FAK204-Simon and Hoi

The Proper GanderRollonapoleon wilsonlike this

When? Now! 2030h EST – part 2

Where? fakeologist.com…

Tychos explained to Ab.

Show notes

35 thoughts on “FAK204-Simon and Hoi

  1. John le BonJohn le Bon

    Just finished listening to this one. A huge thanks to all of the participants in the call — particularly Ab, who did his best to encourage Simon/Hoi/KHam (SHK) to explain why or how this new ‘model’ will be significant to anybody other than themselves.

    With the greatest of respect to WatermanChris (who has become a terrific and regular contributor the conversations on johnlebon-dot-com) I must disagree with his intimation that this call was not entertaining. I for one got several chuckles out of Ab’s interjections, to say nothing of the other lulz to be had from this call. Perhaps one must listen to Fakeologist.com… for a period of time before one can appreciate Ab’s subtle humour. Here are two examples (paraphrased):

    ~3h1m
    (regarding SHK’s hiring of a university lecture hall/room to promote their ‘model’)
    Ab: Will any academics be attending?
    SHK: No. We have emailed them, they usually ignore us.
    Ab: Boy, no academics attending? You could have just hired a room at the hotel.

    ~3h19m
    Ab: Will you be able to get some copies of your book to astronomers?
    SHK: They tend to ignore us, although we know one guy who seems interested behind the scenes.
    Ab: But this is their job. If astronomers don’t care about this, then who the hell will?

    Champagne comedy. It might take a while to clue on to Ab’s style but once you do, you’ll understand that his sense of humour is up there with the best in this scene. Much needed, too, especially in this case, where he was dealing with often-recalcitrant interlocutors. Sometimes subtle mockery can be the best vehicle for a host to express his frustration with the interviewees’ failure to address honest questions.

    Ab gave SHK several opportunities to explain themselves and the significance/relevance of their ‘model’, and all it seemed to do was drive Hoi to irritation. ‘What are you getting at?’, Hoi might as well have demanded — and, in not so many words, that is exactly what he did at about the 2h33m mark.

    In the end, Ab gave SHK enough rope, and they proceeded to muddle their way through a public hanging of themselves and their ridiculous ‘model’. I honestly believe that this was not Ab’s intention. I am very confident that Ab hoped (and expected) SHK to present at least a plausible response to his basic questions about how or why this new ‘model’ would be of any relevance to the media fakery audience (or beyond). SHK’s abject failure to do so may have come as some surprise to Ab, who still continued to treat his guests with respect, even after Hoi’s little outburst.

    When I get home, I shall be sending another small contribution Ab’s way to say thanks for conducting this interview. Those with eyes to see will appreciate the value of what transpired during the roughly three hours of FAK204.

    Now onto the ‘model’ itself, and the peformance of those presenting it in this call. Goodness gracious me. What an utter disaster. Truly, even I was surprised by how far this train-wreck ran off the rails. Let’s take a brief look at some of the utter nonsense now being pushed by the Cluesforum crew:

    *The ‘Ancient Mayans’ actually existed (and even had accurate astronomy which supports the Tychos ‘model’!)

    *Tycho Brahe actually existed (or even if he didn’t, we can still use his ‘observations’, because, well, trust us, okay?)

    -> Never mind that Mr Brahe allegedly existed before the invention of the telescope. Just let that one sink in for a moment…

    *The lights in the sky are solid, physical objects.

    -> Because, well, they just are, can’t you grant SHK that much?

    *The Ancient Egyptians actually existed, and their astronomy also supports the Tychos model! What are the odds?

    *The Tychos model will ‘force NASA’ to answer some tough questions about their own ‘Copernican’ model.

    Seriously, do SHK believe any of this crap? If so, then that is all one needs to know about the so-called ‘truth movement’ and ‘alternative research’. This is all one gigantic joke, and the only question we need to answer is: who else is in on it? Are SHK consciously aware of their part in an elaborate ruse? Or are they merely vessels for the Kosmos to give those with eyes to see some much needed comic relief?

