing clockwork system Simon has discovered.

This would mean Earth could be like a multi-dimensional "spiral" of sorts, expanding and moving in some ways but stationary in others. Expanding in over all size (the continents fit together on the outside or inside of a smaller sphere), stationary in absolute Planck-density space, stationary against a spinning and active cosmos (the cosmos' default, of which planetoids may be an exception, which explains Airy's failure to detect Earth's movement), and so on.

Perhaps its various dimensions could be described as toroid or torus shaped as magnetic fields are generally wont to be. Perhaps the X and Y dimensions of traveling the Earth on foot, wheel, sea or air are looped because they are a limited 2D spatial dimension describing the physical extreme of the Z dimension that digs under the Earth or lifts off the Earth. Gravity "emits" from the Z dimension and is impossible to fight "upwards" any higher. Similarly, our digging powers are severely limited and the deeper we try to follow gravity's path the closer we get to harder and harder metals that defy any tools of our making. Like poles on a toroidal magnetic field.

Rather than a purely mechanistic and presumptive extrapolation of Earth physics into the entire cosmos, where billiard balls are randomly floating about in empty vacuum, the evidences proposed by Mach, Michelson-Morley, Airy, The Tamarack Mine experiment, the canal observations, Cy Teed's Rectilineators, Tycho Brahe, Simon Shack and others to join this reexamination of our basic science would describe a model whereby Earth's physics does not extend beyond Earth but merely shares some properties in its own designated proportions with the observable universe.

That is, the fantasy of "leaving Earth" in a rocket ship and traveling to Mars and Venus and so on, may be possible but never by using our primitive Earth-based Newtonian physics. In short, rocketry beyond Earth is bunkum. It's as fantastical as sailing a Cutty Sark style clipper ship to the Moon, as heard in the various adventures of Baron Munchausen.

What must be understood about traveling "to" and/or "through" other dimensions is that it requires a change or warping in our own properties in dimensions available to us, to fit the bill of passage. We may need to work closer with electromagnetic energies, understand how they become physical (or even "less physical" if that's possible) and develop technologies to enhance both our perception of these things and our cooperation with them. Using our monkey methods of throwing stuff into the sky (like bones, perhaps, as the possibly satirical 2001: A Space Odyssey mocked us with?) is only going to remind us how far we have to fall.

And not to get New Agey, but unfortunately the topic of the soul is as unavoidable in this discussion as mainstream science is difficult to separate from an atheistic mechanistic hell; I would prefer to avoid this and stick to science. But there is science to spirituality, and this all does tie in with "far out" matters such as our species' electromagnetic connection to the general web of life and existence and to the most recent electric universe theories (even if led by absolutely horrible people like Eric Dollard or the mysterious self-feuding legacy of Tesla). It may be that our species is a precursor (or postcursor?) to changes in life that permit different forms of travel. And perhaps spiritual advancement is, itself, a kind of axis of its own. A 'kindness' axis that has placed us all here in a rather hilariously wretched simulation of some kind.

Is it saying too much to suggest that it is highly likely, even on a metaphorical level, that the twisted people behind NASA and the terrorism hoaxes have a bit further to go on that particular dimension? Perhaps so. We like to sing our own praises but we all find ourselves here "on Earth" or "in Earth" or ... "at Earth", after all.

But anyway, back to physics and chemistry and whatnot, right?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5054
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread postby nimblehorse on Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:17 pm

Ab from Fakeologist.com emailed me with an mp3 audio of an interview with Mark Sargent, who produced the video below. only released to youtube 4 weeks ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFYaT-U82JY
[ADMIN: Video reduced to simple link for being a distraction. Please understand concern about people turning CluesForum into a place for every YouTube battle to play out. We don't want this. Thanks. -HP]

9 Flat Earth Clues...90 minute run time.

He claims to have set out to debunk the Flat earth theory over a weekend but became a convert! & made the video as a result.

I have to say the 9 clues ticked a few boxes with me.

The 1st clue is the UN Flag uses the Flat Earth map for their Logo. Hiding in plain sight ?

Image

Image

Image
nimblehorse
Member
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:24 am

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Thu Mar 26, 2015 3:41 am

If you want a summary of all the different ideas that actually have scientific evidence for them, I suggest you start at Sargent and actually dive a little deeper instead of jumping on the "he's censored and so he's right!" bandwagon. The fact is there isn't much to censor with Mark Sargent because he doesn't actually say much. I'm slightly embarrassed a CluesForum member is all that moved by it while ignoring the stuff posted by scud in this thread or Wild Heretic at his blog. What am I missing? What happened to the demand for evidence and science and forensics? Are we just going on flags now?

