The flat earth conspiracy

originally posted by: turbonium1
It's such a well-known, long observed phenomenon, that has never been mentioned, by even a single astronomer, over several centuries, and still has never been mentioned, to this very day.....

Why would you claim that it's always been well-known, then?

Too bad the phenomena labeled comet proves your full of crap. And comets and meteorites prove travel about the solar system and planets does occur in nature. So why not rockets?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: turbonium1
It's such a well-known, long observed phenomenon, that has never been mentioned, by even a single astronomer, over several centuries, and still has never been mentioned, to this very day.....

Why would you claim that it's always been well-known, then?

Too bad the phenomena labeled comet proves your full of crap. And comets and meteorites prove travel about the solar system and planets does occur in nature. So why not rockets?

Why do you post my comments and questions, when you never even ADDRESS my posts? You can't be that stupid, can you? I mean, you must be aware of what my post says, when you go and POST it, right? What happens after that? Do you forget what you posted me about, and think it's on something else, like, in this case, about 'comets'?

Is this done so you can convince yourself you've actually ADDRESSED my post, later on? Is this your way to keep spewing about 'comets', with ANY post above it, and hope nobody thinks you're a half-wit, who has no clue that people cite posts from others, in their own posts, because they want to ADDRESS those posts?


If you can't grasp your problem here, there's no chance of having a rational debate/discussion with you, sorry to say. I hope it's just another big brain fart, and you'll rebound from it...

But I'll again address 'comets', since you keep bringing them up, ad nauseum...

When such an object IS observed, they claim they are 'comets', which is yet another lie, to support all their OTHER lies, just as usual. Of course, when you're so blind with belief in your 'Gods of spacey stuff', you'll never even look for proof, to see if what the Gods say is actually true, you automatically BELIEVE it is true, and the Gods have 'proof' it is true, because they would never, ever lie to the mortals, who follow, and trust, their every word as true!

Once again, they use trickery and deception for their 'comets', which is obvious to those who don't worship them as Gods, so I'll explain some of this trickery to you, devoted to a life of blind belief....

'Comets' are simply stars, 'shooting' stars, of which there are various types, various in appearance, movement, altitude, and speed. Most shooting stars are the ones we can see every night in a clear, desert sky. But some of them appear differently, some will move much slower, and at lower altitudes, and these types are much more uncommon than the other shooting stars are, so when they DO appear, it's a rare event.

You've seen a shooting star, not a 'comet', because 'comets', as I've told you, simply do NOT exist. The OBJECT may exist, but it is NOT a 'comet' - that's the main point here. The liars use those shooting stars to support their whole fable, by claiming they are NOT stars, which is a lie, used to support all their lies. So they claim these are 'comets', which come from 'space', but they don't exactly where, only that they are 'far from Earth' before they ever DO show up above Earth!

I'm sure they'll point to something, and claim there's a 'comet' flying around 'space', to sell the fairy tale, but it's just more crap, more fakery, to support the other crap. Of course, if they ever DO point out a 'comet', they'll say it's very, very far from Earth, or it 'likely won't appear near the Earth', because then, they'd be asked WHEN it will appear above Earth.

This is an important part of the trick, where it is claimed that all 'comets' are totally 'unpredictable' in WHEN they will appear above Earth. So they made up a lie about how 'comets' are very 'erratic', in their movements, within 'space', which made them 'unpredictable' to our Gods of astronomy!

All they have to do, is mention there are a few 'comets' which are near Earth, give them all 'names', and say it's 'possible', or 'likely', that one of them will fly above Earth, within a few months, perhaps earlier, perhaps later, perhaps not at all, and if they get lucky, and a shooting star of that type DOES appear, and they always DO appear, eventually, it MUST be 'Hale-Bopp', or 'Neowise', or whatever, because our Gods of all spacey stuff, TOLD us that comet 'Hale-Bopp', or whatever, was 'approaching the Earth', and may appear sometime this month, or the next month, perhaps even THIS WEEK, but if, and when, it does appear, it will be comet 'Hale-Bopp'.

