WHY would the government trick us?

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.
...
you don't bother listening. You don't bother caring.
...
you forget everything I said. Or you argue points that are senseless.
...
Instead, time and again, you don't really engage. Same stuff over and over.

And again, just to really further drive home this point, again, look at what each of us are doing.

You claimed the video showed Polaris was stationary and claimed it moved once because he shifted the camera, without even clarifying when this motion of the camera was meant to have taken place.
I responded with this:

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.

Clearly pointing out I am using from 7 to 20 seconds in.
In that same post you lied about the star trails taking a portion from early in that portion and at a low resolution, so you couldn't easily see the trail for Polaris, instead it is just a bit of a blur.

You then responded by falsely claiming the camera was moved, entirely ignoring the timestamps I provided, and again not telling us when this move was meant to have taken place, and not making any comment at all about the vast majority of my response.
You just baselessly assert the camera was moved (again still no timestamp) and baselessly assert Polaris is still.

I then respond with this (trimmed):

I'm not talking about the move from moving the camera. But is it even that?
...
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.

Notice I provide the timestamp I think you are claiming the camera moved, at 28 seconds in.
Notice that I also clearly indicate again that I am NOT using that time, instead I am using entirely before it.

I then go further and show it is not them moving the camera by comparing the start of the time-lapse (at 7 seconds) to the time after the shift, and show they are basically identical.

Notice that I am acknowledging your claim that that camera was moved, and explaining why that doesn't help you because I am using the time before it, and explaining why we can easily tell it is NOT simply moving the camera back.

This goes back and forth, with you continuing to ignore pretty much everything I say, and in your latest post still acting like this gif comparing 7 seconds and 20 seconds is from before 27 seconds and after 30 seconds, where you falsely claim the camera is moving.

And you still just ignore everything showing what you are claiming is moving the camera is simply going back to the start of the time lapse.
The closest you get to an argument is an entirely circular one where you are claiming it shows the camera moves because Polaris moves.

So again:
YOU are the one not listeing.
YOU are the one trying to push a conclusion (while ignoring all the evidence and arguments).
YOU are the one just forgetting everything that is said.
YOU are the one arguing points that are senseless.
YOU are the one not engaging.
YOU are the one repeating the same stuff over and over.

Yet because of how you are, you just project all that onto others to pretend they are the problem rather than you.
Grow up.
Start actually reading what is said, and try responding to it honestly, including admitting when you are wrong.

No, sorry. If I ignore you at all, it's that I find psychopathy abrasive.

I'm the one telling you what I think, based on what I learned from real science from first grade up to college to continued online study after college.

You're the one telling me what I should think.
You're the one telling me "facts" from globalist consensus science.
You're the one ignoring facts from real science results.

For example, I tell you that light and heat dissipate over distance as all electromagnetic and thermal reactions scatter radially and that there is a set limit of energy output given a set energy input. In other words, but thermodynamics and the inverse square law. I tell you that even for an open concept mansion, a single candle might be able to be seen across a house but can neither provide heat nor light for that sort of distance.





You tell me light stretches infinitely, and it is thus possible to see stars billions or trillions of miles away, by bumping up their heat and size. Which is impossible.

Using all safety available, make an outdoor fire on a cold night. Make it blaze so much that 5 ft away, it causes convection heat enough to drive you back.  Now back away, and count the number of steps to go from warm to neutral then neutral to cold. You will find even if the fire is about 1000° or more, a few feet is enough for the effects of heat to diminish. This is real science. Infinite length of light unless there is obstruction? No, sorry, that's not real science.

Everything I say about the parabola system is based on angular perspective from my own observations. The ground appears to rise upward, the sky goes downward. In your RE, the sky would go downward, as the only way it goes upward, is if you somehow de-center human perspective so they are at the bottom of a hill. But that doesn't look that way from the opposite direction. You can see a bowl-like perspective of the ground, and a dome-like perspective of the sky. The dome-like perspective is equal to the 90° degree lift at the zenith, and diminishing degrees in any direction to horizon line. The lift is equal to horizon as observed at eye level.

You don't listen to other people. You're stuck in your little RE world where only heavily filtered "science" is accepted.

You tell me light stretches infinitely,

You are a pathological liar.

Bulma, this has been brought to your attention repeatedly.

A photon travels until it is absorbed, scattered, or reflected.  A photon travels until it interacts with something. 

Huge difference.

Anyway.  Now you are ignoring the Milky Way argument,

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 10, 2024, 08:48:51 PM

Notice these topics are being buried while the topics are about FE changing subjects or dodging questions.

