Himawari-8
« on: October 08, 2015, 12:40:03 PM »
Hello, for the record, I am pro-FE. I am very concerned by the following:

I commented thus: Hi, just wondering:

1. The satellite must be speeding around the Earth at the SAME speed that the Earth is rotating in order to keep the same facing position.
2. The satellite must be doing 1. AND following the path of the Earth as IT rotates around the Sun.
3. The satellite must be keeping pace with the Sun as IT moves through it's galactic path. This must take some pretty smart calculations and flight path maneuvering.
4. Would the Sun at a rough distance of 93 million miles cause a shiny spot on the Earth as seen in this footage?
5. I thought that the earth was supposed to be an OBLATE SPHEROID......I can't see that particular shape in this footage.
6. Why can no stars be seen even when the Earth is in full shadow? Can anyone help me with these issues? Please help! .....

I received this answer:
1. Sort of, it's moving at 7000 mph which at 22000 mile altitude means it keeps pace with the rotation of the Earth.
3. The gravity of the Sun actually makes next to no difference to the satellite. The moon has more effect and that is still very small and only requires small alterations to the orbit.
4. Yep, that is the sun reflecting off the water.
5. It is, but the difference is very small and won't be visible in images this small. The diameter of the earth is only 26 miles more measured across the equator as from pole to pole. 6. The exposure time on the camera does not change at all. So it is only set to expose for the sunlit earth. And will not be sensitive enough to pick up the stars. Not sure how clear these answers are, if you want elaboration on any give us a shout. Hope it helps anyway. Any thoughts?

I really don't want this to be happening; I considered thus: Could these Earth 'images' be high-altitude shots rendered on a concave, stretched around a ball to make it look like a globe Earth? You see, if this satellite is real and the photos ARE taken from 22,000 miles away then we all may as well forget any notion of a flat Earth. These images need to be debunked now. Please go to the youtube page (title above) and go to http://www.jma-net.go.jp/msc/en/index.html AND http://himawari8.nict.go.jp/

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Is this proof that the Earth is indeed a ball? Or is this just more imagery-fakery to put us all off the scent?

Shaun

Re: Himawari-8
« Reply #1 on: October 08, 2015, 01:10:48 PM »
If indeed NASA is behind hiding the flat earth, then they're going to have to have some very long tentacles in order to get the Japanese on board too, broadening the scope of their conspiracy, which as is my usual main point- makes it harder to hide. The larger the conspiracy gets, the less a chance it has of being hidden and kept. 

I'm really excited to see what sort of rebuttal the answers you were given get from people here.

I already know in advance that nobody is going to look at that and say "Holy crap, they're right" because we're never looking to be proven wrong, only have our opinions validated, even if we need to grasp at the tiniest of straws.

I WILL say this- faked or not, that's cool as hell to watch.

Re: Himawari-8
« Reply #2 on: October 08, 2015, 03:34:13 PM »
It is very easy to debunk the fake "Earth" from space photographs.

Just call (the Japan space agency) them and ask: according to which law of gravity did you launch into space this satellite? according to which law of gravity does it orbit the Earth, as the Earth itself supposedly orbits the Sun?

They will answer: of course, according to Newton's law of universal gravitation.


This is how we can see and easily deduce the entire faked sequence of events.

Satellites orbit at a much lower altitude than we are told, and they all use Nikola Tesla's Cosmic Ray Device and the Biefeld-Brown effect to stay in orbit.


We only have to take into consideration the Allais effect, to see and to prove that the entire satellite mission, as reported in the video, is completely fake.


Re: Himawari-8
« Reply #3 on: October 08, 2015, 03:54:39 PM »
It is very easy to debunk the fake "Earth" from space photographs.

Just call (the Japan space agency) them and ask: according to which law of gravity did you launch into space this satellite? according to which law of gravity does it orbit the Earth, as the Earth itself supposedly orbits the Sun?

They will answer: of course, according to Newton's law of universal gravitation.


This is how we can see and easily deduce the entire faked sequence of events.

Satellites orbit at a much lower altitude than we are told, and they all use Nikola Tesla's Cosmic Ray Device and the Biefeld-Brown effect to stay in orbit.


We only have to take into consideration the Allais effect, to see and to prove that the entire satellite mission, as reported in the video, is completely fake.

I'm really new here- can you humor me and cite proof of all this?

