Stars, Galaxies, Planets: how do we know what they are?

space.jpg
  • How do we know what we are looking at?
  • How do we know that those are what we are told they are?
  • Do galaxies, stars and planets even exist? (...the words and images sure do...)
Here we have two allegedly legit images of some far away galaxies. NASA, Hubble and the hole nine yards of credentials.
  • 2018: NASA has released an absolutely beautiful photo taken by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope of PLCK G004.5-19.5, a massive cluster of galaxies in the constellation Sagittarius.
This Hubble image shows the galaxy cluster PLCK G004.5-19.5.
Image credit: NASA / ESA / Hubble / RELICS / D. Coe et al.

hubble_1.jpg

Source

  • 2018: The Hubble Telescope Has Found a Smile in Space to Warm Your Heart
A trio of galaxies form what appears to be a wry smile in deep space in this view from the Hubble
Space Telescope. This close-up image shows galaxies from the SDSS J0952+3434 cluster.

hubble_2.jpg

Source

  • 1993: Hubble Reveals Observable Universe Contains 10 Times More Galaxies Than Previously Thought
This image covers a portion of a large galaxy census called
the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey (GOODS).

Plum_not_Space_1.jpg

Source
Note: Just kidding, the last image is a plum.


KD: I simply do not trust TPTB to tell us the truth in reference to what these objects actually are. I am not going to question that the objects can be observed, but I do not trust unverifiable theories. For all we know, these could be misrepresented Christmas lights, plums or whatever. By repeating that those are planets, stars and galaxies they will never obtain the characteristics assigned to them by the narrative.
  • Is there a way to verify that we are not being played for a fool? I do not think so. None of the scientists has ever been there, from what we know. It also looks like none of us will ever be allowed to go and verify.
  • CGI is our destiny.
 

Banta

Active member
Joined
Feb 4, 2021
Messages
214
Reaction score
563
I mostly loved this post for the plum. That’s a fantastic universe that you can hold in the palm of your hand!

The rest of why I loved this is that talking about this subject is something that could use some of that “normalization” I hear about. It is not radical or foolish in anyway to question the “authorities” who are telling stories about the heavens. History has demonstrated that those claiming answers to these questions have used this as a means to maintain power over the population. Experts can be very useful with technical details on lots of subjects, but we’re not even talking about “rocket science” here… what’s beyond the limits of the only physical reality that any of us have ever known is a profound inquiry so it is best to be sure that the methods taken to satisfy it are rigorous and objective.

Put another way, and more specific to this post, it’s one thing to assume (though I wouldn’t) that we have a working understanding of our “solar system”, complete with fairly high quality visual depictions, photo or otherwise. We have an alleged record of man or machine at least passing through it. But to hold other claims with similar certainty, like the distance to Polaris, black holes, faraway planets, dark matter, etc, etc, well, hopefully you’re satisfied (or even familiar with!) with the margins of error when projecting outcomes through an ideology that’s built on a multitude of assumptions. Otherwise maybe someday when you get close enough to a “star”, you’ll be shocked to find it’s just a shiny fruit staring back at you.
 
