Thanks for this insight. I have long suspected that all this etherial gobbly gook we see in right wing conspiracy circles is shills intentionally derailing any effort to organize people. I just can't believe that this many people actually believe all this bullshit.

144 kHz is literally in the low frequency (LF) band.

LOL. The only appropriate response to these Tartaria types. I keep my eye on what comes out of the flat earth corners and I've been seeing this thing growing recently. The whole phenomenon is basically a somewhat right wing version of new age hippie shit.

controlled opposition

The link is literally to podcasts.apple.com lmao. If you have not been kicked off of providers like Apple, you are not saying anything too controversial. Thus far, the only semi-normie company that seems to be somewhat permissive is Rumble. Other than that, you need to go to the darker corners of the net for anything interesting.

Who's on top?

The fact that he is even asking this question explains why he is still on Apple. The answer is "jews." Anyone still unironically asking this question in late 2026, let alone not even answering it and appealing to "nonhuman entities" and "multi headed hydra" can just be assumed to be controlled oppo attempting to mislead.

Thanks for these. I will be away for a few days, but I'll come back to this at some point. I would like to go through Something Happened on the Way to the Moon, and I am also interested in this Italian guy too who I never heard of until now.

To let you know, while I am not a moon hoaxer, I do rate that one as "conceivable." By this I mean that within the parameters of "normal earth / space / physics / space tech (i.e. satellites, etc.)," if only the moon landings were faked, then this does not require an impossibly large amount to be accommodated. In reality, it is all but impossible to ever prove that the moon landing happened in 1969, as it was now almost 50 years ago and any loose end could have been tied up long ago.

I would rank moon hoax as the most believable, followed by all space programs being a hoax (it is possible, after all, that they faked the manned trip to the moon but not all the other missions), followed by non conventional cosmologies. The non conventional cosmologies, especially flat earth, require an enormous amount to be accommodated, not the least of which is why our GPS seems to work with accuracy to within a few feet everywhere we travel. How this could be done while lying about the map and with no one ever figuring out the real map is definitely beyond me.

So I am just saying that I will argue much harder against a flat earth or some other system with a firmament dome than I will against Apollo being faked, although I am not convinced of the hoax theories.

For what its worth, I watched your linked queued up to the shot of earth out the window on Apollo 11. I don't understand how this shows that they are in LEO, and I never have understood these claims about shots out the windows. This is what the earth supposedly looks like from LEO, and to gauge the field of view in that photo, the Soyuz MS-22 you see docked is about 9 feet in diameter and almost 24 feet in height. It looks to me like the width of the solar panels is about the same as the height of the pod. At any rate that photo does not look to be very zoomed in, and we see no more than 30 degrees or so of earth curve.

So it is not clear to me that earth is the wrong size in the window. On the moon, earth should be 4 times the linear dimension that the full moon is on earth, so a bit over half way to the moon earth should be maybe 7x full moon size. While the documentary is moving fast and I did not stop and really analyze the image, what I saw in the window when the light goes on seems closer to that than to what we see out of ISS. We can see the window frame and the astronaut, which kind of sets a scale for the shot.

I would prefer to just watch the entire video of the astronauts rather than a few clips with that dramatic music droning on as that woman talks.

I apologize if you thought I was patronizing you. It's just that you kept saying I was not answering your question and I was unable to. Not only had I provided an answer, but the Wikipedia article you linked to me about outer space contained an identical statement.

I don't mean to laugh but this is common behavior I see from people with alternative views on the shape of the earth and character of space. If you disagree with mainstream science then fine, but the mainstream answer just is what it is.

I am at work but I'll keep this link and check it out when I have some time.

