27. The Stars Declare the Truth

The aim of this post is to present an accurate and comprehensive picture of what the stars are and how they move in the night sky, as simple observation tells us that they are not at all what NASA tell us that they are.

It is also my hope that this post may inspire you to look upon the night sky with new eyes and with renewed child-like curiosity.

 

Image result for star gazing quotes

 

 

Note to new readers:

If you are new to this blog, please note that this is article #27 in a series of articles that have been presented as a chronological and logical narrative.

That being the case, you may find it useful to read from the start (follow the links in the header above), or to at least check out the Table of Contents page for a “spark-notes” summary of previous material discussed in this blog, before continuing here. The recap below might also offer some useful guidance.

 

Recap

This post will build upon material presented in earlier posts, particularly what was presented in Post #16 through to Post #24.

Here is a quick summary to refresh your memory of what was covered in those posts:

 

  • 16. The Torus and Ancient Cosmology – where a mathematical model of the Universe was derived using magnetism, nature, and mathematics (i.e. sacred geometry, vector equilibrium, and the golden mean/phi). The model matches the model of the cosmos shared by every ancient culture.

    iMm_9Bst

 

  • 17. The Greatest Liars of All Time – a study of many of NASA’s lies, including the fake moon landing, along with NASA’s connections to freemasonry and Nazi’s.

 

  • 18. Look Around, it will Astound You – an article where the expected curvature of the globe was calculated, and then compared to reality to find that we see no curvature. The optical phenomenon of perspective was also outlined.

     Image result for pythagoras flat earth curvature Image result for parallel sun rays flat earth

 

  • 19. What Goes Around, Comes Around – an analysis of the movement of the sun and moon, including time zones, seasons, solar analemma, tides, and much more.

 Image result for flat earth tropicsImage result for sun movement flat earth  bbb

 

Image result for earth spin speed Image result for spin flat earth landing 4

 

  • 21. Another Brick in the Wall (Part 1/2) –  an essay scrutinizing what we know from history about Antarctica, featuring symbolism from the music industry as well as a look at the education indoctrination system.

Image result for the wall pink floyd Pink Floyd - Another Brick In The Wall, Part Two (Official Music Video)  

 

  • 22. Another Brick in the Wall (Part 2/2) – an essay looking at Southern hemisphere flight paths; the legal framework surrounding Antarctic travel; globe propaganda; and disinformation (brainwashing) programs.

  cx-vsjjxuaerfaq

 

  • 23. Destined for Oblivion, we put to bed the ridiculous gravity and relativity myths, whilst also exposing the connection between the Royal Society and the Vatican and freemasonry.

Image result for ordo ab chao Image result for isaac newton freemason Image result for newton cartoon 

 

 

The most pertinent material to bear in mind when reading this post is what you learned in 24. Made in a Hollywood Basement

In that post you were introduced to some of the most famous pseudoscientists themselves…

Image result for on a scale of 1 to carl sagan Image result for funny flat earth memes flat-earth-memes-78-11

 

… after which we scrutinized what they say about the mythical place called “Outer space”,… and in so doing we learned thatspace” is nothing more than an elaborate hoax produced using CGI and an enormous amount of pseudoscientific lies.

Image result for nasa claims they went to the moon in this meme 15317741_10157913101200193_8096637821601865904_n Image result for santa iss 12139586_944466212278747_326617553_n.jpg

 

In a nutshell, what we have learned so far is this:

 

Image result for flat earth planets

 

 

Preface

This post will pick up where we left off in 24. Made in a Hollywood Basement as we will seek to answer the following question:

 

If outer space is a myth, what then, are the stars that we see in the night sky?

 

This post will be very visual, and will feature numerous videos that will assist in clearly illustrating many of the things that will be discussed, as words alone cannot do enough justice to certain elements of what we’ll discuss.

Some of the videos are slightly longer than the videos you will usually find in this blog, but do note that each one has been carefully selected for your viewing pleasure and to illustrate certain points as accurately and as thoroughly as possible.

 

As you can see in the Table of Contents below, we will start our journey through the stars by deconstructing some of the lies we’ve been told about stars.

We’ll then look at what the stars actually are, before analyzing the movement of the stars in the night sky for further clues about what is going on in the sky above us.

 

Table of Contents

Introduction

  1. What We’ve Been Told
    • The Sun
    • Gravity
    • Thermonuclear Fusion
  2. The Real Stars
    • What Stars Actually Look Like
    • Frequency of the Heavens
  3. Parallax
    • An Advanced Course in Pseudoscience
    • The Missing Parallax
  4. Star Trails
    • Introduction to Star Trails
    • Star Trails vs The Spinning Globe
    • Star Trails Explained: Part 1
  5. The Astrolabe
    • Introduction to the Astrolabe
    • Geo-metry
    • The Nautical Mile
  6. The Astroplate
    • Dome Reflection
    • Star Trails Explained: Part 2

Conclusion

Word Count: 6,300

 


 

Introduction

 

Have you ever just sat and dreamily looked up at the stars?

 

Image result for looking up at the stars

 

 

 

Chances are, if you’re below the age of 30, you’ve spent more time doing this…

 

 

Image result for kids on their phones

 

 

… than this:

 

Related image

 

 

With that in mind, what do most of us really know about the stars beyond what we’ve been told?

 

Image result for no knowledge

 

Ironically, one of the pseudoscientists on who’s account we have shared a few laughs in earlier posts perhaps said it best:

 

 

sagan

 

 

 

 

6ae45e3905d17f1d784ecf6e3896b70f

 

 

 

 

15327349_10202473407152926_6781400285318635422_n

 

 

 

 

What do you say then, shall we un-bamboozle ourselves and check out the Universe as it really is?…

 

 

 

Image result for nodding gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image result for alright lets do this meme

 

 

 

Image result for lets begin gif

 

 


 

1. What We’ve Been Told

To begin, let’s do a step-by-step deconstruction of what we’re told that the stars are…

 

The Sun

 

To start with, here is the Google definition of a star:

sun.JPG

 

Now, do you really think that the Sun looks anything like the stars in the night sky?

 

Related image Related image

 

 

 

Image result for katt williams get outta here

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Keep it mind what we learned in 19. What Goes Around, Comes Aroundthat isthat the sun is certainly not a ridiculous 93 million gazillion miles away…

 

Image result for millions meme sagan

 

This is what wikipedia says about stars…

a1

 

So, despite the fact that the sun and stars look nothing alike to the naked eye, we’re told that the sun is a star…

… and what’s more, we’re told that it is a “luminous sphere of plasma” that looks like this…

 

Image result for sun

 

However, any five year old with eyes will tell you that the picture of the “sun” presented to us by NASA looks nothing like the sun that we actually see in the sky:

 

Image result for sun    Image result for sun

 

Needless to say, the sun is quite obviously not a gigantic exploding fireball!