Re: Himawari-8
« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2015, 05:45:41 PM »
All satellites (geostationary/orbital) use Tesla's Cosmic Ray Device to function:

WHAT IS NOT SAID ABOUT THE SATELLITES

A TESLA FREE RADIANT ENERGY TYPE IS SO SMALL THAT CAN BE CAMOUFLAGED EASILY

Brooklyn Eagle July 10, 1932 Nikola Tesla states:

I have harnessed the cosmic rays and caused them to operate a motive device. Cosmic ray investigation is a subject that is very close to me. I was the first to discover these rays and I naturally feel toward them as I would toward my own flesh and blood. I have advanced a theory of the cosmic rays and at every step of my investigations I have found it completely justified. The attractive features of the cosmic rays is their constancy. They shower down on us throughout the whole 24 hours, and if a plant is developed to use their power it will not require devices for storing energy as would be necessary with devices using wind, tide or sunlight. All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are justified in calling them neutrons. They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light. More than 25 years ago I began my efforts to harness the cosmic rays and I can now state that I have succeeded in operating a motive device by means of them. I will tell you in the most general way, the cosmic ray ionizes the air, setting free many charges ions and electrons. These charges are captured in a condenser which is made to discharge through the circuit of the motor. I have hopes of building my motor on a large scale, but circumstances have not been favorable to carrying out my plan.

With such a permanent supply of high quality energy, certainly the satellites are remote controlled from earth to make them go around or stay hovering in a specific place. They don't stay quite or moving because of any gravity - which is a lie- but because of the energy taken from those layers.

Satellites and geocentrism:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080130025500/http://www.fixedearth.com/geosynchronous_sa.htm


BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3418.msg77421#msg77421


LAMOREAUX EFFECT: terrestrial gravity is a force of pressure

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1616174#msg1616174


The clouds depicted in the video/photographs themselves defy the same law which supposedly governs the description of the orbit of the satellite:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3418.msg77448#msg77448


"During the total eclipses of the sun on June 30, 1954, and October 22, 1959, quite analogous deviations of the plane of oscillation of the paraconical pendulum were observed..." - Maurice Allais, 1988 Nobel autobiographical lecture.

In a marathon experiment, Maurice Allais released a Foucault pendulum every 14 minutes - for 30 days and nights -without missing a data point. He recorded the direction of rotation (in degrees) at his Paris laboratory. This energetic show of human endurance happened to overlap with the 1954 solar eclipse. During the eclipse, the pendulum took an unexpected turn, changing its angle of rotation by 13.5 degrees.

Allais' pendulum experiments earned him the 1959 Galabert Prize of the French Astronautical Society, and in 1959 he was made a laureate of the United States Gravity Research Foundation.

Dr. Maurice Allais:  Should the laws of gravitation be reconsidered?

http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/media10-12.htm

In the present status of the discussion, the abnormalities observed can be accounted for only by considering the existence of a new field. (page 12)


Multiple confirmations of the Allais effect:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1626747#msg1626747


Dr. Maurice Allais:

“… the current theory of gravitation (being the result of the application, within the current theory of relative motions, of the principles of inertia and universal gravitation to any one of the Galilean spaces) complemented or not by the corrections suggested by the theory of relativity, leads to orders of magnitude [many factors of ten] for lunar and solar action (which are strictly not to be perceived experimentally) of some 100 million times less than the effects noted [during the eclipse] ... [emphasis added].”

In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”



The eclipse and the pendulum - How the pendulum's swing angle changed during the 1954 eclipse
The plane of the oscillation of the pendulum shifted approximately 15 centesimal degrees during the eclipse (approximately 13.5 degrees)





geckothegeek

Re: Himawari-8
« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2015, 06:00:00 PM »
Hello, for the record, I am pro-FE. I am very concerned by the following:

I commented thus: Hi, just wondering:

1. The satellite must be speeding around the Earth at the SAME speed that the Earth is rotating in order to keep the same facing position.
2. The satellite must be doing 1. AND following the path of the Earth as IT rotates around the Sun.
3. The satellite must be keeping pace with the Sun as IT moves through it's galactic path. This must take some pretty smart calculations and flight path maneuvering.
4. Would the Sun at a rough distance of 93 million miles cause a shiny spot on the Earth as seen in this footage?
5. I thought that the earth was supposed to be an OBLATE SPHEROID......I can't see that particular shape in this footage.
6. Why can no stars be seen even when the Earth is in full shadow? Can anyone help me with these issues? Please help! .....