LMAO. Every "alternate cosmology" person always ends up being exactly the same. As I said, I don't mind what people believe, so believe what you want. I will point out, though, that if you had read the entire article you linked in your third question, you would have seen exactly what I have been saying to you (please take the time to read this and think about what the words mean before responding):

The temperature of outer space is measured in terms of the kinetic activity of the gas, as it is on Earth. The radiation of outer space has a different temperature than the kinetic temperature of the gas, meaning that the gas and radiation are not in thermodynamic equilibrium. All of the observable universe is filled with photons that were created during the Big Bang, which is known as the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). (There is quite likely a correspondingly large number of neutrinos called the cosmic neutrino background.) The current black body temperature of the background radiation is about 2.7 K (−270 °C; −455 °F). The gas temperatures in outer space can vary widely. For example, the temperature in the Boomerang Nebula is 1 K (−272 °C; −458 °F), while the solar corona reaches temperatures of 1,200,000–2,600,000 K (2,200,000–4,700,000 °F).

Like I said, I am not making anything up. You are welcome to not accept this and substitute your own beliefs, I was just telling you what the conventional science answer is. But your idea is relying on "the temperature of space" being 2.7 K. That is not your own figure, it is the "conventional science" figure. Your understanding of what it means to say "space is 2.7 K" is not quite right, and I was just letting you know. If you want to tell yourself that I am avoiding the question because I don't have a factual answer, then that is fine.

This is not a hard question.

Agreed. The answer is quoted right here. The temperature is dependent upon what you are near. Where the earth is, due to the proximity to the sun the ambient radiation temperature is about 140 degrees F, unless you are in the earth's shadow, where it can be a couple hundred degrees less than that. The temperature of the rarefied gases can be all over the place. Just look at the thermosphere to see how extreme it can be. It may seem like I am dodging the question, but this is the right answer.

I'm not trying to avoid anything. You referred to the common "temperature of space" that is often seen quoted. This is the background temperature of deep space, and is really the equivalent blackbody temperature of the electromagnetic radiation profile in space far from any other objects. Obviously if you are 200 miles above the earth (or even 1000 miles or whatever) in the sunshine, it is not 2.7 K there. You will measure a much higher value since there is sun blazing on you worse than would be at the equator. On the night side of the earth, the temperature drops rapidly due to the cold background temperature of space you referred to.

I am not sure why this would be confusing, but I am not making it up or avoiding anything. This is the conventional view of space in the vicinity of earth. At the radius of earth's orbit (i.e. ~ 93 million miles), a reasonable estimate of the temperature will likely be around that day side figure, i.e. ~60 Celsius which is about 140 Fahrenheit (a value that makes sense since maximum temperatures on earth are about 120 F and the atmosphere provides some shielding down here).

As you can see, it is hard to imagine a wall of oxygen ice in space near earth unless it is in earth's shadow. Even then, I am not sure how such a wall could hold up its own weight.

Nothing would make me happier than if we really were "getting the band back together." I would join the band from here in a America. Sadly, I do not have too much confidence in these "right wing" parties in Europe, just like I don't in America.

I am not an astronomer. I'm an engineer, but I do have a general interest in space because I like physics and all that. I'll assume your questions are in good faith and try to provide answers.

1. I am not a chemist and don't work with ozone, but the conventional science claims about ozone, how it is produced, and the so called "layer" where it has a significant concentration in the stratosphere are well known. I have no reason to doubt those claims, but would look into anything someone offered that was disputing them. Otherwise, as far as I know, ozone (O3) exists, can be made from ordinary oxygen (O2), and there is a layer with a lot of it in the stratosphere.

2. I am not familiar with the oxygen phase diagram, but I took thermodynamics as a part of engineering school so I am aware of the fact that pretty much everything can exist as a solid, liquid, and gas (and even plasma), although the conditions may be extreme. The video you linked shows that the triple point of O2 is around 54.4 K and 0.0015 bar. Further, you can get some data on solid oxygen at Wiki. I have no reason to doubt these numbers, but would not vouch for them.

