Difference between revisions of "FAC 602 - The Impossibility of Space Travel. Ever"
|Line 466:||Line 466:|
== See also ==
== See also ==
* [[Apollo program]]
* [[Apollo program]]
* [[Space fakery]]
* [[Space fakery]]
** [[FRAC 13]] - '''"Paper Rockets"'''
** [[FRAC 13]]- '''"Paper Rockets"'''
* [[FAC 603]] - '''"
* [[FAC 603]]- '''""'''
* [[FAC 610]] - '''"African Awakening"'''
* [[FAC 610]] - '''"African Awakening"'''
* [[FAC 611]] - '''"Hidden Histories"'''
* [[FAC 611]] - '''"Hidden Histories"'''
Revision as of 15:40, 18 September 2019
"The Impossibility of Space Travel. Ever."
|Live||September 2, 2019|
"The Impossibility of Space Travel. Ever."
FAC 602, Fakeologist Audio Chat, or "The Impossibility of Space Travel. Ever." was a podcast aired on September 2, 2019 for 02:21:42. Participants were Geris and Gaia talking as a follow-up to FRAC 13 & 13b about the title of the show.[R 1]
"Back to basics; what do we actually know about Space Travel?
Mars rovers, asteroid landings (do it right the first time), Pluto Pluto images, never stars where they should be, the green screen show of the ISS, the list is endless.
Manned space travel would be awesome, but reading the comments here luckily nobody seems to believe those stories.
Yuri Gagarins own wife admits on camera he hasn’t been to space…
In the end there is no “conspiracy”; it is all out in the open.
Unmanned probes then?
We have the Voyager myth, that allegedly left our solar system for, what was it, Alpha Centauri?
In the 1970s photographing Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and beyond?
My parents couldn’t take a roll of film through the airport without destroying my baby photos, but all these fancy space thingies could just beat all physical laws and show us crystal clear photos of celestial bodies, where they, as always, forgot to capture the stars, planets, galaxies, stellar clouds andwhatnot… Hmmm..
The “Space” Shuttles (I am sure they were working planes) then? Why would that be real, and all the rest fake? But more importantly; how do they come to the ridiculous antiphysical idea of “zero gravity”??
That cannot exist. Gravity is omnipresent and omnipotent. No zero g guys, no matter you can go up and down with 9.8 m/s2.
Hubble/Kepler/Gaia (not me) maybe?
Here on Earth, our home and only home, ever, every year new ground-based telescopes are built or planned. At several locations on Earth with the most ideal atmospheric conditions for monitoring and photographing the celestial beauty.
Astrophotography is basically putting various layers of photos over each other, with different wavelengths of light and you get the wow images we see shared everywhere. Those are not (necessarily) fake, but they are composites. Nobody denies that.
What exactly distinguishes astrophotos taken by ground-based observatories (I have visited one) from the ones allegedly taken by a “space” telescope on which some white rabbits allegedly worked?
Stamping an astrophoto from Tenerife, Hawaii or the Atacama with “Hubble” and voilà, not?
If manned space travel is impossible, the maintenance was impossible, but then the Hubble is still real? How does that work?
What is left?
Satellites. The hard nut. And yes, it may sound nuts, but no, sorry, no functioning man-made satellites exist (other than balloons, but they are by definition not in space).
No single electric apparatus functions without maintenance or at least access to it. Yet, in the Magic Disneyworld of NASA, missions get multiple times extended without any problems (Mars rovers, anyone?) and none of the images can represent reality; there are not even photographs of Earth, so how can it be real?
Every object in space is either 100% at -270 C or 50% at -270 and simultaneously 50% at +300 or more (mainstream claims about the thermosphere).
Even if we forget that this object allegedly takes the sharpest photos, measures the most advanced things on Earth and atmosphere and has to keep doing that while communicating the data flawlessly to Earth, this space thingy has to survive these conditions.
We don’t have any metal on Earth that can withstand these two extremes at the same time all the time. But satellites are made of kryptonite, I guess.
GEO satellites are claimed to function right in the outer belt of the Van Allen belts, at between 32 and 36 k km. HOW? Where are all the test reports about materials, technology, batteries, solar panels, and whatnot on board of these tiny objects and how they perform under the wildest conditions? The scientific revolution would be bigger than Buzz Aldrins drinking problem.
