NASA Going Nowhere Since 1958

Be the 1st to vote.

H/t Simon

Wonder why Jeranism hasn’t been deleted off youtube? Those who remain on this “platform” (to me youtube is now a publisher – and liable) is more suspicious than anyone who has been booted.

No tags for this post.

12 thoughts on “NASA Going Nowhere Since 1958

  1. barbm124

    thanks for all that slugging. Now let me explain to the weaker minds. What is FE? It is not the idea that the earth is flat because they never explain what is beyond the edge or what is on the other side, etc. The FE don’t bother to describe their entire system. They only claim what we observe is wrong and when I write observe, I don’t mean the simple observation that the sun is rising and going down, etc. I mean the more careful observation, that the sun and planets and the observable moons work as a solar system where the Earth is just one of the planets circling around the sun. Of course in the eye of the beholder it can be seen both ways. Yet still, the idea that it’s the planets that circle around their power supplier the Sun and not the other way round helps to explain OBSERVABLE phenomenons like the change in the positions of other planets on our earthly sky. FE ignores all that and simply suggests to ignore the details. It’s misleading from real understanding of our universe. What Simon did in his Tychos is to take some NOT OBSERVABLE claims and develop another illogical model, which he made so complicated that xileffilex considers it to be above his head. Simon does not observe anything, he never looks in the sky. For instance, you cannot observe if Sirius (the brightest star) is a double star because the other twin is so weak, only NASA can see it. Simon speculates based on speculations of others. All he does is to deliver “proves” of his model based an a simulation he programs himself. If you’re not laughing now, you’re not getting it. The purpose of all this and of other things like the Mandela effect is to make you think, you cannot trust your own eyes and you cannot trust your own memory and especially: it is way above your head.

  2. tokarski

    I guess I expected more … but then my head could be up the wrong dark cavern, just like anyone’s. I have two suspicions, that as Apollo 11 “landed on the moon”, that JFK was watching it in comfort from wherever he lived out his days. Tyrone’s Greek Island works for me. The other is only somewhat related, is that Jackie gave birth to a child that died shortly after birth in August of 1963. If it was known that JFK was going down in November, I wonder if they thought it best to farm Patrick out to another family for raising … thus do we have RFK with 11 children … belonging to he and Ethyl, JFK, Joe Jr., Kathleen? As long as I am rambling, the resemblance between JFK Jr. and young Aristotle Onassis is striking. I think I am the only one who sees it, so again, that cavern.

    1. barbm124

      Hi Mark,
      how come it is the cluesforum linking to this flat earth promoter now? In 2015 Simon was like “Yet this is ex-ac-tly what NASA wants: to associate people who believe the earth is flat with those denouncing NASA” And now Simon is like “Jeranism does an absolutely sterling job”! Really? Simon promotes his own flat earth version via Tychosium or whatever this is called today. Jeranism is someone called Jeran Campanella. He’s flat earth promoter of the first rank. No wonder cluesforum is such a dead end now. Regards. BM.

      1. xileffilex

        Tychosium equates to flat earth, does it? OK… if you say so.
        Tychosium is way above my head but as I see it, Simon has exposed some, if not many, of the anomalies of the accepted system of what we can see upstairs and which have been swept under the astronomical carpet for decades if not centuries. However, the psientific community is not going to come to Cluesforum for inspiration or out of any desire to resolve these inconvenient anomalies. I just wonder if Simon has ever tried to engage any psientists on one or two of these anomalies.

        1. gaiagaia

          “Tychos is not a flat earth model. Perhaps you should read it before slagging it.”

          Indeed. TYCHOS is not a Flat Earth model at all. It is a celestial model. Incomplete and selfcontradictory, so by definition not correct/good enough, but it’s a brave start.

          But you’re talking to Barbara Müller who somehow believes the ISS is real. And as always never backed up those claims with anything.

          1. barbm124

            dear GAIA, what is the ISS then? Did you ever watched it? 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? Or don’t you believe in satellites at all? 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? 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. Or do you not believe in space too? What is it then up there? The problem with all you FE’s is, that you never explain yourself but only deny everything else. I prefer to take the best explanation I can find and to keep looking for a better one. Until then, this explanation I have has to do.

            1. gaiagaia

              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!

              1. barbm124

                well GAIA, in the time you spend writing all this nonsense you could simply go to the cluesforum find my pictures and judge for yourself. But no, it’s always the same. ignore arguments, pretend there aren’t any and repeat yourself. The ISS is a very bright object, easy to spot and it’s not there for long. I first spotted the ISS about 2008. If you quote me, do it correctly. I didn’t write “typical satellite”. It’s your invention. The ISS is IMO an empty satellite build especially to reflect the sunlight. How did it get there? Well I think, satellites are just shot up there like bullets using rocket engines which reach a certain maximal speed at the beginning and then the inertia takes care of the rest. That’s by the way how I learned that in school. There are different MACH numbers which specify what speed an object has to reach to be able to leave the atmosphere, become a satellite or leave the earthly orbit, etc. Not that difficult, is it? I think, they probably put a new version of the ISS every now and then on orbit. And claim to assemble it in space. Also when the new ISS takes a slightly different orbit than the last one, they call it “correction”.
                I asked you, what is space in your opinion. Are you saying, you don’t know, but you know it is not what they tell us? Why is that? No arguments from you here either. For all we know, the atmosphere gets thinner with the altitude. We can observe the atmosphere of the sun during eclipse or on a rainbow, which definitely has a border where it ends. Why not assume the same with our atmosphere? Above this “line”, there is no atmosphere, nothing else, except maybe some lonely molecules. We call this vacuum. Why is that wrong? TV satellite dishes point to the same orbit, not necessary to the same satellite. Where from come the TV signals? You know, the dish must by adjusted very precisely to a certain satellite, or there won’t be any reception. And it works that way since the 80-s. I’ve been watching a french program for a few hours daily back then in the Eastern Germany. Without any towers, or anything else. And the ionosphere can reflect only a very small range of radio waves, which allows only the transmission of a bad quality radio. I have a master degree in electrical engineering by the way and know that stuff. See, not everything we learn in school is wrong. Some of it really works and we can prove that for ourselves. And the lies of TPTB will always be mixed with some sufficient amount of truth. Otherwise nobody will believe them.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.