Space machines do not orbit the Earth

+++
There are three very serious problems with the orbiting mechanism of the space machines said to whiz around the Earth. These need to be incorporated within our “reality framework” to help us determine what is actually real and what is marketing.

Thermosphere
Orbiting mechanism
Fake footage
Few “genuine” Earth globe images
Summary
+++

Thermosphere

AS-204 saturn rocketAS-204 rocket where 3 astronauts died in a “fire” in 1967

Houston. It’s starting to get hot in here.

Negative John. You mean cold right?

No, no… it’s getting damn hot. Crazy damn hot!

Don’t worry Captain we wrapped layers of aluminum foil around your capsule. It should peel off and repel the heat.

Houston… I… Arrgh.. (choke) it’s too… much… unbearable. I ca…

Those were the last words spoken by poor Captain John Doe, guinea pig for NASA test flights as the blood boiled, his brain expanded cracking his skull open, while his body fat melted on to the red hot glowing chair. What was left of his suit combusted on the spot and then started to mix with the now molten metal of the instrument panel.

The whole rocket had exploded seconds before creating a beautiful white glow in the now 1500 degree heat. What was left of John, his suit, capsule and rocket gelled into one molten mass and fell back to earth as NASA’s first inadvertent attempt at making a man-made meteorite.

+++
This fictitious account of early “space” travel is probably closer to the truth than NASA care to admit. There is a teensy weensy fact that makes a complete mockery of the orbiting mechanism behind any space machine whether it is the Hubble Telescope, the International Space Station, satellites or any other object which they claim orbits the earth. This fact can be summed up in one word:
+++

thermosphere
Thermosphere

At about 85km altitude temperatures start to rise until they hit the Kármán line which is 100km high. After this line, the heat abruptly increases rising rapidly to 200km whereby it starts to level off (100km is the very start of the radiation belts as well which become full strength at 200km funnily enough), although other sources say it continually rises. Temperatures can vary, depending on sun activity, but can reach as high as… wait for it…

+++


+++

I kid you not.

In case you don’t know how hot 2500°C is. Your oven in your kitchen can hit 240°C max. A ceramic laboratory oven for jewelers and dentists to melt gold can reach 1200°C. Temperatures in a blast furnace for melting iron can go as high as 2300°C.

ceramic oven
ceramic laboratory oven – 1200°C

blast furnace
blast furnace – 2000 to 2300°C

The only elements in the periodic table that can withstand 2500°C are carbon, niobium, molybdenum, tantalum, tungsten, rhenium, and osmium. Except for carbon, these metals are very, very heavy and are of course extremely conductive to heat and most are very ductile when heat treated meaning they bend and coil. Carbon even has the highest thermal conductivities of all known materials! So, if you want to cook someone very efficiently and quickly, there is nothing better than a space capsule made out of graphite.

Now, admittedly, it is not always 2500°C. In fact the temperature range is usually between a mere 600 to 2000°C! depending on sun activity and if it is day or night, with these temperatures usually reserved for altitudes of 300km and above; the upper boundary of which is unknown.

Now guess what altitude all the NASA machines are supposed to orbit Earth?

We are told most satellites orbit the Earth at altitudes of over 500km to avoid atmospheric drag, with a few circling in Medium Earth Orbit which goes up to 35,786km!

As you can see, all three objects above are in the seriously ferocious hot zone. Apart from nothing working at the minimum 600°C due to thermal expansion of the materials (iron glows red hot at 500°C), some of the electronic components like lead, zinc, and epoxy resin would not just burn out, but melt.

The solar panels which adjorn these machines would barely function even if they could keep it together long enough. A British company found a drop of 1.1% of peak output for every increase in degrees Celsius of photovoltaic solar panels once the panels reached 42°C, and of course at 1414°C silicon actually melts. But wait… the Hubble Telescope and satellites uses gallium arsenide instead of silicon which melts at an even lower temperature of 1238°C. I could go on, but you get the picture.

So how do those solar panels work? How does anything work and why do satellites, the Hubble Telescope, ISS etc. not melt during a day of high solar activity?
+++

scene composition: litho, frame 22
NASA’s blast furnace-proof International Space Station

+++
Aha, don’t worry, I’m sure the apologists have come to the rescue of this laugh-in-your-face contradiction; and they have, or rather have tried. Excuse number one comes from a few websites such as Wikipedia who wish to insult our intelligence to the max. Here is the main explanation for why satellites aren’t converted into man-made meteorites:

The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2500°C (4530°F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat.

+++
Errr… wait a minute. I thought it is the sun that causes those few atoms of gas to heat up to 2500°C? Oh, it is.

Thermospheric temperatures increase with altitude due to absorption of highly energetic solar radiation.

+++
So, do you think if NASA put a Hubble Telescope up there, it also might absorb highly energetic solar radiation exactly like those few atoms of gas to a maximum of 2500°C? You think!!!!
+++

The source of the heat of the thermosphere is not a few atoms of gas.


It is the sun!


+++

You know, you may have heard of it, or seen it or even felt it? Ask this man if he believes in solar radiation.

+++

radiation - sun burnt man
“Wikipedia said what?”

Even NASA themselves admit this in their question and answer session at question 3:
+++

Heat travels through a vacuum by infrared radiation. The Sun (and anything warm) is constantly emitting infrared, and the Earth absorbs it and turns the energy into atomic and molecular motion, or heat.

+++
So much for that excuse. They realize that there will be a few multi-cellular brained human beings out there that will see straight through this, so they’ll need reserve explanations. Enter Dr. Eberhard Moebius at question 5. who says,
+++

…this is the second secret of the vacuum bottle (or thermos): while the vacuum suppresses heat exchanges by conduction and air convection, exchange by radiation is suppressed by the shiny metallic coating of the bottle. This shiny coating reflects the heat radiation like a mirror and keeps it either inside the bottle (if the content is hot) or outside (if the content is cold).

+++
But none of NASA’s orbiting machines are completely covered in a layer of IR reflecting materials, only a bit of aluminum foil for the Hubble Telescope. Even if the foil could withstand 1500°C radiating heat, it certainly wouldn’t be able to stop conducting the heat from the the other materials of the telescope, especially those lovely infra-red absorbing dark areas, copper foil, plastic coated wires, and tarnished metal; and how about that same aluminum foil reflecting light back onto the telescope itself! Solar cooker anyone? There is so much wrong with the picture below that it is beyond words:
+++

Capture
Dave, why haven’t we vaporized into white hot piles of meteoric ash?
Because we are in a swimming pool, Ivan.
Ah, for a minute there I almost forgot.


+++

Not only that, even if the machines were hermetically sealed in IR reflecting materials, there would be nowhere to radiate this heat away as according to Dr. Christian the heat in the thermosphere is always there. There is no colder place for the heat to transfer to (second law of thermodynamics).

+++

…thermal radiation is always there, and that is what a spacecraft uses. To get rid of heat, you can point thermal radiators at the dark sky, and to warm up you can point at the Sun or Earth. The Sun warms the Earth through radiation, not convection or diffusion.

+++

I think it is only fair to give Dr. Christian some slack. He’ can’t be right all the time. Let’s say thermal radiation isn’t always present, even though during the day the sun is continually radiating everywhere. How cold must the other side of the orbiting machine be, and how thermally conducting its material to allow its temperature to keep a low equilibrium after one side is being blasted with a constant, say, 1200°C heat?

Quite.
+++

bright yellow hot steel
How the Hubble Telescope would look at 1200°C!

yellow hot steel
Engineers testing an array of possible Hubble Telescopes for thermal expansion at 500 to 1000°C.

That is the end of NASA’s orbiting machines, or is it? How do we know the thermosphere exists at all? It isn’t verifiable and it isn’t observable by any means. The problem is, why would NASA lie about such a thing when it completely disproves their portrayed fantasies of the last 44 years. What’s more, why bother spending years researching, equipping and continually improving the entire body of the space shuttle with insulating tiles that can resist 1650°C? Surely, the previous Saturn rocket’s insulating technology was more than adequate, as it had sent men to the moon… ahem. The rocket’s insulation relied on a process called ablation which just means as the metal layers peeled off from the heat it released the hot gases trapped inside which cooled the rocket down… except it didn’t, as the heat is ever-present in the thermosphere.

Oops, never mind.

The shuttle is the only vehicle that can enter the thermosphere, albeit for short durations and not too high, probably not beyond 400 or 500km (part 2 shows us that the shuttle probably never really goes much higher than 100km). It’s also really risky business; lose a few tiles in one place and the show is over in one magnificent fireball finale. Ask the poor crew of Columbia.

Below is what the shuttle looks like in space as 1000°C heat is applied to it. Notice how the tile glows white.

If there are no orbiting machines in space, why bother with the space shuttle? After all, we are told its main job is to deploy satellites. Before that question is answered in part 2, let’s look at a couple of counter-arguments or “solutions” to the thermosphere conundrum.

Possible counter-arguments
1. It certainly looks like stars become invisible at high altitude. Myself and another German poster have commented not seeing stars from an airplane cabin window in the summertime (although another poster commented that he has seen stars from an airplane on the December solstice). Seeing stars above 100km seems therefore to be highly unlikely.

“Why” is up for debate, but if visible light from stars cannot be detected above 100km with the naked eye, does this mean that heat from this light is also not felt or able to manifest itself as strongly? Does this rule also apply to the other electromagnetic wavelengths such as ultraviolet light where heat is concerned? Does it also apply to the EM wavelengths emanating for the Sun? Do we still feel the same heat intensity up there? Meteorites are white hot because they often melt through the glass layer, but they have been theorized to be a tiny part of the Sun that has been ejected, and the Sun is 6000°C on the surface after all.

This may well be a possibility, but seems unlikely because meteorites and asteroids have been labelled as the same phenomenon with one orbiting the Sun, the other falling to Earth. As a meteorite melts through the glass it looks like a streaky white line and then burns in the atmosphere like a fireball. An asteroid looks like a white dot differentiated from stars because of their differing velocities across the night sky. Theoretically, it is a white dot because it is white hot. For asteroids to remain white hot whilst orbiting the Sun, the sun must be making them as such.

Another good reason against this lack of heat argument is that the higher intensity of sunlight wavelengths has also been apparently measured above the glass. How? Let’s leave that to part 2, but if the extra light intensity has been detected (not calculated), then the effect of that extra light is also present, i.e. heat.

2. The few atoms in space and the charged particles of the Van Allen Belts become very hot because of solar radiation. Due to the vast time spans of the universe and existence itself (as viewed by the mainstream) the Sun is only heating up the particles very slowly. Over time, these particles cannot radiate heat away nearly as fast enough and therefore gradually heat up. So orbiting man-made objects also heat up very, very slowly over millions of years etc.

The trouble is, we don’t know how old anything really is, let alone the “universe”. We also have no idea have fast objects heat up at a specific distance to the Sun in a vacuum, say at 400km altitude, but there is a clue here on Earth. At sea level the Sun can heat up the air very fast, depending on how high the sun is in the sky, which in turn depends on latitude and season. It takes the Sun a few months to heat up the air above the ground after winter, and that is with convection (wind) constantly taking the heat away. So how long does the Sun take to heat up a few air molecules in a near vacuum above 100km high, where the only means of heat escape is through radiation, which makes heat transfer at this altitude very low?

Quite.

Let’s look at the second piece of evidence that makes orbiting a bit of a farce.

Orbiting mechanism

Why do things float in space only 100km+ above the Earth? Does gravity magically stop affecting objects at this height? The official answer is that above 100km objects are freefalling, but if they are traveling fast enough laterally, i.e. the space shuttle, at 28000 kmp/h then this speed will cause the object to fall along the convex curve of the Earth, thereby never actually hitting the ground – hence “orbiting” (already mentioned on this blog here).

Newton developed a thought experiment (author’s note: NOT science) to demonstrate this concept. Imagine placing a cannon at the top of a very tall mountain. Once fired, a cannonball falls to Earth. The greater the speed, the farther it will travel before landing. If fired with the proper speed, the cannonball would achieve a state of continuous free-fall around Earth, which we call orbit. The same principle applies to the space shuttle or space station. While objects inside them appear to be floating and motionless, they are actually traveling at the same orbital speed as their spacecraft: 17,500 miles per hour (28,000 km per hour)!

+++

“A thought experiment”??? supposedly conducted by a man living in the 17th century which amazingly matched perfectly with the late 20th century explanation NASA uses to explain how their machines orbit the Earth. What are the odds of Newton getting that one right, let alone knowing what gravity really is and how it works? This is at the very, very beginning of “science” if it can be called that. Newton’s thoughts verified by NASA? Or desperately used to explain away a model which does not exist.

Stranger still, that in Newton’s letter to Halley he writes that he thinks gravity is a push by “descending spirit”.

“…Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre

+++

How does push gravity work as a property of mass, especially in the convex Earth heliocentric model with spinning globes whizzing around each other exuding their various pressures? With great difficulty, if at all. Newton agrees in a letter to Bentley.

“That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”

+++

Oh dear. NASA, are you reading this? Your god Newton does not think you have a competent faculty of thinking. Are you telling big porky pies by any chance. I think you are! (Big thanks to Sandokhan).

But it gets worse… far worse. Falling is an acceleration which can be defined as an object getting faster and faster or an object at the same speed continually changing direction. That may or may not theoretically work for a convex Earth where gravity is a property of mass, but how do we know the Earth is a globe? Newton’s thought experiment can only work for a globe Earth as the Earth would be constantly dropping away beneath the orbiting object. Has the Earth been geodetically measured in order to determine its shape? Does the Earth drop away from us as we move along a straight line (convex), keep at the same distance (flat), or rise up towards us (concave)? Luckily for us, such an experiment was performed in 1897 and found that the Earth curves upwards – concave.

This was the extraordinarily thorough rectilineator experiment that was verified multiple times by several witnesses (of contrary opinions) over a period of several months. The curve upwards corresponded exactly with the curvature of the Earth as known today (but philosophically assumed to be curving the other way). A thorough examination of this experiment can be found on this blog under Concave Earth theory.

The rectilineator experiment proves that Newton’s thought “experiment”, aka “idea” is not the mechanism for man-made machines orbiting the Earth, if they are orbiting at all – so far, very doubtful. The orbiting jokers have been caught red-handed on more than one occasion. Let’s have a peek at a few examples of their blatant fakery.

Fake footage

It’s all getting a bit heavy with numbers, so to lighten it up a bit we’ll start this section with a fun quiz. There are two columns of images and/or videos below. Only one column contains footage that is likely to be real (but not necessarily genuine) – which one is it?

fish-eye
(Click to animate). An amateur weather balloon in freefall video showing us the concave/convex effects of a fish-eye lens.
astronauts around ISS
(Click to animate). Assembling the space station in orbit. Love those solar panels baby – who’s the graphic artist? Were they fired?
SRB camera freefall
(Click to animate). A NASA camera on one of the space shuttle’s SRBs after separation. Note the fish-eye lens causing concave and convex Earth horizons.
ISS flyover night
(Click to animate). ISS flyover at night – time lapse photography. Stars! And lots of them.
STS 127
Another space shuttle booster rocket video showing us the typical fish-eye lens approach (STS 127).
UFO bollocks
(Click to animate). “UFOs” buzz the MIR space station… or should that read USOs at the bottom of the seabed.
DogCam flies to the edge of space 110,000ft
(Click to animate). An amateur weather balloon video at 110,000 feet.
tate satelite 400km
From only 400km altitude, this is a live image from the Tate satellite. At 400km height horizon visibility is 2294km, which is one third the radius of the Earth only! (Cheers Saros).
space shuttle launch
A continuous view of a space shuttle launch from the beginning until 2:26 min. The SRBs had yet to be jettisoned which means that the shuttle had not yet reached 46 km; although it looks as if it is about to timing-wise.
atlantis-iss-docked-robotic-arm
The view of Earth from the ISS with stars! And a permanently yellow ionosphere which in reality only becomes yellow when a fast moving object is passing through.