I received this answer:
1. Sort of, it's moving at 7000 mph which at 22000 mile altitude means it keeps pace with the rotation of the Earth.
3. The gravity of the Sun actually makes next to no difference to the satellite. The moon has more effect and that is still very small and only requires small alterations to the orbit.
4. Yep, that is the sun reflecting off the water.
5. It is, but the difference is very small and won't be visible in images this small. The diameter of the earth is only 26 miles more measured across the equator as from pole to pole. 6. The exposure time on the camera does not change at all. So it is only set to expose for the sunlit earth. And will not be sensitive enough to pick up the stars. Not sure how clear these answers are, if you want elaboration on any give us a shout. Hope it helps anyway. Any thoughts?

I really don't want this to be happening; I considered thus: Could these Earth 'images' be high-altitude shots rendered on a concave, stretched around a ball to make it look like a globe Earth? You see, if this satellite is real and the photos ARE taken from 22,000 miles away then we all may as well forget any notion of a flat Earth. These images need to be debunked now. Please go to the youtube page (title above) and go to http://www.jma-net.go.jp/msc/en/index.html AND http://himawari8.nict.go.jp/

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Is this proof that the Earth is indeed a ball? Or is this just more imagery-fakery to put us all off the scent?

Shaun

You just have to assume from the flat earth viewpoint that any and all photographs or videos are all  fakes.

Re: Himawari-8
« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2015, 06:25:34 PM »

WHAT IS NOT SAID ABOUT THE SATELLITES

A TESLA FREE RADIANT ENERGY TYPE IS SO SMALL THAT CAN BE CAMOUFLAGED EASILY



Hold up a minute.

This whole thing has no tangible proof or reliable verification to distinguish it from mere theory because "It can be camouflaged easily.?"

 

Re: Himawari-8
« Reply #7 on: October 09, 2015, 06:03:39 AM »


The solar panels are the rectangle P in the Tesla Receiver

http://home.earthlink.net/~drestinblack/tesfreee.htm

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tesla/esp_tesla_36.htm

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/apparatus_radiantenergy.pdf



Tesla's Cosmic Ray device supplies sufficient energy for the satellite to operate in a continuous mode, using the Biefeld-Brown effect.


For the Soviet Cosmospheres, however, a more sophisticated device is needed: something similar to the T. Henry Moray amplifier:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_firesky_01.htm

http://www.cheniere.org/books/excalibur/moray.htm





Here the Moray radiant energy device is providing free power to 35 100-watt lamps and a 1200-watt iron.






http://www.kennsplace.com/re.html


The ISS also uses a similar mechanism/source of energy to stay in orbit, using the Biefeld-Brown effect.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2015, 06:18:46 AM by sandokhan »

Re: Himawari-8
« Reply #8 on: October 09, 2015, 08:48:34 AM »
Hello, Sandokhan......sorry, a bit confused...are you saying that, through this Tesla technology the satellite does exist and the images are real, or that the satellite could only exist if this technology was employed, but currently isn't...??

Thanks, Shaun

Re: Himawari-8
« Reply #9 on: October 09, 2015, 09:41:27 AM »
Satellites do exist, but they orbit at a much lower altitude than we are being told.

Satellites use the Biefeld-Brown effect to stay in orbit.

The images shown in the first message of this thread are false.

The clouds depicted in the video/photographs themselves defy the same law which supposedly governs the description of the orbit of the satellite:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3418.msg77448#msg77448

Re: Himawari-8
« Reply #10 on: October 09, 2015, 11:35:20 AM »
You continue to talk about electricity or static suspending millions of pounds of water in the air in the form of clouds.

Legitimate if you're talking about the suspension of the cumulative weight. Science though, doesn't work that way. Rather the scientific principals of gravity and buoyancy apply to each water droplet- millions of which could be required to form a single raindrop. (more on these in a moment) In effect, the universal scientific principals at work are not being applied to a million pound cloud, but to a very lightweight droplet individually, a gazillion times over.

Think about a helium balloon, if you want to raise the scale for the sake of simplicity. A single balloon weighs a negligible amount. Fill it with buoyant gas, and it will rise. Fill a billion of them with the same gas, and they will all rise into the air, but if you weigh the cumulative formation, I'll bet it's a little heavier than one balloon is.
-According to your arguments though, since the balloon formation now weighs several hundred pounds, there is no reason that it should be able to float into the sky without artificial means. This isn't the defiance of gravity as you claim, but merely circumventing it for a time...and only for a time, since at one point, the balloons will come back to the earth.

What static electricity is causing the steam to rise from your coffee cup in the morning, or from your shower head? Water vapor is buoyant. Your theory of electro-static-bifeld-brown refutes not only gravity, but buoyancy. You'd essentially have to claim that anything that floats on water is doing so artificially as well.

