Hubble and the International Space Station hoax

+++
There are three types of machines said to be in Earth orbit. We have already determined that there is no orbit. Before we look at the possible placement mechanism, let’s first look at the two most well-known machines said to be up there, and determine if they are likely the real deal.

Hubble Space Telescope
International Space Station
Summary
+++

Hubble Space Telescope

Below are two columns of pictures. One contains images exclusively from the “Hubble Telescope”, the other those from Earth-based observatories. Which column shows pictures from the Hubble Telescope?
+++

stars observatory 1
stars
stars hubble 2
stars
observatory star cluster 6
star clusters
hubble star cluster 5
star clusters
observatory nebula 4
nebula
IDL TIFF file
nebula
observatory nebulae 10
nebula
hubble nebulae 9
nebula
observatory galaxy 8
galaxy
hubble galaxy 7
galaxy

+++
The images in the column on the left are from observatories, whilst those on the right are from the “Hubble Telescope“.

Apart from all the images being very similar (or identical), they are often composites of 3 or more pictures each captured through a separate light filter… and then processed further. On top of that, since NASA fake stars and obviously entire images of machines orbiting space, then “processing” a “galaxy” in Photoshop isn’t exactly revolutionary.

These days, they have allowed us to use their online software to touch up raw Hubble images ourselves (cheers ICfreely). They even provide a PDF of instructions. Courtesy of their own YouTube channel, we can compare raw Hubble images and those after processing. (Thanks Godrules)

raw galaxy
Galaxy NGC 3982 – Before (0:24 min).
after hubble
After! (2:02 min).

Gosh, those images are nearly identical… not. You can even choose your own colour!

I wonder if this could be the real Hubble Telescope below? Is the movement across the sky too much for the several minutes of exposure necessary to capture images? It would seem so, although it is probably more a detector than a true optical telescope. I’d love to see how a free-falling Hubble Telescope in space stays exactly in one place to the millimeter in order to capture its long exposure times. It is supposed to be at orbital speed which is 7600 meters per second. This Earth-based motionless observatory image is a composite of three images over 12, 9, and 7 minutes of exposure. In 12 minutes the Hubble Space telescope will have traveled 5472 km – an eighth of the way around the world.

SOFIA_Boeing_747SP_1998AC0014
Sofia
800px-SOFIA_with_open_telescope_doors
The Real Hubble Telescope?

As Saros has also noted, it is odd though why they need an infrared detector at only 12km altitude. They have the Hubble Telescope much further up (559 km), and there is the ISS, and of course the 1100 active satellites littered all over the globe. Maybe they need the versatility of choosing exact locations which are not covered by the infrared detecting satellites? Perhaps there aren’t many operating scientific infrared detecting satellites up there, and those that are, can only cover a smallish localized area at one time? Or the type of technology needed is not satellite suitable because the instruments need to be changed before each operation, or are too delicate and have to be constantly maintained and tweaked? (Best guess).

This telescope is designed for infrared astronomy observations in the stratosphere at altitudes of about 41,000 feet (12 km). SOFIA’s flight capability allows it to rise above almost all of the water vapor in the Earth’s atmosphere, which blocks some infrared wavelengths from reaching the ground. At the aircraft’s cruising altitude, 85% of the full infrared range will be available. The aircraft can also travel to almost any point on the Earth’s surface, allowing observation from the northern and southern hemispheres.

+++

Could the Hubble Telescope be placed on the glass layer 100km high? Possible. Except they say that the Hubble needs constant maintenance:

Soon after his appointment Griffin authorized Goddard to proceed with preparations for a manned Hubble maintenance flight, saying he would make the final decision after the next two shuttle missions. In October 2006 Griffin gave the final go-ahead, and the 11-day mission by Atlantis was scheduled for October 2008. Hubble’s main data-handling unit failed in September 2008,[86] halting all reporting of scientific data until its back-up was brought online on October 25, 2008.[87] Since a failure of the backup unit would leave the HST helpless, the service mission was postponed to incorporate a replacement for the primary unit… (An earlier space telescope idea): These plans emphasized the need for manned maintenance missions to the telescope to ensure such a costly program had a lengthy working life.

+++

All Earth-based observatories have to be maintained. Even on the glass, the environment of the Hubble Space telescope would be more hostile than a telescope on Earth. Freezing temperatures and all that meteoric dust and micro-meteor bombardment… allegedly 100 tons of the stuff hits the atmosphere every day (I am doubtful it is that much). No-one can physically go up and walk on the glass unless the space shuttle stops; and then how does the shuttle get back? It can’t.

Reality verdict:

hubble-fraud
“Marketing” is code for utter shite.

I particularly love all the different altitudes and curves of the Earth in the backdrop. Can’t they even get that one straight? What a load of shit.

International Space Station

Which screenshots below of the various videos of the ISS are fake?
+++

ISS - amateur1
1
hoax - 2
2
hoax - 3
3
ISS - 5
4
ISS - 6
5
ISS - 7
6

+++
Answer: all of them. But officially, number 2 and 3.

There is also the problem of “to rotate, or not to rotate?” in the 2007 video below of Mike Tyrrell’s miraculous captures, aired by the BBC who at 0:38 states that “no other amateurs in the world have been able to create such stunning images”.

I bet.
+++

ISS - not moving
Static ISS
ISS - moving
Rotating ISS

+++
The earliest “photo” of the ISS supposedly viewed through a telescope by an “amateur” astronomer that I could find was in 2002 by Jerry Xiaojin Zhu followed by nothing until 2005/6 with Philip Masding/Mike Tyrrell’s orgy of images. The ISS had been manned since 1999, so you would have thought NASA or one of the myriad of observatories littering the globe, let alone another amateur astronomer would have more than one set of telescope images to show between 1999 and 2006; but no.

Then there is the problem of other hobbyists not being able to capture such great images. Before the 2007 barrage, other members on one forum in 2003 said things like “No details – it just looked like a fast moving star.” and “You can’t resolve any features on a satellite with amateur telescopes.”

And from 2006: “You’d have to have a ‘scope able to slew at incredible speeds.There aren’t any for amateurs, that I know of.” Even as late as 2009, one young lady said “I saw a very bright…very fast streak of light run across my vision. So fast and bright, that I couldn’t make out what it was”

But it’s not just a handful of mistaken incompetents. Amateur astronomer forums such as Amateurastronomers.net just has three PR articles and certainly no “hobbyists'” photos. Those amazingly fortunate and plucky young astronomers mostly hang around stargazerslounge.com and iceinspace.com.au with a few generously donating their incredible gifts at cloudynights.com.

The problem is we get the same amazed and incredulous comments such as “Wow!!!!!!!Impossible Job“, “I tried to track it with my little dob but only got a bright dot“, “ISS does outshine Venus sometimes. It reaches maximum brightness at a whopping -5.9 at perigee“, “getting a detailed image of something moving this fast would require a very complex setup“, “I’ve had a few tries with LX200 which is supposed to be able to track it but failed miserably“, “The two times I tried to image the station, I got blobs!”, “I only get a blur“, “I have no idea how the others have captured such detailed pictures of it!”

You get the picture (pun intended).

The last comment was made by a lady who had managed to get the bright white dot through her telescope shown in the video below on the left which looks remarkably like the black and white image of an asteroid on the right.
+++

real ISS
An asteroid… ahem, I mean a satellite, no… er the Hubble Telescope… no, no, no, its the ISS!
asteroid
An asteroid

+++
Gosh, it’s radiating white hot all over… what a surprise! Who would have thunk it. White hot is 1400-1600°C. That’s a hot ISS! Speaking of white hot, there are two images of the space shuttle through a telescope. With this new-found knowledge of the thermosphere, which image is likely to be correct and which one cgi?

shuttle during re-entry
Space shuttle on re-entry
shuttle-fake
Space shuttle with ISS in Thermosphere

Real amateur astronomers won’t even consider the notion, let alone speak out that these images could be fake for obvious reasons of wanting to believe… all except one however.

…directly viewing the ISS through a privately owned telescope (a Newtonian of 6 inch aperture at low magnification and using manual tracking). On every occasion I have viewed the ISS, and I am an experienced observer, a perfectly round object is revealed presenting no angular projections whatsoever.

+++

Of course, he could only air his findings on a conspiracy forum where the defender of the realm was “astronut” aka Scott Ferguson. This man is already a dab hand at Photoshop as the signature photo on his Twitter account reveals.

astronut, scott ferguson, messierhunter
One moment I was standing next to my family.
Next minute I’m beside some dude’s telescope.

The black line, pretending to be a shadow, nearly all around his cut out makes his figure look pasted in… couldn’t be…nah. Scot/astronut/nghunter/astromut/Dr.Astro was very, very active on the “conspiracy” forums defending his ISS images while, through seamless interaction, Gate420 took over where Astronut had left off. Does an amateur astronomer spend his free time defending his images on conspiracy forums?

What about all the media attention these guys get. You may think this is nothing unusual, but today journalism is known as Churnalism where nearly 90% of newspaper articles are not original and have been written elsewhere as either pre-packaged press releases or from a news wire. That means a PR person has thought up a catchy headline, written a suitably informative article and supplied images to sway public opinion in favor of whatever it is they are selling. Would an amateur astronomer even attempt to do this, let alone have the necessary writing skills?

