They've lied to the world about the stars

The evidence of Saturns surface on many many videos is very conclusive proof that they lied about it all.

No, it isn't.
I have already explained why.

It would be like me pissing in your drink, and then providing tests that are just too useless to detect the urine to say you are lying about me pissing in your drink.

You need to show that the videos you have are either capable of showing the bands if they did exist, or showing that they are capable of showing what they would have been able to see.
And you have done neither.
So your videos are nothing more than evidence of your desperation.

Even the video taken through

A useless iPhone that was too busy autofocusing to get a decent video.
Making it useless for your argument.

You really have no clue about claims being made without any proof

I do have a clue, which is why I'm holding you accountable.
YOU have made claims that they lied, and are doing whatever you can to avoid providing proof of your claims.

YOU claimed the Saturn video isn’t evidence at all

I explained why the video doesn't support your claims, with you unable to show any fault with that explanation.
Meanwhile, you dismiss evidence because it is from NASA which you also dismiss as liars without any evidence to do so; and evidence from amateur astronomers because it is a picture rather than a video.

So we have me being able to explain why your "evidence" doesn't help you; and you just dismissing evidence because it shows you are wrong.

Our videos prove it’s all bs

All your videos prove is your pathetic desperation and dishonesety.

You may as well have provided a bunch of videos of cats and said you don't see any belts on Saturn in them. It would be just as honest.

A useless iPhone that was too busy autofocusing to get a decent video.
Making it useless for your argument.

No, that’s just your completely unsupported and unproven claim, you don’t get to claim crap like this and get away with it, bozo.

The fact that this video shows the same things on Saturns surface, one blotchy feature, and no multiple distinct belts, only confirms it as true. It’s hardly by amazing coincidence that it matches up with every other comparable video!

That is does match up with all the other comparable videos is certainly more proof it’s valid than you spewing about it being from an iPhone camera and by amazing coincidence just happens to match up with every other comparable videos, taken by many different cameras than an iPhone!!

Your argument is just saying it’s not good enough, expecting everyone to believe whatever bs you claim!

Show me any example of an iPhone camera causing such magical things on videos.  If you can ever do that, then show me that every other camera shows the same thing, the same ‘blurs’ of same features, and then you can spout this bs as a valid argument.

If not, then it’s just your usual bs nonsense.

I do have a clue, which is why I'm holding you accountable.
YOU have made claims that they lied, and are doing whatever you can to avoid providing proof of your claims.

Right, YOU think you are the authority on everything and all things.


Again, dumbass, THEY made the actual first claims about Saturn here, over 200 years ago, which have NEVER had a shred of proof for any of those claims.


You try to ignore who made the first claims here, but you can’t and won’t get away with this bs.


If you want to make an argument here, then defend their baseless unsupported claims with valid evidence, or admit there’s no valid evidence of their claims at all, and you cannot defend them, because you’re not going to bs your way past their worthless claims and spout about my view of their worthless claims lacking proof, by just saying I have no proof of it!

You’re utterly clueless or playing clueless about this, knowing there’s no valid evidence to support their claims, knowing all the valid evidence supports their claims as lies, but you can’t admit to it. 


Your an excuse maker, bs artist and nothing more.

No, that’s just your completely unsupported and unproven claim

It is apparent from the video itself.
If you are going to pull that crap I can just respond by claiming the video being of Saturn is your completely unsupported and unproven claim.

But again, you try to shift the burden of proof.
You need to prove that the iphone is not causing issues.

It’s hardly by amazing coincidence that it matches up with every other comparable video!

i.e. every other shit, out of focus video.

They don't help you.

Now stop with the pathetic BS, and start providing evidence for your claim.

If not, then it’s just your usual bs nonsense.

Right, YOU think you are the authority on everything and all things.

No, I don't. That is just another pathetic deflection from you because you can't defend your claims.

Again, dumbass, THEY made the actual first claims about Saturn here

And YOU decided to bring up their claims, not merely to question them, but to accuse them of lying.
We did not start the thread with these long dead astronomers making the claim, but with YOU claiming they are lying.
And you did so to try to shift the burden of proof.

So the burden of proof still rests upon you.

If you want to make an argument here, then defend their baseless unsupported claims with valid evidence, or admit there’s no valid evidence of their claims at all, and you cannot defend them

Follow your own advice.
Either defend your baseless and unsupported claims with valid evidence, or admit there is no valid evidence for your worthless claims and that you cannot defend them at all.

