I wonder...
(media.conspiracies.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (13)
sorted by:
But I sent you an actual experiment. Do you have to be there to prove it?
There is oxygen in the atmosphere, it freezes before it even reaches the supposed temperatures of supposed space... What is there to theorize?
Alright, I agree that history is a lie, but speculations must be based on several proofs to hold water. If speculations are based on more speculations then it doesn't hold water.
I just tried to discuss the topic with you because I had that same idea, but I was able to disprove it for a better one, than actually does hold water. Of course, it does require open-mindedness to allow a different idea instead of your own speculations, as you called them.
I do agree that we should seek more proofs and come up with a conclusion that satisfies many already established proofs.
If you continue to dig the topic, you will reach the actual answer.
Sorry, I don't doubt the ozone behaves as observed. I just have to be at the wall to prove there is a wall. There's no other way. Formulate a theory, design a study and test it. No matter what you do, you can't prove there is a wall unless you observe it.
They have shot bombs (not nuke because nukes are fake) at the barrier. The barrier is probably something frozen. Silica, O2, could make an insanely powerful and efficient conductor at low temperature.
There are samples of deep blue ice that has falled from the "sky" I don't know if they are real.
Space isn't a place one can travel. maybe it's not a vacuum. The stars have to move around this plane incredibly fast. And they maintain their exact structure. The whole of space and stars must have a very small mass or it would take tons of energy to move all that mass so quickly. I don't know what the stuff is between the stars, but I'm not going to accept that it's matterless vacuum or void. Not when the stars behave like inclusions in a diamond. Most of them don't move, but some ("planets") do. And then you have those things that fly in straight lines above us, that people are told are satellites. Any ideas? Because it's impossible that they are orbiting since there is no such thing as planets or space
So, you're saying that can't be proven?
The sun is a local heat source. Proof: Winter.
Oxygen in super cold temperatures gets to solid ice. Meaning - A wall.
How many suns do you see? 1? 1000? There is a limit to the heat from the sun, and beyond there is clearly a wall of ice. That's very simple logic.
You don't have to watch something to prove it. Have you seen your own brain? But you somehow know it's there... Right?
Because you're a human, and you've seen some humans having a brain inside their head. Therefore, you INFER that you also have a brain.
Yeah, I know this, but decided to focus on the explosions, not a new potential debate. But since you know nukes don't exist, that saves me time.
Either way, they tried to use huge blasts to break the dome. They were not successful.
You expect silicon to raise as a gas in the upper atmosphere?
You opened yourself to me with your theory, but if we're just going to start a discussion about every element, without realizing the impossibility of that element existing in the upper atmosphere, then wouldn't that be a waste of time?
Surprisingy, I know what you mean. The same unconfirmed post I have read and couldn't find more on the topic. So, in our discussion, this brings nothing concrete to the table.
You're not a stupid person. And you clearly like to speak facts. I know this much so far about you. That's why you ended your statement with "I don't know if they are real". So, let's keep it factual and based on 2 or more sources for verification.
Instead of theories, I can promise you that you can use the knowledge you already have and prove where we are definitively.
In ancient Egypt, these "planets" were called "wandering stars"... Because they don't follow the matrix of starts above us. They follow their own path. However, they still follow a specific path.
Do you want to be included in a little test?
The test is the following:
I give you the tools to notice something...
If you manage to notice this thing about the wandering stars, then you have gained knowledge.
If you don't manage to notice something, I will show it to you, and perhaps then you will see that the truth was infront of your eyes all along...
Are you up for a challenge?
Use this site, which correctly points to the location of the wandering stars + sun + moon. https://www.theplanetstoday.com/geocentric_orrery.html (PLEASE KEEP IN MIND: This site offers two options - heliocentric and geocentric. I must've sent you the geocentric view, because there you will notice it. (Earth in the middle). If the sun is in the middle, then the test wouldn't show anything. So please make sure that the Earth is in the center: The options are on the left.)
Once the Earth is in the center, you can make the wandering stars move at the speed that you want. (This can ONLY be done properly in the Desktop version, not the Mobile version. The option is BOTTOM RIGHT below the map. Make sure you're in DESKTOP VERSION).
UPPER RIGHT, there is an arrow that opens a menu. Don't care about the rest of the options, just the top one. You can see a little circle and bigger circle on a scale. IF YOU MOVE THE BIGGER circle, the planets move faster. If you move the smaller circle, the planets move slower. My choice would to move the big circle between the CENTER and the END of the line. There, you can SPOT something.
And I will give you a hint: Notice the movement of the sun IN RELATION to the movement of the wandering stars. Another hint: What does "retrograde" mean in astrophysics?
These are the rules of the game. Can you do it?
Quick recap:
Earth in center.
Desktop version.
Open the menu so you can move the stars around.
Notice the movement in relation to the Sun.
If you have questions to better understand the challenge, you can ask everything.
But if you give a wrong answer, or give up on providing one -> Then I have to show you something that was in front of your eyes. And If I succeed - I win. If you notice it before that - you win.