  • A Avatar
    Info

  • Silhouette

    Member
    Joined
    Feb 25, 2021
    Messages
    36
    Reaction score
    122
    Ooooh...this is a subject I love. And let me say up front that I believe (know) that NASA is nothing but a lie machine. So let me get down to proving it.
    An object in motion tends to stay in motion, in the same direction and speed, unless affected by a force.
    When we look up at the moon, we know that the moon is considered to be in an orbit because it keeps coming back around. The moon wants to continue straight off into space but something is affecting it to keep looping around. That something is a force which we call gravity. We could use the formula, gravity equals momentum, momentum being mass times speed or velocity, so we have gravity equals mass times velocity in order to describe an orbit. If we add to the momentum, such as more speed, the object breaks loose from gravity and wanders off into space. If we add more gravity, such as the object coming closer to the Earth, it falls out of orbit and crashes to the Earth.
    So we know that the Earth's gravity reaches out to the moon, at roughly 239,000 miles. On a side note, its pretty impressive that gravity manages to swing that big ball around when we can overcome gravity just by hopping with our legs and we're a lot closer to the Earth, but don't pay any attention to that.
    Earth's Busy Neighborhood
    So let's take a look at The Earth's Busy Neighborhood website. I used to visit this site fairly frequently until I noticed that whenever something falls out of the sky, its never listed on here during its approach. But this site gets its information from all the authorities and you can explore it, look at the Traffic Report and such. Lets scroll down to the bar graph which is right below where it says Footnotes. What we're looking for in particular is the SOI or Sphere Of Influence which is located about one and a half notches to the right of the moon.
    What is a sphere of influence? It is the distance from the Earth, in all directions, at which point the gravity of the Earth begins to affect a passing body, such as a meteor, asteroid or comet, if one ever came that close. Any object coming within that distance will have its trajectory changed by encountering the Earth's gravity. It is listed at 2.41 times the LD or Lunar Distance, which is roughly 576,000 miles from the Earth.
    That's pretty interesting.
    So when we look at any object in orbit around the Earth, we know that it is being affected by the Earth's gravity, including, lets say, the Space Station (ISS), which Google says is orbiting at 254 miles up and moving at 4.76 miles per second. We know gravity is pulling on the Space Station because otherwise, at that speed, it would just shoot off into space rather than circling back around.
    So when we know that the ISS is affected by gravity and the moon is affected by gravity, and according to the official narrative the Earth's gravity reaches out to 2.41 LD, what are we to think when we are told that the "astronauts" are in "zero gee" or no gravity. They float objects through the air on their Space Station and do flips for us, none of which could possibly be faked by special effects or CGI. They are determined to make sure we are aware that they are in zero gravity, at only 254 miles up. So how can the Earth's gravity affect an object moving past at almost 600,000 miles away but it doesn't affect an object floating inside the ISS at 254 miles away?
    How could this be?
    I'll tell you... Anti-gravity paint! The ISS is painted with anti-gravity paint so that while gravity is hanging on to the outside of the station and preventing it from shooting off into space at 17,400 mph, it does not intrude inside the station and interfere with their stunts and tricks!
    Believe that?
    Just kidding, of course. In reality they are not in zero gee, if they are up there. In fact, if gravity reaches out to 2.41 LD, no man or woman has ever been in zero gravity in the history of mankind. Ponder the size of this lie for a moment. This lie goes all the way back to the Gemini missions when they first began to insist that they were experiencing no gravity when they were in orbit, with gravity pulling them in a circle around the Earth. Once a lie is told they must continue to tell it and support it, regardless of how ridiculous it becomes. The question is, why is this lie so important that they would feel the need to demonstrate it (faking it) constantly rather than just letting it quietly die?
    Some people might consider what passengers experience on the "Vomit Comet" as zero gee,NASA's Vomit Comet ,but I consider that "free fall" which is when one falls so fast one can no longer feel the pull of gravity.
    I have a part two, but I'll give you guys a chance to come back at me first.
     

    Banta

    Active member
    Joined
    Feb 4, 2021
    Messages
    214
    Reaction score
    563
    Ponder the size of this lie for a moment. This lie goes all the way back to the Gemini missions when they first began to insist that they were experiencing no gravity when they were in orbit, with gravity pulling them in a circle around the Earth. Once a lie is told they must continue to tell it and support it, regardless of how ridiculous it becomes. The question is, why is this lie so important that they would feel the need to demonstrate it (faking it) constantly rather than just letting it quietly die?
    I don’t think any of the space fraud motivation conversation has an easy answer. Sure is easier to poke holes in the narrative, as you aptly do in your post and in countless other examples that are mostly handwaved away (though the true believers will write their own fan fiction to fix continuity). Edit: actually, in your own post, I think you provide an out for the contradiction in gravity, the argument would go that the ISS is actually constantly falling (that’s essentially what “orbit” is) so it isn’t that they’ve escaped earth gravity. “Zero-g” is just lazy shorthand (or so someone who is obviously much smarter than me would say!)

    So much of this is a confluence of events seeming to span centuries. The shift, in the Western world at least, from classical religion to “science” which then became an institute unto itself, separated from its principles (not unlike say the Catholic Church). There’s a distinct nationalist agenda too, especially at the start of the so-called space race. Distract, confuse, and overstate your capabilities to your enemy. And now, it’s at the point that if the US was to say that China was lying, for example, they’re just risking drawing more attention to their own deception. It’s also important to figure out who the “they” in your question is… if “they” profit financially from “space exploration” directly, then their motive is clear and maybe that’s all it takes to keep it going in the end.

