Disappearing stars

There is a strange phenomenon which is the fact that stars disappear at high altitude. You’ve probably seen those amateur videos on You Tube of somebody sending a toy space shuttle or a tent into the stratosphere attached to a weather balloon. You know, ones like these:
 

3 Toy Robot in Space! - HD balloon flight to 95,000ftLink 4 Natty Light First Beer In Space HDLink
5 How to film the Earth from spaceLink 6 High Altitude Weather Balloon Launch - Bobblehead in Space Raises AwareLink
7 Obama to Space!Link 8 Helium Balloon amazing space photosLink
9 Balloon 100,000ft in spaceLink 10 Balloon with camera goes to space. amazingLink
12 Germany - Lego Space Shuttle Soars To Edge of SpaceGermany 13 High Altitude Balloon JHAB2 Lost in SpaceCalifornia
14 Costa RicaCosta Rica 15 Space Camping - First tent in SpaceScotland
16 Balloon to the edge of space South AustraliaSouth Australia 17 Cambodia Space Launch - 2010Cambodia

There should be incredible images of stars high up in the atmosphere, free from clouds; but there isn’t one single star visible in any of these videos.

I know what you are thinking. This idiot doesn’t realize that camcorders can’t pick up stars even in the best low-light conditions, let alone contrasting with the bright sky below.

Absolutely. It is very difficult to see stars with a camcorder, but there are ways to tinker with some of them to see stars at night. The Panasonic HDC-TM90K and Samsing SDC-435 are two such examples.

Still, the people sending up their balloons during the day were probably not interested in changing the camera settings just to see stars. Their camera might not be capable or they may not have read its instruction manual on how to do it. Fair enough.

Having said that, there is not one example on You Tube where one single star is visible at all at any time. Not once.

So to capture images of those magnificent stars we will need to find film taken by someone with a really expensive top-end professional video camera (television camera) or ones used for filming movies perhaps. Television cameras use CCD sensors instead of the cheaper CMOS ones that camcorders use. CCDs are more sensitive, but it seems that size really is the most important factor when it comes to low-light sensitivity. The bigger the sensor, the more light they let in.

Even something like the Blackmagic Cinema Camera may be enough, or not.

Let’s up the ante and go higher in technology. What is the best money can buy? And when I mean the best, I mean custom-made cameras such as the 1100 series from Spectral Instruments. I’m sure there are other companies making top spec cameras for specific industrial applications, such as this company which makes cameras with Electron Multiplying CCD sensors which can capture stars on their own as can be seen in this video.

professional video camera capturing stars at night
EMCCD sensor capturing a few stars at night

What organization could drop some serious change on such equipment?

How about NASA.

Their multi-billion dollar annual budget should allow them to order something decent from Spectral Instruments; you know, a custom-made camera with a sensor the size of a planet (no pun intended).

OK, I know NASA doesn’t exactly have the best reputation at the moment, all thanks to the great analysis on the interwebs. Whether it is a plethora of bubbles floating up into “space”, or the obvious artist renditions without them being kind enough to tell us!

However, evidence from official sources like NASA can be deemed legit if they can be verified. And I mean verified by us. Can us mere mortals repeat what they did and get the same results?

If the NASA footage is the same or very similar to the amateur stuff then there has been little chance of NASA tomfoolery.

And by amateur, I mean the footage must be:
1. Repeatable. Unlike the so-called amateur footage of 9-11, which was a one-off event in history that we can’t repeat ourselves since the event has past forever.
2. Accessible. Sending a camera up to 30 to 44km is something which anyone can do for under $100. This guy’s launch cost $325. Most people can afford that.
3. Variedly sourced. The amateurs must come from all walks of life and not all be connected to one family (think Sandy Hook hoax) or all work for the big media companies (think 9-11) or be involved with any one organization.
4. Numerous. There must be more than a handful of videos or photographs. Obviously, the more there are, the better.

The weather balloon technology ticks all these boxes, with no. 4 being the weakest (I have found 22 videos so far), but the above criteria could be copied by a determined hoaxer (e.g. NASA employee). So, with these criteria in mind is there any verifiable NASA footage out there?

Yes there is.

I found these two videos:

New Views of Endeavour's Launch from Booster CamerasEndeavour Launch NASA On Board SPACE SHUTTLE Launch HQNASA On Board SPACE SHUTTLE Launch

(The white thing in both of the images is one of the shuttle’s booster rockets after being ejected.)

Looking at either of the videos you can tell by the sheer overwhelming brightness of the earth that the camera was set to be very sensitive to light.

 
But still no stars!
 
Where are they?

There are only two possible explanations, either:
1. NASA have defrauded congress by claiming $200,000 expenses for a booster rocket camera that was really a $150 flip camcorder attached with Blu-Tack. I doubt this, but plenty of NASA cynics wouldn’t.
2. Even the best specifically purpose-built professional cameras with their huge ultra-sensitive sensors can’t capture stars because of too much light pollution and all that. Do you believe that?

Unfortunately we don’t know what kind of camera NASA have used in these videos, at least I haven’t been able to find out after a quick search.

Either way, we haven’t got stars. Let’s give NASA the benefit of the doubt (millions wouldn’t) and say they haven’t got the technology to capture stars on film from the stratosphere during the day (and we never see any booster rocket camera shots from a night time launch either. Funny that.)

 
What other sources are there to try and capture those elusive stars?

Maybe an amateur weather balloon enthusiast has used a digital slr instead of a camcorder, one which can pick up stars in a ground level nighttime environment. Even better if they sent up the balloon at night for the best possible light conditions.

Guess what?

There is such a You Tube video. It shows a lot of still shots in quick succession taken just before dawn at around 5:30am. The two cameras used were the Canon PowerShot A540 and the Canon PowerShot A590 IS.

Now, we will see stars, even if it is just one or two, at least they will be much brighter than those taken on the ground as there is a super thin atmosphere at this height.

Can’t wait! I’m so excited.

dslr weather balloon
dslr images at 30km

What the…? No stars at all in any image. What is going on here? OK, don’t panic. Everything’s alright. The same man has a website with high resolution pictures. Surely I’ll see the stars now…

Afraid not.

There must still be a logical explanation. Maybe these cameras can’t capture stars even from ground level. Let’s check Flickr groups for both the Canon PowerShot A540 and the Canon PowerShot A590 IS.

Here are four night sky images, including environmental light pollution, from the Canon PowerShot A540:

Canon A540 star photo1starry night 1 Canon A540 star photo2starry night 2 – no tripod 3 sec exposure
Canon A540 star photo3starry night 3 Canon A540 star photo4starry night 4

And from the Canon PowerShot A590 IS:

Canon PowerShot A590 IS star photostarry night 5 Canon PowerShot A590 IS star photo2starry night 6
Canon PowerShot A590 IS star photo3starry night 7 Canon PowerShot A590 IS star photo4starry night 8

Only one or two stars can be seen in five of the above images, but three of them show several stars, albeit nothing like the time lapse images of more expensive dslrs. Images such as these from this video.

timelapse 1 timelapse 2
timelapse 3 timelapse 4

I should still be able to see a couple of stars in a few of the high altitude night sky images surely, but nothing, nada, zilch.

Maybe the camera wasn’t set at the right settings to capture stars, even though it would seem the author would have had that intention since he sent the balloon up at night. Stars are best captured by using a tripod and at least 15 seconds shutter speed (for a full sky of them to appear), so maybe atmospheric conditions caused the camera to twirl around allowing no clear images to be shot. I would still expect a few photos to contain some kind of star light with this length of exposure especially during periods of relative calm up there, but obviously not.

Oh well, I will have to admit defeat that I will never be able to see glorious looking stars at high altitude on either photo or video no matter who takes them, NASA or mere mortal.

 
Wait a minute…

If neither a state of the art video camera, nor a dslr can do it, what about the naked eye? Maybe someone can tell me what an incredible dazzling array of stars they saw high up there in the stratosphere.

So who has been over 30km high in a balloon?

Felix Baumgartner, the world record breaking sky diver of the Red Bull variety of course.

Here’s good ol’ Felix looking like something out of 2001 Space Odyssey.

felix no black visor

But has he told us about the majestic heavens?

Yes he has.

Finally, someone has seen stars up there to fire up our imaginations of a stellar sky full of hope and ambition.

So what does he say? Let’s forward the video to 01:32 and listen.

Skydiver Jumps From Edge of Space
Felix marveling at the starry sky

“You can see that the sky is totally black.”

 

Come again? What did he say?

You’ve got to be kidding me. There are no clouds, virtually no air pressure up there, hardly any air molecules at all to block the beautiful light of the multitude of stars that should all but encompass him in one majestic Milky-Way throng of delight. He should have a view of the stars like at the Mojave desert times 10.

Ah, but his eyes have been so overwhelmed by the sun’s dazzling light that the light of the stars have been pushed out, despite his dark protective visor on his helmet. Never mind eh.
+++
+++
All the above observable evidence have their excuses, however likely or unlikely, as to why not a single star has ever been shown in any verifiable footage in the stratosphere; but it certainly raises eyebrows.

Even in most of the unverifiable images of space attributed to NASA we never get to see any stars, and the ones that do, we can’t determine if they had been added by Photoshop or not… except, thanks to Sandy Mulder, we can. To make our eyebrows raise even more, like to the back of our heads, is NASA being caught in the act at copy and pasting a starry night in one of their shots of the International Space Station. These are three light “errors” being copied and pasted.

copy and paste stars
Oops!

This entire image is a proven fabrication thanks to an inconvenient truth called the thermosphere; but it goes to show that NASA have no qualms faking stars (and entire images) when it suits them.

Update 1: During my 2 weeks on holiday in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt, I only once saw a thin slight wisp of a cloud for a short time one morning, otherwise there was never a cloud in the sky during the oven-like temperatures from 44 to 55 °C. On 19th and 20th June 2013 I was flying back from 21:00 through to 3:00 the next morning. There were no clouds at take-off on the 19th and soon after the lights inside the aircraft were dimmed. I continually looked out the window when we were at cruising altitude and I could not make out a single star (with or without cupping my hands for a while)… odd, since the area is famous for organizing star-gazing trips with the Bedouin people in the desert.

If there are any pilots reading this, or if a reader wishes to ask pilots in the cockpit, have they ever seen stars above the clouds at night from their cockpit? After all, the only lights in the place are from the glowing instruments; there should be no glare. If yes, we know stars are further up than flying altitude; if not, then stars must be low altitude phenomena.

+++
So, what are we to make of all this? Are there really stars up there in the heavens? (Or anything else but the Sun, for that matter.) Are stars just an atmospheric phenomena?

Update 2: No. It seems that whatever the stars represent, must exist much higher but become invisible at higher altitudes for reasons unknown to the author.

Why is this?

The problem are four irreconcilable facts which point to stars being very near the center of the Earth (either side vertically) right above the poles.

The facts
1. It is 99.99% certain that it is the stars that move in the sky above us and not the Earth.
2. It is also 99.99% certain that we live inside the Earth (Concave Earth Theory).
3. The north star Polaris can be seen by everyone in the northern hemisphere from those living in the arctic to those just above the equator (and slightly below it).
4. The stars are seen to move in an anti-clockwise direction by those living everywhere in the northern hemisphere.

Conclusion
If everyone in the northern hemisphere can see the north star, this star must be above the north pole somewhere whether just above it in the atmosphere, right through to the center of the Earth (or “space”), or anywhere in between. The fact that everyone in the northern hemisphere can see these stars move in an anti-clockwise direction around Polaris must mean that these stars are extremely near the very center of the Earth.

concave earth simple

For the stars to be seen to move in an anti-clockwise direction everywhere in the northern hemisphere, the star fields must be at or very near the center of the Earth.

The size of this “star field” will be demonstrated in a future article, but it seems it is extremely small.

+++
Wait, stars are invisible at high altitude? What about the Hubble Telescope? You know that piece of unverifiable evidence of stars being visible from space. The Hubble Telescope is a complete fraud as my post on the thermosphere will demonstrate. Just be prepared for cognitive dissonance.

143 Responses to Disappearing stars

  1. Cornel says:

    “Being in an earthly body and looking through physical eyes limits the way you perceive the light. Your eyes can’t see the light directly, only the things it shines upon, so the light remains invisible, just like the soul does. That causes a good deal of suffering down there on your planet because it’s hard to believe in what you can’t see.” – the afterlife of Billy Fingers by Annie Kagan; you might wanna read http://www.thenewearth.org/LifeAfterDeath.html for other insights into actual reality.

    If the electron is a vortex motion, it makes sense that this vortex motion reflects whatever EM / light is in a curved manner.

