I may be out of contact for a few days, so I thought I’d leave you with another view of the Milky Way, our galactic home, or so we are told. Since you do not see what I’m offering you below in the photographs supposedly taken by our astronauts, I have a question: Who are you going to believe, them or me?
Check the ISS and other NASA imagery and see if it looks like what’s actually up there — you might go outside and tilt your head upwards tonight. Go to this NASA page and see if you can find some stars. Do you understand the implications? This may be the Big Lie. The Lie ‘Forum Borealis’ and the rest of the moles refuse to discuss.
Come on, ‘Al Borealis’: Where is the Universe? Could there be a bigger lie?
You’ve seen this one. I’ll ask again: With the sun behind us, where are the stars?
Allan
Hey, I appreciate the comments (most of them). Keep ’em coming. I’ll continue to shoot the night sky. See if we find something interesting…
Barbara, that isn’t a cartoon, that is copy of a copy of a copy old film footage of the bomb aftermath.
I am open minded and farming for the truth….but we KNOW japan wasn’t just “carpet fire bombed” – OK?.
Look, maybe they just threw in a little bit of this stuff at Japan – look at what it does to this poor unloved concrete truck > https://youtu.be/4IcHUHRf_S0
That monster Tsar bomb footage from 1961 fake you think??
….Apparently, that was 850lbs of ANFO explosive – made from common materials! :-O
If nukes WERE fake, they could easily have used this, or TNT (which is even more powerful) on Japan.
The scary take home thought (for me at least) is , even if there are NO nukes in existence, complete devastation of a city or 2 is no problem at all with the weaker exploding bombs.
If nukes were fake, it would be a far greater hoax that that dumb moonlanding IMO.
to Barbara Müller (Reply button was missing)
“of course stars would be visible from above”
I looks probable that stars are visible above atmosphere, but I was not there, so how can I be sure?
There is an old theory about stars. It speculates that stars are radiating mostly in gama rays, very little in visible spectrum. Therefore if you were above atmosphere you can see only Sun, no stars, not even Moon. Gama rays change wavelength when going through athmosphere.
“Hubble is just a network of regular earthly telescopes”
Yes, I personally don’t believe in satellites that stay long period of time on orbit.
You say, ‘Gama rays change wavelength when going through athmosphere.’
Can you back that up? A link?
If what you say is true, why do the stars get brighter from mountain tops, etc. How does that fit in to your gamma ray theory. The way it sounds, the stars get brighter and brighter as you rise in the atmosphere, then suddenly and completely blink out?? Does that make sense?
I was searching thoroughly, but I couldn’t find any link, sorry Allan. It was only short article about the theory with the name of the scientist (which I forgot unfortunatelly). The theory was from around 1950s, before any orbital flight. There were no further explanation except that stars emit mostly gamma rays and practically no visible light. Autor speculated that above Earth atmosphere you can see only Sun (because it is so close and bright), no stars and not even Moon (because it has no atmosphere and no visible light is created or reflected). According the theory visible stars/lights are created in Earth atmosphere as interaction between cosmic rays and atmosphere molecules. I see one indirect clue here. Scientists probably measured radiation in high altitudes using ballons and found out there is more and more gamma rays and less and less visible light with increasing height. They maybe did not lied about it.
I like to share my clues regarding stars (in)visibility in outer space:
1. All NASA color photos are artificially colored, they claim it themself! The longer distance the less color you get. Distances in space between stars are immense. So how it comes that we can see Milky Way slightly colored?
2. Gamma rays has 10^5 to 10^6 more energy than visible light, so maybe visible light can travel shorter distances because of higher intensity loss? Also visible light is only tiny, tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum compared to gamma rays. https://marine.rutgers.edu/cool/education/class/josh/em_spec.html
3. I saw stars through telescope. They twinkle and slightly change colour all the time (because of atmosphere as we are told, and it sounds logical).
4. See Aurora description on Wikipedia. “The resulting ionization and excitation of atmospheric constituents emit light of varying color and complexity.” “…”most of the light is produced between 90 and 150 km above the ground…”
“why do the stars get brighter from mountain tops, etc. How does that fit in to your gamma ray theory”
“stars get brighter and brighter as you rise in the atmosphere, then suddenly and completely blink out?? Does that make sense?”
– Atmosphere is most dense close to Earth. The atmospheric pressure at the summit of Mt. Everest is about a third that at sea level. If you eliminate 3–5 km in mountains than you eliminate significant amount of air. Less air / less light diffusion between ground observer and atmosphere layer where visible light has been created? (see clue 4.)