You’ll have already guessed that the footage in the left column is likely to be the more genuine article for the simple reason that both amateur high altitude balloon footage and NASA’s video of high altitude launches look very similar or the same. The balloon videos are the control that all other “space” footage is compared to. If the Earth is far too detailed, not occasionally glaring, looks animated, no black space (stars visible), no white glaring Sun, no continuous footage throughout, no similar atmospheric sound at stratospheric levels (like this video – although the microphone may not be on) etc. as all the non-music balloon videos show, then the footage is bogus. This is not foolproof of course. Any video could be fake. It is merely one indication.

If you don’t believe me, let’s look at some of the type of videos that suit the right column, but in more detail, and see if there have been any over-looked mistakes in post production (mostly courtesy of cluesforum.info). There are loads more on Youtube if you look for them.

Bubbles

spacewalksts118b-l
(Click to animate). One bubble from the astronaut and one from the scuba diver (with his tank visible in the hatch).
 
gM8g5
(Click to animate). One bubble not enough? How about lots and lots of bubbles!
chinese bubbles
(Click to animate). China also wants in on the act.
chinese bubble2
(Click to animate). The union of Chimerica is finally complete.
STS-51-A Discovery 1984
(Click to animate). At 1:23 min, the STS-51-A-Discovery-1984 shows a whopper of a bubble being ejected and then move to the side – probably really “up”. (Thanks ourjesuitpaymasters).

What’s that? Ice particles you say.

Nope. Water couldn’t exist in a solid or liquid form in the thermosphere.

Space Debris! That’s what they are.

Let’s have a real close look at a piece of “debris” and watch it being ejected from the vertical right nozzle halfway up the apparatus and travel up.

bubblesiss1-l
(Click to animate). Oh dear.

But they can’t be bubbles; some of them are traveling too fast.

Only if they are free-floating. Bubbles coming from a pressurized container/tube/cylinder/tank/apparatus travel very fast as any YouTube video of a free-flowing regulator will show you. NASA’s “practice” swimming pool is about 40 feet (12.34m) deep, with the “astronauts” probably operating at around half that depth. Here is a real world comparison of air being ejected from an underwater bubble room 20 feet (6.17m) deep.

gM8g5
(Click to animate). Lots of fast moving bubbles.

 
real bubbles1
(Click to animate). Lots of fast moving bubbles.

You can also tell from the astronaut’s kicks at the very beginning of the video that it could have been sped up quite a lot too.

Swimming
In fact, if we speed up another video, we can clearly see the astronauts like to swim in space; and how about a toolbox being dropped and then not dropping any further.

hubbleswimming1-o
(Click to animate). Look mom, I’m doing doggy paddle!
toolbox fail
(Click to animate). Don’t worry miss. The scuba divers will pick it up after the show.

Wrong hair
What about the inside of the ISS? Those two lady astronauts are having a bad hair day!

strange hair1
(Click to animate). This is what happens when you use too much hair lacquer.
strange hair2
(Click to animate). Kids, don’t stick your fingers in an electric socket!

Here are two ladies on the left and probably the same light-brown haired lady in the right clip showing us what long hair truly looks like in weightlessness.

real hair2
(Click to animate). Why isn’t my hair standing on end?
real hair1
(Click to animate). Look! No fingers in electric sockets.

Wires in space
How do they fake the freefalling “floating” micro-gravity? It’s been done since 1968 in the movie “2001 Space Odyssey” right up to “Gravity” in 2013.

gravity wires
Sandra Bullock held up by wires in the film “Gravity” (2013).
hatfield harness
(Click to animate). (8:56 min) Chris Hatfield held up by wires in the movie “The International Fake Station” (21st century).

Green screen
Who is ISS actornaut Katie looking and waving at? The wall of the ISS? No. The wall is illusionary, made for us post-processing.

ISS green screen
(Click to animate). Katie has x-ray vision.

And of course, very rarely, someone isn’t fully on the ball and let’s the cat out of the bag.

Cassidy blooper
Poor Chris Cassidy must have missed his morning coffee that day – “… a little town called York, Maine across the United States from where we are talking to you right now.” Oops. Are they hanging upside down? Chris looks like all the blood has rushed to his head.

Never mind Chris. Don’t beat yourself up about it. The truth is out now anyhow.

Few “genuine” Earth globe images

(Big thanks to “Learn of the Jesuit Order“). The theoretical micro-gravity model is conclusively fraudulent. But what about orbiting further out away from the Earth? Satellites are said to “orbit” from 120km to 35,000km away. Surely there should be lots and lots of great images and video, especially modern crystal clear HD quality, beautiful footage of our “globe” Earth seen from space? You would think that right? Okay, okay, forget video. What about just basic photos? With over 1100 active and 2600 redundant satellites, over the decades (especially recently) the number of images of our magnificent “ball planet” must be staggering… except it isn’t. (This source says there have been 6,578 satellites launched into orbit since the beginning.)

All modern images of “Earth as a globe” are composites. What does that mean? Here is what an article says about a 2012 Blue Marble image:

The camera on board Suomi NPP can only photograph small sections of Earth at a time, so the image you see here is actually something of a mosaic — a patchwork piece that collects photos taken from Suomi NPP over the course of January 4, 2012 and stitches them together… Of course, when I say that Suomi photographs “small sections” of the Earth’s surface, what I mean is that they’re smaller than an absurdly hi-res photo of the entire planet.

+++

What he means is the satellite sensors detect light from the Earth’s surface in strips as its sensor array moves with the satellite. Each sensor in the array is one pixel. Each pixel is an area of the Earth, which is 375 m2. So literally each pixel is a “photo” of 375 m2 taken over one day collated together to form the image below. That is a lot of pixels.

189cs2k0svipmjpg
When the pixels are laid on to a globe model, it looks like this – very distorted.

Although the composite is said only to come from one instrument (VIIRS) on one satellite (Suomi NPP), a NASA/Sigma video says otherwise.

The Blue marble 2012 is… “a composite of data sets from several different instruments… It is Photoshopped, but it has to be.” (3:40 min).

+++

I bet. Why not cut and paste a few clouds in here and there to cover any sparse patches? They did.

blue marble cut and paste clouds
A big thanks to anonjedi2 from cluesforum.info for spotting this little addition.
blue marble cut and paste clouds close up
Gaps in viirs’ realism is artistically “filled in”.

They removed, and then later added all the cloud cover (real or not), simulated the atmosphere and added the reflection of sunlight on water. Even after all those “additions”, they still had to tweak the image to make it look nice and lovely… apart from that, it is a genuine composite.

blue marble after
Before tweaking and After.

The same satellite was also said to be used for the Black Marble, but they have animated the images to make it look like the Earth is rotating.

This new global view and animation of Earth’s city lights is a composite assembled from data acquired by the Suomi NPP satellite. The data was acquired over nine days in April 2012 and 13 days in October 2012. It took 312 orbits to get a clear shot of every parcel of Earth’s land surface and islands. This new data was then mapped over existing Blue Marble imagery of Earth to provide a realistic view of the planet.

+++

animated earth
An animated rotating Earth.

The only supposed series of genuine photos of the globe Earth I could find are from the Galileo satellite passing by the Earth in 1990. Again, an animation; but this time they claim this isn’t a composite, but the real deal (at least each photo is supposed to be genuine). Also, why are the thousands of shiny sun-reflecting satellites orbiting the Earth not visible in any of the series of photos below, or in hardly any photo ever? Too small? And what about all the estimated 370,000 pieces of sun-reflecting space Junk? (Obviously less junk in 1990, but still).

galileo sat
Another animated rotating Earth, but this time each photo is claimed to be real.
AEHF-satellite-728x582
There are hardly any supposedly genuine photographs of a satellite in orbit. They are very nearly all cartoons.

If those photos are genuine, why did they have to build the Blue Marble from composites 22 years later? Why couldn’t they have just put cameras on a few of their “35000 km” orbiting satellites as they supposedly did with Galileo?

Well, there are said to be two genuine full disk black and white images of cloud cover from geostationary satellites GOES-13 and GOES-14 from 35,786 km away updated every 3 hours. When colorized and superimposed with the landmasses added etc. they can look like the image below. However, even this image is a composite, i.e. it isn’t one photo of the Earth.

visible goes-13
Actual full disk cloud cover visible light image supposedly from GOES-13.
IDL TIFF file
Now it is colourzied!

370,000 sun reflectors (space junk) still not visible at all, even when a few closer pictures of the Earth are taken from the same said geo satellite. You can get as close as you like, you’ll never see anything orbiting up there at all. Mind you, after all that photoshopping, any and all pixels could be, and are “rectified“.

Besides the 1990 Galileo satellite, the only other modern image of the Earth that is said not to be a composite that I know of is the 2015 Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) photos on the DSCOVR satellite. The problem with their “one photo” claim is that the EPIC image of the Americas is identical in size and curve to the GOES-13 image, which is a known composite.

DISCOVR US
Image 10. of the Americas from the EPIC camera – this image has been deleted from their website.
visible goes-13
The identically shaped GOES-13 image.

The only difference between the two is that the Epic satellite image is slightly shrunk (but it is the same size as the GOES-13 coloured image above), and the colouring, which is probably due to the different remote sensor (camera) or post-processing computer. Goes-13 is said to be 35,000 km away and DISCOVR 1 million km from Earth yet, both images stop at the + and -75/80° latitude areas north and south proving that this is not an image of a globe, but instead a limitation of the remote sensors horizon capabilities. Below is a side-view photo of a tennis ball. You can just about see from “pole to pole”.

tennisball
Compare how much of this tennis ball you can see compared to the GOES-13 or DISCOVR image.
model globe
Why not go straight to the horse’s mouth and look at a model globe? Oh look, despite being at a slightly elevated angle we can still see the south pole.

The DISCOVR image is one in a series of 13 “photos” showing the “rotation” of the Earth. (There are now only 8. The skipping images have been removed hours after I made a comment on this here.)

discovr_oct19_2015
(Click to animate). The series of 13 EPIC still images of the Earth is being used to claim rotation.

This is clearly not Earth rotation as the images skip after Hawaii/Alaska immediately to the Japan/Taiwan/Australia region. A rotating Earth would show a continually transition over the entire circumference, not miss a large chunk. Why is it missing? Because the DISCOVR mission is really a series of geostationary satellites scanning the Earth the same way GOES-13 does and there is no need for a weather satellite above the empty Pacific Ocean where there are no countries that need it. Putting a satellite up there isn’t cheap. You also have to ask why not use HD video onboard the satellite to view the rotating Earth? Why 13 still shots? Because they can’t take a video of the Earth, that’s why. It isn’t technically possible.

These supposed 2015 EPIC “one-photo” Earth shots are 25 years after Galileo. At least it is better than the moon landings yet to be repeated. Speaking of which, before the 1990 Galileo satellite, the most common “said to be real” image of the Earth globe was from those infamous 1972 Apollo 17 missions, 18 years before that.

apollo images
All the images of Earth-as-a-globe supposedly taken on the Apollo missions. (2:36 min)
blue marble 1972
The famous Apollo 17 image, continually used to this day since 1972.

Compare the above 1972 Apollo Earth image with the ones so far presented. The top of the Earth is Turkey (35-40° N latitude) and the bottom is Antarctica which looks to possibly show the south pole, or very near to it. Yes, the Apollo 17 missions took place in early December, but you are supposed to see a lot more than 125° out of the entire 180° from top to bottom of a globe – only two/thirds of the Earth is visible; and look at the size and curve of Africa. This image is either a complete fake, composite, or taken with a very wide angle lens at fairly low altitude (100 km?). It doesn’t show a globe.

There are also a few Earth “photos” from early missions, such as Apollo 15 and 16. YouTube user Conscious Truth increased the brightness and contrast to maximum in Photoshop which showed the Earth had been cut-out and put on to a new background. Very strange shenanigans.

apollo 15
Apollo 15 image with the contrast and brightness increased.
apollo 16
The same is done for the Apollo 16 “photo”.

Of course, the moon landings themselves are more than a little controversial. Apart from melting in the thermosphere, common sense rules out this farce completely. Supposedly between June 28 – July 7 1969, a mere two weeks before Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin allegedly walked on the moon (July 21st), a test monkey died in “orbit” which was blamed on microgravity.

The flight subject died about eight hours after the capsule was recovered. The acute cause of death was ventricular fibrillation. At the time of death, body weight was 4.4 kg. Weight loss may have been due to the marginally palatable food pellets that had to be used to accommodate experimental requirements. Marked dehydration was evident. The cause of death is still controversial. At the time it was speculated that the changes noted in the animal were an effect of microgravity alone.

+++

Don’t worry, we’ll send up our boys to the moon anyway. Hope we have thought of absolutely everything and our hypothetical calculations and theoretical heliocentric model are right. Pray for us Issac Newton, we are going “live” in two weeks with our very first attempt at landing and coming back.

Shitola!

Of course some part of this story (the orbiting part) is very likely a complete fabrication, but it still doesn’t help the moon boys any. Good entertainment though.

Summary

  • After 100km altitude it starts to get very hot. At 110km it is 200°C. At 500km it is somewhere between 500°C and 1500°C or more. This is the thermosphere.
  • The cause of this heat is the extra solar radiation above the ionosphere, closer distance to the Sun, and above all the vacuum of space which doesn’t allow the heat to radiate away fast enough or allow a lower pressure differential with increasing altitude.
  • Space machines are said to orbit between 120 and 35000km+ altitude making them traveling furnaces and obviously a pure fabrication if said orbital altitudes are correct.
  • Possible counterarguments against a hot thermosphere are: 1. Invisible stars at high altitude may be responsible for lower heat at same said height; although possible white hot asteroids orbiting the Sun and the detection of the extra sunlight intensity make this unlikely. 2. Long time spans make heating objects very slow and unnoticeable; although it only takes a few months to heat up convective air on the ground from one season to another – in space heat can only be radiated away.
  • The theory used to explain NASA machine’s orbiting mechanism comes from a 17th century philosopher, who actually thought gravity was a repelling push from “descending spirit”, not an attractive property of matter.
  • This theoretical orbiting mechanism could only work for a convex Earth, whereas the Earth has been thoroughly geodetically measured to be concave.
  • The easiest way to detect fake NASA footage is to compare it to the control videos of high altitude weather balloons – if not similar then fake.
  • There are numerous red flags when analyzing space footage that is not similar to the control: 1. Conclusive bubbles in space. 2. Swimming astronauts kicking their legs. 3. Lady astronaut hair behaving in a totally different way than hair at zero gravity on an airplane. 4. Chris Hatfield caught with wires sticking out his shirt. 5. Chris Cassidy’s Freudian admission of real location.
  • There are very few genuine photos of the Earth as a globe, despite 3700 satellites having been launched over the decades (1100 still in operation, although 6,578 are said to have been ever launched into orbit). Any orbiting distance from 6200km away or more would show the whole ball Earth.
  • There is no video of the globe Earth, only animations of photo sets.
  • There are only three sets of photos of globe Earth (known to the author) said to be genuine: 1. Those taken from the Apollo missions. 2. Those from the 1990 Galileo satellite. 3. Those from the 2015 DISCVR satellite.
  • The Blue marble 2012 globe Earth picture is a composite of much, much smaller and nearer to Earth satellite photos from various instruments, layered and tweaked.
  • The Apollo moon landings are a farce due to the thermosphere and common sense.

