I'm not sure where that is,
You don’t remember when you asked for evidence that the moon was not a giant rock floating perpetually in the sky? I can link you to that comment, but you ought to be able to find it as it is towards the beginning of this comment thread.
I'm asking what your findings have led you to believe as the most plausible reality
I work very hard not to believe anything when it comes to knowledge! The evidence that has led me to considering the speculation i mentioned was already given (same place as mentioned above)
Has anything, to your knowledge, been verified?
According to professor foster, yes. As has the evidence that (possibly/ostensibly) supports the speculation that i mentioned originally.
So, is there any other projection that can reflect radio waves that you know existing today?
Yes. You might not understand what you are asking or the answers i’ve already given. By exciting/affecting the matter that is already present (by projection of any other means), you can affect the reflection of radio waves by that matter.
I'm not looking for speculation on if it could happen
But that is what we are discussing - speculation. I made that very clear several times.
Is there any known observed instance of it actually happening at this point in time?
Yes. But “reflection” by interference isn’t truly reflection.
If you’ve ever seen the dotlike shimmer of a laser pointer “spread” you have seen projected light interfere and effectively redirect light.
It's a little unclear what you mean here.
I mean the evidence that you originally requested.
Have you not thought about this yourself?
Casually. I would say, i have mused upon it - but it is merely speculation.
What does it mean that it is a reflection "of sorts"? Is it reflecting image back, like a mirror? Or something else?
All of the above. The (admittedly wild) ideas i have encountered often include a “black sun” or other radiation source we can’t see in the visible spectrum.
Sometimes this is depicted/imagined to be beneath us and radiating through the earth to create an “xray” (for lack of a better term) of the world in excited gas in the sky. Usually a dome is included in these views to concentrate that supposed radiation. I think there are also speculations involving a more straightforward reflection.
This was your word, so I'm using it in the way you intended.
So am i! My usage did not preclude other, perhaps less conventional, meanings for the word projection.
Would that result in a visual projection though?
It could. It all depends on if that redirected light reaches the eye or not ;)
As for using radio waves to excite air molecules and cause them to radiate to create projections there are several companies with working commercial prototypes i’m aware of. The idea isn’t that far out there.
What data is available that leads to the conclusion that the moon is a plasma phenomenon
The data i mentioned originally.
What would keep that "drawing" so consistent each day?
Good question! Any ideas?
It could be related to the sun in some way (likely another and related plasma phenomenon in our air) or perhaps the/an energy source responsible for it.
As for its consistent appearance - one of the more intriguing speculations is that it is a reflection (of sorts) of the world itself. In any case, as i said at the outset - having an explanation is merely mythology - validating that explanation is what really matters.
Is there any other projection that can reflect radio waves
It depends on what you mean by projection. Typically, we speak of the projection of visible light (itself a radio wave). Can you reflect a radio wave with another radio wave? Not to my knowledge, but you can redirect it through interference.
When you project matter, or project energy that excites/reorganizes existing matter - yes.
I don't know
A fine answer. So you don’t think it’s a giant rock circling us in the sky?
What makes you believe that
Nothing! I work very hard to excise belief from where it doesn’t belong (like knowledge). Belief is the enemy of knowledge and objective study of any kind (it’s called bias).
As i said, it is more consistent with the available data - which makes it more conceivable - which is very different than correct.
that it's a projection, or some other entity?
It could be another entity, certainly. And strictly speaking, my speculation and that of “a projection” are not inherently incompatible. However, a typical projection requires something to project upon (that will reflect back to the observer) and this particular “projection” can reflect radio waves.
Whatever that entity is, it must be very low density (or have some other method of staying aloft).
How about yourself? What do you think it is?
That's okay! I don't wish to speculate on alternatives.
Alas, that is all we have. As i said, when we recognize that the things we were taught as fact and science were actually mythology/speculation under its guise - all we are left with is a void. Filling that void once again with more speculation (explanation, in your parlance) is all well and good, but without validation it is just more mythology.
What is your current understanding of what the moon is, in reality?
My speculative suspicion is that the moon is a plasma phenomenon “drawn” in the rarefied air far above us. It is consistent with the outliers/contradictory evidence i originally gave to you - though is far from proven/certain.
Speculating on alternatives is fun, but validation is what really matters!
It definitely does look like that I was taught something contradictory, because what you were taught does not appear to be what I was taught, based on how you're describing it.
As i said, it is the phrasing you take issue with. It is highly unlikely you were taught anything else but the standard view of virtually all “education” available. The moon is a giant rock which perpetually falls towards/around the world in what we are taught as “orbit”.
You can't just make up your own phrasing and claim it's the same lesson, because it isn't.
You can rephrase things and have the rephrasing convey the same meaning. I recognize that the phrasing is logically offensive, but that doesn’t make it inconsistent with what you were taught.
You haven't shared that with me yet.
