WHY would the government trick us?

So if I plopped the northern star map in the region above the equator as is, and I hollowed out the center of the southern star map so it appeared to be a ring

So you take the model based upon a RE, and just cut out parts you don't like, still ignoring the south celestial pole?

The fact there is a point you can rotate around, with the stars tracing circular paths around this point, and this point simply being based upon your latitude, requires Earth to be round with the stars very far away.

That is still not a model based upon a FE.
That is a still a model based upon a RE, and a model which wouldn't work for a FE.

This is why there exists dishonesty in this relationship.

Because you continually lie to everyone and misrepresent things?
Yes, that is why.

if you gave me and potential Flat Earthers reading posts in this forum a certain level of good faith.

You start with a level of good faith, and you destroy it by repeatedly lying to everyone and ignoring things that show you are wrong.

I am defending my own ideas.

No you aren't.
You continually flee from having to defend your ideas, spouting pure BS, ignoring the refutations of your crap and mostly just attacking others.
That is not defending your ideas.

Markjo, the only thing this proves is that maybe North Pole shifts over time.

The key thing that proves is that the north celestial pole is not special.
Polaris is not magically fixed in place like you want to pretend.
It is simply a star close to the north celestial pole, just like Sigma Octantis is a pole close to the south celestial pole.
Both function as pole stars.

That change of position after centuries of the North Star being fixed doesn't square all that well with a constantly rotating, orbiting, and wobbling Earth

It most certainly does.
You are yet to show any fault with it and instead just continue to assert pathetic crap.
You keep appeal to a wobble, yet that wobble you appeal to doesn't actually exist, and instead a complete different wobble does.

yet somehow the poles changing affects the pole star trillions of miles away.

No, it doesn't.
That crap is like saying if you are looking towards a mountain 10s of km away, and then turn your head to the right, you have magically affected that mountain.

No, you haven't.
You have simply changed the direction you are looking.
At the same is happening here.
The precession of Earth's rotation means over a period of 10s of thousands of years, the direction of Earth's north pole changes. This means if you were at the north pole looking straight up, you would see different stars in the centre of your FOV over these 10s of thousands of years.
This is simply changing direction, not magically affecting those stars.

Hold on, I'll wait for it to dawn on you.

You mean you will spout more pathetic BS.
See, this is why people don't have any good faith about you, and why it is hard for them to have good faith about other FEers.
Because of all the baseless crap you spout that you make no attempt to justify other than by spouting more baseless crap, including plenty of crap which you actually refute.

Yeah, a changing pole star being affected by changing pole location only makes sense in a nonmoving geocentric near-orbit-star model.

No. It makes absolutely no sense in that.
You can't have a changing pole location in a non-moving geocentric model.

Otherwise, you're talking about a tractor beam-like pulse extending trillions of miles to make sure Polaris perfectly keeps pace with the entire northern hemisphere at all points of its rotation around the sun.

No, that is just your pathetic strawman.
Once more, nothing is perfect.
This very discussion is about how it isn't perfect and how it changes over time.
But like the lying scum with no good faith at all, you lie to everyone and pretend it is perfect.

And did you notice what you appealed to before?
The distance to Polaris.
How far away was it?
You said 323 light years. Using reliable sources it is closer to 447 light years.
But lets ignore all that and just use your number. We can even take the conversion to miles, where you have it as ~300 * 6 trillion.
Doing that math honestly, you quickly recognise 3*6=18, so 300 *6 = 1 800, i.e. roughly 2 quadrillion miles. Not merely trillions.
But lets ignore that as well, as just pretend it is only 1 trillion miles away, further going down into the depths of your dishonest BS rabbit hole.
Now, ask yourself, how much should the angular position of it change going from one side of Earth's orbit to the other?
We can even pretend we have a perfect alignment with one side.
Well, for that we can use simple geometry (which in fact even throws in another simplification in your favour which would be exaggerating the change in angle for Polaris, the fact that the north pole is not perpendicular to the orbital plane):
da = atan(Diameter of orbit / Distance to star)
So the orbit has a diameter of 200 million miles.
So this gives us:
da = atan(200 million / 1 trillion)
This can be simplified to:
da = atan(1/5000)

Or a change of 0.01 degrees.
That is insignificant.
If we did it more honestly, and instead put 2 quadrillion, it gets even worse for you, a change of only 0.000006 degrees.

Do you really think you would notice that?

If you were acting in good faith, and had the intelligence to understand what you were talking about, you would have done the math and shown how the expected change in position of Polaris from Earth's orbit around the sun is insignificant.

You might even try to look up measurements of the parallax of Polaris, and see that it does change.

But no, instead you just spout complete and utter crap, similar to crap you have posted in the past and had refuted.
And yet you wonder why no one has any good faith in you; while you continue to act in bad faith.

Either you are intentionally lying to everyone or you have no idea what you are talking about and either don't give a damn, or aren't intelligent enough or are too heavily brainwashed to realise you don't understand.

Quote

going straight

[going in a circle]

And here you are, acting in bad faith yet again.
Pretending that a circle and a straight line are the same thing.

you give zero fucks about what Flat Earthers actually believe, because to you, what is more important is what you can claim via strawman that Flat Earthers believe

There you go projecting again.

No, we explain the logical consequences of your models.
On the other hand, you repeatedly lie about the RE model, setting up pathetic strawman to attack, which are continually refuted and explained why it is a strawman.

It was the one dead center that wasn't moving.

Congrats on showing your dishonesty yet again.
You claim it isn't moving, but you can easily take screenshots and compare.
For example, this comparison, made by taking a screenshot at the first frame where it showed 7 seconds in, and then the first frame where it showed 20 seconds in.
This was placed directly into GIMP, with it automatically aligned based upon pressing the print screen button to capture the screen, and then paste directly in, so both screenshots took up the same area.
It then cropped the image (not the layers) to a region around Polaris and exported as a gif.

Which star doesn't move?

You can even see this in the star trail version at the end:


Tell me you lying POS, which star isn't moving? Which star doesn't produce a trail?

And again, you wonder why people do no think you are acting in good faith, and why people have no good faith towards you.
Yet here you are posting a video and then blatantly lying about it.

Taking it as the best case for you in terms of good faith, you looked at for 10 seconds, and couldn't tell there was any motion, likely because you wanted it to be stationary.

Yet if you try for any honest, objective measurement, even a simple case of having 2 frames some time apart you can switch between, it becomes trivial to see it is moving.

But could that really be the case? That you just didn't notice it?
No.
Because of this lie from you:

While all the stars were on time lapse and forming streaks, it wasn't moving at all.