3. The "temperature of space" is dependent upon where you are. The temperature you are quoting is the background temperature that would be expected far from anything. Near the earth, there is tremendous variation from the day side to the night side. The day side sees sun no different than we would see in the tropics, but even stronger since there is no atmospheric filtration. The night side can get closer to the background temperature of space, but still substantially higher because the warm earth radiates up at you. If you move far enough away from the earth that this is negligible, then the notion of "the night side" goes away because the earth gets smaller and smaller the farther away you get. For example, a full solar eclipse is what "the night side" of the moon looks like from earth, if that makes sense.

I don't want to attribute something to you that you are not saying, but it kind of sounds like you are asking a firmament sort of question. I am not sure if this "wall of oxygen ice" you are referring to is supposed to be a dome over a flat earth or a bubble surrounding a spherical earth. In either case, it seems rather doubtful to me. This question need not even apply to oxygen. That just makes it seems more mysterious (and therefore plausible). But your question could just be in regards to ordinary water ice, since water will be frozen at the background temperature of space. So in that case, why is there no wall of water ice in the sky?

We all know why, of course. Ice is too heavy and not strong enough hold itself up like this. Igloos are limited in size, and such a wall needs to hold together during the sunshine on the day side of the earth which will warm and soften it. Using the density quoted at the Wikipedia article I linked, oxygen ice is also too dense to form such a giant sky wall, although it does seem to be less dense than water ice.

If you are asking about a firmament, it does not bother me if people believe these things but I'll tell you that it is not too difficult to understand how the atmosphere remains attached to the earth and does not just evacuate into space.

I saw this post Friday and was going to respond and decided not to because I am pretty sure that no one here wants to hear about real astronomy and physics and whatever. But since you said something, I gotta say that, no if you read the Wikipedia link you posted, Polaris is in the tail end of The Little Dipper / Ursa Minor. And yes, in fact the Big Dipper does revolve around the pole as in the meme posted, almost like it is drawing out a swastika (if you only look at 90 degree increments).

That said, the original post is not correct and I cannot really believe that the historical swastika symbol has much to do with the Polaris and Ursa Major. This is because, notwithstanding all the flat earth / space is fake conspiracies, Polaris is not permanently the earth's pole star. It is not really even aligned today, currently being more than 3/4 of a degree away from the north pole (this is 1.5 times the size of the full moon). Even 2000 years ago (let alone "millions") the star we call Polaris was pretty far from the pole. Ancient Greek writings indicate that the pole was relatively devoid of stars. Even 1000 years ago it was not aligned, and it was not until the Renaissance that the star got the name "Stella Polaris" even though it was still more than 3 degrees from the pole at the time.

The alignment of Polaris with the north pole will continue to improve until the middle of the next century, at which point it will start moving away. All of this can be found in the Wikipedia article you linked and its generic Pole Star article as well. I am only pointing this out because one thing I notice in these sorts of debates is that generally both sides say incorrect things, which is why the "shape of the earth" debate continues despite there being literally zero room for science to be wrong about this question.

I personally do find nature to be very beautiful and existence and reality to be amazing, but I never understand why people attach so much significance to some of these things. I have been consuming a lot of material in that generic "shape of the earth" type area of the internet, and while some are just biblical literalists, there is a faction that are almost like the right wing version of new age / hippie types.

Agreed. I know my takes can be unpopular here. It isn't that I don't believe in conspiracies, it's just that I tend to accept the simplest explanation.

It is possible we are on the verge of "jobs apocalypse" or even "break containment and kill all humans." It is possible that these AI barons really are just concerned about the welfare of humanity. But a much simpler explanation is just ordinary grifting.

I guess we'll know in a few more years. In 2022, Sam Altman said we were probably within 1000 days to AGI or something like that. The three years have passed. The results are... mixed. AI has certainly advanced, but nowhere near what was predicted 3 years ago. It'll be 2030 before you all know it (there are conspiracy theories about the time acceleration too, as has been posted here, but I tend to think we are all just getting older!).