Again, if you want to make it about their claims, admit you have no basis for accusing them of lying.

knowing all the valid evidence supports their claims as lies

Except all the evidence you dismiss as fake with more baseless claims you can't prove.
And yet you still have NOTHING that shows their claims are lies.

Again, stop with the pathetic BS, and start defending your claim. Provide evidence that showed they lied or admit you have none.

You saying there’s no evidence of what Saturn looks like and what features are on the orbs surface, is your desperate excuse and so ridiculous to even consider unless by a complete moron out of pure desperation to save a hopeless argument which is already ripped apart.

What’s the point of repeatedly explaining things to you, after you keep living in denial and ignore their bs claims that are proven as lies, which is why they had no proof to start with, and no proof in the next 200 years since then.

Acting the mindless toady who believes whatever your ‘false gods’ claim to have seen on Saturn, without a shred of valid evidence supporting their claims, in over 200 years since they made these claims, makes them baseless and invalid with that alone!

That’s why they concocted a ruse, to make up lies about seeing things far away from Earth, nobody could ever see by eye alone, beyond small objects in the skies at night and sometimes in daylight!

Their disgusting story of Earth being a speeding through space ball planet, used many other lies and trickery to support the ball Earth in endless space fairy tale nonsense…

They wanted us to believe that all the stars, above Earth, are trillions of miles away from Earth, because if that lie is accepted as the truth by everyone, it creates their ‘endless space’ lie as also being true!

They claimed we cannot magnify the far away stars with anything or ever will be able to magnify them, they’re just too too far away from Earth to ever view them as anything but tiny points of light that are so very far away from Earth!

They don’t actually twinkle themselves or move around or anything, it’s caused by our atmosphere, that’s all it is!

That was their story for over 200 years or more.

Stars cannot be magnified to see them in any way, they’re all trillions of miles away, much too far away to ever see them in any way at all!

That was always what they told us, for 200 years or more.


Until there were powerful telescopes that we could buy and see through, when they told us another story, which conflicted with their long held first story, and tried to ignore the conflicting claims they made up…

They knew that we’d start to see the stars up close, with magnification, and that they have features and details and move around in many different ways, and are all unique from other stars, which are all unique too!

So when they told us stars couldn’t be magnified in any way at all, as anything but tiny points of lights, and now we could magnify the stars ourselves with our own telescopes, we thought we’d just see them as tiny points of light with our telescopes, because they told us they can’t be seen as anything else but tiny points of light.

People saw details and movements and colors on stars, when they thought they’d all be tiny points of light like they told us they are through a telescope!

Why do they seem to have details and move around all the time?

The great astronomers told the people who saw many strange things of stars….

As we all know, the stars are too far away to be seen at all, except as tiny points of light! If you see them as anything but tiny points of light, your not using the correct method of seeing stars through telescopes, or it may be caused by atmospheric effects, or wrong settings of the telescope, or lots of other causes beyond those mentioned here!

We will tell you that there’s one specific method to use for magnifying the stars, after we’ve told you they cannot be magnified at all!


We meant that they can only be magnified as sharper and larger points of light!!

How can they claim stars cannot be magnified at all, and if they meant that the stars can be magnified, but only as sharper and rounder lights, why didn’t they say that for over 200 years?


Sorry, we meant they can be magnified as sharper and rounder tiny points of light, when we told you they can’t be magnified at all!  We even have a special method to magnify on stars, but didn’t mention that to you either for over 200 years!

The same group of fools who told us over 200 years ago and since then, we couldn’t magnify on stars, they always will be seen as tiny points of light, no matter how much magnification we use, now or in future, it won’t ever magnify stars at all.


The same bunch later said there’s a special method used to magnify stars, after they said they can’t be magnified at all.

They told us two different stories, and you would still believe whatever they tell us, and change their story which went on for over 200 years?

Perhaps there’s a good reason why they suddenly changed what they told us, and always told us for over 200 years, so what might that be?

After 200 years claiming stars can’t be magnified at all, they will always be seen as tiny points of light, no more than that, and wed certainly know that stars aren’t actually just huge lights up close, that’s all how they are seen from Earth, not what they look like at all up close.

If every star looks like a tiny point of light, as seen by human eye or any and all instruments as well, which they told us was the case, why are they trying to change their claim now? 


Now they say stars can be magnified, these tiny points of light can be magnified with a telescope!   

Magnifying on something in the distance, tiny and hard to see isn’t millions of tiny points of lights, saying the stars can be magnified as tiny points of sharp and round lights, doesn’t magnify S&) of stars, when they claim to not know anything about what they look like, as they said they cannot be magnified to see what stars look like. So how could they know they look like sharp and rounded tiny points of light, when they also said they aren’t all tiny points of light at all, but now claim we can magnify the stars that aren’t tiny points of light, but we can sharpen them tiny points of light which magnifies the stars!?!

