Is JLB missing the point?

napoleon wilsonlikes this

Thanks JLB for following through and making a donation – much appreciated and thanks for your promotion of the site.

There’s many ways to look at Tycho Brahe. Some of the outrageous stories may be made up to make him look ridiculous, in order to distract from his theories.

That said, none of that really matters if Simon’s model works to explain the light movement in the sky. He says it does, and Hoi agrees. Let’s see what those that enjoy studying astronomy have to say.

 

29 thoughts on “Is JLB missing the point?

  1. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

    The last time I listened to John affecting that giggle, he was mocking Werner Von Braun’s German accent whilst making the claim that Von Braun was an American actor putting on a voice.
    When someone so apparently intelligent comes out with something so apparently naive, it does make you wonder. I’m not saying John is being deliberately dishonest, but
    that mocking giggle sounds disingenuous, to me.

    So what was he ‘laughing’ about here? It was narrative device, Tycho Brahe’s nose.

    I don’t get it with the nose. Even if the story was completely fabricated, what’s so funny about the nose? Pre-plastic surgery, that’s what people wore if they could afford it . And in the days of duelling by sword, the idea of half someones nose being cut off in an accident, seems quite possible. Obviously that sort of thing must have happened quite often ?

    I really haven’t looked at this, but who else is calling Brahe a completely invented narrative device ?
    Is it a ‘thing’ ?
    Off the top of my head it seems rather complicated to have done that, in this case ?
    Why can’t he have been the nobleman he is said to be and got written into history like all the others ? That’s how it normally works doesn’t it ?

    I suppose my question is ‘why would Brahe have been completely invented?’ What’s the angle here?

    On alternative models of the solar system. I suggest everyone has their own.
    That way, you’ll know where you are.

    1. smj

      the giggle doesnt sound disingenuous to me; it sounds like genuine conceit to me. but tycho is an obvious narrstive device. don’t matter if the device was flesh and blood of course. the narrative is driven nonetheless.

      1. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

        Yeh. ‘Narrative device’ was your term you’d used on this thread and I agree. Tycho is an obvious narrative device.
        Enough said on that, really.

        1. antipodeanantipodean

          Does it really whether Tychos Brahe existed or not ?
          What matters is if the data and this Tychos model stands up to scrutiny.
          It certainly does when compared to the cosmological model we were brainwashed with at school.
          Also on a hypothetical note what if Simon had just promoted the Tychos model as his own work, saying he’d spent the last 5 years star gazing with his new powerful telescope.
          Someone would have connected his discoveries as being compatible with a little known 16th century Astronomer. Then there would be accusations of Plagiarism (from a person who didn’t exist)

          1. smj

            of course it don’t matter butwhatever brahe was the following statement is nonsense…

            “The TYCHOS submits that the Sun and Mars (whose orbits, in the semi-Tychonic model, intersect) are in fact a binary system, much like the vast majority of our surrounding star systems.”

            …cause binary star systems are a statistical construct built by the same dude that built cavendish’s balls…

            “In 1767, Michell introduced statistics to field of astronomy. Through his statistical analysis of the Pleiades cluster, he calculated the probability of close grouping of stars in one in five hundred thousand. Michell surmised that double or multiple star systems were likely attracted to one another via gravity, and provided the first evidence of binary stars and star clusters. Michell’s last contribution was in 1783, and was the first scientist to proposed the idea of black holes. He reasoned that if Newtown’s theory of light was true, it was possible that a star’s mass could create a gravitational force that exceed escape velocity’s of light. He calculated that this could theoretically occur if a star was 500 times the size of the Sun. He later surmised that if this was the case, such a start would not be visible as light would not be able to escape the gravitational forces”
            go51johnmitchell.weebly.com…

            …gravity is also a narrative device of course.

            1. smj

              michell was the rector of thornhill of course. rector means telling the hoi what to do and when to do it…

              www.etymonline.com…

              …seems to be the same as kybernetes. who knows though? i have toi dig holes and build walls fer paper so i can eat.

    2. John le BonJohn le Bon

      “The last time I listened to John affecting that giggle, he was mocking Werner Von Braun’s German accent whilst making the claim that Von Braun was an American actor putting on a voice.”

      How confident are you of your memory on this one?

      “I don’t get it with the nose. Even if the story was completely fabricated, what’s so funny about the nose?”

      Have you seen the episode of The Simpsons to which I was making reference? If not, then the amusing parallels between Jebediah Springfield and Tycho Brahe will have naturally gone over your head.

      “And in the days of duelling by sword”

      Are you taking the piss now?

      “I really haven’t looked at this”

      Clearly.

      “I suppose my question is ‘why would Brahe have been completely invented?’”

      Why do the jokers do any of what they do? For teh lulz is my best guess.

      How else does one who can see keep himself amused, when surrounded by lemmings?

  2. gaiagaia

    Taking a distance from this “ACT” community for a while now, I must agree with JLB’s last comments about paranoia and shills, something I noticed before but becomes clearer with a higher distance from and better bird-eye view of this “scene”.

    Yet, at the same time I have a similar problem with JLB’s claims and promoted “skepsis” and nihilism. A true nihilist would also not claim “(a figure from) history is a joke” or make other comments JLB does.