You don't want to read 30k pages of cabal secrets?

I appreciate the effort, but incognito is not a way to hide yourself lol. It is just to keep some of your usual data (i.e cookies) from being used and to automatically delete the browsing history. Incognito is literally the same IP address.

Not to be that guy, but Antarctica is just coming out of winter. The coming equinox next week will be the first day of Spring there. The article says Antarctica is registering unusually low temperatures and the Arctic just had the coldest summer on record.

Remember guys, the Arctic is in the north like you so it has the same seasons as you. The Antarctic is in the south so it has the opposite seasons.

All this still provides great evidence against the climate catastrophe hoax for those people who believe anyone has ever gone to Antarctica.

That's an interesting way to view it. I generally just thought of all of this as people falling into the "everything is a conspiracy" mindset, with the added complication that the governments of the world definitely have an interest in discrediting the "truth seeking" people. So basically there are absurd conspiracies that get promoted and then people who tend to view everything as a conspiracy believe them. The mother of all of these is flat earth, which seems to trace back over a century with Samuel Rowbotham.

But yeah, there is probably a human aspect to this too that a conspiracy is a convenient way to dismiss something scary.

There was a video circulating on the internet a while ago of some guy who was supposedly a scientist on the Manhattan project saying that nuclear radiation is less harmful than the authorities let on. I am not sure if this is true or not. I guess it would be interesting if it is, but I sort of don't care, because radiation does cause cancer and whatever. It may just be that it occurs at lower rates than we are told.

So I distinguish between that sort of conspiracy, that nukes are actually less harmful in a long term fashion (fallout, etc.) than we are told, with the ones that say they either don't exist at all or work vastly differently (i.e. the explosions are smaller). The "nukes aren't real" ones generally come from the same places that have claimed to have "falsified the radius" (of the earth). They have not, so I won't be taking their advice about the safety of nuclear radiation.

TIL nuclear bombs were announced in 1986.

These conspiracies are never consistent. They aren't even supported by anything. The link is a BBC documentary about Oppenheimer's later life promoting nuclear nonproliferation (unsuccessfully). How this is evidence that nukes are fake is not specified.

To be honest, it is theoretically possible that the power plants are real while the bomsbs are fake. But it seems kind of silly if this were the case, because then we are saying NPPs exist but no one ever used the technology to build a bomb. On the other hand, if NPPs are fake too, then that is one elaborate conspiracy. NPPs are not everywhere, but they are a lot more places and involve a lot more people than the bombs. At least people can say "well how many people have actually seen a nuclear bomb?" and be sort of right.

There is a somewhat more believable conspiracy that nuclear radiation is less harmful than promoted by the official sources of info. I have no real opinion on that because I have no first hand knowledge.

There is no way nuclear science is fake and I won't even hear it. Only FE tier people believe that sort of thing. So, given that, the energy numbers can be assumed correct. The only real question is whether we can harness it for various devices.

a racist white supremacist who according to his secretary wanted to be 'the Hitler of the United States'

Well who can argue with that information? No seriously, how is that even something that can be falsified? It is a subjective statement followed by an unprovable claim of hearsay, assuming the secretary even said that at all.

But, um, do we usually pay attention to mainstream articles that use the "trigger words" that Paplov dog lefties respond to, like "racist white supremacist"?

There is something a bit bigger here too. There are two kinds of "Nazi conspiracy theories." One is that "the Nazis were controlled opposition, a psyop to lead the world into the war and eventually the New World Order." The other is that "the 'Nazis' were right" ('Nazi' is a bit of a jewish slur). The second one is correct. The first one is itself a psyop.

I am very suspicious of anything alluding to some wider conspiracy of the Third Reich Germans being double agents, especially if it comes from something like Haaretz. And in this case, they are not even saying that. The guy is American. He was not "a racist white supremacist" he just had the normal opinions of that time (i.e. logical opinions).