If there is no such thing as low-Earth orbit, does this mean that all the machines in space are fake? Not quite. For anything to reside at the very beginning of non-thermosphere space (100 to 110km altitude), there must be another mechanism besides orbiting to hold the “space” machines in place… but which machines? And what mechanism? Before I answer that question, let’s look at two of the more well-known space machines in part 2.

Bookmark the permalink.

162 Responses to Space machines do not orbit the Earth

  1. ashley says:

    hi,

    as per flat earth moon has its own light; if that is the case then why do we see different phases of the moon, it should always be a full moon as it is emitting its own light

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I personally think the moon is reflected light from the back of the Sun. The negative cooling effects come from the “positive” charge of the Sun which is pushing the moon around Sun.

      View Comment
  2. Rankle Rave says:

    Why would all 13 countries that have space programs collectively decide that it’s in their best interest to lie to all humanity that we launch satellites into space? What would be the purpose? Why would the U.S. spend billions of dollars to build huge rocket and launch them from Cape Canaveral, where everyone and their mother (including myself) can go and witness these rocket being launch. What do they gain by lying about having satellites up there.?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      When you are at Davos, you can ask them.

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

      View Comment
  3. scisci says:

    Hi
    Can some one tell me how quantum entanglement can
    occur long distance when vacuum or not the entangled
    are still exposed to (zero point energy )? (quantum foam)?
    (positional space information) ??

    vacuum is not a vacuum is where the universe came from apparently

    View Comment
  4. JohnQ says:

    The Elektro-L satellite (Russia) changes things. It is capable of capturing a single image of the entire earth,and does so every 30 minutes. Elektro-L has been operational since 2011.

    See here: http://beforeitsnews.com/space/2016/01/elektro-l-flat-earth-debunking-modern-russian-sattelite-system-2495914.html

    View Comment
  5. Peter says:

    Great hoax entertainment. Someone explain how amatures can view and photograph the ISS with provable scale, and how amatures can reach the ISS via shortwave radios? I know someone personally that legally contacted the ISS on a specific frequency allowed by ISS, aimed at the ISS. Such signal is directional and will not get a response unless aimed at the ISS. So are all objects in space fake? And all amature friends with radios lying? Come on. Facts are facts. And this site is just for entertainment in my opinion.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      What the space boys put out as marketing is the pure entertainment.

      Someone explain how amatures can view and photograph the ISS with provable scale.

      Dani did just that. It is in the article. Estimated height was between 20 and 40 km. Show me the amateurs evidence proving a different scale and we can compare and get to the bottom of this.

      I know someone personally that legally contacted the ISS on a specific frequency allowed by ISS, aimed at the ISS. Such signal is directional and will not get a response unless aimed at the ISS.

      Perhaps yes. Assuming this statement is true (although merely a claim with no evidence) then their secret project is manned. But it isn’t the tin can they show and it isn’t 400 km high either.

      View Comment
    • BlueMoon says:

      Peter,
      I agree. My university has an ARISS outreach program where we can speak with the ISS in real time and allow local school students to do the same. I’ve also visited the Payload Operations Center in Huntsville Alabama. It has a live feed and tracking of the ISS. If there was anything shady going on, it would be apparent. The facts are pretty clear. Under normal circumstances I would ignore this site, but using these theories as an excuse to personally attack the hardworking people who pour their lives into the space program is where I draw the line.
      And as for the experiments supposedly carried out by Dani, those don’t match up with either the official explanation or Wild Heretic’s theory. I would say they can be dismissed as inaccurate. I’ll see if I can check it out for myself.

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        They match up with my theory because my theory is flexible. It is an exploration of finding the truth. The ISS programme is a cover up for something else they are putting up there in the lower atmosphere.

        Under normal circumstances I would ignore this site, but using these theories as an excuse to personally attack the hardworking people who pour their lives into the space program is where I draw the line.

        I agree. The actornauts from the marketing department normally do a half decent job of convincing us they in the space. The hair on the females was a major faux-pas though. At least they have learnt their lesson now. See, we can learn from each other. 😉 I make the fraudsters better at their job, and you at mine.

        Bluemoon, do you think there are bubbles and scuba tanks in space? If not, then why did NASA show fraudulent footage? That is the obvious question you should be asking yourself. Why are they lying to us?

        I look forward to your speculative ideas as to why the lies.

        View Comment
        • BlueMoon says:

          First off: stop calling them actornauts; that’s exactly what I’m saying you shouldn’t do.
          As for women’s hair though, you’re right that when their hair is down, it should look like it does in the KC-135 clips. But that is not desirable for astronauts. On earth, gravity holds hair down and keeps it in check. But in space, the hair would float around and be very annoying to deal with. The best way to deal with it are tying it back, getting it permed, and cutting it short. Whatever keeps it out of the face.
          As for the “bubbles,” those are actually water droplets from the space suit’s sublimators, no doubt in the process of boiling off or sublimating themselves. I couldn’t find anything on the “scuba tank” but if it was actually a scuba tank, it would have been yellow, not white. It’s probably something to help with suit pressurization, but I’m not sure. If you can find a more complete picture, we can discuss that. I’m also curious as to what the long curved thing is next to it. Possibly an antenna of some sort; I know I’ve seem pictures of something like it.
          Also, I think you should drop your argument about the thermosphere being too hot until you study heat and thermal control. You’re a good researcher, so you should have no trouble with this.

          View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            First off: stop calling them actornauts; that’s exactly what I’m saying you shouldn’t do.

            You two clowns don’t have the moral high ground. Especially as I don’t know if I am talking to the Bluemoon at the University of Alabama or the intelligence employee at Hughes Corporation in Germantown. Perhaps first off, you should be honest with me. On second thoughts, you two are obviously part of a hitman team anyway. I don’t expect anything less than deception.

            1. Yesterday I got the Germantown Bluemoon that claimed to be an engineering student, then an engineer and then a rocket tester no less. His IP address was 184.53.34.139. That address gives me Hughes Networks in Germantown.
            http://www.ip-address.org/lookup/ip-locator.php?track=184.53.34.139
            http://www.ipligence.com/geolocation

            The headquarters of Hughes Corporation is in Germantown.
            http://www.hughes.com/company/about-us

            Hughes corporation sells satellite internet.
            “To date, Hughes has manufactured and shipped more than 4 million terminals to customers in over 100 countries. Hughes supplies a growing family of authorized service providers, government organizations, and businesses with advanced broadband systems and terminals including satellite Network Operations Centers (NOCs) and gateways; broadband satellite routers and modems; mobile satellite systems, handhelds and high-speed IP data terminals.”

            It also has an Defense and Intelligence Systems division which sells satellite communicators (modems) to the military and intelligence no less.
            “Hughes is America’s master builder-architect for defense and intelligence satellite communications, giving form to our clients’ net-centric visions. With Hughes’ solutions, military and intelligence leaders can achieve more with less, and integrators can explore new ways to reach their program goals.”
            http://www.hughes.com/resources

            Everyone but one guy in the above image for that division is wearing military clothes. This division makes modems to communicate with the following satellites:
            HX System
            BGAN Inmarsat
            EchoStar XVII
            Spaceway 3
            Thuraya IP
            http://defense.hughes.com/core-competencies-1

            E.g. http://defense.hughes.com/platforms-and-technologies/thuraya

            It also looks like it makes communication modules to be put in the satellites by satellite manufacturers:
            “The SPACEWAY 3 satellite, built by Boeing Satellite Systems International, Inc., was successfully launched on August 14, 2007 by Arianespace and is in its permanent geosynchronous orbital slot of 95° West longitude. The SPACEWAY 3 system was designed and developed by Hughes as a next-generation, Ka-band broadband satellite system, the world’s first commercial satellite to employ on-board traffic switching and routing capability. ”

            They don’t build satellites, Boeing does that. They don’t build or launch rockets, Arianespace did that.
            http://defense.hughes.com/platforms-and-technologies/spaceway-3

            and..
            “Scheduled for launch in mid-2012, the EchoStar® XVII satellite with JUPITER™ high-throughput technology from Hughes, will deliver over 100 Gbps capacity across North America.”
            http://defense.hughes.com/platforms-and-technologies/echostar-xvii

            Hughes Corporation have nothing to do with rockets, and certainly not at their Headquarters in Germantown. No rocket testing facilities there.
            https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Exploration+Ln,+Germantown,+MD+20876,+USA/@39.1782126,-77.2477534,606m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x89b62c6108716987:0x3e2743eef005755a?hl=en

            2. Also yesterday I didn’t realise I was speaking to two Bluemoons. The first comments were Hughes Corp headquarters. later comments showed this Ip address: 76.7.29.132 which is Fort Riley.

            “Fort Riley is a United States Army installation located in Northeast Kansas, on the Kansas River, between Junction City and Manhattan. The Fort Riley Military Reservation covers 100,656 acres (407 km²) in Geary and Riley counties and includes two census-designated places: Fort Riley North and Fort Riley-Camp Whitside. The fort has a daytime population of nearly 25,000. The zip code is 66442.”
            http://www.mapquest.com/us/ks/ft-riley-282021986

            and
            https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Fort+Riley,+KS,+USA/@39.095824,-96.8284531,6860m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x87bc4b48646d83f7:0xaa82cf6f97c7ac1c!6m1!1e1?hl=en

            Need I say more.

            3. Now today I get this IP address only: 146.229.255.21 which is the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
            http://www.ip-address.org/lookup/ip-locator.php?track=146.229.255.21
            http://www.ipligence.com/geolocation

            This Bluemoon also claims to be the very same rocket engineer or is that engineering student or just engineer. Depends who is speaking I suppose.

            It was an attack of the shills. I rest my case.

            As for women’s hair though, you’re right that when their hair is down, it should look like it does in the KC-135 clips. But that is not desirable for astronauts. On earth, gravity holds hair down and keeps it in check. But in space, the hair would float around and be very annoying to deal with. The best way to deal with it are tying it back, getting it permed, and cutting it short. Whatever keeps it out of the face.

            All female astronauts would be shaved (and men too) for starters. Very easy maintenance and no hair will get in the machinery, hair which will be all over the place as they don’t have a vacuum cleaner. They would not perm their hair for that reason but to try and give the perception of zero gravity.

            Tell me why this lady’s hair isn’t permed but is permanently pointing and remaining in one direction (downwards).
            http://www.wildheretic.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Cassidy-blooper.jpg

            At 0.32 second she even brushes it against the flow which shows that it isn’t permed.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp9Y8I6v_Ds

            As for the “bubbles,” those are actually water droplets from the space suit’s sublimators, no doubt in the process of boiling off or sublimating themselves. I couldn’t find anything on the “scuba tank” but if it was actually a scuba tank, it would have been yellow, not white. It’s probably something to help with suit pressurization, but I’m not sure. If you can find a more complete picture, we can discuss that. I’m also curious as to what the long curved thing is next to it. Possibly an antenna of some sort; I know I’ve seem pictures of something like it.

            Hahaha. Nice. Specsavers it is then. I suppose pretending to be blind is the last resort. The film is black and white so of course the scuba tank looks white which means that you did see the tank and telling me more of your lies.

            Also, I think you should drop your argument about the thermosphere being too hot until you study heat and thermal control. You’re a good researcher, so you should have no trouble with this.

            You should tell me which parts in the pictures of space people and objects can reflect or insulate the Sun’s heat sufficiently. Can solar panels for instance?

            View Comment
  6. BlueMoon says:

    You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how heat works in space. Gas particles in the thermosphere only become so hot because they are tiny and easily ionized by solar radiation. And just because they are hot doesn’t mean they heat up everything else to the same temperature. At that altitude spacecraft are much more affected by thermal radiation, and can only really expect temperatures of +-250 degrees F. Spacecraft like the ISS are equipped with insulation and radiators, and only spend about 45 minutes in sunlight. If a part of a satellite is not white or reflective, it is likely insulated. The reason for the space shuttle’s heat shielding is that it’s traveling incredibly fast and uses the atmosphere to slow down. This causes the air to undergo compression heating. Any questions?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      No problem with the insulation. For example, the materials of rocket payload fairings are made of very high tech materials which are very insulating and also very hard. Parts of the fairing can also break off and wash up ashore. How? We don’t know. It isn’t the impact on the water as all photos of recovered booster rockets floating the in the ocean that I could find were completely intact. This means either the rocket hit sometime hard up there or a possible minor malfunction occurred exploding away a part of the payload fairing.

      Anyway, I digress. If an “orbiting” vehicle is in the sunlight for however long and some part isn’t reflective or insulating then we can rule out that vehicle. That excludes a lot of their “flying” machines which means that either these machines do not exist or they are not deployed in the thermosphere (my best speculative guess). They also say that the thermosphere is also nearly as hot during the night too, which isn’t surprising because of all the ionizing radiation up there.

      I’ll have to look in detail at the “ISS” and see what doesn’t hold water above. Immediately I am thinking of the glass windows. So far, there is no information that they block heat causing radiations – http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3830/what-materials-are-the-windows-on-the-us-segment-of-the-iss-made-out-of. They just use “Fused silica and borosilicate glass”.

      Now, let’s talk real shop. All these debates and possible excuses and attempts at plausible deniability are fun and all well and good, but won’t help us get any further to the truth of the matter. We know two things for very near certain – 1. Official sources are tainted, and 2. the earth is concave as empirically tested in 1897 by the rectilineator experiment. 2. is a great yardstick to help us filter 1. It’s not perfect and there is great room for speculation to which I am very open.

      Now, you will immediately reply that you do not believe the results of the rectilineator experiment for whatever reasons. That is perfectly fine. I have no problems with that belief whatsoever. Why? Simple. You PMed me on my forum earlier mentioning that you were an engineering student. Wonderful. Engineers don’t debate or speculate or believe in the solution to a problem one way or another. Leave that to the lawyers/politicians/philosophers. When confronted with a question such as what shape is the Earth? or find the curvature of the Earth, what do engineers do? That’s right. They TEST it.

      As a budding engineer Bluemoon, your end of term fieldwork assignment is to go out and test Earth’s curvature beyond a reasonable doubt (99%). You can either use your own initiative (which engineers usually have in their bucket loads) or follow the set up Ar Pi carried out with a portable laser across a body of water. For that you will need a $400 portable laser, two posts or poles, 1 clamp, 2 measuring tapes, and 1 friend, and possibly the use of one boat or other small floating device. You will need one day or night to carry this out. Being an engineering student, you will have access to these items in spades.

      I look forward to the data you gather from your fieldwork which will enable us to move forward towards the next stage of discovery.