    There is a painting of someone labeled as Tycho (Tuu-cho, not Ty-ko) Brahe. We see he has a normal nose, not a brass replacement.
    – if this guy is not Tycho Brahe, who is he?
    – did the painter just invent a face and painted it? Or is it rather a painting of a real person?
    – what if the accounts about Tycho Brahe are partly fabricated? His nose, elk and dwarf stories might (well) be his-storical phantasies, while at the same time a real person who studied astronomical phenomena existed. Just like Neil Armstrong existed, no matter if he landed on the Moon or rather not.

    The “ultimate skeptic online” or “everything is fake”, “history is a hoax”, “it is ALL a joke” stance is just as absolutist as Simon Shacks ridiculous claims about “the only logical, consistent, scientific model that exists” or the mainstream claims of “we know it all, swallow this official story”.

    Another point with that position is the relaxing armchair, so often noticed by myself and probably others, about a lot of the “work” that (should) go into “alternative research”.

    Hoi Polloi made a valid comment, not addressed by JLB in his video, about “let’s focus on the data”. That is what it is about. Then Tycho Brahe becomes irrelevant; the data he gathered (before the invention of the telescope) can be gathered today just so and even better. The same focus on the data is there with Simon’s own model, and exactly that is where his claims become rather shaky, because they are based on foundations floating in muddy waters at least or on totally fabricated things at worst. Using NASA data we cannot verify ourselves and that may well be wrong is an example, there are numerous of those in his book. Rgos is right in pointing that out and it would be an interesting question that may or may not have been asked in the FAK.

    The real basis is doing astronomical observations yourself or take data from trusted people and verify them for yourself. That however does not seem the basis below Simon Shack’s Snail System, unfortunately. Several claimed distances, sizes and other data points are used from mainstream sources of which we cannot know if they are correct. It is a problem that “the Earth revolves around the Sun at a whopping 107,000 km/h”, but resulting from the TYCHOS that problem persists as it is now the Sun that does that velocity around the Earth. In that sense JLB also makes valid observations.

    Where JLB and his “crew” on his own paid website fail, is to give alternative explanations that hold (more) water than mainstream ones that are challenged. If you agree there is hard data, not going into metaphysical philosophical mode of “are our senses even real”, then the way to tackle a mainstream model is to present a better model that
    A) explains all the data points that are satisfactorily explained in the challenged model (CM)
    B) exposes the flaws in the challenged model
    C) is able to explain better those flaws in the CM and
    D) is able to predict future observations without error

    The “they are just lights in the sky” comments are childish and disinterested in finding out what is happening in this world, it shows a lack of curiosity and creativity. Imagine taking your child on a week camping trip in the forest, showing him or her all the different facets of flora and fauna and after that week he or she answers when pointing to a fern or bird and asking “what is that?”, “yeah, just a plant/animal” .

    Certain things have certain characteristics and people organize, categorize and model observations that way. A bird has certain characteristics that differentiates it from a cougar or spider, just as a fern and an oak or orchid are not the same. You of course can label them as “yeah, just plants/animals” of course, but that level of interest in what’s around us is barely mature or useful. You just could have avoided the camping week and stay on the attic.

    The same for the “lights in the sky”. The Moon, Sun, planets, meteors, comets and stars are not “just lights in the sky”, as they have various properties that differentiate them. Those differences to curious non-nihilists beg for explanations and those can be modeled.
    Models are just representations of reality and no model is by definition 100% correct or watertight. That is an inherent property of models and modeling and it means the modeler and the interested reviewer of those models have to live with that.

    To use Simon Shacks own sighed response; it is sad that people have fallen so far off the cliff of conspiracy research (or lack thereof) that they lost the ability to see these points and resort to making new claims, while at the same time presenting themselves as “skeptics”.

    If JLB is convinced his kinematic “Bon Earth Model” is the most valid explanation for what we observe, it would be good if he exposed himself in presenting that model instead of taking the relaxing comfy armchair position, “safely” behind a paywall “to filter out” “unwanted” “lemmings”. Unfortunately we still wait for that exposure but it is always good to stay hopeful of future developments.

    The comments by watermanchris on “we don’t know if those lights are physical objects” gets a set of counter questions; what separates the physical world we live in with that what is called space where those lights appear? Do we live under a dome where “space” and “reality” are physically separated? If so, where is the evidence for that, if not, why do you claim there are physical and “just lights” worlds? What do the craters clearly visible on the Moon represent? How is the Sun able to heat us? How come we can predict the positions and properties of those “lights in the sky” called planets, planet moons, comets and meteor showers? Or the obvious question why they wouldn’t be physical objects?

    About the TYCHOS I have said enough I think and Simon himself has frankly thanked me for my extensive and thorough review of his work, as one of very few in this world, including the communities that seem to be the target audience (astronomers and interested amateur astronomers). I wish him the best of luck to sell his model to his target clientele as it appears he is struggling quite a bit with his efforts. It may have to do with the language he uses, though I cannot speak for astronomers (professional or amateurs alike) who will be called “bipolar imbeciles” for merely pointing out flaws. He and his tour buddies may come across heeps of astronomers who like to be called that and respond with the utmost interest in his “logical and scientific” modeling, who knows.