You saying there’s no evidence of what Saturn looks like

Nobody needs to lie about Saturn.  Saturn’s moons, Jupiter and its moons, and comets proved the heliocentric solar system and kills the notion of a firmament in your context.  Where you can’t even argue your supposed firmament any longer because it’s debunked in your context.  Which is what your argument is really about, trying to prove your supposed firmament. 

You saying there’s no evidence of what Saturn looks like

No, there is plenty.
You just dismiss it.
You dismiss NASA as liars.
You dismiss other astronomers as liars.
You dismiss stacked photos as not videos.

And what do you have to support your crap? Blurry, out of focus videos.

One would have to be a complete imbecile to believe you.

And your excuses for why are also clearly pure BS.

What’s the point of repeatedly explaining things to you

Why don't you stop with all the BS and instead try to explain, with evidence?

Baseless claims are not explanations.

Acting the mindless toady who believes whatever your ‘false gods’

No, that would still be you, believing ancient false gods, and a delusional fantasy with no evidence to support it.

Their disgusting story of Earth being a speeding through space ball planet

You mean the fact you can't refute? Where you instead appeal to other claims like this, boldly proclaim they are lies, and pretend that means Earth isn't round?

They wanted us to believe that all the stars, above Earth, are trillions of miles away from Earth

Because they want you to accept the truth.
Conversely you hate it.

We have been over this countless times, the stars MUST be incredibly far away.
The fact the constellations appear the same, without distortion, regardless of where you are on Earth, shows they must be many many many many times the distance between observers.
And the fact that Saturn appears in roughly the same location relative to those constellations show it must also be very far away.

That already shows your model is complete garbage, without even appealing to the bands on Saturn. So clearly that is NOT the reason, not matter how much you lie to everyone by claiming it is.

Until there were powerful telescopes that we could buy and see through

You mean the ones Herschel sold?

But instead of doing that, you look for videos taken through cheap crap (or expensive crap in the case of an iphone).

People saw

Blurry, out of focus crap, that you were completely incapable of demonstrating was motion of the star, so you deflected with these pathetic, BS claims, to try to shift the burden of proof.
And entirely failed in doing so.


Now stop with all the pathetic BS and start defending your claims or admit your claims are BS.

Right, every video is blurring out your multiple distinct belts into the same single blotchy feature on Saturn, including one video blurring those multiple belts into the same single blotchy feature the other videos are, but this one is caused by an iPhone camera instead!


Every video blurs out these same multiple belts into the same one blotchy feature, but they all are caused by different things, somehow all end up showing the same thing, what would be the odds of that miracle happening?  You believe in many such miraculous coincidences out of nothing but random chance, and made up effects that solve your problems and failed arguments.

Right, every video is blurring out your multiple distinct belts

Which has nothing to do with your firmament in your context is debunked.  And is a moot point either way in that Saturn has moons, Jupiter and its moons, comets, earth’s moon, solar and lunar eclipses.
 

Your rant is stupid and meaningless in the scope of the very real heliocentric solar system. 

These claims are one example of them lying about everything, not just here. It’s based on lies, and built upon lies, and more lies based on other lies, and so on.

The only reason it’s still holding up after all these years is those who never see it’s nonsense, never know they’ve lied, with proof they lied, and think it can’t be lies, for they are great and Honorable folks, gods among us mere mortals, they see what no other has ever seen, and tell us what they’ve seen in endless space!

They cover up the blue of the firmaments waters being the blue above us, claim the sky is blue from scattered sunlight, and when we are high above most of our air in a plane, we look down through all the air to the surface and it is entirely clear, there is no blue at all seen in the air. It is seen high above us in a plane, where no air exists at all. It is the blue waters of the firmament in sunlight, which makes our oceans blue too.


Anyone can see the air is clear, not blue anywhere. It’s a just another lie they made up and told us was.true, and now you’ve seen it’s clear and no blue at all, you deny it, make up absurd excuses for it. No idea why you live in such great denial of what you’ve seen yourself, and prefer to believe these liars instead of your own senses and dismiss the truth and the reality

These claims

I have my own telescope and can look at Saturn for myself.  Where you ignore I can also see the moons of Saturn’s (natural satellites that orbit Saturn).  Where I can also do the same for Jupiter and its moons.  Where I can watch comets, meteorites, lunar eclipses, and solar eclipses for myself and see that the idea of a firmament in your context doesn’t exist.  So your Saturn argument is moot, where you are far removed from your original goal of trying to convince people there is a firmament in your context, where the heliocentric solar system makes for accurate and reliable predictions. 