    The concave earth theory with the universe inside actually makes perfect sense for what the global spiritual current tells us: you can travel with your astral body in any point of the universe (actually inside earth); your astral body can become identified with the whole universe (actually whole earth); this supports aether theory, since aether presumably links everything in the known (physical) universe; those who practice meditation say that the universe is inside nothingness, god (outside universe) is nothingness / blackness / SILENCE – I ALWAYS WONDERED HOW GOD CAN BE LIGHT AND NOTHINGNESS / BLACKNESS SIMULTANEOUSLY – that must be the void space between dimensions which other clarvoyants say exists; after this void / black / emptiness / nothingness there must be other “spiritual” spheres / dimensions / worlds (starting with the lower spheres or “hell”); they didnt think this way because they thought the universe is outside earth; i never meditated, but i think in meditation you just perceive, you dont rationalize what you perceive; you come back in here and then rationalize what you perceived BASED ON WHAT YOU KNOW / BELIEVE as truth. Which makes me wonder what was the model of the earth / universe in the time of the Buddha. He said God exists and God doesnt exist. I believe Ptolemy model is we live outside. Which makes me wonder how this model came into existence since it”s obviously false. The history of outside / inside model must be thoroughly investigated. Maybe there are those “fallen angels” that are still in charge and they fake everything. Who knows..

    Anyway, when do you estimate your next article is coming out? This site is the most valuable on he Internet since the outside / inside model is the one which all the science derives on. I”m so glad I found it and I congratulate you for your power of organizing and logic. Thank you!

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      The next article is a cracker (if I say so myself) lol. But it is very very long and will be best if you save the page first when it appears for download purposes. It is much more speculative than the last, but there is evidence splattered throughout and some points are more speculative than most. I´m on vacation (holiday) right now and will be back to plug away again very soon. I have most of it written, nearly all of it worked out. I am hoping to wrap it up in September. It is part one. Part two won´t be as big though and is half done already.

      And thanks for taking the time to read it.

      I like the dimension theory. I´ve read a few accounts which I liked. I´d love to know how the other spaces fit in with this all. I just might be encroaching on something like this with gravity/resonance theory, but I´ve no idea right now.

      • Cornel says:

        Speculation based on educated / best guess / logic is constructive because it makes others compare the theory against their own information. That creates progress towards a better understanding of hidden reality.

        For example, lately I had this thought “if Atlantis were such more advanced civilization than us, then why did they disappear?” Learning here that the moon landing definitely never happened (I was a believer in outer space UFOs but I now assume they must be man made using ancient texts of India – vimanas – and probably Tesla’s work), because there is no moon to land on, I now speculate that Atlantis self-distructed from inside, maybe there were wars for power between factions (no more intergalactic wars for me, good old planet Earth wars). Obviously Atlantis weren’t so spiritually advanced if they self-distructed (even if some outer force invaded them). Maybe the flood has something to do with ice melting from the glass sky? A technology test gone wrong? Reading the titles in Anatoly Fomenko’s series books (which I discovered reading the comments here, thank you) I now believe Atlantis / flood wasn’t so long ago, but much more recent. Or maybe there are 2 ‘empires’ fighting for power since the beginning of Earth. I once had a dream with pieces of moon in the sky. Maybe someone fired something into the sun way back? Some say the moon wasn’t in the sky in the ancient times. Speculating is good :)

        I discovered about the void between dimensions in this book which is about a blind woman who was able to see the subtle bodies of people http://www.google.ro/url?sa=t&rct=j&q&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&cad=rja&ved=0CIgBEBYwDQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fxa.yimg.com%2Fkq%2Fgroups%2F82996659%2F445331827%2Fname%2F84790470-Fenomenul-Valentina-Cartea-Integrala.pdf&ei=3pgWU96tCsfAtQb-oIHoCQ&usg=AFQjCNFhVLrO3sAkFpJNyD1LZ-YL2PE5QQ&sig2=nm2B_RRAqDjBdMtaSCiH8w&bvm=bv.62286460%2Cd.Yms (it’s a PDF; it’s in Romanian, I don’t think there are translations) She said it’s black between the colors of aura / chakras. She was able to diagnose and cure many people, some of them which couldn’t be diagnosed by doctors. I figured it’s just logical that whatever Earth is must be as we are, since we’re living on it. Well, in it :) Actually if the aura (invisible bodies) is outside our physical bodies, so must be with the Earth. Why should we be different?

        I speculate that the ‘higher’ dimensions are more mental, since astral travelers move by thinking (so they say). A detailed description of ‘mental locomotion’ (and other very interesting things ‘from the other side’) is in the book for which I gave a link in the previous comment.

        I don’t know much about gravity, but I think (like others) it’s magnetic in nature. I am hoping, too, that you’ll be wrapping the next article in September :) Maybe we’ll get the subject in advance, to build the anticipation? :) A little trailer? :))))

        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Thanks Cornel for the really interesting links. I had only started going through the last one you sent me as I was on holiday and only had a brief chance to use the internet for any length of time.

          I’d love to link up dimensions with concave Earth. There is a small chance with resonance, but we shall see (hopefully). You are right about linking people up with the same system as the Earth. There is a connection between the way light bends (and also magnetism) and living things with symmetry or an object having two halves.

          Here’s a speculative quickie on Atlantis. I found a theory on magnetite and plant growth by an engineer who theorized it was the south and north pole magnetic particles which are recombined by plants for energy, as sunlight in photosynthesis cannot account for all the energy a plant needs apparently. I kind of disagree with his theory, but there is some truth in it I think. Then there is Edward Leedskalnin who said that these north and south pole particles keep the Earth together. Anyhow, let’s say both these theories are true. What if the Atlanteans found a way to create massive amounts of energy by recombining these “particles”. By abusing this knowledge maybe they created too much energy and they drained the magnetic force keeping the Earth together too much so that the Earth cavity expanded suddenly (Pangea). The expansion might have occurred where their power station was situated on their territory, opening up the Earth and covering it with ocean. I think there is also a dimensional side to this too, which practical physics (engineering) hasn’t touched on yet. I don’t absolutely agree with either the American engineer or Leedskalnin, but they were definitely on to something.

  2. Bob says:

    A note about whether or not light can be ‘seen’ in ‘space’.

    Irrelevant.
    BECAUSE:
    If sunlight can travel through this alleged area where it cannot be seen then re-emerge in our atmosphere. Then it will re-emerge when it hits ANY EYEBALL. That would include a lens (camera) or the inside of a spacesuit. Or any PHYSICAL MATTER. So does it matter if light can see itself in the deep void of nothingness?
    nopes. YOUR EYE can. There is WATER in it. Just like an ATMOSPHERE…
    Making whether or not light can be seen (with what sensor exactly?) in a vacuum, completely and totally irrelevant to the discussion other than as a cute piece of trivia.
    We already KNOW it can travel THROUGH it.
    If it (light through the vacuum of space) hits an object, let’s say an asteroid, then can bounce back THROUGH it again, and then we see the REFLECTION of it, we can rest assured that it can be seen at its DESTINATION just fine, even if that DESTINATION is in the middle of a vacuum.
    And even if its source is a star (whatever stars are they are a source of light either direct or reflected. Either way they can be seen as easily as an asteroid (better usually I would imagine lol))
    Keep the focus on the structure.
    It reveals all.

    • OneOfTheSheeple says:

      I have thought of that as well.It seems logical.However:
      We assume light travels in vacuum,the same way it does in the atmosphere.
      We dont know what light is!We assume!

      I havent been up in space.I have reasons not to trust Hubble and co..

      Stars->vacuum->atmosphere->eyeball

      We know light curves up here on earth(not talking about gravity).So we can say for the part atmosphere->eyeball the light will be curved.

      Does light curves in vacuum?

      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        Yes it does, but only within this cavity reality. It seems the culprit is silicates/silicon. It may bend in other setups as well but hey, I have only found evidence supporting this one.

        I had a quick thought on light and maybe it is light which is transverse but because the medium in which it travels is also longitudinal, as the density of this medium is less with higher altitude, only different wavelengths are manufactured or made possible.

  3. visionary says:

    Whenever you look at it, visualize your needs, and make them known to
    the Universe. Cosmology attempts to analyze this connection between what we know to
    be true and what we believe in. When we humans put things into perspective we will soon realize
    that science is no different from metaphysics and spirituality.

  4. dizzib says:

    Stars are not what they seem. Check out this incredible amateur footage…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkDp4cJcGyc

  5. Ken W says:

    Prof. Eric Dollard talks about this, there are NO stars seen space because they only appear due to ionospheric induction.

    YOU ARE RIGHT, There are no stars seen in deep space,

    See the book (last chapter) on the correct nature and geometry of light.

    kathodos.com/magnetism.pdf

    A radial dielectric to transverse EM. In outter space there are NO stars to be seen. Logically this is the case.

    And yes, NASA is a pack of lying SOBs

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Thanks for the PDF. It may help clarify a few things. I also get the same “2 cones fastened together end to end” shape.

      I’m not clued up on electrics too much though, just the basics. But I think I get what you mean by “A radial dielectric to transverse EM”. Would that be like a stone dropped in water with the water ripples also being wavy? Ah, now I’ve read a bit more, the answer would be no. I’ll save the pdf for later.

      I think I heard the word dielectric before with regards to a capacitor, but I’m not sure.

  6. partofyou says:

    Does anyone thought to launch weather balloon at the night time with your own camera facing upwards and side at Night time? Or very early morning?

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Yes. The best thing would be to get a camcorder that can record stars from ground level on a clear night. I mentioned a couple of them, maybe there are more. They aren’t brilliant but will do. Release the balloon on a night when the camcorder can pick up stars at ground level and then see if and when the stars disappear and calculate altitude. Ideally with enough funds, do this several times in the year and pick as many variables as possible like winter/summer, moon phases etc.

      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        Cheaper and easier would be to look out on a night when we think the sky is cloudless and see if there is a night when we can’t see stars, and then take it from there maybe. If of course such a starless night exists.

  7. Helen says:

    Very good post. I definitely appreciate this website.
    Keep it up!

  8. dmitry says:

    i have asked pilots about stars – yep they can see it under the sky.

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Interesting. I couldn’t see them in the plane flying over and neither could a German poster here. I flew in midsummer near the Tropic of Cancer. Maybe at 10km altitude the pilots can sometimes see them and at other times not depending on different variables, like the seasons etc. I know that from the ground stars are much brighter in winter for example.

      Dmitry, ask the pilots at the usual 10km cruising altitude if they always see stars at night in the sky and then if not, which flight, date and time (and of course altitude) it was specifically when they couldn’t see them. Let’s see if we can narrow this down. It may reveal something very useful.

      • OneOfTheSheeple says:

        Might it be that the intensity of light has to do with the air-pressure near the observation point?
        Bigger air-pressure = more light

        This will explain also why we see as good as no stars looking up in the night in a city(besides light-polution).It is simply way warmer in the city compared to outside of it.

        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Maybe. I would definitely agree with this on sound, but I’m not sure about light. Have they done experiments in vacuum chambers/bell jars etc. on light intensity? Or maybe light intensity and temperature. There could well be something in it. Mainstream physics would say this isn’t possible.

          What if air pressure is a side effect of aether pressure and it is the aether as a medium in which light travels that is more compressed hence higher air pressure and higher temperatures?

          Actually scrub that thought, that doesn’t make sense.

    • dmitry says:

      wow! they realy cant see it all the time. 3 of 5 pilots being lost in thought, why? and has been promised provide navigation information in case of future starless flights.

      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        Interesting Dmitry. Now we may be getting somewhere! Very, very important for the pilots to log the time, date, altitude and lat/long position of the flight when they can’t see stars and the same for when they can.

        My current ideas is that there is a yearly and monthly cycle to these things. I have a feeling this may even happen at ground level as I can remember not seeing stars on cloudless nights before, but at altitude the experience may be even more pronounced.

        Keep up the investigation.

        WH

  9. charles gordon says:

    what is the shape of the earth in your model?
    do you have a picture picture or diagram?

    how big is the sun?
    and how far is sun from the earth?

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Hi Charles.

      I can only guess at the size of the Sun. We can try this one out:

      Option 1. The size of the sun in the sky is between 0.52° and 0.54° which averages out as 0.53° around the equinoxes I think it is. The arc of the sky is 180°, so 180/0.53 is 339.62, so the Sun is 1/339.62 width in the sky. In my CET model I have the Sun just about at the centre, so 1/339.62 of the Earth’s vertical diameter is 6356.762km x 2 = 12713.524km (WGS84 ellipsoid model) which would make the Sun (12,713.524 / 339.62) = 37.434km or 23.26 miles in diameter (assuming of course that apparent size is in an any way accurate relationship to its actual one).