And you cheer about how your Gods 'knew' that this specific 'comet', would likely appear above Earth within the month, and it DID appear above Earth, as they SAID it would! So this must 'prove' comets exist, come here from distant space, and our Gods saw this comet from their glorious telescopes, 'approaching the Earth', and knew it would appear above Earth, or most 'likely' would appear, and they knew it would appear within the next month, or two, and it did! Sure it appeared, when they said it 'likely would' appear, and if it did NOT appear, they also said it might NOT appear, and they're still right, and if it appears 2 months later, they've already made up another comet that 'may' appear within a month or two. And another comet, and another, or the same one as earlier, and another one, and every one of them 'may' appear, but 'might not appear', within the next 2 months or so.

They also say that one of these 'comets', will return to Earth, although it may appear 'different' than before. No s^*&t, they're 'different' than before, they ARE different, and NOT 'comets', and NOT from 'outer space'.

Here's one way to see it's all BS - if they can see all sorts of 'comets' flying around in a distant point within 'space', and where all of them are travelling through 'space', and at what SPEED they are travelling at, then obviously, they would be able to predict the exact DAY, even the exact TIME, all comets would appear above the Earth, and would be visible to us.
Even if we assume that their 'comets' are 'erratic', they could not be constantly 'erratic', because NONE of them have been 'erratic', when we've seen them, above Earth. Claiming they are 'erratic', has not been proven in any way, from all the VALID evidence.

So if these 'comets' are not 'erratic' when they appear above Earth, they wouldn't be 'erratic' the day BEFORE they appear above Earth, either. For sure, not EVERY ONE of them would be 'erratic' the day before they appear, and not 'erratic', when on the day they DO appear, and not for EVERY OTHER DAY they are seen above Earth.

I'm explaining to you that 'comets' are BS, made up to support all their BS. We see them for days at a time, and they are NOT 'erratic' in their movements. This is the ONLY evidence of their movement, because we can SEE it. I don't consider what these liars claim to see, as 'evidence'. We know 'comets' are stable in their movement, all the time, which we have SEEN. This is REAL evidence. Compared to what those liars claim, with NO proof of their claim.

The reality is that 'comets' are shooting stars, and shooting stars ARE unpredictable, as to when they appear above Earth. Same as ALL shooting stars are unpredictable to when they will appear above Earth.

If you understood this is all BS, you'd see right through it, like I do. These are pure fairy tales, nothing more. They 'can't predict' when a 'comet' will appear, or 'may' appear, although one of them is likely to appear within a month, or two, but it might not appear, they don't know for sure, since 'comets' are very 'erratic'! Except when WE see them, they are NOT 'erratic' at all!

Trust your Gods, though, because I'm sure that nothing will ever convince you that they're a bunch of liars, anyway. You are a believer, and nobody will change your beliefs. But it's not a religion, right?


The Gods always cover all the bases - they're always right, no matter what happens. If a 'comet' appears in a month, they said it would. Nobody recalls they said it 'may' appear, or 'may not' appear, because it DID appear, and they SAID it would appear! Or most LIKELY would appear, that's good enough for us!


To review an important point, that proves 'comets' don't exist, as they claim - where did they COME from, before they appeared above Earth? They would have to be seen EARLIER, if they were approaching Earth, from 'outer space', because stars are seen, 'planets' are seen, the moon is 'seen', and they are also supposedly very far away from Earth.

They claim a comet like Hale-Bopp was 120 million miles from Earth, at closest distance away, and 'Neowise' was 64 million miles away, at it's closest distance. If so, they would be seen for

They claim 'comet' Neowise is about 64 million miles from Earth.

It's no higher than clouds in this clip...

www.youtube.com...

Look at how all the stars ARE higher than the clouds, which confirms it.

Even the MOON is higher than clouds, and they claim it's only 240,000 miles away.

So to claim this 'comet' is 64 million miles away, is just more BS, proven beyond a doubt, by this evidence.

You wanted me to address 'comets', so there you go. It's not what you wanted to see, I'm sure, but you asked for it, and now, you can deal with it. The End.

originally posted by: turbonium1
They claim 'comet' Neowise is about 64 million miles from Earth.

It's no higher than clouds in this clip...

www.youtube.com...

Look at how all the stars ARE higher than the clouds, which confirms it.

Even the MOON is higher than clouds, and they claim it's only 240,000 miles away.

So to claim this 'comet' is 64 million miles away, is just more BS, proven beyond a doubt, by this evidence.

You wanted me to address 'comets', so there you go. It's not what you wanted to see, I'm sure, but you asked for it, and now, you can deal with it. The End.