Except it did.
And even that shows it to be a streak not a point. It is just quite a small streak.
And if you kept watching you would have seen a much clearer streak.

So no, there is no reason at all to assume good faith here.
You are lying to everyone.

The video YOU chose to post as evidence for your claims shows you are lying to everyone.

When you continue to pull crap like this, why should anyone treat you with good faith?
Why should anyone trust a single word you say?

The equator is kinda broken in half:

No, it is like you are looking at the equator of a rotating sphere from the inside.
That does not look broken in half.
There is no break.
It is continuous.

And the southern hemisphere does a widening and narrowing thing like it's expanding and contracting

And another pathetic lie.
HOW?
Looking at this image of just the south, it looks similar to the north.
Where all the stars appear to be circling a point in the centre.

It is only if you look at it collectively, going from the north to the south that it appears to widen and narrow.
i.e. at the north, they trace very small circles around the point in the north.
As you move away from that, these circles widen, getting larger and larger.
But then once you go past the equator, they start narrowing again, reaching a point at the south.

This is exactly what is expected for a round Earth, and nothing at all like what is expected for a flat Earth with the stars circling overhead.

Quote

Dude.  Flat earth doesn’t work.  What do you not understand.  Going due east out of Maine leads to going to the Europe.  Going due east will never get you to an ice wall.  It’s clear in the FE delusion that going straight in any direction should eventually lead to an Ice wall.  That’s not reality. 

Basically, it leads to going to Europe, that is correct. Specifically, since Maine is around 44 N or 45 N, it leads to France, which is also parts of Romania, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Heilongjiang in China, and nips the Hokkaido region of Japan, across the water, then goes to parts of Canada, and back to Maine. 

It's clear to you, that it should hit an ice wall, because you give zero fucks about what Flat Earthers actually believe, because to you, what is more important is what you can claim via strawman that Flat Earthers believe. No thanks, I'd rather not have other people tell me what I believe.

Quote

Polaris isn't...

After about 10 seconds, I figured out which star was Polaris before they pointed it out. It was the one dead center that wasn't moving. It moved once, because he shifted the camera. 

While all the stars were on time lapse and forming streaks, it wasn't moving at all.
8

The northern hemisphere has a clear center:

The equator is kinda broken in half:

And the southern hemisphere does a widening and narrowing thing like it's expanding and contracting:

Good ol Bulma the bullshitter!

I can't believe you brought poor ol Jesus in on your flat earth joke. What did Jesus ever do to you (aside from his dad giving you a schlong)?

The thing is, literally nobody understands Jesus. That's why the meme works. Even when he says something in plain English.

Protip: if you're gonna tell the world how to be saved, probably don't speak in parables.

The thing is, literally nobody understands Jesus. That's why the meme works. Even when he says something in plain English.

Protip: if you're gonna tell the world how to be saved, probably don't speak in parables.

How does you being a pathological liar and a troll for attention help in anyway with anything. 

Is it in the 10 commandments to believe the earth is flat?  I think there is something about bearing false witness and thus lying and being a con.

Is it in the law of Moses to believe the world is flat. 

In the new covenant?

Is it in love God with all and love your neighbor as yourself.

Is in “"Don't cast your pearls before swine"

“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything"—but not everything is constructive.


I shouldn’t even waste my time with pathological liars.   But it’s fun to watch Bulma and Turbs try to play the mind game of trying to act superior and yet epically fail by dying small deaths of repeatedly lying and acts of stupidity.

Bulma, you don’t get your desire for attention and false authority makes you the freak at the circus.  I also feel guilt, but you ask for this.

The thing is, literally nobody understands Jesus. That's why the meme works. Even when he says something in plain English.

Protip: if you're gonna tell the world how to be saved, probably don't speak in parables.

More in line with this thread.

Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” And they were amazed at him.

Where being tricked is a theam.

Again Bulma, Eric is a con.  Bulma, you are a proven pathological liar.  Again. FE is a con, and it’s summed up in this simple exercise.  FE doesn’t have a working explanation for phases of the moon and why those phases are interrupted by the lunar eclipse.  Where phases of the moon and the lunar eclipse are demonstrable proof the heliocentric model.  Where solar eclipses, tides, why things get physically blocked bottom up with distance by earth’s curvature, north and south celestial poles, why the northern star cannot be seen in the southern hemisphere, sunsets, why the sun rises due east for the world on the equinox all work in harmony.

Where in FE the above list has to be explained by magic with no proof of existing, where trying to prove the FE usually ends up contradicting itself.  Where FE isn’t even useful for celestial navigation.  Where FE is more than likely to get a person lost at sea.  And is useless in astronomy.  And doesn’t even have a working explanation for comets. 

The thing is, literally nobody understands Jesus.

Or, people like you just want to pretend they don't understand, so you can say whatever crap you want.
But notice how yet again you just provide crap and ignore the issue?

How about instead of that pathetic crap you tell us why you blatantly lied to us?
Can you do it?
Can you even admit that you lied, and the time-lapse footage you linked to shows Polaris moving?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 16, 2025, 12:26:27 PM

While all the stars were on time lapse and forming streaks, it wasn't moving at all.

Notice that the starts at the edge of the time lapse have longer trails and the trails get shorter as they get closer to the celestial pole.  The time lapse wasn’t long enough.

Time lapse Polaris does look blurred.  I bet if you zoomed and counted the amount of pixels time lapse Polaris takes up vs before the time lapse, I bet time lapse Polaris takes up more pixels indicating it did move. 





Care to address why dial star atlases and celestial globe are accurate when they would be utterly useless on a FE. 

FE doesn’t have a working model for the phases of the moon and why those phases are interrupted by the lunar eclipse.  Where Bulma yiu believe a cult instead of actually going out to witnessed this for yourself.

So.  Care to address the actually context of my posts instead of creating pathological lies concerning my posts?

I don't even know what a dial star atlas is. But if I had to say, maybe it's made to order to prop up RE specifications. Human beings do this. They create things to bolster their spurious ideas.

The book of Revelation, on its own, is a rather flimsy and unconvincing book. It is based on a legend that John survived boiling oil, and lived to tell a prophecy predicted by an angel. But without added text beyond Daniel 6 (which has a clear ending), without added supporting text from other prophetic texts, you have prophecies mainly focusing on the Day of the Lord instead, which came in about 33 AD on Passover.

Then King Darius wrote to all the nations and peoples of every language in all the earth:
“May you prosper greatly! I issue a decree that in every part of my kingdom people must fear and reverence the God of Daniel. For he is the living God and he endures forever; his kingdom will not be destroyed,  his dominion will never end. He rescues and he saves;   he performs signs and wonders in the heavens and on the earth. He has rescued Daniel from the power of the lions.”
 So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.