      Option 2. Let’s keep this 1/339.62 fraction. I have the Sun at roughly 1 degree behind the centre and takes 12 hours to arc around half the circumference of a cylinder (on the equinoxes at least). Circumference of a circle is 2 times pie times radius. So, half the circumference is 3.142 degrees. 1/339.62 of 3.142 degrees is 0.00925 degrees which is the Sun diameter. The horizontal Earth diameter is 12756.274km. This distance divided by 180 is 70.868km which is the km distance of one degree. So The sun would be 0.655km or only 655m. This option is based on the speculation that the entire sky dome is contained in the circular movement of the Sun in the centre. It probably isn’t; in fact I’m pretty sure it isn’t, but I’d just throw that out there anyway.

      The problem here is that I have the varied density of the aether as a big factor behind the size and brightness of objects in the sky, so what we see in the sky is by no means rock solid as a basis for any quick back of the envelope calculations.

  10. wizard says:

    What would be outside the inside, if as you say the universe is on the inside? Those shots of the sun from lasco/soho your take.

  11. Daniel Date says:

    lets get a bitcoin donation address for wild heretic. this site is awesmoe

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I actually have a bitcoin address but didn’t want to put it up as I work on this site for love of finding out rather than money, but why not? When I finish the next article (which is so big it nearly doubles the website) I’ll put one up.

  12. Huge problem: if we were inside the earth, the distance between one country and another would be many millions of miles, else we would be able to see with telescopes the earth when we point the telescope into the sky. Your whole theory falls apart because of this fact alone. I might be willing to believe the earth is the center of the universe, but obviously we are not inside a hollow earth.

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      You are new to this I guess. Continue reading all the articles.

      The reason for this is that light bends upwards already experimentally demonstrated by Wilhelm Martin. Use Bing translate.
      http://www.rolf-keppler.de/lichtkrumm.htm

      If you want to see further than visible light, use radar; better yet, radio. Even infra-red will get you further.

      That is why at night we don’t see sunlight and what it illuminates.

      I’m going into this properly in the next article, but the information here and above all the comments should suffice. (Read the comments especially).
      http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory

  13. TecZ says:

    Strong work ? no…
    Absolutely astonishingly MIGHTY work!!! all of it!
    Read your whole site and I am beyond impressed. Amazing how “laymen” scientists are the ones bring true science to the world.

    seriously. please email me, would love to do a google hangout interview. Been wanting to do a huge expose on the Geocosmos and a documentary too.. it is about time.

  14. Soraya says:

    Believe it or not, the stars are actually much dimmer from space than they are from the ground, to the point where it’s difficult to pick them up on normal visible-light camera equipment. Atmospheric refraction is not only the reason the stars twinkle in the sky, but also the reason they’re so easily visible from earth.

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      At this moment in time I’m not a big believer in atmospheric refraction at all if you can believe that. I’ll explain why in the next article with a quick and simple experiment you can do yourself at no cost.

      Why do you say refraction is the cause of twinkling stars and their lack of visibility at highish altitude?

  15. C4L says:

    I do have a few things to say about all of this. First of all I want to state that I am a scientist although in no way related to astronomy, physics, etc.

    There are some good things that you are doing here. First, I do think you are good to make people question their beliefs. However if you are not willing to question your own beliefs as well, that is majorly hypocritical. You have shown that multiple times in the comments above. But questioning in general is good. It turns out that around 1900 it was thought physics was almost entirely solved. There were just two unanswered questions/problems: block-body radiation and the photo-electric effect. Boltzman came up with a solution and swore it couldn’t be right and no one should believe it, but it mathematically fit. It turned out it was right and quantum physics was born. Numerous findings since then have confirmed it. All physicists had to question their beliefs to accept quantum physics. You may have to question your beliefs just like you are asking everyone else to question theirs.

    Now, with your model, can you explain the following. Please note that with the current accepted model these are all explainable and very well understood. You have lots of catching up to do to bring your model to the level of completion that the current accepted model is at. Many of these are easily noticeable at your own convenience and do not require trust in an organization such as NASA.

    * Functioning of compasses
    * Functioning of GPS (and more generally satellites)
    * Aurora borealis/australis
    * Magnetic poles shift over time
    * Climates generally change with latitude
    * Seasons
    * Phases of the moon
    * Only one side of the Moon is ever seen from any location on Earth
    * Visibility of the Moon at day time and night time simultaneously in different locations (call someone up in a very different time zone)
    * Sunsets/sunrises of different colors then high-noon, simultaneous observation of sunsets/sunrises as the sun being at high-noon (call someone in a very different time zone)
    * Tides (including why the tides change in magnitude every day)
    * Coriolis effect
    * Positions of the stars changing over millennia (I am not talking about nightly changes or seasonal changes, I am taking about the fact that the stars in 1600 were in different positions then they are in 2000)
    * Volcanoes, tectonic shifts, earthquakes
    * If our vision is misleading, then why is it that when we take a picture that picture looks pretty much like what we see (with maybe some coloring differences)
    * How we stay put on the Earth (you say gravity is problematic)
    * How come other objects have gravity
    * Why does air rest near the surface of the Earth?
    * Speed of light (this is more involved to test on your own, but is possible, using revolving mirrors on two the two sides of a big canyon like the Grand Canyon)
    * Comets get further away than Sun does
    * Many planets in our solar system are further away than the Sun
    * Orbital movements of planets
    * Why planets are the distance they are
    * At what altitude do you pass the stars?
    * Why is it that when you go up in altitude the stars don’t get visibly larger before you “pass” them?
    * Why can’t you see the stars below you once you go above them?
    * What holds the stars in place?
    * Why does the Earth look spherical from the balloon cameras?
    * As the balloon rises, the Earth looks more and more like the outside of a sphere instead of the inside of a sphere?
    * Do we have to change all of physics and chemistry to adopt a new model of light? If light changes a good portion of physics and chemistry will need to be changed as well.

    Have you had the answer from a physicist from the accepted model on your question of why you can’t see stars? I would like to see this answer. A simple test may be possible depending on what the answer is. Most things I can find online are suppositions from amateurs and not pros. Its possible you could design a special camera that blocks out other light sources or uses a photomultiplier tube setup for a few $100 that could circumvent the issues.

    If you had unlimited resources, what experiments would you perform to prove your model and force the current accepted model to be refuted?

    Mostly, this is just for you to think about. I will probably never respond again.

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Gosh. Those are a lot of questions, some of which will be answered in future articles. However, the breadth and depth of those questions are too vast for me alone to answer thoroughly. It could take me 5 to 10 years to do so with the current time I have available and then I am one man with one brain and one perspective. Hopefully the articles so far and those few in the future will motivate other people with better minds to take on a couple of those questions themselves. No professional who is capable of overcoming their own initial root assumptions within a 4000 mile radius will touch CET with a barge pole as it is immediately career ending. Forget the educational establishment. It is up to us to figure it out. We are on our own. There are no “good guys” but us and I am glad of that. I think we only really understand something when we strive to find out for ourselves. Spoon-feeding was never going to work.

      If you had unlimited resources, what experiments would you perform to prove your model and force the current accepted model to be refuted?
      I’d repeat the Rectilineator experiment. At the moment though I will continue to write and ponder and then mess with electrics… probably. Or I might change the subject material and go off in a different direction.

      Please note that with the current accepted model these are all explainable and very well understood.
      I strongly disagree with this. Nobody knows what gravity is for example… or matter. Physics can never get to the bottom of anything as there are always more questions. At least a basic mechanical explanation will suffice for me at the moment. I’ll leave the knowing to a joining with the metaphysical when I’m dead… or maybe not (probably not). Seems ignorance stays with us when we die. Another topic of research perhaps?

      For the moment let me very quickly and superficially answer those questions (in 30 mins lol).

      * Functioning of compasses
      I’m looking at that at the moment and will never be fully able to answer that until I have a detailed model of the aether which may be unattainable for me to reach.

      * Functioning of GPS (and more generally satellites)
      Applied technology satellites attached to the glass is one possibility.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cjECjmMZ-Y

      More likely though is that that they bounce it off the ionosphere (glass) as AM radio. http://www.wildheretic.com/nasas-weird-and-wonderful-orbiting-machines-pt2/#2

      * Aurora borealis/australis
      Not sure. Could be a few reasons including the official one. LSC has a theory I think. No idea if it is correct.

      * Magnetic poles shift over time
      Briefly thought about this. Not sure yet. Some clues may be revealed over time.

      * Climates generally change with latitude
      Easy one. I will answer this in the next article. Funnily enough, heliocentric theory can’t explain a serious issue with climate which I will point out in the next article.

      * Seasons
      See above.

      * Phases of the moon
      Yeah, the moon. What a mess that thing is, whatever it is. I haven’t thought about this properly. I may not address the issue at all as it isn’t in my radar for future research.

      * Only one side of the Moon is ever seen from any location on Earth
      Bizzare eh? I’m not going to look into this… probably.

      * Visibility of the Moon at day time and night time simultaneously in different locations (call someone up in a very different time zone)
      Could be a topic of future research if you are up to it. I won’t be looking into the moon I think.


      * Sunsets/sunrises of different colors then high-noon, simultaneous observation of sunsets/sunrises as the sun being at high-noon (call someone in a very different time zone)

      I had an initial theory of the glass being the cause of the different colors due to the high magnesium content, but that theory fell flat on its ass. I haven’t looked into the purple sunset thing more than that. The official explanation may be correct.


      * Tides (including why the tides change in magnitude every day)

      Obviously an aether connection. I think I know what gravity is (to a certain extent). Not hard to figure out when you know the Earth is concave. Tides would be a good thing to ponder and will be in my radar for the future.

      * Coriolis effect
      http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/#E


      * Positions of the stars changing over millennia (I am not talking about nightly changes or seasonal changes, I am taking about the fact that the stars in 1600 were in different positions then they are in 2000)

      I think I saw a video from Steve giving an explanation that I liked although I can’t remember what he said now. The obvious answer would be slight changes in the movement of the aether (in the eye of the vortex especially) over time which I would fully expect because the aether would be dynamic – like everything in life really, cycle always repeat… but not absolutely exactly the same as the last time.

      * Volcanoes, tectonic shifts, earthquakes
      Just been thinking about this recently. I’ll write about this properly in an article on gravity and the planets when I’ve looked into it better. It’s spinning aether pressure basically (which is gravity).. think centrifuge.

      * If our vision is misleading, then why is it that when we take a picture that picture looks pretty much like what we see (with maybe some coloring differences)
      That would support the theory that it is light that bends and not the interpretation of our eyes/brain. I am also strongly leaning towards this theory.

      * How we stay put on the Earth (you say gravity is problematic)
      See above.

      * How come other objects have gravity
      Ok. Simple explanation is Steve’s one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd4VHcFY1Vg

      A more detailed explanation – At the moment I’m leaning towards the alternative theorists that matter is just vibrating aetheric vortices. I think it is the bonds which are doing the vibrating like a guitar string. The gravity force of matter would be the spin of the aetheric vortices compressing against whatever the aether is spinning against. These waves compressing waves would be longitudinal. This is a huge clue and you can research this yourself further for some real eye openers and a lot more besides if you put your thinking cap on. There is obviously a lot more to this, but I would need to look into this more. This will be hopefully written about in a future article.

      * Why does air rest near the surface of the Earth?
      Inertia due to compression.

      * Speed of light (this is more involved to test on your own, but is possible, using revolving mirrors on two the two sides of a big canyon like the Grand Canyon)
      Not sure about the speed of light. I have thought about light and I think I know what it is. I disagree with Michael Mathis and Walter Russell on this one and agree with Maxwell and Hertz, but hey I might be wrong. I future article for sure.

      * Comets get further away than Sun does
      Yeah. I think I have comets in the bag. Will see.

      * Many planets in our solar system are further away than the Sun

      Yeah. I’ll talk about this in a future article.

      * Orbital movements of planets
      Super easy. The article after next. Don’t want to spoil it right now with a couple of links.

      * Why planets are the distance they are.
      See above.

      * At what altitude do you pass the stars?
      Without giving too much away about 0.7 degrees away from the center on the horizontal axis. Will write an article on it very soon.

      * Why is it that when you go up in altitude the stars don’t get visibly larger before you “pass” them?
      Concentration of the compressed aether (gravity) is more compressed the lower the altitude is my guess. I think the “flicker rate” of the stars depends on the density of the aether at any given position of the observer.


      * Why can’t you see the stars below you once you go above them?

      Not sure I understand this question. Oh wait I think I know what you mean. I don’t know if your statement is true but it should be as the only light you will able to see below you would be the reflected light from the crust and so you shouldn’t be able to see any stars without looking at them directly which of course are always above the observer (unless you are able to get to the center of the Earth).

      * What holds the stars in place?
      The eye of a rankine vortex. The following clip is a rotational vortex, but same idea: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hafHLx6YEDM

      * Why does the Earth look spherical from the balloon cameras?
      It doesn’t… well not all the time. It changes from convex to flat to concave depending on how high the horizon is.