    Either way, I for one am having a good laugh. Bravo (or is that Bra-he?) to whomever or whatever is behind the latest chapter in the tragicomedy I refer to as the ACT realm.

    My favourite part of the call? Hard to narrow it down to one passage, but this one is high on the shortlist:

    ~1h17m
    Simon (paraphrasing): ‘The stars have been there for millions of years. If we can’t agree on that, we can’t agree on anything’.

    Indeed.

    1. ab Post author

      Thanks JLB for the kind words and future contribution (not required, but greatly appreciated).

      I tried my best to comprehend the model. I will still try. My limited interest may keep me from comprehending, but it’s the promoter’s job to convince me, not so much to convince myself.

      Thanks for seeing my dry humor in such a dry subject. My primary interest as a host is to keep the audience listening. It’s not easy, but I imagine most are at the same level of interest/intelligence as me, which I keep in mind while waiting for answers.

      Thanks for contributing.

    2. pedrofuentez

      It seems to me this Tychos model is trying to engage the mainstream narrative, and not the John le Bon style of deep skepticism. This doesn’t mean this model may not provide some value for people with deep skepticism.

      There is value in taking mainstream sources of data, and showing how the official model does not conform to the collected data. If Simon Shack were to collect data for himself he could be accused of making things up.

      It is of no consequence if Brahe existed or not. What matters are the ideas presented. There is value in digging stories from the past, from the point of view of marketing, even if the characters are fictional. You said yourself you suspect Gustave le Bon did not exist, but that does not prevent you from finding value in the ideas attributed to him.

      In this interview he said you don’t need to believe in flying rocks for his model to work. It doesn’t matter much what is the composition of this lights. They could be made of cheese and the model would still work. It’s more a question of geometry.

      There is no need to provide evidence for all the presuppositions of a model, what matters most is if the model can provide better predictions. A model is vindicated if it works.

  2. John le BonJohn le Bon

    I am looking forward to listening to this tomorrow.

    Are the lights in the sky solid, physical objects?

    Did a guy named ‘Tycho Brahe’ ever actually exist?

    Is this earth spinning and, if so, why do we not detect this with our empirical senses?

    Can a man determine the mass of the moon with heavy balls in a shed?

    Can a man measure the ‘distance’ between the earth and the sun by tracking a black dot in the sky?

    Is there a place where people can go and just float around perpetually, never falling back to earth?

    Perhaps this call might yield us some answers. I remain open-minded and optimistic.

    After all, I used to believe that some dudes played golf and drove dune buggies on the moon.

    If a man can believe that, he can believe just about anything…

    1. watermanchris

      This call will not answer any of your questions but you will be able to see that Simon Shack and Hoi Palloi believe a lot of nonsense without a shred of evidence to back any of it up.

      Apparently, these fellows believe that the mainstream is right about the distance and size of the lights in the sky. I guess they don’t know that all that crap is built on Cavendish and his balls.

      The funny thing to me is that recently a commenter asked why they would fake meteors and Ab basically told him “if you have to ask why you should probably just leave the site”. On the other hand, when Simon Shack says “Why would they fake the character of Tycho Brahe?” Ab just lets it go.

      The answer to why they would fake it is obvious to me. If they can get people arguing about fictional historical characters and their “models”, so long as those models include magical worlds where the laws of physics don’t apply, 300 million kilometer orbits, and flying rocks, they don’t really have to worry about the outcome.

      Ab should have at least been concerned when they couldn’t give a good reason why the Tychos mattered. Hoi just said – “Ask a Copernican” and Kham said “People are getting scammed big time by NASA.” Well, you don’t need this nonsense to see that NASA is a huge hoax, just look at their ridiculous moon landing videos. If those won’t convince people, a slight adjustment to the mainstream cosmology definitely won’t.

      Simon also said that “we know the north star changes, right now it is Polaris and in 12,000 years it will be Vega.” What an absurd statement. What evidence can Simon Shack possibly have to back that claim up?

      Anyway JLB, I hope you get more from this conversation than I did but I doubt it. I think Ricky is right that a conversation with William Shatner would have been more valuable as at least he’s entertaining.