      WH

      View Comment
      • BlueMoon says:

        You seem to be confusing engineers and scientists. Scientists go out and test things, and engineers rely on the scientists’ conclusions. If their data doesn’t work, our machines don’t work. But they do.
        The results of the rectilineator experiment are strange, but not without explanation. It was carried out by a concave earther who found exactly what he was hoping for, and was done over 100 years ago. From my side of the argument, it is that data that is tainted, and not mine. You’ll have to find some experimental evidence more convincing than that to support your theory.
        I can tell you that the reinforced carbon-carbon tiles on the shuttle nose and wing are very brittle. They can handle reentry no problem, but if you try to smash through a sheet of glass with them, you’ll be cleaning up charred bits of the shuttle and its crew.
        But much of the data you cite comes from NASA. If there’s a piece of damning evidence in there, why would they include it? Why say that the thermosphere gets so hot if it means that it will melt the spacecraft? Answer: it doesn’t. Objects only heat up until the heat they emit is balanced with the heat they absorb.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_thermal_control

        But really, I think you and I are fighting a war on too many fronts. I would rather have a real, one-on-one debate where we don’t have to scramble about and try to keep track of multiple different comments on the blog. Do you have a preferred site for a debate? We could have it on the forum if you like.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          You’ll have to find some experimental evidence more convincing than that to support your theory.

          On its way. Their data was verified by Corpernicans (much to their dismay) and also by your debunker Simanek. I get it though. You think they are liars. No problem. Despite not having any proof that they were liars you need to make sure right? Then simply repeat the experiment. Even a cheapo and quick laser one will do for now.

          The difference between my data and yours is that I have empirical evidence that the Earth is concave whereas you have the space agencies’ (and academics’) word for it that it is convex and spins around the Sun. The latter (NASA) has been caught giving fraudulent evidence, Teed has not. The beauty of it is, that Teed can be tested, NASA cannot.

          NASA are full of contradictions, aren’t they? It’s all speculation. I don’t know what they are really up to. I can’t tell. I have given my best guess so far. It doesn’t matter if I am right or wrong. It is time for testing.

          View Comment
          • R.E. says:

            Let us always remember: NASA is the one pulling out impossibly imprecise and vast numbers and distances from their hat – 30,000,000,000 light years away and so on. So cavalier, so certain. Like a psychopath.

            The purpose is to trigger peoples’ cognitive dissonance so that they (we) can’t think critically or ask good questions. And people believe and cling to this stuff.

            It reminds me of those sad experiments with the baby monkeys clinging to the stuffed animal “mama” (prevailing current wisdom drip fed by the authorities and higher education) rather than eat (do what was good for themselves). They starved.

            View Comment
          • BlueMoon says:

            “Nowadays we are more sensitive to the importance of avoiding the possibility of such errors. Experiments where such bias is possible are designed to be blind and double blind. In this case, the rectilineator positioning, manipulation, and measurements should have been done by people who had no idea what the expected outcome was. But even more important here, the design of the rectilineator and its initial adjustments should have been subject to independent and competent scrutiny. The persons making the measurements should never have had access to the previously calculated values expected for a concave earth, convex earth, or flat earth.”

            “However, this analysis clearly establishes that the method of the experiment was flawed. Its assumption of perfectly rigid rectangles cannot be supported. It ignored the possible propagation of a very small determinate error, easily capable of accounting for the result the Morrow team observed.”

            You may want to give Donald Simanek’s analysis a full reading, because it outlines the errors of the experiment. Teed and Morrow’s experiments were inherently flawed and biased. NASA’s are not. The scientific community would call them out if they were. You may want to find a better experiment.

            Can you tell me when NASA has been caught lying? From my side, they weren’t lying about landing on the moon, or orbiting the earth, or the earth being spherical, so don’t use any of those. You must find and instance of them irrefutably lying, that also shows a tendency to lie to the public. Don’t use information from another conspiracy theorist, because that is biased.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            But even more important here, the design of the rectilineator and its initial adjustments should have been subject to independent and competent scrutiny.

            It was.

            “Every item of adjustment, test, observation, and measurement was checked in the check record book, and described in detail in the daily record book, to which are appended the signatures of all operators and witnesses. The facts of preparation, measurements, and survey contained in this work are taken from the records, attested and sworn to by the entire Geodetic Staff and the investigating committee. This test (the retracing of the three eighths of a mile) was in accordance with the plans of the critics on the field of observations, representing the Copernican system, who were doing all in their power to prove the instrument inaccurate.

            Will you be doing all in your power Bluemoon to prove Steve’s instrument inaccurate by going to the field of observations and see for yourself? Steve has already invited Simanek to Padre Beach. I’m sure you will get an invite too. You are better than a group of people who don’t know the outcome. You want the reverse outcome! Visit Steve when he is underway testing the device to make sure everything is ok.

            “However, this analysis clearly establishes that the method of the experiment was flawed. Its assumption of perfectly rigid rectangles cannot be supported.”

            Has he tested this speculation or just pulled it out of his ass? Yeah, they measured the earth as a cavity because the perfectly rigid rectangles obviously weren’t perfectly rigid. The beams sagged at the same rate as a concave Earth. Obviously. Beams do that. And then they sagged again when the beams were flipped upside down after every measurement and amazingly rearranged their sagging when the direction was reversed for further verification. How did I not think of that? Beams these days are super intelligent. How did the beams know to sag at the right amount each time? Clever buggers.

            “It ignored the possible propagation of a very small determinate error, easily capable of accounting for the result the Morrow team observed.”

            I see. 🙂 No. He is obviously wrong. A very small determinate error does not account for the Earth being measured concave. A very large and willful deceit does. Simenak himself even said,

            “Even more remarkable is the fact that the results were consistent with an Earth circumference of 25,000 miles. Looking at the data with more modern techniques of data analysis than the Morrow team used, the data show that value to have an experimental uncertainty of a bit over 2%. It differs from the modern value by only about 2% also.”

            That 2% error is very small and determinate.

            You may want to give Donald Simanek’s analysis a full reading, because it outlines the errors of the experiment. Teed and Morrow’s experiments were inherently flawed and biased. NASA’s are not. The scientific community would call them out if they were. You may want to find a better experiment.

            Lol. 🙂 I have, and his desperation at plausible deniability is not just wrong but extremely shameful. The scientific community would call NASA out???? How? What experiments would they do to call them out? NASA are unverifiable. But, the scientific community can call Teed out by repeating his experiment. Just a laser one will do for now to get an idea. Why haven’t they repeated this simple experiment? It is now 2016. Come on, let’s call Teed out. Let’s repeat it. Let’s join Steve in texas and call him out.

            I look forward to your participation in the new rectilineator experiment.

            NASA’s are not.

            No more debating if you say stuff like this. The info is there on my blog and all over YouTube. Their fraud is self-evident.

            Can you tell me when NASA has been caught lying? From my side, they weren’t lying about landing on the moon, or orbiting the earth, or the earth being spherical, so don’t use any of those. You must find and instance of them irrefutably lying, that also shows a tendency to lie to the public. Don’t use information from another conspiracy theorist, because that is biased.

            Do you read my blog or forum or have you mislaid your spectacles? Do you visit YouTube or cluesforum perhaps? Do you think bubbles in space, non-zero gravity hair-dos and scuba tanks the norm to mention lots of other shenanigans? Just wondering where you stand? 🙂 Or rather how far the deniability can go.

            The footage comes from NASA themselves.

            View Comment
  7. Observer says:

    New supposedly authentic video of 120km.

    Of course it’s faked, so analyzing it proves nothing about reality.

    Still, it’s interesting that the creators of this particular “120km” hoax video decided to have (as other videos on this page have also shown) the depiction of earth mainly as convex, but then sometimes flopping to concave, but such flip flopping can NOT be explained by “fisheye” because such changing flip-flopping of shape is NOT the distortion which fish-eye lenses create.

    The fish-eye lens distortion pattern remains steady, it doesn’t change while filming, it is constant: a flat wall in front of you will appear to become a convex ball with the bulge coming towards you right in the center, so the center details look extra bug, and the edge details (all the 4 edges, and most especially the 4 corners) look extra small. That pattern can be seen in this photo: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Vlg_shop.jpg

    So, we all know what fish-eye footage looks like, and how the slight bulge in the center remains steady. So it doesn’t make sense that any actual 100km footage would show any flip-flopping.

    But hey, this is the stance they are taking: that “one hundred kilometer elevation, and beyond, into ‘space’ ‘orbit’ ‘videos’ logically depicted the earth as flopping back and forth, from convex to concave, with of course the subsequent ‘in-between’ moments in which a pause there would show a moment of ‘flat’. Yep, these videos prove and disprove all 3 theories at the same time. Yep, these videos must be real.”

    I don’t know. Maybe ALL of these flip-flopping videos are faked, perhaps NO real people have ever actually sent their own personal camera up a hundred kilometers, ever.

    Perhaps since we see these video (hoaxes) of “people who done did it, for real, amateurs, honest” we wrongly assume, “OH, so its been done, 100lm cam footage, and this is what it looks like. Flip-flopping. Interesting. Now let’s just assume that this video, and the other 20 or so similar videos, all depicting flip-flopping, are authentic. Yeah let’s assume that this is what happens when a camera is sent to 100 kilometers. Flip flopping. OK, so know we need to create, based on this ‘footage’ a theory of WHY light supposedly hitting and bouncing off of the earth would flip-flop from convex to concave. Hmmm…”

    But wait, if these videos are all fake, matching each other in this flip-flop aspect, then we would be silly to assume that any theory about reality should be created around the video, since we have no first hand proof of personally gaining our own rocket’s actual footage.

    For an example of the flip-flopping, pause this “120km” video at 1 minute and 6 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEwKOeCj0jU

    View Comment
  8. Donald Sarty says:

    Great revision of this aticle, nice work WH, good to see you caught the nasa boys faking them earth photos, my guess is they can only get pics of earth from below the firmament and not thousands or hundreds of miles away, maybe some advanced orb technology or similar going above the firmament, still all the continents they show us might be fabricated, Africa still looks small in all the images, high probability they cannot get a photo of earths true scale unless past the Karman line or further so fabricate it, nasa sure are a lazy lot too, it’s like they want to be caught lying, i wonder if anyone in nasa has acquired a way to get a true photo, great charade they have us on, best detective story ever
    Thanks for all you do WH, thorough

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      best detective story ever

      Isn’t it just. This is the greatest game in Earth. And we have a ring side seat, or rather we are in the ring playing. That is why it is best not to get mad at them. They provide the difficulty level and all the fun to begin with.

      What happens is the industry gives the marketing department the raw but rectified images, who then spruce them up and present a few of them to the public. If there is a chance of a heliocentric promotion in there somewhere they will go for it.

      We must always thank Steve for the glass sky though. Without it, most of this blog would not have been possible. There is no way in a million years I would have come across that little gem. I bet the military are really surprised by that revelation especially as it led on to a clear understanding of what the Sun actually is. The concave Earth always had a very slight chance of a revival after 1897, but the glass sky and sulfur lamp sun… no way. That was one in a million.

      View Comment
      • R.E. says:

        Hi Wild Heretic. The bible talks about a glass sky, the celestial sphere, planets that are gemstones, a sun that compasses the earth, and three heavens, one of which is Satan’s domain.

        Sounds far out I know, but it’s the very first thing I thought of when I read your site (wonderful site btw). So, if not Steve then someone else would speak up eventually. If people everywhere knew that God exists and has a good plan for their lives (Jerimiah 29:11), nobody would live in abject fear and poverty and hatred. Instead, people would be personally empowered friends of their Creator. There would be nobody to build Babel and enrich the few. There would be abundance, but no profiteering. It actually IS possible to profit and prosper without oppressing an underclass.

        How do you pluck a benevolent creator from the heart of every person? Tell them they are a cosmic accident – a genetic bot – accountable only to their own lusts. Conceal the actual structure of our universe from them.

        View Comment
        • R.E. says:

          Replying to my own comment – there are other scriptures that confound unless a skycentric earth model is considered. Then the “equation” is elegantly solved. For instance, when Jesus spent 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth. There is still, 2,000 years later, ongoing debate about how to account for his trip to hell AND heaven in those 3 days, and just what the heart of the earth means. If one presupposes a heliocentric vast universe model, the scriptures function like a riddle. But I think a skycentric model does away with the confusion. I’ll have to look into it more.

          If anyone is interested, this is the 3 days, 3 nights riddle of the bible.

          If the heart of the earth is not underground, but heavenward (we are told that Jesus went to heaven after his body died, then returned to earth. We are also told he was “in the heart of the earth” at that time. Could this be the same place? Christians believe this means he was in sheol / hell, because what else could it mean?), this makes a bit more sense. The bible also refers often to people “IN the earth.” I always thought that phrasing was odd. It’s not odd though if we are in fact IN the earth not on it.

          View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          It actually IS possible to profit and prosper without oppressing an underclass.

          Of course. That’s why I tend to think there is a metaphysical connection. I’m open to the idea that the “paranormal” world influences or “runs” this world more than we do. We are just here for the ride.

          One reason I heard for an artificial mechanical earth is that God doesn’t want us to know they exist and therefore take responsibility for our own actions. Another is that they don’t want us escaping and asking questions.

          View Comment
  9. mr Emte says:

    Excellent.. I’d say brilliant even…

    But im sure like me you believe it is not just information that hammers your theory home –

    As you have no conclusion.. Or right answer, you are rationally troubleshooting your reality… Which i truelly believe a very low percentage of us have the ability to do.

    Generally pre programed answers and easy justifications come from humans i breakdown my reality with.. I have 1,,maybe 2 humans in my life i can discuss such topics with without dense ridicule…

    Im a roadie, and i just spent my shift at Robbie Williams sydney concert , sitting on roadcases reading this article.

    Thanks..

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Very few look rationally at the anomalies because I honestly think the biggest reason is that people don’t have time. Most people are very busy either looking after kids, or working etc. Time is premium so they need answers quick and this is where NASA’s marketing arm comes in. The division of labour means that I do one job and someone else does theirs. Naturally a lot of humans are curious creatures and want to explore their environment around them, but we are too busy getting on with life. Therefore we need others to do the exploring for us – hence outer space and the rest. If they told us we live inside the Earth, then naturally people would say well, have you been outside yet? If not, a few private people with more time will do the exploring. If they said, yes we have been outside but it is out of bounds due to xyz reasons, then people would demand answers as to why and who and what etc.

      A vast outer space is a lot easier to manage man’s curiosity, especially when computers create programmes indistinguishable from reality. Then game on.

      I hope all is going well in Sydney and Robbie has a blinder.

      WH

      View Comment
  10. Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

    I’ve added the fake clouds find from cluesforum (near the end of the article).

    View Comment
  11. Jarre says:

    Walt Disney 1959 pushing the fake space ‘science’ to the public with this educational filmhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?t=42&v=n46Uhnkr1Lk

    View Comment
    • ProperGander says:

      http://www.polaris.iastate.edu/EveningStar/Unit4/unit4_sub2.htm

      The link above has an explanation that is seriously flawed.

      Newton or at least his followers, seem to ignore inconvenient things like centrifugal (a fictional) force and ballistics and yes even the force we call ‘gravity’ itself, when it suits them.