Totally not what you guys are doing, though.

(In a side note, I'm heading out of town tomorrow. So here's a bump for this to still be on page 1 next week)

The foundation of your delusion that light dies as required by your delusion has been exposed as a total lie and totally debunked.

Quote

But there is lots of light pollution in my area.



Light dies my ass.  More like bounces around everywhere cause a F’n mess.

Anyway. The Milky Way..

Quote

BEGINNERS GUIDE TO IMAGING THE MILKY WAY

https://www.highpointscientific.com/

Where of you want the sun to set because light dies, then why does it still illuminate clouds east of me 16 minutes after sunset.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 29, 2024, 09:22:14 PM

You're just guessing,

Nope.

Funny that two people in the United States over 2000 miles apart can watch the moon at the same instance, rise and set times that match the radius of a earth of 3,963 miles, with enough parallax to calculate the distance to the moon.  Backed by lunar and solar eclipses.




How big is the parabola again Bulma?


Where your parabola doesn’t explain why on the equinox the sun rises due east and sets due east.


Where if you parabola was real, after a certain point, increasing in altitude should cause the amount of visible earth below you to decrease.  And your only explanation this doesn’t occur is light is magic and has a trick floor.

Poor Bulma the debunked, just has contractions that doesn’t represent reality. 

Asked you a question..

Why can’t I see this set sun.




But still see clouds east of me 16 minutes after sunset.
I’m

Yes.  Less photons per area with distance.  But there is still the same total number of photons.  Prove otherwise. 

If you had a sensor that counted photons the same distance and size of the closest square.  Then you had a second sensor off set as not to be blocked by the first sensor the size and distance of the farthest 9 squares, would the count result in an appreciable difference in photons?

I see another Bulma babble coming on to dodge answering an honest question.

Will it be NASA? Nazis? The Catholic Church?  Some high jacked photo? Some high jacked stupid cartoon?



Or will it be a completely stupid statement.  Like supposedly radar horizon is because the radar is pitched up.  Or supposedly you can’t build a road on an earth with a radius of 3963 miles? 

I see another Bulma babble coming on to dodge answering an honest question.

Will it be NASA? Nazis? The Catholic Church?  Some high jacked photo? Some high jacked stupid cartoon?



Or will it be a completely stupid statement.  Like supposedly radar horizon is because the radar is pitched up.  Or supposedly you can’t build a road on an earth with a radius of 3963 miles?

How the th*rk are the Catholic Nazi NASA engineers supposed build a road with 8 inches of drop per mile when their radar says that there’s a stupid 400 foot high hill in the way?

You're the one ignoring facts from real science results.

For example, I tell you that light and heat dissipate over distance as all electromagnetic and thermal reactions scatter radially and that there is a set limit of energy output given a set energy input. In other words, but thermodynamics and the inverse square law. I tell you that even for an open concept mansion, a single candle might be able to be seen across a house but can neither provide heat nor light for that sort of distance.

If you can see it, its light is obviously reaching you at that distance. It's also providing heat; maybe not enough to notice with your senses, but it's still there and could be detected with suitable instruments.

<image: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/courses-images/wp-content/uploads/sites/1095/2016/11/03155011/OSC_Astro_05_01_Invlight.jpg>

<image: https://d1e4pidl3fu268.cloudfront.net/e488c41a-0b06-479b-8b7a-00011d6c488b/InversePic.crop_904x678_7,0.preview.PNG>

You tell me light stretches infinitely, and it is thus possible to see stars billions or trillions of miles away, by bumping up their heat and size. Which is impossible.

Why do you think it's impossible for stars to be bright enough to see trillions of miles away? This is an argument from incredulity.

Studies say that a candle can be visible up to about 1.8 miles to a human with good eyesight in a dark location. The most distant stars visible under those conditions are at about 5,000 light years, approximately 3×10¹⁶ miles [30 thousand trillion miles], about 15 thousand trillion times as far away as that candle. [Edit to correct decimal place error]

How much light does a candle flame emit? About 12.6 lumens. How much light does  the sun emit? About 3.26×10²⁸ lumens [32,600 trillion trillion lumens]. How much more luminous is the sun than a candle?

L_s / L_c = 3.26×10²⁸ lumens / 12.6 lumens
 = 2.6×10²⁷.

L_s is luminosity of the sun
L_c is luminosity of the candle

How far away would the sun have to be to appear about as bright as a candle appears at 1.8 miles?