The actual end of Daniel.
It goes on from there to switch from third person narrative form to two chapters later talk about Daniel's dreams in first person, and seems to have language more in line with much later prophecies.  These bolsters were so prevalent that I had to hunt through the Bible, scrubbing every instance but one:

7 So they asked Him, saying, “Teacher, but when will these things be? And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?”

8 And He said: “Take heed that you not be deceived. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He,’ and, ‘The time has drawn near.’ Therefore do not go after them. 9 But when you hear of wars and commotions, do not be terrified; for these things must come to pass first, but the end will not come immediately.”

10 Then He said to them, “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11 And there will be great earthquakes in various places, and famines and pestilences; and there will be fearful sights and great signs from heaven. 12 But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons. You will be brought before kings and rulers for My name’s sake. 13 But it will turn out for you as an occasion for testimony.

Jesus had the right idea. Stop looking for signs of the end. Because  far sooner will be signs of your end.

The point being, it is very easy to make models that you say match to your other models , just as it's easy to make a key that fits custom to a lock (if you're a blacksmith) . But just having a key fit a lock doesn't mean the lock was made for the key but the other way around these dial star models are constructed after the RE theory to bolster it, RE wasn't construct as a result of looking at star models. In other words, Galileo and Copernicus already decided in their hearts that they would betray God to impose a RE false reality to pave over the truth that Christ is come again, and Catholic church decided in their hearts to allow Cerinthus's forgery (the real writer of Revelation was a man known as Cerinthus) to not only be canom, but also to be propped up by several passages where John does not die with his brother James (even though Jesus predicted it, and they were known to be inseparable) to impose a RE false reality to pave over the truth that Christ is come again.

 And God allows this, because God allows all things. God allowed this text to be this way so that thousands of years later, I would have a purpose, scrubbing this crap out of the text.

So no, I don't think it's fate that the stars look like they do. Nor is it some kind of proof of RE model. It's just something set up the way it is to prop up an idea.

---

Can you even admit that you lied, and the time-lapse footage you linked to shows Polaris moving?

Actually what it shows is him moving the camera back a bit.

It looks like he had to move it to some place steadier because of snow, erosion, wind, whatever. So that camera is adjusted and it dips from original position. You can tell it's decidedly not time lapse because after that shift, it doesn't move again.

Can you admit you're lying about fake "closer stars than Polaris"? You can focus on Polaris pretty quickly because it's the only one not shifting here while streams are forming with the others.

I don't even know what a dial star atlas is.

These things.

So.  There are these simple but relatively accurate star atlases for the night sky.  They are based off month and time.  They are dial types that show the night sky for a certain time of year.

Northern hemisphere





Southern hemisphere



I would find it hard to believe that standard Star Atlas for the southern hemisphere would be accurate for a flat earth?

Pretty self explanatory.  Bulma, either you are a complete idiot.  Or you are a pathological liar.  How about trying to use the appropriate one for your hemisphere.  Compare it to the opposite hemisphere.  And try to understand why millions of people rely on them for accurate predictions of star rise times.


Bulma.  Your running from that flat earth is a con.  Why doesn’t FE have a working model for phases of the moon and why they are interrupted by lunar eclipses.

Actually what it shows is him moving the camera back a bit.

Bulma.  Somebody that claims to not be of this world and of Jusse’s kingdom of should be a pathological liar of this world.

Screed shoots from this video where the camera isn’t moved.




Near the start of the video..





Polaris is clearly off set a bit from the northern celestial pole, and in a small circle moves around the northern celestial pole. 


So.  You are provided with repeated evidence of Polaris actually circling the pole in a small circle.  But Bulma. You still embrace the lies of flat earth and cons.   

I don't even know what a dial star atlas is.

Chance to educate yourself on something useful Bulma.  Where if the earth was really flat, they be useless.



But Bulma, you aren’t going to learn a working knowledge.  Bulma, you’ll just make stupid assumptions and pathological lies. 

I don't even know what a dial star atlas is.

What you have already been provided with examples of.
They are simple devices where the stars sit on a disk, with a "centre" point for the north pole, and south pole on the other side.
This allows you to rotate the projection of the celestial sphere to see what it would be like at different times of day and different months of the year.

But if I had to say, maybe it's made to order to prop up RE specifications.

i.e. you have no actual response, but if you are pressed for you, you will just lie to everyone again.
You cannot possibly bring yourself to admit you are wrong and that Earth is round.

The book of Revelation

Is religious crap, with no bearing on this discussion.

The point being, it is very easy to make models that you say match to your other models

This is not merely being said.
It is a fact.

It is a simple tool based upon the model.
If the RE model was wrong, this tool would not work.

It works because the stars can be represented by a celestial sphere, due to Earth being round and rotating on its axis, with your ability to see them dependent upon your latitude on the round Earth.

Galileo and Copernicus already decided in their hearts that they would betray God to impose a RE false reality

No, quite the opposite.
They decided the truth was more important than religious BS.
So they said the truth regardless of what the religious leaders wanted and regardless of what crappy old books said.

Actually what it shows is him moving the camera back a bit.

And again, you just resort to pathetic desperate BS to avoid admitting to everyone you are a lying POS that will post a link and blatantly lie about it.

I'm not talking about the move from moving the camera. But is it even that? Or is that again another pathetic lie from you which further demonstrates how you have lied to everyone?
I am talking about the apparent motion of the star while the camera remains stationary relative to Earth.

If we watch the video in full, we see useless opening crap until roughly 6 seconds in.
We then have a time lapse until roughly 20 seconds.
Then the last frame of that time-lapse is held on screen with some annotation.
Then at roughly 28 seconds we get a transition to a timelapse with star trails, which actually starts at roughly 33 seconds in and continues until roughly 45 seconds in.
Then another transition where it resets, and shows what appears to be the original time lapse again and then another transition for the star trail time lapse.

You claim the camera moves. But as we will see later, that is a blatant lie.
This would occur for the first time in the footage at roughly 28 seconds in, and wouldn't be occurring again until roughly 45 seconds in.

The simple example I gave of comparing 2 frames is NOT either of these moves.
Instead, it compares a frame at 7 seconds in to one at 20 seconds in.

So this is entirely during the timelapse.
You claim it does not show motion.
But it quite clearly does:

Polaris is NOT at the same point, and your lies will not change that.