Marion, that is not my point. We (probably) can’t photograph stars in space, that doesn’t mean, they are not visible up there. They are visible here. So why shouldn’t they be visible in space either? Atmosphere definitely works as a filter and protects us from to much radiation. All live is based on what gets through the atmosphere. But a filter can only absorb some of the energy, it cannot change the frequency of radiation. My problem with Hubble concerns mainly the communication and data transfer. Satellites are simply objects shot into orbits with rockets of different size. A rocket works like a cannonball. It reaches a certain maximum speed after the launch and then the inertia takes care of the rest.
A giant waste of Electrical Energy or Divine Spark? The Demonic debate…
“( dae·mon1
/ˈdēmən/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: daemon; plural noun: daemons; noun: daimon; plural noun: daimons
1.
(in ancient Greek belief) a divinity or supernatural being of a nature between gods and humans.
an inner or attendant spirit or inspiring force.
“Socrates claimed to have lived his life according to the dictates of his daimon”
synonyms: inspiring force, genius, numen, demon; tutelary spirit, familiar spirit, attendant spirit;
genius loci )”
Electric/eclectic Universe- Some things are supposed to remain a mystery because our minds cannot grasp timelessness/ eternity as we are still bound to our physical/mortal bodies that fight entropy until we are pushing up daisies.
To acquire godhood while still in these shells thru knowledge is the hamster wheel that keeps being rebranded and marketed thru the ages…
We are to make due with what we are given in gratitude and appreciation and for the chance to even do so… or be driven mad by the unknowable? or to be happy cruising thru space and time and whatever our perception of what that is?…
IMHO after 54 years living on this rock flying thru space is that- Our job is to teach our children and loved ones that Love is that eternal force that governs all of this universe that Love is the unified field theory that supersedes and binds everything in wave and frequency- echoes of the past and the future filling the ocean of the present we surf in… and to dwell in that love as best we can is the way to experience timelessness while still in human form- to seek out that love, the identity of that love, and to let that love govern our lives.
Some would say that im stuck on that hamster wheel however my happiness contentment and personal satisfaction would betray that notion – more and more of us are refusing to participate in the competition of who can run the fastest on that hamster wheel- instead surfing thru life anchored in Love.
don’t believe the lies or the hype- Love Family Community is all that really matters and as the late Jim Morrison so eloquently stated “no one gets out of here alive” in this mortal vessel.
Find Love and hold onto it with everything you got! that is all that really maters in the end.
Choose Love. or the Demonic debate- your internal and eternal happiness depends on it
Surfs Up Alan thanks for stirring the pot ……………………………… Aloha
Nice post thank you 🙂
Okay. Well said. But meanwhile I’ll keep looking…
Einstein and other “theoretical” scientists never produced anything that could be applied in reality. It would then become applied physics and there never was such thing. To this day they try to find an application for Einstein’s relativity theory. Black holes, Higgs particles, or what ever belong to the same category of inventions of theoretical physics. Inventions not discoveries. In the real world there always is a phenomenon being observed first and then there is a theory trying to explain this phenomenon. If the theory is wrong, further observations will demonstrate this. The relativity theory was invented without any applicable phenomenon. They claim, that the GPS satellites have to be adjusted due to the RT, but they only correct the imperfectness of their orbit. the entire theoretical physics never produced anything of value. Same thing with the entire microbiology. But lots of people make their living there and that’s why it is being so heavily protected. And they pay good. The more bullshit do you in your job, the better the money is today.
perfect.
“Einstein and other “theoretical” scientists never produced anything that could be applied in reality.”
Not so fast…..you *have* heard of nukes, have you not? Nuclear weapons threaten our lovely little blue-water marble as we speak. The guys who keep an eye on these things claim that we are one minute away from Armageddon – the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it. (They call it the Doomsday Clock.) At midnight, the balloon goes up, the missiles fly and all hell breaks loose. If we don’t get a handle on these assholes we are screwed….
LarryC, there are no nukes either. Hiroshima was burned with napalm. People came back on the next day and started to rebuild it. Bridges and some few brick houses didn’t burn and survived the fire. All nuclear explosions videos are silly cartoons. They stopped “nuclear tests” after video cameras became popular and people started to fly everywhere in masses. The Apollo hoax was necessary to convince people rockets can fly that far. Without that the nuclear threat wouldn’t work. Without the nuclear threat the cold war wouldn’t work either. Now is the “international terrorism” the hoax of the time.
Hello….massive steel structures were blown sideways from the blast! (what was left of the skeleton of the building). Napalms don’t/cant do that.