Did you even watch that YouTube clip? Really? Really really? Because if you had then you would have known that a) the comet appears through, not under the clouds, b) that the comet fades from sight once full daylight arrives and c) that's not a meteorite or shooting star, it's there for a long period of time and not a flash of light in the sky that burns up and is gone.
Do you even know anything about astronomy? Because it's obvious that you would fail the most basic Astronomy 101 lesson.
Unless of course you're lying. Hmmmm, I know what my money is on! You're lying in a desperate attempt to bolster the tattered scrap of your argument.
0/10 - must do better.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

'Comets' are simply stars, 'shooting' stars, of which there are various types, various in appearance, movement, altitude, and speed. Most shooting stars are the ones we can see every night in a clear, desert sky. But some of them appear differently, some will move much slower, and at lower altitudes, and these types are much more uncommon than the other shooting stars are, so when they DO appear, it's a rare event.

One.

Your wrong.

Research and conmen senses when seen through a telescope, and comparing the phenomena you labeled “shooting star” to the meteorites that fall to the earth prove you wrong.

Especially in the context comets and meteorites do not create their own light. Do not have the means to create their own light. And are illuminated by the sun. For meteorites, they light up when entering earth’s atmosphere because of friction with the atmosphere.

Now. You did not address the crux of my arguments.

Comets and meteorites come and go. Comets can be destroyed by the sun. Or slam into planets.

Meteorites fall to earth.

So the context that “havens are unchanging, and permanently fixed” is wrong.

Meteorites fall to earth proving there is no water layer above earth.

Comet, or what you want to falsely and wrongly label “shooting stars” travel about the solar system between the planets and pivot about the sun.

Meteorites and comets prove that travel among the solar system does occur. And there is no reason why rockets cannot do the same.

Then the way comets pivot about the sun proves gravity.

Now. The challenge.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You have one year to prove this is something other than a comet.

Newly found Comet Leonard might become 2021’s brightest

earthsky.org...

Exciting news! A newly found comet might become 2021’s brightest comet. Astronomer Greg Leonard discovered the comet that now bears his name – C/2021 A1 (Leonard) – on January 3, 2021 at the Mount Lemmon Observatory in Arizona. Astronomers report that discovery images show a tail for the comet, suggesting we might see a nice tail as Comet Leonard draws closer to the Earth and sun. The comet is still far away, currently between the orbits of Jupiter and Mars, heading inward. It’ll reach perihelion, its closest approach to the sun, around January 3, 2022. And so we’ll have a whole year to watch this comet get brighter, and brighter

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
No-one believes Saturn spins like a wobbling top except you. Again, as you seem to have a problem understanding it: You cannot use someone not discussing something as proof that they are hiding it. You literally have no evidence for your claim. There is no secret, no conspiracy to hide it, it justs does not exist.

Prove they are keeping it a secret.

The fact that they've never, ever mentioned it, even ONCE, through many centuries of observing Saturn, is proof that they've kept it a secret, especially when all of US have now observed it, today, and yet, they have STILL never mentioned it!

No-one mentions it because it doesn't happen. It is a product of the observing conditions, not what is being observed.

As I've told you many times now, this is an OBSERVATION, like a 'twinkling' star is an observation, for example. It has NOTHING to do with what MAKES the star appear to 'twinkle', it is simply an OBSERVATION of the star, which appears to 'twinkle'.

You can say it as many times as you like, it doesn't stop it being BS.

You're always trying to twist it around, into 'nobody believes Saturn is spinning or wobbling, so why would they mention it?' That's BS, I'm referring to this as an OBSERVATION, what is SEEN, and that's why it's called an OBSERVATION.

That's because they don't. Find me someone else who claims it does.

We all know they HAVE observed this, because WE have all observed this, and you cannot dispute that fact.

What we have observed is the influence of atmospheric ocnditions. You have observed precisely nothing. Until you have actually looked at Saturn through a telescope you do not get to use the word "we".

It's always been kept secret from us, and the ONLY reason we KNOW about Saturn's spinning and wobbling movements, is because we have now SEEN it, with cameras advanced enough TO see it, today!

It is not a secret. People not discussing something that doesn't happen is not a secret. It's them not mentioning something that isn't happening.

Saturn's 'apparent' spinning and wobbling, you claim, has never been mentioned because they knew it was only AN EFFECT, causing Saturn to APPEAR to spin and wobble, which would be an OBSERVATION. Yet you cannot even say that, because it would STILL be mentioned, as an OBSERVATION.

