SH Archive Stars, Galaxies, Planets: how do we know what they are?

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Schism
Date: 2019-10-04 17:53:01
Reaction Score: 10

I am not a concave earth proponent, but think I can answer your question anyhow. There is a limit - regardless of the type of telescope or the shape of the earth - on how far we can see through the atmosphere. While our atmosphere appears "see through," it is not. There is moisture, dirt, smoke, smog, etc. in the air and the further away you are, the less you will be able to see.

Hey, thanks for your response. I won't get into my credentials and/or experience level regarding telescopes, our atmosphere, etc, but I would have to completely disagree with your thoughts regarding why a decent telescope could not see the distance we are talking about through our atmosphere. I can look at stars, the moon, planet's, etc, directly on our horizon with some sort of
decent magnification and still see those objects perfectly fine.

Generally speaking, the horizon is where we find the most atmospheric distortion due to its density, etc, rather than looking straight up.

On a side note, I just came back from a trip to one of the most dark places one can get to, AKA, near zero light pollution. I brought some comet watching binoculars, and a military grade gen3 night vision unit that set me back 3500.00. I did many observations over the month I was there, and I would encourage anyone that has the time to do those kind of observations to do so.

I handed my gen3 to my sister, and she looked around at the night sky, and was like, OMG, you can't see a fraction of what I'm seeing with your naked eye.

We were lucky enough to catch the northern lights on the trip. They were amazing through the gen3 as well. You could see bands, waves, curtains, etc, that you could not see with the naked eye too.

It was an amazing trip, and right on the shoreline of a reservoir on the missouri river that has a coastline longer than the coastline of California. Needless to say, I performed many experiments, and made many observations while I was there.

 

[feralimal]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Feralimal
Date: 2019-10-04 17:55:20
Reaction Score: 1

om the article: It was only Parmitano's second time out on a spacewalk and just an hour into it his helmet filled with several liters of water, giving him no way of clearing his eyes, nose or mouth –- something no one at NASA had seen before.

Could be one of those 'muddy the waters' articles that are created to provide Google et al with the opportunity to direct searches for say 'underwater spacewalk' away from conspiracies and towards articles that maintain the common narrative.

 

[Dielectric]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Dielectric
Date: 2019-10-05 03:14:15
Reaction Score: 6

Astronaut's Near-Drowning Could Have Been Avoided

i've wondered if we're in a bubble

It's a theory, just an idea to kick around. But here's an article about an astronaut drowning in space.

Well we are inside of several bubbles by any reasonable account. Not to be Mr. Knowitall but I've been researching an area close to this for a long time.

Here's what I think we can be relatively sure about. One, near space is a vacuum and we know this because people have sent helium balloons upwards of 90+K feet with camera's and video recorders, and at around about 90+K feet the balloons expand to the bursting point because they are being exposed to a vacuum which literally pulls them outwards till they pop. So we know that around about 18 miles up is about where a space vacuum begins to form which is fairly strong. The real issue for me is what causes the vacuum?

There are reasons space is compared to a fluid, and specifically a super-fluid, but this is very likely an intentional devised misconception being forwarded as part of an on-going dis-information campaign. This fluid, if it is a fluid, is probably more like an energy field, which is an ocean of energy which the Universe resides in. So not just the Milky Way Galaxy we live in, but all the Galaxies of the Universe all reside in this energy field.
However, because of it's nature it's not detectable except by magnets and a few other devices.

So this isn't intended to refute any notions that there may be a liquid of sorts in space. We just do not know enough at this point. However, here's some other information the Powers that be really do not want you to know about. I know this for a fact because Google has made the following site almost impossible to locate with a simple search. Bookmark it is my advice. Research Kapitza.
Kapitza Superfluid Jet Powered Spider Galaxy Cosmology Model

So from my research in to so-called antigravity, it became clear to me that before the turn of the last century there was a firm idea about the nature of what caused gravity, and that idea was that there was an energy which behaved like a liquid but wasn't a liquid and was unknown. Whatever it was, it behaved like both a liquid and an energy because it was a dielectric energetic field, whatever it is, it at least seems to be that much.

So this concept launched a search to create the most liquid or fluid of substances, which was known to be helium. Pyotr Leonidovich Kapitsa or Peter Kapitza, along with Rutherford worked to create a means to create large amounts of liquid helium in order to study the behavior of a liquid helium, and which later was then developed in to Helium II/III and IV. These being so-called superfluids. So a superfluid is very difficult to contain. The gist of the idea I'm trying to communicate is that it was known by no later than the 1920/30's that gravity, or weight in mass, was caused by some kind of energy which behaved like a fluid, but was not a fluid, and which flowed into and around a mass and that behavior is what caused weight in mass.
So you see, the goal was antigravity, and that really is the inescapable conclusion for me.

Notice that by 1941 some special scientists understood the causative reasons for galactic rotation and thereby could deduce other explanations. *See the link to understand this more clearly.

Out of this comes the notion that there's a counterspatial energetic field of unknown energies which fill the Universe. Paul Dirac's Sea's of energy became a manipulative tool in the hands of organized education and so today the parrots of the PTB babble about dark energy, dark matter, quasi-crystals, and of course quantum this, quantum that, and such that every other word is a quantum thingy. This is all Einsteinian mind control information so beware is my advice.