I don’t think that is correct (either you asking this question, me not providing an answer - or both), but as i said - speculative alternatives are irrelevant. The moon is not and cannot be a rock which floats and never falls - it would be a violation of the law of gravity and many others. This does suggest other alternatives for what it may be, but it does not automatically fill the void of the current nonsense mythology identified and excised as such.
We both know that what i was taught is not consistent with reality, so there's no use discussing it further. The current goal is establishing what reality is
I was not aware you felt that way. What makes you conclude that what you were taught about the moon is not consistent with reality?
As for the latter, I agree - but rushing from one mythology to another out of desperation is a mistake (and a trap). There is no shame in, and in fact it is the first step of all knowledge, accepting and admitting that you do not know.
I don’t know why you say “our.”
Because “education” (conditioning by rote from childhood under its guise) is largely standardized. It is highly unlikely you were taught anything contradictory about the moon than i was - as interesting/fun as that would (and perhaps should!) be!
This isn’t what I was taught either.
Of course it is! You just don’t like the phrasing because it makes plain how stupid it is.
If you truly weren’t taught that the moon is orbiting (i.e. perpetually falling towards/around) the earth, then i’d be interested in hearing what you were taught!
Have you weighed the various possibilities in your mind?
To a certain extent, yes. Though weighing possibilities / speculating is not a good way to study/establish reality. It is, however, somewhat useful to discard ideas that are patently inconsistent with reality - such as that the moon is a giant rock that floats in the sky and never falls.
The primary one isn't evidence, it's just a thought
Thoughts (reasonings) are evidence all the time! In any case, it wasn’t just a thought, it was also a scientific law (the law of gravity) which is entirely demonstrable. Rocks cannot stay aloft perpetually in the sky, and it is an unscientific and ridiculous idea that is only thought acceptable now due to conditioning by rote under the guise of education, from childhood.
my education did not include the explanation that the moon could be a giant rock which floats above us perpetually.
Lol, true - i tease. Our education informed that it perpetually falls without falling - even more stupid then what i said!
I am talking of reasonings that reflect reality, that either come from hard evidence or some sort of confirmed repeated observation
I’m all for that!
If there is no explanation that you have on what the moon is, then there is no way to verify if you're even correct in your theories.
I require no alternative explanation to criticize/refute current ones. That’s silly!
But the moon is something.
Agreed!
Do you just not have any explanation to what the moon is and you're comfortable with that?
It is preferable to indulging mythology and belief (fiction). The beginning of all knowledge is “i don’t know”. I used to believe it was a rock which floated in the sky and never fell - but have put such stupid and unscientific mythology behind me. Alas, that doesn’t automatically reveal the true nature of the moon, but it does open up other possibilities that are scientifically consistent.
Space station videos are often (or always) fake
True.
but the Earth is round
This doesn’t follow from the first statement; they have nothing to do with one another. It is a large, and encouraged, mistake to think one proves/disproves the other. “Space” footage is fake, the world is still whatever shape it is - regardless of that fraud.
So what are they hiding
They are “hiding” a tax embezzlement scheme. Vast quantities of taxpayer money goes in, nothing of value to them comes out. Even if “outer space” did exist, and they were actually going there - this statement would still be objectively correct.
Originally it was a scam concocted as a way to continue building icbm’s when the citizens didn’t support that, as well as circus to distract from chronically unaddressed and widespread socioeconomic inequity.
They wanted a fair wage and health benefits. They were replaced with younger, less uppity, slaves.
Yeah, that evidence isn't really that convincing.
The primary one inarguably is, but not to someone such as yourself steeped in belief. Without those beliefs (learned through conditioning by rote from a very young age) the idea that the moon is, or could be, a giant rock which floats above us perpetually is profoundly stupid and inconsistent with reality (and the law of gravity etc.)
However, the current narrative at least has explanations to questions asked
It is very easy to contrive explanations. That’s the origin of all mythology! What matters is not having explanations, but validating they are correct! Also, lacking an alternative explanation obviously doesn’t prove that a given explanation is correct - as it appears you are assuming.
and you don't seem to have an answer for that
My answer is freely available, but as i said - having or not having a contrived explanation is pretty meaningless.
It seems odd that you are confident in the assertion of what the moon cannot be without having done any research on alternative explanations
Not really (though that obviously isn’t the case in this instance anyway). Refuting/criticizing something does not require a replacement for it - that’s silly!
I enjoyed it, and would be interested to know what axo thinks about it in regards to general accuracy of the retelling.
It’s like they just make this stuff up because they no one can ever verify the claims...
Sure, but evidence is not the “slam dunk” it is often misrepresented as.
The primary evidence is that the idea that a large rock could float in the skies perpetually is stupid, and a violation of many scientific laws - most notably the law of gravity (which is thousands of years old, not merely hundreds).
Another evidence is the astronomical observations of stars seen through the darkened portion of the moon over the years. Lunar transient phenomena are also an evidence that something is fundamentally amiss about our modern conceptions (mythology actually) of the moon.
The monochromatic color scheme of the moon is also another evidence, as well as its relatively uniform luminescence - which is inconsistent with a spherical reflector of any kind.