L_s / L_c = D_s² / D_c²

D_c is distance of the candle at limit of visibility (1.8 miles)
D_s is distance of the sun to give equivalent brightness as the candle

2.6×10²⁷ = D_s² / (1.8 miles)²

Taking the square root of both sides,

51×10¹² = D_s / (1.8 miles)

D_s = 51×10¹² × 1.8 miles = 91×10¹² miles = 91 trillion miles

But the sun is only a fairly average star. The brightest stars have about a million times (10⁶ times) the luminosity of the sun. Since distance increases as the square root of the increase in luminosity to give the same apparent brightness, and the square root of one million is one thousand,

D_max = D_s x 1000

D_max = 91 trillion miles x 1000 = 91,000 trillion miles.

No problem, even though those super-bright stars may be rare and light from those distant stars is likely diminished by dust and gas between them and us.

Using all safety available, make an outdoor fire on a cold night. Make it blaze so much that 5 ft away, it causes convection heat [I think you mean radiant heat] enough to drive you back. Now back away, and count the number of steps to go from warm to neutral then neutral to cold. You will find even if the fire is about 1000° or more, a few feet is enough for the effects of heat to diminish.

In other words, the inverse square law works. No big revelation here. Your problem is you don't grasp the difference between the energy released by human-scale chemical reactions and the energy released by nuclear reactions within stars. The difference is, not surprisingly, astronomical.

This is real science. Infinite length of light unless there is obstruction? No, sorry, that's not real science.

Your failure to grasp the nature and scale of the universe is your problem, not science's.

You're stuck in your little RE world where only heavily filtered "science" is accepted.

We still have a lot to learn, but even now science offers a vastly better explanation of what we observe than your ramblings. The difference is, again, astronomical.

How the th*rk are the Catholic Nazi NASA engineers supposed build a road with 8 inches of drop per mile when their radar says that there’s a stupid 400 foot high hill in the way?

Genius post.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

No, sorry. If I ignore you at all, it's that I find psychopathy abrasive.

If you found psychopathy abrasive, you would find yourself abrasive.
You are ignoring me for one very simple reason, I so clearly demonstrate you are lying to everyone, and you have no honest way of engaging with what I have said.

I'm the one telling you what I think, based on what I learned from real science from first grade up to college to continued online study after college.

While ignoring that that "continued online study" effectively amounts to accepting whatever BS your cult leaders tell you with no thinking at all.
Meanwhile, I am clearly explaining (note: explaining not simply telling) why what you are claiming is BS.

You're the one telling me what I should think.
You're the one telling me "facts" from globalist consensus science.
You're the one ignoring facts from real science results.

No, I'm not.
I'm the one explaining how things work, with logical arguments and evidence.
You are the one baselessly asserting crap that we "should" think, to try to prop up your delusional fantasy, even though you can't justify it at all.
You are the one continually lying to everyone, then entirely ignoring the refutation of those lies and deflecting away at all costs.

YOU are the one continually ignoring the real facts from real science (rather than your delusional BS) which so clearly demonstrate simple things like Polaris is not magically fixed, and Earth is round.
Things which go directly against your fantasy so you repeatedly lie about them with nothing to support your lies.

For example, I tell you that light and heat dissipate over distance as all electromagnetic and thermal reactions scatter radially and that there is a set limit of energy output given a set energy input.

No.
You tell us that light magically dies.
That if you shine light, after some distance it just magically dies for no reason at all, so there is a magical limit to your vision which you can't see beyond.
When it is shown to be pure BS, you bait and switch.
And then after being refuted too many times you flee like the lying POS you are.

Just look at what you have done now.
Instead of dealing with the topic being discussed, after your blatant lies have been laid out so well, with your only option to "deal" with it to be ignoring everything that is said, cherry picking a tiny part and continuing to lie to everyone; you instead deflect to baselessly attacking people that are calling you out on your pathetic, desperate BS.

How about you stop with this pathetic deflection and instead deal with the fact you have been repeatedly lying to everyone in this thread?

Again, clear evidence that Polaris is not magically fixed:


Again, clear evidence that they did not move the camera back and instead just one back to the start of the timelapse:



Are you going to admit you have been lying to everyone?
If not, can you at least bring yourself to admit that in this footage it is clear that Polaris is moving relative to Earth, even if you want to say the footage is fake?

Or will you behave like I expect you will, just flee from the refutation of your pathetic BS and continue to deflect like the lying, subhuman, worthless POS you are?

No, sorry.

We aren’t when you abandon a thread.  Where you use cult teachings to try explain things that contradict what you can witness for yourself. 