      * As the balloon rises, the Earth looks more and more like the outside of a sphere instead of the inside of a sphere?
      See above… and also http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/#D.

      * Do we have to change all of physics and chemistry to adopt a new model of light? If light changes a good portion of physics and chemistry will need to be changed as well.
      Partly. Visible light seems to be accurate at short distances. See Rolf Keppler’s website for future reference.

      Any other questions feel free to ask. Those where good ones to help me with future articles.

      Thanks friend.

      WH

  16. Ian Goss says:

    Thankyou for presenting all this belief opening info. My brain is chewing on some of this….
    For sure there is a vehment defence amongst many people (and scientists!) against any such questioning. Purely attachment blanket insecurity…infantile but understandable.

    the lack of 1000mph winds, and something very ‘off’ about ”gravity” are what really made me look.

    And some creepy feeling the jesuits are editing whats official belief…..no-one expects the spanish inquistion these days.

    not sure about the sun path thru the sky thought exp,,i tried it again…maybe the official version works ok for me. Tricky 3D effort!

    AS for the scuba air bubbles ‘in orbit’ and bad hairspray ‘zero g’ actresses….. they gotta be takin the piss, anyone who is directed can see it obviously…although it is far more obviously fake upon viewing those vids 9 months later again. THey aint really too careful, deliberate disclosure? laziness…sense of humour?

    Do rekon the shuttle was a legit hard working craft tho.

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      “And some creepy feeling the jesuits are editing whats official belief…..no-one expects the spanish inquistion these days.”

      Bingo. The reformation or battle between information and ignorance is ongoing. It never ended! They were so successful in the 20th century that everyone thought it had.

      Yeah, the Sun path is difficult to visualize.

      I also think the shuttle is legit. CLuesforum didn’t, but the whole ceramic insulation part which was different than anything before and very painstaking in application and research didn’t make any sense if they had just faked the whole thing. I personally strongly think they have never gone further in “space” than what the shuttle has allowed them to do which is a few hundred km I think.

      • Ian Goss says:

        Rested my brain a few days…and back again..

        Some useful tools: skytracker24 or similar …real time aircraft flights world wide. They certainly avoid the ‘southpole’, guess cos it doesn’t exist. It would be quicker on a globe from NZ to SA to drop over antarctica.
        There are a few flights i noticed over the north pole though, Dubai to LAX.

        Some great vids on immortalsouls youtube channel, I saw one that looked like old leaked NASA transmission of ‘earth as a small blue globe thru cabin window’..then showed blackout card being removed from window..and a flood of light from a huge earth filling whole window.

        Re shuttle and glass sky, I been pinging between deciding on a layer of glass shards at 60miles up, and a solid glass sphere.
        Shuttle-wise, I’m not convinced it would survive ‘smashing’ or skimming and melting thru a thick tough glass layer.

        Those heat protective tiles it has do seem like the real deal, could maybe allow it to survive a long time in furnace conditions in thermosphere, and of course ‘re-entry’ whatever that means.

        Do they blow holes in the glass first? Or track existing holes and use those?

        ( upper atmosphere nuke tests in 1960’s i think?)

        The shuttle would seem well designed to speed thru a layer of billions of glass particles without melting itself.
        That would mean a ‘levitating’ cloud of glass bits tho?!

        A solid glass layer, I worked out, would probably not even have to levitate as such, it could just remain in place due to its being a complete sphere, hence it can’t fall in any direction, forces balance out. A few holes here and there would probably not affect it much.
        ( assuming the concave earth model)

        I think there may be barriers or issues with going further than a few hundred km into ‘space’ as you say, I see no trustable evidence for our exploits other than vids of the shuttle launch zooming way above aircraft height and rolling over into the start of a parabolic curve. Maybe some older craft hopped along for few minutes just under 100km, and filmed some real (if fisheyed!) footage as well.

        Potentially some unmanned craft built like a brickshithouse could survive it all and gather real data from much further ‘up’. But they ain’t gonna show us diddly real info from those if they don’t want to. The rest is hollywood.

        I guess you are still writing your next article about gravity and whatever else you are chewing on. I do understand that as one goes a bit deeper, the number of possible questions and possible solutions becomes brain frying.

        Eg. in a non-standard earth model, how do objects (even just glowing asteroids) stay up there, what are the forces? If its not a convex globe, then u can’t invoke ‘falling at 10m/s2′ in a circular orbit. That explaination is very elegant, part of me wishes it were true.

        Although, having watched a peter lindmeann vid, he says our view from down here is created entirely in the ‘upper atmosphere’, diffraction is needed to see a light source in a vacuum. So planets or whites dots passing over at night are only images we see down here. He said the sun is not visible to the eye in space, requires a diffraction screen on windows to see it. An that we see a white circle and a blue background sky down here, that is how our upper atmosphere splits the ‘light’ from the sun.

        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Do the flights really go directly over the absolute geometric center of the north pole? I’ll have to look into that some time. There have been rumours about Antartica for some time, including lots of military equipment and ships being sent there over the years. I imagine it could be a no-fly zone completely, at least for private flights. Why do you say the South pole doesn’t exist? Is this the disk flat earth model?

          Here is some more info:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route

          They only barely touch Antarctica. Definitely something fishy going on.

          “Aerolineas Argentinas flies nonstop between Sydney and Buenos Aires, LAN Chile flies nonstop between Auckland, Sydney and Santiago and Qantas flies nonstop between Sydney and Santiago, the most southerly polar route. Depending on winds, these reach 55 degrees south latitude, but other times 71 degrees, which is enough to cross the polar ice cap.[6]

          The Qantas flight QF 63/64 from Sydney to Johannesburg sometimes (depending on the winds) flies over the Antarctic circle to latitude 71 degrees as well and allowing views of the icecap.[7]“

          They get higher over the north pole, but they still don’t cross directly over the geometric north pole according to wiki.

          • Ian Goss says:

            I only caught the dubai LAX flight once it was some way south. It was very far north and heading into canada. Dunno if it had passed exactly over the geometric north pole. I could try having a flight mapper open all the time and monitor it. I didn’t see any flights passing close to the south pole.
            I was getting carried away I think saying there isn’t a south pole. ( and maybe mixing my earth models…. the sin of it!).

            Rumours abound about the south pole for sure. Hard to verify for ordinary folk.

            Maybe worth looking at a physical globe, to check the aledged alignment of the straightest path between those flight destinations.

            Funny how SA to NZ isn’t flown direct, as it says in that wiki link. They do seem to just slightly avoid the exact north pole as well, as you said.

            BTW, did you ever cover the’ round earth’ shadow that appears to eclipse the moon? Its used to debunk non-standard earth models.

            Peter lindemann spoke to astronauts, he said. I’m currently trawling through a long vid of his from 2001, about free energy research in the 60’s and 70’s. That seems to be his background.

          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Tell me more about the round earth shadow, I don’t know that one.

          • charles gordon says:

            I don’t think those flights go over the south pole. Correct me if I am wrong there are NO commercial flights( Buenas Aires to Sndney / Jonnasberg to NZ) that fly that route. Jet fuel can accommodate that low temp. The FAA is now beginning to allow airlines to adjust there polar (north) routes. They (FAA, NASA or DOD) have, or I believe will never allow anybody to fly over the south pole.

          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            There’s a flight that flies just over the tip of Antarctica I know that.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSz2xzIyCzI

            Anyway Charles, don’t worry about the flat Earth I have some good news for you, you have been partially vindicated. The Earth is concave, but it is flat from our orientation on the Earth. So our immediate locality is flat, but the Earth is concave. That makes no sense right now I admit, but I can’t explain it properly until the next article. This is a major breakthrough and gives the flat Earthers something to chew on. You’ll like it.

      • Ian Goss says:

        I’ll try posting a pic of the ‘hollow earth?’ globe in the vatican courtyard…
        Maybe just a link…

        http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=vatican+courtyard+photo&qpvt=vatican+courtyard+photo&FORM=IGRE#view=detail&id=3B48C936DC91A381E8C8B4E0F5CD18475AA4FF19&selectedIndex=613

        They also love Egyptian obelisks and lion statues. Not very ‘christian. More like Washington DC.

        Anyway, they are trying to tell us something I think.

        I will look into the guy who talks about light being invisible in space.

  17. mike says:

    Look, delete both my posts if you like, I was only trying to get the information to you. You suggested a link between the church and science, well this priest does both. His name is George Lemaitre. The good father, lol, seems to be involved in a lot of “science??” to prove to the world about a huge universe, a huge time frame, huge distances and evolution. “Gravity and Inertia in a machian framework” by J.B Barbour and B. Bertotti Istituto di Fisica Teorica dell Universita – Pavia. March 11, 1977. Makes a good read.

    Hubble-TheRealmOfTheNebulae
    The Observational Approach to Cosmology 1937

    Are the books I was talking about. The reason they keep up this fraud is that if they allow here model of science to fall, long ages falls, evolution falls, there whole house of cards. Yes it is religious to them. Please look into these things when you have time.
    Again, keep up the excellent work.

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Just had a quick intro read of the Hubble book and at least in 1937 they admitted that their massive island universe was just speculation. Of course they never thought to try and devise an experiment to see what the actual truth was or even to determine what the shape of the Earth is. It’s mad isn’t it?

      Here’s a book I quickly looked through which seems promising about telescopes not being able to see very far due to the inverse square law of light. See what you think of it.

      http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?113525-A-Revolution-in-Astronomy

      • Ian Goss says:

        So far that ”how far can a telescope see” piece makes some interesting points. Including showing some of the MANY hidden assumptions that underlie our hollywood cosmology.

        IF the ‘background’ stars are x far away…the slight apparent movement of another star means it is x far away from them….so therefore it is 122.34 light years away. according to public knowledege, we have ZERO direct information beyond where voyager craft have reached. Just some agreed interpretation of irresolvable dots.

        likewise. apparently newtons principia starts with ‘IF the earth is a sphere…..blah blah…IF the force of gravity is constant everywhere…what if it is NOT constant?

        their orbital predictions for our planets seem pretty good, but then they weren’t that bad 500 years ago either. Which does not prove that the models are true,,that’s a mistake.

        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Great points. I’ve never read Principia, but thanks to cluesforum.info, my mind has become much more critical and I started to think properly for the first time. They really did strip a “fact” or statement down to its bare bones. For example, look at this sentence: “RMS Titanic was a British passenger liner that sank in the North Atlantic Ocean on 15 April 1912 after colliding with an iceberg during her maiden voyage from Southampton, UK to New York City, US.”

          What is the very first question that needs to be asked? The primary questions is did the titanic exist in the first place? So “what” is the first question, then if it sank, and then if it was the iceberg that sank it, and then the “why”.

          It’s amazing how evidence surfaces which even puts a positive answer to the primary question in doubt. Of course, conspiracy theory is all about the “how” and the “why” and never ever the “what”. For that reason, I think a lot of conspiracy stuff is deliberately propagated to trap the intelligent ones who ask questions.

          I have no qualms with Keppler and the like with their predictions of planetary motions relative to the Sun and each other. In fact, I think they are spot on… just wrong philosophy and they can also leave the Earth out of their calculations. Their predictions would be no less correct if the “planets” were tiny and revolved elliptically around a small Sun in the middle of the Earth.

          I think I have a workable theory on what the stars are. Damn simple really. Will do an article after the next one about it.

          Thanks for commenting.

          • Ian Goss says:

            Yes, Its taken me years to get through the cognitive dissonance and conspiracy theories ( which are unfortunatley driven in part by peoples internal alienation and blind assumption that all authorities are bad, …weak grounding in ones personal life co-creating paranoia).

            That mass dynamic makes ‘us’ easy prey for disinfo , (extra!)ridicule and not asking the question ‘what’, if anything really occurred. Plenty of evidence does tend to surface confirming ones assumptions, whether its official disinfo or just a natural law of seeing confirmation of what one believes. A ‘Trap’ indeed for the ones who question…misdirection, cheapest and most effective magic trick ever.

            Cluesforum looks very good for asking that question, but its breadth overloads my mind at the moment.

            I just realised I still have an assumption ‘they’ have etheric tech, eg. free energy and anti gravity etc, a hidden space program. If so, I guess they would need some rocket powered theatrics that they could use for show. Off topic rabbit hole tho!!