What about the “sub Van Allen Belts”, where allegedly manned and unmanned “space travel” is booming? “Low Earth Orbit”?
How exactly did those space thingies circumvent the laws of physics? At least according to their own gravitational model.
The whole solar system, every single asteroid, ball of ice, dog-shaped planet or ring rock of Saturn is in perfect gravitational equilibrium; with forces literally juggling with planets as if it were an enormous harmonious 4D marble set, and then some Sputnik thinks it can just fly through it, with some psilly psience stories (thank you smj) about “zero gravity”, “bringing things into orbit”, “jumping orbits”, “Lissajous orbits”, “Lagrangian points” and other magical talk that literally belongs in a Disney “attraction” park (they are anything but attractive, those places)???
Incredible. Indeed; it is not to be believed.
What is real?
- The moving lights in the sky are undoubtedly real.
- The data from “satellites” is also real.
- Ground-based observations I consider as real, at least for the most part.
- Most astronomy is based on good principles, but on a particular model that may or may not be true.
- The heliocentric model might be right (I consider it the strongest), it may be Tychonian, I don’t see geocentric as viable.
- I cannot say if charge or gravity makes more sense, because we cannot go into space to test it.
The question is; how can you have a different physical model of space than the people who say they went there and yet they don’t use your model and you believe them?
How can such a stance possibly logically work?
"There are several types of “satellite” data:
Two main categories:
- Dynamic Real time data
- Static Surveys
The Real Time includes Global Positioning System (a military system “gifted to us” civilians) and the TV and phone signals of “satellite” TV/Phone.
This system works separately and independently from phone and internet signals. It works 24/7 and is reliable.
We have: – undersea cables (according to some sources, which I still need to check deeper into, “99% of all communication on Earth”) – towers (which can handle different wavelengths); I have 25 non-electricity towers in view every day; with just 4-5 phone providers? – balloons (used for “weather” for ages, used for internet, why not for “satellite” use?)
the biggest “unvisited” part of the world covering the whole globe:
Note that in the green areas, where few ships fare we don’t know which vessels are there and by which owners they are sent there. The point is that few people get to see the areas outside of red and yellow.
The map of the flight paths is even more drastic. All the white areas on Earth no non-sea faring human being ever sees:
How difficult is it to have 24/7 (military) vessels stationed in the places covering the globe with tower-based signals, unseen to the public eye?
How likely is that?
We know about the many military bases on remote islands in the world:
This is only US military bases; the Azores and many other places also have bases.
There are 24/7 manned scientific research stations, weather stations, oil rigs and other places all around the world. Military is not exempt.
All inventions came from the military: – “satellites” – NASA started off as a military organization and Lockheed Martin? – GPS – the internet
So they must have full control over the whole process. Satellite TV works flawlessly 24/7. Does that really exist depending on a “satellite” in fantastical orbits between 952 and 5933 km? Allegedly launched in 1962 (!) and working for 7 months? RIGHT in the heart of the Van Allen Belts??
Sorry, I wasn’t alive in 1962, but people in hot summers were barely able to keep their radio batteries running in the pre-cassette playing era and you want me to believe this story?
The Static Surveys are periodic single events, not 24/7, not real time, as the first category. This includes actually the bulk of “satellite” data, which most people don’t see. These are surveys on anything we can measure on Earth and is of importance for us as mankind. Forest fires, deforestation, CO2 levels (abused for the AGW scam, but let’s not go there here), temperatures, the weather, etc.
“Weather” balloons work for decades. Google uses balloons to send internet signals across the globe. So what stops them from using balloons for other “satellite” activities?
What I see in The Guardian video is 3 layers; the “space thingy” and the Earth in the background and the pitch black background. Of course that is not a real live recording of the Earth. What they show is a meteorological model.
NASA and NOAA closely work together, for example in “climate change” Anthropogenic Global Warming Scam; psyop chain programming.
“TRI-AGENCY CLIMATE EDUCATION COLLABORATIVE
NOAA has an active collaboration with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) around synergistic funding that the three agencies have provided to support projects that increase public understanding of climate science and improve the quality and effectiveness of climate change education in formal and informal learning environments.