Bulma, I notice you haven't been posting in here, and I wouldn't want anyone to think we are trying to burry this (as you might be). So, you lying, worthless, subhuman POS that is a waste of the oxygen you are consuming; care to tell us why you are lying to everyone?

Care to admit that the footage YOU PROVIDED clearly shows Polaris moving? Note, this is not asking you to admit that Polaris does appear to move in reality, just that the footage you repeatedly lied about does.

Again here is the clear evidence:


And again, care to admit that the footage, that you repeatedly lied about, does not show any sudden motion backwards of the camera like you want to pretend, and instead is simply it returning to the start of the timelapse:



So again, you lying, worthless, subhuman POS; care to admit that you have lied to everyone? That you have no qualms at all with repeatedly lying to people to pretend reality is wrong and your delusional fantasy is true?

You keep saying that this is "clear evidence." But we have zero evidence that they didn't in any way move the camera.

In any case, even if it were true, it would be akin to watching the center point of a ferris wheel wobble a bit, and complaining to the manager that the ferris wheel has no center. They would laugh you out of there, and agree to tighten the bolt.

You: The North Star is not the center! Look, it moved!
God: I'll tighten it soon. It's gonna go back to normal.

Like a giant spear stuck into the cosmos and stirred, the North Star  occasionally moves slightly, because it uses its own motion to generate a sort of pull to the other stars.


But this is a very tight motion, akin to rotation.

As an experiment, I stood at the center of a rug and turned in place. It wasn't too long before I got dizzy and stepped off center. The North Star operates under such an imperfect rotation.

Not an orbit.

So back to the North Star supposedly getting off track. Hysterics decide this is
proof that the North Star isn't the center
and soon the North Star won't work anymore!
Yeah, uhhh get a grip. Izanagi just got a little overzealous with his spear. The North Star will in fact return to its original position.

Meanwhile, the "South Star" isn't even remotely on center. Ever. I watched a time lapse of both. The North Star was still enough that if it moved, it wasn't easy to spot. Every  single star in the southern hemisphere moved. The northern hemisphere is the center, the southern hemisphere is the rim, and our eyes are trying to visually center something that is on the outside.

You keep saying that this is "clear evidence." But we have zero evidence that they didn't in any way move the camera.

It’s not the only freaking video.  It’s been documented in many ways over decades that Polaris circles the northern celestial pole. 

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on June 26, 2025, 10:35:21 AM

I see another Bulma babble coming on to dodge answering an honest question.

Will it be NASA? Nazis? The Catholic Church?  Some high jacked photo? Some high jacked stupid cartoon?



Or will it be a completely stupid statement.  Like supposedly radar horizon is because the radar is pitched up.  Or supposedly you can’t build a road on an earth with a radius of 3963 miles?

How the th*rk are the Catholic Nazi NASA engineers supposed build a road with 8 inches of drop per mile when their radar says that there’s a stupid 400 foot high hill in the way?

Exactly.

This is what they build for. The 400 ft hill. Not the 8 inches of curvature.

Then they tell the public they adjusted 8 inches every miles, and would you please give a bit extra tax money for the adjustment they didn't need to do (No, really. They didn't need to do it, because it wasn't there)?

You think this is about paranoia. But it's a bit more simple. The problem is taxes. They pocket the money and get some psychopathic glee from telling you crap that makes you pay more and suffer more. It brightens their day, the same way setting a tree on fire brightens the day of a pyromaniac. And the people who defend governments are also psychopaths, so they enjoy watching this play out. There doesn't need to be a secret organization to blame at the end of the day.

No. Thank you. We do not need our roads adjusted to the curvature. They have enough issues with heat and cold, rain and snow.

While a paranoid person nerves out about it, I tend to be more deadpan. What [annoys?] me is that this isn't presented as a choice, like "Would you prefer to have the roads adjusted for an imaginary curve? Or do you want watertight roads?" Ummm the latter. Instead, they spend all their time trying to trick people, which also wastes expenses. Is it not possible for government to stop treating its subjects like children, tell them honestly what the real problem is, and let them make an informed choice? Like "These are union workers. They will do a shitty job and then blame it on the shape of the Earth. Those are private workers. It's only the one guy and his son, but he takes awhile with just the two of them, and charges more for an excellent job." With an informed choice some people do choose the union workers as more are hired. Some choose the private. But when the public is deceived, they don't get that choice. And they have to bear the problems of mismanagement.

amazing

You keep saying that this is "clear evidence."

Yes, because it clearly is.
So clear in fact you need to desperately flee from it repeatedly.