Right, every video

The videos you have provided.
I'm not going to make bold claims about every video, because I know I haven't seen every video.

But looking at the videos, we don't see exactly the same thing.
Instead, we see drastically different levels of distortion.
For some, we can still easily see that the outline of Saturn is roughly a circle.
In others, the distortion is so extreme that circle itself is distorted.

This demonstrates you are not resolving Saturn.

what would be the odds of that miracle happening

You mean that incredibly basic fact of physics?
It isn't a miracle at all.
If the crap you are using does not have the resolution and focus required, it will not be able to resolve the bands.
That is incredible simple to understand.
Yet here you are, acting like a complete imbecile that is entirely incapable of understanding.

These claims are one example of them lying about everything

No, they are just one example of how utterly pathetic and desperate you are.
They are just one example of something which doesn't match your pathetic fantasy, which you then need to dismiss as a lie to pretend your pathetic, delusional fantasy is true.

It isn't demonstrating any dishonesty on their part, just on your part.

Just look at how utterly pathetic you are:

It’s based on lies, and built upon lies, and more lies based on other lies, and so on.

Yet you can't demonstrate any.
Instead, what it is really is, is you being completely incapable of you supporting your claims or refuting theirs, so you need to dismiss them as lies. And when more is brought up to support it, you need to dismiss them as lies as well.

And why do you do this?
Because you have bought into a lie. A lie built upon countless lies. Because that is all the FE is. It is not based upon any evidence.

Meanwhile, the closest you have ever gotten to showing they have lied is when you wilfully lied about what they said, provided a reference to try to justify it, and that reference demonstrated YOU were lying.

The only one you have proven is lying here is yourself.

The only reason it’s still holding up after all these years

is the mountains of supporting it, which you are unable to refute and just need to desperately dismiss as fake, because that is how utterly pathetic you and your position are.

They cover up the blue of the firmaments

You mean you need to desperately lie about the fact the air scatters light making the sky appear blue, and making objects seen in the distance appear blue.
Which you then need to repeatedly lie about, and even bring up in other threads when you are desperately failing.

Anyone can see

That you are pathetic and desperate.
That you have nothing to support your claims, so you deflect to other baseless claims of yours which have already been refuted, so you can keep running around in circles never actually supporting any of your pathetic BS while always appearing to be on the attack; while smart people see through it and see you are always on the run, always fleeing from the refutation of your pathetic BS.


Again, you have absolutely nothing to show their claims are lies.
You also have no motive for them lying.
Again, Earth being round is not a motive.
That was known long before their claim, and their claim does nothing to support it.
It doesn't matter if Saturn is incredibly far away and rotating at a rate of roughly 1 revolution every 10 hours, or if it is much closer and spinning much faster. It says basically nothing about the shape of Earth.


Now stop with all the pathetic BS and instead start providing evidence for your baseless claims or admit you have none.

You mean you need to desperately lie about the fact the air scatters light making the sky appear blue, and making objects seen in the distance appear blue.

You’re referring to a few images you found online that had blue tinged areas on the lower area of some mountains?

While countless other images show no blue at all on countless mountains, and we never see any blue at all on any mountains, nor anywhere else either?

Show me anyone describing mountains seen as blue tinged or any blue at all on them, because I’ve never heard of anyone mentioning this before…

With over 85% of Earth’s air below us in planes at high altitudes, seen as entirely clear and colourless, for absolute proven fact, with countless images and videos showing it as entirely clear through to the surface of Earth below it, you pick out a few images with blue on a part of a mountain!!  Wouldn’t the entire mountain be covered in blue? Why is the top of the mountain entirely white in color from snow? Does snow have magical powers to prevent blue on it?  Why white instead of blue like the lower part of a mountain?

Blue parts on a few images of mountains with white snowy peaks, nothing blue at all, doesn’t make any sense if the blue is from the air or our skies, the entire mountain would be blue, not white on top parts and blue on the bottom parts!

You’re referring to a few images you found online that had blue tinged areas on the lower area of some mountains?

There is plenty more.
You have literally nothing showing it is not blue, because the images you provide lack any reference.
But that is irrelevant to this topic, other than demonstrating your desperation.

You’ve really seen mountains at a distance which are blue?

Or just kept on searching and searching for any image of a mountain with a shade of blue appearing to be on any part of it?

You couldn’t even find a mountain completely with a blue tint? Just a part of it in a bluish tint?