The point is that there is history which is traceable to the idea that space is an ocean, it's liquidity, or superfluidity, but this is a misunderstanding of the reality and which has and still is being exploited.

Space is by definition distance: OK? This distance is produced by us being caught in a slowed or perturbed area of this other counterspace which is a sea of energies, most of which we know nothing about, and that sea of energy is calculated to be moving several billions of times the speed of light. What happens is that our perception of space, this darkness thingy out there which stretches forever, well it's like a shadow. You know how your shadow can be cast really long? It's something akin to that. This energy field when slowed causes us to perceive a shadow cast off which we see as distance, and darkness. In other words, it's an illusion, because if you can enter or attach yourself to this hyper-space, hyperspatial energetic field moving at billions of times the speed of light, then most all of these shadows shrink to the base true line the same as a shadow shrinks to your own feet when he sun is overhead.

Teleportation is a result of connection to the superfluidity of this hyper-velocity energetic ocean. They know this, they don't want you to know it too, and that's why we have all these certified mathematical minded criminals colluding with the PTB. So anyways, space is not a fluid, not so far as we know just yet, but it does behave like a superfluid.

I'm not ruling out that a ruptured space suit couldn't itself have the necessary gases to cause a reactive action that results in the formation of water. Again, it's not unthinkable because we simply have been told so many non-truths whose to say?

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Schism
Date: 2019-10-05 03:56:51
Reaction Score: 1

Think about it. The fourth one is a death blow to the flat earth model as it shows both at once.

This thread veered off from the OP, and was never shut down, so I can't help but give my two cents like many others did.

I think the pic's and videos you posted are a death blow to many, if not all alternative earth shape theories, and I appreciate you sharing them with everyone. Just my opinion of course.

Do I know what stars, galaxies, and planets really are? Nope, I've never been to any of them places, but they sure are cool to look at.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Manwich
Date: 2019-10-05 06:44:28
Reaction Score: 5

Only people lie.

The patterns the stars make cannot be replicated on a flat earth model. Impossible. There is no way this can happen in the southern hemisphere unless the earth is round, either concave or convex. The first photo was taken in Australia. The second in South Africa. The third in Chile.
How can this happen on a flat earth?
Think about it. The fourth one is a death blow to the flat earth model as it shows both at once.

AView attachment 30314
View attachment 30315
View attachment 30318
View attachment 30316

Here is a video of more star trails at the equator

Photographers all over the world are now making these images. It's real.

Now look at the model of the flat earth and think "how can this occur with this model?"

View attachment 30319

How can there be southern polar vortexes without a south pole? You couldn't see it in all three locations, as there is no south pole in the flat earth model. So there would need to be at least three different south pole shows to pull this trick off. And what would we see on the sandwich islands or some other island in between these "shows." They would cross over and it would all jumble together. No one has ever reported or photographed anything like that and there have been numerous south sea journeys over several centuries, and also airplane flights. Someone surely would have noticed and reported this strange phenomenon.

Look at the map.
In the photo that was taken in Australia, the polar show in South Africa would be facing west not south! And the one in Chile would be opposite, or beyond the north polar star trails. That would be breaking news for sure!

When you put some thought into it, the north pole star trails would not be possible on the flat earth model either, because you'd have a similar issue viewing it from different locales; Russia, Canada, England would all have different angles as well. The star patterns would look different from every locale.

People in the southern hemisphere see completely different constellations than we do here in the north.
How can one explain this fact on a flat earth? You'd easily be able to see all of the stars in both hemispheres as there is no separation between them in the flat earth model, and we clearly can't see all the constellations from any point in the earth.

On a side note, do you really think the southern hemisphere is that distorted? I think the people who live in Australia would take great offense to this squished map of their homeland.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Lot's more evidence disproving the flat earth.

Let me add that I have nothing against flat-earthers.
I like the fact they aren't buying the propaganda and are bold enough to look for a better solution. I just think they sometimes look at evidence without really comprehending what they are seeing. There are much better options...

The concave earth, on the other hand is a working model, and I feel has be proven based on tangible evidence. I have found many examples that indicate, if not downright prove a concave earth is reality. And it has also been shown to be possible with mathematics.

I just thought I would add some extra information. Nothing has been said about the lens distortion on the cameras which kinda debunks these pictures. Normally when we think of wide angle lenses we think of Barrel Distortion. Look at the example.

But there is something called a Pincushion Distortion which looks like this.

I am not an expert but I have been looking into flat earth for a very long time. Every picture taken in nature will vary depending on the humidity, pressure, temp, etc. The first couple pics you have show the perfect rings which were taken pointing at Polaris, and works on the flat earth model. But the 4th picture you have, if you picture the flat earth model, you pointed out that these pictures (showing opposite rotations) were taken from our most southern countries. So they would be furthest away from center north or Polaris. As you move away from the center, the rings get larger and larger. So taking pictures of the largest rings at the bottom of the dome would make them look like they weren't rings but almost horizontal lines. If they took the pictures looking east or west those same lines would appear more diagonal/vertical (like your 4th pic)(You can see the top right of the photo it looks like the small ring polaris makes, but if its taken where they say it was, they wouldn't be able to see polaris. So it's obvious lens distortion). The camera lens could distort those straight lines causing Pincushion distortion, which is what you see in the pics in that slide show video. imo

One thing I advise against when researching the shape of earth is looking at the sky to prove what we're standing on. That's how we got in this mess in the first place with Newton. Anyway keep questioning everything.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Tracey
Date: 2019-10-05 13:09:33
Reaction Score: 1

Astronaut's Near-Drowning Could Have Been Avoided


Well we are inside of several bubbles by any reasonable account. Not to be Mr. Knowitall but I've been researching an area close to this for a long time.