    My curiosity was sparked slightly by the pricing of the physical book at 29.22 USD = 11 + 22 = 33. A tongue-in-cheek joke? An occult sign or mere happenstance? I don’t know, but perhaps the author and his -not-so-thorough- reviewer panel (Hoi Polloi, Patrix and Kham) could elaborate on the why of this rather peculiar pricing.

    cluesforum.info…

      1. gaiagaia

        Falling over “ad hominems”, but allowing this on your website, what does that mean, Ab? Are you as much a Snaketongue as the one who appears to be hated (look at the downvotes in the FAK204 comment section) so much by your readers?

        If analyzing and deconstructing the Holocaust Story is “not fakeology”, then what is, I wonder…………… Or rather I wonder why I was so stupid to spend my valuable time here.

        fakeologist.com…
        11:10, 13 July 2018 Faye (Talk | contribs) deleted page Holocaust Story (Not Fakeology)

        fakeologist.com…
        21:39, 25 June 2018 Faye (Talk | contribs) deleted page NaZionism (not fakeology)

        Rewriting history by completely deleting the hard work and research of “one of the 2 best Fakeologist finds of 2017”, now “Spammbot“, in a major part of history, no problem!
        Using creative “ad hominems”? Huge problem!

        I rest my case.

          1. gaiagaia

            A response void of any disapproval of her methods and strategies and thus showing you’re perfectly fine with putting Gaia’s account under the many spambots that attacked Fakeopedia one day. The guy who built 70% of your Fakeopedia.

            That tells a lot.

            The example is also very much on-topic, because NaZionism is for the Holocaust Story what the Vicsim Report is for September Clues; it provides an alternative explanation for the hoaxing/fakeology in a major part of history.

            Those articles were among the most elaborated, fully referenced and well-researched ones on Fakeopedia (and thus Fakeologist.com…; your name is on it) and you seem to not care how your own “sidekick”/Hoi Polloi has worked her way up the ladder (if there is one) of the ranks of your own site.

            “Not Fakeology”. If the Holocaust Story analysis is not Fakeology, then what is? In terms of impact, global coverage and resulting effects it is way, way bigger than 9/11. Orders of magnitude bigger and though Afghanistan and Iraq have been devastated by foreign business owners coming in and grabbing resources and strategic locations, those are relatively far away countries to North American egocentric interests. Granted, Canadians tend to be less like so many US Americans who believe the world stops at the shores of San Diego or Miami, but Europe is the cradle for your ancestry too. And the destruction of (the morale of) Europe and especially Germany and Germans has been enormous. There is an undeserved and very lamentable shame German people carry about something that has been fabricated. The impact of that goes a little bit beyond 9/11.

            It is very much on-topic because of the interconnectivity of the research about it. If the Story that “6 million” or rather 2.9 million, or probably less anyway people were mass-murdered, is false, then an alternative explanation, or model if you wish, is needed for the data; people disappeared from their former home countries.

            Vast amounts of research in that respect have been conducted by other people than myself; I found about that only after I developed my own hypothesis. But apparently that is not “fakeology”. Maybe you need to put a Hannah Snaketongue Arendt approved stamp on your site and Fakeopedia then what constitutes “fakeology”. If it is not analyzing the biggest historical fraud, then the flesh around the bone gets pretty thin.

            Be happy with the marrow suckers you get and above all don’t be bothered about those who leave and disprove of what you once built up. It is quite ironical that SS and HP are being accused of doing just that.I don’t agree with those accusations; I think they really believe their SSSS, TYCHOS model and are just misguided. As misomguided as you are, in essence you don’t seem like a bad guy, just careless and cold, but not mean.

            My passion has gone into other things than this realm. Luckily.

            Have “fun” with your Fayescist. It appears your eye for “fakeology” is not so strong, not seeing right through her.

    1. xileffilex

      Imagine taking your child on a week camping trip in the forest, showing him or her all the different facets of flora and fauna and after that week he or she answers when pointing to a fern or bird and asking “what is that?”

      It’s only a fern or bird because the National Ornithology and Botany Agency [NOBA] or the European Flora and Fauna Agency [EffA] and their trusted scientists have told us that’s what they are. We have no way of finding out for ourselves or travelling to a river or forest because such a journey is impossible. You must have faked your camping trip, Gaia.

    2. smj

      gaia , we know einstein was full of shite but his equivalence scam was proved by a geologist? please explain psience guy…

      “Towards the end of the 19th century, Hungarian physicist Baron Lorand Eotvos de Vasarosnameny combined the pendulum approach with a torsion balance to create a torsion pendulum, and used it to conduct an even more accurate test of the equivalence principle (it also became a workhorse tool in geophysics, especially useful for locating oil fields). In the baron’s own words:

      “It was just a simple, straight stick that I used as instrument, specially loaded at both ends, enclosed into a metal sheath to protect it from the wind and temperature changes. Upon this stick every single mass, be it near or far, exerts a directing force; but the wire upon which it hangs resists, and whist resisting it twists, wit the degree of this twist showing us the exact magnitude of the forces acting upon the stick….”

      “It is simple, like the flute of Hamlet, you only have to know how to play on it, and just like the musician who can delight you with splendid variations, the physicist can, on this balance, with no less delight determine the finest variations of gravity. This way we can peer into such depth of the crust of the Earth, that neither our eyes nor our longest drills could read.”
      blogs.scientificamerican.com…

      …do all geologists play hamlet’s flute?