        1. watermanchris

          It’s the psientism pimps (Tychos is psientism in new clothes) that aren’t entertaining but it was disappointing to hear you not challenge them on their outlandish claims. The false dichotomy that Hoi presents us with – Science vs. Church is ridiculous as the Vatican supposedly owns the largest telescope in the world – Lucifer. The church is as much a supporter of psientism as NASA.

          I think you interviewing William Shatner would be more entertaining. At least he might allow questions.

          Didn’t you find it odd when you asked if others could join the call and Hoi said – “I’d like to get Kham on here.” In other words, let’s get someone else on the call who agrees with us. If Simon is really interested in open discussion why would they just bring on another believer? Why not allow a skeptic to ask questions? If this model is so perfect, why does Simon have to dismiss any questions regarding the basis for it?

          A couple of times Hoi used the genetic fallacy that Faye used below i.e. flat earth believers don’t accept flying rocks, flat earthers are wrong, therefore rocks fly. He says – “This doesn’t get into any flat earth stuff.”

          I would just like to see people making extraordinary claims offer up SOME evidence to support them. Hoi says, “let’s just look at the data.” Okay, show us this “data” and where it came from. I guarantee that it will all be secondary and tertiary sources at best. Simon even admits that hasn’t spent much (any?) time behind a telescope!?! So he is taking the ESA’s stellar paralax data at face value without even trying to verify these claims? They also ask the listener to join them in making assumptions without offering ANY reason to assume those things.

          I could go on and on as they used fallacy after fallacy to sell their nonsense but I feel that I’ve gotten my point across.

          I’m apologize if I offended you Ab but you presented this audio to visitors to your site, SOME of whom are skeptics. You should probably expect some skeptical comments when extraordinary claims are made without evidence.

  3. rickyricky

    I don’t know why no one has thought of booking William Shatner for a thirty minute Q+A and have all these mysteries answered authoritatively.

  4. smj

    the proper authorities like to exhume tycho’s purported corpse on occasion. it helps to drive the narrative i reckon. well, the good news from the latest exhumation is tycho didnt have elevated mercury levels in his rotted corpse; bad news was his fake nose was made out of brass and not gold. official story is tycho was too polite to go take a piss while rudolf was still eating; so his bladder busted. he should’ve just pissed under the table and had his pet midget clean it up.

    “In another finding, the team reported that the silver nose piece Brahe famously wore after losing part of his own nose in a duel was not actually silver. Though the prosthesis has not been found, greenish stains around the nasal area of Brahe’s corpse contained traces of copper and zinc, indicating that his fake nose was made of brass, the researchers said.”
    www.livescience.com…

  5. smj

    the dude that named mar’s moons for dread and fear had a 11 year old grandniece that named pluto…

    “In 1877, American astronomer Asaph Hall discovered two satellites orbiting the planet Mars. Various names were proposed, but Asaph chose the suggestion of Henry Madan, who proposed the names Deimus (later Deimos) and Phobus (later Phobos). (These names are found in the Fifteenth Book, line 119 of Homer’s Iliad.)[5] Henry was the brother of Falconer Madan (1851–1935), the librarian of the Bodleian Library of the University of Oxford. Falconer’s granddaughter, Venetia Burney (1918–2009), holds the distinction of being the first person to suggest the name Pluto for the dwarf planet, discovered in 1930.”
    en.m.wikipedia.org…

    …john michell dreamed the statistical construct we call binary stars…

    “Michell was the first person to apply the new mathematics of statistics to the study of the stars, and demonstrated in a 1767 paper that many more stars occur in pairs or groups than a perfectly random distribution could account for, he focused his investigation on the Pleiades cluster, and calculated that the likelihood of finding such a close grouping of stars was about one in half a million. He concluded that the stars in these double or multiple star systems might be drawn to one another by gravitational pull, thus providing the first evidence for the existence of binary stars and star clusters.[2][9][10]His work on double stars may have influenced Herschel’s research on the same topic.”
    wikivividly.com…

    …why does shack bash nasa but seems to be a fan of the esa’s stellar parallax data? and as fer negative parallax, when psientists look at the parallax angles of the twinkling lights in the sky in fecking arcseconds they throw some statistics at it to correct fer errors. not that parallax exists of course.
    www.aanda.org…

    brahe called his star table the rudolfine table. check out rudolf’s alchemical court. it was in a little place called bohemia…

    en.m.wikipedia.org…
    www.middletemple.org…

    1. watermanchris

      Hoi says in this call that the “Tychos” is almost the same as the mainstream model. I agree and I dismiss both.