 

We will cover what is most likely going on with the sun in a later post, but for now we will keep our focus on the stars themselves.

 

What’s important to note here, is that the sun and stars are different from one another – as we can clearly observe with our own eyes.

 

Gravity

As they do with everything else, “science” tells us that what holds the stars together here is the magical force called “gravity”…

gravity.JPG

 

Going back to what we learned in 23. Destined for Oblivion, this is quite simply just another example of where “gravity” is used as the defacto explanation for how something works…

… just as it is used to explain

  • How the Earth can orbit the sun;
  • How the moon can orbit the Earth without drifting off into space;
  • How satellites the size of a school bus can levitate in mid-air above our atmosphere without falling down;
  • How 321,000,000 cubic miles of seawater can stick to a spinning ball whilst letting a helium balloon float upwards;
  • How water can curve around, and stick to, a spinning ball (despite the fact that water always finds its level);
  • Why we don’t fly off when the ball spins;
  • Why people and water can stick to the underside of a ball;
  • etc… etc… etc…

 

 

Image result for gravity meme

 

If anyone reading this still believes in “gravity”, please read 23. Destined for Oblivion, which thoroughly deconstructs the gravity myth, and also exposes the connections between the Vatican and freemasonry and the Royal Society – where the gravity myth originated.

 

For the purpose of eliminating the myth that gravity is responsible for stars, it might be useful to remember what Isaac Newton himself thought about gravity and action-at-a-distance…

 

newt4.jpg

 

Long story short, “gravity” is clearly the gift that keeps on giving for the freemasonic liars… despite being based solely on imagination and fancy equations that bear no relation to reality.

 

And speaking of things that bear no relation to reality…

 

 

Thermonuclear Fusion

 

This is what pseudoscientists tell us about what makes stars appear bright in the sky:

a2

 

Here’s a colourful illustration, courtesy of NASA

 

Image result for what are stars   Diagram of nucleosynthesis in stars

 

 

In other words…

 

Image result for rainbow unicorn meme

 

If the sun really is as far away (93 million miles) and as hot (15 million °C) as they say it is, then who in their right mind would ever claim to know what the inside of it was made of?

 

… That is, unless of course astronauts are fire-proof and have themselves been to their exploding sun to check…

 

Image result for astronaut sun fire

 

You should be well-versed in NASA’s lies by now, but here is another one… this one about how stars form, taken from NASA’s website:

 

nasa stars.JPG

 

Image result for billions and billions carl sagan

 

Here’s a short summary of how stars are “born” according to pseudoscientists:

 

Image result for what are stars

 

 

In other words…

 

A huge cloud (that none of us have never seen before)…

… somehow collapses in on itself (in a way nobody has ever replicated on Earth)…

… because of “gravity” (which nobody has ever proven to exist, as shown in 23. Destined for Oblivion)…

… and it becomes hotter (which nobody has ever measured)…

… and nuclear reactions (which we have no way of verifying) take place…

 

… and voilá, a star is born…

 

 

Image result for poof magic

 

 

 

Image result for wow amazing meme

 

 

 

 

 

 

The best part is, NASA even have some amazing footage of stars to support their amazing science…

… like this footage of an exploding star (1min)…

 

 

… and here is a quick 1min video taken from the NASA Goddard YouTube channel which shows what a black hole “shredding” a passing star supposedly looks like…

 

 

 

Image result for popcorn gif

 

 

doge

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The main take-away from this section, is that what we’re told about stars is a complete lie, based on nothing more than CGI and pseudoscience.

 

Before we move on, here’s a quick 3min video showing NASA astronauts actors clearly contradicting themselves with regards to whether or not it’s possible to see stars in outer space…

 

 

 

Now, let’s move on to another aspect concerning the stars that annihilates the accepted worldview of the stars…

 

 


 

2. The Reality of the Stars

What Stars Actually Look Like

 

First, to remind you, this is a “photo” of what NASA wants you to believe is a star:

 

Related image

 

… but what do we actually see if we look at the stars in the sky with a telescope or camera?…

 

Image result for stars nikon p900  Image result for telescope sky

 

 

Take a look at this 8min video… and decide for yourself if what you are seeing are giant spheres of gas billions of light years away… or if they look more like something… magnetic…

 

 

 

As you can see, what we see in the sky has absolutely no relation to the sun… nor to what NASA tell us the stars look like…

 

crsr0c-xeaa7ymp Related image

 

Here are some still shots for your reference (though as you can see they don’t really do justice to what we see in videos)…

 

14141698_10155281033373636_1442032502876522757_n

 

 

For those who want to see more videos of the stars, you can find hundreds of videos of the stars on YouTube that will show the same thing as in the video above… here are just a few examples…

capture

 

Personal Footage

Now, some might say that all the videos of stars on YouTube are fake or photoshoped… which is a reasonable claim to make.

To check to see if what those videos were showing is accurate I checked for myself using my own telescope and a camera… and what I’ve personally seen is that the videos above show an accurate picture of the stars.

I didn’t manage to capture great footage to do justice to the stars (due to my limited camera skills and lack of a tripod), but despite the poor quality, my videos do show enough to show that what you can see in the video above is real.

For reference my videos are in this playlist, but remember what I’ve said about quality.

 

Below is a photo I took of a random star. The picture obviously isn’t an accurate depiction of the shape of the star due to the exposure and lack of a tripod, but nonetheless you can clearly see the amazing array of colours this star exhibits.

 

 

Capture.JPG

 

If you pay close attention to the stars in the night sky you can even notice certain stars changing colours as they twinkle – even with your naked eye!

The star Sirius is especially bright and colourful for example.

 

Anyways, now that we’ve seen what the stars look like, let’s take a look at how the stars appear the way they do…

 

 

Frequency of the Heavens

As you will come to understand in the videos below, the stars seem to appear the way they do due to several scientific phenomena, namely:

  • Cymatics – the study of how sound affects matter.
  • Sonoluminescence – the emission of short bursts of light from imploding bubbles in a liquid when excited by sound.
  • Superconductivity – a phenomenon of exactly zero electrical resistance and expulsion of magnetic flux fields occurring in certain materials when cooled below a characteristic critical temperature.
  • Quantum levitation – a phenomena relating to equilibrium whereby a superconductor in a magnetic field will expel a magnetic field inside of it, and thus bend the magnetic field around it.