    3. watermanchris

      Gaia,

      It is obvious to me that you have learned nothing in the time you have been in this ACT realm. You see a picture of a “painting” on Wikipedia and you assume it is an actual painting of a real person. Why would you accept that? Does that silly picture actually constitute evidence to you? Why does that picture have to be of anybody? To me, it looks like a cartoon. Something out of a comic book.

      You dismiss JLB’s criticisms because he does not offer you a “better” story. This is childish. The paywall at JLB.com… is clearly doing it’s job as we prefer adult conversations that are free from logical fallacies.

      Hoi says, let’s just focus on the data but offers none. I can promise you that there is no primary source evidence for Tycho Brahe. If you find some, please put this matter to bed and post it. I will be the first to admit I was wrong and apologize. As for the data, I have looked into the Tychos model and the “data” on which it is built is nonsense – 300,000,000 kilometer trips “around” the sun in 25,344 years?!? There is no possible way that this could ever be verified in anybody’s lifetime.

      The “they are just lights in the sky” comments are childish and disinterested in finding out what is happening in this world, it shows a lack of curiosity and creativity. Imagine taking your child on a week camping trip in the forest, showing him or her all the different facets of flora and fauna and after that week he or she answers when pointing to a fern or bird and asking “what is that?”, “yeah, just a plant/animal” .

      Nice strawman argument. Nobody has ever claimed that the lights we call planets are the same as the lights we call stars or comets. It is clearly evident that they appear different but appearance is all we can observe. It is a non sequitur to conclude that they are therefore solid physical objects with different physical properties. Plants, animals, birds and insects are all things that we can experience up close with our 5 senses. There are field guides that one can use to identify these things and I don’t need to take a scientist’s word for what they are. This is a far cry from what we are told about “outer space”. This is a red herring.

      “what separates the physical world we live in with that what is called space where those lights appear? Do we live under a dome where “space” and “reality” are physically separated? If so, where is the evidence for that, if not, why do you claim there are physical and “just lights” worlds?”

      I don’t think the lights in the sky appear to be millions of miles away so I don’t assume they are “in space”. I don’t think there is any such thing as “outer space.” Nobody has given me any evidence that this thing exists. I don’t make claims of a dome. This is a strawman argument. I do not claim there are physical and “just lights” worlds. Again, another strawman. I don’t see any evidence to support the idea that there are any physical worlds other than where we currently exist. I am just honest in that I admit that I don’t know what the lights in the sky are. Neither do you. You have stories that you prefer over no story but that’s all you have. No evidence.

      “What do the craters clearly visible on the Moon represent?”

      I don’t know what the moon is. I cannot experience it in any way except by sight and I know that looks can be deceiving. All we can ever see is light that appears to me to be emanating from it. Certain parts seem to be darker than other parts giving the appearance of texture but that does not mean that it is a rock in space. This is another non sequitur.

      “How is the Sun able to heat us?”

      I don’t know what the sun is. I have never experienced anything else like it. I don’t know how it works. Again, I don’t think you know how it works or what it is either but you except stories fed to you by authorities. I would argue that there is no way that using the observable phenomena we experience in real life would lead one to believe that the sun is a flaming ball of gas 93,000,000 miles away.

      “How come we can predict the positions and properties of those “lights in the sky” called planets, planet moons, comets and meteor showers?”

      This is a non sequitur. People can predict the movement of the lights in the sky because they move in patterns. The patterns exist whether they are physical or not.

      “Or the obvious question why they wouldn’t be physical objects?”

      Because solid physical objects do no stay up in the air. There is a saying that what goes up, must come down. I have never seen evidence that this is not a universal truth.

      It doesn’t bother me that you believe in “outer space”. I’m just saying that I don’t. You posted a lot of nonsense but never offered up any EVIDENCE to support your claims or pointed to a single thing that was logically fallacious. While you may have minimized the ad hominems, this post is full of logical fallacies.

      I know you have said you were leaving before so I doubt this will be the last we’ll hear of your nonsense but in case you’re for realz this time, I wish you the best of luck in your travels. I sincerely hope that you eventually find what you are looking for.

      1. John le BonJohn le Bon

        “Hoi says, let’s just focus on the data but offers none. I can promise you that there is no primary source evidence for Tycho Brahe. If you find some, please put this matter to bed and post it. I will be the first to admit I was wrong and apologize.”

        Only if you beat me to it. I would be more than happy for somebody to dig up some legitimate primary sources for Mr Brahe.

        Of course, this would allow us to move on to the next problem: Brahe supposedly existed before the invention of the telescope.

        So these ‘observations’ of his are based on… looking up the sky with the naked eye?

        Good grief.

        1. watermanchris

          Apologies. SHK do not claim the earth revolves around the sun but instead claim the earth orbits around . . . nothing. Although that’s not really an orbit since the definition of an orbit is something going around something else but never mind silly details like that.
          They also claim the earth is traveling at 1 mph in this “orbit”. What evidence do they offer to support these claims? None.

          The ridiculous part I’m referring to is the distance and time frame of “earth’s orbit”. I don’t believe in orbits or that anyone could ever deduce distances of 300,000,000 kilometers by looking at the lights in the sky. The stars to me seem much closer than the ridiculous figures the Tychos is based on.