Brett, what massive steel structures? Both cities were basically made of wood. The very few massive objects survived. The Bank of Japan for instance. You may be interested in what Anders Björkman from Heiwa wrote about this. Just google.
Brett, so you’re saying that in 1945 Hiroshima wasn’t 98% wooden buildings (paper walls) with 2% dutch/portugese stone buildings (churches, wells, etc.), but also had a good percentage of massive steel structures?
Then presumably, like the twin towers, these must have easily melted in the heat of napalm, eh?
So there were NO massive steel structures? That seems hard to believe. Steel was a big thing.
Barbara – > these heavily built steel building skeletons blasted sideways…….I have cut to the chase to the spot in the film > https://youtu.be/QUvM2uQR1cA?t=1012
….Wondering if you will find my reply, because there is no “reply” box on your post.
Brett, you could post a pic of Japanese vaporizing in the nuclear blast, and they would scream photoshop, ignoring the difficulty of containing a fission reaction for power production purposes.
come on Brett, this was 1945, Leni Riefenstahl produced excellent high resolution propaganda films a few years ago and a professional, even famous Japanese film company cannot do better than this? The movie is in parts a bad quality cartoon. All nuclear explosions movies actually look that way.
Check this out:
https://twitter.com/DavidVidecette/status/1158411329272762370
Looks like a nuclear explosion, no?
The napalm fire bomb is PATHETIC in comparison to the nuclear explosion…….there is bugger all “bang pressure”! > https://youtu.be/zynjafcdq2c
I have been trying to get details from Anders B, on how he truly KNOWS japan wasn’t nuked …. but he gives vague truncated answers of no use.
It works for him!
You are so right Chris!….I want to believe Nuclear bombs are fake, but with that old film evidence, – it’s not looking good!!
Barbara, I have no argument with your contention that traditional Japanese homes/businesses made of wood and parchment paper will turn into a conflagration with the addition of napalm: your claim however is specious – there is NOW WAY that napalm would be able to create the initial blast that we are so depressingly familiar with. It’s equally depressing that we happen to be alive in a time when we are able (likely?) to bring this beautiful world to an end – it’s almost too much to bear – but there you are. Our politicians are clueless – military-industrial is salivating at the prospect of Cold War Chapter II. It’s almost a certainty that there will not be a Cold War Chapter III – this is it folks….Einstein observed that he did not know what type of weapons would be used to fight WW III, but that it was almost a certainty that WW IV would be fought with sticks and stones…WAKE UP PEOPLE!
how can you be familiar with the blast if all blast videos are silly cartoons produced in the famous Lookout Mountain Air Force Station?
here some more:
https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=767723&sid=98ad029f14a5126b238c1e7c824d17d1
If they didn’t take into account relativity, gps coordinates would be completely inaccurate because their atomic clocks don’t run at the same rate as ground-based clocks, because the gravitational forces on the gps clocks are weaker. Pretty useful when you are trying to get directions to the local pizza joint! Applied in reality, too!
THROUGH FAITH WE UNDERSTAND THE WORLDS WERE FRAMED BY THE WORD OF GOD SO THAT THINGS WHICH ARE SEEN WERE NOT MADE OF THINGS WHICH DO APPEAR. – Hebrews 11: 3
Is faith about understanding? Or is it about framing the world? Does that bible quote actually make some sort of logical sense to you? To me, it says that through blind following, you can be blind to the way things work, because you are looking through the lens of a religious belief system, rather than focusing on the objective truths. It says that your faith inaccurately portrays the way things work, and makes you see things that aren’t there, and believe things that aren’t true.
I more or less agree. As you all know, I consider Einstein’s relativity theories to be number one or two on the Big Lie list, with neo-Darwinism right next to it.
So, Albert Einstein helped to perpetrate a ‘big lie’, and Allan Weisbecker knows the truth? As far as neo-Darwinism, it is a vastly incomplete theory of evolution, just as Einstein’s relativity theories are incomplete, but I’m not sure how it qualifies as a lie.
“…theoretical scientists never produced anything that could be applied in reality… theoretical physics never produced anything of value…” – B. Muller
Oh, really? What about Quantum Theory, initially developed early in the 20th century by theoretical physicists like Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg and others in order to explain the behavior of nature at the subatomic level?
There are a number of practical applications of quantum theory. Lasers are used in medicine, electronics and machine work. Fluorescent bulbs help to light up our homes and workplaces. Transistors are omnipresent in electronic devices like cell phones, televisions and personal computers.