Flat Earth is definitely worth looking into! After all, it seems flat, except for the rectilineator experiment which shows it's curved.

But in his videos, he presented a frustrating case for extremely little evidence. The evidence presented in Flat Earth Clues is pretty circumstantial and cart-before-the-horse. In my opinion, the only compelling case besides the debated Byrd narrative (and only evidence I can find buried within tons of talk about "why they are hiding" the evidence he hardly discusses) is the "flight times" evidence, which was refuted somewhat by a user at Fakeologist by finding the flights that simply break the case. Mark apparently threw up his digital hands at that point. So it isn't much. No problem believing it, but where is the evidence? I am happy to embrace my "flat Earth" if anything actually comes up to prove it. Let's get those flight times in a chart and show definitively it's not possible. Sargent claims they fly faster in such cases. Fantastic, then let's get proof of that, and we'll actually have something.

In order to gain perspective on why some people think Mark Sargent is just a catchy figure with no hard proof, try catching up to all the theories discussed by reading the much more varied ones in this thread. Or check out Flat Earth Society's forum (http://forum.tfes.org/) for much better debate and discussion than Sargent over-simplified.

Please, if you are actually curious about the world, respond to the evidence and the science, and not the merely conspiratorial "it's a cover up" type videos.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5054
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread postby anonjedi2 on Thu Mar 26, 2015 5:31 am

The Flat Earth Society is controlled opposition, at least according to Eric Dubay. Dubay has a lot more interesting information and evidence to present than Sargent does. Dubay thinks Sargent is controlled opposition. I recommend watching some of his videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G90A2kg1bWs
[ADMIN: Video reduced to simple link for being a distraction. Please understand concern about people turning CluesForum into a place for every YouTube battle to play out. We don't want this. Thanks. -HP]

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQArDd ... 37TTmKu9Wg

Also recommended - Rory Cooper's videos.

https://www.youtube.com/user/Rorycoopervids/videos

[ADMIN WARNING: Just dropping URLs or YouTube videos without the most valuable and detailed explainations from your perspective are worthless to our forum. Please stop merely dropping YouTube channels on the forum! This isn't your Facebook. We want research. Thanks! -HP]
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread postby Selene on Thu Mar 26, 2015 5:37 am

nimblehorse,

Thank you for sharing this video. I have to agree with what hoi.polloi said about the author and his catchy video series. I was about to watch all parts, to be able to comment on it fully informed (at least by the series itself), but had to stop after Part 6 - The Deep Perception Deception.

It was interesting to see the part about a person I never heard of before, this Richard Byrd. Indeed a real explorer as it seems. But the comment made in the video is that "there is a line you cannot cross on Antarctica, so the "real" "truth" about the "edge" of the world is hidden from us".

This comment, based on the premise "It's a cover-up, so it must be true" as hoi.polloi pointed out, is disputed by two major points:
  • Even in the case this were to be true; a "boundary" mankind is "not allowed" to cross, how is this practically done? Is there a fence on Antarctica, running for thousands of miles over this vast inhospitable continent? Are there permanent guards living in this 6 month darkness and impossible climatic conditions? Does every Antarctic explorer get a leg strap which produces a 10.000 voltage shock if you'd cross it?
  • "Do your own research, question everything", yes Mr. Sargent, that's why I joined Cluesforum which has tumbled down some major world views I had before. But that also applies to your own video. A quick search on "after the last expedition of Byrd in 1956-57 there has been no exploration of the South Pole". Well, this list on Wikipedia does contradict this statement slightly. "But hey, all that is bogus crap worldwide conspiracies hiding the "truth" of a flat Earth". If so, then also this guy; Erling Kagge, a private explorer, is lying about his amazing endeavours. And South Pole Traverse never took place either. Our dear 'friends' from NASA never went to Antarctica to collect lunar meteorites ever either then?
The "arguments" made by Sargent really disappear in the vast nothingness of space with Part 6. There he "researches" (well, not really, see hoi.polloi's comments) the interior of the Earth, or as believed by "Flat Earthers" the section below the surface.

And let that be my terrain of expertise; geology. One of the main motives to question the Apollo missions, my starting point of the space hoaxes, the name of this subsection of the forum, is just that; the lunar geology as presented by NASA in their videos and photos does not fit. More on that in the future, but this natural science is not compromised by NASA nor USGS entirely because it is tangible. One can look for fossils and minerals him/herself and wonder about the great mysteries of our own planet.