    However, in a certain way, I sort of feel like it is sort of dying though. No one will likely ever admit the fraud outright, really, since Apollo and especially within the last couple decades, space has not been a key factor in capturing the minds of the world. Hell, the US doesn’t even care enough to do their space “program” in-house anymore, they outsourced it! (If Elon Musk got caught faking it, does NASA even get implicated?)

    Thinking about your question more, I guess my clearer answer is… outer space isn’t the lie that’s so important that it’s worth decades of deception (which is easier than I think most estimate, keep it very compartmentalized and you generate an army of honest people who will trumpet your success unprompted), the paradigm that requires this maintenance is the Goddess of Science herself. It is through Her Glory that all of academia and the infrastructure produced from it flourish (seriously whenever someone says “science” replace it with “God” or “Zeus” or any deity and it becomes real clear what this actually is.) It is the one world religion that was required as old systems of weaponizing people’s beliefs about the vast unknowable became increasingly ineffective.

    Judging by world events over the last couple years, I would say that paradigm is flourishing. Even opposition to some of the current, uh, regulations are framed as so-called “scientific” critiques, as the term has became synonymous with truth and reason. Frankly, with that, “science” could probably change its entire position on the nature of the heavens and many wouldn’t blink an eye, the heavy lifting is already done.
     
    Last edited:

    Silhouette

    Member
    Joined
    Feb 25, 2021
    Messages
    36
    Reaction score
    122
    I expected someone to come back with the "falling to the Earth" argument, which I consider to be just obfuscation or a muddying of the water. Why would something fall? What causes it to fall? The conventional theory is that things fall because a force called gravity pulls them down, such as in the case of the proverbial apple falling from the tree. If gravity is pulling on something and it is moving downward it can be considered to be falling. But in the case of an orbit, we have a tug of war going on between the momentum of the object which is trying to continue straight on and the force that is pulling it around in a circle, a force which we call gravity.
    The interesting thing from my perspective is that when something is going around in a circle, it tends to want to fall to the outside of the circle. We call this centrifugal force. When we are on a merry go round, we don't feel a force pulling us to the center of the merry go round, we feel it pushing us to the outside. If we drive our car around in a circle, the force we feel is pushing us to the outside of the circle, not to the center of the circle. If we take a rock and tie a string to it, then tie a loop in the other end and put it over our finger. If we then spin the rock in a circle around our finger the rock will try to go to the outside of the circle thus created. It does not try to fall inward to our finger. We know this because the string is tight, holding back the rock.
    So it seems that saying the object is falling toward the Earth in an orbit is just a somewhat misleading way of saying that, indeed, gravity is pulling on the object in orbit. I suppose my focus is on the momentum of the object, which is to continue straight on. It has no momentum downward as in falling, or it would fall to Earth and gravity would win.
    As far as the paradigm (good word) goes, it is flourishing. The flood of movies about space is a good example, though in the vast majority of them they can move freely about their spaceships without being in zero gee. Some do present a space craft with a rotating section to use centrifugal force to simulate gravity, but most are like the sports cars of space craft wherein the crew just walks around normally.
    I agree regarding the "Goddess of Science", or science with a capital "S". But is it really science, or is it just dogma, as I think we both realize.
    .
    continued...
    Ok, I had to take a brief break there as I have a functioning pineal gland and I have to get away from the electronics/EMF every so often and let my brain cool down. Needless to say I don't sport a cell phone.
    So I have a confession to make, and that is that I am a flat earther of sorts. I've done my research and experiments and observations and that's just what it is. However, I'm not one of those who has to hit people over the head with it, push people into the deep end of the pool and expect them to swim. I try to take the official narrative and just poke holes in it for people, show them how contradictive and convoluted it is, maybe get them thinking "well if that's not true then...".
    Back in the early '70's when I was 11 or 12 I had a model of the lunar lander, complete with tin foil, and I always thought "really? That's what a space craft looks like?" Then, when I was stationed in Germany around '86 or '87 I saw a show on AFN (American Forces Network) in which they tried to debunk those who didn't believe they had gone to the moon. Really? Some people don't believe we went to the moon at all? It was news to me. I always thought some things were kind of unbelievable, for example that they could blast off from the surface of the moon and actually rendezvous with the space capsule as it came around, close enough to actually hook up, every time without fail, with no practice at all. That seemed like the most amazing feat of the whole trip. But it wasn't until I got my first PC and an internet connection that I was able to see how many lies there truly were (and how much porn there was).
    .
    So, I read that back in the early days of the rocket program, a reporter approached Wernher Von Braun and asked him, "What would it take to put a man on the moon?"
    Wernher came back with "To put a man on the moon it would take a rocket the size of the Empire State building." Why do you think he would say that? Possibly because he knew that the Earth's gravity, if you believe in the Heliocentric model, would have to extend far beyond the moon and therefore a rocket going to the moon would have to thrust with its engines the whole way, in essence going uphill the whole way. But that's not what NASA claims they did with Apollo, they claim they "slingshotted" (don't get me started on that) around the Earth and coasted to the moon. Hmm, well that's only half of the problem because if gravity extends beyond the moon, as the Sphere of Influence (SOI) tells us, then coming back from the moon would be a downhill run that would build up a huge amount of speed. A rocket would not only have to burn fuel all the way to the moon but it would have to come back "backwards" thrusting against the pull of gravity to keep from building up too much speed. Thus the huge rocket required to carry so much fuel, and the more fuel you carry the more fuel you have to carry to move all that fuel, and so on.
    Of course NASA was not only able to coast to the moon but they were able to coast back. Without gaining any additional speed.
    This conundrum also applies to the Soviet unmanned lunar lander as well as the recent Chinese visit to the moon.
    In fact, no space enterprise, from the Soviet probe to Venus, the Viking landers on Mars, the probe that visited Saturn, or was it Jupiter, one that supposedly visited an asteroid, the Mars rovers and even the Voyager space probes, were ever launched into space with a large enough rocket to power itself all the way out to the edge of the Sphere of Influence, the limit of the Earth's gravity. Not even close; they all used up their fuel, three stages of it, just getting out of the atmosphere.
    This Sphere Of Influence thing is such a gimme when it comes to showing how full of shit the conventional narrative is, so why would they have told us about it? I think it goes back to what Banta said
    Thinking about your question more, I guess my clearer answer is… outer space isn’t the lie that’s so important that it’s worth decades of deception (which is easier than I think most estimate, keep it very compartmentalized and you generate an army of honest people who will trumpet your success unprompted), the paradigm that requires this maintenance is the Goddess of Science herself.
    Yes, you generate an army of honest people who believe the narrative, but more so they try to explore it and expand on it, so the lies just have to keep on coming.