      300 million mile orbits in 25,000 years? C’mon guys. How can anybody take this stuff siriusly?

      This model is no threat to the mainstream. NASA could come out today and and say that the Tychos is correct and nothing would change. They could still claim they’ve been to the moon.

      1. Faye

        Waterman, they could not admit that the Tychos is right because their stories are based on the metrics of the copernican model and they become obsolete within the Tychos model or any other model that has different metrics.

        Maybe you are right though that the Tychos is no threat to the mainstream astronomy – power is not a matter of right or wrong – although it seems to account for phenomena which the C model does not account for.

        I guess also it must be fun to confront the high priests of universal control with the Tychos ideas..

        1. watermanchris

          If the Tychos was correct, NASA could easily come out and claim that they’ve always been using it and that’s what they used to reach the moon. People believe that aluminum and carbon fiber planes can go through a concrete and steel building and cause the buildings to come crashing down.

          On the other hand, if it is proven that space is not a destination and earth is the only physical body in the “universe” then NASA myth is truly done.

          As long as these ridiculous time frames (25,000 years) and distances (300 million miles) are accepted, it keeps people in the false paradigm that we are insignificant specks of dust.

          The only reason people believe that the lights in the sky are solid physical objects is because they’ve been indoctrinated their whole lives to believe that. There is no evidence whatsoever to support that belief.

          I listened to the whole audio and nothing that was said addresses my questions.

          1. Faye

            I like your insisting in your questions, imo it is one of the few things that constitute freedom: freedom to create ones own questions.

            I disagree with you that People believe that aluminum and carbon fiber planes can go through a concrete and steel building and cause the buildings to come crashing down.

            People believe what an authority shows them as true if they trust this authority. Authorities deceive systematically in order to maintain their power.

            You say “the lights in the sky” are no “solid objects”.
            I do not think that you know that because nobody knows what exactly those lights are. We also do not know what light is and also what exactly the difference between light and solid objects is.

            For the T model, as far as I understand it from that discussion, it is irrelevant if what we perceive as lights in the sky is solid or not, what matters is how these lights behave in relation to the other perceived lights.

            Because these perceived lights do not expire as e.g. a fire, a candle, or other kinds of “light” that we perceive, I think it is correct to attribute them consictency and durability, characteristics of matter actually.

            1. watermanchris

              “I disagree with you that People believe that aluminum and carbon fiber planes can go through a concrete and steel building and cause the buildings to come crashing down.”

              Are you saying that people don’t believe the 9/11 myth? Maybe I’m missing something.

              “You say ‘the lights in the sky’ are no ‘solid objects’.
              I do not think that you know that because nobody knows what exactly those lights are. We also do not know what light is and also what exactly the difference between light and solid objects is.”

              Solid objects do not stay in the air. For something to float, it must be lighter or less dense than that which it displaces. This is easy to verify with things like hot air balloons (in air) and boats (in water). It is logical to infer that if something is above my head and doesn’t come down, it must be less dense than the air it is displacing.

              If people actually start from that baseline (what we can actually observe and prove), they will not conclude that there is a special place called outer space where the laws of physics don’t apply. This idea has been fed to us from an early age. It is not based in reality. I guess it allows people to play fantasy land which Hoi asks us to do in this call.

              “For the T model, as far as I understand it from that discussion, it is irrelevant if what we perceive as lights in the sky is solid or not, what matters is how these lights behave in relation to the other perceived lights.”

              Orbits, by there very nature, are a claim of physicality. Also, distances like 300 million miles come from the copernican model. Distances like that are absurd and would never be deduced from observable reality.