You may be intrigued by the statements, from a man claiming to be a scientist, by the name of professor foster recorded by the australian broadcasting company prior to the supposed moon landings - providing yet more anecdotal evidence - though sadly he does not go into the specifics of the methodologies employed to make his scientific determinations.
You may also want to ask this over on NNN.
Generally it’s just media propaganda, but also - it goes like this.
Beginning : No significant portion of the population is vaccinated, therefore most people with severe illness in hospital are not vaccinated.
Middle : A significant percentage has now been vaccinated and we see an increase in vaccinated people in hospitals.
End : Either due to complications caused by the “vax” (really, experimental gene therapy forced on an uninformed populous through coercion) or by vaccinating 50%+ of the population (especially the population which was most at risk for severe illness - who were also pushed so much harder to be “vaxxed” wether they liked it or not) suddenly the majority of people with severe illness also testing positive for covid (VERY different than covid being the cause of their hospitalization- massive games were played for media propaganda and hospital profiteering purposes) are vaxxed (as we saw in virtually every country) - voilla.
By the “end” stage above, the propaganda campaign to force “vax” was largely not necessary any more and they simply stopped reporting daily/weekly metrics and/or advertising them widely through mass media as they had been.
They are saying we never landed on the moon to promote their flat Earth psyop.
Although you are right that the flat earth psyop does propagate the “space is fake and gay” trope, the moon is not a giant rock that perpetually floats above our heads and never falls - anymore than it is made of cheese... that’s stupid! It can’t be landed upon even if you could reach it.
Long before there was a popularized flat earth psyop there were large amounts of people who concluded (and advertised their views) that the moon landing was a hoax. Some polls in england, again - prior to the flat earth psyop, found that it was over 50% of the population that held those views.
The timeline doesn’t support your assessment.
They don't want us to know that aliens exist on the dark side of the moon (the Greys).
So why not just show the light side? Oh wait, that’s exactly what they (supposedly) did! Do you think these things through?
Also, the grey that we know and love was first created in the early 90’s. It is a product of fiction, and it only “exists” because we watch tv :( “Aliens” prior to the 90’s were not depicted that way.
to lower our vibe down
I really don’t like it when the crystal grippers wax on about “vibes” and “frequency”.
Frequency has a meaning. If you believe that some frequency is being beamed down upon us that is affecting us, you should be doing everything in your power to measure, establish, and ultimately block those frequencies. The reason the crystal grippers don’t do that is because it’s all bullshit metaphor for their “feelings”.
Or a unicorn! Or a smurf!
A rose by any other name would still prick you with its thorns :)
It’s a metaphor for heartless, coldblooded, murderous humans - not actual reptiles.
i too struggled with the “reptilian” lore, until i figured it out.
Ickes made it up to discuss a group of people he was legally forbidden to name explicitly. Conpro can help you understand better.
It’s an insult and a metaphor.
i had, and shared, this idea early on over on NNN.
Even if it weren’t true, spreading this “rumor” behind the scenes to select “authorities” of various nations (under nda / threat of “national security violation” of course!) would rationalize/ostensibly justify a lot of the insane actions/policies taken.
There are other possibilities too, such as covid could be entirely fabricated coupled with isolated/localized incidents of lung damage and death caused by chemical agents or otherwise, etc.
Do you have tinnitus now mr ferret?
Sir, the ferrets won’t answer my questions - we’re going to need more funding.
Interesting, thanks for posting!
I am glad we can agree on the astronots, if for differing reasons.
In my view the nasa grift is primarily for embezzlement and secondarily about circumventing public/political will so as to continue to build rockets for mass murder.
The moon is not a giant rock in the sky that never falls. Even if you could reach it, it cannot be landed upon.
I am curious to know what reasons you think such fake footage was created and what purpose the astronots serve - as i am reasonably sure they differ (if only slightly) from mine (above).
Judging from all the downvotes, poe’s law is a bitch eh?
the only uncensored conspiracy theory on the internet
Flat earth (the subject) is not a conspiracy at all. It is falsely portrayed as one by the flat earth psyop to suppress and discredit it (just like the majority of the other things labeled “conspiracy theories”, and the purpose of that terminology).
so you know its real
The subject is real and valuable to study, which is why it is suppressed.
Anyway, you determine if things are real / have merit by thoroughly validating them - not by assuming they are or are not “censored”. As it happens, flat earth (the subject) is heavily suppressed; and although that does suggest that it is valuable (to warrant the suppression) it doesn’t prove it in and of itself.
The same evidence that i originally gave you. Sorry for the confusion.
It is a speculation that is consistent with the outliers i mentioned.
There are researchers attempting to track it down. However, what we do have is professor fosters statements confirming that the validation was performed, as recorded by the abc (australian broadcasting company). Let me know if you can’t find it.
Probably one of the easiest/commonest places would be in a microwave.
Another common example would be doppler/weather radar. As you project energy (effectively heat) into the air you alter its ability to reflect the radio waves. It is a common/known phenomenon.