Re: Space Travel, the Firmament & God

Quote from: Smoke Machine on June 15, 2025, 05:25:18 PM

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 15, 2025, 01:19:01 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 14, 2025, 08:23:01 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 14, 2025, 03:20:49 AM

I’ve seen videos of rockets flying straight upward that eventually hit the Firmament and bounced along its walls, creating ripples in its waters.

If the rockets hit the firmament, then why are the rockets not destroyed when they hit the firmament?

Good question finally. I think it would have something to do with the makeup of the Firmament walls themselves, which nobody knows is made of.

When I saw the video of a rocket contacting the walls of the Firmament, it seemed like the water within it reacted to the hit. And so did the water react to its travel bouncing up and down against the walls with what looks like ripples in the water, it looked very much like a wake from a boat moving on the water. Bizarre but that’s what it looked like. I have no care what others believe or not, I see what is there to see, and this is exactly what I saw.

But that may answer your question why the rockets don’t smash up.

It’s possible that the walls flex, like a giant thick clear rubber sheet. It would explain the water ripples and the rocket not smashing into pieces, and bouncing off the walls leaving a wake of water in the firmament.

Very fascinating this all is to me

When you finish writing your sci fi fantasy novel about a flat earth in a another dimension - I wont be reading it. It sounds like shit.

One of superman's enemies, Brainiac, had a bad habit of shrinking entire cities and encasing them in a clear plastic dome on board his spaceship. You've been reading too many superman comics.

Or you frothed at the mouth watching that totally shit tv series, under the dome.

You either read too many comic books or watch too much tv. Either way, you've rotted your own brain. I pray you dont have children who you are teaching to be idiots.

Says the person who believes whatever NASA tells him instantly. Your brain is rotted  to that point.

You have no idea when you’re being played as a fool, you just accept your gods word as true. And it is far worse than any religion, because it hides under the name of science.  But if you want to believe an iPhone blurs out multiple distinct belts into the same feature seen on all the other videos, because NASA claims they sent a ‘space probe’ to Saturn, you win the idiot award this year, congratulations

You win the idiot of the year award for thinking iPhones DON'T blur out the distinctive belts on Saturn. Ofcourse they blur them out! It's an iPhone. Its primary purpose in life is making phone calls.

Stop worshipping your iPhone God.

But iPhones dont even completely blur out the belts. I've seen videos from iPhones of Saturn where I can see the belts. You seem to put on your blind fold whenever you look at those videos of Saturn.

Save your blind fold, Turbonium, for those rare times your wife says yes to doing the wild thing. (Admit it, there's no way you could perform if you could see.)

I'm joking, ofcourse, just testing you to see if you might have any human emotion like anger or outrage hidden under that robotic radicalised indoctrinated exterior.

Just you wait, Turbonium. Just you wait. You and I are going to have a Saturn photo showdown on the lies about the stars thread. My wife is going away for a few days, so I am free to devote my spare time to photo bombing that thread, instead of doing housework.

 

Stars and all ‘planets’ are in constant endless motion. Images don’t show their motion, only videos do, that’s what we must use here.

We only see stars and ‘planets’ by eye, same as on videos, same way we see them through telescopes. They aren’t seen in a fraction of a second like images show them as.

We don’t show images alone of objects in motion, they don’t show their motion. They aren’t motionless, images don’t show their motion.

Only the moon can be shown properly with images, because it’s the only object in the heavens which IS motionless to see by eye.

Stars and ‘planets’ are all in constant endless motion, and seen that way by eye through instruments, and must be shown on video to capture their motion!

Stars and all ‘planets’ are in constant endless motion.

If I recall correctly, that was your pathetic, baseless claim, that you knew was so utterly pathetic and indefensible that you desperately to deflect onto the claims of others to try to shift the burden of proof, so you can pretend that you are justified in saying they lied.

Only the moon can be shown properly with images, because it’s the only object in the heavens which IS motionless to see by eye.

Until you get a camera with a high magnification, and then you observe the surface appear to shimmer.

Do you know what really makes the moon special? Its angular size.
The moon has an angular size of roughly 0.5 degrees.
This makes it much less distorted relative to its size.


But again, what do your pathetic lies about the stars have to do with your pathetic lies and baseless claims about a magic dome you have no evidence for that you falsely claim is blue, rather than the clearly documented fact that the air scatters light making it appear blue?