Lasers, fluorescent lightbulbs and transistors are all useful and valuable technologies based on quantum mechanical principles.
“There is nothing more practical than a good theory” – Kurt Lewin
“where are the stars”? Even if all the pictures or videos supposedly taken in space may be fake (we now may have technology to take pictures digitally on satellites and send them back) the problem with the big contrast would probably be the same in space as it is on Earth. If you photograph stars on Earth you have to use long exposure. On your time lapse, the camera took at least a few seconds to photograph some stars (or the Milky Way), even with the highest ISO. The ISS can be photographed with a very short exposure time (even 1/2000 sec. will work). The Jupiter needs some 1/200 sec. So I would assume, taking a picture of a satellite with some details on it will always require about 1/1000 of the time needed to photograph the stars, on Earth as in Space, for the atmosphere just makes everything darker a little bit. If you don’t over exposure the Moon you won’t see any stars either.
Excellent time lapse.
Thank You.
Why the name Planck was never mentioned in my high school education. Hmmnn. Seems I may have saved myself from an even more painful life simply by not paying attention in school. Actually Einstein was never mentioned either. Not anything about any history though I guess drugs may have saved me from remembering any of it Truly may have been my angel looking out for me.
The less they get u 2 Read of their brain management system the safer u will be.
Continues from quote by Elana Freeland: “The fact is that a variety of fields and waveforms exist at right-angle (orthogonal) rotations in hyperspace outside our electromagnetic fields. Generate and manipulate these orthogonal components and they can invisibly generate electromagnetic effects to influence the Earth, human biology and consciousness.
It might be tempting to read these quotes, not understand a word, and say, the hell with it. Please don’t do this. The real issues are of common sense. Don’t be intimidated.
More to come on this.
Quoting Elana Freeland: “Somewhere between Darwinian evolutionary dogma, good old boy peer reviews and powerful sub rosa occult societies, a decision was made to eliminate aether from mainstream science and replace it with space as a vacuum while scalar waves and the rest of Tesla’s work and that of Maxwell and E.T.Whittaker (1873-1956) were suppressed. What happened was this: In 1873, James Clerk Maxwell (1871-1879) linked electricity to magnetism and discovered three components in electromagnetic waves he called EM mass-entiies (nonphysical hyperspace particles), now called evoked potentials—very fine scalar waveforms existing at right angle rotations to electromagnetic fields. Hyperspace flux energy potentials flow unharnessed like waves in a cosmic sea of intense power in dimensions adjacent to ours, which is why they are not subject to our spacetime unless disturbed by our planetary magnetic lines of force—the same magnetic lines of force so pivotal (no pun intended) to leaching ions from the ionosphere. Thus it is that electromagnetic effects can be initiated from outside our electromagnetic spectrum. Continues…….
There are lots that now claim Einstein was wrong about Black Holes and that Black Holes are not science but nonsense. They also claim Newton’s gravity formula is not accurate either. It’s seems that the reality is that much of Science are theories yet some of the theories are early on in the cycle. Hence if they accept some theory as truth that is not only a theory but evidence has since come up that disproves the earlier research yet the nonsense continues even though everything it is based on has been shown to be inaccurate.
Now I am far from a researcher and rarely even talk about it but it’s just crazy.
FYI it sure appears that much of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Computing are the biggest nonsense preachers. Mind you I am not questioning Quantum Computing. I am saying that it’s about friggin time Scientists and the science that gets published is removed from the hands of greed and big business and back where it belongs. To the people that discover it. Stop selling out instantly. I guess it’s clear why.
We need anyone to easily be able to excel and bring new ideas to us all. Yet in our present insane Western culture success no longer has anything to do with hard work it has to do with being first at some thing no one wants and create the need of this insanity.
Like FB. The first time I saw this was at a client’s network. It seems the firewall was blocking some nonsense contact me website. It was an obvious hack was my reply. I told my customer good catch, thanks and blocked it in DNS.
He then calls me and explains how his buddies from College days sent him the link and that it’s gonna be huge. I thought he was out of his mind of course and I was right but imagine my surprise when the most ridiculous website, the complete opposite of everything we have been doing for my whole life just flipped over to purely insane.
Why do people pay extra to have their website private Whois data hidden ($10 per domain per year) and then add the same hidden info on Facebook.
IE stuff they call a theory but they accept one theory and then build new theories based on previous data that is theory/theory x theory2 = current_science
It’s insane.
https://amp-livescience-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.livescience.com/65211-questions-answered-first-black-hole-image.html?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.livescience.com%2F65211-questions-answered-first-black-hole-image.html
I can’t comprehend what they are talking about = They are talking gibberish? I don’t understand = it can’t be true? I am a dipstick = They are talking nonsense?