Here's what I think we can be relatively sure about. One, near space is a vacuum and we know this because people have sent helium balloons upwards of 90+K feet with camera's and video recorders, and at around about 90+K feet the balloons expand to the bursting point because they are being exposed to a vacuum which literally pulls them outwards till they pop. So we know that around about 18 miles up is about where a space vacuum begins to form which is fairly strong. The real issue for me is what causes the vacuum?

There are reasons space is compared to a fluid, and specifically a super-fluid, but this is very likely an intentional devised misconception being forwarded as part of an on-going dis-information campaign. This fluid, if it is a fluid, is probably more like an energy field, which is an ocean of energy which the Universe resides in. So not just the Milky Way Galaxy we live in, but all the Galaxies of the Universe all reside in this energy field.
However, because of it's nature it's not detectable except by magnets and a few other devices.

So this isn't intended to refute any notions that there may be a liquid of sorts in space. We just do not know enough at this point. However, here's some other information the Powers that be really do not want you to know about. I know this for a fact because Google has made the following site almost impossible to locate with a simple search. Bookmark it is my advice. Research Kapitza.
Kapitza Superfluid Jet Powered Spider Galaxy Cosmology Model

So from my research in to so-called antigravity, it became clear to me that before the turn of the last century there was a firm idea about the nature of what caused gravity, and that idea was that there was an energy which behaved like a liquid but wasn't a liquid and was unknown. Whatever it was, it behaved like both a liquid and an energy because it was a dielectric energetic field, whatever it is, it at least seems to be that much.

So this concept launched a search to create the most liquid or fluid of substances, which was known to be helium. Pyotr Leonidovich Kapitsa or Peter Kapitza, along with Rutherford worked to create a means to create large amounts of liquid helium in order to study the behavior of a liquid helium, and which later was then developed in to Helium II/III and IV. These being so-called superfluids. So a superfluid is very difficult to contain. The gist of the idea I'm trying to communicate is that it was known by no later than the 1920/30's that gravity, or weight in mass, was caused by some kind of energy which behaved like a fluid, but was not a fluid, and which flowed into and around a mass and that behavior is what caused weight in mass.
So you see, the goal was antigravity, and that really is the inescapable conclusion for me.

Notice that by 1941 some special scientists understood the causative reasons for galactic rotation and thereby could deduce other explanations. *See the link to understand this more clearly.

View attachment 30673

Out of this comes the notion that there's a counterspatial energetic field of unknown energies which fill the Universe. Paul Dirac's Sea's of energy became a manipulative tool in the hands of organized education and so today the parrots of the PTB babble about dark energy, dark matter, quasi-crystals, and of course quantum this, quantum that, and such that every other word is a quantum thingy. This is all Einsteinian mind control information so beware is my advice.

The point is that there is history which is traceable to the idea that space is an ocean, it's liquidity, or superfluidity, but this is a misunderstanding of the reality and which has and still is being exploited.

Space is by definition distance: OK? This distance is produced by us being caught in a slowed or perturbed area of this other counterspace which is a sea of energies, most of which we know nothing about, and that sea of energy is calculated to be moving several billions of times the speed of light. What happens is that our perception of space, this darkness thingy out there which stretches forever, well it's like a shadow. You know how your shadow can be cast really long? It's something akin to that. This energy field when slowed causes us to perceive a shadow cast off which we see as distance, and darkness. In other words, it's an illusion, because if you can enter or attach yourself to this hyper-space, hyperspatial energetic field moving at billions of times the speed of light, then most all of these shadows shrink to the base true line the same as a shadow shrinks to your own feet when he sun is overhead.

Teleportation is a result of connection to the superfluidity of this hyper-velocity energetic ocean. They know this, they don't want you to know it too, and that's why we have all these certified mathematical minded criminals colluding with the PTB. So anyways, space is not a fluid, not so far as we know just yet, but it does behave like a superfluid.

I'm not ruling out that a ruptured space suit couldn't itself have the necessary gases to cause a reactive action that results in the formation of water. Again, it's not unthinkable because we simply have been told so many non-truths whose to say?

All interesting points. The earth could also be a magnetic torus and the magnetic pull causes rotation of the earth or a firmament. Perhaps the vacuum you speak of is a torroidial vortex. This is a video of a weather balloon rising above the earth until it runs into a barrier.

 

[toybrandon]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: toybrandon
Date: 2019-10-07 00:46:47
Reaction Score: 1

Hey, thanks for your response. I won't get into my credentials and/or experience level regarding telescopes, our atmosphere, etc, but I would have to completely disagree with your thoughts regarding why a decent telescope could not see the distance we are talking about through our atmosphere. I can look at stars, the moon, planet's, etc, directly on our horizon with some sort of
decent magnification and still see those objects perfectly fine.