Their claims of seeing multiple distinct belts on Saturn are clearly not true, proven as not true, I have no doubt that their claims are falsehoods, and that is my view of their claims, that is what I believe of their claims, that they are lies, and the evidence shows they are lies, all of the evidence supports that. None shows it otherwise at all. There’s no other conclusion to make. Lies aren’t written confessions of liars, they are proven by the evidence showing them as lies, showing they couldn’t be telling the truth at all, showing what they claimed cannot ever be true, cannot be anything but lies they made up. That’s what we have here. 

Their claims of seeing multiple distinct belts on Saturn

Are clearly not the topic here.
Instead, it is yet again you doing all you can to deflect to avoid having to prove your pathetic, delusional BS.

How about you stop this pathetic BS and instead try to provide evidence for your magical dome?
Can you do it?

If not, what about proving it is actually the motion of the star rather than just turbulence in the atmosphere like countless other examples?

Save your blind fold, Turbonium, for those rare times your wife says yes to doing the wild thing. (Admit it, there's no way you could perform if you could see.)

I didn't think this was ummm... that kind of forum.

(The other points are good tho)

I’ve shown you one star that is seen with amazing details, that move and change shape in every on or two frames, which is stunningly amazing to see.

It is absolutely impossible for all this to be seen if it was trillions of miles away or caused by any sort of effect or distortion of atmosphere, or anything external.

I pity people like you who refuse to believe what you see with your own eyes as true, as gods creation, because it is so beautiful to see what god created for us to see, to be amazed by, and that’s the sad part.

I’ve shown you one star that is seen with amazing details

No, you haven't.
You have shown us pathetic crap which you claim is details of the star.
You have not been able to show that is actually the details of the star rather than imaging artefacts, especially from an out of focus camera.
You have made no attempt to do so.

And even if you did do all that, it still doesn't prove your magic dome exists.

Yet again, you can't defend your BS so you deflect to other pathetic BS.

I pity people like you

Go pity yourself; lying scum, so horribly brainwashed and incapable of accepting reality that they need to continually retreat into a fantasy and repeatedly lie to everyone while ignoring the refutation of those lies and continually deflecting from the refutation of those lies. So utterly pathetic that you need to continually avoid simple questions which destroy your pathetic BS.

And so utterly pathetic and devoid of any meaning or substance, that you could only see yourself as the play thing of an imaginary, childish, evil tyrant.

The sad part is you.

Now, do you have any proof that we live in a snowglobe? No. Of course not.

I think it is possible to believe 2 things at once.
God's creation is beautiful, as well as stars can be seen from extreme distances.

Sadly, I also believe that this thread could go on for ages, getting slowly more intense (or just staying this intense) as time goes on.

I think it is possible to believe 2 things at once.
God's creation is beautiful, as well as stars can be seen from extreme distances.

I would go so far as to say that I firmly believe that God could have created the Big Bang that led to an ever evolving round earth universe.

Go pity yourself; lying scum, so horribly brainwashed and incapable of accepting reality that they need to continually retreat into a fantasy and repeatedly lie to everyone while ignoring the refutation of those lies and continually deflecting from the refutation of those lies. So utterly pathetic that you need to continually avoid simple questions which destroy your pathetic BS.

Jack.  Is that on topic?  Reads like someone with low self esteem needing a punching bag.  Way beyond discussion? 

Give you a hint.  Turbo was ran off from a conspiracy site that didn’t allow attacking the person, only the subject.   By repeatedly using sound and prove documented fact to contrast the individual’s ridiculousness. 

Believe it or not, turbo only worked one or two threads at the other site.  Maybe a third if they felt inclined to post in a 9/11 truther thread.   Still mostly did weekends.  But Turbo is posting loads more and has gotten more ridiculous being here. 

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 01, 2025, 02:48:21 AM

I’ve shown you one star that is seen with amazing details

No, you haven't.
You have shown us pathetic crap which you claim is details of the star.
You have not been able to show that is actually the details of the star rather than imaging artefacts, especially from an out of focus camera.
You have made no attempt to do so.

It’s obviously not possible for an out of focus camera, nor any effects of atmosphere, nor any external cause do all this!

