Hello, world. Christian Truther here
again, and this is my second part of a
multi-part video series on examining the
shape of the world. Is it round, is it flat?
We're looking at the geocentric versus
heliocentric debate and we're looking at
it for objective truth. Truth that is
true regardless of what we think about
it.
And we want to hold on to that objective
truth. Now, if this is the first video you're
catching of mine, I highly recommend
going back and watching the first
because I go over why I'm even doing
this and I also tackled a completely
different subject matter. So, highly
recommend it. All of my videos are gonna be about 10 minutes long, and, as always,
there's no glitz, no glamour,
technological wizardry or scripts. I'm
not doing any of that because I don't
think that my argument needs the help. I
just want to be able to present what I
have discovered
and what I've reasoned out and what I've
experimented out on my own. And now, as
always, there are some ground rules. I
hope you can read them; I'm not gonna
read them out loud. The first two are
gonna be my promise to you and the
bottom two are going to be what I hold
you accountable to, especially in the
comments section. But just stick with me
for a little while, because it's gonna be a
pretty short trip. But this video is
gonna be dedicated to satellites versus
wandering stars. What are the lights that
we see in the sky, and we can see lights in the
sky unaided. We're going to take each
argument, we're gonna aim the biggest
guns we can at each argument, we'll see
which tower falls. OK, so, let's start
out with the accepted model.  The accepted model is the heliocentric one that says these
lights were not ever described by the
ancients. We can't find anything in the
ancient literature, even amongst cultures
that were very interested in stars, like
the Greeks. The closest you can get to
is comets, but it doesn't really work
out to be the same thing. You know
comets look very different than, even
to the unaided eye, than what these
lights we're seeing moving around are. So,
the fact that they weren't described
before would be evidence that this is
indeed satellites that we're placing up
in orbit. Now, this is not exactly
complete concrete evidence,
but it is a persuasive argument. But
let's take a look at the other side from
the Flat Earth model. Of course,
satellites are a real problem. So what
they say they are is there is a
wandering stars up there. We don't know
exactly what they are, but they cannot be
satellites because the space agencies
like NASA claim they're placing
satellites in what's known as the
thermosphere. Especially the most
famous satellite, probably, which is the
International Space Station. The Hubble
could be, but I'm gonna go with the
International Space Agency, it's, the
International Space Station (ISS), as the
most popular satellite placed up there. I
didn't take a poll, but I think it
probably is. And they placed that in the
thermosphere, and the thermosphere's stated temperatures of 4000 degrees fahrenheit are
well above the melting point of most of
the materials that NASA claims to have
used in the construction of the
International Space Station. So, therefore,
it makes no sense that this structure
would be up there. It's all a big lie. And
this is a very good argument against the
International Space Station and similar
satellites place in that region of space.
So, beyond just saying, you know, the
world's flat and has a dome roof and
therefore we can't put satellites up
there (which is not really an argument,
it's an argument that only stands upon
itself), this is a very convincing
argument on why the NASA explanation
doesn't make sense.
So, does NASA have a rejoinder? Well, we
better hope they do if they want to stay
in this fight because otherwise this
video is over. Well, they kind of do, so
let's take a look at that International
Space Station, because, not only is it the
probably the most popular, it's easily
the biggest, and it's got a very
discernable shape to it. So, what do we
see in our night sky, or sometimes during
the daytime? Well, here is someone who
took a picture of something going across
the Sun. It's got a very discernable
shape, and you know what? They've got a
really good camera rig. They've got an
excellent solar filter and it's a very
clear shot of the International Space
Station. I probably couldn't duplicate
that as of right now. I would definitely
need to get a solar filter for starters
before I even attempt such a thing. But
here's a night shot that I probably
could duplicate. Here's it transiting in
front of the moon, and again, it's got
that very discernable shape to it. So
something is clearly up there, and it
matches
NASA's description of the object. I say I
could probably get this because I've
taken this shot of the moon.
No ISS in front of it, but roughly the
same magnification level, and I could
probably get it with the camera
equipment I have currently. So, maybe I'll
try that sometime, but I do need to know
when it's transiting and make sure that
I can be supposedly in line from it to
the moon. So, there is something up there
and it does have a very recognizable
shape. But what is it really? Well, NASA,
let's start off with the beginning of the
International Space Station program.