They do mention it. You've been given the quotes about it. They mention it in the context of the actual cause of it, not the twisted narrative you are trying to crowbar into it.

They observed it, but never mentioned it, over centuries, to this very day, when WE'VE now seen it, which PROVES they've kept it secret, even NOW, when we HAVE seen it!

If they never mentioned it, how do you know they observed it? I haven't mentioned what I had to eat yesterday. Do you know what I ate?

If it wasn't a secret,

It's not.

why wouldn't any of them have mentioned it over all the centuries, or even today?

Because there's nothing to mention.

It's blatantly obvious to see, that's why everyone sees it, no matter what side of this issue, no matter what the cause(s) suggested, we all see it, and THEY, all those astronomers have obviously seen it, too. Except they've seen it for many, many more years, than everyone else has.

It's blatantly obvious that you are absolutely clueless about astronomy but still somehow think you are an authority on it. You aren't. Get a telescope.

You wouldn't claim they haven't seen it by now, because that would be complete nonsense. They've certainly seen it, but they have never mentioned it. A secret, when someone knows about something, but never mentions it to anyone else, or only to a few, who also keep it secret from all others.

If they never mentioned seeing something, how do you know they saw it?

What makes the observations of every astronomer, who saw Saturn appearing to spin, and wobble, as a long-held secret, which they've always kept from us, is because it reveals a truth, which they've kept from us, all along.

The truth is observable through a telescope. Knowledge and understanding enables you to interpret what you observe. You lack all of these things.

Because they've claimed Saturn is a 'planet', which rotates once, every 10 1/2 hours or so.

It is, recorded, observable fact.

Could THAT be the actual reason, for why they've never mentioned it? Indeed, it is the ONLY reason.

They've mentioned it in proper context. Something you don't understand.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
No-one mentions it because it doesn't happen. It is a product of the observing conditions, not what is being observed.

You're just rephrasing is caused by an effect, but nice try!

You consider Saturn cannot possibly spin and/or wobble at all, believing it's a planet, and takes about 10.4 hours to rotate just ONCE, and each and every 10.4 hours, does one complete rotation.

Because they have told us, since childhood, and ever afterwards, Saturn is a planet, like Earth is a planet, but without any life, as yet indicated, although it's possible, to hold life forms, being it's a 'planet', of course!

After we all believe that Saturn is a planet, that takes over 10 hours to rotate one time, because 'astronomers' have seen, over and over again, such a far away, distant object above Earth, since they say it's so distant, smaller than Earth, and circled around by rings, the only planet with rings, or once believed to be, anyway.

Everything they've told us about Saturn, for centuries, as a planet, with rings, rotating once every 10.4 hours, is based on what 'astronomers' have told us based on their OBSERVATIONS of Saturn, through their massive, powerful telescopes, nobody else had, or saw through, like they could, and did, for centuries.

Nobody could ever afford to buy one, as powerful, while they have never, ever, allowed us to look through their telescopes at any time, either! It's far too delicate, and expensive, to risk any abuse, or damage, by allowing any idiots to use it, or an unknowing public to abuse it, or mess up settings, or so on...

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
It is not a secret. People not discussing something that doesn't happen is not a secret. It's them not mentioning something that isn't happening.

I've told you many times, this is NOT about "something that doesn't happen", or whatever they would believe, or 'know', is causing it, to appear to be spinning and wobbling, or suggesting they may have never even SEEN it, before, and still have never seen it to this very DAY, after we've ALL seen it, clearly, over and over again, proving that claim is utter nonsense.

Observations are what we SEE, at the time. If it's caused by an effect, or not, it isn't relevant to having those observations.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
They do mention it. You've been given the quotes about it. They mention it in the context of the actual cause of it, not the twisted narrative you are trying to crowbar into it.

It is NEVER mentioned. Mentioning it means DESCRIBING it, especially in true, authentic sciences, which does NOT include the field of astronomy, a pseudo-science, at best, picking parts of real science, when possible, to support the main garbage, acting as a cover.

The greatest benefit it has, and uses, is our own imagination, hopes, dreams, thoughts, of space, as endless, unknown, exciting, and fantasies could be true, in endless 'space'. We want to believe it is true, that an endless 'space' exists, beyond Earth. for us to explore, some day.

So they believe stars are trillions of miles away, when told they are. And they believe we'll only see stars as tiny points of light, being so far away from Earth, of course.