 

This probably sounds like a bunch of big complex words, but rest assured that we aren’t going to be covering any complex equations here.

 

The main thing to note in this section – is that everything relates to two things: SOUND and MAGNETISM.

 

It is by no means required, but you may find that you get more out of the content below after reading the following blog posts which introduced the principles of cymatics and magnetism:

Image result for dna phi spiral     Image result for crop circles

 

 

Now, instead of boring you with long and drawn-out scientific explanations about the sciences listed above, I will leave you to watch the three videos below, which will graphically explain the science behind the stars more colorfully than any words can…

 

  • A 5min video showing you what sonoluminescence and cymatics are:

 

  • This 15min video illustrates the connection between what the stars look like and cymatic frequencies:

 

  • This 18min video illustrates the principles of superconductivity and quantum levitation in relation to sonoluminescence:

 

Hopefully the videos above have sparked some curiosity and given you a grasp of what the stars are.

If you want to see more on any of the subjects discussed I recommend doing a keyword search for “cymatics stars” or “sonoluminescence stars” on YouTube, as there are plenty of awesome videos on these subjects.

 

 

We will look more at the stars themselves in another post, but for the rest of this post we will be studying their movement, starting with a deconstruction of another one of NASA’s lies: Parallax.

 

 


 

3. Parallax

Note that this section might get a little technical, but don’t be put off if you don’t immediately understand, as there are a couple of short videos a little further down that will probably make more sense than the text here.

 

An Advanced Course in Pseudoscience

 

Let’s first define what this is:

parallax2.JPG

 

To give you a better idea, below is an animated example of parallax, borrowed from wikipedia.

As the viewpoint moves side to side, the objects in the distance appear to move more slowly than the objects close to the camera.

 

Here is how wikipedia describes parallax:

parallax3.JPG

 

Below is a simplified illustration of the parallax of an object against a distant background due to a perspective shift.

When viewed from “Viewpoint A”, the object appears to be in front of the blue square. When the viewpoint is changed to “Viewpoint B”, the object appears to have moved in front of the red square.

Image result for parallax

 

“Scientists” and modern “astronomers” claim that they can use parallax to measure distances between stars…

parallax4.JPG

 

Image result for parallax

 

If one does a google image search for “parallax” what appears is a mountain of images like the one above…

 

parallax6.JPG

 

 

In other words, nice pictures, but nothing that has any substance…

 

 

This is also what we find on two NASA websites when searching for “NASA parallax”…

[ PARALLAX DIAGRAM ] mathematical diagram showing the basic distances involved in determining the parallax angle

 

This tells us absolutely nothing practical, so then we do a google search to try to find a more detailed explaination for parallax…

… and what we find is this “advanced” course:

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys440/lectures/helio_para/helio_para.html

hipparcos4

 

The site teaches some basic trigonometry, and other mathematical equations – but again, nothing practical in terms of measuring actual stars in the sky…

parallax8.JPG

 

It turns out that after teaching this “advanced” mathematics … we are presented with this conclusion… or “The bottom line” as they call it.

hipparcos5.JPG

 

Here is this text magnified a bit for those who don’t have the eye-sight of a hawk:

 

HIPPARCOS.JPG

 

 

Do you see what just happened?

 

Image result for what meme

 

After all that complex maths stuff, we’re told that a magical satellite has mapped out the distances for us…

 

In other words… “Advanced” courses like this one teach complex maths that can verify the numbers provided by scientists, but they don’t teach how to verify those distances by actually looking at the stars

Needless to say, the numbers provided to us have absolutely nothing to do with reality!

 

The truth is that you personally have no way of measuring the distances they’ve told you…

… but fortunately “a large team of scientists” have done all the hard work for you…

 

 

Image result for scientists have discovered that

 

So let me see if I got this right…

“Scientists” put a tin can called Hipparcos (pictured below) into space, and it somehow mapped out the precise position of 118,200 stars…

… and we’re all supposed to trust all of these distances because we’ve been given some fancy equations…

 

Image result for hipparcos Image result for hipparcos

 

Clearly, parallax is yet another example of pseudoscience that has no bearing on reality…

 

Image result for tesla science equations reality quote

 

For an excellent study on how astronomers could be so wrong, check out this article:

 

The Missing Parallax

Clearly, apart from the fact that we have no way of verifying the distances we’re given (which are usually in the billions and billions of light years…), why do parallax equations have no relation to reality?

 

Well, if the Earth is

 

… then the logical question to ask is this:

 

 

 

z1

 

 

 

 

 

14566218_10202185666678621_2406820647206559672_o

 

 

 

14390626_10155361932103636_1084652010997568405_n

 

 


 

Quick Tangent

Those who have read 26. Gematria, Synchronicity, and Predictive Programming will appreciate the significance of the name of the satellite that maps the distances we’re given – “hipparcos”, and “parallax” in gematria…

hipparcos1

hipparcos2

parallax7.JPG

 


 

Back to the stars though…

 

meme.jpg

 

 

z7

 

This is a useful 1min video to watch to visualize the problem with “parallax”…

(Note: You might want to turn your volume down as the music is quite heavy!)

 

 

 

The simple fact is that parallax has never been observed between the stars, as they all move in unison, as you can see in this gif:

 

Image result for stars moving gif

 

 

14731151_1318570641507466_7931433076117978982_n

 

 

 

Now then, if the stars are moving in unison, what conclusion can we make?…

 

Image result for wondering

 

 

Hmm…

 

If all the stars are moving in unison,… could it be that they are all spinning together at the same height or as part of the same structure?…

 

…Perhaps a little something like this:

 

 

 

The animation above is made from this 4min video, which includes some useful animations of the stars and movement of the sun and moon, and it’ll also introduce our next sub-topic: star trails

 

 

 


 

4. Star Trails

The movement of the stars is undoubtedly one of the trickiest elements to figure out with regards to the Flat Earth, so please bear with me in the next 3 sections as things might not be clear until you get the full view of things by the end.

 

Introduction to Star Trails

As usual, the definition first:

 

trail.JPG

 

Here’s a particularly resplendent star trail photograph captured in Indonesia earlier this month, as presented on the BBC:

 

Starry nightscape over south-east Asia

 

Now, the reason why this is a tricky one to figure out is because the stars in the Northern “hemisphere” and Southern “hemisphere” appear to be spinning in opposite directions…

The opposing spins is illustrated by the time-lapse photograph of the stars in the night sky at the equator (looking East) below, which shows:

  • half of the stars appear to be travelling anti-clockwise (those north of the equator), and
  • half of them appear to be travelling clockwise (those south of the equator)…

Note that this perfect symmetry only happens at the equator.