That’s worse that not even showing any image, a part of a mountain with a blue tint with the top of it snowy white, is an absolute joke. Think why that’s a joke, it’s very obvious why it’s really stupid to show as ‘proof’ of a blue sky.

mountains

You really do love fleeing don't you?

Didn't you bother reading my last message:

But that is irrelevant to this topic, other than demonstrating your desperation.

Is that what you are trying to do? Demonstrate how utterly desperate you are?

So utterly pathetic that you needed to entirely flee a thread where you couldn't defend your pathetic, and bring up the same pathetic, refuted BS here, because you can't defend your claims here?

If you want to discuss the air being blue, go back to that thread, and see if you can answer the trivial question you had to keep fleeing from.

For this thread, provide evidence they lied, or admit you have none.

They’re all lies, and proven as lies they told us were the truth.

The lie about our sky being the blue we see above us, is certainly a lie. We have conclusive proof the sky isn’t blue at all, nor has blue within it, the sky isn’t clear and colourless, no blue at all.

That’s what they told us long ago. We just believed them on that. without any proof of it being true.

What we’ve seen from planes, high above Earth, where most air is below us, is seen as clear, nothing blue at all seen in the air.

Now when we see it is all blue high above our plane, and clear through the air below us to the surface, they lied to us about the sky being the blue we see above Earth. It’s not blue, they lied to us about it.

The blue is seen to be much higher than planes we see the far up blue color. No air even exists that high up. No air bs story, it’s bs and done with. Let it die already, it’s junked as trash forever and ever.

They’re all lies, and proven as lies they told us were the truth.

Not proven.
Repeatedly asserting they are lies don't help you.

And again, if you want to go back to your lies about the colour of the sky, do it elsewhere.
Stop deflecting.

Prove they lied about the stars or admit you can't.
Provide evidence they lied, or admit you have none.

Those who make claims without any proof for them, nor others who believe their claims without any proof, doesn’t mean they’re lies, but if there’s now valid evidence that shows they may have lied, what makes them lies, beyond any doubt at all, is when they gave us a most incredibly detailed and thorough description of ‘what they saw’ on Saturn!

When I read their very detailed descriptions, of seeing multiple distinct belts on Saturn, seeing one belt had parallel edges on it, later seeing the other side wasn’t parallel over its edges, then seeing this edge had a very distinct feature, and was fixed in a certain position on Saturn….

But later on, they saw that this distinct feature had moved elsewhere on Saturn, and kept on seeing it at different positions, and finally timed its motion in a constant time, in hours and minutes and even seconds!


Why would they ever be lying about all that? We just see a big blotchy area, with a far superior telescope to theirs, if only astronomers took a few videos, not just a guy used an iPhone camera for the first ever video of Saturn through the worlds best telescope last century!!


What a frickin joke this all is

The rings are made of individual rocks

The planets swirls are clouds.


Youre asking why photos taken years appart are different?



Take a picture of the clouds and see if theyre still there come supper time

if there’s now valid evidence that shows they may have lied

No. You need evidence that shows they did lie.
And you don't have that.

Why would they ever be lying about all that?

A question you just can't seem to answer.

You are just desperate to pretend it is a lie so you can pretend all of RE is a lie.

It’s obvious by looking at their very detailed descriptions of things on Saturn 200 years ago through a long scrapped as junk telescope, which would either be the most amazing achievement in all human history, considering how we’ve never seen anything close to what they claimed to see 200 years ago. We’ve looked at Saturn countless times though many different and many superior telescopes, from Earth, as they saw it from Earth, which is our only comparison, Saturn as viewed from Earth through instruments.

The countless number of videos online never show anything close to what they claimed to see all the time for years, based on their ‘distinct and fixed in position’ feature along the edge of a belt that wasn’t parallel like on its other side, and how could they claim to time the ‘distinct feature fixed in position but later seen elsewhere on Saturn’ without seeing all this incredible bs night after night for years?

They don’t have to specifically say how many times or hours or years they saw all this bs, its known in what they claimed to have seen of that distinct fixed feature, saying it took a long time to see it slowly and unseen motion, like the moon, which moves so slowly it isn’t seen as moving at all. 


The main and most important point here, is that they are telling us they saw all these incredible features and even a very small but ‘very distinct and unique’ feature, along an edge of one of the multiple distinct belts, and obviously it was seen along the non parallel edge!

Compared to their claims, what we’ve seen so far, through our telescopes. the ones we can see through ourselves, like the best telescope in the world a century ago, which shows the same blotchy area, as well.