Generally speaking, the horizon is where we find the most atmospheric distortion due to its density, etc, rather than looking straight up.

On a side note, I just came back from a trip to one of the most dark places one can get to, AKA, near zero light pollution. I brought some comet watching binoculars, and a military grade gen3 night vision unit that set me back 3500.00. I did many observations over the month I was there, and I would encourage anyone that has the time to do those kind of observations to do so.

I handed my gen3 to my sister, and she looked around at the night sky, and was like, OMG, you can't see a fraction of what I'm seeing with your naked eye.

We were lucky enough to catch the northern lights on the trip. They were amazing through the gen3 as well. You could see bands, waves, curtains, etc, that you could not see with the naked eye too.

It was an amazing trip, and right on the shoreline of a reservoir on the missouri river that has a coastline longer than the coastline of California. Needless to say, I performed many experiments, and made many observations while I was there.

That's fantastic that you are out there doing your own observations! I would be interested in seeing your results.

However, the distortion of distant objects through the atmosphere is a well established fact. I don't think that is even in question. Even at distances or heights that would be visible on any model, atmospheric conditions will occlude objects on the horizon. This Skunk Bay time-lapse demonstrates some of the effects that have been observed (I skipped the intro to avoid the music):

The original question was regarding seeing objects through a telescope from across the "bowl". I interpreted that to mean long distances, such as across the ocean or across a continent. In that case, do you think we should be able to see objects at that distance, that close to the ground, if the earth were flat or concave? I can see that on a concave earth, because - like the stars - you would be looking at a non-zero declination, so you wouldn't be going through as long a distance of lower atmosphere, which is indeed much denser. However, you said you have observed stars at the horizon. Do you have any examples of this you could share?

There is also the matter of the actual distances to the stars. In my opinion, that question is unanswered.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Schism
Date: 2019-10-07 02:03:29
Reaction Score: 1

That's fantastic that you are out there doing your own observations! I would be interested in seeing your results.

However, the distortion of distant objects through the atmosphere is a well established fact. I don't think that is even in question. Even at distances or heights that would be visible on any model, atmospheric conditions will occlude objects on the horizon. This Skunk Bay time-lapse demonstrates some of the effects that have been observed (I skipped the intro to avoid the music):


The original question was regarding seeing objects through a telescope from across the "bowl". I interpreted that to mean long distances, such as across the ocean or across a continent. In that case, do you think we should be able to see objects at that distance, that close to the ground, if the earth were flat or concave? I can see that on a concave earth, because - like the stars - you would be looking at a non-zero declination, so you wouldn't be going through as long a distance of lower atmosphere, which is indeed much denser. However, you said you have observed stars at the horizon. Do you have any examples of this you could share?

There is also the matter of the actual distances to the stars. In my opinion, that question is unanswered.

I hear you on all that my friend. I honestly think a new thread would be proper to continue this discussion. That's a big part of why I haven't posted in this thread any further up to this point. I know KD hates seeing threads derailed, especially his own, and I understand that.

Cheers

 

[Dielectric]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Dielectric
Date: 2019-10-07 05:54:22
Reaction Score: 1

The balloon encounters a vacuum and expands till it bursts. The barrier is the vacuum. What causes the vacuum is a whole other topic, but the same force which propels the Jet Spider is also the same energy which creates a magnetic field, and all gravity really is just a magnetic field, and herein lies the true reason for this flat earth debate because the flat earth hypothesis can only exist if Einstein is right about the causes of gravity, which he isn't, but this revelation is dangerous to the objectives of the parties with vested interest in maintaining the status.

Thus the flat earth meme was a created stage prop. Like anyone I also looked at this with a lot of interest early on. I can't blame anyone for also taking an interest in the idea, however there's a lot more going on and most all of it can be traced back to dollars and cents.

Consider for example the billions of dollars in student loans and how closely these debts and the instutions which make billions in debts are tied to the existing narrative about gravity and Einstein's physic's? So what happens if it's discovered that these so called educations are in reality worthless?

Historically the research and brain power that went towards figuring out why galaxies look as they do, and what causes magnetism, come out of a completely different epoch of time. It's a historical story that begins even before the first world war.

Kapitsa's Spider isn't a novelty, it's proof, just like a magnet is a proof. The former shows what an incoherent energy field does and the later shows what that same energy field does when it's made coherent. Incoherent is like sunlight while coherent is like a laser beam; both are light.

My point is that we can be sure images depicting round planets and most galaxies are probably correct because of what Kapitsa's Spider shows us and because of what we now know about the true nature of magnetism. These are both tied together in important ways.

Therefore, images of some galaxies are correct (geometrically speaking) because we know and can prove there is an inertial plane which is flat and which must exist in our own galaxy. The fact fact that this is so then dictates that planets have to be round, and this is so because gravity is an expression of this same hypervelocity energy, only acting in incoherently as a dielectric energy accelerating upon matter. As demonstrated by the Spider invention of Kapitsa, this energy is a dielectric energy (*which really means non-polarized normally and thus is an insulator). This energy moves through matter almost unimpeded, but is perturbed by matter, which causes it to move inwards as passes. It does this in a curved arc and exits back to counterspace at the centerpoint of whatever matter it encounters. Walter Russell came to almost the same conclusion but without the aid of the tools we have today.