  18. mike says:

    Love your stuff, might I suggest that you download the two books Hubble wrote. He describes that he had two choices and didn’t like the obvious one which would put the earth at the centre of the universe. Thankfully with help from the good Jesuit father who also brought us the peking man “spelt wrong I know” and that one with the orangitang “spelt wrong again” jaw filed down to add to a human skull. I forget what it’s called and I don’t have time to look into my own records at the moment. This one priest was in the background of a fraud, then another ape man thing that disappeared, but they have the pic’s. He is friends with Einstien lots of pics of the two of them together. He helps Hubble, go figure, does the math to make redshift become expanding space. Smell something bad??? Please look into it, I have downloaded the books myself as they are free in pdf format.
    Keep up the good work and pls forgive my spelling errors at this time.

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Thanks for the heads up on the Jesuits. I have yet to properly look into the Jesuit/astronomy connection, but what I have read from Scud’s comments, they seem to have a finger in every astronomical pie so to speak. I think I’m getting to know the purpose of the Jesuits and who they work for. My take is that it’s basically to keep the “game” going and to feed the “beast” or “gods” or whatever word you wish to use for the farmers, which in a roundabout way keeps this “fun park” Earth being “fun” for all participants.

      There’s a claim that all observatories which look at the Sun are owned by the Vatican, but I don’t know how true that is.

      http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=99801

      I’ll have a look now at the books you mention and myself and other readers find stuff like that invaluable. Thanks a lot.

  19. Robert says:

    Hi, i like this site, check this link. It is about light in space, salute!

    http://youtu.be/J-m4pPGIPZg

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Hey Robert. I saw that video a while back and found it interesting. I can’t watch it again right now as I am in a public library, but I would like to know where he gets his info or is it only his opinion? Who is he again?

      • Saros says:

        Hey Wild Heretic, this notion deserves a thorough study. It turns out the guy might be right after all…Even in this yahoo answers discussion they seem to point to the same conclusion: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080718140332AA40WTl
        You cannot see the light unless it is reflected off something. However, the question remains if you can see the source of light provided you’re looking directly into it and you’re in vacuum. Light is not reflected off anything, but does it reach your pupils?

        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          I assume (dangerous word) that it does reach your pupils.

          What I find really interesting at the moment is the idea that what we sense with our 5 senses is nothing more than the oscillation of matter rather than matter (or the movement of “whatever” which could represent matter) itself. It’s quite a fringe thought for me but I like it. If you think about it, light and sound are waveforms and so have a frequency. Smell and taste is probably a molecular exchange and touch is pressure of other “matter”. Our nervous system is doing the detecting of these 5 senses and how does it do this – by pulsations, which of course is a frequency. So when I see this cup of coffee in front of me, maybe I am really seeing the oscillating atomic or molecular (or both) bonds rather than the molecules themselves. I’ll have to look into this more to see if it has any merit.

          I’m also not sure what to make of “light” at the moment. Something else to look into.

          The good news: I have broadband back at my new home and so hopefully I will be able to crack on with the next article (halfway through).

          • Saros says:

            Interesting idea, WH.

            I tried to find some more information on light being invisible in space (vacuum). What is claimed and recognized is that the scattered light is invisible becausre the is not enought particles in vacuum, but the light sources and the lit objects are visible. Basically, you cannot see the light path, which is logical and obvious and not a surprise at all, but you can supposedly see the light source. I find this very suspicious. In my opinion, more distant light sources will not be visible at all in this scenario. The only way distant light sources could be observed is if we actually observe their reflections provided they get reflected off something in our vicinity. No way for a star millions of light years away to be visible as a light source in space if its light actually is not scattered off anything.

          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            That’s an interesting thought and not something I can totally grasp at present. Could an expansion of this idea be useful in explaining the limited distance of the horizon?

      • Ian Goss says:

        Peter lindemann. Haven’t found out where his info comes from.(yet)
        My own intuition is that ether totally determines all of it. very little ether at ‘high altitude’, no can see light source. Sky is blue cos ether glows…my own science with help from alternative sources.

  20. Skeptizoidal says:

    Rocket Launch to 121,000′

    Of interest :

    1) No stars
    2) Uploader makes point about seeing “curvature of Earth”
    3) User Bob Czz is obviously knowledgable, and points out barrel distortion and the horizon, but is ridiculed. Is he you? Have you interacted with him? He might have useful information.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvDqoxMUroA&list=FLqhzZ-pMEjKTUaTmE8wPrhg&index=1

    Has anyone performed a night balloon launch with this object in mind recently? I am considering doing that this summer when it is warmer – launching around 2AM so retrieving it might be during early morning light.

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Hey Skep. No, he isn’t me lol. I only have time to be WH here and TR on the David Icke forum (but that isn’t very frequent over the past year after discovering this stuff).

      Fantastic if you can launch a balloon yourself. There is onlt one night video that I knew of when I wrote the article. Maybe the same guy has done another one. I was thinking what I would do. If you can find a camera which can see the stars in the night sky at ground level on a clear night and then lauch the balloon that same clear night, we may also be able to roughly work out at what altitude the stars dissappeared at on that day. I imaigine there are minor or even major variations due to seasonal, aethric, pressure changes etc.

  21. SarosSaros says:

    Wild Heretic, it is about time you post a new article. Where are you hiding?

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      It is time, but the next article has been greatly delayed because of 2 reasons: 1. I’ve just moved house. Moved in on Friday and it has been mad busy. I don’t have an internet connection yet until possibly the end of next week. I’m typing this in the town library. 2. The easy stuff is over. The deeper I dig now, the more detailed and stickier it gets. I’ve got most of the next one written and what isn’t written, is known (in my head so to speak). The one after that is trickier and still have to work through a couple of things. Not sure yet. :)

  22. Ohalahan says:

    Wildheretic, please put me on an update list. I LOVE YOUR STUFF!! You said this:

    “And lastly, not self-pity but self-realization on our utter limitations as a human species. We are all completely retarded Jim, you, me and every single human being we know. Like an alcoholic, once you realize how thick we really are, we may begin to make a little bit of progress. I am telling you Jim, as a species we are completely broken. We couldn’t join the dots even if they were laid out in front of us in a coloring book for 5 year olds. We know nothing.”

    This, in my opinion, is profound. The older I get the more I see the truth of it.

    See what you think of this …

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMBt_yfGKpU

    This is Stephen Davis’ Holographic Universe Workshop. Mind bending!

    Thank you for dragging me outside the box. If nothing else, you have forced us to think.

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      My pleasure. Once you start to think it is difficult to stop. It’s like a drug. It only happened to me at the end of 2012. I also think “thinking” is the wrong term. It’s like opening a valve to release the natural flow. You can’t push it on further more than its “natural time”.

  23. Saros says:

    Check it out, Wild Heretic. North Korea claims to have landed a man on the Sun. :) What is interesting is that they claim the astronaut landed on the far side of the Sun which is dark. NK is obviously trolling, but hasn’t NASA exactly the same with the Moon landing?

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0e0_1390507888

    “Hung, who traveled alone, reached his destination some four hours later, landing his craft on the far side of the lonely star.
    Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0e0_1390507888#ykJBgDMkVkEaBtHi.99

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I’ll deffo check this out tomorrow. At first sight it seems like a joke. Is it? But given the current dominant heliocentric model, why would they say this? To take the piss out of other theories? Satire???

      • Saros says:

        Yeah, most probably it is a joke and it was made up by one of those satirical websites, but like you said, it is interesting how they make fun of the heliocentric theory as well.

  24. Aron says:

    You don’t see a single star in any of these pictures, damn you must be blind

  25. sumstuff52 says:

    PROOF of Holographic Moon Projection – Depth of Focus
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rqZPk6LXio

  26. sumstuff52 says:

    Pleiades Constellation Is Just HOLOGRAPHIC ORBS
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jTLmShJlcQ

    HOLOGRAM FIREBALLS
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu_23YgfubY

  27. Catherine Ricker says:

    Is there a way to get email notifications from you when you post? This site is absolutely fascinating and right in line with what I have been observing and researching. Thanks!

  28. Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

    I’m re-posting Sumstuff’s comment on this homepage which contains a link with 62 videos of high altitude balloons showing no stars.

    Sumstuff
    Submitted on 2013/12/09 at 3:24 am

    Found quite a few more balloon videos which show NO stars or moon, this is quite the adventure, made a playlist, the longer duration videos are at the end of the playlist, enjoy

    The Disappearing Stars and Moon In Space
    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWRzUSpfFKZ8lPBisdoQ2SVjWW7iIDV5i

    63 videos
    26 hours

  29. Enlighten Fawn says:

    Hi ~
    sumstuff52 – do You read these comments?
    It’s enlightenfawn from YouTube, and I just saw Your comment on Thor’s channel – Glad to See You’re Back!! I tried sending You a private message, but You need to add Me as a Contact – that would be Cool because I’m not connected to googleplus (what an invasion!), so I can’t post comments, etc., but I can still send pm’s. Googleplus might lessen the restrictions in Time so, I am just going to wait that one out.
    I did Subscribe to Your YouTube Channel – I haven’t viewed Your video’s yet – I just wanted to send You a quick note Hoping You’ll eventually get this message/comment!
    Many Blessings & Happy Holiday’s*
    I’ll C Ya L8ter :-}
    Fawn ~

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Hope Sumstuff gets the message. I’ll be quicker updating comments in the weeks ahead, now that I am ready to continue writing the next article a bit each evening.

    • sumstuff52 says:

      got the message, adding you as a contact enlightenfawn

      thx WH for the relay ;)

  30. Saros says:

    I had a chance to fly few days ago, and I was actually able to discern just one star. It appeared much less bright than stars normally do, but it was a star nevertheless. The altitude was around 11 km. I don’t think the stars are less visible due to the light polution inside the airplane as it’s normally suggested. That probably has some effect too but it cannot make them completely invisible. There must be another explanation, because, for example, I can distinguish a star even when I stay in front of a street lamp post and the star is almost behind it (tested this yesterday). It seems the eye is quite sensitive to any source of light and it adapts quickly and well to different atmospheric conditions. There were simply no stars besides that one that I saw at an altitude of 11 km even though I tried really hard to see something for about 30 minutes. That is indeed quite odd. I would like to read about other people’s observations.

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Saros,

      I’m finding it odd that on some cloudless nights I don’t see stars, yet on others I do. Maybe there are clouds there and I can’t see them, but I’m not so sure.

      • Saros says:

        Yes, that is indeed odd. I have experienced the same. I don’t think the official explanation is valid, it just seems convenient, but it doesn’t make any sense. Sometimes you can clearly see the Moon, for example , but not the stars. Why is that? The stars should be easily visible when there are no clouds. Also, once I noticed something weird, I was in the mountains, and it was getting dark, there were no stars at all, I got a bit lower like 350 meters and I could clearly see Venus, which was nowhere to be seen 15 minutes earlier. Maybe I just didn’t notice it earlier, I don’t know, but it was very odd.

        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          The plot thickens.

          We need to consciously remember to observe in different situations. I’m glad you did.

          There may be a clue to this in the way stars flicker. They aren’t usually a steady light as seen by the naked eye, although the bright ones may seem to be more steady sometimes.

          In 1992 I saw a triangular UFO once in a crowded area which nobody else could see. It also was flickering like a star but less frequently like it was on a roll of film but only present on every 5 frames of the film instead of on every one. It detected I could see it and flickered at a lower rate to say every 10 frames and then 20 and then 30 etc. until it disappeared entirely. (But I knew it was still there).

          I wonder if this has to do with the density of the aether which Steve suggests. Could it be that with enough aether density, light can propagate more and therefore be seen as solid; but with less density, light (and maybe objects) miss a beat. His theory would agree with the mechanism I’ll write about in the next article, but I’m still not 100% sure. It would certainly need further thinking about.

          • Saros says:

            I think that the stars are not easily seen(i.e. are virtually invisible) in any high-altitude balloon videos due to the fact that without actual zooming anything seen through the camera lens appears smaller than with the naked eye. Since the balloons are in motion it is hard to focus on anything, let alone zoom and focus. The Moon, on the other hand, seems to be visible. Naturally, it is much smaller as no zoom is applied. Better cameras need to be used, and apparently no one has. I found a photo of the Moon from a high-altitude balloon: http://www.instructables.com/files/orig/FI0/RJ4L/GQWFK8VE/FI0RJ4LGQWFK8VE.jpg The moon is in the upper left corner. This explanation, however, could work for the Moon, but it doesn’t explain why Felix Baumgartner said the sky was completely black, why we hardly see any stars when flying by plane, or why we don’t have any videos of stars from the stratosphere at all.

          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Yeah quite.

            I’m open to the “camera not being sensitive enough idea”, but as you have already thought through, it doesn’t agree with the other points you made above.

  31. sceppy says:

    Great work WH, I’ve been sifting through a lot of it and I have some thoughts on very similar lines to what you are proposing, but I think you may know that by my name.
    Anyway, very interesting, good job.

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Thanks Sceppy.

      I’m trying to piece together the next article but I still have a couple of think-throughs to go. Keep wading through; they get better the newer they are… at least I think so lol. :)

      You were the flat earth theorist from cluesforum right?