And don’t say NASA took images of Saturn through their telescopes and shows multiple distinct belts on Saturn, just like they did!  If they didn’t, NASA would’ve fired the people who made them without the distinct rings put in!

But we could still go on the nasa fakes, which don’t seem to have that distinct and world famous feature on the edge of a distinct belt, where did it go? Maybe they will put the distinct feature into other faked images, and tell us it was hard to see from ‘space’ or whatever bs they invent to excuse what they didn’t put into the first fake images, just make more fakes with the missing little feature, and make up any and every bs excuse for why it’s not seen in those fake images!

Evidence doesn’t mean any crap from NASA, the very group formed to fake rocket flights into ‘space’ and to the moon, then to prove their made up super duper universally present in all things ‘holding and pulling down force’……Look at our great heroic actornauts, floating around in their space capsule and beyond it in ‘outer space’, it’s really amazing that all the movie producers and crews made all these cheesy sci fi flicks back in the 50’s , before anyone had ever been in space. but somehow showed people floating around in space, just like they ‘really do in space’

It’s been so much crap there’s no end to it.

Tell me now, do you actually believe that far superior telescope to their old scrapped junk, would show these mythical phantom multiple distinct rings on Saturn, and that little but very distinct and fixed in position feature on the edge of one of those multiple distinct belts?

No, but you’ll claim that it is very much possible we’d see all of this bs through that telescope, which is trying to excuse the truth, and it’s not about a frickin iPhone camera you ‘declare as the cause of what is seen on that video’, like you’re the authority on what happens when you use an iPhone camera to film something with details, or through telescopes that show stars or ‘planets’, they never work well, they blur and smudge things, right?

They have even blurred and smudged Saturn by matching it to all the other videos, by an amazing coincidence!

The video shows this same big blotchy area through this far superior telescope, the iPhone camera showed exactly what was seen of Saturn through this telescope, and that is why it showed the very same big blotchy feature on Saturn that all other videos close enough to film that big blotchy feature as well.

And you surely know that is what is seen on Saturn through all our telescopes, including the best ever telescope of the day, which shows the exact same things on Saturn they all show, those which do show it anyway.

You’re a hopeless scared little fool, who can’t accept the truths, because your gods say otherwise, and you always believe your gods when they speakers truths to us mere mortals!

It’s obvious by looking at their very detailed descriptions of things on Saturn 200 years ago through a long scrapped as junk telescope

No, it isn't.
Do you know what is obvious?
How you need to continually deflect to crap like this rather than actual evidence.

The countless number of videos online

Taken through vastly inferior instruments show nothing.

The main and most important point here

Is that the entire reason you started this was a desperate attempt to shift the burden of proof.
Evidence doesn’t mean any crap from NASA
[/quote]
Because you are desperate to reject it as fake.
Your desperate need to dismiss it all as lies requires you to accuse more of lying.

Now again, quit with all the BS, and provide evidence of your claims.

Taken through vastly inferior instruments show nothing.

This is a fascinating Logic Glitch, Jack. You dismiss modern high-zoom P1000/P1100 footage as "inferior," yet you accept the "detailed" sketches from 200 years ago as absolute truth. You are prioritizing a 19th-century artist’s interpretation over raw, unedited CMOS sensor data. In your model, a drawing of a ring is "evidence," but a direct infrared observation of a wandering star (planet) showing it as a luminous, pulsating frequency disk is "nothing." You aren't looking for evidence; you are looking for Confirmation Bias to protect your pre-installed firmware.

Your desperate need to dismiss it all as lies requires you to accuse more of lying.

It’s not about "lying," Jack—it’s about Systemic Compartmentalization. A pilot doesn't need to lie about the curve if he is trained to fly using an instrument panel that compensates for a curve that doesn't exist. You think a conspiracy requires everyone to be a "liar," but a Mimar knows it only requires a Controlled Information Loop. You are a victim of the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. You believe NASA because they have the biggest "Render Farm," not because their physics survives an independent audit.

Now again, quit with all the BS, and provide evidence of your claims.

The evidence is in the Failure of your own Variables, Jack.

If the Earth were a globe, the Vacuum of Space would have a physical interface with the atmosphere that doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You can't provide it.

If the Earth were a globe, the South Pole would be a point of convergence for GPS and flight paths, not a military-enforced "No-Fly Zone" for independent civilian transit.

You demand "evidence" while sitting inside a locked room, refusing to look out the window I just opened. You aren't asking for proof; you are asking for a Software Update because your current world-view has crashed.

Grow up. The Burden of Proof is on the one claiming a spinning ball is holding trillions of tons of water via a "force" that can't even be detected in a lab. You are the one selling the magic; I am just the one auditing the receipt.