But again, this isn't even about that.
This is about YOUR CLAIMS about the video.
You have blatantly lied to everyone by claiming the video shows Polaris is still.
Yet the footage clearly shows

In any case, even if it were true

No, need to speculate. It IS true.
It is quite clear what the footage shows.
Stop deflecting from the issue.

The issue is your blatant and repeatedly lie that Polaris is not moving in that footage.

Can you address this you worthless, lying, subhuman POS?

Can you demonstrate even the slightest bit of decency and admit you have repeatedly lied?
That you provided footage and then blatantly lied about it.

it would be akin to watching the center point of a ferris wheel wobble a bit

As a reminder, you complained that Sigma Octantis was not directly at the centre of the south, and lied to everyone claiming Polaris was perfectly at the centre at the north.

If you really wanted to play this game you could have just accepted the fact we already provided, rather than repeatedly denying it and blatantly lying about a video.
Likewise, it is nothing like your pathetic strawmen you are inventing to yet again flee from the issue.

But again, it is not about that. It is about your blatant lie that the video shows Polaris magically fixed without any motion at all.

Can you address that?

You keep saying that this is "clear evidence." But we have zero evidence that they didn't in any way move the camera.

That's the beauty of science.  If you don't trust the evidence presented, then repeat the observation yourself and let us know your results.  Seriously, it's not that hard to do this yourself.

Right. And repeating the results doesn't yield a result any different.



It is still like this.

Yes, a few days passed. But this isn't a orbit thing. It moves just straight down.

But again, it is not about that. It is about your blatant lie that the video shows Polaris magically fixed without any motion at all.

Can you address that?

I did.

Either...
1. The picture is a complete fraud, created by as simple as moving the camera back a few feet after time has passed.
2. It's an accidental error. For example, if the camera was left out, and kept getting soaked (snow, rain, the wind knocked it over)
3. Or like Izanagi stirring the vortex, the slight shift reverting back to center is quite different from not being the center, and instead being pulled around in a star trail.


More or less a dot in the center. Barely moves at all (North Hemisphere)


You can see a star trail in the center.

The result is the same regardless.



By the way...


This is because Octanis is actually at the edge. Perspective is everything. Looking centered is all well and good, but if you can't actually see something from all points, it isn't a true center. 

Imagine an archery target. And the circle at the center represents all stars possibly seen by an observer in the center. At the edge, without changing the size of the circle, it only covers a portion.

Do you get it yet? Or should I show you a picture?

If Octanis is number #2, then it can only be seen from one spot. Meanwhile, #15 can be seen from everywhere within the inner green circle.

Right. And repeating the results doesn't yield a result any different.

So they also yeild the result that you are a worthless, lying, subhuman POS, that is a waste of the oxygen you take up?

I did.

No, you didn't.
You instead continued to repeat the same pathetic lie that the camera was moved back, even after it was repeatedly made clear that I am talking about before that claimed moved, and I repeatedly demonstrated that that "move" was simply moving back to the start.
Instead of even attempting to address that, you just ignore it, until your last post where you deflect to BS of a Ferris wheel.
Even now, you still refuse to address it.

Again, the issue here is your worthless, pathetic lie that Polaris appears stationary in the footage.
And what's your excuse?

1. The picture is a complete fraud

Which still has Polaris moving.

2. It's an accidental error.

Which still has Polaris moving.

3. Or like Izanagi stirring the vortex

Which still has Polaris moving.

Notice how none of your pathetic excuses in any way explains how you go from footage clearly showing Polaris moving, to your blatant lie that it appears fixed and stationary?

The result is the same regardless.

Yes, that you are a lying POS.
That you do not give a damn about the truth.
That you are happy to repeatedly lie to everyone.

By the way...

Your pathetic deflection still does not address your blatant lie.

Do you get it yet? Or should I show you a picture?

Yes, I get it, you are a worthless, lying, subhuman POS that will go on to repeatedly lie to everyone without a care in the world.
When you are called out on your pathetic BS, then you will just deflect.

Do you understand yet?

Again, the only way out for you now is to admit you have been lying to everyone.
That you provided footage and then proceeded to lie about what it shows.

Right.

Been gearing up to do a long exposure of the northern celestial pole.  It takes a bit of willingness to do the late night venture. Lose a bit of sleep.  And a clear sky.  Was cloudy last night.  I might use an older camera for the long exposure and the newer for time lapse.  I’m planing to do a shorter run where I move the cameras.  And a longer run without moving the cameras.

