New forum

+++
Hello to all new and old readers.

I’ve put together a new fully functioning forum linked to the Wild Heretic Blog, but it isn’t a part of the WordPress design.

forum1
forum2

Hopefully it should run fairly quickly and smoothly. There are a variety of topics to choose from which I think cover just about every subject commented on under the different articles of this blog, so there should be something for everyone. These topics also interest me a lot, so I will be contributing as well (although perhaps not as in-depth as I could be). I hope you will be able to converse more freely with each other and contribute more fully with such a forum structure. You can still drop a comment here, but you will probably prefer the forum. I will look at both.


forum3
forum4
forum5

The forum rules are simple – No trolls. I don’t go onto atheist skeptic mainstream consensus keepers of the faith’s forums and blogs and start pushing the concave Earth and the glass sky and other topics, so I don’t expect them to do the same on my forum. No “Truegroup” (defender of anything space/earth related) or “winegums” (defender of vaccinations on the David Icke forum) types please. These are solid defenders of the faith and either have an inordinate amount of time on their hands or are paid to shill.

Forum Rules
1. No nude or pornographic images are allowed to be displayed on this forum. #
2. Sure, I am up for a laugh and a bit of banter. But if you are rude without being funny, then you are insulting. Please be civil. #
3. I am very tolerant of different viewpoints, but if you are not willing to consider alternative ideas right now, do not register. Deliberate antagonizing and aggravating behavior (trolling) won’t be tolerated. #

+++

Everyone else is more than welcome. We all have different views on the same subject, but as long as we are civil and open-minded enough, then all is good. Steven can post his Octahedron all over the place in the concave Earth category. Don can post his no rockets or satellite videos in the hoaxes category etc. The views on the forum won’t necessarily be my own.

A flat/helio/geocentric earther interested in the hoaxes side of things or any other topic than the concave earth is more than welcome to post in the categories that interest them, and vice verse.

The link to the forum is in the above left-hand tab, next to “home”.

263 thoughts on “New forum”

  1. 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.

    View Comment
    1. 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.

      View Comment
    2. “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.

      View Comment
  2. 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.

    View Comment
    1. 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).

      View Comment
      1. *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

        View Comment
        1. 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

          View Comment
          1. 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.

            View Comment
          2. 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

            View Comment
    2. 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.

      View Comment
      1. 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.

        View Comment
    3. 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… ;-((

      View Comment
      1. 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.

        View Comment
  3. 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…

    View Comment
    1. “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.

      View Comment
  4. 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.

    View Comment
    1. 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.

      View Comment
      1. 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.

        View Comment
        1. 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.

          View Comment
  5. 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.

    View Comment
    1. 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.

      View Comment
  6. 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”.

    View Comment
    1. 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.

      View Comment
      1. 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.

        View Comment
        1. 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.

          View Comment
          1. 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.

            View Comment
          2. 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

            View Comment
  7. 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.

    View Comment
    1. 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.

      View Comment
    1. 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.

      View Comment
    1. 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.

      View Comment
      1. 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.

        View Comment
        1. 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.

          View Comment
          1. Hang on a minute, the reason the first spiral bends the most is that the weight of the rest of the slinky is acting upon it. The last spiral has no weight below it and thus can’t overcome the slinky’s rigidity. This behaviour would be the same regardless if gravity was a push or a pull.
            A force is pushing / pulling all the matter (the slinky) below the first spiral.

            View Comment

Leave a Reply

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