Hardly.

Here is a list of incredibly skilled ISS photographers and their press involvement.
+++

Dirk EwerState German Television
Scot FergusonDiscover magazine and ZME Science
Vincent Miu (aka cookie8) – Australian national newspaper
Tom Gwilym (NASA’s Solar System Ambassador)Universe Today and NASA Science News and Komo News Network and the PR feed Newsnook
Rob BullenDiscover Magazine and UK national newspaper and NASA and New Scientist and London newspaper
Ralf Vandebergh (Journalist for Space Safety Magazine) – Universe Today and Wired and NBC News and NASA Science News
Thierry LegaultDiscover Magazine and Universe Today and UK national newspaper and NASA and more
Mike Salway (online marketeer and Ice in Space forum creator) – Universe Today
Mike Tyrrellthe BBC and NBC News and Tech News Daily

+++
About half the authors checked made it into the media, not including Joe Ricci of Strasenburgh Planetarium or a certain Donald Thomas aka Starlightnight who loves promoting other ISS photographers (a common theme throughout) and had his images published at ESA.

A quick Google search of his name reveals an athlete, an American footballer, and… a retired NASA astronaut – come lecturer – come ISS program scientist. Nah couldn’t be, could it? There are over 3000 people with that name in the USA alone. 3000 to 1 isn’t good odds, but knowing orbiting is fake, I wouldn’t suddenly convulse in apoplectic shock if it were the case.

Does this mean that all ISS footage from amateur telescopes is fake? No it doesn’t, just buyer beware. One way to photograph the ISS is by using the full moon as a backdrop. Fortunately, these kinds of images give us some kind of perspective. The poster Dani from Concave Earth Forum received one such image in the concave earth society Facebook page. Dani had already previously photographed a passenger jet against the background of a full moon. By resizing both images so that the moon remained the same size in both, an accurate size comparison of the two objects could be made.

Clip0004_done
Dani’s jumbo jet against the full moon in the background.
Plane_over_Moon_doneeee
The two photos – one of the ISS, and the other the jumbo jet put together to get the correct size perspective.

The ISS looks to be about half the size of the jumbo jet in the photo. This is confirmed by myself when cropping the objects in the photo and enlarging both by a factor of ten. The jumbo crop was 17.64 x 10.23 cm and the ISS crop was 7.41 x 6.7 cm. If I doubled the ISS crop in size, then its area would be bigger than the jumbo jet crop. Also, if you compare the ISS in the photo to its supposed design structure only the solar panels match; the other “appendages” do not.

ISS size comparison
The ISS is roughly half the size of the jumbo jet.

The ISS is said to be the same size as a 747 plane. Dani, nor anyone, knows which type of passenger plane was flying that night when the photo was taken. You can see below that a 727 or even a 737 are approximately half the size of a 747 with the rest in between those two sizes.

ISS_747_comparison
The ISS is said to be the same size as a 747.
size_planes
Different sizes of passenger jet planes show the smallest – a 737 against the largest – a 747.

A passenger jet travels at a cruising altitude of around 10 km. The plane in the photo may not even have reached this altitude yet; but let’s assume it has. If the plane in the image was a 747, then the ISS being half that size is traveling at twice that altitude, which is 20 km. If the plane were to be a 727 (half the size of a 747), then the ISS is flying at 40 km altitude. Either way, the ISS is traveling somewhere between 20 and 40 km high in the sky.

Assuming the ISS moon backdrop photos are genuine, then the ISS hoax is just a cover-up for something else that they don’t want the public to question. This is very understandable. The ISS doesn’t have wings (at least the moon backdrop photo doesn’t show any). The ISS is somewhere between 20 and 40 km high, well below the altitude needed to experience “Newton’s thought experiment” (heliocentric orbiting). So what is keeping the ISS up? Anti-gravity technology they want to keep hidden from commercial interests? That is the probable reason for the cover-up; assuming it is a cover-up.

Traversing white dots in the sky
You are now probably thinking about those fast moving white dots that very occasionally move across the sky at night. We are told that they can be one of three objects: 1. asteroids, 2. satellites, or 3. the International Space Station. Now that we know about the thermosphere, which of the three objects fits? At those mythical altitudes, those fast moving white dots can only be white hot asteroids.

In the night sky, asteroids can move at different speeds and in any direction, which differentiates them from stars. The ISS however, only moves from west to east – sometimes from the south-west, sometimes from the north-west, but always west to east.

asteroids
Two asteroids are visible – one moving west to east, the other east to west.
ISS spotter
The ISS only moves West to East across the night sky for only a few minutes at the most before it becomes invisible.

The trouble is, the ISS has been spotted going both west to east and east to west. One Youtube User, Brain Clark, made the following observation.

I installed the NASA app on my tablet and saw that the “ISS” was due to fly overhead the last 4 nights in a row for my area (mid atlantic coastal region). I went out and observed “it” all 4 nights in a row at the direction it said and at the approx time (it seems to be a minute or 2 early).

Also, I must retract my blinking light statement, as there does not appear to be any kind of blinking light on it – and when I saw it about 2-3 years ago – I thought it was blinking – but now I’m not sure. I’ll ask my buddy if he remembers it blinking. Anyway, supposedly – what we see is the “sun” reflecting light off it. However, I don’t own a telescope – so all it is to me is a light in the sky.

The 1st 2 nights – it appeared to be waaaaay up there. Night one it came W to E. Night 2 it came E to W. Night 3 it was much lower (and brighter) and came W to NE. Night 4 (last night) – it came in a W to E (general direction) and was in view for a good 10-15 seconds – which was rather amazing since I thought the app said it would be visible for only 6 seconds??? Also interesting was that each night it fizzled out before going over the horizon. Nights 1-3 it fizzled out well before the horizon. Apparently, when it fizzles out – it means the sun is no longer reflecting off of it. Not sure if any of this is relevant.

+++

East to West is impossible of course, unless it is an asteroid, or something else entirely. The blinking is odd too and Brian is not alone, Chrnan6710 states “I’ve seen the ISS in the sky myself, it blinks.” If it blinks, it is a airplane. Maybe they made an error that night, or perhaps we are being sold a lie.

Then there is light intensity problem courtesy of Peter Rock:

Here’s the reason I think one would need a telescope. The ISS is indeed a 100×100 meter square in size. However, the size of objects projected onto the observers view plane also obeys the inverse square law of the distance away from the observer. The ISS is 10000 meters square. At its closest distance from a terrestrial observer, the ISS is 340km or 340000 meters away. The projected area of the ISS on the observer’s view plane is 10000 meters / (340000 meters * 340000 meters), which is a dot only 8.65051903e-8 meters square. If we consider this projection as a square, the side length of this projected square is 0.00029411764 meters, or around 0.3 mm.

Now, close one eye and hold a ruler 1-meter away. Can you see a width of 0.3mm on that ruler? This is why I think one needs a telescope. The situation gets worse if the ISS is 800km away (you have to be able to spot 0.1mm on the ruler) and much worse if it’s just above the horizon (as some claim they can see with the eye), then the ISS is about 2300km away.

If it can (by some miracle) be seen on a close pass, then the observer would see a light that fades into view as it approaches the closest distance and then fades out of view as it moves past the closest distance. But your video shows a point light with a consistent intensity as it traverses the sky.

+++

That “space station” sure looks at bit too bright for 0.1 – 0.3mm at 1m distance from your eye, let alone the camera being able to pick up.

white dot in sky
A bright white dot traversing the sky.

Science and engineering?
They love to show us how they wash their hair (with a ton of very short edits – she’s on a g-plane), squeeze water out of a medical drip bag to rounds of fake recorded studio applause – for science no less! How he brushes his teeth, makes a frikking sandwich, shaving their head (why aren’t the ladies’ hair shaved military style by the way to stop hair interfering with the equipment?), doing hard work deploying vital tech towards a tight deadline (sarcasm and more short edits – hint g-plane), nail clipping in space, how to puke in space and how to take a dump (I kid you not). The list of irrelevancy is endless with these bozos.

taking a dump ISS
Taking a dump is difficult in micro-gravity: 1. Stick suction hose up back passage. 2. Clench butt-cheeks really hard. 3. Don’t release until the sausage is fully extended. 4. Switch on suction (gently!) and relax cheeks. 5. Pull out hose and put it back in its holder ready for the next lucky astronaut. If only I hadn’t eaten too much of that dried “space” food.

Why aren’t they showing us the real engineering and science? Simple. These clowns belong to NASA’s marketing team, not NASA’s industrial arm.


They are selling you outer space.


+++
That is their reason of being, and nothing more. It is pure fiction.

Quick question: Which engineer was fired for designing the ISS as a narrow long stick so that it acts like a pivot putting all the stress on the joints? Answer: No-one was fired. The International Fake Station was designed perfectly to mimic micro-gravity inside a jumbo jet. Then the marketing department helped the engineers along by rendering its solar panels… and voila, we have the ISS. (Thanks again Godrules.)

Reality verdict:

ISS-fraud
They are selling us “outer space”, not doing science and deploying useful technology.