Look again at each frame of the video of both stars, especially the second star shown after a minute or so…



Seen first further out, it is in constant rapid rotation, which we also see in close up.

Moving so rapidly, it’s best seen in still frames, from the video.

That’s where we see there’s amazing details of the star, and depth and colours in it.

But the most amazing part of it, is that these details of the star, move and change shape in each frame or two, rotating around and around rapidly, just like we saw it do further away, confirming that it IS rotating rapidl!

Nobody has to prove its not caused by an out of focus camera or caused by atmospheric effects, they certainly couldn’t do such things!

These details cannot happen by an out of focus instrument, or by an effect of atmosphere, or both of them.

If it were caused by out of focus camera and/or effect of atmosphere and/or distortion of atmosphere, etc.  -

First of all, we’d never see any details or features on the star, we’d only see a blurry object here, a blob of light, nothing else at all.

Your side claims all stars are trillions of miles away from Earth, and always look like tiny points of light from Earth.

That we cannot see anything of stars but as tiny points of light, no matter how much they’re magnified through our instruments!!

If that were true, we’d always see them as tiny points of light, blurred lights or sharp lights, and nothing else at all would be seen of stars…

Your excuses fail miserably.

The details on the star have to be genuine details of the star, in order for these details to be seen in every frame of the video, in order for those details to be seen changing shape, in every frame, while rotating rapidly again and again, in every frame…

How the star does this, how it can change shape like this, isn’t known by us, like how life was created is not known at all by us….

Life exists, nobody has to know how life was created to know it exists on Earth!

Same as we don’t know how or why stars can change shape like that, and so rapidly change shape, change colours, etc.

Nobody has to know or explain or prove that life exists.

You don’t need to know why or how the stars could change shape like this, etc.

Stars weren’t known about or seen except as tiny points of light in the sky, but we knew and saw some with colours, that changed colours, some were brighter and a few had unique paths of movement in the skies than most stars did, and so on…

The bs story built on excuses and lies and fakery and hiding truths from everyone on Earth.

You can’t explain how the star shows these details on it, within every still frame of the video, which are seen in every frame, and are changing shape in every frame or two, while still there  as these features of the star…

The changing shapes of these features are only possible if they’re genuine and real features of the star.

It doesn’t mean we can explain them, how could it be the stars but not from an effect?

Their ball Earth story is built upon lies and fakery and deception.

Why would there be one person that’s so famous for having a great new instrument, called Copernicus, who claimed to see things far away by eye, as very close to see…

They saw what was there, or more than ever before, with
telescopes.

Does anyone know when they first had a telescope we could buy for our very own??

About 40 or 50 years ago, it was big news in the stores! A great Xmas gift!

Microscopes were sold about the same time, too.

The microscopes worked a lot better than telescopes did, of course.

I remember getting a microscope at Xmas as a kid.

And some of my friends and my brother got a telescope for Xmas back then too.

It looked cool, but was complete crap. Good binoculars were way better by far than these ‘telescopes’ were at the time.

Technologies cannot be stopped or held secret from us anymore, digital instruments opened up the door to the world and above the world.

For centuries, only the elite had telescopes, saw through telescopes, and nobody else did.

They told and wrote of what they saw through their telescopes, and we all believed what they told us was the truth. 

They still tell us about what they saw through their great telescopes today, which only they can see through, nobody else can see through them at all.

But they had to figure out what happens when people see what stars look like up close, and Mars and Saturn up close, and see it’s not like we’ve told them it is all these years!!


They simply used a method used for special effects for objects of light, or a light source in general, for an effect in the images or footage.

It’s utter bs.

We must always use this method to magnify on the stars, no other method will work properly!

They’re full of crap. 

Their bs ‘method’ is used for special effects, not in standard photography or filming.

Obviously, they claim that the stars are very unique from any other objects, being trillions of miles away from Earth within the blackness of ‘space’!

Which is also complete bs.

We don’t know the distance away of many objects we photograph or film, or their actual size, or even what they really are!! 

When we take photos or film of a distant light within the darkness, at any distance away from it, known to us or unknown to us, within pitch black skies or conditions, we do not ever use their bs method to film things at all.

Their ‘method’ lets in all external light, within a black sky, which isn’t completely pitch black, in fact, but a shade of pitch black or 100% black.