I am also seeing in your links plenty of talk about suspending the water vapor in cloud form, but it seems to leave out how and why precipitation occurs. If this principal you mention is responsible for artificially hoisting satellites and clouds into the air, why do the satellites not come crashing to the ground every time it rains? Is this biefeld-brown effect selective in what matter it chooses to hold up? How come everything lighter than a million-pound cloud or fifty ton satellite doesn't simply keep going if I throw it into the air?

You claim that an artificial source of levitation is the source of things being kept aloft simply because Tesla was able to perform a few experiments. I can keep a ball bearing aloft with a few well-placed magnets, but nobody is claiming that magnetism is at work in keeping American Airways aloft.

I'm not a scientifically minded individual- so, without the gazillions of regurgitated links, answer me this question very simply before we can continue:

What is causing the biefeld-brown effect on earth which you claim is keeping clouds and satellites aloft?- Which you so confidently claim negates the video provided by OP?

*

Offline Rayzor

  • *
  • Posts: 198
    • View Profile
Re: Himawari-8
« Reply #11 on: October 09, 2015, 11:47:30 AM »
The only thing new about Himawari 8 is that it's high resolution full colour with fast update times,  geostationary weather satellites are nothing new,  they have been in orbit since the 1970's  taking full disk images of the earth from multiple positions every day,  day in day out for decades.   

The Russians also have geostationary satellites that have high resolution full colour imaging.  But they seem to like weird false colour infra red images,  maybe it's better for weather predictions in infra red.

http://eng.ntsomz.ru/electro
http://eng.ntsomz.ru/electro/el_03042014

Then there's the European and Indian versions,  not to forget little old NASA struggling to keep up.   :)


Re: Himawari-8
« Reply #12 on: October 09, 2015, 01:41:45 PM »
Why do the satellites not come crashing to the ground every time it rains? Is this biefeld-brown effect selective in what matter it chooses to hold up? How come everything lighter than a million-pound cloud or fifty ton satellite doesn't simply keep going if I throw it into the air?

The Biefeld-Brown as applied to satellites means that, a satellite will act as a capacitor, where the movement is carried out from the ground (remote control) in the direction desired: this is the Biefeld-Brown effect, a forward thrust would be produced which would move the capacitor in the direction of the positive pole.

The supply of electricity is effectuated by the Tesla Cosmic Ray device.

Without that device, the satellite would simply fall to the ground, due to the effects of terrestrial gravitation: the dextrorotatory subquarks, whether it rains or not.

The Biefeld-Brown effect makes possible the capture of LAEVOROTATORY SUBQUARKS, the antigravitational force, which provides the capacity to orbit above the ground.


The Biefeld-Brown effect on clouds, the interaction of laevorotatory subquark strings/telluric currents with actual drops of water, is explained here.

"The ground and the ionosphere induce secondary charge-layers in the atmosphere. In such a secondary layer cloud-building takes place. Generation of electricity in clouds is due not to the friction of neutral clouds on mountain ridges, or to the friction of neutral clouds among themselves, or to the friction of droplets by the gravitational pull on them, but to the fact that droplets rise already charged toward the charged layer of the atmosphere, and clouds are further subjected to induction by the ground and the ionosphere. This explains also the segregation of the charges in the upper and lower levels of the clouds."


Legitimate if you're talking about the suspension of the cumulative weight. Science though, doesn't work that way. Rather the scientific principals of gravity and buoyancy apply to each water droplet- millions of which could be required to form a single raindrop. (more on these in a moment) In effect, the universal scientific principals at work are not being applied to a million pound cloud, but to a very lightweight droplet individually, a gazillion times over.

No, you have left the realm of science way behind you, as you do not understand the physics involved here.

You remind me of someone who wrote long ago:

You seem to mentally accumulate this entire cloud as some massive object that is all at once affected by gravity when it is instead the dispersed droplets that are in question here.


Let us go again to the textbook on atmospheric physics.

The water in a cloud can have a mass of several million tons.

It is a massive object AFFECTED AT ONCE AND CONSTANTLY BY THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.


Cloud droplets are also about 1000 times heavier than evaporated water, so they are much heavier than air.

Official science: typical cumulus cloud has some 1/2 g per cubic meter of water density

Typical cumulus cloud = one cubic kilometer in size = one billion km in volume

total water content of the cloud = 500,000,000 grams of water, or 1.1 million pounds

OFFICIAL STANDARD TEXTBOOKS:

Clouds can have a large range of mass per volume, depending on how large and numerous the cloud droplets or ice crystals are that are in them.