When stars are seen close up, they are 'out of focus', not 'tiny points of light', as they WOULD be seen from Earth!


There's no proof that stars are trillions of miles away, of course. The only proof, here, is that they are NOT far above Earth, itself, in fact.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
If they never mentioned it, how do you know they observed it?


If they never mentioned seeing something, how do you know they saw it?

You don't believe they've never SEEN it, do you?

We've all seen it, so they would have seen it, obviously.

Unless you think they're all morons, that is. Not the case, of course.

So they've seen it, just as we've all seen it.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
It is, recorded, observable fact.

Why would you ever believe that?

How would Saturn be observed, by everyone, as a slowly rotating 'planet'?

I have observed Saturn as a rapidly spinning, wobbling object above Earth, every time I've seen videos of it. That is the only valid evidence of Saturn....so far, at least.

Your own eyes have seen it, over and over again. Trust what you see, not what you are TOLD to believe.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
They've mentioned it in proper context.

No, they have NEVER mentioned it, how can they put it 'in proper context', when they've never even mentioned it?

It's not mentioned in 'proper context', because it's never even BEEN mentioned, in the first place!


Again, I'm referring to an actual DESCRIPTION, for their observations, of Saturn. What did they actually SEE? How would they accurately DESCRIBE, exactly what they saw?

It's so obvious, and basic, to describe your observations, of something you see, is it not?

Someone sees a mirage, or rainbow, or anything unusual, they mention it as a unique observation, a memorable sighting, or so forth. Everyone has seen something unusual, unique, remarkable, at some time, and we've always mentioned it to others, afterwards, because it WAS unusual, remarkable, and we mention it, for that reason, alone.

Seeing Saturn spin rapidly, and wobble, all the time, is certainly a unique, remarkable observation, unmatched by ANYTHING we have ever seen before - whether on, or below, or above, our Earth.

Nobody here had ever seen it before recently, without a telescope or high-end camera. We ALL see it now, which is exposed, forever, as a lie.

What happened after WE all saw it? Nobody else even MENTIONED it until I did. And then, others mentioned it, as well.


All those astronomers who have seen it, as we've all seen it now, are supposed to be honest, and truthful, about what they have seen, of Saturn, of Mars, of any object seen above the Earth. That is supposed to be their job, why they're highly paid, why they're respected, in high regard, all over the world.

But they are NOT honest, or truthful, in any way. They are liars, who keep the truth from us, and they STILL try to lie, and keep the truth from us, even now.


What would YOU have done, in their shoes?

You'd never mention it, either. Why? You'd have seen it, as you see it now. But you never mentioned it, until I did. Why not?

You saw it, but never mentioned it at the time. How come? You were ignoring what you saw, because you were afraid of it being real. A truth that would shake up your beliefs.


Consider being in their position, seeing Saturn spin and wobble constantly, but trying to excuse it as an effect of atmosphere, and hopefully, that it might solve the problem.

But when astronomers saw it, and see it, today, like we've seen it, they have NEVER, EVER, spoke of it, described it, recorded it as an observation of Saturn, while we've all seen it today, and millions more will likely see it, eventually.

Astronomy is about HIDING the truth, from us. That is their very purpose, in fact. To pose as our 'experts', of what exists above Earth, by seeing it, and reporting it to the world. And until recently, it had always worked superbly. But not anymore.

a reply to: turbonium1

The challenge.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You have one year to prove this is something other than a comet.

Newly found Comet Leonard might become 2021’s brightest

earthsky.org...

Exciting news! A newly found comet might become 2021’s brightest comet. Astronomer Greg Leonard discovered the comet that now bears his name – C/2021 A1 (Leonard) – on January 3, 2021 at the Mount Lemmon Observatory in Arizona. Astronomers report that discovery images show a tail for the comet, suggesting we might see a nice tail as Comet Leonard draws closer to the Earth and sun. The comet is still far away, currently between the orbits of Jupiter and Mars, heading inward. It’ll reach perihelion, its closest approach to the sun, around January 3, 2022. And so we’ll have a whole year to watch this comet get brighter, and brighter

————

Your caught like a rat in a trap...

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

What we have observed is the influence of atmospheric ocnditions.

The truth is observable through a telescope. Knowledge and understanding enables you to interpret what you observe. You lack all of these things.

Observing Saturn spin and wobble, or appear to spin and wobble from an effect of atmosphere, describes what they would all have observed. There is no excuse for their keeping it secret since day one - there is only ONE reason they would keep it secret, obviously.