What a load of shit.

Summary

  • Hubble Space Telescope images are identical, if not subjectively slightly inferior, to those from Earth-based observatories.
  • An image is a composite of 3 or more images and then processed using Photoshop. This turns a tiny unrecognizable black and white image into a what a graphic artist could call a painting.
  • An Earth-based motionless observatory telescope takes minutes to take an image of the night sky. How does the Hubble Space telescope do this traveling at an orbiting speed of 7600 meters per second? A 12 minute exposure over a traveled distance of 5472 km?
  • Sofia is an infrared telescope on a jumbo jet. Why do they need this if they have the Hubble?
  • The Hubble cannot be placed on the glass layer due to the maintenance needed, especially with all the micro-meteors falling down. The space shuttle would have to stop, let the astronauts out to repair the telescope, and start the shuttle again to get back to Earth.
  • The Hubble Space Telescope is merely another marketing ploy to sell us outer space. As a real application it is unneeded and unfeasible.
  • Images of the ISS said to be taken through an amateur’s telescope cannot be differentiated from those that are known to be fake.
  • Mike Tyrrell’s 2007 images showed a still “motionless” ISS at one time; another time a rotating ISS. Does the ISS sometimes rotate?
  • Amateur astronomy forum members are in awe of those handful of other “amateurs” able to capture such clear pictures of the ISS, whereas all they can capture are glowing white hot orbs, if they are lucky enough to track it at all.
  • Dani from Concave Earth Forum has shown the true altitude of the ISS to be somewhere between 20 and 40 km high thanks to the full moon in the background of two different photos – one of the ISS and one of a jumbo jet.
  • A glowing white ISS looks remarkably the same as an asteroid or even the space shuttle on its initial re-entry.
  • Over half of all lucky amateurs researched had very strong connections to the space media and official space organizations. The others may also have connections, but I was unable to find out.
  • The ISS has been seen moving East to West, which is the opposite direction than it should travel.
  • The sunlight intensity calculations reflecting of the said size and distance of the ISS make the it equivalent to 0.1 to 0.3 mm at 1 meter distance.
  • No science is ever shown to be carried out on the International Space Station. We are bamboozled with irrelevant videos to answer questions asked by 6 year olds.
  • The structural design of the ISS as a long stick is all wrong, putting far too much necessary stress on the joints. It would fit much better in a zero g-plane, however.
  • The International Space Station is yet another elaborate marketing gimmick to sell us outer space.

We have now reached a pretty solid conclusion that those two “space” machines are just marketing ploys as a cover for the real space industry, as well as other possible speculative reasons as why they are selling us outer space. It is now time to look at the actual industry and see if we can find things that are genuine, and how they are placed in “space”. Let’s go to part 3.

Bookmark the permalink.

76 Responses to Hubble and the International Space Station hoax

  1. Nick Hugman says:

    Has anyone dealt with Dr. Astro, or Scott Ferguson has shown above? What do you think of him?

    View Comment
  2. Wise One says:

    Besides the Zero G plane, here is another possible (and more likely) explanation of how the astronauts on the ISS become weightless…here on Earth:
    https://youtu.be/rZAod8g_2uE?t=2238

    View Comment
  3. BlueMoon says:

    I haven’t seen any real evidence on this page against the existence of the HST, so your claim that you have disproven it is entirely unwarranted. Of course it doesn’t just take images in the visible spectrum; pretty much the only thing of interest about visible light is that it’s what we can see. And it only goes to near infrared, so SOPHIA still has its place. As for staying in one place, the Hubble doesn’t need to. It’s subjects are so far away that the parallax is negligible, and it only needs to stay pointed in the right direction.
    You say that the ISS is glowing white hot, but you fail to realize that it’s reflecting sunlight. You really haven’t disproven the ISS either; just reaffirmed that it goes really fast and comes between the earth and the moon.
    I don’t believe you’ve explained how satellites orbit at different altitudes, speeds, and eccentricities if there is only one layer of glass, or fully realized the implications of the entire known universe being contained within the earth.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      First off Blue moon, all your sources of information are based on official sources. These have been shown to be untrustworthy. How? Bubbles in space, scuba tanks in space and wrong hair-dos prove that they are willing to lie and conspire to defraud the public. Therefore all information coming from these sources is merely speculative as all is tainted by its very definition. If a witness tells you 10 observations and has been caught blatantly lying about just ONE of those observations, would you, a jury, or anyone believe they had been telling the truth about the other nine observations? Of course not. All evidence would be dismissed and could not be trusted.

      It’s subjects are so far away that the parallax is negligible, and it only needs to stay pointed in the right direction.

      Is it? How do you know that these postulations are true? Have the distances to the stars been empirically tested? How fast is the Hubble telescope traveling, in what direction and at what distances from Earth? Also, what is the length of exposure time per shot? A normal observatory takes several minutes per image? This site claims about 600 km in orbit at a speed of 7.6 x 10^3 m/s (7600 m/s). Let’s say each exposure is 10 minutes long. The Hubble has traveled 4560 km in 10 minutes in its 600 km high orbit around the Earth. This circular orbit is only 1200 km further than the Earth’s diameter. Therefore the circumference of this orbit is 14,000 km x pi = 44,000 km. So the Hubble telescope travels one tenth of the circumference of its orbit in 10 minutes or 36 degrees and yet we don’t see this – https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.photosbykev.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fgallery%2Fstar_trails%2Fdynamic%2Fstartrail_dxo_2-nggid042611-ngg0dyn-0x0x100-00f0w010c010r110f110r010t010.jpg&f=1

      Now, does this mean the Hubble telescope doesn’t exist? Not exactly. It means that what they say about its deployment is bullshit at least. Maybe it is sitting on the glass despite its lens being constantly bombarded by micro meteorites and dust. Maybe its sensors are super sensitive like a space gazing satellite so it can “see” the stars at such a high altitude. But why put a super expensive telescope up there if it is easier to see stars on the ground? Do they want light readings above the glass? then why not put a telescope on Antarctica and look at the stars through the south pole hole in the sky? Maybe they need a different viewpoint than the south pole. I don’t know. That part is more speculative. But the way they say it is deployed is a lie.

      Same applies to the ISS. The marketing has been shown to be a conclusive fraud, but that doesn’t mean that something doesn’t exists in the sky that the ISS is a cover for.

      I don’t believe you’ve explained how satellites orbit at different altitudes, speeds, and eccentricities if there is only one layer of glass, or fully realized the implications of the entire known universe being contained within the earth.

      Most of that is explained in the geostationary satellite article. Again, that is speculative because their Newtonian though experiment 1. doesn’t make sense (see above) and 2. has been proven wrong by the rectilineator experiment.

      The trouble is Bluemoon, that it is the mainstream who HAVE fully realized the implications of the entire known universe being contained within the earth and are absolutely horrified. I can see why on many grounds.

      Because of this a lot of their technology is now based on speculation and don’t blame someone saying that it is all bullshit. I don’t think so, but how it works is now up for grabs.

      View Comment
      • BlueMoon says:

        Actually, no, they have not been proven wrong. The evidence has just been misinterpreted.
        The Hubble would see images like that if it were rotating or fixed on earth (or possibly within a concave earth), but it is able to keep itself oriented perfectly through several different mechanisms, and because distances in the universe are mind-blowingly enormous. Parallaxes can be observed, but only at opposite points along the Earth’s orbit, and only for relatively nearby stars. This is how distances between stars are determined. If you have six months and a telescope you can see for yourself.
        Also, thought experiments are not meant to prove anything. They are merely a tool of logic to help wrap one’s mind around a topic. There are plenty of other experiments that prove gravity that are more recent and conclusive and unbiased.

        https://youtu.be/NFTaiWInZ44

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          but it is able to keep itself oriented perfectly through several different mechanisms

          Oh I see. So it uses booster rockets or something to keep itself in perfect alignment with what it is viewing? Sounds extraordinarily difficult. Just a fraction away from the perfect speed and the exposure is ruined.

          Parallaxes can be observed, but only at opposite points along the Earth’s orbit, and only for relatively nearby stars. This is how distances between stars are determined. If you have six months and a telescope you can see for yourself.

          Show me evidence of real world parallax of stars. Not diagrams, but actual observations in a telescope.

          There are plenty of other experiments that prove gravity that are more recent and conclusive and unbiased. https://youtu.be/NFTaiWInZ44

          Where are the experiments in that video? Show me the experiments confirming Newtonian pulling gravity.

          View Comment
  4. Glare says:

    I don’t believe they have anti-gravity technology. It is just a hoax. Why would you first doubt in everything official and then suddenly believe they even have more advanced technology than presently claimed? Basically, you’re suggesting that we’re capable of even more incredible feats while at the same time questioning the validity of what has been allegedly achieved so far. Sounds illogical.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      hi Glare,

      It’s just a possibility as to what they are covering up, that’s all. it may be something else, or one of many reasons. Maybe they are selling outer space for reasons we can only speculate. I’m writing “concave earth questions” article at the moment where various ideas as to why will be entertained.