This is a 12 minute video. If you're pressed for time skip to around about the 10 minute mark

Since "Gravity" is not a force, but a acceleration & electrical in naure, then what of magnetism?

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: ripvanwillie
Date: 2019-10-08 05:01:49
Reaction Score: 5

I have a question for those that are highly knowledgeable on the concave earth theory, and support the concave earth model... If we live on the inside of the equivalent of a massive salad bowl, why can't anyone take a decent telescope and see across the dish to the other side? Am I misunderstanding the theory? What am I missing here?

I searched the archives of SH, and couldn't find a dedicated thread regarding the concave earth model, so forgive me for asking if there's already a dedicated thread on the subject, and my question has already been answered.

I think you are asking why we don't look up and see the other side of the earth; China, for example. The simple answer is we can only see things which are illuminated and relatively close. We just don't have the ability to see that far. We can only see detail for a short distance then we only see points of light. Regardless of whether one believes the distances claimed, we can't see beyond the stars. The only objects in space we can view clearly is the sun and moon. Everything beyond is created by artists. The best optical telescopes can't even give us a good, clear picture of mars.
And when looking along the horizon, particles in the air limit our vision even more significantly. But there have been experiments showing visual evidence of an upward curve.
There is evidence; visual, audible, and mathematical, that supports the concave earth model.
I don't think the concave earth theory is a part of our stolen history, but it might be. There are certainly a large number of world maps from the 16th century on with concave projection lines.

 

[toybrandon]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: toybrandon
Date: 2019-10-08 13:03:23
Reaction Score: 0

I think you are asking why we don't look up and see the other side of the earth; China, for example. The simple answer is we can only see things which are illuminated and relatively close. We just don't have the ability to see that far. We can only see detail for a short distance then we only see points of light. Regardless of whether one believes the distances claimed, we can't see beyond the stars. The only objects in space we can view clearly is the sun and moon. Everything beyond is created by artists. The best optical telescopes can't even give us a good, clear picture of mars.
And when looking along the horizon, particles in the air limit our vision even more significantly. But there have been experiments showing visual evidence of an upward curve.
There is evidence; visual, audible, and mathematical, that supports the concave earth model.
I don't think the concave earth theory is a part of our stolen history, but it might be. There are certainly a large number of world maps from the 16th century on with concave projection lines.

ripvanwillie - I have questions about the concave model, but this isn't the place and I'm trying not to draw ire by derailing the thread, but could you maybe point us to where we can get more information? I haven't been able to find reliable, serious sources.

KD edit: in here The Concave Earth Discussion.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: ripvanwillie
Date: 2019-10-08 21:49:36
Reaction Score: 1

I just thought I would add some extra information. Nothing has been said about the lens distortion on the cameras which kinda debunks these pictures. Normally when we think of wide angle lenses we think of Barrel Distortion. Look at the example.

View attachment 30698

But there is something called a Pincushion Distortion which looks like this.

View attachment 30693
View attachment 30694

View attachment 30695
View attachment 30696
View attachment 30691
View attachment 30692

I am not an expert but I have been looking into flat earth for a very long time. Every picture taken in nature will vary depending on the humidity, pressure, temp, etc. The first couple pics you have show the perfect rings which were taken pointing at Polaris, and works on the flat earth model. But the 4th picture you have, if you picture the flat earth model, you pointed out that these pictures (showing opposite rotations) were taken from our most southern countries. So they would be furthest away from center north or Polaris. As you move away from the center, the rings get larger and larger. So taking pictures of the largest rings at the bottom of the dome would make them look like they weren't rings but almost horizontal lines. If they took the pictures looking east or west those same lines would appear more diagonal/vertical (like your 4th pic)(You can see the top right of the photo it looks like the small ring polaris makes, but if its taken where they say it was, they wouldn't be able to see polaris. So it's obvious lens distortion). The camera lens could distort those straight lines causing Pincushion distortion, which is what you see in the pics in that slide show video. imo

One thing I advise against when researching the shape of earth is looking at the sky to prove what we're standing on. That's how we got in this mess in the first place with Newton. Anyway keep questioning everything.

I have been a photographer for over 50 years now. The first three photos show no barrel or pincushion distortions, as can be easily seen by the bottom portion of the photos. The fourth one does because there is no other way to make that wide angle of a shot without using a wide angle lens. But if you put it into photoshop and correct the distortion, you'll see it's true. Go back and look at them.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Manwich
Date: 2019-10-08 22:40:29
Reaction Score: 0

I have been a photographer for over 50 years now. The first three photos show no barrel or pincushion distortions, as can be easily seen by the bottom portion of the photos. The fourth one does because there is no other way to make that wide angle of a shot without using a wide angle lens. But if you put it into photoshop and correct the distortion, you'll see it's true. Go back and look at them.

I agree with you. The 4th photo (the picture below) is the one showing lens distortion. The first 3 are clear pictures of the stars moving around polaris (the center of the dome, imo). I was just showing examples of what kind of lens distortions are out there. My point was that this isn't a death blow to flat earth as he stated, the photo has lens distortion and isn't showing the path that the stars are actually taking. The stars don't split and move in opposite directions like this photo shows. You said you had put in photoshop and removed the distortion. Can you post that?