In this part Sargent jumps over some fences with the speed of light to end up with "we know about our Earths interior, gimme a break". Well, refuting hundreds of years of research with such a blatant comment does require some more back-up, evidence as requested by hoi.polloi. And there it stops.

I am not afraid to question my own expertise on geology nor the work of so many others on the subject, but then you need to convince me with well-argumented research. That is all missing so no way I can be convinced that the Earth as a sphere-model is flawed.

Not to mention:
- explanation of the Earths climatic zones caused by the Earths tilt towards the Sun
- disputing the ancient Greeks and Egyptians who even tried to quantify the Earths circumference with a remarkable degree of precision
- plate tectonics
- the changes in relative position of the Earth with respect to the stars; precession
- and so much more

If you state the heliocentric model is wrong and a geocentric model (or any other alternative model) is right, you can only do this by explaining all the observations and not ridiculing "heliocentrists" or come up with diverging "arguments" that "all those scientists are part of a Jesuit or Freemason doctrine". I am not, and I am an open minded researcher, so these attacking comments do not hit me in the slightest way.

In short; I am not saying I am not open to change also this world view of mine, but please come up with some serious arguments that do explain all the observations.

Selene

A sketch of the progress of Geology is the history of a constant and violent struggle between new opinions and ancient doctrines sanctioned by the implicit faith of many generations and supposed to rest on scriptural authority
Charles Lyell (1832)
Selene
Banned
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:59 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread postby Selene on Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:52 am

anonjedi2 wrote:The Flat Earth Society is controlled opposition, at least according to Eric Dubay. Dubay has a lot more interesting information and evidence to present than Sargent does. Dubay thinks Sargent is controlled opposition. I recommend watching some of his videos ...


Thanks anonjedi2,

I watched the first video up to minute 25.

A few comments:
  • the only base for a flat Earth seems to be the horizon which looks flat and the statement that one can see lights 100-150 miles (160-240 kms) away, which "would be impossible" if the Earth would be a sphere. I have no way of checking this statement as he does not give any sources. It may be in his book, but I am not spending not even a rusty penny on this guy to check that out.
  • then he continues and mixes Flat Earth with Geocentricity and talks about Pythagoras who he calls "the first freemason". On the wikipage of the Greek mathematician it is, however, stated that he inspired Freemasonry, not that he was the first Freemason which would make him by definition the founder. On the same page a very important phrase is this: "Most of the information about Pythagoras was written down centuries after he lived, so very little reliable information is known about him." So to base your conclusion that "heliocentricity/spherical Earth is wrong" on his alleged status of "Freemason" is tricky, to say the least.
    That is apart from the fact that being a Freemason is not an argument in itself. I am open to believe Freemasonry is involved in staging hoaxes and the like, but that does not make everything a Freemason says suddenly all deceptive and not true.
  • further on he starts mixing real hoaxing and deception (NASA) with the physical science which is much older, talks about the impossibility of satellites (fine, see the separate section about it), the CGI pictures of the Earth and uses that argument to refute the spherical Earth.
    Even if satellites would exist and take images of the Earth, it would be impossible to get a full size view of the Earth as presented to us (the (in)famous "Africa-centered" Earth image and others), simply because they would be not high enough to get such an image
  • moving on he talks about "planets do not exist, they are just merely stars". Oh? But how come they "move" in a different orbit than the other stars, with positions that change every day much more than the "other" stars, which are far far away. He mentions parallax and just sweeps it aside without providing any mathematical argument.
  • he talks about the precession I mentioned in the post before and uses the same method; he just throws it in the waste bin without any scientific argument
  • the point where I had to stop the video is the "Dinosaur Hoax idea", which even got a separate section on this forum, deliberately evaded by me, because I want to allow people to have their own fantasies about even tangible evidence being staged. "Dinosaurs were invented in the 1850s" and "just when Darwin presented his monkey evolution theory". These two comments clearly show that this meditating Thailand based North American guy doesn't even get the most basic facts straight. Darwinian evolution is not about "humans evolving from -current- monkeys" (yet apes and humans and further back in time monkeys having a commen ancestor) and Dinosaur fossils can be found by anyone who is interested, in remote field locations, not in controlled NASA/Disney environments. I myself have seen various dinosaur sites in different parts of the world, including eggs and footprints.
    All this doesn't mean that there is no "fakery"; you could consider modeling a complete 20 tonne dinosaur only based on a few bone fragments "fakery", but I would say it's just modeling, a very common practice in geology and archeology and other sciences that have to work with scattered clues and still try to build a presentable story out of it.
Well, if you present this guy as a source to say that "Mark Sargent is controlled opposition" then he himself you can consider "controlled opposition" in the same way.