              This is an excerpt from 1984 –
              “But the whole universe is outside us. Look at the stars! Some of them are a million light-years away. They are out of our reach forever.””What are the stars?” said O’Brien indifferently. “They are bits of fire a few kilometers away. We could reach them if we wanted to. Or we could blot them out. The earth is the center of the universe. The sun and the stars go round it.”

              You can believe in flying rocks light years away, I’ll keep my feet flat on the ground.

              1. Faye

                I am saying that those who do not question the 9/11 example of deception do trust the information presented to them by the powers that rule.

                They take for granted, that the media would not lie in such big dimensions and even if they have some reservations about the facticity of the events, they are quickly satisfied by the questions provided to them by the same powers and their information channels.

                The visual appearance of our world is not known to us. Nobody has ever been able to produce a visual representation of our world viewed from “outside”.

                All interpretations are on the table and of course by its nature the whole enterprise to model an abstract construct that accounts for the phenoma “out there” is a matter of imagination.

                There are no facts about a place nobody knows.

                I have my many questions concerning our world. If rocks fly is not one of them. Actually I have heard that phrase in the context of the FE psyOp:

                Rocks don’t fly

                Density not gravity.

                Above my head…

                Easy to verify…

                Waterman, these are punchlines of a controlled deconstruction and ridicule of the copernican worldview.
                And straw arguments.

                Lets discuss about it on discord if you want.

                1. watermanchris

                  “The visual appearance of our world is not known to us. Nobody has ever been able to produce a visual representation of our world viewed from ‘outside’.”

                  I do not believe in “outer space”. in other words, there is no “outside”. I argue that the ONLY reason you, Simon, Kham, Hoi, and apparently Ab believe in “outer space” is because of stories fed to you since you were a child. I have looked at the night sky with a telescope and I would never deduce from observation that there exists a place, beyond “earth’s atmosphere” that contains other worlds and has properties completely opposite of those down here on the ground.

                  “I have my many questions concerning our world. If rocks fly is not one of them. Actually I have heard that phrase in the context of the FE psyOp:”

                  Do you believe that rocks can fly? Do you believe in meteors, astroids, and planets? I don’t as there is no evidence for any of those things. If you want to, that’s cool. I’m not trying to take that away from you. I’m just trying to make my case for why I don’t. Do with it what you will. As for your argument that – I am saying things that flat earthers say, flat earthers are wrong, therefore what I am saying is wrong, this is a logical fallacy. It is called the genetic fallacy.

                  You have accused me of using a strawman argument. Can you point to the strawman argument I used? A strawman is where someone misrepresents another’s argument to easily tear it down. What did I misrepresent? Please tell me where I am wrong as I am genuinely open to being convinced but I’ve looked for the evidence and none exists.

                  I will be working today but I may be able to discuss further on the discord while I’m driving but I won’t have access to any further info.

                  1. Faye

                    Sorry if you expected a fast answer, i was on-off during the day (in middle-europe).

                    There are too many misunderstandings in our texts here and if we meet on discord and have both time i’d like to discuss with you about these from the beginning.

  6. watermanchris

    I’ll be listening to this today but I have a feeling that my questions won’t be answered. It is most likely that the SS HP team will gloss over the FACT that there is ZERO evidence that the lights in the sky are solid physical objects hundreds of thousands/millions of miles away and that this Tycho Brahe character was a real, living person.

    No. Simon has invested too much time to admit that his entire “model” is built on a foundation of nonsense. It will be full steam ahead, damn the torpedoes for the SS HP.

    I’m sure Simon or Hoi will have some snarky dismissive response but I can almost guarantee that the substance of my questions will not be addressed.

    If Simon is able to point to any shred of evidence for either of those claims that he rests his model on, he’ll be the first. I highly doubt it though. I will likely be attacked as our friend JLB was. The problem with that is that some of the readers/members here are intelligent enough to see that the attacks never address the questions/challenges posed. On the other hand, there are some readers/ members here that are so taken with September Clues that they will likely never see the lack of substance in Simon’s silly “solar system”.

