Shapeshifting in space 

like this

Simon has such a way with words.

I have a P900 – and I can barely capture the moon at full zoom – and it isn’t even moving that fast (or am I on our spinning ball?).

There is no way anyone could possible capture the fictive ISS, if, as we are lied to, is going 17,000 miles per hour. Without some sort of computer tracking device, it’s just not physically possible.

If anything representing the ISS is flying by, it’s some sort of high altitude plane. I am sure no one could see the ISS based on its fake altitude and size, so I don’t even know why Simon is entertaining the thread at all.

Dear NotRap,I applaud you for your valiant efforts in trying to snap the sharpest possible image of that (ever-changing & seemingly “shape-shifting”) speck of light traversing our skies known as “the ISS” ( aka “the Thing”, on this forum). I’ll be eagerly awaiting your next set of pictures.In the meantime, let me just post (for comparison) a few images of the “Thing” – which I recently added to my ever-growing collection of “ISS” imagery :These are two images which one Barbara Mueller sent me a few weeks ago. She says she used a handheld Nikon P900 camera to snap these two shots:

Source: View topic – Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$ • Cluesforum.info…

One thought on “Shapeshifting in space 

  1. AA ProperGander MorrisAA ProperGander Morris

    “If anything representing the ISS is flying by, it’s some sort of high altitude plane. I am sure no one could see the ISS based on its fake altitude and size, so I don’t even know why Simon is entertaining the thread at all.”

    Well put. We would not expect to see something around the size of a football field from some 250 miles away at all, with telescope or without. The ISS is obviously not real and any photographs of it are more than likely fake. Orbits do not exist in the first place. An orbit is a physically impossible feat that can only exist on screens and in the imagination.

    Sir Isaac describes his theory of orbits and he admits there is no hypothesis for his ideas, he only backs them with fallaciously applied mathematical equation, this is the man himself in his own words:

    “We said, in a mathematical way, to avoid all questions about nature or quality of this force, which we would not be understood to determine by any hypothesis; and therefore call it by the general name of a centripetal force, as it is a force which is directed towards some centre; and as it regards more particularly a body in that centre…”

    Sir Isaac Newton
    source: Newton’s Principia : the mathematical principles of … – Internet Archive

    There is absolutely no underlying scientific hypothesis to support the concept that the rising and setting celestial objects are anything but the lights in the sky we witness. Sir Isaac Newton himself admits he had no scientific reason to believe that rocks orbited a central fire that sat at the center of the Universe of fixed stars. Sir Issac Newton’s orbital mechanics relies on gravity as centripetal force while ignoring gravity’s accelerated effect which would mean the object would spiral back towards the center of Earth as we’d expect. Demonstrable ballistic physics shows us why Newton was wrong. This is a relatively easily researched area of study that shows there was never any reason to buy into any of the heliocentric nonsense.

    I think it’s telling that Sir Isaac ended up working at the Royal mint. He knew what mattered in life and it had nothing to do with star gazing.

Leave a Reply