Over 120 climate education projects are coordinated through a collaborative network that facilitates communication among this community of scientists and educators. The network promotes sharing of successes, challenges and evaluation findings and thereby maximizes leveraging of resources and minimizes duplication of effort. Several products have emerged from this collaborative, including a common logic model and a searchable catalog of educational products and resources generated by these climate education projects.”
So NASA can easily pass off meteorological models of NOAA (just two US governmental organizations sharing data, something that happens all the time, also with the USGS) as “space images”. To match the real weather as the current hurricane really razing over the Bahamas and entering Florida.
The picture of Dorian is grey.
But these are models; simulations of reality, they are by definition not representations of reality. Nobody denies that there no photographs of Earth.
(note I don’t endorse other realities than a convex Gaia)
The Celestial Beauty As always, the skies can never be pitch black. You simply cannot NOT capture any stars/galaxies/planets/stellar clouds/etc.
The more light you get in view, the lower the amount of light captured from the skies, so with in this case like 80% of view the very bright white clouds of Earth, the amount of light from the background; space, would be low, but it cannot be zero. Ever.
That problem is visible in almost all of the images allegedly taken from space.
Take this alleged Apollo 15 rendez vous photo. The pipe and teapot are visible under very low light conditions. And we have 90% sky here. There should be an Atacama Desert beauty of the skies in the background here….
You cannot MISS that. There is no possibility you can not capture things that must be there. That is basic common sense and logic, right? And caused by physical laws of light."[R 3]
"“It’s true what you say that the layout of Anders Björkmans site is indeed terrible. However, isn’t it what it says that is more important than the style of formatting. That site has continuously been updated and everything that has been pasted in is still there, since 1998, I think.”
Yes, very good point. I also cannot stand this horrible formatting in a time with literally a wealth of options, easy to learn, even for “the elderly” (which Anders is not).
It was back in late 2015 when I finally saw the final piece of the puzzle and resolved this uneased feeling of missing that. From then on, it started to make sense, though I struggled with satellites for like a year.
Back then I was in both public and private contact with Heiwa and that made me learn a lot. He helped me in waking up, so thank him for that.
His treatise on re-entry is excellent and his thinking sound, except for understanding the implications of the alleged crazy ass environment THEY paint of “space”.
It is an extrapolation of the atmosphere, which in my geologic and atmospheric (live) understanding makes sense; the higher you go, the less dense the atmosphere, the less particles per volume, the higher the radiation component, but the lower the convection component of heat transfer, the ambient T however keeps going down from what we can measure and radiation/Van Allen belts is a hypothesis based on real observations.
They must have measured the upper atmosphere, before their rockets would simply come down due to gravity and saw of course it was impossible for various reasons.
This was obviously not in 1958.
But the auroras are real, Van Allen was a geophysicist and I think his model makes sense. We live in an (electro)magnetic world, no doubt.
I broke one of my compasses by using a magnet on it. My first year fieldwork one, not my nicer one luckily. But a good learning point.
15 ways how to fake satellites
I don’t know what Heiwa’s vested interest is in the Ariane project, which he talks about a lot, but since when does fakery in the Guyanas not exist? Jonestown anyone?
The rocket launches are real and observed by many people.
Cluesforum attic autists who claim “CGI” need to get into the wider world. I am not saying they cannot do that, or combine it with real launches (like SpaceX; the launches are real, the landings are not), but it is important to keep a sharp eye on what is real.
Everything above the Kármán “””line””” however, is a mystery. And the point is; we HAVE to rely on data allegedly gathered by people of whom we know did lie to us, over and over again. Space.
That area, where nobody has been before, it is literally people from Atlantis for the first time reaching the surface (so from 1 medium to another; cf. atmosphere to space).
The scientific revolution wouldn’t have an end. We would need 50 years since the first rockets entering space and falling back to come up with even a plan how to tackle this. But no, it was all Disneyworld.
"We choose to go the Moon"
No, you don’t CHOOSE to overcome physical barriers, you have to do an effort to get to your goal. You cannot choose to stand on top of Aconcagua, you have to do the physical activity, stretching your own physical boundaries, but never exceeding Gaia’s laws; physics/Naturkunde and only then you can make it.
The whole history of all space travel, the whole “Space Race”, once you see it all, and have satisfactorily answered the observations we can make, data we reliably use and the historical lessons of ever-holding-hands-in-real-cases engineering and science (so real science, not scientism!) applied, you are way more at ease.