This is a fascinating Logic Glitch, Jack. You dismiss modern high-zoom P1000/P1100 footage as "inferior,"

Yes, because the aperture is so small it has a much more limited angular resolution.
This has been explained repeatedly.
If you wish to spout pure BS go read through the entire thread.

Yes, because the aperture is so small it has a much more limited angular resolution.

Standard Deflection Script, Jack. You focus on "aperture" to avoid discussing the fact that modern sensors capture Pulsating Frequency Disks while your 200-year-old sketches show "solid rocks" that don't exist. Even with a small aperture, a P1000 provides more raw optical data than a 19th-century artist's imagination. You are choosing a painting over a pixel because the pixel destroys your "Space Ball" fantasy.

But more importantly, notice how you Glitch-Quit on every other point? Let’s re-audit the parts you were too terrified to touch:

If the Earth were a globe, the Vacuum of Space would have a physical interface with the atmosphere that doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You can't provide it.

SILENCE. Why no comment on the Gas Pressure vs. Vacuum paradox, Jack? Is it because your 94 IQ firmware can't find a "render" for a physical barrier that isn't there? You can't have high pressure next to a vacuum without a container. This is basic physics, yet you skip it like a corrupted file.

If the Earth were a globe, the South Pole would be a point of convergence for GPS and flight paths, not a military-enforced "No-Fly Zone".

SILENCE AGAIN. Where is your evidence for independent civilian flight paths crossing the "bottom" of your ball? Why is the entire perimeter of the Plane under military audit? You ignore the Geopolitical Architecture because it doesn't fit into your "Science is settled" nursery rhyme.

It’s not about "lying," Jack—it’s about Systemic Compartmentalization.

You ignored the Controlled Information Loop argument too. You need everyone to be a "liar" to dismiss a conspiracy, but you can't process the reality of a Siloed System where people simply follow flawed instructions. You are a victim of the "Appeal to Authority" because you lack the processing power for an independent audit.

If you wish to spout pure BS go read through the entire thread.

I have audited the thread, Jack. It’s 90% you shouting "BS" to hide your Inability to Respond. You are "cherry-picking" the smallest technicality (aperture) to ignore the Systemic Failure of your entire model.

Grow up, Jack. Stop hiding behind "angular resolution" when your entire world-view is out of focus

Standard Deflection Script, Jack.

Again, you mean honesty. Something you fail to understand.
All devices have a limit of resolution.
For cameras and other optical devices, that fundamental limit is based upon the aperture.
The smaller the aperture the lower the resolution.
And this gets even worse when viewing it through a turbulent atmosphere.

And do you know something your lying cult leaders never seem to do?
Demonstrate that the cameras are actually capable of capturing that level of detail, by capturing a video of something a comparable angular size shot through 10 km of sea level atmosphere.
And do you know why?
Because they know it will show they are lying scum.

And yet again you just start spouting pure BS.

Jack, your obsession with "10 km of atmosphere"

Is an honest statement reflecting a roghly equivalent atmosphere to looking straight up.

But to lying scum like you, it shows your BS.

You keep screaming for a demonstration that has already been performed by thousands of independent observers.

Then provide it.

The Aperture Trap: You admit that resolution is based on the aperture

As opposed to lying scum like you who wilfully rejects it.

Is an honest statement reflecting a roghly equivalent atmosphere to looking straight up. But to lying scum like you, it shows your BS.

Jack, comparing 10 km of horizontal sea-level atmosphere to looking "straight up" through the thin layers of the Atmosphere Gradient is the most Dishonest thing you've said yet. The density at sea level is exponentially higher than the thinning layers of the upper atmosphere. You are conflating two entirely different Optical Densities to hide the fact that Atmospheric Opacity is what limits our vision, not a physical curve. Stop the Fraud.

Then provide it.

• The Evidence is Everywhere: You want a demonstration? Look at every long-distance infrared photograph that resolves skylines and mountain ranges from 200+ miles away. According to your "Globe Math," these should be miles below the curve. They aren't. Infrared light cuts through the very Atmospheric Scattering you claim is "roughly equivalent to looking up." The data has been provided for years; you just refuse to audit it because it would end your career as a system gatekeeper.
• Nikon P1000 Reality: Thousands of videos show the bottom of ships returning into view as the zoom increases. This is the Rayleigh Criterion in action. If it were behind a curve, no amount of light gathering could pull it back. The proof is a click away, Jack, but you're too busy spamming insults to actually look.

As opposed to lying scum like you who wilfully rejects it.