So still no convincing arguments against the heliocentric nor the spherical Earth (which you cannot mix like they would be butter and margarine), sorry to say.

Selene

The facts will eventually test all our theories, and they form, after all, the only impartial jury to which we can appeal
Louis Agassiz (1870)
Selene
Banned
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:59 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread postby nonhocapito on Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:32 am

I'm about to disappoint everyone with this, sorry.

1) How not to see that a video named "Flat Earth CLues part 1" is nothing but an attempt to associate with "September Clues" and bring it down with it?

2) How not to see that all this flat earth business, that you guys seem to think "worth looking into", is incredibly harmful to this forum and all the research in it? Personally I stay away from these pseudo scientific threads like the plague and I think they should belong to a different forum website altogether. They are energy suckers that go nowhere and bring the reputation of the forum down like deadweight.

3) We have fantastic findings on this forum regarding political propaganda and fakery, and there is a real danger of devaluing them just by placing them next to overly complicated/unprovable theories about the solar system or the flat/hollow earth or the origins of satellties/asteroids that fuel debates that can go on forever without getting anywhere. I don't care how entertaining or interesting this stuff is. Put yourselves in the shoes of a first time reader. Shocked and intrigued by what he reads about 9/11 or ISIS or NASA or the latest fakery in the news, he turns page and reads about the hollow earth. And it's goodbye.

There, I said my piece. :mellow:
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread postby simonshack on Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:46 am

Selene wrote:Even if satellites would exist and take images of the Earth, it would be impossible to get a full size view of the Earth as presented to us (the (in)famous "Africa-centered" Earth image and others), simply because they would be not high enough to get such an image.


Image

Dear Selene,

I am sure that you are aware that hundreds of "Geostationary satellites" (here's a website listing 402 of such things) are claimed to be orbiting Earth at a distance of 36.000km (or just about 1/11th of the Earth>Moon distance). On another page of that same website, we are told that the diameter of Earth as seen from the Geo-satellites is 17 degrees:

"View of the earth as seen from a satellite above the equator at 0 deg longitude.
Diameter of the earth as seen from the satellite = 17 degrees."

Image
http://www.satsig.net/maps/satellite-maps.htm

Of course, we all know that the sun and the moon's diameter (as seen from Earth) is about half a degree:

"By an amazing coincidence, the moon's apparent size in our sky is almost exactly the same as the sun's: about half a degree."
http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/M ... ipses.html

This means that, if we imagine a "Twin Earth" orbiting our own - at a distance of 36.000km - it would be 34 times larger than the sun and the moon - as seen from Earth. It would be a truly spectacular sight - which even the cheapest camera could easily capture. Here is a composite of mine - to give you an idea of what an amazing sight it would be :

Image

Surely, if there were hundreds of geostationary satellites up there, we would be flooded with thousands of wonderful photographs of our planet - on a daily basis. However, this is clearly not the case. Instead, all we have is that 'unique', infamous image supposedly captured by Apollo 17 - back in 1972...

Image
"Just hours after its liftoff from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, the crew of Apollo 17 found themselves aligned with Earth and the Sun, enabling them to take this full disk view of Earth. The astronauts were coasting towards the Moon, approximately 40,000 kilometers from Earth, when this picture was taken." http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/58159main_Apoll ... .Earth.pdf



******************
NOTE: No, I do not believe the Earth is flat. I totally support Nonhocapito's above comment. Posts such as the one above (by our member nimblehorse) which only link to other people's / website's speculations about the subject will not be tolerated from now on.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6649
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:15 pm

simonshack wrote:Posts such as the one above (by our member nimblehorse) which only link to other people's / website's speculations about the subject will not be tolerated from now on.


I disagree about the timing with Simon and nonhocapito on this point that, I am sure, they will come to appreciate later when people have settled into the legitimacy of questioning all mainstream science (science ideas that are, after all, the point of science to constantly re-examine and test). This site already terrifies people just for questioning the legitimacy of NASA. It's an easy bullseye at point blank range (thankfully, after much of our own easy but diligent work) to slam State governments and their religiously zealous corporate partners/masters. To actually examine the fundamentals of science is one of the greatest opportunities CluesForum gives us, because we have undermined the most oppressive mob mentality groupthink.