          Where do they get their “figures”? The mainstream model, except where it doesn’t fit their model. It is obvious to be that simon has taken the mainstream model and just adjusted the numbers in a post facto fashion to fit his model. It really is quite ridiculous.

      2. gaiagaia

        That particular painting is done in the 19th century, so an interpretation, possibly based on earlier depictions of Brahe.

        This engraving apparently was done during his lifetime:
        upload.wikimedia.org…

        “You dismiss JLB’s criticisms because he does not offer you a “better” story. This is childish.”

        The exact opposite; it is childish not to think further and just make unfounded claims without actually addressing the data. It is also not a “story”. It is a possible explanation for data. Just like NaZionism is a possible, probable even, explanation for the fact that “millions of people were not gassed to death”. The obvious and unavoidable question “what happened THEN to those people?” needs an answer. NaZionism does that. So the same for what stars, planets, moons, comets and other celestial phenomena are.

        “Hoi says, let’s just focus on the data but offers none. I can promise you that there is no primary source evidence for Tycho Brahe. If you find some, please put this matter to bed and post it. I will be the first to admit I was wrong and apologize.”

        I promise you, well, that is a hopeful thing then. Do you present any evidence? No, of course not. Empty promises are easy to make. What about the engraving? What about his contemporaries? The many astronomers he corresponded with? The courts of Denmark and Bohemia?

        “Nice strawman argument. Nobody has ever claimed that the lights we call planets are the same as the lights we call stars or comets. It is clearly evident that they appear different but appearance is all we can observe.”

        If the childish nihilist calls a planet “just a light in the sky” and a star “just a light in the sky”, the same definition is used for two clearly different things. Hence the analogy, not a strawman; if you call a spider or a bird “just an animal”, you use the same definition for two clearly distinguishable things. And that is exactly what is (not) happening with the armchair attic crowd.

        “It is a non sequitur to conclude that they are therefore solid physical objects with different physical properties.”

        Light is already a physical property, the Moon is clearly a rocky body with impact craters, different areas of most probably different rock types. Selenology is way older than the Apollo BS, actually it is one of the arguments against Apollo c.s. Channels are visible on Mars with good telescopes.

        Then there is a lot of research done in spectrometry; analyzing the elements those “lights in the sky” contain. You hold that is “just stories”, “all made up”? Why?

        “Plants, animals, birds and insects are all things that we can experience up close with our 5 senses. There are field guides that one can use to identify these things and I don’t need to take a scientist’s word for what they are. This is a far cry from what we are told about “outer space”. This is a red herring.”

        No, because also in space there is a lot you can see. From the ground. For the interested observer at least.

        “I don’t think the lights in the sky appear to be millions of miles away so I don’t assume they are “in space”. ”

        You don’t think they appear to be millions of miles away? How do you know how millions of miles away appear?

        I don’t know about the distances (and thus sizes), they may be closer and smaller or bigger and farther away. The biggest altitude difference we are able to experience (like 12 km) does not make them bigger, so it is reasonable to assume they are far away and not close by.

        “I don’t think there is any such thing as “outer space.” Nobody has given me any evidence that this thing exists.”

        The atmosphere gets “thinner”, the higher you go up. Density and pressure decrease with altitude. Those are properties you can measure, not “a story” “you have to believe”. Outer space is just that area where the atmosphere gets so thin that it isn’t there anymore.

        “I don’t make claims of a dome. This is a strawman argument.”

        I asked the question, I didn’t say you claimed anything. So no strawman.

        But following from before; what happens then? If the density drops the higher you go, what is there then, if it is not “outer space”?

        “I do not claim there are physical and “just lights” worlds. Again, another strawman.”

        A question, no strawman thus.

        “I don’t see any evidence to support the idea that there are any physical worlds other than where we currently exist. I am just honest in that I admit that I don’t know what the lights in the sky are. Neither do you. You have stories that you prefer over no story but that’s all you have. No evidence.”

        The childish term “stories” again shows you have no idea about the amount of research going on. Things are measured, experiments done. “but it’s all stories, where’s the pub?” If that is the attitude you like to have in life, be my guest. Luckily many people are much more curious about what is or could be happening around us.

        The Moon is pretty obvious, shows phases, clearly looks very rocky, with craters, like we also have on Earth. It makes more sense to assume the Moon is a physical object rather than it is not, yet shows physical characteristics…

        “I don’t know what the moon is. I cannot experience it in any way except by sight and I know that looks can be deceiving. All we can ever see is light that appears to me to be emanating from it. Certain parts seem to be darker than other parts giving the appearance of texture but that does not mean that it is a rock in space. This is another non sequitur.”

        No, you use an “argument from ignorance”. That you don’t know about the research, doesn’t make it wrong.

        “I don’t know what the sun is. I have never experienced anything else like it. I don’t know how it works. Again, I don’t think you know how it works or what it is either but you except stories fed to you by authorities. I would argue that there is no way that using the observable phenomena we experience in real life would lead one to believe that the sun is a flaming ball of gas 93,000,000 miles away.”

        The Sun heats us, sends light, with properties, that can be analyzed. On top of that more research is built and a hypothetical model for the working of the Sun is given. Is that model right? I don’t know. But I don’t call that research “just stories”.