  32. Richard says:

    The Bible (Authorized King James) is the only absolutely reliable source of truth at all in this very unreliable world. It is confirmed by logic and observation. With this as my basis I will answer:

    If this concave Earth theory were true, then the Bible would say that Heaven is inside the Earth, rather than it saying that Heaven is above the Earth. Hell is “beneath” or that is, inside the Earth, and Heaven is “above” or that is, outside the Earth’s sphere. According to this theory, however, hell is placed above, since “beneath” to us is placed above us – hell thus being in a larger outermost sphere around the inner sphere of our habitation, and heaven being at the centre of both spheres. A dizzying thought even to comprehend.

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Richard,

      I’m not sure about the bible as I have never read it except a few outtakes on the interwebs. It seems to be a strange kind of mystical book in parts.

      If heaven (whatever that represents) is above the Earth, then does that mean it is above the ground or beyond the North Pole or under the ground and outside the Earth? Does this mean that if we travel through the North Pole we come into the land of Heaven? Or is just a mystical reference to something else and not to be taken literally?

      No idea.

      I remember reading somewhere that Hell isn’t mentioned in the bible or am I mistaken? Someone tried to equate “hell” with “helios” meaning light or Sun but it seems to be a false reference. Who knows.

      There are stories and myths abound concerning the underworld however, but that would take a whole new article to just skim the surface. It is no surprise as the underworld is really a pathway to the outside world in a concave Earth; but I’m not willing to speculate on the macro stuff outside the Earth at the moment.

      Speaking of dizzy thoughts, I’ve just discovered a 3-d world to all the 2-d diagrams I had been crappily drawing. It’s opened up a whole new array of possibilities and understandings but it is getting a bit above my mental pay grade so to speak lol. I am wallowing through mental mud at the moment. :)

  33. Jim Smith says:

    Since you are so keen on accusing real astronomers of fraud, etc., you might want to take the “ISON Challenge”.

    Comet ISON was discovered on 21 September 2012. By 30 September, its orbital elements had published by the IAU (http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/mpec/K13/K13S75.html, then search “C/2012 S1 (ISON)” ). The next day (1 October 2012), NASA published predictions about ISON’s orbit and dates of visibility that have proven to be quite accurate. (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap121001.html)

    So: within 10 days, conventional astronomers had calculated and published a highly accurate prediction of the comet’s orbit and appearance. I invite you to produce any sources where geocentrists of any persuadion (Flat Earth, Hollow Earth, or Spherical Earth) made comparably accurate predictions within that same time frame. Those sources must present in detail the dynamical model used for their predictions (including all numerical parameters thereof), and must have been published on verifiable dates. Note that I need to see real math and real numbers: mere hand-waving claims and accusations about conspiracies don’t count.

    • Jim Smith says:

      UPDATE: You can now post your reply in the comments on my YouTube video “The ISON Challenge to ‘Alternative Science’ Proponents” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-TM2GimYsg) .

      Be sure to read the warning given at the end of that video.

      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        I’ll do better than that and add an article on my blog.

        • Jim Smith says:

          There’s no need to do “better” than what I asked for, but be sure that you provide that, and not just a bunch of hand-waving woo. I’ll repeat what I asked for, just so you’re clear about it:

          I invite you to produce any sources where geocentrists of any persuasion (Flat Earth, Hollow Earth, or Spherical Earth) made comparably accurate predictions within that same time frame [i.e., within 10 days of ISON's discovery]. Those sources must present in detail the dynamical model used for their predictions (including all numerical parameters thereof), and must have been published on verifiable dates. Note that I need to see real math and real numbers: mere hand-waving claims and accusations about conspiracies don’t count.

          Note that you won’t get away with claims that the prediction of ISON’s orbit made by real astronomers was inaccurate: you have to show (a) where geocentrists (including concave-Earthers) made–<band published, verifiably–a prediction that was of comparable accuracy within time period; and (b) the dynamical model and real, numerical parameters and results.

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I’ve nothing against comets or asteroids Jim. In fact, asteroids (later becoming meteorites) are the main part of the Sun as a sulphur lamp hypothesis. I think astronomers are bang on with their observations concerning the time and date and position of those little lights in the sky including Kepler’s elliptical orbits etc. In fact, elliptical orbits (like those of comets) are best explained in a concave earth model which I am working on right now. Astronomers just decided to add Kant’s philosophy in the 19th century as to what those lights are and how far away they are etc. If they had stuck to the observations only they wouldn’t be having this internet rebellion that is growing by the day nibbling at the educational establishment’s toes, threatening careers etc.

      The problem with the current heliocentric model is that there is no mechanical explanation for any of it. They don’t know what gravity is for goodness sake, just that it seems to obey a mathematical law. That is not good enough.

      You can take the same math for predicting where a comet will be in the sky at a certain time and apply it to the concave model as well. In fact, that is one piece of evidence for the mechanical aspect of the CM which I think I have nailed, but we will see. When you have the mechanical model, you can explain gravity, magnetism, electricity and I have at the moment 3 different types of frequencies… and there is also good evidence for this mechanic.

      I’m bogged down with it and practical life at the moment but I’ll eventually have it all out… if I can mentally understand it myself, which is becoming increasingly tougher the deeper I dig. In fact, physics can only explain things to a certain level as we can always ask well “what is that?” ad infinium.

      • Jim Smith says:

        Statements like this one of yours are why I send school kids here to laugh at this website.

        The problem with the current heliocentric model is that there is no mechanical explanation for any of it.

        I can refer them to plenty of sources that explain it. I’ll tell students often about this one, too:

        I’m bogged down with it and practical life at the moment but I’ll eventually have it all out… if I can mentally understand it myself, which is becoming increasingly tougher the deeper I dig.

        While you continue to flounder at this fool’s errand, with the hope of “eventually” figuring it out, students can get accurate predictions of planets’ motions from real astronomers–whom you accuse of being incompetents and frauds–in a matter of minutes,

        BTW, I take that statement as an admission that you cannot provide what I asked for:

        I invite you to produce any sources where geocentrists of any persuasion (Flat Earth, Hollow Earth, or Spherical Earth) made comparably accurate predictions within that same time frame [i.e., within 10 days of ISON's discovery]. Those sources must present in detail the dynamical model used for their predictions (including all numerical parameters thereof), and must have been published on verifiable dates. Note that I need to see real math and real numbers: mere hand-waving claims and accusations about conspiracies don’t count.

        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Laughter is good for your soul. Invite more school kids to find evidence for heliocentric theory.

          I was actually talking about joining the dots (or recognizing patterns). I didn’t mean calculating the math lol. :) Completely different brain exercise.

          I am desperately looking for insight. Sometimes it is like trawling through mud, other times, especially after a good sleep or a nap, I instantly leap massively forward and think “wow that was obvious, why didn’t I see that before.”

          The math for the model has already been done by others, but obviously not in context of a concave Earth. It is actually probably the most complicated math there is (way above my pay grade) and not completely understood (much of it is still theory) – fluid dynamics.

          • Jim Smith says:

            Unsurprisingly, you’ve come up with nothing but excuses. And while you look “desperately” for “insight”, planetarium programs based upon conventional astronomy and physics crunch the numbers with ease, and tell the rest of us where to point our telescopes, years in advance, with arc-second accuracy.

            If the math has already been done for your model, then why don’t you provide a link to it, and why don’t you use that math to produce real, numerical astronomical predictions that can be tested against observations?

            Regarding your comment,

            Laughter is good for your soul. Invite more school kids to find evidence for heliocentric theory.

            ,

            I don’t need to invite them. They’re pretty avid researchers who don’t wait for “inviations” from me. And they can get plenty of laughs ready your self-pity posts about why you can’t and won’t provide real, testable predictions of astronomical phenomena.

          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Nope. Re-read my comment.

            I was actually really surprised that a theoretical mathematical model had been devised in modern times (1982) of a concave earth as I would have thought not a single academic would have touched Concave Earth Theory with a barge pole.

            And lastly, not self-pity but self-realization on our utter limitations as a human species. We are all completely retarded Jim, you, me and every single human being we know. Like an alcoholic, once you realize how thick we really are, we may begin to make a little bit of progress. I am telling you Jim, as a species we are completely broken. We couldn’t join the dots even if they were laid out in front of us in a coloring book for 5 year olds. We know nothing.

    • Richard Leigh says:

      Yep, just invert the physics/maths for the inner Earth prediction, that’s all. See Egyptian mathematician Mostafa Abdelkader for details.

      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        Already noted, but thanks for the heads up.

        I don’t agree with an exact inversion. I think the Sun and stars and “planets” are at the center of Earth space (or near enough to it) and everything there revolves around the central aetheric vortex. Still developing the model.

  34. Shoestring says:

    One reason you don’t see any stars is that the majority of pictures you see from the ISS or the old shuttles were taken whilst on the daylight side of the earth to capitalise on natural light. You may be confused because of the black background to the sky during daylight hours but that is because, here on Earth, light is scattered by our atmosphere making the sky blue. In space, there is no atmosphere so the backdrop of the sky still appears black despite very intense sunlight in the daytime side of the orbit. That’s why you don’t see the stars. They’re still there but drowned by sunlight.

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Bright glare is already noted in the article. That’s why I was looking for nighttime shots with a balloon. It seems there is only one person who thought to actually do that… and still no stars. Maybe his camera wasn’t sensitive enough? Possible.

      The only way to be sure is a night-time launch with a proven “star-sensitive” camera.

  35. Malcolm says:

    Occam’s Razor applies really nicely to this. Which is more likely?

    1. The author doesn’t have enough understanding of science to make these claims.

    2. The author is correct due to…insert all the arguments listed above.

    Since #1 makes the fewest amount of assumptions, it is likely the best answer.

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Science or philosophy?

      If we all lived by this Occam’s Razor we’d still be living in caves eating raw meat.

      Facts are facts, right… or are they assumptions? To never investigate is to never progress.

    • Saros says:

      “Understanding of science” is not some incredible accomplishment. It is simply a situation when you have memorized all the “scientific” facts and have started to believe them to be true. You should know that anyone can do that. It is much harder to investigate on your own and to try to understand the world without swallowing all the scientific dogma. We shouldn’t try to understand science but understand the world we live in.

  36. Physicsgeek says:

    Pardon me, but do you have any idea whatsoever of how completely unconvincing and laughably unsound this argument is? There is a simple test to determine whether we live inside a Dyson sphere, as you propose, or on a conventional planet. Just look at the fucking horizon. If you can see a horizon line of any sort, then you are on a conventional spherical planet. If there is no horizon line, then you are most likely in a Dyson sphere.

    And if you cheat and do this test in the middle of a cloud of fog, then you are a person of no intelligence.

    Furthermore, YouTube videos do not qualify as evidence. Likewise, Wikipedia articles do not qualify as evidence (although any genuine scientific papers referenced by said articles would).

    Your argument is scientifically invalid because you completely ignore the most basic and most important piece of evidence. Please reformulate and retest your argument.

    Also, thanks for the laugh that I got as I read this ridiculous claptrap. I needed it. Even though this post is horse manure, it does at least provide some societal benefit.

    Totalrecall, you apparently have no knowledge of the physics of springs. I suggest reviewing freshman physics.

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Inform, don’t insult. Insulting is a sign of weakness of your argument or lack thereof. Information and clarity is one of strength (and so is questioning and revising).

      Please read the concave earth theory article for questions and peculiarities of optics for information on the horizon. Our vision does not tell us the truth.

      (I have already disallowed one user from posting because of insults. Consider this your first and last warning. I may edit your next posts to allow only your constructive arguments or not approve you at all).

      • Physicsgeek says:

        *headdesk*

        And yet you don’t address the central problem, which is that your hypothesis is scientifically invalid.

        You even call it “concave Earth theory,” which is intellectually dishonest, because this is an invalid hypothesis and not a theory.

        Third: If you claim that our vision “does not tell us the truth,” then the only logical conclusion of that argument is that we cannot detect anything about the world by any means at all, for anyone could just claim that any particular method “does not tell us the truth” with no evidence whatsoever until everyone on Earth thought that they could not sense anything with any accuracy. Congratulations, you have just made an argumentum ad absurdum.

        If you have no understanding of basic science and yet attempt to rewrite said science, then calling your post a pile of horse manure is not, in fact, an insult. If I had wanted to insult you, I would have called you a howling ignoramus and a laughable cultist toady (since basic research has found that your beliefs are indicative of a cultist of a charmingly insane fellow called Cyrus Teed).

        By telling you right here and now that you are attempting to publish garbage, I am not insulting you, but doing you a favor. If you attempt to publish this claptrap anywhere other than the Internet, you will quite literally be laughed out of the international scientific community. I feel that it is kinder to nip this sort of thing in the bud so that you can fix your arguments now before you experience professional ridicule and loss of credibility.