I agree, however, that anonjedi2 could do a much better job at posting his own thoughts, criticisms or — at best — what he thinks the video says without just doing the old "drop a video/URL and run" move, which is a bit tiresome. Although, I know that anonjedi2 means to refute Sargent's points and rightly so. Selene has done some of the job by extracting and analyzing some of its points, so thank you, Selene.

Our attentions may float here and there across the forum, but we do have a well-defined and well-defended "border"; we should be allowed this one single thread at least to explain just why NASA is in the wrong for faking the science they do.

Although it ultimately doesn't matter what the shape of the Earth is, it doesn't mean it's right to insist (without proof) on a particular shape. Flat Earth is not an entirely illegitimate model, despite what we "think" (actually, what we estimate without examining all the facts) at this point. Let us present the facts without conclusion and let us try to refrain from conclusion where science clearly has not offered one.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5054
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread postby anonjedi2 on Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:22 pm

I myself have seen various dinosaur sites in different parts of the world, including eggs and footprints.


Really? Do tell, and please include specifics and details. You may want to answer this question in the Dinosaur thread. I am sure many of the members here would like to hear your story.

All this doesn't mean that there is no "fakery"; you could consider modeling a complete 20 tonne dinosaur only based on a few bone fragments "fakery", but I would say it's just modeling, a very common practice in geology and archeology and other sciences that have to work with scattered clues and still try to build a presentable story out of it.

Well, if you present this guy as a source to say that "Mark Sargent is controlled opposition" then he himself you can consider "controlled opposition" in the same way.

So still no convincing arguments against the heliocentric nor the spherical Earth (which you cannot mix like they would be butter and margarine), sorry to say.


Sorry to say that he does present some things to think about, much moreseo than Sargent does in his silly Clues documentary. Nothing conclusive by any means but there are a few real world examples that causes one to pause and consider. Perhaps if you finished the entire interview (rather than just watching half of it), you might have heard some more of these examples. I am not endorsing Dubay or subscribing to the flat earth model but he does present much more in terms of real world, tangible examples than Sargent does. Of course there are also Rory Cooper's videos, each of which discusses an observable example to support the flat earth theory. Again, not a theory I subscribe to, but it certainly makes more sense than the ball-Earth theory at this point.
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread postby anonjedi2 on Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:35 pm

I know hoi, and my apologies for not posting more thoughts along with the links. The points are technical and difficult to summarize. I hesitated to post them but did so in response to nimblehorse and anyone who might be turned off by Sargent's videos.

In summary, there are a handful of things that Dubay talks about that I think are at the very least interesting, enough so to warrant further investigation and scrutiny. While they may not be proof of a flat earth model, I do believe there are some good explanations of why the ball-Earth / heliocentric model is impossible. Here are a few examples:

a) The video taken from a balloon which clearly shows the sun casting a hot spot on the Earth directly below it. Dubay believes that this would be impossible if the sun was 93 million miles away. I agree with this point.

b) Dubay discusses the 1/8th of an inch drop that should be observable after a mile between two points across a flat distance and that one should be able to see a further drop due to the curvature of the Earth over additional miles, yet this is not observable in the real world (Lighthouse example)

c) Dubay seems to understand that a rocket or thrusters won't work in a vacuum.

d) Dubay raises a good point that nobody has ever circumnavigated the Earth from north to south, something I was wondering about myself.

e) Dubay also makes a good point when he mentions that you can see a star through the surface of the moon during its waxing and waning phases.

f) He has a very specific explanation of how an eclipse is possible in the flat-earth model, one that makes sense to me (whether or not it's true, there is at least an attempt to explain this phenomenon).

g) The parallax change in the stars.

h) The behavior of the sun, angle of its rays, etc.

There's so much more, I do believe the entire hour is worth a listen by members of this forum. As far as Cooper's videos are concerned, they are difficult to summarize as they rely heavily on graphics and animation to make their points. Again, not endorsing Dubay but I am much more interested in him and his theories than Mark Sargent.

Hope this helps, hoi. Cheers.
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:42 pm

I agree that Dubay makes some good points, regardless of any official capacity.

Also, Selene, for so far defending unprovable satellites and now dinosaurs, you have offered nothing but your belief in the mainstream story — which is completely inadequate from a proof standpoint. Please offer any rebuttal to anonjedi2 regarding fossilized dinosaurs (and it had better be good scientific evidence) in the dinosaur thread — and, if you please, only after actually reading the thread and giving the points there some weight against your tenacious desire to believe the mainstream liars.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5054
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests