WHY would the government trick us?

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),

Quote what I actually posted then.  Making a claim isn’t proof.  Actual
Proof would be an actual quote.

This was what is posted.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 26, 2025, 07:19:42 AM

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: DataOverFlow2022 on October 11, 2024, 03:47:21 AM

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: DataOverFlow2022 on August 30, 2024, 03:32:46 AM

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

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on July 02, 2025, 03:29:48 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 02, 2025, 08:28:50 AM

Suppose

You stop derailing threads from lines of thought with complete babbling.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 30, 2025, 10:45:01 AM

The amount of energy needed for a star to be visible to your eyes at even a million miles away would so violate even basic laws of physics.

Then in the past you tried to use BS memes like this one I put a question over to try it as an explanation why the sun sets.




If you think photons have a set “radius”, then why can I use the photons of a weaker source of light with proper exposure to photograph a whole shower vs a few tiles.



Do you even understand..

Yes.  Photons do spread out with distance.  More photons are bouncing off per unit area of the wall of the tube than off the wall at the base of the ceiling making the tube wall better illuminated.  But there is no magical distance the photon travels and then just does.  Photons are still making it to the ceiling with ease.  Just less per unit area making it dimmer because the photons spread out with distance.  But notice in your stupid meme and the photo of the candle.  The light source is still imagined quite bright and obvious.  This is due to the fact the light source is still sending out quite a concentration of photons in line of sight with the camera.  The photons aren’t magically dying. 

Balma.  You understand the candle is emitting photons that are traveling the entire length of the wall, reflecting or bouncing off the entity of the wall, traveling to the camera, passing through  the lens, and creating an image.  The photons are not magically dying with distance.

A very simple

Bulma. You done from derailing from Polaris now..

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.

Yes.  Photons do spread out with distance.

Mmmm. Pretty sure that before, you told me that photons continue straight ahead and do not scatter or diminish with distance. Now all of a sudden, after being called out on it, you are on board with this, even though it means that light can "die" without the need of curvature.

Mmmm. Pretty sure that before, you told me that photons continue straight ahead and do not scatter or diminish with distance.

I quoted what I have actually posted in context, and you’re just going to still use false assertions and lies. 

Which still has nothing to do with you brainwashed into thinking Polaris is a fixed and static point in the night sky when it’s been repeatedly proven otherwise over decades, where astrophotographers use the fact Polaris circles the northern celestial pole to better align to the northern celestial pole. 

he's literal when it suits his debunk of the roundearth

where astrophotographers use the fact Polaris circles the northern celestial pole to better align to the northern celestial pole to their delusions

Like all photographers, it's possible to make real and fake photographs.

Yet you've been caught in lies before.

There you go projecting again.

You have been caught in a lie NOW.
A lie so obvious you are doing whatever you can to flee from it, because you know it shows how much of worthless, lying, subhuman POS you are.
You know how it shows how you are happy to blatantly lie about such obvious things to cling to your pathetic BS and pretend your delusional fantasy is true; even things which would be so minor and unneeded for your pathetic fantasy.
You are happy to provide evidence for a claim and blatantly lie about what that evidence shows which actually shows your claim is wrong.
You have shown that anything you say is entirely worthless and that you cannot be trusted.

If I also am a liar, as some of you claim, then it ought to be rather simple to confirm this.

And it is.
Trivial in fact.
You can do it in several ways.
You can Just look at the 2 frames from the video where you claim it doesn't show Polaris is moving. e.g. comparing 7 seconds to 20 seconds.
What do we see?

Clear motion of all the stars, including Polaris.

If that isn't good enough, we can also show the motion of the stars over that time with a time lapse of the time lapse. And what do we get?
This:

And you can even zoom in on it to see Polaris tracing out an arc, not simply moving up and down.

And if that isn't enough, we can also focus on your lies about them moving the camera.
But again, doing it honestly, comparing the start of the first set of footage with the start of the second set (the start after where you have falsely claimed they moved the camera).
And what do we get? THIS:

Showing quite clearly they have simply moved to the start.
And if that isn't enough, we can also show before and after that alleged move, and highlight key stars to see how they have moved:

Showing it is not simply moving the camera.

So it is not like you pretend where Polaris the entire sky just shifts as they move the camera.
They are simply returning to the start of the footage.
That also means it is not like you falsely claimed where Polaris remains stationary and then jumps when the camera is moved.

Instead, Polaris is clearly moving the entire time (except when they just have a single image up for a duration).

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.

No, we can't.
We can clearly see that Polaris traces out an arc like the other stars.
That it is NOT stationary like you repeatedly lied to everyone.

And notice how yet again, you just assert pure BS and don't even attempt to prove it.
If it was actually moving like you said, you could easily show that, by taking the frames of the video, or the gif I provided, and looking at what it actually shows by zooming in on Polaris, like this:

Notice that is an arc, not a straight line.
You could also stack them in gimp, by taking the screenshots or the gif I had and setting it to lighten only.
Then you get this:

And zoomed in on Polaris:

This is not a straight line like you want to pretend.
In fact, you can even overlay a circle:


Again, all the evidence shows you are lying.

And again, forget about if it is animated or not. Forget about the claim of if this is what is happening in reality.
Deal with your blatant lie about what the footage allegedly shows.
Again, you lied to everyone when you claimed:

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.

Again, even if you want to say the footage is fake, the fact remains that in the footage where you claim Polaris is stationary, it is clearly moving.
Anyone who honestly investigates easily finds that Polaris moves and you blatantly lied to everyone, yet you still refuse to admit it.

Deal with this blatant lie of yours.
Either admit you have lied to everyone, and doubled down on that lie, continually repeating it; or defend your obviously false claim.

Quote

where astrophotographers use the fact Polaris circles the northern celestial pole to better align to the northern celestial pole to their delusions

Like all photographers, it's possible to make real and fake photographs.

Are you stupid.  Aligning a mount to match the earth’s rotation for astrophotography and long exposures to prevent blurring of objects requires precise alignment to the northern celestial pole using the off set off Polaris.  The alignment process has nothing to do with faking a photograph of Polaris. 

You don't actually know how wide this "circle" is.  You're extrapolating its width from incomplete information.

Actually, if we want to get technical, we have a skipped frame from here the here, so the actual star trail is more like this.



We do not know anything about the frames in between. Much like the supposed Apollo flight footage that was mysteriously lost, we cannot confirm that there was in fact any real movement.
That too has been extrapolated.

are you incapable of self verifying the N star?
or is your own eyes and own brain also subject to photoshop misinformation (aka delusional)?

You don't actually know how wide this "circle" is.  .

What are you babbling about.  Aligning to Polaris for astrophotography results in blurring for long exposures where using the Polaris offset from the northern celestial pole to line correctly to the northern celestial pole gives the most accurate alignment.  Simple truth that proves Polaris isn’t a fixed stationary point on the northern celestial pole. 

You don't actually know how wide this "circle" is.  You're extrapolating its width from incomplete information.

I don't know it precisely, but I can approximate it.
If I really wanted to, I could trace the points with some margin of error and programmatically move the centre point around to various points in the image and see how many would match the circle.
But I can't be bothered, and instead just did a rough estimate.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the blue ellipse you drew was pure BS and doesn't match at all.

But there you go deflecting the point again.
Remember, you claimed:

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.
[crappy image of things just moving up and down]

This shows that the motion of Polaris is tracing out an arc, not simply up and down like you have yet again lied to everyone by claiming.

Actually, if we want to get technical, we have a skipped frame from here the here, so the actual star trail is more like this.

No, we don't.
That is YOU choosing to remain wilfully ignorant of reality.
That is YOU ignoring a whole bunch of the frames and just using 2.

I used far more than 2 frames from that footage.
I didn't extrapolate anything other than the overlaid circle.
You could use even more if you want to, taking every single frame from the initially time-lapse.

But again, that still doesn't help you.
That footage is still clearly showing Polaris is moving.

we cannot confirm that there was in fact any real movement.

You quite easily can, by doing it yourself, including making sure you are capturing it in high enough resolution.

But again, this discussion is not about reality at the moment.
Currently it is just about what this footage shows, regardless of if you want to pretend the footage is fake, or try being sane and honest for once and admitting there is no reason to think it is fake.

Again, what this footage shows is Polaris moving quite clearly.
What you have falsely claimed is that this footage shows Polaris as stationary.
Care to admit you have been lying to everyone?
If you can't do that, why should anyone believe a word you say?

are you incapable of self verifying the N star?
or is your own eyes and own brain also subject to photoshop misinformation (aka delusional)?

It's because I'm not subject to your delusion that I see the definite skip between point A and point B, and the non-movement before that point (whereas all other stars steadily moved), and question that supposed filled in line. You can see the points in that video before the star jumps downward, all of the other stars moving. And you can watch afterwards, all of the stars moving. And from that, any sane sensible person should say that if you never showed the North Star moving, every person looking at it would reach the same conclusion as they should from the apparent movement you showed.

no

i mean, go outside, look at the N star in real life



idiot

And from that, any sane sensible person should say that if you never showed the North Star moving, every person looking at it would reach the same conclusion as they should from the apparent movement you showed.

From glancing at Polaris by eye with no reference?

And yet.  Aligning to Polaris isn’t the same as actually aligning to the northern celestial pole.

It's because I'm not subject to your delusion that I see the definite skip between point A and point B, and the non-movement before that point

Pure BS.
It is BECAUSE you are subject to such utter delusion, that you ignore the clear motion before that point, and instead want to magically interpret it going back to the start as the only motion.
You are so heavily brain damaged or deluded (or likely just blatantly lying to everyone) that you want to claim that you can have footage looping which only shows the object, which remains in frame the entire time, only moving down.
That is how utterly pathetic and desperate and dishonest your position is.

If it was only moving down, then after each cycle it would need to be lower. But it isn't. After each cycle it is back where it started.


If you were honest, you could have just admitted after this was pointed out that the motion was too small for you to notice at first but when sped up or showing the jump back to the start you could see it.

But no, instead you double and spout such utter crap that everyone can see you for the pathetic, lying POS you are.

Here is the gif again you lying POS:

Notice the progression of time at the bottom.
That "jump down" is when it is going back to the start.

And again, zoomed in:


This shows beyond any doubt, that in this video Polaris is moving.
Not just jumping down in a section not even being shown in the footage, but slowly circling up, before we see a clear shift when it goes back to the start.

You can see the points in that video before the star jumps downward, all of the other stars moving. And you can watch afterwards, all of the stars moving.

And we can see that ALL of the stars are appearing to move, including Polaris.
It is not magically fixed in place like you want to pretend.
You have literally nothing supporting your blatant lie that it is, while plenty refutes it.

And from that, any sane sensible person

Can clearly see that Polaris is moving and you are lying to everyone.
The only question that remains is WHY?
Just what are you hoping to achieve with such obvious and blatant lies?

Are you trying to show how utterly pathetic and useless the FE model is? And how utterly pathetic and dishonest FEers are? With how you have to repeatedly lie to everyone to pretend you pathetic garbage works?

Because that is all you are doing.

The footage shows beyond any doubt that Polaris is moving in that footage.
The loop, showing the gradual movement and then the jump back to the start shows it.

There is no way out of this for you.
Just admit you have been lying to everyone and move on.

I can clearly see that you think this is proof.  This is not the same thing as it actually being proof.

My nephews are over for the visit from Texas. My older nephew used to think he was the golden child, but my brother has a fun habit of making more children then neglecting them for the newest.  So he knows he's a chump and is kinda detached. 
The second nephew is a little shit. He basically has bulletproof narcissism. Loses in a game? Decides he won. Loses badly or repeatedly? "They were cheating" or "this is a dumb game."  Always the excuses. Anything in order to avoid simply admitting "Welp, you beat me." The difference between myself and a narcissist was that I learned never to give up, having been pushed around by bullies all my life, not to never admit I failed. I will play Risk and not concede the game even when it is clear that I am grossly outnumbered and outmatched. I will force the other person to slaughter me. This kid will deny that he lost or find some means of coping with this simple idea.
And so will you.
You're wrong, you've been wrong, and it's time to suck it up already.

That "jump down" is when it is going back to the start.

I have seen the entire video, dude bro. The star literally jumps down at 0:29 of the video.



You have Polaris bobbing like a fucking apple, because you need it to do that to support your theory. Because you need to win and be right and be in control of other people. Only in the video, Polaris goes (almost?) straight down, while all the rest of the stars in the sky go in a much more circular or elliptical orbit. But like my narcissistic asshole nephew, who also decided one day to scratch my arm with a pinecomb until I got jagged up and down lines near my elbow (wanna see?), instead of truly admitting that the geometry doesn't mesh, you do the "you're cheating/lying" thing.

You can't function on a system where you consider for a moment that you could be mistaken.

The reason I am a Flat Earther? It's because I consider that I already was mistaken back when I was a round Earther. Could I be mistaken about Polaris? Yes, I sure could. But its movement would be a great deal different from what I saw on the video, if that were the case. We should be seeing a tight circle. Instead...



Here's the video. You can see that the other stars rotate at a normal speed, you can see that Polaris is basically still. At 0:27 or 0:29 they point out Polaris (as though it wasn't obvious). At 0:29, it mysteriously moves down. Then the stars are show spinning again in the new position. They show the star trails, and as far as I can see, it does not complete this imaginary circle that you think it should. They then proceed to average together the old position and the new one to create a "star trail" animation. At 0:51 we're back to Polaris as a star not a trail. It stays put until they move it again at 0:59. It doesn't circle at all. The just make it bob up and down by freezing the frame without explanation, then making a "star trail" out of the average positions. They also admit that they aren't taking a real timelapse. They are taking "shots every 2 minutes over a 3 hour period." That's frame by frame editing. Far from a video recorded over time lapse, it is very simple to edit individual frames. How exactly taking shots every two minutes over a three hour period (this should be only 90 frames, but this is already a lie, because a typical video is between 30 and 60 fps, which would require a maximum of 4560 frames) able to show the North Star not moving then suddenly it jumps in location? The motion of that one star is not remotely consistent with any of the other stars. The other stars move, the North Star jumps.

Quit making excuses for your narcissism. I'm tired of it from my nephew, and I'm not cool with it from you.

I can clearly see that you think this is proof.

It is not simply that I think it is.
It is clear, irrefutable proof, that you are blatantly lying to everyone; that you do not give a damn about reality.

And do you know a key give away, you don't even attempt to honestly address the issue. Instead you deflect with more pathetic BS.

You're wrong, you've been wrong, and it's time to suck it up already.

Follow your own advice.
Again, I have clearly proven you are wrong, and all you can do is continue to deflect with pathetic BS.

I have seen the entire video, dude bro. The star literally jumps down at 0:29 of the video.

Again, not what is being discussed here.
What Is being discussed is the start of the video.
Again, look at the times for the video, look at the progress of the red bar.
Notice how it doesn't get to 29 seconds in:


Again, you are a lying POS, proven to be a lying POS, and now acting like even more of a pathetic, lying POS by deflecting to other lies of yours.

Once more, forget about anything in the video that happens after ~20 seconds.
Just focus on the region from ~7 seconds to ~20 seconds.
And loop it, and you get the above. Clearly showing gradual motion of Polaris, and then a sudden jump as it goes back to the start.

Your picture is entirely worthless.
You have just taken a single frame and drawn on a bunch of useless ellipses. Just what pathetic BS is it meant to represent at all?