Allowing in all external light is stupid and not done at all.

But the stupidest part of it, is that they claim we cannot magnify on the stars at all, they always appear as tiny points of light through any telescopes! But then they tell us how to properly magnify them as slightly bigger points of light than before! 

What a joke! 
 

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 15, 2025, 10:14:52 PM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on June 15, 2025, 05:25:18 PM

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 15, 2025, 01:19:01 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 14, 2025, 08:23:01 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 14, 2025, 03:20:49 AM

I’ve seen videos of rockets flying straight upward that eventually hit the Firmament and bounced along its walls, creating ripples in its waters.

If the rockets hit the firmament, then why are the rockets not destroyed when they hit the firmament?

Good question finally. I think it would have something to do with the makeup of the Firmament walls themselves, which nobody knows is made of.

When I saw the video of a rocket contacting the walls of the Firmament, it seemed like the water within it reacted to the hit. And so did the water react to its travel bouncing up and down against the walls with what looks like ripples in the water, it looked very much like a wake from a boat moving on the water. Bizarre but that’s what it looked like. I have no care what others believe or not, I see what is there to see, and this is exactly what I saw.

But that may answer your question why the rockets don’t smash up.

It’s possible that the walls flex, like a giant thick clear rubber sheet. It would explain the water ripples and the rocket not smashing into pieces, and bouncing off the walls leaving a wake of water in the firmament.

Very fascinating this all is to me

When you finish writing your sci fi fantasy novel about a flat earth in a another dimension - I wont be reading it. It sounds like shit.

One of superman's enemies, Brainiac, had a bad habit of shrinking entire cities and encasing them in a clear plastic dome on board his spaceship. You've been reading too many superman comics.

Or you frothed at the mouth watching that totally shit tv series, under the dome.

You either read too many comic books or watch too much tv. Either way, you've rotted your own brain. I pray you dont have children who you are teaching to be idiots.

Says the person who believes whatever NASA tells him instantly. Your brain is rotted  to that point.

You have no idea when you’re being played as a fool, you just accept your gods word as true. And it is far worse than any religion, because it hides under the name of science.  But if you want to believe an iPhone blurs out multiple distinct belts into the same feature seen on all the other videos, because NASA claims they sent a ‘space probe’ to Saturn, you win the idiot award this year, congratulations

You win the idiot of the year award for thinking iPhones DON'T blur out the distinctive belts on Saturn. Ofcourse they blur them out! It's an iPhone. Its primary purpose in life is making phone calls.

Stop worshipping your iPhone God.

But iPhones dont even completely blur out the belts. I've seen videos from iPhones of Saturn where I can see the belts. You seem to put on your blind fold whenever you look at those videos of Saturn.

Save your blind fold, Turbonium, for those rare times your wife says yes to doing the wild thing. (Admit it, there's no way you could perform if you could see.)

I'm joking, ofcourse, just testing you to see if you might have any human emotion like anger or outrage hidden under that robotic radicalised indoctrinated exterior.

Just you wait, Turbonium. Just you wait. You and I are going to have a Saturn photo showdown on the lies about the stars thread. My wife is going away for a few days, so I am free to devote my spare time to photo bombing that thread, instead of doing housework.

Ooh what an adorable post. It’s like I was in a pat boone beach movie

Ok buster put up your dukes!!😂😂

It’s both admirable and pathetically sad to see people react like this.

One day you’ll see what’s going on, I hope , it hits you like a ton of bricks. God bless

It’s obviously not possible for an out of focus camera, nor any effects of atmosphere, nor any external cause do all this!

Why? Because you say so?
It is quite possible for it to do so.

Look again at each frame of the video of both stars

Why should I?

To see the lines of glare coming off the star, showing it is an issue with the camera, and not the star itself?
These occur in particular patterns based upon the geometry of the camera itself.

How about instead of you just baselessly asserting crap and telling me to look at a complete worthless video, you do what I have already asked countless times.
Show me 2 videos of the same star, shot at the same time, through different cameras from different locations, and show how they match.
Can you do that?

Until you do so, or otherwise demonstrate it is not an effect of the camera or atmosphere, your claims are worthless.

First of all, we’d never see any details or features on the star, we’d only see a blurry object here, a blob of light, nothing else at all.