There is no reason to doubt the results are that Polaris will circle the northern celestial pole.  It’s been already documented and proven in countless ways.  As pointed out.  Jack’s video is only one in a number of documented proofs Polaris circles the northern celestial pole. 

But if you really doubt this.  With the exercise I laid out.  Why don’t you invest in your belief.  Putting your money where you mouth is.  And duplicate what I’m going to do when I can make time and get a break in the weather.

I’m guessing you won’t do it.  Bulma, you’re just going to keep being brainwashed by Eric? 

You're a lying POS.

Why is it moving?

Are you stubborn or just unable to see good sense?



When you move a camera back, even a little bit, this alters the angle. Now, 5 ft is probably a stretch, which means the idea of it being an accident is probably wrong.

But back to this.




Will Smith spinning. Using his torso as our North Star, and the other stars orbiting that star, from each position south of the equator, Octuris (#2 on the target above, or the bottom of the chair) is seen. The center star rotates. The outer stars are pulled along. Now, Will Smith breathes, meaning occasionally his diaphragm wobbles a bit.  Does it matter that there is a slight wobble? Does it make it any less true that the his torso is at the center, and the bottom of his chair is at the edge? No less than Izanagi stirring his spear at the suspiciously Milky Way-like water. The center point is still the center point even if it wobbles.

Yes, I literally just used Fresh Prince, an archery target, and Izanagi in the same illustration. If I, who am insane, am nonetheless right, why should you, who is a liar and wrong, not still believe me?

Back to Eric Dubay's video. He at one point underlines a quote from a page about Octuris. The page is unfortunately a pdf (Kindle ironically doesn't play nice with pdf), but Assist was happy to assist.

To find the celestial south pole, locate the Southern Cross constellation and draw an imaginary line connecting the two stars at the 'head' and 'foot' of the cross. Extend this line about four times its length from the foot of the cross to reach the south celestial pole, then look straight down to find due south.

 EarthSky
Finding the Celestial South Pole
Understanding the South Celestial Pole
The South Celestial Pole (SCP) is the point in the sky directly above Earth's southern axis. Unlike the North Celestial Pole, which is marked by the bright star Polaris, the SCP does not have a prominent star to guide observers.

Using the Southern Cross
One effective way to locate the SCP is by using the Southern Cross constellation (Crux). Here’s how to do it:

Identify the Southern Cross: Look for the four bright stars that form a cross shape.
Draw a Line: Imagine a line connecting the two stars at the "head" and "foot" of the cross.
Extend the Line: Extend this line out about four times the length of the cross from the foot star. This point marks the SCP.
Look Downward: From the SCP, draw an imaginary line straight down to the horizon. This direction indicates due south.
Alternative Methods
While the Southern Cross is a popular method, there are other ways to find the SCP, such as using the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds or other nearby constellations.

Conclusion
By using the Southern Cross and following these steps, you can accurately find the celestial south pole and determine the direction of due south in the Southern Hemisphere.

Wait a second, does not have a prominent star to guide observers? What about Octuris? Can't it be used?

Well, his video shows the page saying "But this star is not easy to find with the unaided eye." Unlike a (mostly?) nonmoving star which fulfills its purpose of being a guide star, you have to instead rely on the Southern Cross... when it orbits into place.

Polaris, even if it wobbles, nonetheless represents a guide point for  those traveling north. It is fundamentally centered for everyone in the northern hemisphere. No, it is not going to suddenly veer away and a new star being the North Star. Cool story though, bro.

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/OS_GENDH3mA

In this this video, the camera moves (hmmmmm...) and the spike thingy at the center of the Ferris Wheel wobbles from its original position. Should we decide that the spike doesn't extend from the center of the wheel? Should we decide the spike will fall off? Or should we tell the camera man to quit playing around and keep the shot steady?

Are you stubborn y?

Right.

Been gearing up to do a long exposure of the northern celestial pole.  It takes a bit of willingness to do the late night venture. Lose a bit of sleep.  And a clear sky.  Was cloudy last night.  I might use an older camera for the long exposure and the newer for time lapse.  I’m planing to do a shorter run where I move the cameras.  And a longer run without moving the cameras.

There is no reason to doubt the results are that Polaris will circle the northern celestial pole.  It’s been already documented and proven in countless ways.  As pointed out.  Jack’s video is only one in a number of documented proofs Polaris circles the northern celestial pole. 

But if you really doubt this.  With the exercise I laid out.  Why don’t you invest in your belief.  Putting your money where you mouth is.  And duplicate what I’m going to do when I can make time and get a break in the weather.