You then repeat the same pathetic BS with these lies:

It looks like he had to move it to some place steadier because of snow, erosion, wind, whatever. So that camera is adjusted and it dips from original position. You can tell it's decidedly not time lapse because after that shift, it doesn't
move again.
Can you admit you're lying

No, we can't tell that, because that is a pathetic lie.
It DOES continue to move.
No, I will not "admit" I am lying, because I am not.
The footage clearly shows that.
I have the footage to support my position and I have explained how and even provided screenshots clearly showing that, and you then just entirely ignore it and appeal to a baseless, worthless claim that there is motion of the camera; which even if that claim was accepted as true, it doesn't come close to addressing the times being discussed. Having the camera move in no way negates the time before or after the movement of the camera which clearly shows relative motion of Polaris.
If you had a shred of integrity you would address those times not deflect to crap which doesn't even come close.

Again, using just that portion of the star trail after the cut, where it goes from 33 to 45 seconds, it builds up the star trails. And near the end you get this:


Again, which one is meant to be Polaris?
Which is not meant to be moving?
Because I don't see any that aren't moving, you lying POS.

So can you stop lying to everyone, and instead admit you have and that Polaris DID move in this footage?


As for your allegation that the camera was moved, WAS IT?
Or is this just a further demonstration that you have been lying to everyone?
You want it to be motion of the camera, because it so clearly shows all the stars moving, including your precious Polaris, because it is done as an immediate contrast between the 2.
But that doesn't mean it moved.
We can look at the tree in the footage, and see it looks basically identical, just with different lighting.
This shows it is far more likely to be a jump in time, than a jump in relative position on Earth.
But we can go even further.
Instead of appealing to your dishonest BS, where you compare the end of the time-lapse to the start of it, we can instead compare the start to the start.
i.e. comparing 7 seconds in to 30 seconds in, i.e. comparing the start of the first timelapse (which is slightly darker due to the transition at the start, and possibly due to different processing for the star trail version) where it shows a single frame at a time, to the start of the second time-lapse where they stack the frames. And what do we end up with? THIS:

You claim the moved the camera. Then please tell me why it looks virtually identical, just with some changes in brightness and contrast?

Yet again, this demonstrates you are a lying POS, happily lying to everyone and not caring that the reference you appealed to shows you are a lying POS.

That "motion" you appealed to at the cut, instead of being evidence of motion of the camera, is actually evidence of the apparent motion of the stars, INCLUDING POLARIS!

This is not multiple separate time lapses stitched together.
It is the same time-lapse repeated.
First it shows as just a regular time-lapse.
It then repeats, but this time showing stacked frames.

So the very thing you claim shows motion of the camera is actually demonstrating that you are lying to everyone and that Polaris does appear to move.

You using it and how you have described it clearly demonstrates that you have fully recognised that the apparent position of Polaris has moved.
But instead of honestly admitting that, you need to resort to inventing more delusional BS where you claim the camera has moved instead.

So again, care to admit you have been blatantly lying to everyone?

If not, care to try the slightly less honest version and instead admit that you were wrong, that you entirely misjudged the footage you provided, misidentifying what caused the jump, and instead you now fully recognise and accept that Polaris does appear to move?

If you don't, you are just further demonstrating to everyone that you are lying POS that doesn't give a damn about what the evidence shows or what reality is; you will just cling to your fantasy and say whatever BS you can think of to pretend it is reality, regardless of how truthful that BS is.

The FlatEarth.ws puts a dot on one of the moving stars and calls it the North Star. Then it claims that the statement that the North Star (that you wrongly picked) doesn't move is false.

But no, surely our government and various NASA-paid groups wouldn't lie to us!

Why don't you set up your own camera, zoom in and point it at Polaris and set it for a long exposure to create your own star trail then let us know it Polaris moves or not?  This way you don't need to listen to the government, NASA or anyone else.  Collect your own th*rking data.

The FlatEarth.ws puts a dot on one of the moving stars and calls it the North Star. Then it claims that the statement that the North Star (that you wrongly picked) doesn't move is false.

But no, surely our government and various NASA-paid groups wouldn't lie to us!

Do you know who would clearly lie to us? YOU!
As you have done repeatedly.
As it has been shown REPEATEDLY!

And why? Because you can't accept reality.
You can't live in a universe where you are a tiny insignificant speck.
You are desperate to the toy of an omnipotent being that acts like a spoilt child.
So you use whatever BS lies you can to pretend your magical fantasy is true and reality is wrong.

There is loads of evidence showing you are spouting pure BS.
Yet you have literally NOTHING supporting your BS.

You can try claiming you have evidence and appeal to the video you provided before, but even that video that you provided shows you are a lying POS.

And yet what do you do?
You flee from that and spout more pathetic crap.

Again, you lying POS, which star is not appearing to move?:


Again, you lying POS, which star is not appearing to move to trace out a star trail?


Stop just lying to everyone and start owning up to your pathetic lies.

And again, don't bother lying to everyone by pretending the camera was moved (relative to Earth) to produce any motion:


Again, this shows quite clearly that you are a lying POS, happy to lie to everyone and then turn around and flee after your pathetic BS lies have been exposed, just like the lying coward you are.

It's time to grow up and own up to your lies.
You have lost your chance to pretend it was all just an innocent mistake or a misunderstanding when you double down, then further ignored the refutation of your lies to spout your latest pile of crap.

So own up. Admit you have been lying to everyone.

Why don't you

How about you Bulma stop with the flat earth cult BS and give an actually working explanation what causes the phases of the moon and why the cycle is interrupted by lunar eclipses. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 19, 2025, 09:52:37 AM

The FlatEarth.ws puts a dot on one of the moving stars and calls it the North Star. Then it claims that the statement that the North Star (that you wrongly picked) doesn't move is false.

But no, surely our government and various NASA-paid groups wouldn't lie to us!

Do you know who would clearly lie to us? YOU!
As you have done repeatedly.
As it has been shown REPEATEDLY!

And why? Because you can't accept reality.
You can't live in a universe where you are a tiny insignificant speck.
You are desperate to the toy of an omnipotent being that acts like a spoilt child.
So you use whatever BS lies you can to pretend your magical fantasy is true and reality is wrong.

There is loads of evidence showing you are spouting pure BS.
Yet you have literally NOTHING supporting your BS.

You can try claiming you have evidence and appeal to the video you provided before, but even that video that you provided shows you are a lying POS.

And yet what do you do?
You flee from that and spout more pathetic crap.

Again, you lying POS, which star is not appearing to move?:


Again, you lying POS, which star is not appearing to move to trace out a star trail?


Stop just lying to everyone and start owning up to your pathetic lies.

And again, don't bother lying to everyone by pretending the camera was moved (relative to Earth) to produce any motion:


Again, this shows quite clearly that you are a lying POS, happy to lie to everyone and then turn around and flee after your pathetic BS lies have been exposed, just like the lying coward you are.