      We simply cannot replicate here on Earth the fantastic feats claimed by NASA and the like. If what they are showing us is somehow legit, which I doubt, it is using some kind of different technology and principles.

      The Newtonian explanation for orbits is absurd.

      “An object that falls to Earth at the same rate that Earth curves away from the object …”

      It seems to confuse terms.Or concepts. One concept is velocity or speed,in fact its acceleration. The other is the fact that the Earth is a globe in this theory. The curvature of the Earth and the acceleration due to falling are two different concepts and a curvature of say 8 inches a mile does not equate to a velocity in any way I can figure. Maybe its me.

      Objects fall towards the center of mass and not around the Earth. Last time I checked what went up came straight down barring wind or other unforeseen forces. Like say a bird bumping into the ball thrown up.

      Ballistic physics is pretty clear and simple. The horizontal and vertical motions are figured independent of each other. All a horizontal motion means is just that- an additional direction of motion. The object still falls vertically at the same rate whether moving horizontally or not.

      Centrifugal force is also simple. Take the boundary away (like losing the bonds of gravity) and the stuff in the centrifuge goes flying off in a straight line, unless effected by some other force, say the gravity of the Sun. Just like the stone being flung out of David sling at Goliath.

      Once the rotation is of sufficient velocity, gravity is negated. Video on YOUTUBE of candle flames (and other things like water tanks) being spun in circles shows clearly what I am getting at. There’s a formula for this and its pretty simple.

      Newton’s explanation for the celestial orbits could never be tested in here on Earth. In fact any experiment that made use of centrifugal forces and ballistics will quickly show how this idea is not grounded in empirical science other than presumptions based on viewing celestial ‘objects’.

      Just read up on basic everyday engineer-able physics and consider how irrational the mainstream patch work of astrophysics actually is.

      The orbital velocity needed would cause the orbiting object to be flung off into space as gravity would be negated by ‘centrifugal’ force. Any velocity less, the object falls back to Earth at that lesser rate which still ends up increasing anyway.

      Energy would need to be constantly expended to maintain an orbit and I’d think the thrust would best be away from the Earth, not in a direction perpendicular to its surface.

      When one gets into the mainstream concept of escape velocity, one sees how this makes even less sense as the velocity needed to escape the effect of Earth’s gravity would preclude it from being able to ever attain or maintain an orbit, unless it could slow itself down.

      If somehow the ISS could be placed in an 18k mph orbit as we’ve been show, then the people on board would be subject to that illusionary centrifugal force, just like someone in a car doing circles in a parking lot. Newton’s first law applies. But hey Newton can forget his own laws when he wants.

      In fact, and to repeat myself, the space station, the space shuttle and any floating astronauts would be either flung away from the Earth at some 18k mph or fall back to it since they lacked the velocity needed to escape gravity’s clutches. It cannot be both.

      We are shown astronauts in a zero g environment dependent upon gravity holding them in the very circular orbit that needs a force like gravity to maintain it. It is a contradiction in logic and reasoning. It turns gravity into a magical power that can do whatever the imagination requires without medium and without any limit.

      “We” can even use it to accelerate probes to even higher velocities to send them to places like asteroids and Pluto “We” simply skim them like stones off of the gravity of nearby planets. Gravity can be attractive and yet somehow act repulsive when needed to. Try to replicate this with some iron balls and magnets.

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        Just read up on basic everyday engineer-able physics and consider how irrational the mainstream patch work of astrophysics actually is.

        I had deep suspicions about this but never thought of looking into ballistics (which would have been the obvious thing to do). I’ve yet to properly look into astrophysics, but I have come across the simple mathematical makerupery to explain inconsistencies in a current theory (heliocentric theory), such as dark matter, black holes and all the rest. It gets to the point whereby it is better to start anew than to attempt to patch up an already dead patient. The first thing to do would be to carry out an experiment to determine the shape of the Earth (actual engineering and science) instead of making up a theory as to what they think reality should be. Luckily that was carried out in 1897 and so we have a great scientific basis to move forward. A repetition would be nice, but we can get to that later. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IinxfgwR0w

        In fact, and to repeat myself, the space station, the space shuttle and any floating astronauts would be either flung away from the Earth at some 18k mph or fall back to it since they lacked the velocity needed to escape gravity’s clutches. It cannot be both.

        I get you. Like water being pushed against a spinning container, it is being pushed away. Can water in a spinning bucket maintain that magical middle ground of “floating” between the center and the edge of the container? I don’t think it is possible, is it? It is the same for a ball on a string as you say. I can’t picture a middle ground of floating. I guess they would say that gravity is the string, but that is a terrible analogy.

        WH

        View Comment
      • ProperGander says:

        Rockets not working in vacuum:

        http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/12/foghorn/ask-foghorn-how-much-does-barrel-length-matter/

        Ballistics shows why rockets in vacuum are problematic.

        On long gun barrels:

        “The second function is less obvious, but the longer a bullet is in the barrel the faster it will fly (and the faster it flies the farther it will go). The expanding gases from the gunpowder are only able to act upon the bullet while it is in the barrel and pushing it along, and the second the bullet leaves the barrel it starts dropping and slowing down. If you take this to the extreme (say, a 2 mile barrel with a 5.56 round) eventually the friction of moving down the barrel will be greater than the force of the expanding gasses and the bullet will stop, but barrels become impractical to move and aim long before they reach that point. Which brings us to the main point of this article…”

        View Comment
    • ProperGander says:

      Walt Disney began hosting his own television show for ABC in 1954 in an unusual contract: Disney provided ABC with a weekly hour-long television program in exchange for funding for the construction of Disneyland.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWJrvT9sTPk

      View Comment
  12. Alexa says:

    Hello,

    I just wanted to say that, while I don’t subscribe to the concave theory, but the standard ol’ we’re-outside-the-ball-but-I-think-it’s-hollow theory, yours is probably the most well researched and thought out series of arguments I’ve encountered. I’m always looking for people that can show why they believe what they do, because while I may not agree, at least I can see why they DO believe it.

    So, you have this passer by’s respect, and I’ll be reading your stuff for a while.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Thanks Alexa.

      I’m still revising the old stuff and adding to the new lot every now and then. Geostationary and polar satellites are the next two articles coming up followed by rockets and then a revision of the glass sky etc. Eventually I’ll get round to doing some actual experiments such as looking at ships on the horizon with different magnification and ISO settings etc.

      View Comment
  13. R.E. says:

    Wait – so no icy firmament? Why hasn’t Steve objected? : >

    View Comment
  14. Pingback: The Hubble Telescope Hoax | Plane Not A Planet

  15. Sam says:

    Here is a BBC report on how important satellites are to our entire civilization. I mean its not like they use grocery brand tin foil similar to the kind used for cooking and stylish hats. In fact, NASA has created state of the art tin foil. Yes, much thicker than the Reynolds brand and the roll size is immensely wider. I think you need to get your facts straight. I not only saw the ISS fly over my house but I think I may have heard it too!~

    http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130609-the-day-without-satellites

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I think satellites exist, but the lie is in their deployment.

      I not only saw the ISS fly over my house but I think I may have heard it too!~

      Haha. Yeah, the ISS is a load of poo IMO.

      View Comment
      • Jacob Blaustein says:

        No what is poo-poo is some of your consipracy mongering such as this: “Don’t worry, we’ll send up our boys to the moon anyway. Hope we have thought of absolutely everything and our hypothetical calculations and theoretical heliocentric model are right. Pray for us Issac Newton, we are going “live” in two weeks with our very first attempt.” Because a monkey dying because it refused to eat or drink means that it is unsafe to go into space.
        More of your claims are debunked here: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=460004#p460004

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          They are full of shit and have been caught with their pants down with bubbles and perms in space for starters. If you believe they landed on the moon first time with no hitch then you are welcome to your non-sceptical beliefs.

          Skeptic forum need to grow a back bone and start thinking for themselves for a change instead of defending higher authorities 24/7.

          View Comment
          • Steve says:

            help is on the way… 😉

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Good stuff. 🙂

            I’m progressing too, but it will be a while unfortunately. 🙁

            View Comment
          • Steve says:

            they approved my posts at least…with a little peer pressure it seems. 😀

            http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=25380

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Cheers Steve. I’m glad you are going to these forums fighting the good fight. I never bother going on forums discussing concave earth usually. I didn’t even know about skeptics forum until a poster mentioned it. For me these people are a waste of time as this theory needs to be further developed onwards and upwards so they say, which in turn strengthens (or revises) our position. This takes up all my time. If people don’t take the time to research properly or have the intelligence to understand at least the possibility of living inside the Earth then that is their cage, not mine.

            I had a quick look on that thread on skeptics forum and they are way, way behind the times. They didn’t even bother to read the thesis. Talking about the horizon, not understanding the recilineator experiment and mentioning Gopro cameras and fish eye lens and lens flare. For goodness sake, this was all resolved and understood fairly quickly in 2013 with the help of other posters and further research. They need to read the comments and the thesis and your videos to get updated on our current understanding. I like their link to the Bedford canal experiment. They’ve no idea that that is a poor reproduction of Wilhelm Martin’s bendy light experiment. Maybe they haven’t read the article, or don’t understand it? I will talk about this canal experiment in the heliocentric article when the time comes.

            All the old articles are now being slowly revised and rewritten. I have three new articles brewing on satellites alone. The second wave of understanding is now being implemented in the old articles, but it takes time, especially if a massive rewrite is needed (aka satellites).

            View Comment
      • Jacob Blaustein says:

        Likewise your misunderstanding of heat convection is quite bad: The highly diluted gas in the thermosphere can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat. A normal thermometer would be significantly below 0 °C (32 °F), because the energy lost by thermal radiation would exceed the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact. In the anacoustic zone above 160 kilometres (99 mi), the density is so low that molecular interactions are too infrequent to permit the transmission of sound.
        IN other words, the temperature is due to the radiation hitting the GASES, but since it is so spread out that there is little to no heat convection. You think because the gases are so hot because of the radiation the same must be true of items shot up there, which isn’t the case.

        View Comment
      • ProperGander says:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLJpOAl2RRM

        Video about how rockets would not work in vacuum with a simple experiment that shows why this concept is not ‘crazy’.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Yes, I saw that. Very interesting. I personally think rockets are only really designed to go marginally above the glass. The initial momentum takes them over it, but I don’t think they can go too much higher because of the experiment in the above video.

          View Comment
  16. Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

    Corrected and added to this article.

    View Comment
  17. Please add this to your collection of animated gifs of air bubbles being released.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDGOti82TIM#t=01m22s

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STUyjTO8gQw#t=03m20s

    How much research have you done into Jesuitry and Popery? How are they involved in the deception with the shape of this planet? Is it possible if you can do an entry related to Jesuits and their continuous deception related to science?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Thanks for those. I am viewing them now. I haven’t looked into the jesuits, except perusing a couple of websites. At the moment I am more interested in getting everything together and doing a couple of practical experiments. “At the moment” equals the next couple of years.

      I’ll definitely add the first one.

      View Comment
  18. nimblehorse says:

    I’ve been doing word study of biblical scripture & i thought i would add to this thread with my observations >

    …In Genesis, the word ‘Firmament’ is the late medieval, English KJv translation of the Paleo-Hebrew word, ‘Raqia’ meaning, an Expanse.

    http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7549.htm

    View Comment
  19. Robert says:

    “Ahhh so it is a word game?” If anyone is playing a word game it would be you by using your own definitions to refute the explanation of orbiting objects.

    “We will see how they explain the lack of getting faster for their falling perhaps, or perhaps not.” I believe I have already explained that thoroughly. Anyone with a basic understanding of physics and what velocity and acceleration are should understand it.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      They use the word “falling” when it is not “falling”. It is them using false definitions. And wrong definitions is the very least of their falsehoods.

      View Comment
      • Jacob says:

        Now you are just projecting. That usually is the last resort of someone proven wrong.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          There is no orbiting how they define it. Just because they say there is, does not mean it is true. They’ve got gravity completely arseways for a start, but I didn’t bother going there as I wanted to see what theory they had to make up for their wrong model. There is no attractive property of mass IMO. They know all this anyway. Don’t sweat it, they don’t.

          View Comment
          • Jacob says:

            “There is no orbiting how they define it. Just because they say there is, does not mean it is true.” And what makes your definition correct? Because you say so? Because if so, then it’s a straw man argument.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            I don’t have a definition. They do, but they weren’t clear on what they meant by “falling”. Maybe you work for them and can clarify that definition. If not, then falling is just that, free-falling which is where an object gets faster and faster. If they don’t mean falling, then they should say so. They should say gravitational attraction and clarify the mechanism using that attraction exactly.

            This is all surface stuff though and is irrelevant anyway, as their model has been proven wrong. So unless you are their spokes engineer don’t pretend to know what their definition of “falling” is, because falling by its standard definition has an object getting faster and faster. Go write them an email and ask them to be more specific. They can write a more detailed definition of their orbiting mechanism on one of these comments to clear up the mess.

            View Comment
          • Jacob says:

            Here is a history for you to help you understand, and yes they say acceleration due to gravity and include direction in their definition of acceleration as well: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html
            Oh and they proved that yes gravity is an attractive property of mass: https://briankoberlein.com/2014/10/16/weighing-heaven/
            It seems that you base everything on asserting that you and you alone are right and everyone else lies in spite of the evidence.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html

            Ok. In fairness to “them”, they have defined “falling” as (supposedly) Newton’s theoretical conjecture with acceleration including a change of direction. Fair enough. Newton was a great man to guess that one correct eh? Good job the space industry fully validated his 17th century musings. Pity there is no evidence for such in the real world, but I will admit that that has been defined.

            https://briankoberlein.com/2014/10/16/weighing-heaven/

            You haven’t read this blog at all, have you? That is the Cavendish experiment.
            http://www.wildheretic.com/gravity-observations-and-theory/#Standard%20model

            It seems that you base everything on asserting that you and you alone are right and everyone else lies in spite of the evidence.

            All I know is that they are wrong. Read the blog. The Cavendish experiment is the only evidence for gravity as a property of mass. And it is a very poor one as 1. it does not isolate other possible causes, both known and unknown; and 2. has another just-as-good, if not better explanation, via push gravity – thanks to Joseph Winthrop.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkWubxqh270&list=PLWRzUSpfFKZ99DayZsunv9CkRbL_Gfqa0

            You see, just like the Coroilis “effect” etc. all the evidence of their model has another equally valid, if not more so, explanation. Their evidence is very, very weak because it cannot be isolated to one factor only, therefore it is not proof, but with the evidence standing on its own – a mere possibility. Other experimental gravitational anomalies would need to be looked at to determine which is the more likely model and maybe make a more educated best guess as to the exact cause of gravity. Of course, it is grossly unfair, as we have a massive head start knowing that the Earth is concave.

            I could equally state that the Cavendish experiment proves that gravity is a push, because it explains that mechanism well. But if I did that, I would be an arrogant idiot as there could be other theories to explain the effect such as static electricity, tectonic plate movements, magnetism, gravity as an attractive property of mass etc.

            View Comment
          • Jacob says:

            Since it seems I can’t respond anywhere else, I will write here that you argument goes that they don’t follow your definition and that your definition is all that matters correct? That is a straw man.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            I’m changing that part of the article to incorporate that new definition and introducing concave Earth. It has to be done as the concave Earth/glass sky is integral for the satellite article. I was hoping to introduce things in a linear fashion; but since everything is connected, then I guess not.