If they thought is was caused by an effect, it'd be described, what caused it, or possibly caused it, and would be recorded in documents, as usual. That makes sense, if they had nothing to hide, or weren't concerned about documenting it, as usual.


You suggest thousands of astronomers, might have never SEEN it, after we've all seen it many times, but centuries of observations, made by thousands of astronomers, to this very day, have never seen it! Even YOU don't believe this nonsense, it's such a joke.

No, your angle is that they've mentioned it within 'proper context', whatever that's supposed to mean.

This is an observation, what they saw, or observed, while looking at Saturn. That's the whole PURPOSE of an observation, to describe what is actually being OBSERVED.

If YOU observed Saturn appearing to spin and wobble constantly, that is what you've observed, so why wouldn't you document every detail, as an OBSERVATION? You observed it, and record what you observed, in documents, as usual.

Claiming they did not keep it secret, is proven wrong, from all the evidence it WAS a secret, and still IS (in vain) being kept a 'secret'. They have seen it, and would CERTAINLY mention, and document it, and describe it, as an observation, if it was NOT a secret. Nobody has ever mentioned it, so they've kept it a secret. Not telling us about it, which they would have mentioned, unless it's all a lie, where all the truth is being hidden from us, and this truth had to be hidden away, and kept secret.



Are you suggesting that this observation, was not worth mentioning at all? Sure, we've seen Saturn appear to spin and wobble like a top, constantly, but it's no big deal, it's seen all the time, on Earth, with objects appearing to spin and wobble, from an effect of our atmosphere!

Everyone knows about that, it's nothing new!


Excuse after excuse - so why would you need to make up all sorts of excuses, for a 'real' story?

originally posted by: neutronflux
You have one year to prove this is something other than a comet.

When you've never proven comets exist as claimed, it is your problem.... not mine.

Nothing proves your claim, so don't keep trying to twist it around on me, because it won't work.

Get over it.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
You have one year to prove this is something other than a comet.

When you've never proven comets exist as claimed, it is your problem.... not mine.

Nothing proves your claim, so don't keep trying to twist it around on me, because it won't work.

Get over it.

Now comets don’t exist? On of the most recorded astronomical events recorded throughout history. One of the most studied items in our solar system. People in this thread, including myself, have witnessed various comets with our own eyes.

What are you going to do when C/2021 A1 (Leonard) comet becomes visible to the naked eye?

Sad you have to deny actual astronomical events to make your flat earth lie work. Sad you cannot give an alternate explanation while an actual astronomical event unfolds literally before our eyes.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Observing Saturn spin and wobble, or appear to spin and wobble from an effect of atmosphere, describes what they would all have observed. There is no excuse for their keeping it secret since day one - there is only ONE reason they would keep it secret, obviously.

There is no secret. Saturn's appearance is affected by atmospheric conditiuons. Astronomers have observed this ever since telescopes were invented.

If they thought is was caused by an effect, it'd be described, what caused it, or possibly caused it, and would be recorded in documents, as usual. That makes sense, if they had nothing to hide, or weren't concerned about documenting it, as usual.

It is recorded in documents, you've been given them. They were understandably far more interested in the observable feaatures of Saturn rather than the thing making that observation more difficult.

You suggest thousands of astronomers, might have never SEEN it,

Where did I say that? Show me my exact words.

after we've all seen it many times,

"We"? Who the #### is this "we"? You have only ever seen pictures of telescopes, or Saturn and you don't underand those. You have not one single direct observation of it.

but centuries of observations, made by thousands of astronomers, to this very day, have never seen it! Even YOU don't believe this nonsense, it's such a joke.

Never said that, in fact I've said precisely the opposite. What I have said is that your interpretation of other people's observaations is absolute garbage. You have yet to provide me any evidence to the contrary.

No, your angle is that they've mentioned it within 'proper context', whatever that's supposed to mean.

It's not difficult. A child would understand the importance of context. The context is: atmospheric interference.

This is an observation, what they saw, or observed, while looking at Saturn. That's the whole PURPOSE of an observation, to describe what is actually being OBSERVED.

The whole purpose is observing Saturn. Atmospheric interference is repeatedly reported as being an issue with that process.

If YOU observed Saturn appearing to spin and wobble constantly, that is what you've observed, so why wouldn't you document every detail, as an OBSERVATION? You observed it, and record what you observed, in documents, as usual.