Video about the history of undersea cables. I was baffled by how early this was already the case..."[R 4]
"Keep on doing what you are doing, you are good at it, but I am sorry to admit that your writings doesn’t ring a bell for me, perhaps it’s because you mix too many subjects with too many postulations into your posts.
Thank you very much, that is nice and encouraging to hear.
And I can perfectly understand I go all over the place. I already naturally do, but a blog is not really the ideal platform to bring so many points across. I do audios to explain my views in more detail over at Fakeologist.com.
Feel free to join; it would be nice to talk!
On the Apollo 11 anniversary we did two chats, in total 10.5 hours, but you hear many points you have never heard before about Apollo and space travel fakery in general:
I covered some of the points from my posts here at the blog and at Fakeologist.com in more detail in our Space Travel Fakery chat of yesterday:
The Impossibility of Space Travel
On the Teapot and Pipe Photo (Apollo 15 rendez vous with CM, AS15-96-13040HR or as Geris from Fakeologist.com called it the Apollo Space Porn Photo)
- [ ]
This is the histogram of whites of the “black” background of that photo. Does this look natural to anyone??
- [ ]
Histogram Apollo 15
This is the same histogram for one of my starry sky photos (with an amateur compact good lens camera). ALL the other photos, no matter how many stars I captured show the same distribution.
- [ ]
The natural distribution is one of a bell curve of dark greys but not pitch black This is all the light coming from the stars which is too faint for us to capture by eye from the photo, but we can by eye in reality (there were obviously way more stars visible than the photo shows). That is natural. Light. You cannot NOT capture that.
Note I don’t have the software to make it logarithmic, but then the amount of whites become visible; the line towards white contains values.
So there are not black pixels. A natural bell curve like distribution of dark greys; reality.
The Apollo 15 fakery version is one of 2 distinct “layers” (I am not an expert on this, Jared please help us out here) with a very unnatural distribution of whites Look at the spike of blacks, that can never be real? Where is all this lack of light coming from between 10% and exactly (?) 50%??
NATURAL – bell curves of lights/whites UNNATURAL – spikes, missing colors (0, not low), rough cut-offs, strange distributions, etc.
Another example of reality given to me, a starry night, obviously a better camera, longer exposure and better settings than my Sony Cybershot, notice the quite smooth peaks:
- [ ]
Histogram Starry Skies
- histogram peaks look like mountains or hills in Gaia’s world
- histogram peaks look like photochopped off Clown heads in the Clownworld
PS 1: I have done this test on the original Apollo 15 photo I downloaded many years ago from NASA and the version Wikipedia uses (this one) and they are identical.
PS 2: This Apollo 15 photo is part of Act 2 of the Apollo Program. It is important to know that “Apollo” is not only 1967-1972, but also the early 1990s.
To the general public (via controlled outlets as newspapers, magazines, books and certain scientific organizations, etc) a couple of hundred photos of the “Moon” were known.
Plus thousands of sample, thin section and other photos of “””moon rocks”””, that were SO alien that no new minerals were found in 25 kilos of Apollo 11 rock. Even their named mineral “found on the MOON” was found on Earth “later”…
However, most of the 25,000 (!!) photos we now have of the Apollo program were shot and released in l989 to early 1990s. If you want to be baffled by the fakery you never knew before (let’s see if you pick them up) from Apollo you HAVE TO watch: For All Mankind (1989)
"Not to man-made satellites as they cannot physically exist.
So it becomes a bit useless to point your antenna to something which doesn’t exist. Because it cannot exist.
If anything, they are pointing to the ionosphere. Because that sphere surrounds the sphere of the Earth, where we are and cannot leave.
Antenna technology is way older than the so-called “space travel” era of course.
The base starting question, with any truth seeking, which indeed must be open minded and not led by ad hominems, thank you Jack, bound by principles (ideally real science and definitely not scientism) should be:
Can this be true?
That is the first and only question to ask. With anything really. If your friend tells you a bizarre story that question should pop up in your head right away too, right?
There is no difference in scrutiny in analyzing narratives, or at least there shouldn’t be.
That is open minded truth seeking.
The thing with the space travel myth is that the maths do add up. They made sure that that worked. But maths is nothing more than a language. One can use it they way they want, with certain axioms of course.