        “Or the obvious question why they wouldn’t be physical objects?”

        Because solid physical objects do no stay up in the air. There is a saying that what goes up, must come down. I have never seen evidence that this is not a universal truth.

        So according to your “deep research” that objects “do not stay up in the air”, it means there are no objects above the air? Great, another argument from ignorance.

        I took a long break that was very insightful. The toxic and childish attitudes here do hardly provide insights. Real research does, but is scarce unfortunately. You have fun in JLB’s circle, you talk the same language already.

        1. John le BonJohn le Bon

          Lots of words, lots of story-recital, but no actual evidence or logic.

          Typical Gaia.

          If you you prefer to believe that the lights in the sky are solid, physical objects, then I for one encourage you to keep on doing exactly that.

          If you want to encourage other people to adopt your beliefs, then I encourage you to put more time into finding and sharing actual evidence.

          Labeling other people or ideas as ‘nihilist’, when you clearly do not know what the term means, does not help your cause.

          Cheers.

        2. watermanchris

          LOL.

          You post a picture, with no provedence whatsoever and claim it to be evidence of Tycho Brahe. You’re funny. I looked into that “engraving and it is supposedly an “engraving on paper” that is 7 3/8″ x 5 3/8″ and the providence is listed as “Hill-Stone London, Purchased in 2002 by Sarah Campbell Blaffer Foundation 2002.

          Do you honestly believe an “engraved piece of paper from over 400 years ago” the size of a post card could actually look like that? I can’t even find any “chain of custody for it, ie where and when it was “discovered”. If this is not a red flag for you, I can’t help you.

          It seems you have tried to find the providence of the painting you were so sure just yesterday was Tycho Brahe, even going so far as to mock the idea that it might not be him – “Who is it a painting of then?” but you have found that it was obviously not a painting of him as even Wikipedia claims it was painted long after this character supposedly died.

          The exact opposite; it is childish not to think further and just make unfounded claims without actually addressing the data.

          Which claims and which data?

          “I promise you, well, that is a hopeful thing then. Do you present any evidence? No, of course not. Empty promises are easy to make. What about the engraving? What about his contemporaries? The many astronomers he corresponded with? The courts of Denmark and Bohemia?”

          What are you talking about? I’m saying there is no evidence of Tycho Brahe and the “engraving” you posted above is not evidence, it is a picture from the internet with a ridiculous explanation – postcard size engraving on paper that has survived in tact for 400 years but has a provedence from 2002? You’ll have to do better than that.

          “If the childish nihilist calls a planet “just a light in the sky” and a star “just a light in the sky”, the same definition is used for two clearly different things. Hence the analogy, not a strawman; if you call a spider or a bird “just an animal”, you use the same definition for two clearly distinguishable things. And that is exactly what is (not) happening with the armchair attic crowd.”

          To me, they are both lights in the sky but they differ in appearance. Just like a mockingbird and a blue jay are both birds but are different. If someone is trying to tell me a blue jay and a mockingbird came from space, I will say the same thing – These are just birds, not aliens. Does that mean I don’t think there is a difference between a blue jay and a mockingbird? Of course not. This is the your strawman. Your “analogy” about a camping trip is apples and space rocks.

          “No, because also in space there is a lot you can see. From the ground. For the interested observer at least.”

          I have looked at the lights in the sky and looked at the “evidence” presented by the mainstream and they don’t even try to establish physicality, it is just taken for granted. If you have EVIDENCE to support physicality, please produce it instead of your word salad.

          “You don’t think they appear to be millions of miles away? How do you know how millions of miles away appear?”

          Exactly my point. I can’t see things that are 100 miles away, how would it be possible to see things that are millions of miles away?

          “I don’t know about the distances (and thus sizes), they may be closer and smaller or bigger and farther away. The biggest altitude difference we are able to experience (like 12 km) does not make them bigger, so it is reasonable to assume they are far away and not close by.”

          But how far away? Millions of miles? That is not reasonable to me. if an eclipse is what it is claimed to be, why was the 2017 eclipse only 70 miles across? If the moon was what was blocking out the sun, it would make sense to me that the moon is only 70 miles across max.

          “The atmosphere gets “thinner”, the higher you go up. Density and pressure decrease with altitude. Those are properties you can measure, not “a story” “you have to believe”. Outer space is just that area where the atmosphere gets so thin that it isn’t there anymore.”

          I agree that the air gets thinner as you go up but it is a non sequitur to conclude that thinner atmosphere means flying rocks. If things don’t stay in the air at sea level where it is more dense, why would you think that things stay in the air where the air is less dense?

          “The childish term “stories” again shows you have no idea about the amount of research going on. Things are measured, experiments done. “but it’s all stories, where’s the pub?” If that is the attitude you like to have in life, be my guest. Luckily many people are much more curious about what is or could be happening around us.”

          Can you post some of this “research”/experiments? I don’t drink alcohol. Who are these people that are more curious than I about what’s going on here? Can you post them? You seem to just accept what you are told unless someone gives you a more convincing story. You can call it research but it is clear from your posts that what you’re looking for is stories.

          “The Sun heats us, sends light, with properties, that can be analyzed. On top of that more research is built and a hypothetical model for the working of the Sun is given. Is that model right? I don’t know. But I don’t call that research “just stories”.”