It's time to grow up and own up to your lies.
You have lost your chance to pretend it was all just an innocent mistake or a misunderstanding when you double down, then further ignored the refutation of your lies to spout your latest pile of crap.

So own up. Admit you have been lying to everyone.

You first. Admit that you took a video out of context to create "movement" when there is none.



They moved the camera.

You can in fact tell this. Look at the trees. All of a sudden they are lit, like the camera's light was shifted from over to the right to more centered. Yes, the center of the picture does change the position of objects in relation to it.

If you do a timelapse of the shot after moving the camera, the end shot will have the star appear to move.



When you don't move the camera suddenly and include it as part of your time lapse, all of a sudden that "moving" goes away, instead all you see is other stars moving, and one star so still that the rest of the stars look odd in comparison. 

They moved the camera.

This is the same thing over another video concerning the background and you claiming the camera moved.

As in Bulma you making fakes claims you can’t back.  If the camera moved, the background tree line would have also moved. There is no evidence the camera was moved by the tree line at the bottom.

Where other videos get the same result. 

Screed shoots from this video where the camera isn’t moved.




Near the start of the video..





Polaris is clearly off set a bit from the northern celestial pole, and in a small circle moves around the northern celestial pole. 


So.  You are provided with repeated evidence of Polaris actually circling the pole in a small circle.  But Bulma. You still embrace the lies of flat earth and cons.

You can in fact tell this. Look at the trees. All of a sudden they are lit, l

Nope.  Just one of your lies Bulma.  Sorry. 

Oh.  Yeah.  I forgot Bulma.  You are a proven pathological liar. 

Admit that you took a video out of context to create "movement" when there is none.

No.
Why would I do that?
You are just lying, like the lying POS you are, to pretend your delusional fantasy is true.

I will stick to telling the truth.

The truth, that during the timelapse, where you claim there is no motion of Polaris, there quite clearly is apparent motion of it:

This is taken from roughly 7 seconds and roughly 20 seconds.
Before any alleged shift of the camera.

And again, during the timelapse with trails, showing quite circular arc even for Polaris:

They moved the camera.

No, they didn't.
As already explained and shown.
Just where do you think THEY moved the camera?

The only motion of the camera was due to the motion of Earth.

I assume you are appealing to what I have already pointed out, the shift from the end of the time-lapse without trails to the start of the time-lapse with trails.
But all that is is going back to the start.

Again:


We can see quite easily by the stars and the tree, that it is the same position.
All you have is a different brightness of the image.
Likely because of the different processing required to produce the stacked images to produce the star trails.

You can in fact tell this.

No.
In you can in fact tell you are a lying POS.
As already explained.
The start of the time lapses match.
The position of the stars match.
The position of the trees match.
And the position of the trees before and after the transition match.

Look at the trees.

Yes, look at the trees, and how their position and the angle we are viewing them from remains unchanged, as the position of the camera on Earth remains unchanged.

All of a sudden they are lit

i.e. no change in their position as you would need for a movement of the camera.
Instead, just a change in lighting, as if they went back to the start of the time lapse where the houses nearby probably had lights on illuminating the tree.

When you don't move the camera suddenly and include it as part of your time lapse, all of a sudden that "moving" goes away

No, it doesn't, as repeatedly shown.

Again, stop with all the pathetic you lying POS.
All you are doing is showing everyone how much of a pathetic lying subhuman POS you are, how you don't give a damn about reality at all, and how you will continue to lie to everyone with vague BS even after your BS is clearly refuted again and again.

Which is the more likely story, that they took a time lapse, taking photos every 2 minutes, and then stitched them together, first as a video showing the motion of the stars, then as a video with star trails showing the same motion, with no motion of the camera relative to Earth, as all the evidence shows; or that they were sneakily moving the camera around between each shot, somehow managing to keep the trees in the same position throughout yet have the stars all move so they produce circular arcs?

Your BS is inane.

If you want to claim they moved the camera clearly tell us the times you think they did, and what evidence you have to support this.
As a reminder, the position of the stars in the image changing is not enough, given that that is exactly what is being argued, so asserting that is evidence is entirely circular reasoning.
Likewise, a change in lighting is not enough, as that is more likely to indicate a change in time or a change in something else other than the camera.

Tell us exactly what times in the video you think they have moved the camera.

And then tell us why from 7 seconds in to 20 seconds in, the position of all the stars, including Polaris, change.
Then tell us why in the second iteration of the same time lapse where they show the star trails once more all the stars appear to move including Polaris.

Or you could try being honest for once in your life and admit that the apparent position of Polaris does change.

Stop with your pathetic lies. Stop with your pathetic vague BS.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 22, 2025, 07:05:10 AM

They moved the camera.

No, they didn't.
As already explained and shown.
Just where do you think THEY moved the camera?

The only motion of the camera was due to the motion of Earth.

I assume you are appealing to what I have already pointed out, the shift from the end of the time-lapse without trails to the start of the time-lapse with trails.
But all that is is going back to the start.

Again:


We can see quite easily by the stars and the tree, that it is the same position.
All you have is a different brightness of the image.
Likely because of the different processing required to produce the stacked images to produce the star trails.

Bulma.  Proven to be a pathological liar and a fraud. 

Proven.  By telling me, despite the fact that the star literally jumps after sitting still, that it moved and then showing be a time lapse constructed from the two positions.

Let me explain something to you. An object's relative angle (and thus is position in the sky) is based on human position.
For example, people looking a UFO in the sky 100 ft up. One is 250 ft back from it, one is 25 ft back. Obviously the one farther away will see the object at a lower angle.



Scooting a camera back just a few ft results in a drop from 33 degrees to about 29 degrees. And no, I do not know that it is 5 ft.

The point is, certain programs (I remember Macromedia Flash doing this in high school) will add in-between transitions to fill gaps in motion. This means that despite an object not moving at all, it is possible to make it appear to move...

Wait a second...
There's a white border around the object. It shows up while it flickers.

As though it were a filtered in object.  Like so.



Are there even any stars in this "video"? Or is the entire thing superimposed on the forest background?

You're one to talk about fraud.

despite the fact that the star literally jumps after sitting still

There you go repeating the same pathetic lie.
And there you go still avoiding trivial questions.

IT NEVER SITS STILL!
That is your pathetic lie you are yet to justify.
It moves SLOWLY.
So when it then jumps back to the start, you see the change all at once and it jumps.

Again, can you answer a simple question?
A question which should be so simple even a child could answer at.
At what time in the video are you claiming it moved?

