Put a flat earthier into space



🤪


Their opinions are SO similar that you think it HAS to be him, but then sometimes Sceptimatic seems so much more literate than Nukey.

I wonder if he's had a head injury at some point since 2013 when he was posting more regularly on the Flat Earth Society forum. Or maybe he's just pissed all the time nowadays. Or dementia is setting in or something.

Just my musings, but they all make sense.
 
I have, regularly and can verify that at different times of the year Jupiter and (and other planets) can look bigger and brighter.
This is one I have handy from my archives:
Logon or register to see this image


An interesting point there is that you can barely see the big red spot, you will notice it is just on the top right of the image, rather than being mid-lower left as it is in traditional images. There are two reasons for this. The first is that my telescope imaging rig flips the image upside down (due to the way optics work and is not worth going into). The second is that this storm gives the exact appearance of rotating around the planet.

So if you are going down the route of dismiss everything unless you have seen it yourself, I have seen this myself and observed in detail. If this is being projected then there must be some kind of animated source in the middle of the planet with an identical image that is being projected up and somehow remains in a pretty good focus. Bearing in mind this was a £300 scope and £100 camera so very low budget imaging. It raises the question of what is this thing in the earth that looks exactly like what the rest of us know as Jupiter and how does it project it upwards?

Done
It does raise that question but it also raises the question of how a supposed gas giant can offer what's shown, exactly all of the time.
It also still offers the conundrum of hydrogen and helium which apparently makes up just about all of the so-called gas giant, showing colour, and of course why it should spin and stay exactly as people see it.

And so-called moons spinning around a gas giant. Why and how?

So, back to my answer.
What's seen in the sky is what's going on around the internal of Earth which comes right back to what's known as a planetarium projection only on a bigger scale and using central energy (sun) as the projector.
To believe it, you'll have to look yourself.
Believe what?
That it's a gas giant with its own moons?

I believe there's something up there. I believe there are many things up there but they're naturally projected, as in so-called planets and stars.
As for what we're told they are, as in, planets and stars in a space vacuum, I don't believe a word of it for obvious reasons.
Come on @Nukehasslefan explain how the humble BBC can predict this and get it absolutely spot on?

Predict what?
I'm not arguing against something being there. I'm arguing as to what it really is.
I don't deny projections.
 
Last edited:
So, back to my answer.
What's seen in the sky is what's going on around the internal of Earth which comes right back to what's known as a planetarium projection only on a bigger scale and using central energy (sun) as the projector.
Brilliant! I knew we'd get back to the planetarium sooner or later.
It's still utterly impossible.
I don't deny projections.
Well that's a start, projectors and projections exist, yours doesn't though for several reasons.

To even begin to reproduce what can be seen and verified in the sky your projector would have to be dead centre inside a perfect sphere. There could be no deviation from centre and the sphere could not deviate in any way from absolutely perfectly spherical.

The projector would need constant direct line of sight access to all parts of the sphere at all times, no shade casting objects, flat or globular between it and the sphere.

It would have to create the impression of the stars circling Earth with no change in their relative positions. One half of the sphere would be in sunlight at all times with the lit portion also circling the Earth but at a different speed.

Next it would need the ability to convincingly project what appeared to be further spheres circling the Sun, many with still more. smaller spheres circling those, visible to telescopes, verifiably spherical, shadows included.

Your projector theory fails at ever point. Some are just absolutely impossible while others are beyond unlikely.

Once you have ignored/dismissed/failed to address all those points ask yourself this... If the daylight is from the Sun, and the Sun is just a reflection on that non-existent dome... Why isn't the Sun always in the very centre of the fully lit half of the Earth?
 
It does raise that question but it also raises the question of how a supposed gas giant can offer what's shown, exactly all of the time.
It also still offers the conundrum of hydrogen and helium which apparently makes up just about all of the so-called gas giant, showing colour, and of course why it should spin and stay exactly as people see it.

And so-called moons spinning around a gas giant. Why and how?

So, back to my answer.
What's seen in the sky is what's going on around the internal of Earth which comes right back to what's known as a planetarium projection only on a bigger scale and using central energy (sun) as the projector.

Believe what?
That it's a gas giant with its own moons?

I believe there's something up there. I believe there are many things up there but they're naturally projected, as in so-called planets and stars.
As for what we're told they are, as in, planets and stars in a space vacuum, I don't believe a word of it for obvious reasons.

Predict what?
I'm not arguing against something being there. I'm arguing as to what it really is.
I don't deny projections.
Can you mark the uk on that drawing I did.
Maybe Japan too just so we get a rough idea of your layout and distances.
Use the one including your "dome foundation" if you prefer
 
Their opinions are SO similar that you think it HAS to be him, but then sometimes Sceptimatic seems so much more literate than Nukey.

I wonder if he's had a head injury at some point since 2013 when he was posting more regularly on the Flat Earth Society forum. Or maybe he's just pissed all the time nowadays. Or dementia is setting in or something.

Just my musings, but they all make sense.