        Now, to your reference:

        1. McNair was apparently a confirmed phony. This took some research, but that paper was definitely faked. Also, he apparently conveniently forgot the Coriolis effect.

        2. A magazine called “Flying Saucers: The Magazine of Space Conquest” is not a valid source. You should know this. I expected better.

        3. “””Morrow and Teed were highly religious folk who were not the sort of people to deliberately lie or mislead.”””

        This, right here, is a lie. Religious people lie regularly–damn it, the last Pope tried to cover up thousands of pedophile priests. Here, in fact is a list of lying fundamentalists:
        Ken Ham
        Ray Comfort
        Brent Bozell
        Bryan Fischer
        Any and all high-ranking Scientologists
        Kent Hovind (in fact, this man is in jail for tax evasion)
        Jerry Falwell (I am including deceaed people here)
        Pat Robertson
        95% or more of the priests in El Salvador
        Pope Boniface the Eighth
        Thomas Aquinas
        The Ayatollah Khomeni
        Cyrus Teed
        Mullah Muhammad Omar

        This is just the list from the top of my head. Furthermore, the man you call as a respectable witness, Ulysses Morrow, was a member of a cult led by a man named Cyrus Teed, which stipulated belief in a Dyson Sphere-like-Earth. If you go into an experiment expecting a particular outcome, then your results are suspect–and if, on top of that, you “forget” to account for something major like the Coriolis effect, you are being intellectually dishonest. So yes, he was lying.

        Your second example is a publicity stunt with a highly suspect device performed by a number of extremely religious cultists, with no actual scientific involvement, and therefore invalid as an example.

        “””The only fault with this experiment is that it is over 100 years old and has never been publicly repeated”””

        This alone makes it invalid. Repeatability is paramount in science.

        Your next point is an unintelligible mess of rehashed 19th-century experiments, which are always suspect due to their basis in a cut-throat age of publishing before verification (which is anathema to science, but try telling that to that nitwit Richard Owen).

        On your fourth point: here you actually admit that you might be wrong, which is the only scientific thing that I have seen you do so far. Of course, you reference more 19th-century studies, which doesn’t bode well for your credibility, but I will give you points for admitting that your arguments are unsound.

        Your conclusion: Your subjectively determined “probabilities” are laughable and have no basis in objective fact. You engage in intellectually dishonest practices such as cherry-picking and using invalid sources, and you apparently have never seen a picture taken from space, or ever actually looked at the horizon in, say, Kansas. Your arguments are unsound, and require major reformulation. I strongly suggest that you start from scratch, remove any sources produces by Cyrus Teed cultists and writers of UFO conspiracy magazines, and actually try some experiments yourself with professional equipment.

        Yours respectfully,
        Physicsgeek

        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Hello Physicsgeek (PG). Nice to see my second upset poster on this blog, but thank you for keeping it civil. I’ll break up your posts in segments to quickly reply to them. It’s a pain I know as it can get hard to read (I’ll put your part in italics if that is ok), but you gave a jolly good shot across the bow and so I guess I politely respond in kind.

          “And yet you don’t address the central problem, which is that your hypothesis is scientifically invalid.
          You even call it “concave Earth theory,” which is intellectually dishonest, because this is an invalid hypothesis and not a theory.”

          I disagree with this on the premise that there are four pieces of evidence for the Earth being concave, with two of them being nearly slam dunks. An example of a hypothesis would be the special hypothesis of relativity which has never been observed, or heliocentric hypothesis which has no supporting evidence whatsoever… I tell a lie, there is foucault’s pendulum, which turns out to be actually evidence for the turbulent aether once George Airy’s experiment is taken into account. You are probably new here PG and so haven’t read about it I guess. Most of it is here:

          http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/#E

          and a bit also here, mostly at the end:

          http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt2/

          Third: If you claim that our vision “does not tell us the truth,” then the only logical conclusion of that argument is that we cannot detect anything about the world by any means at all, for anyone could just claim that any particular method “does not tell us the truth” with no evidence whatsoever until everyone on Earth thought that they could not sense anything with any accuracy. Congratulations, you have just made an argumentum ad absurdum.

          No. It seems that at short distances visible light is accurate enough, but at long distances it is very inaccurate. That is obvious though isn’t it? I actually looked into the flat earth seriously because optics shows us that the world must be flat. A lake is a flat plane obviously, at least it looks that way to the naked eye. You can get a clinometer and look across the top of a series of objects of same length for several miles and see the tops of each object with a telescope as Rowbowthan has already demonstrated. The problem is this is impossible as the flags should dip downwards on a convex earth, or upwards on a concave one. If the Earth isn’t flat, then visible light must bend.

          Optics can’t tell us the correct shape of the Earth, because of the 5 experiments already mentioned here.

          http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/#C

          They aren’t the only ones and I don’t think their results are in dispute as the standard excuse is refraction.

          If you have no understanding of basic science and yet attempt to rewrite said science, then calling your post a pile of horse manure is not, in fact, an insult. If I had wanted to insult you, I would have called you a howling ignoramus and a laughable cultist toady (since basic research has found that your beliefs are indicative of a cultist of a charmingly insane fellow called Cyrus Teed).

          After reading Cellular Cosmonogy, I have an incredible respect for Teed and Morrow. Yes, Teed made some grand assumptions which even deviated away from his initial vision. I think he was wrong on a lot of things about the inner workings of the concave Earth; but at least he actually carried out one of the most thorough experiments I have ever read about. The arguments against his experiment are either slanderous (PG), false (Skeptic magazine), or made up opinion (Simanek). I mean Teed HAS to be wrong as the establishment has literally nowhere else to go. Shame.

          By telling you right here and now that you are attempting to publish garbage, I am not insulting you, but doing you a favor. If you attempt to publish this claptrap anywhere other than the Internet, you will quite literally be laughed out of the international scientific community. I feel that it is kinder to nip this sort of thing in the bud so that you can fix your arguments now before you experience professional ridicule and loss of credibility.

          I don’t mind ridicule. I accept constructive criticism, new ideas or info. I’ve revised three articles already. If I see something which contradicts what I say, I will retract and revise, or just state something like, “but this evidence seems to show otherwise and needs investigating further.” I am only “one man and his laptop” after all, or as my wife affectionately calls me “one knob and his laptop”.

          I didn’t know there was a “science community”. Can I join this cult or do I have to believe, or not believe, in certain things first? ;)

          1. McNair was apparently a confirmed phony. This took some research, but that paper was definitely faked. Also, he apparently conveniently forgot the Coriolis effect.

          Doubt it; but if you show your research on the paper being fraudulent my opinion may change. Mcnair isn’t the important one anyway. His conclusions disagreed with a concave Earth, and I htink his air current hypothesis perfectly reasonable. It’s the “other experiment” that is the deciding factor so to speak.

          2. A magazine called “Flying Saucers: The Magazine of Space Conquest” is not a valid source. You should know this. I expected better.

          I agree with you. Morrow also mentions it and it is his reference to the experiment in the future which is interesting. That’s is why I came to the conclusion of “maybe”. I think that is reasonable, don’t you?

          3. “””Morrow and Teed were highly religious folk who were not the sort of people to deliberately lie or mislead.”””

          This, right here, is a lie. Religious people lie regularly–damn it, the last Pope tried to cover up thousands of pedophile priests. Here, in fact is a list of lying fundamentalists:
          Ken Ham
          Ray Comfort
          Brent Bozell
          Bryan Fischer
          Any and all high-ranking Scientologists
          Kent Hovind (in fact, this man is in jail for tax evasion)
          Jerry Falwell (I am including deceaed people here)
          Pat Robertson
          95% or more of the priests in El Salvador
          Pope Boniface the Eighth
          Thomas Aquinas
          The Ayatollah Khomeni
          Cyrus Teed
          Mullah Muhammad Omar

          Yes, I agree with you. But after reading Cellular Cosmonogy, the only “crime” I could accuse Teed of is that he was out to prove his own beliefs and so would be willing to believe what others have told him. Perhaps others lied to him about the “other experiment”. His own experiment was incredibly meticulous and overseen by Corpernicans who were doing everything in their power to find fault with it. He knew what he was up against. A very brave if not slightly foolhardy man, but definitely not a religious figure of the establishment (just the opposite in fact). The thoroughness of his experiment reflects on his character most highly.

          I view the above list of religious “leaders” you have thoughtfully provided as largely establishment figures, especially the Vatican. This is a huge topic and a very long one. Perhaps another article in the far future. My initial premise is that the Jesuits are to blame for a lot of this, but we are venturing into conspiratorial grounds. Another time perhaps.

          This is just the list from the top of my head. Furthermore, the man you call as a respectable witness, Ulysses Morrow, was a member of a cult led by a man named Cyrus Teed, which stipulated belief in a Dyson Sphere-like-Earth. If you go into an experiment expecting a particular outcome, then your results are suspect–and if, on top of that, you “forget” to account for something major like the Coriolis effect, you are being intellectually dishonest. So yes, he was lying.

          Ah yes, the infamous Coriolis Effect. You probably have already mentioned this in a future reply to one of my above points above about there being no evidence for the heliocentric hypothesis. The Coriolis Effect is explained well enough here I think.

          http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/#E

          As well as this great article from Miles Mathis:

          http://milesmathis.com/corio.html

          Your second example is a publicity stunt with a highly suspect device performed by a number of extremely religious cultists, with no actual scientific involvement, and therefore invalid as an example.

          I disagree. This experiment was very valid as it was over seen and inspected by their adversaries and signed off by multiple people. This experiment was so thorough (especially for 1897) and the ramifications so vast, it should be right up with one of the leading experiments of all time. But that is only my opinion and I respect that you differ on this.

          “””The only fault with this experiment is that it is over 100 years old and has never been publicly repeated”””

          This alone makes it invalid. Repeatability is paramount in science.

          I agree. That is why I couldn’t give 100%. The more disturbing question is why wasn’t this experiment repeated? Ridiculing the result is not scientific. Men of science would want to know once and for all what the true shape of the Earth was; after all, it is very fundamental to a lot of the sciences and their philosophical off-springs such as astronomy.

          So why wasn’t it repeated? Perhaps because it would end many careers and a philosophy so useful to the establishment (my opinion).


          Your next point is an unintelligible mess of rehashed 19th-century experiments, which are always suspect due to their basis in a cut-throat age of publishing before verification (which is anathema to science, but try telling that to that nitwit Richard Owen).

          I view the 19th century as the age of enlightenment and freedom in a lot of respects, especially in the arena of science and engineering. Today everyone seems to be owned… except of course bloggers on the internet ;)

          On your fourth point: here you actually admit that you might be wrong, which is the only scientific thing that I have seen you do so far. Of course, you reference more 19th-century studies, which doesn’t bode well for your credibility, but I will give you points for admitting that your arguments are unsound.

          I agree. I tried to find more modern sources and only found a couple. But I think their findings about height and altitude isn’t in dispute. Those facts are already well-known.


          Your conclusion: Your subjectively determined “probabilities” are laughable and have no basis in objective fact. You engage in intellectually dishonest practices such as cherry-picking and using invalid sources, and you apparently have never seen a picture taken from space, or ever actually looked at the horizon in, say, Kansas. Your arguments are unsound, and require major reformulation.

          I disagree. Ah yes, those pesky pictures from “space”. Here is a starter for ten:

          http://www.wildheretic.com/nasas-weird-and-wonderful-orbiting-machines-pt2/#5

          There is much more on youtube and the best collection is on cluesforum.info.

          I strongly suggest that you start from scratch, remove any sources produces by Cyrus Teed cultists and writers of UFO conspiracy magazines, and actually try some experiments yourself with professional equipment.

          Yours respectfully,
          Physicsgeek

          No to the first bit, but yes to the second. I am thinking just on those lines. In the mid-to-long term future I will be doing more practical endeavors and less blogging. We will see.

          Thanks for being civil and PG, take your time reading through the articles on this blog. There is a lot there but it should answer most of your questions.

          Yours respectfully back,

          WH

          • Physicsgeek says:

            I will post nothing more as I am clearly wasting my time here. Your arguments have done nothing more than give my quantum dynamics professor a good laugh (which he needed, by the way–thanks for that). I have a dissertation to write, and if you really, genuinely believe that measurements taken using a wooden, 19th-century instrument that was left in the ocean for five months are valid, then you are clearly irrational. I strongly suggest that you actually take basic geography, astronomy, physics, and geology classes at an accredited college before you attempt to rewrite science.

            Again: YouTube videos are not evidence in any way.

            Also, your subjectively determined “probabilities” are in no way an acceptable stand-in for objective evidence. Your arguments are still scientifically invalid, and you have offered no genuine, scientifically acceptable evidence to support them.