You have Polaris bobbing like a fucking apple

No, I don't.
I have it following a circular arc, before it jumps back to the start.
Because that is what the video shows.
And unlike you, I tell the truth. I honestly describe the video, rather than repeatedly lying about it like you do.
Because you seem have this delusional idea that Polaris being fixed would mean something significant rather than being basically worthless.
I don't need Polaris to be fixed or moving to support reality. It would work either way.

Polaris goes (almost?) straight down

It reverses the circular arc it was following before, just in one sudden jump rather than the gradual motion from before.

instead of truly admitting that the geometry doesn't mesh, you do the "you're cheating/lying" thing.

You can't function on a system where you consider for a moment that you could be mistaken.

There you go projecting yet again.

The reason I am a Flat Earther?

Because you a pathetic POS that can't handle reality. And now your entire image is built upon the idea that you have seen the light and realised reality is wrong.
Because of that, you cling to it like your life depends upon it and can never bring yourself to admit you were mistaken and that Earth could be round.

Here's the video. You can see that the other stars rotate at a normal speed, you can see that Polaris is basically still.

Do you understand what rotation is you pathetic, subhuman, lying POS?
Polaris, being close to the centre, will have that same rotation be a smaller linear distance.
What we see is all the stars tracing an arc, with the length of the arc being larger the further it is from the centre.

At 0:29, it mysteriously moves down.

No, they don't. I have already shown that is a lie.
There is no magic motion down.
Instead, it is going back to the start:



You see all the stars moving, circling a point near Polaris. Then in jumps back to the start, and the start again this time showing the trails.

And again, we don't need that. We can just focus on the period from 7 to 20 seconds.
That already shows you are a lying POS.

it does not complete this imaginary circle that you think it should.

Why would it complete a circle? It isn't a 23 hour 56 minute period.
What we see is an arc, which all the stars trace.

They then proceed to average together the old position and the new one to create a "star trail" animation.

Lying again.
They stack the images, they stack each frame of the prior time-lapse.
Again, you can do this yourself.
If you do, you can get something like this:

Without even using all their frames.
And no, no interpolation is done.


And as this position is just going back to the start, if Polaris was motionless, those 2 positions would be the same so nothing to average together.
Again, this shows you are a lying POS.

It stays put until they move it again at 0:59. It doesn't circle at all.

There you go lying again.
This is just the first time-lapse sped up.
And again, it moves.
You can easily verify this yourself.
But because you are a pathetic, dishonest, subhuman, lying POS, you don't and instead keep on lying to everyone.

Again, the show 1 time lapse, in 2 different ways, at 2 different speeds, giving a total of 4 representations.

But it only takes 1 to show you are a a pathetic, dishonest, subhuman, lying POS.
And it is so damaging, you can't engage with it at all and need to continually deflect and lie.

They are taking "shots every 2 minutes over a 3 hour period."

i.e. a time lapse.
Just what do you think a time-lapse is?

this is already a lie, because a typical video is between 30 and 60 fps

And they are not showing a different shot each frame.
Doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
You can literally step through the frames to see when it changes.
But no, like the pathetic, dishonest, subhuman, lying POS you are, you just ignore that and use it as another excuse to lie to everyone.

able to show the North Star not moving then suddenly it jumps in location?

It doesn't.
It shows Polaris moving, but slowly, and then a sudden jump when it goes back to the start.
Just like this:


So that is really a question for you.
How can a simple loop show no motion at all, and then a jump downwards when it goes back to the start of the loop?
It is clearly impossible.
Instead, it must be moving the whole time, just slowly for most and then a sudden jump back.

Again, all you are doing here is demonstrating how much of a pathetic, dishonest, subhuman, lying POS you are.

The motion of that one star is not remotely consistent with any of the other stars.

It is entirely consistent.
Tracing out a small arc (as it closer to the centre), and then jumping back to the start.
The only difference is how long the arc is, because of how far from the centre they are.

Quit making excuses for your narcissism. I'm tired of it from my nephew, and I'm not cool with it from you.

Follow your own advice you lying POS.

How can a simple loop show no motion at all, and then a jump downwards when it goes back to the start of the loop?
It is clearly impossible.