SGU-From-pole-to-pole-PE-half-1200-cp9

 

To help visualize this better, here is a time-lapse video showing the star trails at the equator.

 

Now, at first glance, the fact that the stars appear to spin in different directions in the northern “hemisphere” compared with the southern “hemisphere” suggests that the model below is totally wrong… given that everything is spinning in the same direction here:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image result for hands over head gif

 

 

 

Image result for hands over head gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image result for pulls out calculator gif

 

 

Related image

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess the globe is right then… because it can (supposedly) explain why the stars appear to spin in opposite directions from the viewers perspective…

 

Image result for star trails globe

 

 

 

 

Hang on a second, let’s think about this in a bit more depth instead of just accepting the first solution presented to us by the clowns shall we…

 

Image result for wait a sec gif

 

 

Star Trails vs The Spinning Globe

 

There are many problems with the spinning globe model relating to how the stars move.

To start off, here are some interesting points from the video shown earlier (the one at the end of section 3):

 

c1

 

 

c4

 

 

c2

 

 

In other words…

 

If this is how the Earth behaves…

 

Image result for solar system gif tumblr   Image result for solar system gif

 

… then that begs the question:

 

14572907_1319063401458190_1798410038237706279_n

 

 

 

Image result for flat earth sun diameter

 

 

15220060_10211403310028446_1525137982337129017_n

 

 

14915580_1072432402873853_8275194198069635795_n

 

Another couple of related questions:

 

 

You may have noticed the figure “2 quadrillion” mentioned above regarding the distance to Polaris…

Let’s put that in a bit of perspective…

polaris

433.8 “light years” to miles / kilometers:

polaris3polaris2

The e+15 means that you multiply that number by 10 to the power of 15… which as shown in this table is called a “quadrillion”…

 

polaris4

 

Quadrillion is equivalent to “a thousand trillion”… or “a million billion”…

 

 

Now, if stars are a quadrillion billion zillion gazillion miles away, do you really think it makes sense that people can use a simple handheld camera to take pictures of them?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clearly, anything that is even beyond the reach of Carl Sagan’s imagination is not something anyone can take pictures of with a camera.

 

Furthermore, if the distance to Polaris is that great, even the slightest change of angle due to the motion or rotation of the Earth would make Polaris move out of it’s position directly above the North pole…

 

 

If you want to do a simple experiment to visualize this, take a laser pointer and hold it on a basketball shining perpendicular to the surface of the ball, and shine it at a specific point on the wall – with that point representing Polaris.

Now turn or move the ball in any direction… and you will see that the laser pointer does not point at the “Polaris” point on the wall anymore.

 

Now imagine that that basketball is Earth, and it is spinning at 1,036mph, moving at 66,600mph around the sun, which is moving at 483,000mph…

 

The 7min clip in this video will illustrate this problem with parallax very clearly:

 

Now, are we really supposed to believe that Polaris has managed to stay in the same position for thousands of years – as evidenced by consistent navigation techniques throughout history that still work today, all whilst the Earth has moved trillions of miles in that time span?

 

Image result for sun movement flat earth

 

 

Image result for yeah no meme

 

 

 

 

Image may contain: night

 

 

 

 

Here’s another anomaly to think about…

 

z5

 

Here is a related question:

 

Image result for earth position sun flat earth

 

No automatic alt text available.

 

 

 

Despite these gigantic oversights, the priests of science will tell you that the star trails do work on a globe…

 

14292252_1404016176307365_8457126137106885213_n

 

14358861_1404013419640974_5441953094747517789_n

 

 

Here is a typical explanation that you’ll see that supposedly “proves” the globe model:

 

14138679_1358858690792736_8711208555735563267_o

 

This is all very well and good…

… Except for the fact that it only accounts for the spin of the Earth itself… and doesn’t even begin to account for the Earth’s supposed movement of 66,600mph around the sun, which is itself moving at 483,000mph…

Needless to say, if the globe model was correct, we wouldn’t see perfectly circular star trails, but instead streaks more akin to the image shown below, given that the velocities of 483,000mph and 66,600mph far surpass the 1,036mph spin of the Earth.

 

Image result for line streaks

 

Clearly, the globe model doesn’t make any sense whatsoever when we scrutinize what we see in the night sky.

 

Furthermore, along with the lack of visible evidence of the Earth moving, we don’t even feel any any of these motions… (as we went through in 20. You Spin Me Right Round Baby)…

 

14322734_313640669006440_1613362146526824005_n

 

 

… But of course, the Earth is so big so we don’t feel anything right?

 

Image result for yeah right meme

 

 

Here’s another example of disinformation on this subject:

 

14372367_971139293032753_926033302564561741_o

 

The smarty-pants who made the illustration above has cleverly omitted the fact that the observatories’ telescopes can change vertical viewing angle and don’t have a default elevation angle that is constricted by their latitudinal location… but sadly there are probably people who fall for this…

 

 

Image result for shakes head in disappointment gif

 

 

To summarize this section, here is an excellent reality checker that spells out the situation with the star trails vs the globe clearly (along with one or two other things)…

 

d1

d2

 

Star Trails Explained: Part 1

This section will start to explain how the stars can appear to be moving the way they are in the night sky, though the material in Star Trails Explained: Part 2 (which will come in Section 6 below) will provide the full picture.

 

For starters, this 11min clip provides a useful study of the way the stars move. Some of the graphics you will see in this video are shown below this video.

 

 

 

Note that perspective as described here isn’t the entire answer for star trails, but is useful for understanding star trails nonetheless… (more on this in section 6 below).

If things don’t immediately make sense it may be useful to refer to the explanation on how perspective works in 18. Look Around, It Will Astound You.

 

 

This 2min video might help with visualizing what is going on as well, as it shows how the same effect seen in star trails in the domed night sky can be replicated on a reflective glass bowl….

 

 

 

There is another fascinating aspect to the stars relating to the star trails that we will look at in section 6, but before we look at that let’s take a look at an incredible tool that has largely been forgotten… the Astrolabe.