          LOL. That the sun is a flaming ball of gas 93,000,000 miles away or that nuclear fission is producing this heat and light? These are stories. There is no evidence for those things and they don’t hold up to scrutiny. For instance, why doesn’t the gas run out? If you have ever burned gas, it burns up extremely fast. Why wouldn’t the sun burn out quickly? Nuclear psience is not real.

          Dictionary.com… defines Ignorance – lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

          I am saying that I have done research and come to the conclusion that the sun is not like anything here on earth. You can call that ignorant but I call it open minded but unconvinced of any position.

          What do you believe the sun to be?

    4. John le BonJohn le Bon

      “I have a similar problem with JLB’s claims and promoted “skepsis” and nihilism. A true nihilist”

      What does ‘nihilism’ have to do with anything?

      “The “ultimate skeptic online” or “everything is fake”, “history is a hoax”, “it is ALL a joke” stance”

      When you type nonsense like this, are you just trying to sound clever? Or do you actually believe that skepticism of history is the same thing as saying that ‘everything is fake’?

      Either way, I recommend you look into the concept of the ‘strawman argument’.

      www.johnlebon.com…

      Hoi Polloi made a valid comment, not addressed by JLB in his video, about “let’s focus on the data”.

      Yes, let’s focus on the data. Where does the data come from?

      A guy called Tycho Brahe, apparently.

      Are you starting to catch up now, Gaia?

      Where JLB and his “crew” on his own paid website fail, is to give alternative explanations that hold (more) water than mainstream ones that are challenged.

      Another incorrect assertion. On my website is an 18,000-word treatise which explains my own cosmological model. Of course, you already know this. You are happy to contradict yourself, to make claims you know to be false, for what purpose? Like a lonely child who just wants attention.

      “About the TYCHOS I have said enough I think and Simon himself has frankly thanked me for my extensive and thorough review of his work”

      Lol. It’s a shame you couldn’t join S/H/K on their ‘book tour’. I for one would pay a small fee to watch a livestream of the four of you, sitting in an empty university hall, patting each other on the back for your grand accomplishment. The earth is moving at 1 mph! True visionaries.

      1. watermanchris

        Do you think Gaia actually knows/understands what nihilism is or do you think he just heard someone else say it and is parroting that person?

        The conversations we have over at jlb.com… are far from nihilistic but Gaia’s belief in human evolution theory and 60 million year old monsters is nihilism writ large.

  3. smj

    the funny shit is tycho was just another narrative device at rudolf’s alchemical bohemian court…

    The exhibition Rudolph II and Prague aims to provide an insight into the late Renaissance, in particular the world of Central Europe, and its focal point the Habsburg court at Prague. In 1623, Francis Bacon wrote The New Atlantis, inspired in part by the intellectual movements emanating from Prague in the late 16th century, and proposes that the natural philosophers of the island are ‘merchants of light’ travelling the four corners of the earth in quest of knowledge. The exhibition suggests that the epicentre of the propagation of the last rays of Renaissance light was not Atlantis, but Rudolphine Prague. It sets out to show that one of the brightest ‘lights’ of the late Renaissance was neo-platonism (other ‘lights’ include pansophy and humanism), that this light was carried from court to court by artists and scholars, that it was fostered by enlightened rulers such as the Austrian Habsburg emperors, and that the material traces of this culture can be put in context in order to reveal and recover some of their original meaning. Moreover, the exhibition intends to show how the light of the late Renaissance was driven underground after the victory of the Counter-Reformation in 1620, to reappear in England, Italy and France decades later via other ‘merchants of light’, such as Comenius, Kircher, Drebbel, Fludd, and Maier.
    www.bradburne.org…

    …aa morris could get a thousand shows out of rudolf’s court.

    “When the Apollo 11 astronauts landed on the moon on 20 July 1969, I was glued to a television screen at the Bohemian Grove north of San Francisco and was as thrilled and emotionally moved as anyone could be.”

    t. keith glennan

  4. John le BonJohn le Bon

    Throughout their entire three-hour train-wreck of an interview on FAK204, I do not recall hearing Simon/Hoi/Kham (SHK) mention the difference between kinematic models and dynamic models of the universe/cosmos. Not even once.

    In fact, I don’t recall hearing them spend any time explaining what a ‘model’ is, or why/how a model can be useful. This is the fundamental, conceptual framework on which any model ought to be based. We are talking about the groundwork, the epistemological foundations of the discussion.

    Do SHK even know what is the difference between a kinematic model and a dynamic model? Perhaps it is mentioned somewhere in their book and, if so, I will happily amend this comment to reflect this fact. That they failed to mention the distinction in three hours of audio leads me to infer that, no, they do not know the difference.

    If this is the case, it does not make SHK bad people, or stupid people, and it certainly does not make their model ‘wrong’. It does however mean that they are at least three years behind yours truly, because I was forced to learn and study these concepts when engaging in online debates/discussion with the leading heliocentrists (and the leading Flat Earth spruikers) on YouTube, circa 2015/2016.

    I put myself in the metaphorical ‘ring’ with people who professed themselves to be wise on matters cosmological. In some cases, I did indeed learn about concepts and ideas with which I was not previously familiar. I was humble enough to accept when other people, with beliefs different to my own, had worthwhile information to share (even if they did so in a less-than-benevolent fashion).