But what is the lesson from all the Einsteinian and other metaphysical magic? That maths can work, and it is possible to push it far beyond the boundaries a normal human being can grasp, that doesn’t mean they describe reality? It is fantasy. Magic. With magicians with special knowledge. Alchemy, almost.
What NASA cum suis do is not necessarily faking reality, but approaching it as if things work in isolation. They present us with 2, maximum 3 body problems [as that is what is at least solvable with normal maths and minds] but we are not talking about just the end of the trunk, you cannot just deny that the rest of the elephant exists. And affects you.
We are talking about million body problems here, which are unsolvable, even if it were physically possible to leave Earth.
No matter what you believe in, what I call FoC; “Force of the Cosmos”, be it gravitational, electro-magnetical, charge, ether, gods or spaghetti monsters playing spiral games, whatever, there is a force, or more, that keep(s) the whole divinely harmonious 4D marble set going; the machine with the biggest, heaviest, most electromagnetic, charged and dominant bodies we cannot imagine.
And then, suddenly, some humans [who stem from bloodlines of stage magicians] on one of these balls think they can beat that whole harmonious set, overcome the Force of the Cosmos that keeps them stored on their home planet? No, but really?
Look up Lagrangian points and SOHO, they are so funny.
“Parking places in space”, “always with a nice view of the Sun”, “missions work without any issues”, “material sciences? Nah, that’d spoil the story”.
Euro Disney was more real, really."[R 6]
The mainstream model of the Cosmos, using the gravitational model of the Cosmos as driving force is the model that needs to be followed all through in the narrative. See for that Force of the Cosmos earlier on the page.
One cannot suddenly not apply the full model when a certain narrative needs to be pushed. And that is exactly how they pulled this of.
There is no denying of reality; Gaia. The physical world; that what can proven to be real. That what is.
No matter how eagerly the Clowns want to overprint reality everywhere we look, it stays what it is. Airplanes cannot suddenly morph into buildings just because they told us a story and showed something on TV (and released 1 (!) pathetic paper where they didn’t even bother to properly apply kinetic energy, the so-called “46% that made this all happen”).
Reality says we have many rocks all around us in gravitational equilibrium (natural satellites; NEOs) and we have many rocks all around us in gravitational disequilibrium (“shooting stars”; meteors, and if they don’t burn up by the friction of the atmosphere, we find them as meteorites).
But wait a minute? We have astronots who successfully returned from their failed-but-successful Hollywood mission in just the LM... How did they manage to not burn up to dust while everyday hundreds of thousands of rocks do??? Not a speck on their shiny space thingies. Up for re-use.
Oh, but wait, they… they had… “heat shields”!?
Ok, cool story bro, but what is a heat shield?
Is that a magical device invented by never a success away NASA that suddenly stops a known physical process from happening?
Any object that enters the atmosphere from space (so is in gravitational disequilibrium), attracted by the inescapable Force of Gaia, will experience the same:
- friction due to the increasingly denser atmosphere
- this friction turns to heat
- the heat is a problem, mainly because it burns you to dust
How do we get rid of this obnoxious heat?
What did these brave astronots and space thingies have? 50 km of the best carbon brakes as “””heat shield”””, or what was it to get rid of this Inconvenient Truth that turns you to ash when (re)entering the atmosphere??
When you see the full picture, the puzzle, and luckily I do for almost 4 years now, the silly magic becomes crystal clear.
You have to see it, to experience it.
Best of luck in that journey all."[R 7]
"I am glad we’re getting to a common agreement on reality, nice to see.
Indeed; their own Copernican-Keplerian-Newtonian(-Einsteinian) model; until the brackets I take this still as the most reliable model for the observations we can make from Earth, says that every problem in space is by definition minimum a 2-body problem.
According to the model, basically all orbits are slightly elliptical with the main gravitational body in one of the two focal points of the elliptoid orbit. This makes every problem already a 2 body problem with 2 gravitational fields affecting 2 bodies. This is the bare minimum.
In case of Gaia, because of our gigantic sister Selene (replace by Bachué respectively Chía or any other figure or name at will), we by definition have a 3 body problem, without even introducing humans. Or a 4 body problem if we count that pretty omnipotent force of the Milky Way….