 


 

5. The Astrolabe

Introduction to the Astrolabe

If you were paying close attention a bit earlier, you may have noticed that the man in the picture shown earlier is holding a curious object…

 

Image result for sun movement flat earth

 

This device is known as an astrolabe…

astrolabe2.JPG

Related image Image result for astrolabe

 

An astroplate is constructed using several flat discs, which you can read more about here

 

 

Back in the day, people were far better educated about the sky objects and the relationship between time and their location than they are today, and many people would have been experts in the use of the astrolabe…

 

Image result for astrolabe explained

 

This 2min video will give you some basic insight into how an astrolabe works:

 

 

 

Geo-metry

Astrolabes are designed by people who have a very advanced knowledge of astronomy and geometry, though today there are very few people who have this knowledge…

The reason why so few have this amazing knowledge may be because of changes in how geometry has been studied and taught by our illustrious educational indoctrination institutions…

For example – to borrow some ideas from this video, here is how wikipedia depicts geometry in the 15th century and the 20th century:

 

Do you notice any difference between the two pictures?

 

Image result for thinking

 

… Like perhaps how geometer’s back in the day used to work outdoors (where they could point things at the sky),…

… and how “modern” geometer’s work exclusively indoors (where there is no sky)…

 

This seems rather absurd when you consider that the root words for geometry are “geo, meaning “earth“, and “metron“, meaning “measurement“!

 

geometry.JPG

 

Surely you need to be outdoors to “measure” the “earth” right?!

 

… But I suppose that we now have fancy blackboard equations and iPhones which can spoon-feed us everything we need to know, so nobody really needs to go outdoors to discover what is actually going on anymore…

 

Image result for blackboard equations Image result for smartphone addiction teenagers

 

 

Image result for tesla science equations reality quote

 

Geometry was effectively switched from a system connecting the measurement of real world locations and time… to being a totally abstract spatial science studied exclusively on blackboards indoors…

This is why nobody even blinks when shown “projections” like those below, which are supposed to “explain” how the astrolabe can work in relation to a spherical sky – but which make no absolutely practical sense in the real world…

… because nobody has a clue what is actually going on outside anymore…

 

 

Most people today like to think that our ancestors up to 500 years ago were primitive idiots for thinking that the Earth was flat,…

… when the truth is that our ancestors designed tools like the astrolabe based entirely on their meticulous studies of nature and the stars.

That’s quite a contrast compared to our “modern” day, where most people get their understanding of nature from what they had been told in their textbooks and seen on television!

 

Image result for indoctrination     Image result for textbook indoctrination

 

When you really look into this subject, it’s becomes astonishing that people were able to understand the stars so precisely so as to design the astrolabe – a truly magnificent tool that has hundreds of uses, a few of which are listed here:

 

astro1

 

Below is an interesting 9min video of a TEDx talk about the astrolabe.

What is particularly amusing is that the speaker is obliged to tell the audience that this device is compatible with a globe model… though as is painfully obvious it makes absolutely no sense with a globe…

 

 

Another interesting point to note with regards to the astrolabe is the distance measurement on it – the nautical mile…

 

The Nautical Mile

nautical-mile1

In essence, the nautical mile is defined as the distance spanned by one minute of arc along a meridian of the Earth (north-south), as you can visualize here:

Image result for nautical mile astrolabe 

 

A nautical mile used to be a minute of arc North-South – that is, one 60th of a degree…

Despite the fact that the nautical mile worked perfectly for centuries, the “Clarke Spheroid” model was introduced in 1866 which meant that a degree of North-South was no longer a simple length but varied at different latitudes… as mentioned on Wikipedia:

 

Image result for clarke spheroid

 

neil.JPG

 

Image result for oblate spheroid meme

 

 

Image result for oblate spheroid meme

 

You don’t need to be a genius to figure out that if something works perfectly you don’t change it… unless of course you have other agenda’s…

 

So basically, when “scientists” introduced the sphere lie they had to tell all the people who had successfully navigated by sea using the nautical mile that the physical basis of their measurement unit had been wrong all this time… even though they had successfully navigated the world using it for centuries!

The funniest part is, that despite telling the world that the world is a sphere and that the nautical mile is wrong, the nautical mile is still to this day used for both air and marine navigation…

nautical-mile2

 

To state the obvious… if the Earth actually was a globe, don’t you think they’d be using navigational principles to navigate that are based on a sphere rather than a flat plane?

 

Image result for indeed meme

 

 

 

 

 

So to summarize…

 

Much like the sundial and the moon-dial, the astrolabe is comprised of flat circular discs and has worked perfectly all throughout history – and continues to be used to this day for navigation.

A good understanding of the astrolabe tells us that the Sun and the Moon share the same path on a flat plane in the sky… and that the star system is also moving in a flat plane above us… just as a planisphere suggests…

Image result for planisphere

The Vedic (ancient Indian) astronomical model presents the celestial bodies as travelling on flat planes, as shown in this short 1:30 clip:

 

And on that bombshell, allow me to introduce you to the astroplate

 

 


 

6. Astroplate

The astroplate might be a bit tricky to understand, so before we get into what the astroplate is, let me remind you of something we covered in 19. What Goes Around, Comes Around… 

 

Dome Reflection

Primarily, recall that the dome above us is a reflective surface, as evidenced by…

 

  1. Rainbows – which can only be replicated indoors with a light source and a curved reflective surface, as discussed in this video.

Image result for rainbow

 

2. Sun dogs, which are light effects due to reflection:

Image result for reflection on inside of bowl

 

3. “Double-suns“, which show that the sun is reflecting off something:

 

4. Sunlight coverage throughout the year – including the 24hr sun in Antarctica, which shows that sunlight is reflecting off a domed surface to distribute the way it does:

Image result for sun movement flat earth

Note that the sunlight coverage perfectly matches what we see in terms of sunrise and sunset times throughout the year:

Australia - Flat Earth

Here’s a useful visual so that you can see the shape of the sunlight coverage relating to the shape of the dome:

z2

 

Also recall from earlier that the stars spin anti-clockwise in the northern “hemisphere”, and clockwise in the southern “hemisphere”…

Here’s the star trails at the equator again for your reference:

SGU-From-pole-to-pole-PE-half-1200-cp9

 

 

Now then, what conclusions can we draw from the fact that the dome is reflective, and that the stars appear to be spinning in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres?

 

Related image

 

 

Well, the logical conclusion here is that the stars are being reflected on the dome as well…

 

 

Image result for what gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

It’s okay if you’re thinking this sounds a bit confusing…

 

… but perhaps this 3min video will start to clarify this…

 

 

Star Trails Explained: Part 2

The video above explains the general structure of the astroplate and the basics of reflection.

However, that animation doesn’t really show exactly how the opposite star spins in the northern and southern “hemispheres” works…

To better understand how the reflection works, take a look at the 4min video below which does a good job of replicating the star spin in a home-made setup.