You are correct, it is clearly impossible.



First of all, the jump downwards is at the end, not the beginning of the loop. Unless you took it from a second in the video other than 0:29.
Second, it you eliminate the impossible, what do you get? Camera perspective tricks, photoshopping, straight up faked stars using layer editing. When I ignore North Star entirely on that video, and focus on the other stars (classic magician trick, "watch what I want you to, kids!") I notice something peculiar. Both times, the star trails slow to a stop before passing the trees. Almost as though the maker suspected they might have a layering glitch and stopped the film before that was revealed. We also discover that the star trails are a repeat because of this weird angular line on the left side that appears both times.

First of all,

For astrophotography it’s more accurate to align to the actual northern celestial pole than Polaris, and that is done using how far Polaris is offset from the northern celestial pole.

Quote

How can a simple loop show no motion at all, and then a jump downwards when it goes back to the start of the loop?
It is clearly impossible.

You are correct, it is clearly impossible.

And do you know what that means?
You are a clearly a lying POS, basically by your own confession.

Again, this footage is a loop:

You lie to everyone by falsely claiming it shows Polaris as stationary and then a sudden jump down.
You have now admitted that is impossible.

So care to try owning up and being honest for once in your pathetic existence?

First of all, the jump downwards is at the end, not the beginning of the loop.

No, it is going from the end to the beginning, closing the loop.

Unless you took it from a second in the video other than 0:29.

How many times do I have to explain that to you before you keep appealing to this dishonest BS?

Again, look at the times in the gif above.
It goes from 7 seconds to 21 seconds.
A period of time in which you claim the video shows Polaris is motionless.
It does not use the change at 29 seconds.
But these do.
Here is the simple one showing it is going back to the start:

Notice the stars aren't moving?
That means the footage just after 29 seconds is the same as the start.
i.e. it is going back to the start. It is not a jump to something else.

So again, this shows you are a pathetic lying POS.

Second, it you eliminate the impossible, what do you get?

The entirely possible, and plausible, and clearly proven fact, that you are a lying POS, wilfully lying to everyone.
You have effectively admitted that it is impossible for Polaris to be stationary, and that it has to be moving, as that is the only way to get the jump to complete the loop.

Camera perspective tricks, photoshopping, straight up faked stars using layer editing.

Again, forget about if this video is an accurate depiction of reality.
When you can't even bring yourself to admit what the video shows, such discussions are entirely pointless.
For now, just focus on what the video shows.
i.e. that Polaris is clearly moving, including in the period from 7 to 20 seconds where you repeatedly claimed it is stationary.

Once you can demonstrate a shred of integrity by admitting you have been blatantly lying to everyone repeatedly, and that in fact the video does show Polaris moving, we can move on to if this video is an accurate depiction of reality.
Until then, either admit you are a worthless, subhuman, lying POS that has repeatedly lied to us every time you claimed the video shows Polaris is stationary; or do the impossible and explain how the clearly moving Polaris is somehow not moving in the footage (and that means don't appealing to the footage being faked as that would not make it look stationary like you claim).

I can clearly see

My own photo of the northern celestial pole.  Please screen capture, circle, and post which star is fixed and static?



The whole explanation of the process of the captured image at:

  Photographing the northern celestial sphere. 
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=93210.0

One of the frames used.



 It’s a 30 second exposure so there is going to be minor blurring of the stars from earth’s rotation. 

Even at seemingly safe shutter speeds such as 20 or 25 seconds, there will be some blur when you zoom into the photo. In fact, with a typical wide-angle lens, you won’t completely eliminate star movement until you’re at shutter speeds as short as 5 or 10 seconds!

https://photographylife.com/500-rule-vs-npf-rule

The frame cropped.






If I get some clear skies. Will try to do with a longer focal length lens.  And another setup with my telescope. 

We're getting nowhere. Just arguing in circles.