    1. ab Post author

      Most aren’t so bold to declare their bias before listening. Simon and Hoi have a model that is independent of the nature of the lights, the story behind Tycho Brahe, or the shape of the earth. Their beliefs don’t influence the model and its ability to explain the movement and behaviour of these lights.

      1. watermanchris

        I’ve investigated this “Tychos” model and it assumes flying rocks and orbits. Those are assumptions I’m unwilling to make. If that’s a bias, then I’m biased. I call it skeptical though.

        It seems to me that Simon has looked at the patterns of the lights in the sky and come up with a post facto story to explain the movement. The claims made about distances and time frames (25,000 years?) are highly unlikely if not impossible.

        I’m listening now and Hoi said that Simon looked a ALL the data over centuries and centuries. How can they accept this data that I will guarantee has no primary source? They will be drawing conclusions from secondary and tertiary “data” with no providence. Like I said above – silly.

        Simon says that data gleaned from the “Mayans” supports the “Tychos”. There are no primary sources for the ancient Mayans.

        I am an hour in and I’ve found multiple problems. I will post all my notes for those interested.

          1. watermanchris

            I don’t know that I’ve ever mentioned the bon earth model but I’ll give you my take on it since you’ve asked.

            While JLB’s stationary spherical model does explain the southern flights and the celestial poles, it does not explain how water could stick to the outside of a ball.

            I don’t know the shape of the earth but I’m fairly certain that rocks don’t fly, a claim made by Hoi and Simon in this audio.

            Hoi asks us to assume that the earth is a spinning ball and that the “planets” are solid physical objects. That’s not an assumption I’m willing to make as it’s not backed up by any empirical data. Simon said he “believes” that the other “planets” are rocky like earth. At least he admits it’s a belief since it is not backed by any evidence.

            I try not to have beliefs. I definitely wouldn’t spend 6 years of my life working on a model based on a belief.

            1. watermanchris

              I hadn’t actually spent much time investigating the Bon Earth Model before posting that comment which is not usually my style. I should have waited to post it until I had a chance to review it further. I have done that now and wish to amend my comment above.

              The Bon Earth Model does not claim to explain water sticking to the outside of a ball as that is not observed. JLB’s model is a kinematic model and is not meant to be a literal interpretation (i.e. dynamic model) of this strange place in which we find ourselves.

              For all practical intents and purposes, the place we live is flattish (I’m coining a new movement -flattish earth) meaning that nothing (including the sea) is truly flat but nobody has to account for curvature in calculations. However, because of things like the southern flights, the rotation of the stars, and the fact that a plane flying from California west and a plane flying from new York east will eventually cross paths the best kinematic model is a stationary sphere.

    2. Vespadouglas

      perhaps ” your ” friend Mr B could arrange a discussion between simon and a couple of his other friends…….oakley and osman would be interesting watermanchris

      1. watermanchris

        I doubt Simon will agree. He is too married to his model to allow a true skeptic to ask any real questions.

        He is targeting the right people – other heliocentrists that accept flying rocks – with his “model”.

  7. Faye

    Great show, Ab, great guests and phantastic discussion! I wish the fakery experts and Copernicus debunkers much luck and hopefully they meet some honest scientist who supports their work!

    Concerning the link between NASA and the Copernican model: I learned in school that the moon travel is being enabled by the calculations of earth rotation and other parameters of the Copernican model. If the model is proven false the moon travel stories are also proven false.

        1. Vespadouglas

          if the evidence of space fakery collated at cluesforum doesnt convince the “believers ” its doubtful anything will……not all copernicans believe the nasa lie ,neither do all nasa groupies believe the helio model ……this is exactly the confusion the FEpsyop has been sowing these last few years ……as ab often says , if you cant convince , confuse…..btw ,the earth is not the shape or size we are told……that is simple fact anyone can verify themselves

          1. Faye

            And what is the problem if someone wants to try to convince nonetheless? Nobody forces you to participate and everyone is free to follow his own interests. Why the demanding and condemning attitude against others that have been helpful to us in one important matter? I think that is not fair and not just.

Leave a Reply