            View Comment
  20. Robert says:

    “Falling is an acceleration making those objects that have been orbiting for years travel many times the standard speed of light.” Wrong! You clearly do not have a good understanding of velocity and acceleration. They are both vector quantities, meaning they have both magnitude and direction. Velocity is speed and direction. Acceleration is a change in velocity, but not necessarily speed. If a moving object changes direction, then it has accelerated, even if it is moving at the same speed as before. If an object is moving in a circle at a constant speed (i.e. a satellite orbiting the Earth), then it is undergoing constant acceleration because its direction is constantly changing.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Falling is an acceleration, i.e. the falling object gets faster and faster until terminal velocity is reached. That is verifiable, at least up to a max 46km (space balloon height)

      An object moving around another object is not falling. Maybe in their definition these people are accelerating, but they aren’t falling.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1Ae0TpRZTc

      And if the space cadets want to claim satellites do the same, then all power to them, but in my opinion they need a better theory before they start to make shit up.

      View Comment
      • Robert says:

        Those people are not falling because their acceleration is not due to gravity. Your definition of falling – “…the falling object gets faster and faster until terminal velocity is reached” – is not correct. Falling, or free-fall, as it is used in this sense is an acceleration due to gravity. Again, that acceleration does not necessarily mean an increase in speed. In fact, if you throw a ball straight up, it is falling from the moment it leaves your hand even though initially it is slowing down. If an object is being accelerated by only the Earth’s gravity, then it is falling even if it’s speed is not increasing.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          You know I meant free-falling whether dropped from a height or the second part of a parabolic curve. There is a continuous increase of speed towards the Earth in either of those two situations. And when a rocket runs out of fuel it begins the second half of its parabolic curve. Funnily enough, not all stages of a rocket do fall back to Earth though: only the boosters, an impacted part of the payload fairing, and the very hardy parts of the stage 3/4 sections, which is a huge eye-opener as to what is really going on up there.

          View Comment
          • Robert says:

            “You know I meant free-falling whether dropped from a height or the second part of a parabolic curve.” If your definition of falling is different than their definition of falling then you cannot use your definition to argue against their explanation of how an object can orbit the Earth.

            You say their explanation isn’t plausible because the object is constantly falling and therefore constantly increasing in speed. Their (correct) use of falling is not synonymous with an increase in speed, therefore your argument doesn’t hold water.

            Maybe it would help if we didn’t use the word falling at all and just stuck with the definition -“being accelerated by Earth’s gravity”. Again, an acceleration does not necessarily mean an increase in speed, but can just be a change in direction. The satellite’s direction of motion is constantly being changed so it is constantly accelerating even though it’s speed is constant.

            In short, the Earth’s gravity is not increasing the speed of the satellite, but it is constantly changing it’s direction.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Ahhh so it is a word game? I thought as much. At least the next time I read space PR pieces in the newspapers they’ll get their definitions properly defined. We will see how they explain the lack of getting faster for their falling perhaps, or perhaps not.

            View Comment
      • Jacob says:

        Your definition seems to focus only on change in speed and not direction.
        http://physics.info/falling/
        Here falling is defined as acceleration due to gravity and it takes direction into account.
        Here’s an experiment that can help you understand: 1. Cut a piece of nylon to put around the rubber ball. 2. Tie one end of a 3-foot length of string around the nylon. 3. Hold the other end of the string and begin to whirl the ball over your head. The ball is held in its “orbit” around your head by the string, which is similar to the force of gravity that pulls satellites toward the Earth. The forward motion of the ball is its momentum. If the “gravity” of the string were not acting on the ball, the ball would continue in one direction. The swinging of the ball gives it its forward motion. When these two forces are equal, the ball remains in orbit, without falling into or flying away from the Earth (you). A satellite’s forward motion is controlled by rockets. When the rockets are not fired, inertia keeps the satellite going in one direction. 4. Discuss other examples of momentum and gravity, for example, swinging a bucket of water over your head without getting drenched; or riding amusement park rides where you turn upside down or in a loop without falling out. 5. Let go of the string. What happens? (The ball flies outward, since gravity is now equal to zero.)

        Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-satellites-stay-in-orbit-free-fall-or-centripetal.114962/page-2

        View Comment
    • Andrew says:

      If orbit meant acceleration due to a changing vector then there would be no free fall ie zero force ie floating around in zero G due to centrifugal forces. The premise is false, you can’t have both ways.

      View Comment
      • Robert says:

        Andrew, I understand you to mean that objects inside the satellite (or spacecraft) would not experience zero G. They absolutely would because Earth’s gravity is accelerating (changing their vector) exactly the same as it is the satellite.

        View Comment
        • Andrew says:

          It’s the premise that you seem to accept that is in question here, about even so-called “orbits” in the first place. I don’t accept that as that the is very false NASA propaganda that is under question here.
          The brainwashing runs so deep that we have to go back to the start. You must know we don’t even need so called satellites as all this stuff can be done with ground based technology and CGI.

          View Comment
  21. Daniel says:

    I brought up the question why the the satellite’s atoms wouldn’t heat up while the theromosphere’s gas would.

    The rebuttal was that the surface area of the satellite was too small, that the thermosphere reached those temperatures due to wide surface.

    Your thoughts?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      What is the surface area of a molecule of gas compared to the satellite? Haha. It is the Sun heating up that one gas molecule as it is the Sun heating up one (and obviously more) molecule of that satellite. That gas molecule has more energy and now so do the individual molecules of the satellite.

      It’s not even a counter argument as it makes zero sense.

      The real question should be (I’ve looked into this and I am 90% convinced) why does the temperature of those few gas molecules quickly shoot up after 100km, and yet it is -80C at the top of the mesosphere near 100km high, a mere +/-10km below 110km high which is 200C? I’m not 100% sure, but the main culprit (official answer) seems to be that above 100km (the glass) there is a very large increase in solar radiation across the spectrum (ultraviolet to infrared), especially in the ultraviolet light range (UV-c), which heats up (has more energy) even more than infrared. The closer to the sun an object gets, the more intense the heat and nowhere for the heat to move away except through radiation.

      View Comment
      • BlueMoon says:

        You’re right, that argument makes zero sense. That’s because it’s not the real reason.
        The actual reason is that gas molecules have very low mass and the rays that they’re exposed to up there have no trouble heating them up to absurdly high temperatures. However, since the gas is so thin up there, those high temperatures account for very little heat energy. The real energy is from sunlight, and the spacecraft’s thermal control system is designed to handle it by keeping a high albedo and radiating heat away.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          You’re right, that argument makes zero sense. That’s because it’s not the real reason.
          The actual reason is that gas molecules have very low mass and the rays that they’re exposed to up there have no trouble heating them up to absurdly high temperatures. However, since the gas is so thin up there, those high temperatures account for very little heat energy.

          Yes. The heat comes from the Sun (and/or glass) and also possibly the electric radiation up there than the actual gas molecules.

          The real energy is from sunlight, and the spacecraft’s thermal control system is designed to handle it by keeping a high albedo and radiating heat away.

          How does it radiate the heat away? I understand if a spacecraft is super insulted like the shuttle or super reflective like the sun, but I’m not sure how a spacecraft could radiate the heat away.

          View Comment
  22. Daniel says:

    link to part 2 is missing

    View Comment
  23. Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

    I’ve revised part one and two. I’m halfway through a new part 3 on satellites. Will let you know when that is published.

    View Comment
  24. R.E. says:

    I don’t even know if super-filtered water would look so clear. I wonder if they have to distill all that water and keep all items immaculate to avoid the warped “underwater” appearance complete with the odd floating debris. Distilled water is the only type with that super clear appearance; dense, heavy and not prone to bubbles. I have a tabletop distiller which takes several hours to process one gallon. Quite an undertaking.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I too have a tabletop distiller for cooking and tea and coffee because I live in Ireland which for some strange reason dumps a fertilizer waste product in the public water supply – one of the components of which is hydrofluorosilicic acid, amongst many others.

      It’s water alright. They are in their swimming pool. We have video of bubbles. They very likely edit out any bubbles post production (especially from the scuba guys), but sometimes one bubble gets past them undetected. Maybe their water is (semi-)heavy water from the nuclear industry? Probably not.

      For the actual range of the shots, the water Looks clear enough to me. Don’t forget, it is also extremely lit up. Whether the brightness is added post production or in the pool, I’ve no idea.
      http://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/sm4/art/multimedia/NBL/hi/NBL2_hi.jpg
      http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/9-12/features/F_Astronauts_Take_Dive.html

      https://www.google.ie/search?q=nasa+underwater+pool+water&client=firefox&hs=eOU&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=QWXoVJHALIbzUJvtg7AG&ved=0CDQQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=664#imgdii=wIeXVRfVl5HWlM%3A%3BOXNEnTfYN9V84M%3BwIeXVRfVl5HWlM%3A&imgrc=wIeXVRfVl5HWlM%253A%3BXa6RHw75aEurAM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fupload.wikimedia.org%252Fwikipedia%252Fen%252F7%252F78%252FNasa_astronaut_training_at_NBL.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fforum.micdoodle8.com%252Findex.php%253Fthreads%252Fbreath-underwater-with-oxygen-mask.2622%252F%3B3072%3B2048

      Whether they use the above swimming pool or another one we don’t know about, I’m not sure. Post production will of course add the blackness and the Earth globe background so the swimming pool walls aren’t detected. That is obvious though. I’m not a movie technician, so I have no expertise in such areas.

      View Comment
      • R.E. says:

        Right I do agree that NASA fakes just about everything and I agree about the bubbles. I’m just wondering aloud, imagining that they distill the thousands of gallons of water to get it so clear (filtered water has tiny bubbles and particulates). Wherever they film this, they have the means to distill large amounts of water, I’m guessing. Some of the bubbles at Cluesforum are big and obvious.

        Their official NASA site is pretty revealing. As of five years ago (maybe they have since changed as there is more Internet awareness of their hoaxing) they use artist rendered (paintings) or computer animation in place if photos of Earth – and they state this openly. Why do they feel it necessary to use fake images in places of satellite, authentic ones? We here know why! It’s not an issue of cloud cover, because in these created images, there is significant cloud cover on the globe obscuring the continents. If you think about it, NASA is stuck right now: whereas they pass off paintings of Earth from a distance as the real thing, there are too many eyes watching especially with the Internet now, so they have to disclose their faked images as renderings. If they try to pass these images off as authentic, their house of lies comes crumbling down.

        What initially confused me was WHY NASA fakes so many Earth images, but many star images may be real. Much of it makes sense now.

        There are so many people who are now aware of NASA (and other countries’ space agencies) hoaxing. Cluesforum is one place that points out the various hoaxes, as you know. Cluesforum is where I first heard of “them” faking launches; posters on that site allege that NASA reuses identical launch footage. There may be authentic astronauts, but actors are also used.

        Most people do not know WHY NASA fakes so many things, and their imagination runs wild, or they get stuck on the moon hoax and never look at the bigger picture. Still, many people would sooner believe that the ground beneath them is traveling at red hot speeds through space in several directions, and 1.6 million miles per day – yet not encountering significant meteors and not a cloud, satellite or sunlight out of place.

        View Comment
        • R.E. says:

          To clarify: I do know about composite photo imagery, which is different than what I’m referencing, which is more like animation.

          View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Separating the wheat from the chaff is no easy feat. I don’t like to throw the baby out with the bathwater and so I am redoing part one and two of this article which will be published at the same time. My opinion is that there is space marketing and “space” industry. Occasionally they overlap, but it is the marketing side that is the hoax which involves supporting the orbiting lie. The industry just puts tech such as satellites on the glass. I’ve looked at ICBMs launching satellites, and just like the shuttle, they quickly become near horizontal around the time the boosters are ejected and the camera cuts off at around 100km. They are not going much higher at all. I’ll be going into this in much more detail in part 2, just finishing off part 1 in the next couple of days which highlights the fraud part.

          View Comment
          • R.E. says:

            I live next to a rocket launch facility and I have observed what you are saying to be true: rockets do travel at a severe angle when launched but there are several explanations offered for that. To my eye, rockets are sideways before they reach 30,000 feet which is the average jet cruising height.

            It’s a little amazing that there appears to be a small handful of us who 1) know about the NASA lies and 2) also know that the lies are to maintain a fictional model of our universe (and not to bilk money. The people at the top of the lie have a license to print money. The lies COST them resources, time, frustration).

            For anyone reading this, check out http://www.cluesforum.com and read the NASA hoaxing threads if interested. I don’t recommend creating an account to comment unless you have a thick skin though: I joined a few years ago to comment and was accused of being a shill on my first post and was called names. It was just bad timing I think – they had just busted someone right before I joined.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Yes, it is hard to figure at what altitude they are at. They only thing we have is the rough altimeter shown on a few of those videos. Without it, there can be only guesswork. If we knew the speed of the rocket and the unedited time of the video, we could work out a rough estimate of the arc maybe. A bit much for me. What they all show though, is that their fuel attachments are jettisoned whilst they are practically horizontal at the end of these videos. This must mean that from that point onwards they aren’t going much higher as only momentum is now moving them across and slightly upwards. My best guess is deploying tech on the glass.

            2. Yes, that’s it. I don’t know if this model reinforcement is another layer of promotion to keep us looking the wrong way (fake alien invasion plan perhaps) or is it because it would be too much of a culture shock to reveal the 180 degree truth that a lot of careers would be in trouble and people wouldn’t believe them. I’m not sure saying there’s a glass layer up there at 100km and you live inside the Earth would be too much. Or is it because they want everyone to be kind of atheist, or something like that? A lot of possibilities.

            I like cluesforum, but it can be a little overzealous at times because its reason of being and momentum is that what is being studied is fake. So if a thread “Are dinosaurs fake?” starts off 50/50, you can 100% guarantee the thread will end with “yes they are fake”. It’s the nature of the beast which is fine. As long as the info is there, all is good.

            I think I read your thread. Something about perspectives of background signs and buildings along a street if I remember. I think Heiwa also got booted, but he contributed a lot.

            View Comment
          • kk says:

            This was fascinating. I was in college when the Columbia disaster happened, you should look into that investigation; key word: Richard Feynman. Also, look into the companies that build satellites, own satellites, launch satellites, manage satellite … How many people do they employ? Great Work, keep it up.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            I’m doing that right now with the satellite thing and finding some interesting titbits for a theory I’m putting together that satellites are really resting on the glass. I took a week off the blog to get the (hopefully soon) edible garden in order (Easter hols combined with good weather). I’ll be posting it as two very large articles, one on effects (mostly images and the radiometers that sense them) and deployment (rockets mostly). I have a “reverse meteorite” image of a rocket as it hits the ice/glass. I’m quite busy, but hopefully in the next few weeks I can get them done.

            View Comment
  25. Surge says:

    I would LOVE it if you installed a newsletter system or added feedburner to your site so I could subscribe and get announcements of when you post. Your work is turning my head inside out happily.

    View Comment
  26. Robert Sissons says:

    For us simpletons can you provide a conclusion for your arguments?
    For instance are you saying that because of the thermosphere that we didn’t land anyone on the moon or that manned rockets before 1978 were a hoax? Thanks.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Yes. Exactly that. Unless the thermosphere isn’t really hot up there at all due to infra red light having a disappearing stars effect. I’d say it probably is very hot up there though due to white hot meteorites etc.