Wrong again.
Just look at the end of the video where it shows the moon.
Or look at any object through a heat haze.
That already shows you are spouting pure BS.

Your excuses fail miserably.

in order for these details to be seen in every frame of the video, in order for those details to be seen changing shape, in every frame

Congrats on directly contradicting yourself.
We aren't seeing these "details" in every frame. Instead we get different "details" in every frame.
And that is entirely possible with distortions and the like.
You would have a much better argument if you saw the exact same details in every frame. The same shape in every frame.

The bs story built on excuses and lies and fakery and hiding truths from everyone on Earth.

So stop with your BS story and BS excuses and lies and fakery, and stop trying to hide the truth.
No one is forcing you to.

Their ball Earth story is built upon lies and fakery and deception.

You keep claiming this, but you are yet to demonstrate any, instead you demonstrate your own lies and deception.

Does anyone know when they first had a telescope we could buy for our very own??

No, because those kinds of records aren't kept. Instead the best you get is a time where you can, with it being unknown if you could before hand.
For example it is known that Herschel sold telescopes.

But of course, that wont stop you using your wilful ignorance to pretend it must have been really recent.

It looked cool, but was complete crap.

Yes, they bought cheap crap, and they got cheap crap.

It’s utter bs.

Thanks for summing up your post yet again.

We must always use this method to magnify on the stars

No, you must use this method to focus on ANY object.
This "BS method" is used for everything.

If you take an in-focus view of an object, and move it out of focus it will have a larger angular size.
This is because instead of 1 clear view of the object, you now effectively have a bunch of them spread out over an area.
So to focus on an object, you adjust the focus (while remaining at the same zoom/magnification) until the object has an angular size as small as possible.

If you are intentionally making it larger with the focus (rather than magnification), then you are intentionally making it out of focus and not seeing the detail of the object.

we do not ever use their bs method to film things at all.

Then you are a complete moron that doesn't know what you are doing.

Their ‘method’ lets in all external light

No, it doesn't.
This is just yet another pathetic claim by you which you cannot justify at all.

pathetically sad to see people react like this.

You mean react like you?
So desperately to reject reality you keep acting like a complete imbecile that wouldn't even be able to tie their own shoes?

Or do you mean that you know you are an absolutely pathetic troll with no life and think one day everyone will realise that and not give you any attention at all?

And I do see what is going on.
You are yet again spouting complete and utter BS because you cannot defend your BS.
You still have absolutely no evidence of your magic dome, nor your magic sky fairy.
Just pathetic assertions and wilful ignorance.

No, what happens is your taking in all external light that is NOT light from a star.

And then when you magnify on the star washed with external light, you see a big blur of washed out intermingled light from the star and the surrounding external light as one big blob of light.

From that point, all you are seeing is light, not the object, not just its light, but all sorts of more light from elsewhere.

You’re not focusing on anything but a light blob, you idiot. Making it smaller doesn’t work, it’s the same blob of mixed together light your just sharpening along its edges!

Or go ahead and be a complete moron and think this bs method works, I don’t care. Ignorance isn’t my concern at all, I tried but you’re a hopeless case

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 15, 2025, 10:24:47 PM

I know it from seeing the SR-71 Blackbird (my favourite plane) at an air show years ago.

You don’t even need to see it flying when you hear a sonic boom, it’s unmistakeable.

I noticed you actually didn’t say you heard a sonic boom from the SR-71.  So when would that have been.  Anyway..

Since you claim you’re a fan of the SR-71….

Author Brian Shul on piloting the SR-71


The SR-71 pilot loved photography and got pictures that are a rare opportunity for others.

Watch the video.  Might be a photo of earth’s curvature.

😂😂😂😂😂😂

They might have faked a curve you mean?😂😂😂

I am indeed a fan of the Blackbird, it’s my favorite plane of all time, though I love some others almost as much. I find the design of it amazing and ominous and something out of a movie come to be real.

And yes, I saw it at an air show many years ago, and heard it’s sonic boom!

You have not been able to show that is actually the details of the star rather than imaging artefacts, especially from an out of focus camera.

When you claim there’s no proof of this being caused by ‘image artefacts’ or an out of focus camera, you need to prove they have ever caused any object in all history to look and move like this and show it’s details which move in every frame which matches the rapid rotation we see of it, and show those details in different positions in every frame, and seen entirely clear to the point we can see these same details in different positions in every frame, the whole video.