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Tool18
Date: 2019-10-15 10:05:08
Reaction Score: 1

The balloon encounters a vacuum and expands till it bursts. The barrier is the vacuum. What causes the vacuum is a whole other topic, but the same force which propels the Jet Spider is also the same energy which creates a magnetic field, and all gravity really is just a magnetic field, and herein lies the true reason for this flat earth debate because the flat earth hypothesis can only exist if Einstein is right about the causes of gravity, which he isn't, but this revelation is dangerous to the objectives of the parties with vested interest in maintaining the status.

Thus the flat earth meme was a created stage prop. Like anyone I also looked at this with a lot of interest early on. I can't blame anyone for also taking an interest in the idea, however there's a lot more going on and most all of it can be traced back to dollars and cents.

Consider for example the billions of dollars in student loans and how closely these debts and the instutions which make billions in debts are tied to the existing narrative about gravity and Einstein's physic's? So what happens if it's discovered that these so called educations are in reality worthless?

Historically the research and brain power that went towards figuring out why galaxies look as they do, and what causes magnetism, come out of a completely different epoch of time. It's a historical story that begins even before the first world war.

Kapitsa's Spider isn't a novelty, it's proof, just like a magnet is a proof. The former shows what an incoherent energy field does and the later shows what that same energy field does when it's made coherent. Incoherent is like sunlight while coherent is like a laser beam; both are light.

My point is that we can be sure images depicting round planets and most galaxies are probably correct because of what Kapitsa's Spider shows us and because of what we now know about the true nature of magnetism. These are both tied together in important ways.

Therefore, images of some galaxies are correct (geometrically speaking) because we know and can prove there is an inertial plane which is flat and which must exist in our own galaxy. The fact fact that this is so then dictates that planets have to be round, and this is so because gravity is an expression of this same hypervelocity energy, only acting in incoherently as a dielectric energy accelerating upon matter. As demonstrated by the Spider invention of Kapitsa, this energy is a dielectric energy (*which really means non-polarized normally and thus is an insulator). This energy moves through matter almost unimpeded, but is perturbed by matter, which causes it to move inwards as passes. It does this in a curved arc and exits back to counterspace at the centerpoint of whatever matter it encounters. Walter Russell came to almost the same conclusion but without the aid of the tools we have today.

This is a 12 minute video. If you're pressed for time skip to around about the 10 minute mark

Since "Gravity" is not a force, but a acceleration & electrical in naure, then what of magnetism?

Really amazing to see other people noticing Kens work. I think he is onto the real truth if I am being honest. And the more and more I research it, the more I realise how important and vital everything Nikola Tesla was trying to tell everyone.

 

[Dielectric]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Dielectric
Date: 2019-10-26 01:53:05
Reaction Score: 2

Really amazing to see other people noticing Kens work. I think he is onto the real truth if I am being honest. And the more and more I research it, the more I realise how important and vital everything Nikola Tesla was trying to tell everyone.

If you start around the turn of the last century the historical path taken by the powers that be, in research and development, in scientific inquiry, only makes logical sense IMO if you apply the idea that there is an end goal, a goal to rediscover some lost information which they evidently had some inkling about, and the direction of these studies and experiments, and which had no logical applications at the time they were conducted in, seemed to all be aimed at understanding gravity and space. They were not using Einsteinian Physics and never have other than as mind control tool to keep the majority bamboozled and to funnel intelligent minds off in to dreamscape of never, never, land fantasy worlds. Many are still lost in this fantasy world.

The only physics which has any logical sense to it is the Ether Theory. Blackholes, dark matter, particles, these are all fantastical constructs only made possible by a corrupt science which was produced under Einstein. It's purpose is strictly a black ops. There's a reason for names like dark matter, dark energy, and black holes. All places where brains are sent to die.

Under our so-called accepted physics the only way a UFO can operate is by having access to energy which is on a planetary scale. Thus we cannot expect to match UFO's for the foreseeable future. That is the official narrative as calculated mathematically by people like Harold Puthoff and of course this is all based on the premise of how Universe works according to Einsteinian Physics. Under this physics space is warped by mass, and so for a UFO to operate it has to be warping the surrounding "spacetime," which has then a whole lot of other hypothetical outcomes and it's off to fantasy worlds as a result. However, none of this is possible and space is neither a field nor a force and cannot be bent by anything.

The only possible way to make sense of how our Universe works is also the only possible way to make sense of how a UFO operates, and that is by understanding the basic concepts which formed the ideas which people like Tesla used, which Karl Schappeller used, and many others. Now this isn't crackpot stuff. For example, Karl Schappellers' device was studied for three years by a Scottish Engineer. Ciryl W. Davson and who wrote a book on this entitled Physics of the Primary State of Matter back in 1955.

The best written overview of what sort of thinking guided people prior to the hijacking of physics was written by the late Henry Steven's, author of Hitlers Flying Saucers. If you read just the part where Stevens explains the Aether/Ether Theory it will give you the gist of what people theorized this counterspatial energy field was doing, how it created gravity, and this understanding guided the subsequent research right up until academia was used as a tool for a black op's hijacking of this understanding. That is, under the physics of Einstein this prior understanding was denied as valid, and buried, but in truth it was the guiding light that lead to the creation of free energy and antigravity. That is really the only possible conclusion one can arrive at because of the history of R&D is not aimed at the physics of Einstein, rather it is aimed at understanding the physics of the Ether theory.