No doubt it's him, yet it appears none of the other users of that forum agree with him either. Flicking through random pages of his posts you see mentions of atmospheric stacking, denpressure. Even the same diagrams shared on here and there.
Wonder where else on the internet he spends his time getting told he's wrong all the time
 
Brilliant! I knew we'd get back to the planetarium sooner or later.
It's still utterly impossible.
Of course, it's impossible for you. You believe you spin on a globe in space so I honestly don't expect you to think anything other than that and I do not expect you to take any notice of what I say.
I fond the global shenanigans impossible so I get where you're coming from.
Well that's a start, projectors and projections exist, yours doesn't though for several reasons.

To even begin to reproduce what can be seen and verified in the sky your projector would have to be dead centre inside a perfect sphere. There could be no deviation from centre and the sphere could not deviate in any way from absolutely perfectly spherical.
I'm not sure how you arrive at that.
The projector would need constant direct line of sight access to all parts of the sphere at all times, no shade casting objects, flat or globular between it and the sphere.
I'm still not getting why you say it.
Can you elaborate?
It would have to create the impression of the stars circling Earth with no change in their relative positions. One half of the sphere would be in sunlight at all times with the lit portion also circling the Earth but at a different speed.
It's a big Earth and you see whatever you see as those points of light and projections circulate and whatnot.
As for a different speed. What do you mean?

Next it would need the ability to convincingly project what appeared to be further spheres circling the Sun, many with still more. smaller spheres circling those, visible to telescopes, verifiably spherical, shadows included.
Have you ever taken a picture of Jupiter without its red spot?

Your projector theory fails at ever point. Some are just absolutely impossible while others are beyond unlikely.
I don't think it fails at all. I think it offers massive potential for what we see in that sky.
Once you have ignored/dismissed/failed to address all those points ask yourself this... If the daylight is from the Sun, and the Sun is just a reflection on that non-existent dome... Why isn't the Sun always in the very centre of the fully lit half of the Earth?
Why would the reflection need to be in the centre?
The sun itself would be in the centre of Earth as the physical energy but the reflection would vary as it went over and around the Earth.
 
Why would the reflection need to be in the centre?
The sun itself would be in the centre of Earth as the physical energy but the reflection would vary as it went over and around the Earth.
Because if you shine a light from a central point into a concave mirror it won't behave in the same way that you think it does.

How can the sun which is reflected from a carbon arc in the centre illuminate Australia, South Africa and Argentina at the same time, whilst also illuminating the UK, but having Russia/China and USA/Canada in darkness?

This reflection is almost anchor shaped
 
How does all this malarkey fit inside a dome @Nukehasslefan ?

Or is it just more NASA lies?

If so, it seems to be an insanely elaborate cover up.

I mean they even went to the trouble of providing a live stream of the event.

NASA's DART mission successfully slams into an asteroid

 
Can you mark the uk on that drawing I did.
Maybe Japan too just so we get a rough idea of your layout and distances.
Use the one including your "dome foundation" if you prefer
Throw up your drawing.
You asked for a photo and now say "believe what?"
You're deflecting before you even know what to deflect.
I simply asked for a photo.
Because if you shine a light from a central point into a concave mirror it won't behave in the same way that you think it does.
I still don't get where you're going.
How can the sun which is reflected from a carbon arc in the centre illuminate Australia, South Africa and Argentina at the same time, whilst also illuminating the UK, but having Russia/China and USA/Canada in darkness?
Landmass position around the circle.
This reflection is almost anchor shaped
Explain.
Something isn't impossible just because you believe in an opposing idea.
And something isn't necessarily possible just because you believe in it.
How does all this malarkey fit inside a dome @Nukehasslefan ?

Or is it just more NASA lies?

If so, it seems to be an insanely elaborate cover up.

I mean they even went to the trouble of providing a live stream of the event.

NASA's DART mission successfully slams into an asteroid

If you believe all that stuff then you are welcome to it.
They'll be offering us another armageddon film next.
 
Last edited:
Of course, it's impossible for you. You believe you spin on a globe in space so I honestly don't expect you to think anything other than that and I do not expect you to take any notice of what I say.
I fond the global shenanigans impossible so I get where you're coming from.
It's impossible NOT because of anything I believe. It's impossible for the verifiable reasons listed.
I'm not sure how you arrive at that.
I know. That's why you continue to think your projector is possible.
I'm still not getting why you say it.
Can you elaborate?
Does the Sun appear to pass over and around us at the same speed as the stars ?
It's a big Earth and you see whatever you see as those points of light and projections circulate and whatnot.
As for a different speed. What do you mean?
As above. Does everything that appears to move over and around Earth appear to move at the same speed? It's not difficult, the answer is no.
Have you ever taken a picture of Jupiter without its red spot?
Not relevant.
I don't think it fails at all. I think it offers massive potential for what we see in that sky.
Because you don't understand what you're seeing in the sky as you have clearly shown a few lines back up there.
Why would the reflection need to be in the centre?
The sun itself would be in the centre of Earth as the physical energy but the reflection would vary as it went over and around the Earth.
Why would the sunlit portion of sky not surround it symmetrically?

I know you don’t understand but your theory needs to address and satisfactorily explain all of these things before it can be considered anything more than idiotic. But we all know you're not even going to try.
 

Back
Top