When have you ever seen such things in every frame of a video taken by an out of focus camera before? When have you ever seen camera artefacts look like this before?

Utter nonsense.

Have you ever considered that what von braun referred to on his tombstone, and was his favourite passage in the Bible, was exactly how it looks to be meant as? That he saw his rockets hit the firmament over and over again, which immediately changed his life and how he thought of life and god?

This one passage which describes the Firmament as the creation of God, that SHOWS us His handiwork, would be the blue we see above us, the waters within the Firmament for us to see as gods creation.

It certainly all fits the whole timeline perfectly. He would certainly see if his rockets hit the firmament more than anyone in the world ever would have.

Before he became a Christian, if his rockets flew up into space and not hit any barrier along the way, he already didn’t follow the Bible or was religious in any way. Seeing his rockets fly up into space would change nothing he ever thought before then. What would the firmament matter to him at that point? He probably thought it was endless space up there like most of us do or once did in my case.

There’d be no reason at all for turning to what the Bible said about a Firmament.

If I saw a rocket fly up into space, I’d know the Bible is making it up or something, because it sure doesn’t mean ‘space’ or the skies at all.

Those same details ARE seen in every frame. The fact that they are in different positions matching the stars rotational movement and it’s same direction of rotation is tremendous support for them being real details of the star.

That those same details change shape in every frame is something we cannot explain because it is unlike anything we’ve seen before on Earth. That doesn’t mean it’s not happening in reality, because it obviously is happening in reality.

Insects transform into different things on Earth, larvae turn into butterflies for example. It takes a longer time to transform shape than the star does, and many shapes instead of two shapes of butterflies. They still are real, they still change shape and form, and so do stars, only much quicker and more shapes than butterflies do

No, what happens is your taking in all external light that is NOT light from a star.

Do you not understand how lenses work at all?
Just spouting pathetic crap here wont help you.

And yet again you just flee from the topic at hand, to spout absolute crap.

Or go ahead and be a complete moron

No thanks. You seem to be doing an amazing job of that and I could never hope to compete.
I will stick to reality and reason and logic and evidence. Things you seem to hate.

you need to prove they have ever caused any object in all history to look and move like this

There are already countless examples.
Go look a heat haze.
Do you need me to show those videos again to show how much of a pathetic lying POS you are?

Utter nonsense.

That certainly sums you up.

Have you ever considered that what von braun referred to on his tombstone

No, because he was dead before he could write on his tombstone.
And you have had that pathetic BS of yours refuted countless times.

The fact that they are in different positions matching the stars rotational movement and it’s same direction of rotation is tremendous support for them being real details of the star.

No, that is just yet another baseless claim from you.

And such a pathetic one that you then directly contradict yourself:

That those same details change shape in every frame

So you have these same details, yet they change shape?
If they are changing shape, how are they the same?


Now again, care to provide any evidence at all for your magic snowglobe?

They’re the same details that are at their same positions on the star in every frame of the video, every feature seen at their positions on the star, or in motion about the star in patterns of motion that are constantly seen of certain features, most stay in position on the star however.

One area is blue in colour and always is seen as blue, when it’s facing towards us in its rapid rotation.

If you look through each of the frames when close up, you will notice there’s an area which looks a bright blue in colour, seen in a few frames, not many of the frames, but some show a vivid blue colour is there on the star at this area of it.

How could this same area be seen as a vivid blue in several different frames while at different positions in every frame seen blue at that same area of the star?

This one same area is always seen as blue, no other area of the star has any blue or any other colours at all, but only whitish or darkish in shades, which makes the vivid blue stand out to see!

They’re the same details that are at their same positions on the star in every frame of the video, every feature seen at their positions on the star, or in motion about the star

Great job contradicting yourself.
Saying the feature is in the same position and moves.
They can't both be true.

One area

Stop with the vague crap.
If you want to make a claim, back it up.
Tell us exactly which video you are using and which timestamp.
Show the frame you are trying to talk about.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 18, 2025, 11:49:47 PM

They’re the same details that are at their same positions on the star in every frame of the video, every feature seen at their positions on the star, or in motion about the star

Great job contradicting yourself.
Saying the feature is in the same position and moves.
They can't both be true.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 18, 2025, 11:49:47 PM

One area

Stop with the vague crap.
If you want to make a claim, back it up.
Tell us exactly which video you are using and which timestamp.
Show the frame you are trying to talk about.