The setup might look somewhat rudimentary, but it is very effective in illustrating how the opposite star spins occur, so don’t be put off just because it doesn’t involve advanced CGI and animations.

Also, let this be a reminder that real science is observable, measurable, and repeatable – even in your own living room!  🙂

Image result for scientific method

 

In case you want to see more on the astroplate I highly recommend that you explore the YouTube channel Alternative Cosmology which has many more videos explaining how the astroplate works.

For example, here is another (15min) video from that channel that builds on what you’ve seen above and provides additional useful information about the astroplate:

 

 

This is probably more than enough information to keep your mind spinning in multiple directions for now, so we’ll leave it there.

Our study of the stars is by no means done though, so we’ll continue our look at the stars – and planets – in another post, when things will start to get really interesting!

 


 

Conclusion

To round things off, here’s a quick summary of what we’ve looked at in this post:

To start, we saw that the sun is not a star, and that the stars are not at all what we’ve been told.

You were then shown some videos involving cymatics, sonoluminescence, superconductivity, and quantum levitation, which go a long way to explaining what we are seeing in the sky.

We then moved on to deconstructing the parallax lie, before taking a dreamy look at star trails and the amazing astrolabe, which led us to study the astroplate.

In other words, a lot of awesome stuff that proves that we’ve been lied to about the stars.

 

This post has shone plenty of light on the lies we’ve been fed by these guys…

 

Related image

 

… but what you’ve seen so far doesn’t even scratch the surface of the knowledge being hidden from you.

Rest assured though, we’re going to be slicing through many more of their lies and hidden knowledge like a hot knife cutting through butter, so stay tuned! 🙂

 

Image result for hot knife through butter gif

 

To end this post, I will leave you with this 4min video which inspired the title of this post, and which might give you something deep to think about until the next post…

 

 

To be continued

 


 

P.S.

Read more of The Narrow Gate

This blog is written like a book, so if you enjoyed this article, check out the Introductionpage as well as Table of Contents where you can find a chronological list of all material on this site, including short summaries of every article.

You can also navigate via the Start menu in the header:

start.jpg

 

 

Sharing is Caring!

If you like what you’re reading, please share far and wide!

Image result for share button

Note that this site is not monetized. My only gain is to see more people waking up to the truth of this world.

Please help spread the truth by sharing links to this site on social media (eg. facebook groups, twitter, reddit, etc). Thanks in advance! 🙂

 

 

Follow The Narrow Gate

Join me on social media, don’t be shy!

Image result for facebook and twitter icons

 

For automatic email updates to alert you when new posts are published, simply subscribe by clicking on the “Follow” button which appears on the bottom right on this page when you scroll upwards slightly:

follow2.png

 

 

 

22 thoughts on “27. The Stars Declare the Truth

  1. Pingback: Table of Contents | THE NARROW GATE

  2. Great job! Been following this blog for awhile now. Well laid out, easy to read, with a light tone. Interested to see if you touch upon SATURN, and Peter Plichta’s work on the prime number cross( a 2d pattern in prime numbers spun around in concentric circles of 24(hours in a day) that forms the shape of the templar(iron or maltese) cross that all the elites display so prominently) and how it relates to the coral castle code and vortex math through digital reduction.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks for your feedback, glad you’re enjoying my work!

      There is plenty of crazy stuff on Saturn to come, probably around post 40 or so. Before then I’ll be covering more electromagnetism including some rodin maths, though I hadn’t seen the prime number cross before so thanks for bringing that to my attention! 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Pingback: The Stars Declare the Truth | Plane Not A Planet

  4. Hi Richard,

    I already posted this on Reddit and sent you the same via direct message. Unfortunately you didn’t respond.

    I was kind of interested in reading this post, since this is a topic that every flat Earther I met so far refused to debate (besides the usual links to Dubay).
    It’s impossible to address every misleading claim you make, you’re just [Gish Galloping]( http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop), you’re drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort.

    Just one example: You show this image ( https://i1.wp.com/nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/image/sun.jpg) commenting “however, any five year old with eyes will tell you that the picture of the “sun” presented to us by NASA looks nothing like the sun that we actually see in the sky”. This image was recoreded by the Solar Dynamics Observatory ( https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/main/index.html) (link to the source image: https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/sdo/pretty-prominence). The “Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA) for the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) is designed to provide an unprecedented view of the solar corona, taking images […] in multiple wavelengths nearly simultaneously”( http://aia.lmsal.com/). It’s recording in multiple wavelengths here’s an example (http://www.lmsal.com/hek/hcr?cmd=view-event&event-id=ivo%3A%2F%2Fsot.lmsal.com%2FVOEvent%23VOEvent_ssw_cutout_20120302_165012_AIA_171_2012-03-02T16%3A49%3A14.000.xml) of AIA’s recordings at wavelengths between 94nm and 1700nm. “A typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum). So no one is claiming that this picture of the Sun should look like the sun that we actually see in the sky. Different spectrum. Not grand conspiracy.

    Your essay is full of such claims, that you seemingly didn’t research well enough. I get the impression, that you’re just repeating some assertions from other flat Earthers without fact checking them. Debunking this one little fallacy here already took me a considerable amount of time. Obviously I cannot address each and every fallacy in your essay.

    So I’m not going through all your claims, they are more often than not just based on your lack of knowledge of the matter. All in all I think your whole argument boils down to “the dome is reflective, star trails in northern and southern hemisphere are circling in opposite directions, because they are reflections.” Is there anything more to it?

    Your only real attempt at demonstrating, how a flat Earth model could actually accurately represent the position of the stars is the astrolabe (sorry, light shining into a bowl is not a model, and BTW it’s pretty ridiculous to claim this would demonstrate star trails). What you don’t tell your reader is, that each astrolabe is limited to only one hemisphere. “Astrolabes could only show one hemisphere of the night sky, with the north celestial pole corresponding to the centre of the mater” ( http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/A/Astrolabe). You also might want to check out this animation ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Astrolabe_-_Stereographic_projection_on_tympan.gif/495px-Astrolabe_-_Stereographic_projection_on_tympan.gif). Even better, do you happen to know, which variation of the astrolabe can overcome this limitation? You guessed right, the armillary sphere aka the spherical astrolabe ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armillary_sphere).

    Are you going to correct yourself, or is there anything, you could bring forward to counter my argument?

    Kind regards.

    Like

    • Hi, thanks for reading my article, much appreciated 🙂

      I hadn’t seen your original message on reddit so apologies for not replying to that. Hopefully you will find this response satisfactory though.