How much does the water in a cumulus cloud weigh? Peggy LeMone, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, did the numbers.

"The water in the little cloud weighs about 550 tons," she calculates.


You simply haven't done your homework on this one at all.


Again, please understand, this is official science information.

Official science: typical cumulus cloud has some 1/2 g per cubic meter of water density

Typical cumulus cloud = one cubic kilometer in size = one billion km in volume

total water content of the cloud = 500,000,000 grams of water, or 1.1 million pounds


The combined state of water in any cloud, for a certain volume and density will have a certain weight.

For that volume, one billion meters, and a density of 1/2 g per cubic meter, there will be a weight of 1.1 million pounds.


Your analogy between multiple helium balloons and droplets of water in clouds makes no sense at all; again, we are leaving the realm of science.


OFFICIAL STANDARD TEXTBOOKS:

Clouds can have a large range of mass per volume, depending on how large and numerous the cloud droplets or ice crystals are that are in them.

How much does the water in a cumulus cloud weigh? Peggy limee, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, did the numbers.

"The water in the little cloud weighs about 550 tons," she calculates.


What static electricity is causing the steam to rise from your coffee cup in the morning, or from your shower head?


Again, you haven't done your homework.

Clouds ARE NOT water vapour: they are either water droplets or ice crystals.

A CLOUD IS A VISIBLE MASS OF DROPLETS. The small droplets of water WHICH DO MAKE UP A CLOUD, will have 0.01 mm in diameter.
The tiny particles of water are very densely packed, and may even combine to form larger water molecules, which ARE denser than the surrounding air.


What is causing the biefeld-brown effect on earth which you claim is keeping clouds and satellites aloft?- Which you so confidently claim negates the video provided by OP?

Each and every nanometer of aether (space, for the RE) is filled with strings of subquarks/telluric currents, we can call it ether.

The existence of such currents has been evidenced by the classical experiments of Dayton Miller, Yuri Galaev and Steve Lamoreaux.

The antigravitational subquarks can be accessed by torsion, applied electrical force or by sound.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2015, 01:47:12 PM by sandokhan »

Re: Himawari-8
« Reply #13 on: October 09, 2015, 02:20:23 PM »
Answer me this without a dissertation and 38 links back to your own forum. Use plain English and don't go off on a tangent, and make an attempt at doing it without the 'you haven't done your homework' snark. It makes you look defensive.

True or False: You are asserting that a cloud is one entity which is too heavy, based on the weight of water- to float in the sky on its own, and needs to be held aloft with a cosmic ray device.



 

 
« Last Edit: October 09, 2015, 02:26:06 PM by Disgraced_Shield »

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10257
    • View Profile
Re: Himawari-8
« Reply #14 on: October 09, 2015, 04:47:46 PM »
Answer me this without a dissertation and 38 links back to your own forum. Use plain English and don't go off on a tangent...

You must be new around here... Sandokhan/levee offers the very best proofs in the business and you will get all of them, every time, regardless how loosely related they may be.

Re: Himawari-8
« Reply #15 on: October 09, 2015, 07:50:06 PM »
BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT APPLIED TO WATER MOLECULES: THE ICOSAHEDRON AND ETHER WAVES


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759332#msg759332 (MAGNETRICITY)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759935#msg759935 (BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759968#msg759968 (CLOUDS)


"A recent theory by Martin Chaplin Professor of Applied Science Water and Aqueous Systems Research of the London South Bank University demonstrates that water molecules can arrange themselves in various structures and configurations based on the icosahedron. The most amazing structure is a super icosahedral structure that exists of 13 smaller icosahedral structures with a total of 1820 water molecules."



Icosahedral super water cluster of 1820 H2O molecules

"Chaplin’s model of the molecular structuring of water is able to explain many of the anomalous properties of water, such as its expansion between 0 en 4 degrees, its high boiling point and many other strange properties that makes water such a rare fluid. So what this theory shows is that water dynamically creates these super icosahedral clusters to give water its exclusive properties."


ICOSAHEDRAL WATER CLUSTERS:

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/clusters_overview.html

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/cluster_evidence.html


Let us remember that the water molecule itself, H2O, is actually in the shape of an icosahedron:



http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/chaptr13.pdf


Baryons, mesons, quarks, subquarks:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1401101#msg1401101


"Water can perhaps best be understood -from pure symmetry terms - as a device to permit the successful compression of electrical charge. To complete compression successfully - nature uses what every mathematician knows is the ONLY geometry for infinite or perfected - compression: FRACTALITY (self similarity)."