    I would have been more than happy to share these insights with the crew of the goodship Cluesforum, had they not thrown me overboard back in 2015 for daring to challenge the official cosmology of our earth. How amusing it is for me to see that, now in 2018, our esteemed friends SHK are on a US tour to promote a book which challenges the official cosmology of our earth!

    Indeed, I had to skip back and relisten when I thought I heard SHK suggest that this new understanding of the cosmology of our earth was ‘more interesting to people than media fakery’. What!? Alternative cosmology is more interesting to people than media fakery, you say? Why, this is exactly what I was saying in 2015! Apparently SHK now realise that the official cosmology gives people a sense of insignificance; thus alternative cosmologies tap into something intrinsic about our psyches. It is almost as though SHK have been listening to my work from three years ago…

    …but alas, this is likely not the case. If SHK were reviewing my work from 2015, they would know the difference between a kinematic model and a dynamic model. The Bon Earth Model, for what it is worth, deals only with kinematic modeling of the lights in the sky, for it does not assume the lights in the sky to be anything other than lights in the sky.

    Dynamic models are concerned with ‘forces’. One does not need to explain ‘forces’ which have not been shown to exist. ‘Force’ is not required for lights in the sky to appear to move about, any more than ‘force’ is required for a rainbow to appear to touch the hills in the distance. One can assume the lights in the sky to be solid, physical objects, in which case it may be necessary to come up with ‘forces’ to explain their apparent movements. Why any sane man would want to go down the path of explaining forces which he cannot empirically measure, I can only hazard a guess…

    In any event, thanks to Ab for sharing my recent video, and thanks once again for conducting FAK204. Several ideas I have been trying to convey to others about the absolute state of the ACT realm were made plain for all to see. We really are in uncharted territory, a bizarre and amusing place where it is too often the case that the blind are leading the blind.

    1. ab Post author

      Good comment. You have a better understanding/interest in this subject than I do. Cosmology is never going to figure prominently on this blog. I am only really interested from a deception point of view, and for the fact that Simon is into it. Hopefully this admission won’t disappoint the readers of this blog.

  5. rickyricky

    I own a telescope and it doesn’t tell me jack-shit, my fundamental problem with these theories is there is no way to verify any of these conclusions, astronomers? Like whom? Bill Nye? Anyone with a voice towards clarity, we’re not going to hear about, that’s for sure. Short of dropping by my house in your’ spaceship to take me for a ride into “space” to prove something, my ideas are as good as anyone else.

    1. watermanchris

      Hi Ricky,

      You’re kind of making my point. IF someone looks through a telescope, and does their best to set preconceived notions/bias/unexamined premises aside, I cannot see how they should come to the conclusion that the lights in the sky are solid physical objects hundreds of millions of miles away, that the “planets” are in any way similar to the place we live, that the twinkling lights called “stars” are in any way similar to the sun, or that there is a place above us that has physical properties opposite of here on the ground.

      Since those are not logical conclusions to draw from the empirical data (that which we can observe with our senses), making claims that those things are true falls into the category of extraordinary and extraordinary claims require at least SOME EVIDENCE! SHK present none. How could Simon Shack have produced September Clues and the Vicsim Report with the help of Hoi Palloi but be unable to see the ridiculous nature of this “model”?

  6. watermanchris

    “There’s many ways to look at Tycho Brahe. Some of the outrageous stories may be made up to make him look ridiculous, in order to distract from his theories.”

    What EVIDENCE is there for this claim? What EVIDENCE does Simon put forth to confirm that Tycho Brahe exists? None, nada, zip, zero, zilch. He just says that it makes him “sad that this is going on at Fakeologist”. Um, the site is called FAKEOLOGIST.COM…, not takeeverythingwereadatfacevalueologist.com…! Simon could easily put this to bed by posting a single primary source document from “Tycho Brahe” but this will not be forthcoming as there are none. I’ve looked

    “That said, none of that really matters if Simon’s model works to explain the light movement in the sky. He says it does, and Hoi agrees. Let’s see what those that enjoy studying astronomy have to say.”

    Using mainstream figures to come up with a “new model” for how the lights in the sky move will accomplish nothing. Even Simon, Hoi, and Kham struggled to tell you why it mattered. Kham says “people are gettin scammed big time”. And how is this ridiculous piece of nonsense going to change that? It won’t. Hoi says to “ask a copernican”. Lol

    I don’t think JLB is missing the point. I just think there is no point.

    Simon claims to understand the properties of light. He also claims that the sun is millions of miles away and earth rotates around the sun at a leisurely 1 mph. Perhaps he can explain to us why the “eclipse” last year in the US moved from West to East or why the “moon’s shadow” was 70 miles across when it is known to be impossible for an object’s shadow to be smaller than that object when infinitely lit from behind. IF we want to accept the mainstream story that the 2017 eclipse was the moon blocking the sun, that would mean the moon is only 70 miles across max which would make it significantly closer than 230,000 miles away.

    Does “his model” explain those things? I think not. He fully admits to not having spent time behind a telescope to verify the claims he takes at face value. Does Simon Shack even own a telescope?

    I really hope these people (SHK) are paid shills because if they’re not, this is really embarrassing.

Leave a Reply