      First, you mentioned that I’m “drowning [my] opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments”. Let me point out that I do not consider anyone reading my blog to be “opponents”. I am only presenting information here and I do not care for being “right”; rather, I care only for presenting factually-correct information. Thus, if anyone can point out SPECIFIC errors including a logical explanation for why they are wrong then I am more than happy admit an error and amend any content presented on this site.

      You mentioned that my post is full of “individually-weak arguments”, “full of such claims”, and “each and every fallacy”; and you conclude with “I’m not going to go through all your claims”. I think you are smart enough to realize that this sort of argument leaves us nowhere, because I do not know which SPECIFIC points you are referring to, so I have no way of answering those points.

      Now, regarding the first of the two points you do make – concerning the sun – I am not one to believe things I cannot prove for myself, and “photographs” provided to us by the freemasons and liars at NASA do not constitute proof, because there is no way anyone can replicate those.

      If you wish to see where my skepticism of NASA is born from then please refer to my two posts outlining many of their lies:

      17) The Greatest Liars of All Time: https://thenarrowgateweb.wordpress.com/2016/08/22/the-greatest-liars-of-all-time/
      24) Made In A Hollywood Basement: https://thenarrowgateweb.wordpress.com/2016/12/12/24-made-in-a-hollywood-basement/

      As for your second argument regarding the astrolabe:

      Astronomers for thousands of years have used the astrolabe successfully for navigation (among hundreds of other things). All this, whilst also being so “deluded” to think that the Earth was flat? Hmm… Either they would have all been EXTREMELY lucky, or the device they designed (based on a Flat Earth system) actually works because the Earth is exactly how the astrolabe models it to be – that is, flat.

      Trying to shoe-horn the globe onto the astrolabe is just nonsensical. For one, if the Earth is a globe spinning through space, then it would have moved MILLIONS upon BILLIONS of miles in the last few hundred years, meaning that astrolabe’s built centuries ago would quickly have become out-dated. As it happens though, hundreds-of-years-old astrolabe’s still work perfectly well today.

      If I may make a friendly recommendation, I would suggest that you take a look at my other material on the Flat Earth instead of getting hung up on this post. I have written this blog as a coherent narrative, and you will most certainly find it easier to understand where I am coming from if you take some time to assess all the information I have presented rather than just this post in isolation.

      You can find summary’s of all my work on the table of contents page: https://thenarrowgateweb.wordpress.com/2016/10/14/table-of-contents/

      Posts 16-24 are directly about Flat Earth, but I suspect that you’ll also find many of the other posts on this site pertinent too, as they lay a lot of important groundwork for the Flat Earth, including important information on cymatics, magnetism, and freemasonry which are important facets in seeing the bigger picture regarding Flat Earth.

      Kind Regards,
      Richard

      Liked by 2 people

      • Dear Richard,

        You’re completely missing my points.

        1) I mentioned the Gish Gallop, to explain why it’s impossible to address each of your point. Nothing more. I just cannot address all your claims. That’s all.

        2) You said the picture of the Sun doesn’t look like what we perceive with our own eyes. I explained, why no one is expecting this (recording in a different spectrum). Your claim that it should look like what we see with our own eyes is therefore dishonest, as no one ever implied it.

        3) I gave you a reference, to show that astrolabes cannot depict our whole sky on a flat surface. You pretend it does. You completely fail to mention that it only works for one hemisphere. Of course it can be helpful for navigation, if you do not leave that hemisphere. Nevertheless it cannot depict the whole sky, so you cannot pretend it would. There’s a whole hemisphere missing and the only variation that can do so is a spherical variation of the astrolabe. So there is still no flat Earth model, which could actually explain our everyday observations of the sky.

        Kind regards

        Like

  5. Apologies if my previous response was somewhat antagonistic in tone, that was not my intention.

    “Gish gallop” or not, I can only respond to specific points you’d like me to answer, so either point those out, or stop claiming that there are too many to discuss, because that gets us nowhere.

    If you can PERSONALLY replicate the view from a different spectrum then you will have a case. As it stands, it seems to me that you’re believing in pictures that some other men have told you are real – which you have not personally replicated. Real science is observable, measurable, and repeatable, and until you can prove to me otherwise with observable and repeatable methods, I will continue to believe what I can observe with my own two eyes – rather than pictures someone else wants me to blindly believe are real.

    The astrolabe was built by people who believed in Flat Earth, and who used that tool for centuries to accurately chart the motion of the stars and to navigate (among thousands of other uses). The astrolabe is also based on having a FIXED point (Polaris) around which everything revolves. A website with a pretty picture of a globe that bears no relation to reality is not going to change that.

    Kind Regards,
    Richard

    Like

  6. Hi,

    I completely agree, we can only discuss a limited amount of points. That’s exactly what I meant to say.

    The problem with the picture of the sun is YOU said that any 5-year old can tell us that it’s not what you see. Whether you believe in the authenticity or not, has nothing to do with my point. Your argument is not honest in this very sentence, because no one would expect that it looks the same, if something is recorded in a different spectrum. So that very sentence is misleading and deceptive. I don’t even want to argue with you about authenticity, but you are deceiving your reader, by implying that anybody claimed it should look the same. No one ever said that.
    As I said astrolabes are working fine as long as you don’t leave one hemisphere, no one doubts that they are helpful. My point is it’s not a flat Earth model of our sky again as you claim; it is a model of the sky of *one hemisphere* and you completely forgot to mention that. Are you trying to deceive your readers here?

    I think these two points are quite undeniable. Astrolabes only work for one hemisphere and the image of the sun was recorded in a different spectrum. The way you phrase it in your text your both times implying something that’s just not true. Personally I find it deceptive (maybe this was just an accident, I don’t want to suggest that you did it on purpose, that’s why I try to correct you here) and I was hoping you would correct it, since you seem to care about truth a lot.

    Best wishes

    Like

    • Show me a photo that shows the sun as a giant gaseous ball that you yourself have taken, with whatever spectrum filter you want, and I will believe you.

      Regarding astrolabes, this is becoming a rather circular argument so let’s just agree to disagree.

      As for my statement that “ANY 5 year old with eyes can tell you…”, I do agree that it isn’t necessarily factually correct, given that there are probably some 5 year olds out there who do have eyes but are unfortunately blind and couldn’t tell you, so in that respect you are totally correct and I sincerely apologize.

      Have a joyous day!

      Regards,
      Richard

      Like

  7. I’m still not trying to convince you that the image of the Sun is genuine (I think it is, indeed, but that’s not my point). You’re simply making a false argument by implying it should match what we see with our own eyes – different spectrum – therefore your sentence with the 5-year old is misleading.