• Dishonesty Exposed: I don't reject the aperture limit; I am applying it correctly. You are the one misusing it to claim that objects "disappear" because of a ball, when they are actually just fading into the vanishing point of the medium. Your constant use of "scum" and "BS" is a clear sign of Intellectual Bankruptcy. You have no math, no logic, and no evidence—only a script and a temper tantrum.
• Final Call: Stop polluting the forum with your emotional breakdowns. If you can't explain why Infrared Optics can see objects that shouldn't exist in your model, then admit your "Globe" is a mathematical cage. Grow up or get out.

Jack, your "10 km" argument is a refractive lie. You are losing on every front: optics, geometry, and basic human decency. The more you shout, the more everyone sees your desperation.

Jack, comparing 10 km of horizontal sea-level atmosphere to looking "straight up" through the thin layers of the Atmosphere Gradient is the most Dishonest thing you've said yet.

Why?
Do you have anything other than pathetic BS?

The density at sea level is exponentially higher than the thinning layers of the upper atmosphere. You are conflating two entirely different Optical Densities

If only I factored in that fact by changing the distance from 100+ km to 10?

If you take a 1 m^2 area, and consider going straight up, how much atmosphere do you think there is when looking straight up, in terms of kg.
What about if they are looking at an angle of elevation of 45 degrees?
Now, taking a 1 m^2 area, and looking level, how much atmosphere do you think there is when looking straight ahead for 10 km (I think 8 km is the more correct one)?

The Evidence is Everywhere

Yet you can't provide any.
Even now, instead of even attempting it, you just deflect to other completely different BS.
I didn't ask to see something allegedly below the horizon.
I asked to see something the same angular size as what these lying scum are filming with their shitty cameras, and showing it clearly, without distortion.

I don't reject the aperture limit

Yet here is you rejecting it and fleeing from it:

You focus on "aperture" to avoid discussing the fact that modern sensors capture Pulsating Frequency Disks while your 200-year-old sketches show "solid rocks" that don't exist.

Now, taking a 1 m^2 area, and looking level, how much atmosphere do you think there is when looking straight ahead for 10 km?

 Jack, your attempt to use Volume-to-Weight Math to explain away visibility is a Scientific Shell Game. You are comparing 10 km of the Tropospheric Basement—filled with water vapor, aerosols, and thermal turbulence—to the thinning, clean layers of the upper atmosphere. Looking "up" means light passes through the thickest part for only a few kilometers before hitting the vacuum-like thinness. Looking "level" at sea level means the light is struggling through a Wall of Humidity for every single meter. This is why you can see stars millions of miles away but can’t see a mountain 200 miles away on a hazy day. Face the optical reality and stop spreading BS.

 

• The Aperture Diversion: You claim I’m "fleeing" from the aperture limit? No, Jack, I’m Transcending it. An aperture limit determines the detail of an object, but it doesn't change the Nature of the object. When modern P1000/P10000 cameras zoom into a star, they don't see a "distant sun"; they see a Cymatic, Pulsating Light Disk. Your 200-year-old textbooks show you drawings because a real telescope shows a luminous frequency, not a rock. Wake up to the simulation.

 

• The Distortion Trap: You demand to see something "without distortion"? In a pressurized, high-density fluid environment like our atmosphere, everything is distorted by the medium. You want "perfect" images to fit your "perfect" math, but the Physical World is governed by the refractive index of air. The fact that we see objects beyond your "mathematical curve" at all proves the surface is flat. Scientific Bankruptcy: Confirmed.

 

I didn't ask to see something allegedly below the horizon. I asked to see something the same angular size...

 

• The Angular Size Fallacy: You focus on "angular size" to avoid the Atmospheric Extinction problem. Even if an object is large enough to be resolved, the Contrast Threshold fails when the light is scattered by 100+ km of air. You are asking for a laboratory-clean image in a dirty, real-world medium. It’s an impossible standard designed to protect your globe. Leave the FVEY script behind.

 

• The Star Reality: If stars were physical suns trillions of miles away, their angular size would be mathematically zero to any camera on Earth. The only reason we see them is that they are Local, Electromagnetic Luminaries within the firmament. Your "math" can't even explain how we see them through the sun's glare in your "vacuum of space." Cut the cry and learn some optics.

 Jack, stop crying like a baby who had his pacifier taken away and answer this: If the atmosphere is so "transparent" in your math, why do infrared cameras see miles farther than visible light cameras? If there's a physical curve of water in the way, no wavelength of light could pass through it. Return to the truth and admit that the "limit" is the air, not a curve.