            Furthermore, your jokes about science being a cult remove any credibility that you had. Please take some time to think about just how irrational, unintelligent, and downright insulting you sound in your response to me.

            Finally, one guy at a computer cannot overturn established theories with invalid hypotheses. Please, for your own sake, rethink how you are using your time and instead do something that reflects better on your credibility, such as working as a sales rep or joining the National Guard. You are wasting your time here and convincing no one–at least, no one who is not already an established crank. You seem to be a decent person and mentally stable, and I really think that you can improve your life if you think about how it reflects on your credibility to associate with the likes of Alex Jones.

          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            I guessed you were in the educational establishment. The last irate poster was the same.

            I am only a blogger. If I am getting this reaction I must be doing something right ;)

            Fair enough. You stick to your world, and I’ll stick to mine and we are both happy.

            All the best

            WH

    • Objective One says:

      The sun rising and setting on the horizon is only an illusion. We know the sun never goes up or down, it only appears to as it moves closer to and farther from us. Human eyes on the ground or ocean can only see 3 miles. You can see many more miles of sky than you can land/ocean due to your angle. That’s all the horizon is….the land/ocean cutting off your view of the distant sun.

      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        Yes, I think so too. The question at the moment is why? I’m not sure. It could be bendy light or it might be how the eye receives light.

        I don’t think the Sun moves much further away at all, a little bit, but not too much. The angle of the sun in the sky seems to be due to the angle of the light as it hits the Earth. It seems that under extreme magnetism (which I will explain in the next article) visible light bends.

    • Richard Leigh says:

      You miss the point: light does note travel in straight lines. Thus, it is when you are on the outside of the sphere that it *looks* as if you are on the inside (light curves round to you), and when you are on our side (the inside) that it looks as if the ground drops away from you (the horizon effect). Don’t believe light travels in curves? I bet you don’t… ;-((

      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        Fortunately Richard, I do.

        Well, we do here on this blog now believe in bendy light, at least bendy visible light. It seems the lower the frequency the less bendy it is. See the article concave Earth theory and, above all, the comments section.

        Richard, I’m interested in your idea that a concave Earth shows a “convex” horizon and a convex Earth a “concave” one. Actually I know what you mean. At the moment I’m not sure there is an outside if you know what I mean. There could just be lots of cavities instead of planets or maybe this world is a machine and we are inside it? Who knows.

        I’m in 2 minds with bendy visible light causing the horizon. LSC has had a good go at it and I’ll have to revisit his youtube video. One poster mentioned a Dutchman’s image of the light bending inside the Earth but this would only cause the horizon at 2 specific times of the day, not continually.

        Interesting stuff all the same. I’m moving house this Friday and so won’t be able to access my blog as often as I would like. Apologies.

  37. Enigmato says:

    Hey everyone, I love that people are coming up with different theories and stuff besides what is taught in government supervised schooling.

    Just wanted to add that I thought the spacing between the first few springs is a larger distance at the top of the slinky because it is supporting more weight. The first spring is carrying the weight of the entire slinky. The one on the bottom is not being pulled down by all that weight, so naturally it would have a smaller distance in its spacing. Hope that makes sense.

    Still, some interesting ideas going on here :) Keep the wheels turning! I’d love to see that wood/lead explanation posted somewhere. Maybe ill be able to find it elsewhere online, as one member mentioned it was borrowed from somewhere else…

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      “Just wanted to add that I thought the spacing between the first few springs is a larger distance at the top of the slinky because it is supporting more weight. The first spring is carrying the weight of the entire slinky. The one on the bottom is not being pulled down by all that weight, so naturally it would have a smaller distance in its spacing. Hope that makes sense.”

      I thought of something like that too. I was going through my head how I would try and explain it in a “conventional” way, you know, playing Devil’s advocate.

      Still, playing the other side: Why is the weight there in the first place? There is weight acting on the “hanging” hook and then a slinky is attached and so the weight is transferred. But why isn’t it transferred to the bottom slinky first since the hook and slinky are now “one” object and gravity is a “pull” right?

      :)

      It was one of Steven’s youtube video’s. Found it:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd4VHcFY1Vg Gets interesting at about the 3 min mark I think.

  38. neet says:

    Hi

    I have to say I am a total convert to this theory, it all seems so logical.
    Could you explain rainbows please? I am looking at a huge bright one now against a black ‘sky’ and would love to know the connection with the glass sky.
    I have many questions, so I must remember to note them down and come here to seek a possible answer.
    In fact my partner and teen son are all converts to this theory.

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Not sure neet to be honest. The truth seems to be that the visibility of stars is one of low altitude only – 4 miles tops maybe?

      However, what they represent (whatever that is) must be very near the center right above the poles, either side of the center of the Earth.

      This is because of two facts that can’t be reconciled any other way. Take the northern hemisphere for example.

      1. The north pole star Polaris can be seen everywhere in the northern hemisphere… everywhere (and a touch below). That puts the north star somewhere right above the north pole (because everyone on half the globe can see it). With this one fact Polaris can be anywhere from say 4 miles in the sky above the north pole to right at the center.

      Second fact 2. The stars are seen to travel around the north star in an anti-clockwise direction by those viewing them from the northern hemisphere. I don’t know if you have read the other articles, but the it has been proven that it is the night sky that moves and not the Earth and that we live on the inside. Visualize the concave Earth for a minute and that you are upside down at the north pole. The Sun moves East to West in an anti-clockwise direction and so the only way the stars can be seen to also travel in an anti-clockwise direction is that the stars are above the heads of everyone on the northern hemisphere (like the Sun). Therefore the only place the stars can be is very near the center and whatever they represent is extremely small.

      If the stars were just above the north pole, everyone south of that (say people in Hawaii) would see the stars go around in a clockwise fashion instead, which they don’t.

      I don’t know if this explanation was clear enough. I’ve got more on it as well but it’ll have to wait till the next article.

      • Objective One says:

        Could the Earth be concave but with the ice/glass sky covering it like a dome? With the sun, moon and stars all at the North Pole center of a spiral plane? Like a disk? And Antarctica really be the “ends of the Earth”, extending indefinitely into the unknown where the sun “don’t shine”? Where the ice sky meets the Earth.

        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          I think it was Saros who first suggested the bowl idea, but it doesn’t work when checking southern hemisphere flight times. The southern hemisphere should be a lot further than their northern hemisphere counterparts if the Earth were a bowl and this isn’t the case if you check Qantas’ flight times to New Zealand.

    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Steve might be better with the rainbow explanation, or maybe the conventional one is correct. I haven’t looked into it neet.

  39. Saros says:

    Very good article! How about the Moon? Why didn’t Felix Baumgartner see the Moon? Maybe it wasn’t the right time of the day? He reported seeing the sky as totally black. How about the Moon? We can see the Moon during the day on many occasions, so shouldn’t it be also visible from high altitudes? I know there are some pictures from satellites and so on, but since they are not to be trusted, I thought it was a curious thing to check.

    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      I hear you on the moon.

      However, when going through about 20 to 25 balloon videos there was a still from one of those videos of a circular very small object very low down in the black sky just above the horizon. I don’t know what it was: moon, “planet” etc.? It also appears slightly higher in the sky in one of the stills on the website of the man who sent a balloon up during nighttime. If you view his website, on one or two of the high res photos you will see it. It is very, very small to how we normally see the moon however. I have no idea what is. Just thought I’d point that out as I had also thought about what you are saying too.

  40. Lord Steven Christ says:

    The stars are up there, I am convinced. The problem with observing them at higher altitudes is not only the ice, which I described in my video, being attached to the glass sky and transforming from a translucent crystalline state to tranparent amorphous state daily, but also the amount of luminiferous ether (or lack thereof) at higher altitudes, which must somehow prevent the observers from seeing fainter lights such as stars being not immersed in the higher concentration of the ether at ground level.

    Hence the high concentration of luminiferous ether allows a visual boost of the heavens at ground level, and the gradual taper off of the ether at high altitudes prevents the fainter lights such as stars from being observed.

    best regards, “Tiger”.

    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      That’s where we differ Steve. The altitude of stars is an open book for me right now. I like your theory on the stars being sonoluminescence. This would mean that it would be the constant ultrasound source reacting with the water vapor in the atmosphere which would only put stars no higher than 8 km.

      “Water vapor is almost totally absent above about 8 km.”

      http://scipp.ucsc.edu/outreach/balloon/atmos/The%20Earth.htm

      Unless of course the stars are formed in the ice..

      It’s an open book.

      • Lord Steven Christ says:

        Well glad you are open to the possibilities of the visual enhancements that the (*luminiferous) ether may possess, since it was not mentioned at all in this article until I brought it up. I would like to think of it as a medium that ENHANCES optics similar to a filter that allows one to see further up into the sky. Keep it mind, TR.

        • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

          Will do. I’m open to all ideas, but I either have to stumble upon them myself or be presented with evidence to sway me if you know what I mean.

          I also like the sonoluminescene theory as here where I live, on some cloudless nights the stars are visible and not on others, and sometimes only a few are visible. It is quite varied. The light pollution is constant where I live. If water vapor was a necessary component to make stars then this could be the varying factor.

          It is only an idea though.

          • Lord Steven Christ says:

            um…no there, wh, as much as you would like to think you’re the authority on this subject, y’aint. I add a few features on you that I don’t particularly care about.
            get right with the Lord.
            http://www.missteribabylonestar.com/posthypnoticepiphany7.html

          • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

            You know I am no authority on any subject Steve. I just throw evidence out there and come to a conclusion which seems likely based on that.

            Don’t worry, I could be wrong lol :)

            The stars thing is still largely an open book.

            Steve, if you find evidence of stars being nearer the center of the Earth, then let me know with a quick link on this page. I’ll definitely read it.

            I am not sure about the luminiferous aether just as yet, so you will have to be patient on that front. Steve, how did you come to the conclusion of the luminiferous aether? If you could give me a few pointers, I will be able to have a look for myself. I’ll look into it myself anyway, but these things will take time as I am not at all knowledgeable about different theories of the aether. It may yet tie in with my next article.

            Let’s just call this a subject of further research on my behalf and leave it at that.

            I’m not a man of all-knowledge lol :)

            It’s not imperative for me at this moment either way. I’ve got other fish to fry so to speak.

          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Steve, You may be pleased to hear I’ve found a flaw in the premise of stars being at low altitude.

            The north star Polaris can be seen from the entire northern hemisphere (and even a touch below it), so we must be looking at a star on the same vertical axis as the north pole which would be impossible at low altitude in concave Earth theory (unless I’ve got brain freeze and missed something obvious). The only way around this would be if light followed the curvature of the Earth or the stars are much further away very near the center (which I’ve just found out has to be the place where they are really). I’ll reveal all in the next article rather than here.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_star

  41. Great info, great website. If the author(s) wish to discuss this further, I’d be happy to have them on an audio broadcast. I can be reached at contact.fakeologist.com

    Simon has done good work on all this with his SSSS theory. I see you referenced it, perhaps all of us could do a roundtable on this very fascinating subject.

    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      Thanks Fakeologists. Your website is great too. I’m a member of cluesforum but haven’t posted for about 6 months due to writing this blog.

      It’s the work of everyone, past and present, which together can put a likely picture on our true situation. I hope this blog helps a little too.

      I’d love to do an audio cast, but right now I have to spend all my free-time writing 2 more articles to complete the first overall theme so to speak.

      Maybe after that I will take you up on your offer.

  42. Dr MooTwahz says:

    Phenomenal work. This fills in a lot of my own Blanks.

  43. wow man says:

    your site is very informative, good work

    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      Thanks Wow man. I’m doing my best in the time given to me.

      BTW, I want to ask any pilots that may read this article if they have ever seen stars from their cockpit at cruising altitude (high above the clouds) at night. The only light in the cockpit at night is the glow of the instrument panel if I am not mistaken, so light pollution shouldn’t be a problem.

    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      Hey Steve, I was having a look at a couple of your videos and I absolutely love the way you very simply describe gravity with the difference between lead and wood. Genius.

      The cloud cover low pressure theory was great too.

      • Lord Steven Christ says:

        Ha, that reminds me, I ave to annotate that part because I cannot take credit for it, :P. I saw someone else explain that concept. Can’t accept being an Einstein plagiarist.

        • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

          hey Steve, I heard about gravity is a push a while back, but you described it in a very simple easy to understand fashion.

          As well as de Palmer, there is another piece of simple evidence from the book “gravity is a push”.

          Remember those slinky toys in the 80s. If you hang one from any point, the first spiral has a greater stretch than the next one and so on until the bottom slinky spirals are hardly apart much at all. If gravity were a pull, it would be the other way round, with the bottom part of the slinky being pulled apart the most.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>