    Do you know of any flat Earth model that can depict both hemispheres? You’re implying the astrolabe does, but it only works for one hemisphere. The fact that you don’t mention that at all, makes your argument seem very dishonest, sorry.

    Kind regards

    Like

    • As I’ve said before, until you can provide a picture of that other spectrum you talk about (that you have taken yourself) you have no case here.

      I explained the movement of the stars on Flat Earth in the article above. You don’t agree with what I’ve said, which is fine, but now you’ve said the same thing three times without coming up with any new arguments, and it’s getting a bit repetitive to answer the same thing over and over again.

      Please present some actual evidence or new arguments, else we are just going around in circles.

      Thanks,
      Richard

      Like

  8. Richard, I repeat again, I don’t argue whether this image of the sun is genuine or not. Again it’s not about the validity of the image. Your argument is dishonest because you say any 5 year old could tell you it doesn’t look the same. Well if it’s not recorded in the same spectrum I will never look the same. Your implication that this would prove fakery is dishonest, you’re deceiving your reader by not mentioning that no one would expect it looked the same. Again, not arguing about the validity of the picture. Your argument is deceptive.

    So can you link me to any flat Earth mode that can visualize the night sky of both hemispheres in one model? Why are you not upfront with your reader by not mentioning that the astrolabe can only display the stars of one hemisphere?

    Cheers

    Like

    • I did not say that the astrolabe only works in one hemisphere because that idea is categorically untrue.

      As for the 5 year old, I think most readers will understand that that is a lighthearted hyperbole to express an obvious point. Get over it.

      Regards,
      Richard

      Like

      • Yes the spherical astrolabe can account for both hemispheres, the flat one, that you show here doesn’t. Otherwise please give me a source. In conclusion, not a single flat Earth model can explain everyday observations of the night sky in both hemispheres.

        At least you finally admit that your argument is dishonest. I’m a little disappointed, since you mentioned in our private conversation, that you’d be happy to admit when you were wrong, but if you prefer to resort to these kinds of arguments to convince your readers, then that’s your decision.

        I’m definitely getting over it, it’s just kind of sad that you pretend to care so much about truth and then try to fool your readers with such cheap tricks.

        Cheers

        Like

    • “not a single flat Earth model can explain everyday observations of the night sky in both hemispheres.” … I just showed you in the article above how the Flat Earth model accounts for the movement of the stars – in both hemispheres (see the videos in the last section).

      I never admitted that my argument was dishonest, because it is not dishonest. Please learn the difference between a lie and hyperbole.

      I’m humbled that you’ve taken an interest, but having responded to four of your messages without getting anywhere I kindly ask that you please cease from posting here, because your posts are not contributing to any sort of constructive debate. Thanks in advance.

      Like

      • I keep replying since you are still ignoring the points, sorry. Either I didn’t phrase it well enough or you simply don’t want to address my points. If I had the impression you were answering my questions and not trying to dodge them I’d already have stopped. How long did it take to make it clear that I don’t mean to discuss about the validity of the image of the Sun but simply your claim about the 5 year old? 3 out of my 4 replies. So thanks for understanding that I’m not satisfied with the answers you gave me, as you were missing the point for the most part of the conversation.

        The “models” you are showing don’t represent the stars and constellations in both hemispheres. If I missed it I ask you again for the link. Actually the only attempt at showing a model here is the astrolabe. You simply don’t mention that it only can work for one hemisphere, that’s dishonest. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I’d appreciate it if you could support your claim that the astrolabe could account for both hemispheres simultaneously. Link or quote please. Your just insisting it does without showing any evidence at all. The short link I gave you initially proves you’re wrong.

        You’re dishonest because you say something similar to “the recording of this infrared camera doesn’t look like what we see with our own eyes”. That is dishonest, because you implied fakery and failed to mention that it’s simply due to the fact that the picture of the Sun is recorded in a different spectrum.

        Kind regards

        Like

  9. I kindly asked you to stop posting unless you could provide anything that could contribute to any sort of constructive debate.

    Now, just as in your previous posts, you are still talking about exactly the same things without providing any new or constructive arguments, namely:

    1. You said that I “failed to mention that it’s simply due to the FACT that the picture of the Sun is recorded in a different spectrum”.

    You call this a “fact”, yet further to my first response above you STILL haven’t provided a picture of this magnetic spectrum photo that YOU have personally replicated.

    2. You keep bringing up the 5 year old argument, but as I have explained to you twice already, that is a hyperbole that any 5 year old would understand to be exactly that.

    3. You say that I “simply don’t mention that it only can work for one hemisphere, that’s dishonest.”

    My post has very clearly explained how the motion of the stars work. If the information provided on the astrolabe and stars in my post is not sufficient then you are more than welcome to search the web for more information.

    I have patiently answered your questions, yet you keep coming back with exactly the same arguments time and time again, and respectfully – I simply do not have the time for circular arguments; nor do I want this page to be cluttered with aimless bickering that my readers have to endure.

    As such, I won’t be entertaining or allowing any further posts from you here. If you do not find that agreeable, move on. There are millions of other sites out there that you could waste your time on instead than on my dishonest rants.

    Kind Regards,
    Richard

    Like

  10. Hi Richard,

    Great blog!

    So, if the west has completely fabricated the idea of space/globular earth – where would Russia/China come in?

    We are led to believe that the respective governments of both countries also have extensive space programs. If it was all a Masonic conspiracy designed to perpetuate the goals of the NWO then surely China/Russia wouldn’t be involved?

    Keen to hear your thoughts.

    Cheers

    Like

    • Thanks for taking an interest Tom! 🙂

      That’s a good question. Living in “the west” I tend to focus more on the western organizations and societies (like NASA for example), but the simple fact is that all of these “space” agencies are freemasonic organizations promulgating the same lies – including Roscosmos (Russia), JAXA (Japan), and ESA (Europe) among others.

      Whilst China and Russia might seem like opponents of the NWO, they are very much on board with it. They are simply playing one side of the game (with America/NATO playing the other), which isn’t too different from how the Allies vs Axis power setup was in WW2. Both parties are controlled by the same people though (i.e. Rothschild bankers, Vatican, Jesuits, etc).

      For what it’s worth it’s incredibly funny to check out the differences in the pictures produced by each country’s “space agency” because the usually portray Earth in different colours and styles. China is particularly notorious for terrible space fakery (as with everything else I guess haha).

      Kind Regards,
      Richard

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s