I have done. Through my own telescope. I was able to understand what was causing what I was seeing. You never have, so you're not qualified to comment.

Claiming they did not keep it secret, is proven wrong, from all the evidence it WAS a secret, and still IS (in vain) being kept a 'secret'. They have seen it, and would CERTAINLY mention, and document it, and describe it, as an observation, if it was NOT a secret. Nobody has ever mentioned it, so they've kept it a secret. Not telling us about it, which they would have mentioned, unless it's all a lie, where all the truth is being hidden from us, and this truth had to be hidden away, and kept secret.

It is not a secret, because Saturn doesn't do what you claim it does. No-one who understand the subject thinks it does.

Are you suggesting that this observation, was not worth mentioning at all?

Atmospheric conditions are always mentioned. The fact that they don't say what you want them to say is no-one's problem but yours.

Sure, we've seen Saturn appear to spin and wobble like a top, constantly, but it's no big deal, it's seen all the time, on Earth, with objects appearing to spin and wobble, from an effect of our atmosphere!

Until you have made direct telescopic observations of Saturn you do not get to use the term "we". It is seen all the time, atmpsheric conditions influence how things are seen. If you ever went outside you'd know that.

Everyone knows about that, it's nothing new!

Everyone except you.

Excuse after excuse - so why would you need to make up all sorts of excuses, for a 'real' story?

You can keep this stupidity going as long as you like. You can cherrypick the responses to your idiocy and conveniently ignore the parts that utterly demolish your nonsense all you want. All you're doing is making yourself look like a complete idiot with an extremely tenuous grip on reality.

When you have bought yourself a telescope you are qualified to comment on what you can see through them.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: turbonium1
Observing Saturn spin and wobble, or appear to spin and wobble from an effect of atmosphere, describes what they would all have observed. There is no excuse for their keeping it secret since day one - there is only ONE reason they would keep it secret, obviously.

There is no secret. Saturn's appearance is affected by atmospheric conditiuons. Astronomers have observed this ever since telescopes were invented.

Oh, please tell me what they said Saturn 'appeared like', during these atmospheric conditions? What do you believe they've specifically "OBSERVED" about Saturn, for centuries, and today?

Perhaps you still believe an 'observation' of Saturn is 'atmospheric conditions caused visibility issues for observations of Saturn, once again' covers everything they DID observe of Saturn, right?

Observations of Saturn, during 'atmospheric conditions', would simply be accounted for, playing a part, of what they have OBSERVED of Saturn, you bozo!

'Our actual OBSERVATIONS of Saturn, within those conditions, were that Saturn, and its rings, appeared to spin rapidly, while its rings appeared to wobble up and down about the orb.'

That is what I mean by their actual OBSERVATIONS of Saturn.... not that you don't know that already.

You want to interpret what they said, into 'meaning' the same thing, by not saying it. 'Atmospheric conditions' covers everything they observed, and what they did observe, they never said, but it is not a secret, because it's covered within 'atmospheric conditions'! Atmospheric conditions have been known for centuries, it's not a secret, and nobody said they were a secret. The secret is their OBSERVATIONS of Saturn, at the time.

They claim they observed Saturn within 'atmospheric conditions', but it is NOT what they OBSERVED of Saturn, WITHIN those conditions, right? What is so hard to grasp about that? A moron would get it by this point, so what you're doing is making up lame excuses for it, knowing it wasn't said, knowing it is a secret, while you'll never, ever admit it.

I prefer the truth, it's so much easier than contortions and twists, just to end up failing, and to try it all, again and again...Ouch!

a reply to: turbonium1

Please stop lying and twisting quotes. No-one takes you the least bit seriously on this site, but it's still regarded as being beneath contempt to lie as much as you do.

a reply to: turbonium1

I have given you copious links and documents.

Read them.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

The whole purpose is observing Saturn.

Correct. What they observe of Saturn IS the whole purpose. And to DOCUMENT what they observed of Saturn, must be done, in order for them to ACHIEVE that purpose, right?

But they did NOT document what they observed of Saturn, which defeats the whole purpose of it, right?

Observations of countless objects have been done, within MANY different conditions, would you agree?

I'm sure there are many examples online, as well. Many reports on observations of something, within certain conditions, have been done, right?