Is it some point from the period of 7 seconds in to 20 seconds in?
If so, at what exact time?

If not, then explain this:

This is a comparison, made by taking a frame from 7 seconds and a frame from 20 seconds.
Then cropping both to just the centre, without moving them relative to each other.
This clearly shows that all the stars appear to move.

Is it from the period of 30 s to 47 seconds?
If so, WHEN?
If not, the explain the resulting star trail image which again shows Polaris has changed relative position:


Or are you appealing, like I suspect, to the apparent shift at roughly 28 seconds.
Where we can compare the shot from 7 seconds to the shot from 30 seconds, to show no motion of the camera relative to Earth, just going back in time to the start of the timelapse:


Once again showing clearly to everyone that you are lying, subhuman POS with no concern for the truth at all.

Let me explain something to you.

No.
I don't need you to explain simple trivial things to me that I already understand.
I understand that moving the camera will change the angle.
But that would change the angle the tree is viewed at, even though that remains the same.
I also know that moving the camera back wont rotate the sky as it appears to.

Do I need to take the frame from before and after the transition with constellations drawn in to show how it has rotated to go back to the start?

You need to answer the trivial questions you keep fleeing from because they show you are a lying POS.

There's a white border around the object. It shows up while it flickers.

Are you referring to the compression artefacts which occur all over?
Have you never seen a digital photo before?

Are there even any stars in this "video"? Or is the entire thing superimposed on the forest background?

You're one to talk about fraud.

So what you are saying is that you are so absolutely pathetic and devoid of any integrity at all, that you are now dismissing the video YOU provided as fake?
Why bother providing the video if you are just going to dismiss it as fake?
Why bother providing a video you think is fake?

So you were lying to people with a fake video, and yet the video still showed you were lying.

The only way out for you now is to admit you have been lying to everyone repeatedly.

You had the chance to say you were simply mistaken, and admit to everyone you were wrong and that the video does show Polaris moves contrary to your claims.
But you threw that away and repeatedly doubled down on your pathetic lies and avoiding answering trivial questions, because you know that will show you are lying to everyone.

You are out of your pathetic excuses, so the only way out now is to admit you have lied (or just flee like the lying coward you are).

Proven.  .

Doesn’t matter how many lies you tell Bulma, the earth is spherical.  It’s proven in many ways.

No, it demands a flat base. There is nothing at all stable about your model.

Let's refresh you, since you obviously don't remember

The earth is curved.

Where you also ignore the dip of the horizon.

https://mctoon.net/photos-of-the-curve/

Flat Earth horizon still wouldn't look flat!

Compressing the photo makes it easier to see.

Cherry picking data would be only accepting stuff you like.

Which has been explained to you.

Photo from 1976 taken by Adrian Meredith

Concorde: A Photographic Tribute: A Photographic...
by Adrian Meredith

[/quote]


Notice in the picture of the Concorde where the earth is below the jet.  That is significant in terms of a fish eye lens.  The video explains this.

For the Concorde not to be distorted by a fish eye lens, the jet would have to be perfectly in the middle horizontal.  It’s not.  And the horizon under the jet at bottom of the frame would have the horizon distorted up.




Which is why the fisheye lens in you presented videos are BS.



So.  Yes.  There is curvature of the earth.

 Only there is no such curvature drop.

Then why is the bottom of this tower increasingly physically blocked from view with distance by the curvature of the earth where zooming doesn’t unblocked the blocked portion back into view. 

Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km
66K views · 9 years ago#TurningTorsoFlatEarth

Bulma.  Notice zooming in didn’t reveal more of the tower physically blocked from view.  The zoom made the image bigger.   By the shape of the structure, zooming in didn’t reveal more of the structure physically blocked by earh’s curvature.


Where Bulma.  FE doesn’t even have a working explanation for phases of the moon and why lunar eclipses interrupt the cycle.  Where it’s just demonstrable proof of the heliocentric model.

Proven.  .

Bulma.  You are a pathological liar.  With nothing but the cult lies of the of the flat earth.  Where you can’t even explain the phases of the moon  and why the cycle is interrupted by the lunar eclipse. 

Yes. For the same reason that Howard Roarke blew up his own building when it was turned into a prefab monstrosity.

If it's of no use to me, I'll discard it.

WWHRD?

A building has integrity, just like a man. It must be true to its own ideas

So yeah, it's my own video, and I'm rejecting it as the fraud it is.

Again, the frame is stopped, then fraud is done, to visually move the star abruptly at 0:29, when before that there was no indication of movement at all. Then the two positions are visually averaged to create movement. Why? Because it's essential that we have Polaris moving for the constant high speed up-to-date RE model. Where Polaris is moving because one day the poles will shift. I posted it, and left it as is, because I originally thought it a minor adjust to camera, similar to moving a camera away from a window because snow or rain kept getting on the lens. But since it is clearly baked into the idea of propping up a non-geocentric model by video fakery, you can count me out.

Blow it up!

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/esajCM6D1AM

---

"You're a pathological liar."
Correction. I am occasionally wrong, probably insane, usually very lonely, and always depressed. The one thing I am not is a pathological liar. Quit projecting your own ills onto me. You and I both know that you pathologically lie so that you get a good job, probably married too, and your life seems to be a walking proof that karma is bullshit.
If I weren't honest, I'd probably not be miserable and living with my folks. But I'd rather be all of those things, than have to live with lying to the larger population and watch as taxes given to NASA take billions that could be used to combat world poverty or given everyone a cheeseburger instead go to falsifying basic understanding of how cellphones work, selling a billion dollar a year lie about satellites.

So yeah, it's my own video,

Poor little Bulma.  Forced into a pathological lie because Eric Dubay hasn’t programmed little Bulma on how to handle the North Star circles the northern celestial pole.

Stupid Bulma.  Can’t handle this has been proven over years in many ways.  Black’s video isn’t the only proof.  But idiot and brainwashed Bulma has to act like the video is the only proof.  And has to make up a pathological lie about the video where Bulma is proven wrong. 

If it's of no use to me, I'll discard it.

i.e. you are a lying, subhuman, POS with no morals or integrity at all.

As soon as something shows you are wrong, you will discard it, like the lying POS you are.

You really have shown your true colours here:
You have blatantly lied to everyone.
You then tried to prop up that lie with a video which showed you are a lying POS, but you lied about that video.
And then repeated the same pathetic lies about it again and again.
Until you were out of excuses and couldn't bring yourself to answer a trivial question, so now you dismiss the video YOU PROVIDED as fake.

Your original claim remains baseless refuted BS. You have nothing to support it and there is plenty of evidence to refute it.
But you don't give a damn, because you are a worthless, lying, subhuman POS that doesn't give a damn about the truth at all.