"Now here’s the secret of water in relation with ether energy, these icosahedral structures resonate with the telluric currents through form! They are the waveguides that allow the subquark strings to implode [that is, to form a double torsion tornado around the water molecule itself]. The icosahedral water clusters simply, nest or fit recursively into the fractal matrix of imploding waves that sustains matter, i.e. the atoms of the water molecules."

 http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/water4.html

"Water through this internal self-similarity with the internal structure of the atom in fractal form, will start to act like a super conductor to this imploding ether energy."


The very shape of a water droplet is actually an ideal capacitor:

https://web.archive.org/web/20091106165712/http://www.goldenmean.info/biophoton/


The relationship between a water molecule and the local capacitive charge field:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080624000331/http://www.goldenmean.info/rain/



http://www.ias.ac.in/jess/june2004/Esb1571.pdf

The relaxation time required for a ventilated drop to reach its equilibrium temperature increases with the drop size and is higher for the charged than for the uncharged drops. It is concluded that in a given distance, charged drops will evaporate less than that of uncharged drops.

THE CHARGED DROPS WILL EVAPORATE LESS THAN THE UNCHARGED DROPS. WHY? BECAUSE OF THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT, WHICH DOES PROVIDE THE ADDITIONAL ENERGY (ANTIGRAVITATIONAL) IN THE FORM OF LAEVOROTATORY SUBQUARKS.

*

Offline Rayzor

  • *
  • Posts: 198
    • View Profile
Re: Himawari-8
« Reply #16 on: October 10, 2015, 01:11:29 AM »
It is very easy to debunk the fake "Earth" from space photographs.

So,  how, exactly did you debunk the millions of full disk images taken over the last 40 years?   

Let's suppose your physics is correct,  how does that debunk the photographic evidence.


Re: Himawari-8
« Reply #17 on: October 10, 2015, 12:13:20 PM »
Answer me this without a dissertation and 38 links back to your own forum. Use plain English and don't go off on a tangent...

You must be new around here... Sandokhan/levee offers the very best proofs in the business and you will get all of them, every time, regardless how loosely related they may be.

There's a saying in the IT world- "If you can't explain it to the simplest of users, you have no idea what you're talking about."


Re: Himawari-8
« Reply #18 on: October 10, 2015, 01:23:26 PM »
Your brilliant analogies and observations (helium balloons compared to droplets, and coffee/shower vapour to cloud water droplets) should enable you to have no problems understanding the discussion.


A single image is sufficient to show that the photographs (JSA) are false:



The eclipse and the pendulum - How the pendulum's swing angle changed during the 1954 eclipse

The plane of the oscillation of the pendulum shifted approximately 15 centesimal degrees during the eclipse (approximately 13.5 degrees)

It takes a single counterexample to debunk a hypothesis (in our case, attractive gravity): and the Allais effect is the most important such counterexample.

Re: Himawari-8
« Reply #19 on: October 11, 2015, 09:52:27 AM »
Dr. Maurice Allais:

With regard to the validity of my experiments, it seems
best to reproduce here the testimony of General Paul Bergeron,
ex-president of the Committee for Scientific Activities for
National Defense, in his letter of May 1959 to Werner von
Braun:

"Before writing to you, I considered it necessary to
visit the two laboratories of Professor Allais (one 60
meters underground), in the company of eminent
specialists – including two professors at the Ecole
Polytechnique. During several hours of discussion, we
could find no source of significant error, nor did any
attempt at explanation survive analysis.

"I should also tell you that during the last two years,
more than ten members of the Academy of Sciences and
more than thirty eminent personalities, specialists in
various aspects of gravitation, have visited both his
laboratory at Saint-Germain, and his underground
laboratory at Bougival.

"Deep discussions took place, not only on these
occasions, but many times in various scientific contexts,
notably at the Academy of Sciences and the National
Center for Scientific Research. None of these discussions
could evolve any explanation within the framework of
currently accepted theories."


This letter confirms clearly the fact that was finally
admitted at the time - the total impossibility of explaining the
perceived anomalies within the framework of currently
accepted theory.



In the present status of the discussion, the abnormalities observed can be accounted for only by considering the existence of a new field.


The New Physical Field of Maurice Allais:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Fall_2010/New_Physical_Field_Maurice_Allais.pdf




« Last Edit: October 11, 2015, 10:01:07 AM by sandokhan »