I remember this argument back in the 90s
when Skylab was our major quote-unquote
laboratory in space and we were gonna be
decommissioning it. And we were gonna be
working with other countries to create a
space station that they could go aboard.
And: should we do this, and there's a
whole lot of money, and couldn't we just
resurrect, you know, Skylab some more, you
know, give it... Well, all these things
didn't matter because in the late 1990s
they started claiming to send up the
parts for an International Space Station,
and, lo and behold, the structure started
to take shape in our night sky. A structure
we had not seen before, one that NASA
predicted in advance would be there. One
that took the shape that NASA predicted  it would take and one that was not
described by any of the ancients. And
again this is not straight-up evidence
but it is very convincing that, one, they
knew what was going to be there before
it was there, and two, they predicted
exactly when we would start seeing them.
We started seeing it at that point and
it changed shape as modules were added
and we were able to even detect that
with with a good zoom lens as the
structures starting to take shape. So,
certainly NASA knows what it is.
NASA absolutely knows what it is, whether
or not they're lying about it, about
them putting it up there or not. They
absolutely do know what it is and knew
about it in advance so again this is
more evidence, but it is not concrete
proof. They need to get past this
thermosphere argument. So, the
thermosphere is indeed about four
thousand degrees, and that would melt
down most the materials if you put them
in a furnace of that temperature. But
NASA argues the thermosphere is very
sparsely populated by any particles of
the atmosphere, that it is, the atmosphere
thins out in that region, and it's close
to a vacuum. Not perfect, but it's very
close to a vacuum, and furthermore,
they chose the components that they used,
to prevent them from going to molten slag,
that they would give off energy in the
form of infrared heat. OK, that's all
the infrared light spectrum is, is heat,
and they would give off that energy once
they reached an equilibrium, that was
that equal temperature equilibrium was
well below their melting point. OK, well,
does this make sense? Can we think of
anything... first of all, there are three
types of methods of transferring heat.
One is conduction, which is how we're
saying the International Space Station
would be bombarded by high-energy, high
heat particles in excess of 4,000
degrees, and the energy from those
particles would conduct to the space
station itself. If you ever touched a hot
surface and your finger got warm, that's
what happened was conduction.
There's convection, which is when you can
take a gaseous or liquid substance, and
it's got cold areas and hot areas, and
you swirl it together;
which, by the way, cold is not really a
scientific term, we, we have areas of
higher and lower relative heats; but, just
to use the common vernacular, you swirl
it around like a bathtub water where you
had, mostly it was filled with cold water,
and you turned on the hot tap, and then
you swirled it around and it became a
more uniform, higher temperature body. And
then we've got radiation, which sounds
scary, but isn't really all that scary.
That's what light is, light radiates away
from the source, and that is another way
that energy is transferred. And this, by
the way, is how NASA is saying this works,
but it's doing in the infrared. Well, does
that make sense? And the answer is: Yes.
Because, we can come up with in our minds
a substance that is constantly getting
energy added to it in a near vacuum, and
radiates light.
It's the incandescent light bulb. All
right, and they're saying that's the
exact same thing that's happening over
here. Tungsten is continually getting
energy, but it doesn't melt down because
it's radiating its energy away in the
form of light, well, they're saying the
same thing is happening with the
International Space Station, only in the
form of infrared light. So, the
thermosphere is not all that scary,
according to NASA, because it's very
sparsely populated by these high-energy,
high heat particles, and so the
International Space Station isn't being
raised up to temperature too fast for it
to reach an equilibrium well below the
station's melting down point, where it's
radiating energy away in the infrared. So,
the light bulb is the answer. it's a
solution, and it's one that makes sense.
NASA's answered all the problems with
the station being able to exist in the
thermosphere in a manner that makes
sense. Now, this is again not concrete
evidence that satellites are absolutely
what they say they are, but they
certainly do know what they are because
they predicted them in advance, and they
have an explanation for them to continue
to be there. So, we'll take a look more at
satellites next time. I'll only do one
more segment on them, but we will take
another look at satellites, but for right
now, the the balance seems to be tipping
towards the round earth model. We'll
continue next time.
Christian Truther, signing out.