      View Comment
  27. sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

    SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
    Problems in astronomy and biology

    Manned balloon capabilities for astronomical observations
    http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1958PASP…70…69S&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

    Some old data that has some interesting info on manned balloon flights using the MANHIGH capsule back in 1957 and observing the atmosphere above 🙂

    View Comment
  28. scud says:

    Hi chaps.

    Most excellent digging on Judith Resnik! and a heads up that the always excellent proprietor of SC has duly noted and posted… http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=935&start=705#p2393699

    Hmm, Judy love, NASA…anyone. What’s goin’ on?!

    Whilst I’m here I was keen on a bit of feedback from the clues blokes as to my take on a possible fake launch scenario to keep distant residents of Cape Canaveral sweet that everything was indeed as kosher as made out on TV. http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1735#p2392595

    Dunno, quite likely the rather crude drawing I produced is a bit confusing (it’s a cross section to reveal scaled internals). Whatever, it’s been over two months wait and still no response so I was wondering if you guys had any thoughts…the basic premise being that if we’re not going anywhere near ‘space’ then what the hells the point of building gigantic and profit sucking rockets to please the casual ‘live’ but distant observer.

    Cheers fellas!

    Scud.

    View Comment
  29. Skepticon says:

    I have always been curious what the true range of a Saturn V rocket was. I watched a video of an amateur launch by Steve Eves who set the record for the highest amateur rocket launch. He had a scale model of the Saturn V with a size ratio of 10:1. Here is video link to the launch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj4lj6YSwzg#t=97

    Now the altitude was nearly a mile high for this launch and I wondered to myself, if given a 10:1 ratio of size would the same ratio apply proportionally for altitude in larger sized rockets? If true this would send the Saturn V up only ten miles. They may be trying to fool the people on the ground by having the rocket arc horizontally to show that it is not going as high as one expects. I have a hard time believing that the first stage of the Saturn V goes up 40 miles. I wonder if there is any altitude to mass ratios that could be correlated in the amateur rocketry arena that might help us to measure what the real limits of the Saturn V were?

    View Comment
  30. dymaxion says:

    From Above – Astronaut Photography with Don Pettit

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rwt3kMivZk4

    Just thought this clip would interest you.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Cluesforum looked at the night time images of Earth that look like a computer graphic (that’s because they are) and found the street light densities to be totally wrong, which I agree with. You’ll find their analysis on their forum somewhere. All images from NASA above about 40km are a disgrace.

      There is no video or film of a camera attached to a rocket or space shuttle from take off to “orbit” or “orbit” (really the peak of the parabola flight) to landing. That in itself is a huge red flag. All we get are animations like the ones above. They have a good video of a shuttle launch until the booster rockets detach. It looks very similar to the amateur balloon videos and therefore genuine (even they themselves said that there were no tricks involved in that video, which is a strange thing to say in itself). Everything else they show of space stations in orbit etc. looks very, very different and like an animation.

      View Comment
    • sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

      ANIMATED Earth where the clouds don’t morph at night, in awesome HD LOL
      You have to pay attention to morphing clouds, THE (crescent)MOON(where is it), Lightning flash on the dark side of ISS feed, the list goes on and on, the ISS is NOT in space, it’s so easy to believe lies than the truth, sad to say

      View Comment
  31. dandate2 says:

    Love how Virgin Galactic exploded. Probably since they can’t get to space, they just collected tons of fees that won’t be refunded and blew it up on purpose to permanently scrap the missoin.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I thought there was something fishy about the whole thing. Didn’t another commercial space flight supposedly blow up as well?

      View Comment
    • R.E. says:

      Yes I wondered how they would get in front of commercial space travel. Billionaires conspiring to fuck it up so that no investors would go near it sounds about right.

      View Comment
  32. Saros says:

    Check this out -> http://www2.tate.org.uk/space/webcam.htm
    The satellite is orbiting at approx 400km from earth in a polar to polar orbit. The satellite orbits earth every 92.56 mins. It has been engineered to cover the globe in 15.56 orbits – 1 day.

    Just wait till you see the live images 🙂
    You can see the Earth as a tiny marble planet even though the satellite is supposedly only at 400 km altitude! How can they even dare claim such preposterous things? Not to mention that the ‘images’ appear totally bogus…

    View Comment
  33. Pingback: The Disappearing Stars by Wild Heretic | AETHERFORCE

  34. Mo says:

    Hi, how actually are Satellites supposed to navigate and modify their velocity in space? As far as I know, there is vacuum in space, so which medium serves as a counterforce? Wouldn`t they simply be doomed to float at the same velocity they entered the vacuum at, until they would reach a medium they can put force against?

    What is the official explanation on how Satellites get in their position, and how it is such that they get positioned to move, in the case of geostationary satellites, exactly at the same speed as the earth? If it is explained by supposed gravity, how do they then place and maintain non-geostationary satellites?

    Thanks!

    Btw: When is your next article coming out? In early spring, you said in a few weeks, and now its almost october. You also said to change the ridulous avatar pictures. I noticed that now some people, like you, have serious pictures, but most do not. How is that? Thanks in any case for all your work!

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Things got delayed as I found new stuff out. The good news is that it won’t be one article, but nine coming out at once. I’ve managed to split the one article up which is a lot better. After the nine articles, there will be just two or perhaps three more concerning the concave Earth. I’m just doing the menus and summaries to the nine articles now and making sure they read as nine separate articles instead of just one.

      I’m not sure about the avatars. I uploaded a plugin for a forum I was doing and it stuck.

      WH

      View Comment
  35. Pingback: North - South - Page 14

  36. scud says:

    Regards NASA’s ‘space shuttle’ and its apparent ability to break through the Karman line.

    To my mind, if CET is correct (and each and every day I’m more convinced than ever that it is) then there can be no man made ‘orbiters’ of any kind, past or present let alone ‘inter-planetary’ missions.

    The ‘space shuttle’ (just as an example) acquires a supposed linear speed relative to Earth’s surface of around 17,500 mp/h to cancel out the effects of ‘gravity’ via centripetal acceleration, more commonly known as ‘centrifugal force’ at a certain altitude…you can check this out here – http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/newtonian/centrifugal

    Punch in a radius of 6753 Km (Earth’s plus 375Km average altitude of ‘space shuttle / ISS’) and linear speed as above and a result of 0.924’g’ is produced. I’m sure you’ll agree that this ‘centrifugal force’ result is very close to an absolute counter to what we feel at Earth’s surface, plus the altitude above and we really are talking the ‘micro-gravity’ that sees our intrepid asstronots and everything else not bolted down, floating around apparently weightless…it’s not like they haven’t thought about this!

    Now, turn the whole thing around with the space shuttle orbiting +/- 375Km above the INTERIOR surface of a sphere at the same speed and what do we have?
    Correct, the exact opposite force! A linear speed of 17,500 mp/h will make our asstronots almost twice as ‘heavy’ as they are on a relatively stationary Earth and most certainly won’t be performing the ludicrous acrobatics as seen on TV!…
    http://www.grantrobinson.com/projects/wall-of-death/img/WallOfDeath_006.jpg

    So, it seems to me that anyone putting faith into the ideas of concave earth theory should by default, regard ALL stories of space travel be it from NASA or any other as total bunkum. There’s a reason for it you know and ain’t just about the money…

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Hi Scud.

      Nice to hear from you again. Yes, I too don’t believe any man-made objects orbit the Earth. Whatever goes up from the ground, comes down. I think the space shuttle just does a parabolic flight. I do think there could be sun-orbiting objects which are just bits of the Sun to have come off that are termed stars, asteroids and comets etc. I did a kitchen-top experiment with a stick blender and the largest water-filled pot I have. I dropped some objects in the middle of the vortex; first some round frozen peas and they stuck to that inside part of the vortex (near the centre). Strangely enough, 2 kidney shaped objects (a garlic clove and a kidney bean) went around the stick in an elliptical fashion nearly hitting the edge of the pot at each end. An egg couldn’t decide what to do. It often skimmed the edge pointing towards the centre and then sometimes got sucked into the absolute centre with its edge always pointing to the centre.

      I’m not saying water is the aether or anything, but I was looking for some loose clue as to what could be going on in that area. I don’t think the spinning aether itself pushes any solid object around like a water vortex does, for example, but it is the precession of the spin that turns the Sun around. That’s what I am including in the next article at any rate. It’s too difficult to tell at the juncture where I am at. The glass in the sky being balanced (pushed on all sides) may rotate (according to LSC at least). I haven’t looked into the last point but it looks promising.

      Because I get gravity as an gyroscopic/vortexian aether push, at the moment I think there is slightly less gravity (pressure) further up, but nothing to write home about where the said max altitude on the curve (around 300km) of the space shuttle is concerned. I can’t see them getting remotely close to the Sun to try and get into the tiny central low pressure area inside the Sun’s precession where I think the stars reside, especially as the Sun is always shining through the centre in my CET model.

      I welcome any readers wanting to do the stick blender test with different shaped objects but just watch out for overheating and breaking the weak plastic ridges of the stick that connect to the motor which I did.

      There’s a lot more research needed here to get a better picture though. These are very early days and I’ll have to crawl first, before I can walk. Step by step and see where it leads us.

      WH

      View Comment
  37. Daniel Date says:

    My friend says that heat is a property of matter and since there is a lack of matter the temperature does not matter, only reflecting the light.

    What do you think?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Yes. And what are the orbiting machines made out of? Drum roll… matter.

      Heat is transferred by conduction, convection and radiation.

      “Thermal radiation is energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot”), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum.”

      http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html

      Radiation travels through a vacuum. It has to; otherwise we would feel no heat from the Sun; the vacuum of space would stop it.

      I understand the conundrum though. With no air pressure (vacuum) it should be extremely freezing, but the closer to the Sun we get, the more thermal radiation is absorbed and these machines are supposed to be orbiting 24/7 for years on end. If they are made of material that is highly infra-red reflective then they could radiate the heat away and shine like a diamond in the sky, but most of their supposed material isn’t. (It may only be an issue after we get a few km past the glass and start to get closer to the Sun; at least according to calculations on thermal radiation which the thermosphere is based on (which is what that altitude chart in the article suggests).

      Here is one establishment answer whether true or not:

      Objects receiving heat from the sun without any protective thermal insulation (like from our earth’s atmosphere or a space suit) can get very hot. Objects in shadows that are blocked from the sun’s radiation will quickly lose heat to the colder surroundings unless they have some type of thermal insulation or another heat source.

      This is why astronauts outside of the earth’s atmosphere must have thermal insulation in their space suits and in their space vehicles. To keep them cool when they are exposed to the sun’s direct rays and to keep them warm when they are outside of the sun’s direct rays.

      Todd Clark, Office of Science
      U.S. Department of Energy

      and

      “When you are in space, there is no atmosphere around you. Thus, IR radiation is not deflected away at all… so sunlight is a lot more intense than on Earth.”

      http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01681.htm

      View Comment
      • sollan says:

        So when reading the “thermosphere” (sry don’t know how to link) on Wikipedia, it sais that, all tho the atmosphere is 2500 degrees C, there isn’t enough matter up there to transfer this heat TO us in any significant amount. which i tend to agree with. But………..

        There isn’t much matter to transfer heat FROM us either, through convection or conduction, In fact if we come in contact with any of this sparse matter it is far hotter than our body heat an thus we wont transfer any heat away from us anyway (get colder).

        So in a vacuum, convection and conduction don’t exist, you won’t get hotter (OR COLDER) using these transfer methods at all.

        In a vacuum (or the virtual vacuum of the thermosphere) your only heat transfer option is electromagnetic (thermal) radiation. Your body temperature is solely dependent on how much you are radiating verse how much thermal radiation you are receiving. Yep. In “space” you are duking it out with the sun in a radiation battle.

        the solar constant is 1.36 kilowatts per m2 in “space”, this is an immense amount of radiation. 1.36kw is far more than a spaceship or human body could radiate per m2 at normal operating temperatures.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Hi sollan, that’s my take on it too. The only way they can get out of it is by saying that the thermosphere is only calculated and not verified (is it?) and so maybe it doesn’t exist etc. or it exists, but is very weak due to the “disappearing stars effect”. Seems unlikely though. Those meteorites look nice and white hot, as well as the space shuttle coming back to earth.

          View Comment
    • charles gordon says:

      When i fly in airplane at 35,000 the it’s super cold yes? But when i go higher at what altitude does does start to reverse and go toward the hotter temps?

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        About 10km above the glass apparently (I think; must check that).

        View Comment
      • sceppy says:

        charles gordon June 21, 2014 at 7:07 am
        When i fly in airplane at 35,000 the it’s super cold yes? But when i go higher at what altitude does does start to reverse and go toward the hotter temps?

        The simple fact is, it doesn’t. The higher up you go, the less pressure there is, which means there is less vibration of molecules and this is the key.
        At sea level, the air pressure is around 15 psi, give or take. It’s packed with condensed molecules under agitation due to the heat of the sun.
        We feel that agitation of dense molecules on our skin. It’s like picturing billions of tiny people rubbing your skin and the hotter the sun radiating into those molecules, determines how fast they rub against your skin, making you feel hot, in which your body’s reaction is to be a fireman and pour water on it to cool down, as in, you sweat.

        High into the sky, the molecules are expanded and become extremely less, so they are under minor agitation, which does virtually nothing against your skin, making you feel cold, because they cannot agitate under pressure on your skin, which makes your body do it for them by agitating itself, which you know as trembling/chattering.
        The problem is, if it’s prolonged, your body uses up all it’s energy too fast in trying to keep your insides warm, which is when you get hypothermia and is why people who have it, take their clothes off because their bodies are literally under super heat inside, even though outside, the skin is basically dying and blue/black.
        It’s your body’s last line of defence by keeping the major organs alive.

        I don’t believe in space. I don’t think space exists past the ice dome…but let’s assume we go with the official line and its got some scattered matter, somehow. Basically it would be neither hot or cold, as none would exist, due to what I’ve just explained.

        It basically renders any craft in it, pointless; a fantasy. It cannot happen.
        No matter, no life, at all. Just suspended animation. Nothing freely moves in it but cells can grow into it. Earth is a cell.

        I know people don’t believe in an ice dome covering Earth – but a bit of thought can change that if people are prepared to open their minds and look at the basics first.

        Take a look at high mountains and ask yourself why they are always full of snow and ice. It’s because of what I explained earlier about less pressure and more expanded molecules. Even the sun cannot melt the snow fast enough, because it cannot agitate the molecules with enough force like it can under sea level pressure.

        All molecules/matter are attached just like soap bubbles. No voids between them at any time, just condensed and expanded matter under agitation, which is all that’s happening, as in the smaller condensed molecules are expanding out of each other and being pushed up but causing friction as they do so.

        View Comment
        • panos says:

          ”Take a look at high mountains and ask yourself why they are always full of snow and ice. It’s because of what I explained earlier about less pressure and more expanded molecules. Even the sun cannot melt the snow fast enough, because it cannot agitate the molecules with enough force like it can under sea level pressure.”

          Makes great sense

          I have a (noob) question here.

          Why it is considered that poles(covered in thick snow) have higher air pressure than the rest of the earth?