I’m guessing you won’t do it.  Bulma, you’re just going to keep being brainwashed by Eric?

Are you stubborn or just unable to see good sense?

Some would say I am stubborn, but that is because unlike scum like you, I care about the truth.

So I will stick to this point until you actually address it.

When you move a camera back

Again, this doesn't help your pathetic BS at all.

This is not a discussion about why Polaris is moving in the video.
It is now about why you have repeatedly lied to everyone by claiming the video shows Polaris is stationary when it clearly isn't.

And again, this is NOT about your blatant lie where you want to pretend that after the first time lapse they move the camera back rather than going back to the start.

So no, lets not get sidetracked with more pathetic BS from you.
Instead, lets directly address your blatant lies, you worthless, lying, subhuman POS.

i.e. back to this:


This clearly shows, beyond any sane doubt, that Polaris IS MOVING in the footage you provided.

Compare this to your repeated lie, started here:

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

So we have your pathetic, blatant lie that Polaris is not moving, that it only moved once.
Compared to the time-lapse of the time lapse clearly showing Polaris is moving, and far more than just once.


Stop with all the pathetic BS.
Stop with all the pathetic deflections.
Just deal with what the footage shows from roughly 7 seconds to roughly 20 seconds.
You repeatedly lie by claiming it shows Polaris is stationary, while the footage quite clearly shows Polaris is moving.

This is what you need to address.
Not a question of if the footage or fake, or what causes Polaris to appear to move.
But instead, the simple fact that Polaris does appear to move while you claim it does not.

i.e. why you repeatedly lied to everyone.
Can you even bring yourself to admit it?
Can you admit that you repeatedly lied to everyone by falsely claiming Polaris doesn't move in this footage?
Can you admit that your statement that Polaris is not moving in the footage is complete and utter BS not based upon the footage at all?

Once you address this (not run from it like the lying coward you are) we can move on.

Polaris, even if it wobbles, nonetheless represents a guide point for  those traveling north. It is fundamentally centered for everyone in the northern hemisphere. No, it is not going to suddenly veer away and a new star being the North Star. Cool story though, bro.

Polaris circles around what is the actual northern celestial pole.  There is a difference. 

Remember posts about RE being more accurate.  RE leads to better results. 

This video is how to set up a specific mount that tracks with the night sky for long exposure astrophotography.




Polaris circles around the northern celestial pole, it’s not the northern celestial pole.  It’s not on the celestial pole.

The alignment of this mount for long exposure astrophotography uses the known offset of Polaris for time and date to correctly center the mount on the celestial north pole.

If you use a high enough ISO and shutter speed for a bright star, there is no blurring even if not using a mount to match the earth’s rotation.  For a fixed / static mounted camera, you start to get star trails and blurring for exposures around 30 seconds.     

The app that gives you the Polaris offset position.



The reticle offset for Polaris in the mount sight.



If you align on just Polaris for long exposure astrophotography, the mount for the camera will not be in sync with the earth’s rotation and imaging of night objects will blur.





People that engage in long exposure astrophotography prove again and again that Polaris circles around the northern celestial pole when they only align to Polaris and get undesired star trails and blurring of objects.

To use a crass bedroom analogy, it looks like ten or twelve women rolling around one man. Then he finds one he likes and a certain part moves up and down.  It is still for quite awhile, then the star lowers. The motion is completely unnatural.

It is still for quite awhile, then the star lowers. The motion is completely unnatural.

Repeatedly lying to everyone doesn't help you.
This isn't just a single sequence that starts and ends.
This is a loop.
You can't have it just sit still then have the star lower.
That doesn't work for the loop. You need to have it return to the start.

Anyone with a tiny bit of intelligence (so I guess that rules you out) and who is talking about it honestly (so again, that rules you out), can clearly see that "star lowers" is simply it returning to the start.

And what that means is the star is NOT still in the footage. Instead it slowly moves up, and then jumps back down when it goes back to the start, as all the stars appear to rotate around the north celestial pole as it jumps back to the start.

Other than completing the loop with the rotation back to the start, this is entirely natural motion.

Again, why do you insist on repeating the same pathetic lies again and again?
The footage, and this looping gif, clearly demonstrates Polaris IS MOVING in the footage.
Why do you keep repeating such obvious lies?

Again, why are you so desperate to repeatedly lie to everyone? Why can you just be honest for once in your pathetic existence and admit you were wrong and repeatedly lied to everyone, and that this footage does show Polaris is moving?

Do you honestly think you could ever have something in a looping piece of footage remain still then jump down as the only motion?
If so, you truly are delusional and brain damaged.