You can read the Aether Theory at this bibliotecapleyades excerpt take from Steven's book. It's very short and not as we understand it today but the idea is that this concept was the true theory of how universe worked which the Nazi Scientists worked with and not with the physics of Einstein.
DISPOSITION OF GERMAN SAUCER TECHNOLOGY AFTER THE WAR

I think this is a very good description of the Theory of the Aether/Ether as hypothesized around the turn of the last century. After reading this excerpt from Stevens it then becomes possible to discern why certain fields were subsequently researched, such as the ones taken by Kapitsa and Rutherford, and afterwards the next big push scientifically speaking came in R&D in Radio, and which leads to microwaves and radar, and at the same time the development of liquid cooled magnets, or so called Bitter Solenoid magnets. Bitter electromagnet - Wikipedia

So you see you have to make sense of why these areas were chosen to focus $$$ and brainpower on. It's interesting too because of the politics which underneath is used to control people, so that Kapitza who returns to Russia is kept at home under Stalin, but still given his own entire building and creating a department and budget for all of it, and while everyone else is living under the terror of Stalinist Police State, and yet he is communicating with Rutherford in England. OK, so how's that happen? These are fingerprints of the TPB showing their influence in my opinion.


See, its important to realize that the powers that be do not spend money on this sort of scientific stuff without having specific purposes attached to them, so when you put that concept together with the premise of this very site it seems to me that there is a group of very well healed people, the PTB, and whom have been on a very long mission to rediscover information which was lost, and I think KB is on to this understanding in a big way. So it's all tied together even when or where it seems to be un-attached. There's a reason they do what they do and there's a reason they hide all that they do.

The point of all this is to suggest that the knowledge we have on this does say that we can be sure planets are round and most galaxies are relatively speaking flat pancakes, because there is a dielectric plane of inertia and on that plane puts planets and stars in somewhat flat plane and in line with each other because magnetism never exists by itself, it requires matter to be produced, and so only through intercourse with matter is it produced (gravity is magnetism in an incoherent form), and for this reason, along with some others, matter remains in various orbits but all on a flat plane which is the dielectric inertial plane of the galaxy.

Not sure that's all that clear: So to simply; this dielectric energy field, well it's flat because it's taken and condensed by an accretion disk at the core of a galaxy, and so any matter which comes near enough to this dielectric plane of inertia begins to perturb the flow of this energy and thus dirt becomes magnetic, and once that happens it joins the other parts of masses of matter on an inertial plane of dieletric energy. This is at least partly why matter lies on a rather flat plane in our own galaxy. The dielectric plane is in line with the core of the galaxy and the polar plane is at 90 degrees to the dielectric plane. This is a cross obviously and just as stated by Ken Wheeler, if you smash a magnet up into dust, it's going to form a ball, or sphere.

 

[Mike Nolan]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: WarningGuy
Date: 2019-10-27 03:07:36
Reaction Score: 5

I like this guys take on whats out there in the so called space and what the sun is and how it works. @ 1min he talks about in the next 7 years which is about now as this video is that old.

Might also explain the reset cycles too.

If you liked what Eric had to say in that video then it might be a good idea to start here and watch all 12 videos in this series of Eric's theory's.

 

[Timeshifter]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Timeshifter
Date: 2019-10-27 10:33:26
Reaction Score: 1

I like this guys take on whats out there in the so called space and what the sun is and how it works. @ 1min he talks about in the next 7 years which is about now as this video is that old.

Might also explain the reset cycles too.

If you liked what Eric had to say in that video then it might be a good idea to start here and watch all 12 videos in this series of Eric's theory's.

Awesome videos. In the 1st, around 3 mins although he doesn't say holographic, for me he explains why our reality is a holographic one.

The only place you can see everything is on this realm, everywhere else (space) it is only noticable when you are on what apears a solid object.

 

[Dielectric]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Dielectric
Date: 2019-10-28 09:59:07
Reaction Score: 1

I like this guys take on whats out there in the so called space and what the sun is and how it works. @ 1min he talks about in the next 7 years which is about now as this video is that old.

Might also explain the reset cycles too.

If you liked what Eric had to say in that video then it might be a good idea to start here and watch all 12 videos in this series of Eric's theory's.

Eric is one of these geniuses like Michelangelo who is very difficult to get along with, some have said they think he's autistic, but whom is still brilliant. He is certainly correct about the Sun and he is someone who knows what he is talking about. Really great video's. Most all his stuff can be gotten for free with a little searching.
Dollard – Borderlands

Post automatically merged: 10/28/19

At about 2:50 in the first video Dollard starts talking about the "reality of what the Sun is," and then goes on to says the Sun is getting energy from the unknown, and then add's from counterspace. Then he say's that in deep space the Star's cannot be seen (I've heard this before BTW).

I'm going to have to review some of this and think about it once more. This is stuff I have considered in the past and it does relate to this thread very specifically. Meaning that in looking at these images of space might be subject to more critical thinking if we dig deeper still, and because of what both Dollard and Ken Wheeler have to say about light and Stars in deep space....Hmmm......???