Yet, what we are presented with by NASA cum suis, is a 2 body problem with a “satellite” orbiting Earth. As if suddenly the gravitational fields of at least the Moon and the Sun; we know their effects on the gigantic mass that is the oceans, and most probably Jupiter/Mars/Venus, and the Milky Way spiral arm idea suddenly do not matter? Do not exist? Can be excluded to offer a solvable equation, otherwise it becomes too hard to present to gullible people on Earth?
These 2-body problems can never, ever describe reality."[R 8]
"what is the ISS then?
A Near Earth Orbiter. One of the many small “asteroids” that orbit the Earth. Naturally. So a natural satellite, nothing man-made. That is also true for the other “””satellites”””; the moving lights in the sky passively reflecting sunlight.
These lights were spotted but not registered before. It is only since the internet (i.e.; DARPA) that these things are registered and passed off as man-made objects. They are not; they are natural.
I made some photographs of it and Simon had a laugh at the cluesforum but what is it then, if not a satellite? It does not look like a balloon. It has the shape of a satellite, like we are being told, a satellite has to look, no?
1 – you claim to have photographed the “ISS” 2 – “it has the shape of a satellite”
If you really would have photographed the “ISS”, then it shouldn’t look at all like “a” satellite.
The International Space Station supposedly is a football pitch sized enormous thing that is highly irregular with solar panels allegedly sticking out on all sides. How can one ever compare that to the maximum small car sized way more compact “satellites” they claim are often launched into space (impossible as you can read in detail here).
So either you are lying about your photos (“looks like a ‘typical’ satellite”) or NASA is lying about the true shape of their ISS (“highly irregular branching solar panels of 120 m diameter”). What is it?
Or are you both lying?
Or don’t you believe in satellites at all?
Satellites can only be natural; the result of forces in ‘space’, be it gravitational (the mainstream model, which I boomerang against them), “charge” (Miles Mathis and groupies’ baby) or “ether” (basically reverted gravity; push instead of pull) or whatever else.
We cannot go into space so it is funny to speculate what it actually is, but nobody can know that because we cannot measure it.
I don’t say that “Space is a Hoax”, but I do say that “knowing about what Space is, is a hoax”.
How about TV satellites, which I’m using since the 80-s. Ever used a dish to receive a TV program? They point to the same orbit in space anywhere in the world. How do you explain that?
No they don’t and I showed you a photo from my balcony over a year ago already.
As for ISS, IMO it is a real satellite with the only purpose to reflect the sunlight so it can be watched. There are no human on board of course. Humans can’t fly into space what ever it is for you.
Really? So they would spend allegedly billions of dollars, just that we watch some allegedly artificial light in the sky?
And if “humans cannot fly into space”, how the fuck could they build the ISS then? The ISS is composed of various modules that according to the story were assembled in steps, in space, and by humans.
So if you believe just half of the lie, how did NASA cum suis managed to launch a highly irregular football pitch size moloch into space and keep it functioning?
The problem with all you FE’s is, that you never explain yourself
Even for you, this comment is beyond stupid. Try to find a stronger opponent to Flat Earth here. Or at POM.
You don’t even realize how stupid you sound.
Which is funny enough, so herzlichen Dank!"[R 9]
- Apollo program
- Space fakery
- FRAC 13 - "Paper Rockets"
- FAC 603 - "Beavers on the Moon"
- FAC 610 - "African Awakening"
- FAC 611 - "Hidden Histories"
- FAC 612 - "Ice Ladies"
- List of FRACs
- FART 42 - "F....."
- FAC 602 - "The Impossibility of Space Travel. Ever."
- 2019-09-01 - Cutting Through the Fog - Back to Basics - Gaia
- 2019-09-02 - Cutting Through the Fog - "Satellite data" - Gaia
- 2019-09-03 - Cutting Through the Fog - "We Choose To Go To The Moon" - Gaia
- 2019-09-03 - Cutting Through the Fog - "Don't Mention The ****!" - Gaia
- 2019-09-04 - Cutting Through the Fog - "Force of the Cosmos" - Gaia
- 2019-09-05 - Cutting Through the Fog - "Heat 'shield'?" - Gaia
- 2019-09-07 - Cutting Through the Fog - "Getting There" - Gaia
- 2019-09-02 - Fakeologist.com - response to Barbara Müller - Gaia
- DO THE ORION TEST! - this proves the Earth can only be a convex sphere