      View Comment
      • Glare says:

        Yeah, you’re right, it is just a possibility. I just found it illogical to cover up more advanced technology by faking current technology 🙂 They might be selling ‘space’ simply to maintain the current cosmological model they accepted a long time ago. In order for heliocentrism to persist, it was necessary to promote space the way they did. There must be a global conspiracy on this, as I can’t see how the Russian and the Chinese will play along otherwise.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Oh definitely. We have bubbles of proof the Chinese and Americans are in the deception together (I prefer the word “marketing” lol). The others are in on it too. They obviously agree internationally on certain things such as antarctic bases and throwing the international actornauts together in the ISS. The fact that this is international means the reasons for the deception are very important. I’m writing an article at the moment where I’ll be throwing out some ideas as to why this is. I’ve got 9 possible reasons so far. If you think of more, then feel free to add them to the comments section when I’m done writing the article. (I’ve also found a slightly better contender for gravity).

          View Comment
  5. Guest says:

    http://www.cluesforum.info for a more in depth and continuing conversation on space fakery.

    View Comment
  6. Passenger 111 says:

    I agree on this article. I found the basic idea of orbiting satellites doesn’t make sense. They are too close to Earth to be burned out, and the orbiting mechanism puts gravity into a wrong positioin.

    But, I can’t agree on other articles on your blog. Concave Earth…? Glass in the sky??? That sounds illogical. I mean we can all watch sunsets and sunrises, four seasons, and day and night. At least now, the current round-shaped Earth theory makes more sense on them.

    Anyway, I agree space travel/satellites are lies. Gravity doesn’t work as we’ve been told. I quite like this article.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      The glass sky article needs a complete redoing when I have time. Concave Earth is where the evidence lies. I’ve redone that article. All it will now take is one experiment for it to be 99.9% conclusive.

      View Comment
  7. Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

    I’ve added concave earth forum (Dani)’s find of a low altitude ISS.

    View Comment
    • daniella says:

      Hi Wild Heretic. Glad I’m able to help you out to build a better idea of what might be going on. One reason I got a scope was to see things with my own eyes better, so I don’t need to trust other sources. I’ve filmed a number of black objects across the moon now, trying to match them up with satellite tracking. Out of 5, only one seemed to match up with a satellite from tracking software. What I find extremely strange is, I’ve been able to make out a “wash” trail from behind a few, very faintly in video. This would suggest the objects are in atmosphere, you couldn’t get that with an object that’s just floating along in a vacuum, could you?

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        No you wouldn’t. It’s great to see someone actually finding out for themselves. I’ll be finding out things myself soon enough as internet journalism only goes so far. I reckon they could be hiding anti-gravity technology, probably the Bielefield-Brown effect which was first discovered in the 1920s (ion drives). I even saw one Japanese satellite with “ion drive” labelled on the diagram lol.

        I wonder what these things are actually doing up there though. They are obviously hiding the real purpose of what these things are.

        WH

        View Comment
  8. Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

    I’ve added Dani’s great work from concave Earth forum on the true altitude of the ISS to the ISS hoax article. Well done Dani, brilliant investigating.

    View Comment
  9. ProperGander says:

    The photos of ISS crossing the Sun are laughable. The station lacks any motion blur. The fans of such “photoshoppery” lack the critical thought needed to decipher the “tom foolery”.

    When one considers exposure time and how sharp the images look, one has to come to the sane and rationale conclusion that the images of the space walking astronaut and the clearly outlined docked space shuttle and space station are fake.

    Inverse square law as well as atmospheric perspective have to be taken into account. So does the loss in image quality going from telescope to camera lens and to digital compression.

    We also have to ignore the fact that telescopic magnification results in a blurry image not a sharper one. The increase in the amount of light the lens allows for is what makes the image sharper not the magnification.

    View Comment
  10. Jason Parker says:

    You might find the following very interesting, a scientific proof the earth is not as it seems: Earth’s “Center of Gravity—Up or down?” by Ray Palmer
    https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/palmer.htm

    Good luck!
    Lester

    PS. Please treat this message as private. Thank you.

    View Comment
  11. riomar9 says:

    Check this very interesting video out. By Steven who also calls himself Christ I believe?Anyway, it is very interesting in what a gal by the name of Debra, supposedly found thru Google and other sites?

    URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWg10xVYOz8

    I tried finding that stuff myself, but it seems like Google has removed it, and also any other information having to do with the APS satellites being attached to the Glass sky ceiling. they only show ATS satellites and about their orbits, but nothing having to do with them actually attaching them to the Class Sky, as Steven and Debra say in the video. check it out, it’s really interesting indeed..

    View Comment
  12. laura says:

    god i love your site. i’m still laughing from the question about which engineer was fired for creating a poorly designed space station. keep up the great work. all of you guys rock (godrules, steven christ and more) but you have the best sense of humor. i can’t stop laughing.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Glad you enjoyed it. After I saw the “how we take a dump in the ISS” video, I was overwhelmed with inspiration! haha.

      The next one on satellites is not humorous sadly, but the ISS was ripe for the plucking. Couldn’t resist.

      View Comment
  13. Daniel says:

    Ahh found part 2, but the section on radio frequencies is gone?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Not to worry, that is in part 3. Satellites are very, very interesting. I may have cracked it. I’ll just keep going and hope.

      View Comment
  14. jk says:

    Hello Wild Heretic,

    I’m an open minded scientist, and I find the concave earth theory
    intriguing. I must confess that I find some the experiments (such as
    optical “reach” of the horizon) very disturbing assuming a convex earth.

    However, while I find interesting this model from a purely theoretical perspective, and I admit that current cosmological model may be flawed on some aspects, dismissing all space-based technologies as faked stuff does not sound credible to me:

    I can imagine that NASA and the US would be capable of faking some stuffs, but :

    – what about all the other countries? russians, europeans, indians,
    chineses… how all the people working in these spatial programs
    involving satellites would not leak info on the fake nature of satellites?

    – how the global weather data (including cloud cover, temperatures, etc.) and surface imaging collected daily would be possible without satellites?

    – how accurate localization in extremely remote area (such as in the middle of the southern oceans) would be possible if GPS positionning was in fact land based, as you claim?

    Just some thoughts…

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Eventually I’ll be doing a more thorough job on this article to address a couple of those questions.

      1. They are all in on it. Russia didn’t and still doesn’t have the expertise in film-making and facilities to churn out spacewalks and such, like NASA has. The Chinese are new to the game and were caught with space bubbles. Deliberate? Maybe. Someone might want us to notice. The frightening thing about this is that it is international, which means that agreements exist on a level of organization beyond what we have been marketed to believe actually exists.

      2. I’m guessing Geo-stationary satellites on the glass. This deserves much more thorough research though, which I’ll eventually do. Could it be reflections bounced off the ionosphere? Pseudo-satelites? I’m not sure at this point.

      3. I had a quick look into this a while ago. GPS is no problem signal strength wise, but the internet is another thing altogether. I looked at the internet facilities of cruise ships on one of the forums and one of the cruise liner’s own website (I don’t have the link as it was just a precursory search). They go out into the middle of the ocean and they have internet cafes. It turns out that at sea their connection becomes extremely weak and is often interrupted. The internet is slowed down a lot to the point of being sometimes unusable. I reckon this is because they have to switch to skywave frequency packages which can’t hold as much data as the mobile phone networks which can be used when they get close to shore. This subject also requires more research. It will be the last article to update, so maybe next year 🙂

      As you can see, we see through the bullshit, but we don’t know where the reality line is to be drawn. We’ve realized that the military have sold us a dog and pony show, but we have no idea what their real capabilities are and what technologies they actually possess and how they are really deployed. All I can do is fish around the internet and hopefully make some sense of it, but none of us will ever know for sure.

      Where does the (satellite) data come from and is it to be trusted? My guess is that the data is real but comes from either technologies or deployments of which we are not (fully) aware, such as satellites on the glass. It’s all a big mess that is needing much common sense and little inspired help now and again.

      Another point. The shuttle was made for a reason. It has ceramic plates and a deployment cargo bay for a reason, but i think it isn’t the reason we’ve been exactly told. I believe the ceramic plates are for glass layer re-entry and the deployment bay for placing technology on the glass. Here is an interesting video on the shuttle reaching an estimated altitude of 100 to 110km (assuming real). It is practically horizontal in its parabolic arc at this point (decreases then increases in altitude) which means that isn’t going much further up at all. This is what I think happens. It scraps along the ice/glass, ejects its external tank and breaks through the glass. It then deploys the tech (satellites or whatever) on to the glass and re-enters, melting through continuing its arc descent until the atmosphere becomes thick enough for flight and landing. As you can see it is all guesswork.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy1Nc4YpAUI&feature=youtu.be&t=14m40s
      (You can see what looks to be yellow ionization and white vapour near the end as it hypothetically scraps the glass)

      So my reality line in the sand is that low-earth orbiting and such is all bullshit, but the shuttle and its deployed tech are not.

      View Comment
  15. sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

    Low-cost Near Space Without HAM Radios or Cellphones
    Radio Antennas
    “The antenna also provides a nice base to build your payload on. You want the antenna pointing down towards Earth during flight, so just glue your GPS, radio, and camera to the back side”
    When you’re working with the payload there probably isn’t any reason to use antennas on the radio. In fact using high gain antennas too close to each other could cause the receiving radio to be damaged! So, when working with the payload in the same room as your receiving PC, keep the antennas disconnected.