Thanks for yet again showing everyone what is required to be a flat Earther.

So yeah, it's my own video, and I'm rejecting it as the fraud it is.

Yet what do you have to claim it is a fraud?
The same pathetic lies that have already been refuted.

You dismiss it as fraud because it shows your delusional fantasy is wrong.

before that there was no indication of movement at all

There was a clear indication of movement.
So clear that any honest person looking at it, paying attention, could easily see.

But not a worthless, lying, subhuman POS like you.
That wouldn't match your delusional fantasy so you could never see it.

What you have is gradual motion which you want to desperately dismiss as no motion.
You may as well take 2 images of the sky 1 microsecond apart and say there is no motion.
That is basically the level of dishonest BS you are appealing to.

Again, forget the change at 29 seconds.
Compare 7 seconds to 20 seconds.
A time period where you appear to be claiming there is no motion:

Again, the motion is there for any honest person to see.
Just not for people like you that wish to remain wilfully ignorant of reality and repeatedly lie about it.

Again, forget the change at 29 seconds.
Just look at the stacked images producing the star trails near the end

Again, the motion is there for any honest person to see.
Just not for people like you that wish to remain wilfully ignorant of reality and repeatedly lie about it.

And if you really do want to focus on that sudden shift at 29 seconds, then do it honestly, by comparing it to the start of the first time-lapse:

Where you can clearly see it is NOT a shift of the camera, but merely going back to the start of the time-lapse.

If you don't want to do that and instead really are so pathetic and desperate that you desperately need to focus on this change at 29 seconds, then do it properly. i.e. do it honestly. Not like the lying POS you are who is desperately looking for any excuse to dismiss reality.

Instead of just taking a vague idea of where things are and baselessly asserting it all shifts in some way, try to find some references in the stars which you can compare to, and see how they all change. Something like this:

Notice how instead of just comparing the 2 and saying it is a magic shift, I have drawn in a line showing the connection between a few stars.
And we can see how it doesn't just shift linearly, instead, it rotates.
Showing once again that they are simply going back to the start of the time-lapse.
Unless you want to go completely insane and claim they have moved the camera and rotated both the camera and the tree to fake it?

Again, you have no excuses.
All the evidence shows that Polaris is moving.
And dismissing the video as fake, while still trying to make excuses for why it so clearly shows the motion of Polaris which has nothing to do with any alleged faking of the video, doesn't help your case at all and just truly shows how pathetic you are.

I posted it, and left it as is, because I originally thought it a minor adjust to camera

Except as clearly demonstrated repeatedly, you don't need that change at 29 seconds. No one other than you is focusing on it.
Again, I used the time before that sudden shift back to the start to show the motion, by comparing 7 seconds to 20 seconds.
Likewise, I used the time after that sudden shift back to the start, by taking a frame near the end of the star trail image to again show relative motion of Polaris.

essential that we have Polaris moving for the constant high speed up-to-date RE model ... since it is clearly baked into the idea of propping up a non-geocentric model by video fakery, you can count me out.

No, what makes your pathetic lies even more pathetic, is that the actual issue being discussed is pretty much inconsequential.
It really has no impact on if Earth is round or flat.
It really has no impact on if Earth is the centre of the universe with everything moving around us, or if the sun is the centre, or if everything is moving.

We aren't talking about the position changing over the 10s of thousands of years required for the precession of the poles.
We aren't even talking about the position changing over the course of a year for an orbit.
We are talking about the relative position changing over a few hours.

It only ties in to your pathetic claim that the north pole is a magical special place with a magic star at the magic centre which remains magically fixed forever.

Correction. I am occasionally wrong, probably insane, usually very lonely, and always depressed. The one thing I am not is a pathological liar.

And yet another pathetic lie from you.
You are very often wrong.
You are then refuted, with plenty of arguments and bits of evidence clearly showing you are wrong, with you just ignoring it all and repeating the same pathetic lies.

Again, you had a way out before.
When I first posted the images you could have then said that you were wrong, and admitted that it shows Polaris does move; and moved on from it.
But instead, you just doubled down, repeating the same pathetic lies again and again, ignoring the refutation of them to just keep repeating them.
Even now, you keep doubling down on the same pathetic lies.

So no, it is not simply you occasionally being wrong.
It is you are quite clearly wrong with it clearly demonstrated and explained to you; and you just keep on going repeating the same pathetic lies.
That shows you are a liar, not simply mistaken.
And that certainly seems to be pathological, given you can't even bring yourself to admit it when it is so clearly demonstrated.

You think this is about being right.

No, there is something fundamentally wrong with your thinking.

You probably learned that the point of debate is to win arguments.



The point of debate is that it is a subset of negotiation. Negotiation is about reaching mutual understanding. Debate then, is about clarifying points so that any audience reading this understands the points, and can decide for themselves. But we are not listening to each other. You're trying to push a conclusion on me. And I'm explaining over and over again, while feeling that the people around me aren't listening. Why do I feel this? Because I've explained something on threads about the sun or horizon, and eight pages later, you come with the same argument, the same pictures, the same everything.

Because you think a debate is about winning, you don't bother listening. You don't bother caring. You are either convinced in your own mind that you've won ("debunked"), in which case like a bad AI, you forget everything I said. Or you argue points that are senseless. Doesn't it occur to you at all that the person on the other side of the computer doesn't feel that way?

First of all, that like premature ejaculation, you didn't really cover the bases of "debunking" anything. You just satisfied yourself.
And second, often times the only thing that happened was you left another thread and blamed its collapse on me "running away from the thread." Oh wait, that's mostly Jack Black. Oh wait, I am talking to Jack Black. The way you two talk, it all runs together. You don't try to be distinct from one another.

I am trying to have a meaningful conversation about why the government would lie. Instead, time and again, you don't really engage. Same stuff over and over.

---

This for instance.

I've told you four times or so, that the star appears perfectly still while the others are moving. Then there's a skip. He shut off his camera and moved it back. You can tell he shut off his camera and moved it back. 0:00 to about 0:27 the star is still while others orbit. 0:29 or so, the star is in the new position. It stays in that position, then he makes a star trail by accounting for the shift. But the shift is so abrupt, that it looks like nothing else but a camera move.

Even if it "wobbles" a little, and you can somehow prove this is not fake photography, this is substantially different from the sort of pace keeping demanded of RE. Rather than a tight orbit or completely still, Polaris should night after night get a little more off track as Earth not only orbits and rotates (would eventually return to position) but also follows the sun around the galaxy (never returns to position, not in millennia or eons).