Regardless, you will learn something new about these "wandering stars"... Something that nobody ever told you...
Sun is could be cold. And it could use excitation to heat particles, proof, low elevations are hotter than high elevations, where molar density of air "thicker" below sea level, but "thinner" at high elevations.
If the sun gave off heat, then being closer to it should make it hotter, but we don't observe that. Actually, getting very high, like 35000 feet, and it's -40. Obviously excitation is playing a factor.
Winter only happens when the sun is far away. But the elevation thing always holds true.
You logic is flawed. Just because o2 can freeze doesn't mean there is a wall. A wall could be made of frozen O2, but that's a theory, not a proof.
Also, saline, not sure how it typed silica. Frozen, super saturated salt water is what I meant. Like we have seen in the very deep oceans, lakes of ultra dense salt water that the drone subs could not dive down into.
I think a similar concept occurs in space, dome, or whatever you want to call it. Not silica. Sorry for typo.
The patterns made by the wandering stars are beautiful, and correlate to frequency. That's why I think they are plasma slipping through dense media. Retrograde is the idiotic excuse for why wandering stars don't actually have an orbit that makes sense according to the heliocentric model reverse engineered by the fag masons. Best definition I can give.
I'm on mobile now, I'll check it out. My theory based on your description is that it shows the sun is not an object but a reflection point, changing location based on your optical angle, ie, your location.
Gave up on the discussion, huh?
I can't blame you... I have done this also...
Wait, sure I can blame you. Just like I blame my previous faults. That's why I don't quit a discussion...
I thought the knowledge of what a "retrograde planet" really means will make you investigate. You sure you don't want to know this? Just say the word and I will tell you.
Too bad when people don't work for their knowledge... They think it will just fall in their feet, while they haven't done anything for it... Think about it - you're one of 99% of people, who thinks that they have all the needed information... yet, 99% of people are idiots... It's impossible to be correct without defending your point. And you gave up the debate...
If you really think about it, why would true knowledge fall in your feet? If you're scared from a debate, then perhaps you shouldn't have that knowledge, wouldn't you agree?
Do you not account for wind? Because wind cools things down. And greater winds are found in higher elevation. Because mountains don't block them.
I would usually go with wind before I say the big fireball in the sky is "cold".
What?
The sun is the highest at 3:00 PM (15:00 o'clock). It's how time zones are measured. And that's the hottest time in every zone.
Notice, please. That's the sun DIRECTLY ABOVE US.
Now, you talk about -40 (I don't understand fahrenheit, but either way it should be positive). Explanation:
Do you see the sun at an angle? Is it directly above you in the winter? Or very far away, making a shorter day?
If the sun is above you, and it's -40... then we might not be on the same Earth. But on my Earth, if the sun is directly above you - it's hot as hell. And if it's very far away from you, at an angle, it's very cold. That's normal (because the shortest distance is the.... )
Now I am confused... Did I mistook some of the US measurements previously?
Now, you jump to this? xd What is going on? Keep a straight line of dialog please.
Also, "my logic" is clearly not flawed because I didn't made those scientists create frozen oxygen just to mess with you... No, no... It's a real experiment, and you can disbelieve it all you want. Now, your disbelief would be a theory.
I have a proof, which I already provided.
It's fine tho. You're not the first one to miss the 2-3 min video of actual proof I send them and talk incorrectly because they didn't see it...
Right, the salt water, that is beneath the air... Am I narrowing down what you're talking about?
The salt water... that is... BENEATH... THE AIR...
//I'm sorry... I'm trying to be patient with you, but somehow my inner school kid is screaming internally "REALLY?!?"// I am trying to control it as much as possible...
That's your quote:
It's ok, don't mind the typo... The problem comes from the idea that in normal human conditions, you have already saline.
Why would the same saline form in abnormal inhuman conditions? Waaaaaaaaaaaaay above where it is normally forming? That doesn't make sense... It's like saying that you have fingers within your heart because you end up with fingers on your limbs... I cannot process that reasoning...
It's like eating an apply, where you convince yourself that the seeds are on the outside because they are also on the inside... Do you see my reasoning?
Oh, the wandering stars... I forgot about this one.
Oh, you'll love this one. I'm sure. You can disagree with everything else, but once you see it, you cannot unsee it.
Well, I would've given you the answer right now, but you also wrote:
So, I can't give you the answer if you're not trying the test properly...
That's one of my best cards in this debate... I honestly want you to know it because it's undeniable. But try out the site, it's really simply... Very few things to modify... But you can see it, if you follow the instructions. Or just let me explain it. Either way, you will have the same knowledge as I do...
Bottom line - nobody would ever debate you on the topic of "What Retrograde means" ever again.
Wow, I tend to ramble a lot into meaningless text and this makes the comment too long...
Also, I am coming back from a long replying to hateful comments on other platforms, and you'd understand how this feels, so if I vent feelings that makes me look like an ass, just consider me as an ass. But take the arguments and consider them without the venting, if you can.
I would appreciate that because I truly mean well, although I don't express it in the best way all the time.
I would be happy to ready your reply soon! :)