    gravity pockets

    ha, ha, ha


    GoFast private rocket

    at 58 seconds it hits something that stops both its spin and its forward progress. Even when the first stage separates it climbs no higher. What could it have hit? Interesting that, probably due to the type of lens being used, the edge of the Earth changes its curve back and forth.
     
    Last edited:

    Silhouette

    Member
    Joined
    Feb 25, 2021
    Messages
    36
    Reaction score
    122
    So it was not my intention to monopolize this thread and if my posts keep merging as they have been I will have a book written on here.
    Having said that, though...
    Lemme ax you dis...
    When we look at the stars through our personal viewing devices, such as telescopes, binoculars and cameras, we see the stars get bigger. So? Well we are told that stars are many light years away. Arcturus, which is talked about and shown in the following video, is said to be 36.66 light years away (there's always three sixes involved) which works out to 215.5608 trillion miles away (2155608000000000 miles). Now if a star were really that far away, do you think the puny magnification of our personal devices would make a difference in the size of the image? Or would we merely see a pinpoint of light a little more clearly?
    I bought a pair of "stargazer" binoculars a while back because I didn't want something with electronics and I thought they would be more versatile than a telescope (and they were until the tripod blew over when I was on the top of Comb Ridge in Utah and knocked them out of alignment) and even with just a large pair of binoculars the stars did get bigger. Keep in mind this is just an academic discussion because there is no way we will ever know the answer unless you have the ability to fly on out there and verify the distance, since we're not trusting those who claim to know.
    This video doesn't focus so much on the supposed distances to these "space" objects but it does take a "real" look at them and compares that to what they sell us. You'll have to bear with about a half minute of references to flat earth in the middle of the vid, but otherwise its very palatable and the guy has a great channel on Bitchute.

    Telescopes
     
    Similar articles
    Article starter Title Section Replies Date
    KorbenDallas Stars of David on the US Flag Flags 1

    Similar articles

    Top