    The best antenna option I’ve found is a high gain patch antenna from L-Com (http://www.l-com.com/item.aspx?id=20447). This antenna gives an 8dBi gain and radiates in all forward directions. There’s no need to worry about which direction the antenna is rotated as long as the fronts of the antennas are pointing at each other. At close range the fronts don’t even need to be pointed at each other (very helpful when finding the payload on the ground). With this setup I tracked the Night Sky payload to 116,750 feet altitude and over 30 miles ground distance!

    The antenna also provides a nice base to build your payload on. You want the antenna pointing down towards Earth during flight, so just glue your GPS, radio, and camera to the back side, get some “foam core” (it’s poster board with a small layer of foam on the inside) to enclose the electronics in (not the antenna), and wrap the foam core in a space blanket. Leave an access panel to plug in the battery and setup your camera to start taking pictures. Your payload is now fully assembled!

    http://www.instructables.com/id/Low-cost-Near-Space-Without-HAM-Radios-or-Cellphon/step5/Radio-Antennas/

    View Comment
  16. Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

    Found this new video on the ISS. Much better analysis than I am used to with some very good questions.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt_qySI10VI

    View Comment
  17. Stephan says:

    Hello from Germany,

    I agree with most of what is said on your site, especially with the concave earth “theory” and the missing stars in high altitude. More then 20 years ago I travelled lots of long distance flights during night time and wondered why I couldn’t see any stars…
    Now I want to know your opinion, about the pictures on this site:
    http://www.martin-wagner.org/index.htm
    A german amateuer astronomer, made some pics of the ISS, so he claims. The guy and his site looks trustworhty to me, but your opinion, Wild Heretic, would be interesting.
    Thank you for paying attention and greetings from Germany.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Hi Stephan. How are you?

      That’s a fair question. The reason I came to suspect that small group of amateur astronomers (especially the earlier ones pre-2007) who had such great shots of the ISS was the evidence I was getting about other less related topics.

      1. The thermosphere was a huge problem I found hard to reconcile. Only the space shuttle seemed to be equipped to deal with such a thing and so I reasoned that this was the only vehicle to breakthrough the karman line. I couldn’t see the solar panels or any of the other materials of the ISS coping with the intense thermal radiation.

      2. The blatant fakery of the actornauts in space about and in the ISS. A few of the “bubbles in space” etc. are on this website, but youtube has a ton more.

      3. The evidence for a non-spinning Earth – M and M experiment, Sagnac experiment etc., and the incredible problems of the lack of 1000mph winds. If the Earth doesn’t spin then the helio model is wrong, then how is low earth orbiting possible at all? The standard reason is that the Earth is falling away at the same speed as the orbiting object is falling. That is incredible by itself, but isn’t valid if the Earth isn’t moving. There is also the problem of a lack of anything other than free-falling up to 40km high.

      Those were my reasons.

      Glad to clarify.

      WH

      View Comment
  18. Saros says:

    WH’s reply, not saros –

    ME: I am just saying that the 4 pillars of evidence supporting the Concave Earth model don’t prove the Earth is a sphere. The Earth wouldn’t be flat as a pancake, as I already suggested, it would be concave or convex or whatever, just not a sphere.

    YOU: Experiments saros. Experiments. The closest thing with have to the truth. An experiment was done to determine the shape of the Earth and it was found to be concave. That’s it.

    ME: Experiments which didn’t determine the shape of the Earth, but the the inclination of the area in which they were done. Additionally, experiments performed by cult followers. Very reliable indeed!

    The inclination of which was the same as the size of the convex Earth. The experiment was rigorous. Near impossible to combine a wavy Earth with the path of the Sun (meridian). Try it and see if you can do it. There is always the possibility that this is the truth though just the chances are next to zero so I don’t entertain them.

    ME: By the way, the infrared photo shouldn’t even be mentioned as it is obviously a fake. There is no reliable source for it either, correct me if I am wrong. Have you seen anything like it anywhere on the Internet? I haven’t.

    YOU:Obviously its a fake. It must be if flat earth theory is to be correct. Now where have I heard that argument before… oh yes stellar parallax.
    ME: Provide a source for that photo. It is a fake photo. It is not quoted in any scientific journal. There is no camera with such capabilities. If it does please provide evidence taken from an independent source.

    It has come from a magazine apparently: Geokosmos. Do you want me to find a hard copy and post it to you? 😉
    “The following text comes from the magazine ‘Progress for All’ (Fortschritt für alle; Schlossweg 2 D-90537 Feucht Germany) and the magazine ‘Geocosmos’ (Geokosmos), issue 11/12, December 1963. (Same article in both magazines).”
    http://www.rolf-keppler.de/2frame.htm

    Here is another infra-red photo shown in the book showing a distance of 533km from a plane.
    …Die “Frankfurter Illustrierte Zeitung”, der ich dieses Bild ebenfalls entnehme, schreibt dazu in Nr. 30/1932:
    “Diese Fliegeraufnahme zeigt eine Landschaft über 500 Kilometer weit mit aller Deutlichkeit, während vom Flugzeug aus selbst mit Hilfe eines Fernglases nur wenige Kilometer jeweils sichtbar waren.”
    http://www.rolf-keppler.de/533km.htm

    Maybe that is fake too? Who knows eh?

    ME: You can get all the dawn/dusk/angles, flight times etc correct, if you want to adapt it to that model too.
    YOU: Let’s see them and see how they look. If you are right, you may be able to glean insights into other physical phenomena. You can’t adapt flight times though lol. What process are you going to invent to gradually make planes much faster the further you go towards the outside? Ask the relativists or the quantum lot. They are good at making up stuff to try and dismiss evidence.
    ME: You’re also good at making stuff up claiming they are proven, when they are not. See the infrared photo and the Moon article.

    Yes, I made up that infra-red photo in photoshop 😉 and the moon article is pure speculation. I have no idea what the moon is and is not except that it isn’t what they say it is.

    ME: The rectilinator experiment on the other hand, in my opinion, is naive. You can’t determine the shape of the whole planet by finding out the local terrain’s inclination. That is just a waste of time. The only thing it takes to believe either model is imagination. Let’s not pretend we’re talking concrete science here.

    YOU: Concrete science is merely experiments… and not even their interpretation, just a good experiment. That is all science is. Ah so we have gone form a bowl flat earth to a wavy flat earth. I’d love to see the path of the Sun with that model. How can that work at all? You’d have angles of all different degrees all over the place.

    ME: But all you’re doing is interpretations. The whole theory of concave Earth as a sphere is based on few experiments done by religious fanatics. It could be true, but it is definitely not proven yet. The path of the Sun, funny you say that, you claim the Sun is not a star but a lamp. What path of the Sun?

    See above. Also the path of the Sun is the arc of the Sun. It is called the meridian.

    ME: How do you determine the statistical probability based on so many assumptions? I like your articles very much, but it is time to question the evidence. It is a nice and beautiful theory, but seriously I don’t see the evidence for the Earth being a sphere.

    YOU: You have to look at the path of the Sun and its angles – see above. Do you honestly believe that if the rectilinator had continued it would suddenly level off and then show either a flat or concave Earth, especially when it matched the convex size perfectly? Really?
    ME: Do you honestly want me to believe in the Concave Sphere Earth model only based on the rectilinator experiment which was done in the 19th century by a cult? You should at least show some doubt in your own statements. After all, you can’t be possibly 100% sure if it is concave, flat or convex.

    The rectilinator and the lenses on the horizon do very strongly point to that.

    ME: Please admit that you can’t possibly know the real shape of the Earth unless you have been everywhere on its surface, performed precise measurements and have also made long-term observations of it from outer space.

    YOU: I agree. They “know” the shape of the Earth by the noon Sun and the star positions. These firmly point to a spherical earth, but not necessarily a convex one. In fact there way of calculating latitude is much more akin to a concave rather than a convex method.
    ME: It points to nothing if the stars are not solid but instead an ether phenomenon, the Moon is not solid, and the Sun is a lamp. (your own assumptions)!

    Doesn’t matter if the stars are optical illusions or not. The stars that are measured such as Polaris are always in the same position at certain times. This part of astronomy, astronomers do well. However I did see a youtube video mentioning that Polaris wasn’t quite absolutely true north but still circles around the northern axis.

    ME: Also, to make things even more complicated. You suggest the behavior of the celestial bodies suggests that the Earth is a sphere, but at the same you also suggest that most of them are not real? With that much vigor and enthusiasm you can prove anything in words.

    YOU: We see “stars” whatever they are. Real or not. I think they are real, but that doesn’t matter.
    ME: Contradicting yourself. It matters a lot what the stars are! It matters how far they are, it matters how big they are.

    No. They are just measuring the angle of the stars and sun in the sky dome to the horizon. Doesn’t matter how far away they are. A star that is 57.568 degrees altitude is just that whether it is 1 trillion miles away or 4000 miles distant.

    ME : You can adjust the other data to it as well, only if you wish to.

    YOU: Then I suggest you do that.