Fact: There is only one star that doesn't move. There is no fixed South Star, and the "South Star" is not useful as a directional guide.

Bulma.  If you are referring to Polaris, that simply isn’t true. Your claim of Polaris doesn’t move doesn’t even need debunked.  It’s a false statement.  People that engage is astrophotography know and have proven Polaris circles the northern celestial pole.  And it’s not really something they set out to  “prove” with an agenda.  It just comes down for aligning to the northern celestial pole by using Polaris doesn’t result in the best results for long exposures.  For long exposures, aligning to Polaris results in blurring because Polaris is offset from the northern celestial pole by about 0.67 of a degree. It fails to accurately as possible sync the mount to earth’s rotation.  Using that Polaris is offset from the northern celestial pole about 0.67 of a degree is used for more precise alignment and better imaging.

Bulma, why is this one of the hills you choose to die on?  Not understanding or ignoring that Polaris does in fact circle the northern celestial pole means that you are trolling or brainwashed by cult mentality. 

You say it's a false statement.

Yet you've been caught in lies before.

If I also am a liar, as some of you claim, then it ought to be rather simple to confirm this. But actually, it's not. Aside from a wobble, which is then used to generate an up/down star trail, there is no apparent movement of Polaris at all. So  if that wobble were artificial in any way, your entire claim that "Polaris is moving, one day Polaris won't be the central North Star, the poles are shifting, and DOOOM, THE EARTH WILL FLOOD AGAIN!"


yeah all of that gets tossed in the trash like so much conspiracy nonsense.

---

You can clearly see that while the rotation appears authentic, the central star in this looks superimposed. As though they animated the entire thing frame by frame, and then all of a sudden shifted Polaris down. If the star curved around like the other stars, that might be believable. But its movement is like this.

---

No, every country on Earth is not going underwater to fulfill your vision of Atland rising. Polaris is going nowhere.

You say it's a false statement.

Now.  It’s well proven and documented that Polaris circles the northern celestial pole.  Where I have a thread I’m working on to confirm that.  Where you just eat up Eric’s crap.

Yet you've been caught in lies before.

No.  That’s your opinion with no evidence to back it up. 

You can clearly see that while the rotation appears authentic, the central star in this looks superimposed.

Again.  Not relying on Jacks video.  Care to use any other false assertions. 

Actually read the post below.  Or is demonstrably proof and understanding that Polaris isn’t a fixed and static point beyond your comprehension. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 03, 2025, 05:04:12 AM

Polaris, even if it wobbles, nonetheless represents a guide point for  those traveling north. It is fundamentally centered for everyone in the northern hemisphere. No, it is not going to suddenly veer away and a new star being the North Star. Cool story though, bro.

Polaris circles around what is the actual northern celestial pole.  There is a difference. 

Remember posts about RE being more accurate.  RE leads to better results. 

This video is how to set up a specific mount that tracks with the night sky for long exposure astrophotography.




Polaris circles around the northern celestial pole, it’s not the northern celestial pole.  It’s not on the celestial pole.

The alignment of this mount for long exposure astrophotography uses the known offset of Polaris for time and date to correctly center the mount on the celestial north pole.

If you use a high enough ISO and shutter speed for a bright star, there is no blurring even if not using a mount to match the earth’s rotation.  For a fixed / static mounted camera, you start to get star trails and blurring for exposures around 30 seconds.     

The app that gives you the Polaris offset position.



The reticle offset for Polaris in the mount sight.



If you align on just Polaris for long exposure astrophotography, the mount for the camera will not be in sync with the earth’s rotation and imaging of night objects will blur.





People that engage in long exposure astrophotography prove again and again that Polaris circles around the northern celestial pole when they only align to Polaris and get undesired star trails and blurring of objects.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 08, 2025, 03:05:26 AM

You say it's a false statement.

Now.  It’s well proven and documented that Polaris circles the northern celestial pole.  Where I have a thread I’m working on to confirm that.  Where you just eat up Eric’s crap.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 08, 2025, 03:05:26 AM

Yet you've been caught in lies before.

No.  That’s your opinion with no evidence to back it up.

A very simple lie that you've been caught in: you demand that everyone believe that light shines perpetually outward (in direct violation of how real science says it works), but your own pictures show lights shrinking substantially from 100 m to 300 m. No matter how big stars are supposedly, that rate of shrinkage means that even the largest objects (e.g. should be bigger than the entire sky) are reduced to a point then nothing over the course of tens of miles not even thousands of miles.