Here it is again, look from about 53 seconds or so onward.

It is at 50% speed in the clip, because it’s too fast to see a lot at its normal speed.

What makes it blurry most of all is it’s rapid speed of rotation, and best seen in it’s still frames for details, which are still blurry and change shapes all the time, while remaining in their general position on the star throughout.

Look at the frames through a good monitor for best results, of course.

I’m certainly unable to explain how it works or what makes it work in such strange ways never seen on Earth, which makes it even more fascinating and interesting to me, and inspires me to look at stars close up as well and film them.

This star was filmed with a Nikon P900, what would we see of that star through ever better instruments than the Nikon, would be even more incredible to see, I’m sure

In the years ahead, with ever better telescopes we have, more and more people will also film the stars ever closer in, ever sharper to see, which will help to reduce their blur of rapid motion.

Ironically, those of you who believe this is all caused by effects or out of focus instruments or distortion of atmosphete and whatever else you think of, have only inspired me and others to seek out more and more evidence, to meet every challenge or excuse you make up for it, which is a good thing in the end result which will eventually come about

Here it is again

WHERE?
I don't see any frames where you are pointing out any features at all.

look from about 53 seconds or so onward.

And I see the tell tale signs of a diffraction pattern with the spaced out lines, and clear evidence of atmospheric distortion.
I don't see any signs of any actual features on the star.

Ironically, those of you who believe this is all caused by effects or out of focus instruments or distortion of atmosphete and whatever else you think of, have only inspired me and others to seek out more and more evidence

Yet you still have no actual evidence.

Do you know the very simple thing you could easily do as a first pass for a test?
Just have 2 cameras right next to each other film the same thing.
Ideally have the 2 cameras start out looking directly at the same thing, zoomed out so it is clear to see and have something happen to synchronise them (like the clapper boards from movies). Then zoom in on the same star.
But you don't make any attempt to. As if you know it will show your claim is pure BS.

It’s not spinning at high speed constantly like this by any distortion or diffraction effects, it’s rapidly in rotation, while it’s features match it’s rapid rotational motion, the features are turning around from view and back into view again, which is seen over the frames of the video.

Look for the biggest and most prominent feature in its central area, which is cavernous inside the star on one side and solid on the other side of it as the wall at its back.

Focus on that shell or cavernous area in every frame, because you’ll see it in some frames but not in other frames, because it’s rotating as part of the whole stars rotation.

Around it comes into view, then out of view on the other side, while changing in shape throughout the time, but still the cavernous area in the middle which is seen then not seen as it rotates around and atound.

No external cause or causes make this happen, no excuses for it because you don’t want it to be the star itself we see here, nobody wants THAT to be true, we want an excuse for it all, that’s much better than a remarkable and stunningly amazing thing to be from any stupid stars! We want them to look like tiny points of light instead of glorious and magnificent creations of God, right?

What we can now see of stars, was never possible before by us, and only partly by astronomers back then, who hid the truth from us.

There are far too many details of the star to be from any external causes, the cavernous area which is seen then not seen are from its rotation, that too is impossible by external causes,

These are the things they’ve lied about being trillions of miles away and look like nothing more than tiny points of light, but only if we use their ‘method’ of magnifying on a bunch of tiny lights and see them slightly bigger points of light, that’s worth doing for sure if you’re an idiot!

It’s not spinning at high speed constantly

That's right.
It isn't.
There is NOTHING in the video showing that.

If you wish to claim it is, PROVE IT!
Don't just provide a crappy video which does nothing to prove it.
Demonstrate it frame by frame.
Show a clearly identifiable feature move across it and appear again at regular intervals.
Vague, baseless crap doesn't cut it.

It doesn’t look like it’s spinning to you?

Again, these features constantly appear to change in shape, though their specific details remain seen throughout the time.

We can see the blue area is rotating in and out of view as it rotates around and around, or just look at that cavernous area appear and not appear as it rotates rapidly.

The frames must all be looked at closely and thoroughly to see all this, of course.

The point is that this cannot be possible by any external cause or effects or out of focus instruments. Not a chance in hell