What would be found in those reports, are their OBSERVATIONS of something, within those conditions. For example, a lighthouse beacon was observed to be very blurry, within those conditions. The mountaintop was only partially clear, within those conditions.

They don't say 'we observed the lighthouse beacon within atmospheric conditions', and leave out what they SAW of the lighthouse, and beacon, within those conditions! They already KNOW what the lighthouse beacon looks like, normally, but they are making THIS, specific observation, of the beacon, let's say, to see if it is dimmer than it should be. So their OBSERVATIONS were 'The beacon was very blurry when we observed it, so we were unable to determine if it was dimmer than normal, due to those conditions, which effected the view of the beacon.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Atmospheric interference is repeatedly reported as being an issue with that process.

'That process' ? Good one.

What you really mean is...

'Atmospheric interference is repeatedly reported as being an issue' DURING THEIR OBSERVATIONS OF SATURN!

Did you know what they OBSERVED of Saturn? What did it look like? Did it appear to spin and wobble? Who knows, they never mentioned what they saw of Saturn, even though they DID see Saturn! Are we supposed to GUESS at what they observed of Saturn? No, this isn't a guessing game, is it? It is not up to YOU, claiming what they observed of Saturn was not considered to be an observation of Saturn.

Hey, what did Mt. Rushmore look like?

It was raining at the time I saw it, so that means I didn't see it.

Did you see their heads at all?

Yes, but they were not perfectly clear to see, so that means I didn't see anything of Mt. Rushmore



This is fun, shall I go further with it, or have I made my point yet? I could show you examples of what observations look like on reports, within certain conditions, if you'd like...

a reply to: turbonium1

You have a serious sickness. You take one footnote that is a well documented cause of distortion when viewing objects through earth’s atmosphere. That earth’s atmosphere does cause distortion when trying to view objects like planets by telescope from earths surface.

Why do you think there was a concerted effort to place the larger and new telescopes high as possible in the atmosphere by using mountains? Where the air is thinner. Then the obvious choice to put the Hubble space telescope in orbit.

Talk about you throwing the baby out with the bath water. You take one obvious and well known effect like atmospheric distortion, and you lie. And lie. And lie again.

You play right into the devils hands. Isn’t lying a sin?

Anyway. Your list to prove your full of crap..

The blast from the Tsar nuclear bomb resulted in seismic waves and atmospheric pressure waves that circled the earth three times.

Distance to the sun measured by parallax

The way comets pivot around the sun.
Solar and lunar eclipses.
Comets pulled into the sun or Jupiter.

Over the horizon radar
Skywaves
Why shortwave has greater broadcast areas than ground FM
Why increasing antenna hight increases broadcast area
The sun sets over the horizon
The seasons
Why certain constellations are only seen from specific hemispheres
Retrograde travel of planets in the sky
Equatorial mounts for telescopes
Why Mars is closer to the earth at times then farther away
Visible man made objects orbiting the earth that were not there in the sky 100 years ago
Satellite TV
You can actually sail around the world
Airplane flight paths in the Southern Hemisphere
Eratosthenes of Cyrene measures circumstance of the earth around 249 BC
Earth's Curvature and Battleship Gunnery
Phases of Venus
Third party verification of Sputnik
Third party verification of moon missions
Third party / amateur verification of satellites in the hundreds. If not thousands
Star parallax
Earth based photos of the International Space Station.
Map projection
Great Circle paths
Long bridges and tunnels need to take in account the earth is curved.
Geodetic Survey.
Bouguer anomaly/survey


Sorry. Flat earth model is a blatant lie.

a reply to: turbonium1

The glory of the fishbowl world that you box your god into. Dictating your god’s abilities.


The glory and existence that I marvel at by my creator as I marvel at the universe as extensive as my God.



Which one is the lie? :

originally posted by: neutronflux
You take one obvious and well known effect like atmospheric distortion, and you lie. And lie. And lie again.

Close, but the liar is on your side. The guy who thinks because there are atmospheric effects, he can lie about magical effects of the atmosphere, which cause Saturn to appear to spin like a top for all eternity, and causes thousands of different magical effects on each and every star, with unique movements, patterns, details, and colors on each one, while every one is DIFFERENT. Plus, it's caused by an 'out of focus' camera, because he thinks everyone who has filmed stars, does not focus properly. Of course, who would ever know how to focus a camera but someone who needs to lie about something, because it IS in focus, and shreds his entire fairy tale with one blow?


If you think those aren't lies, you need help.