And apparently we forgot how after losing every scrap of evidence that ever existed showing we went there in the first place.this video is badly interpreted, look at what the the girl asked him, she asked if we ever went back to the moon after the apollo age, suffice to say we din't
Ironicaly, a medicine man from the past is exactly what you want. Snake oil has been demonized from our inception of indoctrinization. The various lipid compounds from the fat sack in snakes confer incredible biological benefits in snakes, as well as humans. Medline has numerous white papers detailing the numerous biologic actions of said lipids. There's a reason a snake can consume 80-100% of it's weight in one meal and then survive for a month, while its blood turns to a gel, its heart grows by 40% to accomodate the exponential increase in cholesterol and triglycerides with NO adverse affects. Its the lipid compounds sold by the "snake oil salesman"There is no such thing as outer space.
You can never prove it exists, you can never go there, you can never see it or experience it with your own sense and mind.
Instead, you must trust the modern day high priests of science, and take them at their word. No different than blindly following a slick televangelist or a medicine man from the past. Its a religion to believe in outer space
This was a fascinating thread to read through. I'm not thinking I will derail this thread easily as it's posts cover a lot of territory. The OP really set my mind into overdrive since I read it.What do you do when there is something contradicting your theory to the point of invalidating it? I don't know about you, but our science declares it a "PARADOX". A very simple solution to a very complicated problem. Now, everything in this story is official, and that makes it just that more ridiculous. That's my personal opinion only, but feel free to voice yours.
Dark Night Sky Paradox
View attachment 3385
In a nutshell ~ Olbers' paradox. The night sky is supposed to be lit up like a flood light due to the amount of stars up there. This is clearly not the case. And the reason we do not see this overwhelming sky size spot light shining down our own backyard is... cosmic dust blocking the view.
- Olber's paradox is explained by cosmic dust instead of the Big Bang
- On Olber’s Paradox
- Wikipedia - Olber's paradox
View attachment 3389Hubble orbits the Earth at an altitude of about 353 miles (569 kilometers). It takes about 97 minutes to complete one orbit around the Earth. Hubble passes into the shadow of the Earth for 28 to 36 minutes in each orbit.
Schematic of the distribution of stars in an infinite universe and Olber's Paradox
Credit: Penn State Astronomy & Astrophysics
Hubble Space Telescope
View attachment 3386
Here are some of the pictures allegedly made by this awesome piece of equipment. More HUBBLE pictures at this NASA link.
- Hubble’s Lonely Firework Display - Roughly 50 million light-years away the little galaxy NGC 1559 has hosted a variety of spectacular exploding stars called supernovae.
- Hubble Spots a Green Cosmic Arc - This Hubble Space Telescope image shows a cluster of hundreds of galaxies located about 7.5 billion light-years from Earth.
7.5 billion light years away... how many miles is it? Let's see.
1 light year = 5.88 trillion miles.
7,500,000,000 light years x 5,800,000,000,000 = no clue what this is called but my calculator demonstrated this 4.35^22 miles. I think in a more conventional way the distance looks like this - 43,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles.
This is your paradox, ladies and gentlemen: The night sky is supposed to be lit up like a gigantic floodlight. Obviously it is not because we have this interstellar cosmic dust blocking our view. Yet the Hubble telescope orbiting 353 miles above Earth is able to penetrate at least 4.35^22 miles of dust saturated space and snap a photo of some Galaxies far far away.
What's funny, we are so dull, we believe this non-sense. What's even funnier, Hubble is unable to take a picture of Earth. Why? Here is why:
Hubble orbit speed: 5 miles per second at 353 miles above Earth
- The surface of the Earth is whizzing by as Hubble orbits, and the pointing system, designed to track the distant stars, cannot track an object on the Earth. The shortest exposure time on any of the Hubble instruments is 0.1 seconds, and in this time Hubble moves about 700 meters, or almost half a mile. So a picture Hubble took of Earth would be all streaks.
ISS orbit speed: 4.76 miles per second at 205-270 miles above Earth
$2.5 billion Hubble telescope weighing, 24,500 pounds and measured at 43.5 feet does not have a camera to take a picture of Earth located only 353 miles away. Yet, it brings us joy with the images of the galaxies located 43,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles away. It is also capable of penetrating 4.35^22 miles of space dust. That same dust preventing the stellar light from reaching our planet Earth.
Are we being duped?
We were told those are stars and planets. I understand how ludicrous it sounds, for I fid go to a few educational establishments after all.