    ME: I challenge you to do the same when it comes to Concave Earth. It is real easy to just invert the convex model and claim you have found the truth. However, by inverting the model you need to also adjust the size of all the planets, stars, galaxies, comets everything. You do it easily without ever doubting you might be wrong.

    That is EXACTLY what the next article is about… well, the arc of the Sun that is. That is what I have been working on/off the past 9 months. (Renovating the house and work took up the other time). Galaxies, stars, planets etc. will come after that and will be educated speculations based on the evidence I have found.

    ME: It is difficult for me to imagine the oceans forming a circle on the inside of a hollow sphere, it is just as unbelievable as the convex model. Much easier to imagine the ocean’s behavior if we’re dealing with a disc though.

    YOU: Your difficulty to imagine reality does neither validate nor invalidate it.
    ME: I can imagine a lot of things easily much more complicated than the Concave Earth model. But me imagining them doesn’t make them a reality like you wrongly assume here.

    I agree.

    ME: Also, if the Earth is a concave sphere then you can fly up and eventually reach the other side, if you managed to pass through the core or surround it.
    YOU: Yes. They haven’t got very far though, have they? Except of course the N. Koreans who have flown to the backside of the Sun. hahaha 😉
    ME: So, if they haven’t gotten very far how can you be so sure the concave model is correct? Let’s not believe in unproven models, shall we? Since you haven’t been in outer space yourself, why do you pretend you know stuff you can’t possibly know? LSC does the same by the way. I much better like the approach demonstrated on the cluesforum where they doubt everything instead of jumping to conclusions.

    It is an unproven model, but heliocentric theory, geocentric theory and flat earth are near 100% proved false (except perhaps geocentrisim if we eliminate the balls in space theory from it). Concave earth actually has experimental evidence for it, therefore I have chosen this model. Logical no?

    ME: You also haven’t explained the poles. What exactly are they?

    YOU: Poles are poles. At the moment I am leaning towards them having physical holes due to the centrifugal force of the spinning em fields.

    ME: So, your model is not complete, but at the same time you are not willing to admit it might turn out you’re actually wrong in the end?

    It might be wrong, but so far so good. I’m willing to take the time to research it as it is the experimental model.

    ME :Waiting for some more meaningful evidence the concave Earth is indeed a sphere.
    YOU: You’ll be waiting a while then. I don’t have any more. Except for an infra-red photo and sumstuff and karol’s bolstering of the lens and the horizon part. I’ve participate there later myself.

    ME: Source the infra-red photo. How do you know it is evidence at all if it is probably fake?
    Karol’s research is misleading, and you know it. Fly by plane and check out the so-called horizon. The land is not at eye level, but only the distant clouds are. In fact if you observe more closely you might notice that even they are not at eye level but lower. Whatever, you won’t believe me anyway. I guess all the pilots have conspired and are being brainwashed to not notice that the Earth is concave.

    Of course it is fake. Someone faked it because… well, just because.. for a laugh you know April fool and all that.

    ME:The flight times is not a proof as there are many alternatives to get that difference.
    YOU:Such as?
    ME: Well, the flight times to any location differs depending on the day and the aircraft, the wind speed/direction, the altitude, the temperature, the path…

    Already been through this discussion with another commentator. Those conditions also apply to airplanes traveling in the Northern hemisphere. What overriding condition must only apply to the southern hemisphere. I could say the same about an inverted flat Earth and say there is an unknown force which makes planes travel faster in the northern hemisphere only. I have no evidence for this except that planes must travel faster in the northern hemisphere for my inverted flat earth theory to be correct.

    It’s all quite simple really.

    View Comment
  19. Saros says:

    WH, I just realised that you think the so-called flat Earth model is impossible only due to flight times in the Southern hemisphere. I am not quite sure there is super solid additional evidence the Earth is concave as opposed to any other model. If the only problem with the flat Earth is the flight times, that doesn’t necessarily disprove it as there are plenty of problems with the Concave Earth too. Most of the problems you disregard by saying I don’t know yet, or I haven’t thought about it. Isn’t the purpose of this research to find the truth instead of being stuck to one idea even though it may not be correct? So far, I haven’t seen concrete evidence supporting either theory, so I keep my mind open… In fact, flat Earth is much easier to prove than concave Earth. In both models we need to imagine a totally different structure of the so-called universe, but concave Earth still seems quite more complicated. On top of that, most of the articles serve equally well as evidence of flat Earth, the arguments in favor of concave Earth are actually the weakest from what I have seen… I am not saying you’re wrong, I don’t know that, I am just saying that perhaps it could be a different model, and we shouldn’t be dogmatic until we know for sure…

    View Comment
    • Saros says:

      As an additional note to my previous comment, I would like to point out that the evidence you present in favor of Concave Earth in your articles would be just as valid even if the Earth were a concave disc, not a sphere. Could you please explain why you think it is a sphere at all? I haven’t seen any evidence presented to support that idea yet. The Earth might not be flat as its terrain is obviously not even or plain uniformly, but it could very well be concave, flat and convex in certain parts. The issue here is to prove whether it is a sphere at all. I don’t see any evidence for that. So, how do we know it is a sphere and not a concave disc or one part convex, one part concave disc? The term flat Earth shouldn’t be taken literary; it doesn’t mean the surface is flat, it just means it is not a sphere but a disc.

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        Saros, a flat disk earth is easily proved wrong with southern hemisphere flights. Time to drop that model before too much more is invested in it… unless you want to go to timeanddate.com and see how it would fit with the noon sun and dawn/dusk angles at the equinoxes, solstices, midnight polar suns etc. To my mind it would be a waste of time as it has already been proven wrong.

        However, for your arguments sake, let’s pretend the disk model hasn’t been proved wrong. What you are suggesting is that the rectilinator experiment on Naples Beach and the infra-red photo at New York only showed a concave Earth because it was concave in those parts only and it was just an amazing coincidence that if the data had continued it would have coincided with the conventional size of a convex Earth. If they had gone to other parts of the Earth, it could have been convex or flat. Yet, that is not what the rectilineatar data suggests, and definitely not the angles of the noon Sun either.

        From a probability perspective what do you rate your chances from this alone? 99.99999% wrong and that doesn’t even include the southern hemisphere flights proof.

        Time to make a change and side with experiments.

        View Comment
        • cikljamas says:

          Hi, WH! You have posed this question: “The problem is, why would NASA lie about such a thing when it completely disproves their portrayed fantasies of the last 44 years.?”

          But you have not answered to that question. Have you forgotten to answer it or you just don’t have a clue? However it is very interesting question and i would really like to found out the convincing answer to that question.

          Another issue:

          “The shuttle is the only vehicle that can enter the thermosphere, albeit for short durations and not too high, probably not beyond 300 or 400km.”

          Since on that altitudes we should expect 2000 C degrees the question is this: HOW SHORT DURATIONS of shuttle flights would you expect to be ? Few seconds? I don’t see the point of dismissing all satellites, ISS, planets, everything, and all of a sudden shuttles can survive even such a terrible thermal conditions at such a high altitudes – 300 or 400 km.

          Cheers!

          View Comment
        • Saros says:

          I am just saying that the 4 pillars of evidence supporting the Concave Earth model don’t prove the Earth is a sphere. The Earth wouldn’t be flat as a pancake, as I already suggested, it would be concave or convex or whatever, just not a sphere. You can get all the dawn/dusk/angles, flight times etc correct, if you want to adapt it to that model too.

          By the way, the infrared photo shouldn’t even be mentioned as it is obviously a fake. There is no reliable source for it either, correct me if I am wrong. Have you seen anything like it anywhere on the Internet? I haven’t.

          The rectilinator experiment on the other hand, in my opinion, is naive. You can’t determine the shape of the whole planet by finding out the local terrain’s inclination. That is just a waste of time. The only thing it takes to believe either model is imagination. Let’s not pretend we’re talking concrete science here.

          How do you determine the statistical probability based on so many assumptions? I like your articles very much, but it is time to question the evidence. It is a nice and beautiful theory, but seriously I don’t see the evidence for the Earth being a sphere.

          Please admit that you can’t possibly know the real shape of the Earth unless you have been everywhere on its surface, performed precise measurements and have also made long-term observations of it from outer space.

          Also, to make things even more complicated. You suggest the behavior of the celestial bodies suggests that the Earth is a sphere, but at the same you also suggest that most of them are not real? With that much vigor and enthusiasm you can prove anything in words. The concave/convex/flat disc model seems easier to imagine though. You can adjust the other data to it as well, only if you wish to. It is difficult for me to imagine the oceans forming a circle on the inside of a hollow sphere, it is just as unbelievable as the convex model. Much easier to imagine the ocean’s behavior if we’re dealing with a disc though. Also, if the Earth is a concave sphere then you can fly up and eventually reach the other side, if you managed to pass through the core or surround it.
          You also haven’t explained the poles. What exactly are they? Waiting for some more meaningful evidence the concave Earth is indeed a sphere. The flight times is not a proof as there are many alternatives to get that difference.

          View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            I am just saying that the 4 pillars of evidence supporting the Concave Earth model don’t prove the Earth is a sphere. The Earth wouldn’t be flat as a pancake, as I already suggested, it would be concave or convex or whatever, just not a sphere.