          View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            I didn’t know that about the poles having higher air pressure than the rest of the Earth. That would tie in with gravity being pressure as the closer to the poles we go the slightly stronger gravity becomes.

            I understand the pressure conundrum with temperatures in space. I think it works well for the increasingly thin atmosphere under the glass, but above it where there is no air pressure at all from 100km to 6000km and thereby no increasing factor (i.e. an steadily thinner atmosphere) which will increasingly counter the increasing radiation from the Sun , the closer to the Sun we go, the more intense the radiation, therefore the hotter it becomes.

            View Comment
          • Awaken Cheese says:

            I don`t believe there is that much snow/ice in Antarctica, there must be a reason why they hiding from public that continent that much.. Maybe you can see moon very closely down there, or its like Siberia, very winter, and hot summer. They 100% lie about it.. About all we know.. You can say, well..we can go to Antarctica yourself.. well, try it!

            View Comment
        • kevin says:

          Thanks for pointing this out so I don’t have to. Roughly 3 degrees per 1000 feet is the temperature drop as you go away from the surface of the earth.
          Space has no temperature. Period. It’s vacuum. Only matter in that space can hold a temperature. Convection and conduction don’t heat things up in space to the only way to heat up an object is through radiation.
          With radiation, if an object takes on more photons that it lest off, then it heats up. If it lets go of more photons than it takes on, it cools. Given the amount of radiation from the sun and the distance, when in orbit around earth, the most something will be heated up is toughly 265 degrees celsius. That’s in direct sunlight. If there are layers separated by vacuum or even other inert gasses like nitrogen, then that heat transfers very slowy to the inside of something like a space suit. If you put a wooden board in space and put a thermometer on each side, you woud find one side work up quickly to about 265C while the other side drops to -100C. If you turn the board around they will very rapidly reverse.
          But I’m sure no amount of proven experiment or logic can sway you from this elaborate pointless position. The good news is that in your lifetime commercial space flight will be a reality and you’ll be able to see for yourself. Or maybe not. Maybe you’ll instead insist that you were rendered unconscious and brainwashed during that time period to be fooled into believing the lie which…….would be a pointless lie and would be counterproductive to the entire human species to believe such an ignorant lie.

          View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Given the amount of radiation from the sun and the distance, when in orbit around earth, the most something will be heated up is toughly 265 degrees celsius. That’s in direct sunlight.

            Maybe. Although I thought that an object that takes on more and more photons (as it cannot release the “photons” at the same rate it absorbs them) gets continually hotter until the material evaporates. Perhaps that part of heat theory is wrong.

            If you put a wooden board in space and put a thermometer on each side, you would find one side work up quickly to about 265C while the other side drops to -100C. If you turn the board around they will very rapidly reverse.

            Maybe that is true.

            But I’m sure no amount of proven experiment or logic can sway you from this elaborate pointless position.

            What experiment? Please link me to one. I’ll test that theory myself the next time I am swimming on the glass… oh wait only the space industry is able to do that.

            The good news is that in your lifetime commercial space flight will be a reality and you’ll be able to see for yourself.

            Fabulous. And there is me thinking that it is only the navy that get to dive in space.

            Maybe you’ll instead insist that you were rendered unconscious and brainwashed during that time period to be fooled into believing the lie which…….would be a pointless lie and would be counterproductive to the entire human species to believe such an ignorant lie.

            Maybe you are a shill.

            View Comment
  38. Saros says:

    Here is an interesting article offering an alternative to satellites – tethered ultra-high altitude balloons 🙂 I actually wonder whether similar technology isn’t being used presently too instead of the famed space satellites.
    http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=5966806

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Good find Saros. Certainly a possibility.

      View Comment
    • Skepticon says:

      Have you heard about the huge Mylar balloons Bell Labs put up in the 60’s called Echo 1 and Echo 2. They were equipped with solar panels, batteries and telecommunications. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Echo

      Echo 1 was sent up in 1963 and came down in 1968. Five years.
      Echo 2 was sent up in 1964 and came down in 1969. Five years.
      SkyLab was allegedly sent up in 1973 – 1979. Six years

      Echo 1 and 2 could be seen from the ground. So could the alleged SkyLab. I wonder if any pattern emerges?

      View Comment
      • Skepticon says:

        I further wish to add that the Nickel Cadmium rechargeable batteries that were used with the balloons Echo 1&2 had a reported shelf life of five years. Obviously that would factor into their retirement. Now with the alleged SkyLab we might also wonder if given that it was retired in a five-six year period could it have been because of the batteries. If SkyLab wasn’t a Mylar balloon like Echo 1&2 then theoretically this space lab could have been replenished. But the arbitrary decision to scrap a reported billion dollar skylab project was taken by Joseph P. Loftus, Jr.

        I wonder what the back ground was for this NASA captain?

        Well, he grew up in Washington, D.C., a small suburb of town called Greenbelt, Maryland, and went to Jesuit High School in Washington, D.C., Gonzaga. When he left there, he went in the seminary for three years. There had been several members of his father and mother’s family who had been clergy. But he decided, after three years, that that wasn’t for him. So he went to Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., then, to complete his undergraduate work.

        View Comment
        • Skepticon says:

          It seems the FAA were interested in the maximum heights that Mylar balloons could reach so they contracted a dutch company to test the results under laboratory settings. The maximum height these Mylar balloons were tested to achieve was 4650 meters or 4.5 km. https://www.balloonhq.com/faq/deco_releases/blnstudy.html#testandresults

          So if the Echo balloons were orbiting at that height rather than the 1000 km height stated in a international space science symposium, then it would be possible to view these balloons from the ground. Given a 1000:1 ratio in perspective they would look quite small along the skyline and due to their shiny metallic surface reflect the ambient light of the sky at night. Here is an amateur video of what very well might be one of these large Mylar balloons that one might assume is the ISS.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaPQqCofwQc

          View Comment
  39. Nico Haupt says:

    mini’nu|chronology’ attempt of océanographie [and hydrography (n.) //1655.0+ (etc.), shows Humans are only 365+x years old

    View Comment
  40. sumstuff52 says:

    A little fuel for the fire ?

    NASA’s Amazing Shuttle Hoax
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qa_fjldQV8

    It doesn’t get any better than this Shuttle Fakery, the delicate flimsy design of the space shuttle and it’s rocket, the shuttle attached to it’s main rocket with 2 small struts at the front, impossible

    JUNGLE SURFER
    https://www.youtube.com

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I think the original analysis came from cluesforum.info if I remember right. The bolt at the front couldn’t have been supporting their weight in my book at least. But I think I remember seeing a huge ball and socket joint at the back of the shuttle but it is a while since I looked at that now so I can’t say for sure. There are a few fake landing videos of the shuttle though which are laughable.

      View Comment
  41. Ian Goss says:

    Something I thought of many months back….

    ‘Satellite’ TV dishes on houses etc ….. it may be possible to infer what they are pointing at from their angle.

    In the UK they point almost horizontally, and due south. ( thats what I assume from the angle of their reflectors).
    Incidently, many many sat dishes point at a wall, having little or no line of sight to anything. Suggesting they are picking up quite a long wave signal that will bend and bounce I guess.

    They do seem to point roughly whare you would expect them to for satellites in equitorial geostationary positions. ( I need to check details of alledged distance from earth, and re-visit the 3D thought exp of what angle a dish needs to point from UK to hit their signal.

    I spose if attached to glass sky sats were used, they could be put at the correct lat./longitude to give impression of geostationary sats. …but then …different regions would need a few different ATS sats to create that illusion.

    Anyhow, this sat dish thing must throw something up …

    View Comment
    • Ian Goss says:

      I would think that sat dishes near the equator should point straight up or near enough……anyone know? google street view?

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        I think cluesforum had some info on that. Someone looked at images of equatorial cities to see the angle of the dishes. My sat dish points South East I think.

        View Comment
        • Ian Goss says:

          I just found a ‘satsig’ site that gives angles of elevation etc for certain sateliites for whatever position on earth,,. I’ll check out cluesforum as well. So far, none of the locations I checked ( from canada thru south america) go above 50 degrees elevation for the dish.

          View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Good work Ian. That’s a good indication that they are receiving the signal from a transmitter or from a signal bounced off the ionosphere.

            A fast moving satellite seems so bizarre and difficult to send a signal. It would mean there must be a lot of satellites in the same line of orbit to keep the signal strong as the dish is stationary only pointing in one direction… it isn’t following anything in the sky.

            What direction do the dishes point at? Different ones? It is south-east with me.

            View Comment
  42. suddenlyitsobvious says:

    JimSmithinChiapas said:

    ‘Are you aware that NASA isn’t the only space agency in the world? Are you seriously claiming that the Soviets (now Russians), the Chinese, and (at least) half a dozen other countries are in on this supposed lie?’

    Aaah, it’s the same old issue…how can so many people be in on the ‘CONSPIRACY’.

    This is the question that is always asked by those who have first decided that nothing could possibly be off about anything authority tells them.
    However, thinking and discerning people tend to notice that A LOT is off about what authority tells them, basically EEVEERYTHING, in fact…

    The Soviet Union was set up by Wall Street and you know who. Just check the ethnicity of 90% or so of the Bolshevic apparatus, or the origins of the very ideology.

    And by that same token, does the MAOIST system appear to you as something with eminently CHINESE roots?

    The logic of nation states competing for a piece of the cake is designed for the gullible. All heads of states have been put in their place by the stringpullers since ages.
    If this wasn’t the case, countries in the middle east would hav been using their oil as leverage since ages, wouldn’t they?

    Of course, the iron curtain was selectively porous all along and the Mutually Assured Destruction meme ESPCIALLY assured that people in the West were living in terror, wherefore government agencies had carte blanche, and national security was invoked to cover up ANYTHING that needed covering up = pretty much everything.

    The first ‘space tests’ were done in the former SU because there was no free press there, so thy could rehearse the illusion they were gonna pull of in the States, AS WELL AS create public support for the fake moonlanding and space programs: BEATING THE SOVIETS TO IT.

    EVERYTHING DURING THE 50s, 60s and 70s was about this.

    All world leaders are part of the ‘grand chessboard’, and the chessboard represents ALL nations. They’ve been controlled sinc centuries.

    When Ahmadinejad states he’s gonna wipe some country off the map, he is stating this because he’s BEEN TOLD TO.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Yes, I found out about the selectively porous “iron curtain” when I was introduced to someone whose parents left Soviet Russia in the 70s to live in Frankfurt Germany. They weren’t persecuted, just emigrated for a better life. I won’t say anymore as I don’t want to go down that road, but I think you know how.

      “The first ‘space tests’ were done in the former SU because there was no free press there, so thy could rehearse the illusion they were gonna pull of in the States, AS WELL AS create public support for the fake moonlanding and space programs: BEATING THE SOVIETS TO IT.”

      I like that theory. Makes a lot of sense. Use an unimportant place as a testbed before the real show.

      “When Ahmadinejad states he’s gonna wipe some country off the map, he is stating this because he’s BEEN TOLD TO.”

      Do they actually even say it or is it just the press release which claimed they did?

      View Comment
  43. Saros says:

    Isn’t it possible to design an experiment to prove without a shadow of a doubt that the Earth is concave and that the current cosmological model is fake? It seems whatever we write, question, discuss or prove has little or no effect on the established paradigm and people’s thinking. People continue to think of the universe, the Earth and themselves the old way. Therefore, concrete, solid evidence needs to presented to completely refute the current model, and in a way, that would convince even the biggest skeptics. This really needs more attention. If true, it has to be made public.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Saros, you need to team up with thewordwatcher, as he is also thinking on your lines with devising an experiment.

      At the moment I am no use in this regard as I am concentrating on the next article.

      In my own opinion I think the establishment would just ignore us as they did Teed and Morrow, but it would still be a positive move in the right direction with showing other people the Earth’s true shape, especially with some good promotion like youtube videos etc.

      View Comment
    • Marcin says:

      How about this:
      We all can create a website that only a members will have access to.
      We will report daily there about:
      -stars movement, location
      -clouds (chemtrails, full city covered up)
      -the Sun
      -the Moon
      etc

      I see a picture of a world map in my head where we will be adding -points of interests- with additional pictures, recordings, text.

      How is that? Anyone up for the challenge?

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        A forum perhaps? Maybe after I’ve finished the next article, I could put one up on this website. Not exactly what you had in mind, but close.

        View Comment
  44. Hmmm..
    I guess… solar panels are working nicely without a Sun, correct? Or ISS does not have a power at night!? 🙂

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      Solar panels could power batteries, but we don’t need to speculate on that. I’ll add an update to this article soon to include another near impossible contradiction.

      View Comment
  45. JimSmithInChiapas says:

    “How do we know the thermosphere exists at all? It isn’t verifiable and it isn’t observable by any means.

    The problem is, why would NASA lie about such a thing when it completely disproves their portrayed fantasies of the last 44 years.”

    Are you aware that NASA isn’t the only space agency in the world? Are you seriously claiming that the Soviets (now Russians), the Chinese, and (at least) half a dozen other countries are in on this supposed lie?

    Or is it perhaps more likely that they’re telling the truth, and your understanding of heat transfer is wrong? After all, look how badly you blundered in your first two “pieces of solid evidence” in http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      “Are you aware that NASA isn’t the only space agency in the world? Are you seriously claiming that the Soviets (now Russians), the Chinese, and (at least) half a dozen other countries are in on this supposed lie?”

      Nothing surer. The Chinese made a mess of their first “spacewalk” in 2008 which stopped all further planned shenanigans I’m sure. They should have left the bullshit to the NASA magicians, they have several decades experience on them, plus the best software. I’m sure they were consulted, but hey it can be hard to get it right the first time. They couldn’t do what America did and broadcast fuzzy images of the “moon landing” after all. NASA still messes up however with several instances of “bubbles” in space and other such hilarities.

      The fact that the EU, Russia, China, and America are all in on it tragically suggests are much broader conspiracy which points to something far deeper. Another article perhaps. The footage generally all comes out of America however.

      “Or is it perhaps more likely that they’re telling the truth, and your understanding of heat transfer is wrong? After all, look how badly you blundered in your first two “pieces of solid evidence” in http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/.”

      Hahaha. Blundered? I made one careless completely inconsequential error, and a false claim at the beginning regarding Exhibit B post edit. That does not defer from the fact that heliocentricity is completely proven garbage.

      And suggesting I am wrong on the thermosphere because I made two inconsequential mistakes in another article is very low of you. Why didn’t you point out where I went wrong with the thermosphere article? Because you can’t. Are the laws of heat different in space? Hey, maybe for some magical reason they are, which means it can be a free for all for any theory whatsoever making any old bullshit true.

      Now I have even more great evidence that those orbiting machines are totally bogus (again thanks to John Galt and our mutual friend Issac Newton), but more on that in my next article.

      View Comment
  46. Pingback: maillot italie

    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      “maillot italie…

      Very excellent prepared report. It will be supportive to any person who makes use of it, which includes me. Maintain carrying out what you are undertaking a?? cana??r wait around to go through much more posts….”

      Thanks for the praise maillot. I can’t post your comment for some reason. Must be a bug in one of the trackback plugins. The next article is a huge one and very outlandish. That is why it is taking me so long. I have most of it done though.

      View Comment