But what we really see is a bunch of shimmering lights. Our teachers and parents told us that those are stars and planets. Would we know that if it was not for them?
Our space programs could be for instilling a certain belief, that’s all.
I just started reading this thread for the first time and feel that this is a good place to share something that I've pondered for sometime and hope that it sparks exploration in others (or maybe hope to hear from those that have found that this conversation has been had before).I do have to disagree on one point there KD. If you get your own telescope and go somewhere that has minimal light pollution, you can see the planets and some of their moons at least.
Now, stars at a distance? That's not available to the public, but Jupiter, Saturn, Mars.. Venus, they're all visible and what not. There is also a visible difference between what we're told are planets and the stars, but it could be 'distance' related. Stars have a twinkle to them, the planets are steady and do not twinkle.
You have an interesting perspective. I certainly couldn't tell you one way or another. Perhaps.I just started reading this thread for the first time and feel that this is a good place to share something that I've pondered for sometime and hope that it sparks exploration in others (or maybe hope to hear from those that have found that this conversation has been had before).
First, this is going on two assumptions - one, that, there is possibly an alternative understanding yet to be publicly uncovered about the nature of what is happening up there; two, if at least *some* of the imagery produced by Hubble is a relatively authentic attempt to capture what is going on "up there", then items such as Hubble's deep field images only seem to support my conjecture, which is:
Whatever is is that may be up there, there is nothing but (using *their* terminology) galaxies and the things that we know as solar planets and their satellites. No stars. Everything that we've called a star since childhood when looking up at the night sky (Orion's Belt, Big Dipper, Polaris, etc), when zoomed in enough to get clarity on it, is just the light coming from what we currently call a galaxy, it's "galaxies" all the way down. And those things that make up a galaxy, which we also call stars, are nothing by electrical phenomenon.
Now, to speculate even further, if I were allow to offer an even more completely unsubstantiated perspective, you have non-exploded/poorly-charged things (planets, and then you have things that have "exploded" with highly charged things electro-magnetically "orbiting" it. Add to that some perspective which allows us to consider that it's hard to reconcile size vs distance vs speed when looking up there. Things that may appear trillions of light years away may also be much smaller and closer with different levels of "charge" (brightness).
How it relates to our current local environment is a question that may yet to be answered, if looking through a lens alternative to the modern heliocentric view (which in and of itself is an already outdated term that has yet to be replaced, as there was no such thing as a galaxy or even a universe as we have come to know it when that concept and the term heliocentric was coined). When we look to the skies, are "planets" and "moons" what happens to things such as Venus and Saturn when they die/transform? Or are objects such as Saturn and Venus the result of a "galaxy" losing its charge? And is there any "as below" down here that correlates to the "as above" up there?
Thanks for the video suggestion. Easy for my conspiracy addled brain to believe the Hubble is a hoax after watching the video. Just more ammunition that we are being lied to on a scale unimaginable. That's the ticket - to make sure that the lies are HUGE enough to get people sucked in beyond their ability to think rationally. Go BIG or go home.YEP, right bro'
Mud from space would certainly be a thing to witness, as all the space is real stuff we get sold in school, media, science etc would go out of the window in an instant but the true marvel would be to see how it copes with the 1000 mph spinning atmosphere.What if space dust is real, and is responsible for all those mysterious dust falls we've read so such about? Like, it accumulates, or is consolidated somehow (artificially), and creates deserts and covers up cities? Just throwing that out there for consideration. I have no idea how it would actually work.
It was an interesting video, but there's certainly a lot of repetitive dialog, pictures, etc. I felt like I was being told the same thing over, and over (programed).YEP, right bro'
Interesting idea, and one that I've consider myself. That kind of stuff is actually quite plausible when one considers the thunderbolts project ideologies, and other historical accounts of the planets, where they used to be located (old planets and new planets), some of them passing by the earth, or being knocked out of earth's grasp (electromagnetism or orbit), and through time, these planets have found their current positions in orbit around the sun as we know them now.What if space dust is real, and is responsible for all those mysterious dust falls we've read so such about? Like, it accumulates, or is consolidated somehow (artificially), and creates deserts and covers up cities? Just throwing that out there for consideration. I have no idea how it would actually work.
Mud from space would certainly be a thing to witness, as all the space is real stuff we get sold in school, media, science etc would go out of the window in an instant but the true marvel would be to see how it copes with the 1000 mph spinning atmosphere.