Oh yes, and the universe is also reportedly widening, so Polaris should not only be left in the dust but also the stars widen away from its center point, breaking up constellations. Instead it stays put or tightly "wobbles", depending on the level of crap you're willing to push.

You think this is about being right.

Yeah.  The North Star Polaris isn’t static.  It circles the northern celestial pole in a tight circle.

It’s been proven many times over years.

To lie about the video and evidence is just stupid Bulma.

And I'm explaining over and over again, while feeling that the people around me aren't listening. Why do I feel this?

Probably because you aren’t listening to us.  We keep explaining why you’re wrong, but you have no interest in changing your mind, no matter what the evidence says.  I would hazard a guess and say that you exhibit classic signs of Dunning-Kruger syndrome where you think that you’re smarter than actual experts in various fields that you obviously know nothing about.

You think this is about being right.

No, I think it is about finding the truth, and calling out lying scum like you when they repeatedly lie to everyone.
You are desperate for it to be about YOU being right, for your delusional fantasy to be true, because you can't handle reality.

But notice how again you deflect.
Because you can't defend your complete and utter BS, because so much has so clearly demonstrated you are lying scum with no integrity at all, you deflect and attack, coming up with all sorts of delusional BS about others.
Stop the BS. Deal with the fact you are wrong.

But we are not listening to each other. You're trying to push a conclusion on me. And I'm explaining over and over again, while feeling that the people around me aren't listening. Why do I feel this?

You feel that because you don't bother reading and honestly responding to what people are saying.
Instead, unless they just blindly accept your delusional BS you just ignore them.
I AM listening to you. I am reading what you are saying. I am comprehending it. And most importantly, I am explaining why it is wrong, including by providing logical arguments and evidence.
Meanwhile, you just entirely ignore what I say and repeat the same pathetic refuted BS.
YOU are the one not listening.
Maybe if you actually bothered engaging with what people were actually saying, rather than continually setting up strawmen, you would feel less like you are explaining over and over again.

I am trying to have a meaningful conversation about why the government would lie. Instead, time and again, you don't really engage

Instead, you repeatedly deflect and lie to everyone.
You don't want a meaningful conversation about anything, because you can't defend your crap.

What you are doing is showing what part of the likely reason of this thread is; showing how FEers are desperate to lie, even about things which appear trivial, to prop up their delusional fantasy, because they can't handle reality.
If you want to go back to the government, then be honest for once in your dishonest existence, and admit that you have been lying to everyone about the video.

The one not engaging is you.
You just keep on asserting pure BS while ignoring everything that is said which shows it is BS.

I've told you four times or so, that the star appears perfectly still while the others are moving. Then there's a skip. He shut off his camera and moved it back.

Yes, you have said this same pathetic lie again and again.
Even after it has been refuted again and again.
This shows you are lying scum and that you do not give a damn about the truth at all.
It shows you are happy to repeatedly lie to everyone and continually ignore the refutation of that pathetic lie of yours.

Stop just repeating the same pathetic lie. All it does is show everyone just how pathetic and dishonest you are.

Instead, try to honestly engage.

For example, stop repeating the same pathetic lie that the camera is being moved back.
Stop appealing to something that happens at 27-30 seconds into the video, when I am discussing from 7 seconds to 20 seconds.

Again, this comparison which you keep lying about is entirely within that 7 to 20 second time period.
i.e. this - Where one frame is from 7 seconds, and the other is from 20. Notice that is before your falsely alleged move?

Do you need the full frame to further show it?
If so, here it is:

Notice the time stamp at the bottom?
Or if that isn't enough, how about just a time lapse of the time-lapse?


This is entirely within that period of time BEFORE the timestamp where you are lying about the camera moving.
You cannot dismiss this clear example that the stars are all appearing to move by lying to everyone about something which happened after this.
Your falsely alleged move at 27-30 seconds CANNOT be responsible for this because it happened AFTER.
STOP LYING you subhuman, lying POS.
Again, all you are doing by ignoring this and continually appealing to the time after is further demonstrating you are a lying POS that does not give a damn about the truth at all.

Again, what you quite clearly have in this video is Polaris, due to how close it is to the celestial north pole, moving gradually. This gradual motion makes it difficult to see if you are trying to look at a tiny time period, but make that time period larger and the motion is obvious.
So you might not be able to tell when watching that video at 1x speed, and even less so when actually watching the stars, but the shift going from the end to the start makes it incredibly obvious.
Your pathetic, dishonest BS is like taking two photos of a race car zooming around a track 1 nanosecond apart and using it to claim the car is stationary because you can't see the motion. (Note: Assuming the car is travelling at 300 km/hr, it would travel a distance of distance of 83 nm in that time, completely undetectable by the human eye and almost certainly less than a px for the camera).
That doesn't prove it is stationary. It proves your are a subhuman, lying POS with no concern for the truth at all and no sense of morality.

You can try claiming that they faked it, but that has no bearing on you clearly lying to everyone by claiming this video shows it is stationary.
And really just take note of that, there are 2 separate issues here. One is if Polaris is actually changing its relative position, and if the video shows it does or if you are lying about that.
If the video was fake, it would have an impact on the first, but not the second.

You can tell he shut off his camera and moved it back

Except, as already explained, that is complete and utter BS.
Again, you ignore the refutation or your pathetic, dishonest BS, and just repeat the same pathetic dishonest BS.
Again, we can tell this from 2 very simple reasons.
Firstly, the comparison to the start of the time-lapse, vs the frame after the shift:

Other than brightness/contrast/compression artefacts, these are identical.
This shows it is NOT motion of the camera, but instead it is going back to the start.
And again, if that isn't good enough, then compare the sky when it "moves" at that 27-30 second time, and see what actually happens:

Again, notice it is not simply the stars shifting as expected from the camera moving back. Instead, it is the entire sky rotating.
Once more, this shows it is returning to the start, not moving the camera.

0:00 to about 0:27 the star is still

No, it isn't. As repeatedly shown.
Again, repeating the same refuted lie just shows everyone how much of a dishonest POS you are.
It shows everyone that you have no integrity.
It shows everyone that anything you say is worthless as you are quite happy to repeatedly lie to everyone.

If you want to claim it is still then explain to everyone why it appears to move from 7 to 20 seconds in.
If you can't, try being honest for once in your pathetic existence and admit that this video shows Polaris is not still from a viewpoint on Earth.

this is substantially different from the sort of pace keeping demanded of RE

And again you try to deflect away from your pathetic BS with more pathetic BS.
We can deal with that pathetic lie of yours after you admit you have been lying about what this video shows.
Once you admit this video does show Polaris moves relative to Earth we can go on to your lies about scale.