The topic is "why would the government lie to us". Funny how when I'm off topic, you make a big fuss about it. But you're perfectly okay doing pages and pages on Polaris, which you claim moves but doesn't. Meanwhile, the question of why the government lies to us is left behind.

We're getting nowhere. Just arguing in circles.

Funny.  When I can produce my own evidence that Polaris circles the northern celestial pole and Polaris isn’t fixed and stationary, the queen of derailing threads wants to go back on “topic”.   Where Polaris circling the northern celestial pole is part of the supposed official “cover up”. 

Bulma.  You are a jackass.  And a pathological liar. 

Meanwhile, the question of why the government lies to us is left behind.

Then feel free to get us back on topic and explain why the government would try to trick us about the shape of the earth, especially in this day and age of an ever growing commercial space industry.

In this day and age of most-recorded-history

PB  "i have the list."
PB  " I dont have the list".

Reporter  "But we also have photos of wveryone he hung out"

T  "No you dont   i hardly know the guy i dont know anyhing about him i never met him why are you so nasty"

In this day and age of most-recorded-history

PB  "i have the list."
PB  " I dont have the list".

Reporter  "But we also have photos of wveryone he hung out"

T  "No you dont   i hardly know the guy i dont know anyhing about him i never met him why are you so nasty"

Might take your own advice jackass.

And he eloquently explains how wjen you spam 5times you allow these morons 5different avenues to escape a direct question.

The actual opening post…

I'm pretty sure that the earth is a globe, but I want to understand Flat Earth a little more.
Heard that y'all think the government is hiding stuff from us.
My question is: Why would they do that? What's the incentive?

We're getting nowhere. Just arguing in circles.

No, we aren't.
We are putting forward arguments you entirely ignore to repeat the same pathetic lies.

The topic is "why would the government lie to us".

That is an over simplification.
Instead, the topic is about why the government would trick people into pretending Earth is round if it was flat.
And instead, what see is the exact opposite.
It isn't the government trying to trick people about the shape of Earth.
It is desperate, pathetic, lying, subhuman POS like you, desperate to lie to everyone to pretend Earth is flat.
And on such an inconsequential point. It is as if you have boldly proclaimed it and it is key to your pathetic fantasy that you cannot admit you lied to everyone.

which you claim moves but doesn't.

And again, another pathetic lie from you.
Again, the footage clearly shows it moves, and you are so pathetic and desperate you blatantly lie about what is so obvious.

Again, it can't get much clearer than this:

This is just taking frames from 7 to 21 seconds in.
You can see the time in each frame.
This is before the portion of the video you blatantly lie to everyone about by falsely claiming they move the camera (instead of just going back to the start to show the same time-lapse in another way).
This shows the region where you claim Polaris is stationary. Yet at the end of this, it loops back to the start, where Polaris is seen quite clearly jumping down and to the right.
This is a loop, showing the same thing again and again.
By your own admission, it is impossible for Polaris to be stationary, and then just jump down to complete the loop.
That means the only possibility left is Polaris is moving, contrary to your blatant lie.

So again, why keep lying?
Why not just admit you were wrong, that you have lied to us repeatedly?
Admit that Polaris IS moving in that footage (regardless of if you think that footage matches reality).

At this point admitting you have repeatedly lied will not make anything worse for you. If anything it would be better as you would be showing some level of honesty.
It is repeatedly lying and deflecting from those lies that makes you look worse.

Meanwhile, the question of why the government lies to us is left behind.

No, instead it shifts to demonstrate the government isn't lying about the shape of Earth, YOU ARE!
i.e. the original question is answered and addressed. The government is not lying or trying to trick us about the shape of Earth.
There is no incentive for it.
There is no reason for it.
But desperate people like you are trying to trick are blatantly lying to us.

And the question is why? Especially when the lies are so obvious.

You are arguing witha brick wall.


A dumb-as-bricks brick wal

You are arguing witha brick wall.


A dumb-as-bricks brick wal

And yet I get my own proof Polaris is circling the northern celestial pole, and all the sudden Bulma wants to change the subject that “government” isn’t lying about Polaris ?