            Experiments saros. Experiments. The closest thing we have to the truth. An experiment was done to determine the shape of the Earth and it was found to be concave. That’s it.

            By the way, the infrared photo shouldn’t even be mentioned as it is obviously a fake. There is no reliable source for it either, correct me if I am wrong. Have you seen anything like it anywhere on the Internet? I haven’t.

            Obviously its a fake. It must be if flat earth theory is to be correct. Now where have I heard that argument before… oh yes stellar parallax.

            You can get all the dawn/dusk/angles, flight times etc correct, if you want to adapt it to that model too.
            Let’s see them and see how they look. If you are right, you may be able to glean insights into other physical phenomena. You can’t adapt flight times though lol. What process are you going to invent to gradually make planes much faster the further you go towards the outside? Ask the relativists or the quantum lot. They are good at making up stuff to try and dismiss evidence.

            The rectilinator experiment on the other hand, in my opinion, is naive. You can’t determine the shape of the whole planet by finding out the local terrain’s inclination. That is just a waste of time. The only thing it takes to believe either model is imagination. Let’s not pretend we’re talking concrete science here.

            Concrete science is merely experiments… and not even their interpretation, just a good experiment. That is all science is. Ah so we have gone from a bowl flat earth to a wavy flat earth. I’d love to see the path of the Sun with that model. How can that work at all? You’d have angles of all different degrees all over the place.

            How do you determine the statistical probability based on so many assumptions? I like your articles very much, but it is time to question the evidence. It is a nice and beautiful theory, but seriously I don’t see the evidence for the Earth being a sphere.

            You have to look at the path of the Sun and its angles – see above. Do you honestly believe that if the rectilinator had continued it would suddenly level off and then show either a flat or convex Earth, especially when it matched the convex size perfectly? Really?

            Please admit that you can’t possibly know the real shape of the Earth unless you have been everywhere on its surface, performed precise measurements and have also made long-term observations of it from outer space.

            I agree. They “know” the shape of the Earth by the noon Sun and the star positions. These firmly point to a spherical earth, but not necessarily a convex one. In fact their way of calculating latitude is much more akin to a concave rather than a convex method.

            Also, to make things even more complicated. You suggest the behavior of the celestial bodies suggests that the Earth is a sphere, but at the same you also suggest that most of them are not real? With that much vigor and enthusiasm you can prove anything in words.

            We see “stars” whatever they are. Real or not. I think they are real, but that doesn’t matter.

            You can adjust the other data to it as well, only if you wish to.

            Then I suggest you do that.

            It is difficult for me to imagine the oceans forming a circle on the inside of a hollow sphere, it is just as unbelievable as the convex model. Much easier to imagine the ocean’s behavior if we’re dealing with a disc though.

            Your difficulty to imagine reality does neither validate nor invalidate it.

            Also, if the Earth is a concave sphere then you can fly up and eventually reach the other side, if you managed to pass through the core or surround it.
            Yes. They haven’t got very far though, have they? Except of course the N. Koreans who have flown to the backside of the Sun. hahaha 😉


            You also haven’t explained the poles. What exactly are they?

            Poles are poles. At the moment I am leaning towards them having physical holes due to the centrifugal force of the spinning em fields.

            Waiting for some more meaningful evidence the concave Earth is indeed a sphere.
            You’ll be waiting a while then. I don’t have any more. Except for an infra-red photo and sumstuff and karol’s bolstering of the lens and the horizon part. I’ll participate there later myself.

            The flight times is not a proof as there are many alternatives to get that difference.

            Such as?

            View Comment
    • cikljamas says:

      You are very right!!! Geocentrists just reverse heliocentricity and carry on as if they have just done something very smart. Unbelievable, outrages, don’t you think? Geocentricity without accepting flat earth hypothesis is much lousier theory then heliocentricity itself. How about concave earth? I think it is just distraction as well as hollow earth stupidity. What could be the reason for promoting that kind of distractions? To cover up the real truth which is Immovable Non-orbiting and Non-spinning Flat Earth! That is why i am so surprised when i see so smart guys as WH is, being fooled with such a nonsense theories as concave earth is. What is actually concave earth if not kind of reversed version of round earth? I wonder could it be in fact almost the same theory as a hollow earth proposition?

      After all, i would like to see the map of concave earth.

      I am especially interested about the location of south pole on this concave earth map. 😆

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        South pole is the same as the convex one.

        They haven’t promoted concave Earth. In fact just the opposite. There is no concave earth society, but there is a flat earth one funnily enough. LSC and now sumstuff and karol are the only ones with concave earth videos on youtube, but the initiator was LSC. Without LSC you would never have heard of concave Earth and laughed it off as absurd without a second thought. There are tons of flat earth videos however. This would suggest to me that it is flat earth that is the alternative theory.

        But all that doesn’t matter. Only experiments matter.

        View Comment
        • cikljamas says:

          South pole is the same as the convex one.

          So, it is a hollow earth theory after all… We are inside the sphere and the whole universe is between south and north pole, and the shortest path between south and north pole is right through the line of earth’s axis, and the concave Earth map we can easily get just by tearing apart globe and turning it over – distorting it other way around?

          View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      No. Concave Earth is the easiest model to mathematically verify. Why is that? Because it is inverted.

      It is because it is the same maths for a convex one as a concave one which means all the noon Sun trigonometry is the same. In fact when calculating geocentric latitude it is EXACTLY the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitude#Geocentric_latitude

      In my conspiratorial mind, that is why the convex “balls around the sun” model was chosen as the misleading one. Mathematicians couldn’t prove otherwise and once the root assumption has been hammered home all further experiments and data will mystify the shit out of them… and it has done. They’ve had to make up all kinds of nonsense to keep their model intact from dark matter to relativity. It’s an endless pile of conflicting goo.

      Bullet point the arguments against a concave Earth and we will discuss them.

      Flat earth positives are extraordinarily weak. Most rely on optics with smatterings of “we have never been across Antarctica” and “how can a plane fly at a level altitude without crashing into the ground or flying off into space” etc. Do you really want me to answer those “proofs” or do you want to research them properly yourself?

      Don’t worry, just for flat earthers I will gather as many arguments as I can find for flat earth and discuss them in an article all on its own when I have finished building the concave model. it is the least priority right now as concave Earth has been experimentally demonstrated and I always go follow up on the experiments. That way further revelations about physics and all sorts of things come to light.

      View Comment
  20. cikljamas says:

    If it is so easy to prove that the earth is not flat, why don’t you just prove it to me here: http://energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/17050-north-south.html

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I agree with you. The Earth is not flat.

      View Comment
      • cikljamas says:

        I agree with you. The Earth is flat. 😆

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          I’m not a flat earther.

          In concave Earth theory I’ve just found out today that the Earth must be a little bit wider (slightly more ellipsoid) than they think.

          EDIT: Made a mistake. They have added this extra bit in their “atmospheric refraction” calculations.

          View Comment
          • cikljamas says:

            I think your posts are great, but some of your conclusions are weird, for example this one: “The only reasonable conclusion is that this glass is not natural. It has to be man-made. It is a technology.”

            Regarding concave vs flat earth, it could be just a little bit concave according to this: http://www.energeticforum.com/255962-post24.html , but it can’t be the reason to concern it really concave, it is still enough flat to call it FLAT, not concave, don’t you think so?

            If you are not a flat earther, what are you? Geocentrist? If you are geocentrist i would really like to see your comment on this: http://www.energeticforum.com/256444-post64.html

            Cheers!

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            How’s it going jamas?

            I think your posts are great, but some of your conclusions are weird, for example this one: “The only reasonable conclusion is that this glass is not natural. It has to be man-made. It is a technology.”

            No problem. If you don’t mind, can I throw this back at you? If you found evidence of a glass layer 100km up there around the Earth, probably the first question would be, is this natural or man-made? Now what would you research to answer that question? (hint: it’s in the article).

            Regarding concave vs flat earth, it could be just a little bit concave according to this: http://www.energeticforum.com/255962-post24.html , but it can’t be the reason to concern it really concave, it is still enough flat to call it FLAT, not concave, don’t you think so?

            No. Two problems. Firstly, this model would denote a much larger circumference around the perimeter of a bowl earth. It’s a just a fancy flat Earth disk. This must mean that southern hemisphere flights must be a lot longer than their northern counterparts. however, when you look at direct southern hemisphere flights, you will find this is definitely not the case. There is a you tube video by a flat Earther desperately trying to show this but got his ass handed to him by someone who did just that. The very first thing I did in 2012 when I saw the NASA bullshit was look at flat earth and then I looked at southern hemisphere flights myself and quickly disproved it. read the comments by Mahrai Ziller

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YjVNthJKPc

            Better yet, do it yourself.

            Secondly, the rectilineator experiment gave data consistent with a continuing concave earth the same size as the convexers had already calculated. The likelihood of it stopping halfway up is extremely unlikely and next to impossible when taking the path of the sun into account. The path of the sun is my next article.

            If you are not a flat earther, what are you? Geocentrist? If you are geocentrist i would really like to see your comment on this: http://www.energeticforum.com/256444-post64.html

            I am not a flat earther. I am not a geocentrist. I am not a heliocentrist.