Wheeler has two video's on light. This is the first, video 34.

So in relation to this thread I would say that in looking at these images what Kapitsa Spider and other information suggest is that some/most galaxies should be spirals and flat pancakes, but what about the light? Just because that information tells us that this is how it should look still doesn't mean we are looking at real images evidently.

Anyways I think Dollard is right because what he says is essentially shown by a ferrocell when looking at magnet. You only see lines where the dielectric field is condensed or focused. I'm not sure I quite understand this well enough to say why there's darkness but I think it's because it's void, or shadow caused by there not being any dielectric energy in those areas. Point is, going back to Dollard, can these images be fakes because we are seeing light, or is the reason we see them is because they are photo's taken from inside the Sun's heliosphere? I'm not sure myself just yet.

Anyone interested might want to check out Ken's two video's on the missing secrets of light, which are probably more advanced than most people should start out with, but the basic idea in this first one is that light can only exist where dielectric energy exists, and magnetism and electricity can only exist as one and at the same time because they are both made from dielectric energy. Thus light can only exist where this field exists. So evidently this seems to support Dollards claims about deep space where the stars become invisible/dark.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: BrokenAgate
Date: 2019-10-28 17:39:33
Reaction Score: 3

The more I read about this subject, the more confused I get. I no longer know what shape the Earth is, what the sky is, what the stars, moon, sun, and planets are, or what kind of reality we are living in. Nothing makes any sense any more. I do observe that people in ancient times (however far back that may actually be) made a distinction between stars and planets, so is it safe to assume that planets are different things than stars? Or the same things, but closer to us, so they look different? The moon seems to be a more solid "thing" than the sun. It has craters that never change position, unlike the sun which seems to have no such features. Unless sunspots are real; but those do change and move and disappear. I've read theories that the moon is a man-made object. Could this be possible? If so, who could have made it, and when, and why?

 

[Dielectric]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Dielectric
Date: 2019-10-29 16:03:53
Reaction Score: 2

The more I read about this subject, the more confused I get. I no longer know what shape the Earth is, what the sky is, what the stars, moon, sun, and planets are, or what kind of reality we are living in. Nothing makes any sense any more. I do observe that people in ancient times (however far back that may actually be) made a distinction between stars and planets, so is it safe to assume that planets are different things than stars? Or the same things, but closer to us, so they look different? The moon seems to be a more solid "thing" than the sun. It has craters that never change position, unlike the sun which seems to have no such features. Unless sunspots are real; but those do change and move and disappear. I've read theories that the moon is a man-made object. Could this be possible? If so, who could have made it, and when, and why?

Yea, well I can relate, but see the issue is how much do want to know? Not everyone has the drive to do a bunch of homework, and honestly they shouldn't have to, and the reason you have to do this home work is because the system is criminal and is intentionally lying. What happens is you end up with the professionals with PHD's, mortages and college jobs, saying one thing, and then people like me and others saying no, it's like this, and you don't know what's up from down.

We shouldn't have to deal with this but they have weaponized science by corrupting it and basically backmailing all those who have a reason to march to the party tune, like their jobs and academic titles for example.

About 15 or so years ago I was a member on a tiny private forum and about 3 of us decided to try to reverse engineer the McCandlish ARV (Alien Reproduction Vehicle) also called the Flux liner. I didn't know much but I had some fine training in investigation so I figured why not try.

Like most normal people I went at this task of trying to figure out the ARV by following traditional accepted science. Nothing worked and then one day I got the revelation about the energy requirements behind bending spacetime, the physics behind Einstein's ideas; which said that for us to bend spacetime we needed to have energy at a planetary level~

OK, well that's not happening anytime soon right?

The problem for me is that I'd seen both saucers and a triangle, the triangle was more of a tetrahedron, pitch black and almost hovering over the house, and neither of those things looked any more alien than the jeep in the driveway. Sure they were cool and all but I've never thought that oh yea those are alien. No, to me these were either USAF or Boeing. I've become more convinced than ever that aliens don't exist as a result of these sightings.

Now I tell you this because I know what's real and I saw these things and know they are real, and the thing is that no conventional physics can explain how these work. Been there done that and wasted a lot of time figuring ten ways to Sunday how they might somehow work only to find at every step it was impossible. Spinning dirt does not make gravity for example, and yet I became convinced that what I saw was just another machine, a human made machine, probably from Boeing down the road a ways. Some other physics had to be engaged.

So something else had to be driving them; things have a way of working out, so at around this time I was introduced to Ken Wheeler's work on magnetism, and then a little Dollard, some Tesla and so forth. Suddenly I began to make sense of things. That was about 3 or 4 years ago.

All I can say is I believe that the physics they are teaching is highly corrupted, whereas, Ken Wheeler is not and has literally written the book on the subject of magnetism, and nothing is more profoundly important in physics than having a real understanding of what magnetis is. If you listen to Ken you're going to at least get the truth as best he understands it, which is pretty damn well in my opinion.

The planets have to be round. That still doesn't mean the images we are shown are real, but planets cannot be flat because gravity is incoherent magnetism and it will always result in a spherical ball.

You can download his 3rd edition for free.
Uncovering the missing Secrets of Magnetism : Ken L Wheeler : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive