The problem with the camera theory, is that both myself …

Comment on New forum by Wild Heretic.

The problem with the camera theory, is that both myself and someone else couldn’t see stars from an airplane window in June, yet my naked eye can see them from the ground.

To prove this objectively, a camera that can see stars from the ground needs to go up in a balloon and see if it can still see stars from 30km to 40km. There is the problem of movement of course, but these cameras do exist. I found two reasonably priced camcorders that can detect some stars. There is a security camera that is expensive but can capture a lot of them at ground level.

That experiment is probably the last word.

WH

EDIT: After reading my own article again, which was written so long ago, I had forgotten what I wrote, I see that the 2 cameras used by the guy who sent up his balloon at night is able to see a few stars from ground level – not brilliant, but they were able to see a few as shown on the photos. Of course, these photos were taken by different people at different locations at probably different times of the year which looks to be a varying factor in star visibility. December is the best by the way. His night time balloon shots with the same camera show no stars whatsoever. Was it because the camera on the balloon was moving too much? Maybe. A night time experiment would have to reduce the movement of the camera significantly and move the same camera at ground level on the same day from left to right and up and down to see if it can still capture stills or video of stars.

I personally think it can be done, but it will take some funds to do so.

EDIT2: I have an old Nikon dslr from 2008, bottom of the range stuff, but you can change the light sensitivity (ISO) up to to 1600 at least I think. I might have a go on a clear night this month and see at ground level if this camera can possibly capture any stars. Its the Nikon D40x I have, and goes to ISO 3200 and if I put it on a longer exposure I may be able to pick up stars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_D40. If that camera can pick up a few stars (even streaky ones) with every shot at ground level, then we have an experimental night time balloon camera ready to go. I think there is a way to set a timer on the camera so it can continuously take pictures on a balloon.

Wild Heretic Also Commented

New forum
Thanks Trevin.

I like alternative theories to gravity because I don’t believe in the official narrative. The question is if any of these theories is true or not? I don’t know. At the moment I am sticking with gravity coming from the sun. What that is, I don’t know.

“As another separate thing, I know that gravity is a pull and not a push because of tops; tops can’t spin with their sides as close to the ground as they get without these sides being pushed directly to the ground if gravity is a push. ”

I don’t think wobble matters either way. It’s the angular momentum keeping the top up, isn’t it?


New forum
Gary, you have to sign up and then I will approve you. After approval, you can reply to posts or start threads.


New forum
Don’t know, but very interesting all the same. Possibly a large meteor burning through the glass. It looked far too short for it to be a reflection on a cloud from something on the ground, unless it was a ground explosion. Wouldn’t we see the light from the ground explosion on the horizon first though?


Recent Comments by Wild Heretic

Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)
One possibility (look under “planets”): http://www.wildheretic.com/what-are-the-astronomical-bodies/

Personally, I much prefer the other idea that retrograde motion is caused by speed variation/planet tilt. The idea in my CET is that the sun is the outermost body near the center of the cavity and spins the slowest. The rest are inside the sun’s orbit a little bit closer to the center of the cavity. Sometimes when a planet gets too close to the sun/moon it is attracted/repelled to or from that body (or maybe other planets as well) which slows the planet down, or speeds it up. Something like that.

It has been a while since I looked at Jupiter in Stellarium and got latitude readings at the equator over 5 years, so my mind isn’t fresh on the above theory. I have yet to get the longitude data for Jupiter for example and compare it to the sun’s position.

It isn’t something I am concentrating on right now.


There is glass in the sky
Very difficult question. I don’t know. I assume the creator(s) of this biosphere. What then is the purpose of this biosphere?

The glass could be needed to add extra pressure to keep the flood waters below the earth, and/or to block out some of the harsh sunlight radiation. It seems to be a key component to the biosphere.


Why hide the concave earth?
Monsters Inc is older than this article I think, so I would say they got it from the source, which is Monroe’s books.


Space machines do not orbit the Earth
When you are at Davos, you can ask them.

There are satellites up there IMO, just their deployment is not as we are told. Why? Because they are using heliocentric theory as a cover. Why? I’ll leave you to figure that one out.


Space machines do not orbit the Earth
I personally think the moon is reflected light from the back of the Sun. The negative cooling effects come from the “positive” charge of the Sun which is pushing the moon around Sun.


Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.