            I am a “concaver”. I base all my research of observation on this model.

            WH

            View Comment
          • Q says:

            You posted somewhere about a Star trek episode “For the Earth is Hallow and I have Touched the Sky” and thought of this one…

            http://stargate.wikia.com/wiki/The_Game

            Intriguing. I’d appreciate your thoughts.
            Great site. Thank you.

            Intriguing.. I’d appreciate your thoughts.

            View Comment
  21. AE says:

    youre the man. bonjour from France! and keep thinking, you make me think!
    seeyousir

    View Comment
  22. Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

    Sumstuff has been busy collecting YT vids of ISS nonsense. Some good ones here. Apologies to Sumstuff for perhaps prematurely publishing it here if this channel is not yet fully complete.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38ynHKGzplQ&list=PLWRzUSpfFKZ_mUnqNT1CAypE5G–OTGRs

    View Comment
  23. Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

    Here’s another video with an admission of guilt by our brave actornaunts.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp9Y8I6v_Ds

    View Comment
    • sumstuff52 says:

      good find, adding to my collection, the space programs lies are endless, let’s hope we have a good year, a belated merry christmas and happy new year to you wild heretic and everyone else here, hope were all having fun on this adventure, i know i am

      keep up the amazing work

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        Same to you Sumstuff. I’m not actively looking for NASA nonsense these days (there’s too much of it), but if a video or two crops up in my web travels I’ll post it here.

        View Comment
  24. rodin says:

    I am down with the space bubbles esp Chinese. But lets think a bit more about the ambient temp of 2600 degrees cited. You are talking about vibrational energy of essentially isolated atoms and mostly diatomic molecules that have been absorbing em radiation for potentially billions of years. Lets say temp increases by 1 degree per thousand year. After only a million years that is a 1000 degree raise.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Hi Rodin,

      I think it is just the closer you get to the Sun above the glass, the more you fry from its infra-red radiation. Whatever atoms are present in the “vacuum” won’t matter to the spaceman or vehicle which is made of atoms and now has to suffer the same radiation. We suffer from it on the ground badly enough (e.g. sunburn) but the atmosphere doesn’t much because I think it is only water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide which absorb infra-red radiation to a great extent (“greenhouse” gases); and these gases are heavy and low altitude (water vapour is 6 to 16 km high I think I read somewhere, and carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide are much heavier with methane being a touch lighter), hence my guess for the increasingly cold temperatures of the air the higher the altitude up to the glass layer. If we absorb infra-red radiation badly enough on the ground, then the glass above, and certainly any space objects will really suffer that much closer to the Sun.

      I get your point though. You are saying this heating up could take a long time because there is nowhere for the heat to go. Possible.

      However, this would mean that all bodies in space would be subjected to the same slow-cooking treatment, from “planets” to asteroids to “moons”. I personally don’t think those circular objects we call planets and moons are solid spheres at all. And my theory is that all asteroids are coronal mass ejections and so are really hot to begin with, so you could be correct, but I don’t think so due to the first reason I stated above.

      Another unknown is the time-frame.

      Millions and/or billions of years as a time-frame is unknown at the moment. The Sun might only be 1000 or a few thousand years old or maybe it is millions of years old. Interestingly, the Maya supposedly said that we are living in the fifth Sun, which means there were four previous Suns. When looking at the strong possibility of the Sun as a sulfur lamp, their “primitive” beliefs seem more valid.

      Just my take on it.

      View Comment
  25. Saros says:

    Regarding ISS, I am not completely sure it is fake. Many amateur astronomers can observe it and often with enough detail to be sure it is not an asteroid, but a man-made structure. This needs to be confirmed independenly. It can be observed with relatively inexpensive telescopes. Of course, there is always the possibility that ISS is a hologramme or it is an unmanned orbitting machine. However, it is necessary to determine how exactly it is projected if it is indeed a hologramme.

    Also, there was a claim that objects which are that high couldn’t be observed because they don’t emit light of their own. I think this is not true. The sun provides enough light to make the objects visible, especially if they have reflective solar panels. Look at Felix Baumgartner’s video, if that was true he should have been invisible when falling as well.

    Just wanted to bring up these for further discussion. The topic is very interesting, and I would like to read more about it.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Baumgartner wasn’t seen with the naked eye falling from his balloon. To see further, you need magnification. It is the same for the horizon.

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

      Magnification works by letting in more light and making the image bigger on the back of the retina. The more powerful the telescope, the wider it is, because it has to let in more light.

      http://www.howstuffworks.com/telescope1.htm

      I’m also not sure at what point in his free-fall he was filmed, certainly not at the beginning as he needed cameras on the balloon to film that.

      It looks like a lot of magnification was used for this filming (which is very difficult to do with such a fast moving object, therefore I assume this was taken with some serious professional motorized telescope or observatory) and that he was reflecting quite a bit of light as no detail can be seen, just his white outline. About 1:12 in this video:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHtvDA0W34I

      I assume self-illuminting objects can be seen further than reflecting ones, but then some reflecting objects reflect a lot of light (a solar cooker for example). There is an example with the lighthouse being seen 30 miles away here. Then again a poster below that same article claims that people in Germany have seen Istanbul, so who knows.

      There are no solar panels in “space”. They can’t function in the steel-melting temperatures of the thermosphere. There is also another problem with speed. The ISS will have to be traveling several times the speed of light if Newtonian gravity calculations are correct – remember free-falling is always an acceleration! An object is supposed to free-fall at 9.8 m/s squared. At 400 km where the ISS is supposed to be, gravity they say is 90% of the ground level. This means, the ISS is falling towards the Earth at 8.8 m/s squared. They say it doesn’t hit the Earth because the Earth is also moving away from the ISS at roughly the same speed. The ISS has been in operation since… when was it? 1999 I think. That means that by 2013 (14 years or 441504000 seconds roughly) both the Earth and the ISS should be traveling at 8.8m x 441504000 or 3885235200 meters a second or 3,885,235.2 km/s or just under 13 times the speed of light!!!!

      Of course, it doesn’t mean the ISS doesn’t exist. It could be that in reality, there is no gravity at this altitude (as we know the Earth doesn’t really move) and that Newton is wrong at this height. We know from free-falling balloons, that free-falling exists up to 40 km; but we don’t know for sure at 400 km unless we ourselves can verify gravity at this height.

      When you actually look at the number of astronomers who have shots of the ISS, it isn’t many at all (circa 20); and at least half of them have had solid media promotion which is a huge red flag. Churnalism (90% of journalism) means that the intention of the promotion came from the back-end, not the newspaper or TV company promoting them. I am very suspicious to say the least. Another point is the fake images from the official sources that look like computer graphics which you can find on cluesforum.info if you look around their space threads.

      I’ve yet to see any evidence of anything man-made orbiting the Earth at all. I think it is an impossibility because to orbit around the Earth in the concave model, means that you also have to orbit the Sun, which means ridiculously high temperatures and a loooooong time to orbit around the Earth (think comet orbiting long, which is 76 to 2300 years!). You’ll understand why comets take this long in my next post.

      Hey, but if the ISS exists, despite all that, it doesn’t burn my bonnet so to speak. It doesn’t matter in the end.

      I hope you enjoy the rest of this blog. The next article will take longer, but hopefully should be a cracker.

      View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Saros, you’ve really got me thinking now. The theory I’m putting forward in my next article isn’t conclusive regarding orbiting. It can both allow and disallow it. I’ll have to really think about things and see if I can come to a conclusion or maybe just put the question and evidence out there and let the reader decide for themselves.

      Thanks for the questions.

      View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Saros,

      You may be right about being able to see very distant objects. Optics isn’t as straight forward as I would like. (At least my brain is melting right now)

      I’ve found a conundrum with stars being invisible at high altitude. The north star is visible throughout the northern hemisphere (and a little bit below as well). If stars are invisible at high altitude (and therefore not present), the only way around this I can think of is that visible light bends with the curvature of the Earth enabling everyone to see the north star. This would also mean that very distant objects can be seen (at least a quarter the way round the world).

      … or Stevie is right and the stars are really up there and are just invisible at high altitude because of the varying densities of the aether.

      Either way, the north star points north and so must be above the north pole I think. This means no matter the real placement of the stars, very distant objects can be seen with the naked eye.

      It’s a complete logic mind f**k for me lol. 🙂

      View Comment
  26. wow man says:

    i’ve been spamming your great site on youtube, getting alot of ridicule too, it’s working, the ridicule game started quick when i posted your links, good job man

    View Comment
  27. wow man says:

    that was a kick in the space communities nuts, bravo, it’s about time someone uncovered their fakery with such detail with in your face facts, love it

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      Thanks wow man. You can thank cluesforum as well, as they are great at that kind of stuff. I just wanted some of it enclosed in an easy-to-read package for everyone to enjoy! lol. It was all a build up for the “sun is a lightbulb” theory which won’t really be complete until I have written concave earth theory part 1 through 3.

      The fakery with the space bubbles and that is just a small part of what I’ve seen recently on youtube. There are loads more bubbles out there “in space”. I might add them some time as a revision.

      View Comment