Yeah, Chris, I know. I’m not sure if some of the comments are means to throw you off via their lack of coherence. Your reaction is just what they are looking for.
Albert quotes this in 1920 at the University of Leyden: “we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical properties; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity, space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought as endowed with quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.” Now the following words are taken from a book which I highly recommend reading. “Under An Ionized Sky From Chemtrails To Space Fence Lockdown” by Elana Freeland, Foreward by Cifford Carnicom Copyright 2018 from Freeland and Feral House.
https://images.nasa.gov/details-9414430.html
They have stars.
I cannot find it again but it’s from that list.
Many are Artists Rendering. Why would an Artist add stars when everyone knows there are no stars in NASA space.
Plasma Universe clearly has Plasma as well and that’s not discussed at all.
Why is no one talking about the cycles of the Solar System? It’s my understanding that the planet goes through a pole-shift every 12000-13000 years.
The pole shift they say causes the Earths crust to spin ripping the continents and current topology into the next cycle. This seems to explain Noah’s Ark and at least gives us a base to work from.
If anything regarding the pole shift has gotten to the super rich then I bet they are building underground cities. Look at that seems to be true. If the Earth s crust spins over the inner sections wouldn’t that tear the exclusive billionaires underground cities to dust.
Very confusing. So much nonsense. No matter what you click on today it is wildly different then 20 years ago. Bad enough we are truly fucked with the shit that clearly was but no longer is. Sex IN the City. WTF
How is this possible that it has zero coverage by the MMT. Well if this is not more reason to see the obvious game they are playing with us I do not know what is.
If there are many videos explaining why we are going through such difficult times. One concept is the same one that has been projected for many centuries. That is that we are destined to struggle if we allow our Ego to be in charge. Yet to those who believe we are higher beings struggling to get out of this mess keep believing since the more of us that agree will attract enough energy to move us higher. A higher dimension then the suffering of the 3rd dimension.
David Montaigne is one of those who supports the idea of pole shift. See
https://endtimesand2019.wordpress.com/2018/09/15/could-a-binary-companion-star-explain-cosmic-cycles-world-ages-precession-and-pole-shifts/
Good catch with the NASA photo. Imagery like this really proves my point(s) about star visibility. If you can see stars in one photo, why not in all of them? And yes, they don’t tell us when an image is an ‘artist’s rendition’ or when it’s a ‘real’ photograph. All kinds of ways to confuse us.
It is the big lie. Nasa insists that stars cannot be seen from ‘space’. How convenient, because stars and their gyrations and relationships could not be accurately faked. A million amateur astronomers would be able to call Nasa out on each and every mistake. Every single video from NASA looks fake because ‘Space’ (the supposed vacuum) is fake. Nasa is a testament to the power of suggestion and mass brain washing. So that leaves the question, in what Cosmological structure do we exist? Our rulers do not want us to know the answer to this question.
please explain how space is fake? thanks.
Yes, this is pretty much my view. Anyone who does not see the staggering implications of this issue isn’t thinking very deeply.
In some way I suspect this issue is at the bottom of the deceit…. hell, I’ll write up a short post about this. (I realize that I’ve been talking about this for years – directly or indirectly – but its importance is such that a little redundancy is called for.
Regarding staggering implications, it is a clue that the reason for all the deception is missing from this website: https://www.big-lies.org
When you know the reason, then you know why it is omitted.
What makes you think Space is fake?…and it’s not a vacuum, it’s neutral.
I always have a good laugh when I go to a space observatory somewhere (where we look at things through their big telescope), and they go like angry cats on a hot tin roof when someone mentions “moon landing” & “Fake” :-D.
Most of the “amateur astronomers” are gutless wonders who won’t speak out.
dear Lindsay, it would actually be very easy to combine real pictures of stars with fake NASA pictures. The problem is, the big difference in the brightness. You cannot even photograph the moon and stars together without over exposure the Moon. And a satellite or capsule in space will appear much brighter than the moon. That’s why they fake their pictures that way.
Ok, then explain this:
https://images.nasa.gov/details-9414430.html
As I said to Doug:
Good catch with the NASA photo. Imagery like this really proves my point(s) about star visibility. If you can see stars in one photo, why not in all of them? And yes, they don’t tell us when an image is an ‘artist’s rendition’ or when it’s a ‘real’ photograph. All kinds of ways to confuse us.
I know this will have no effect on you, Barbara, but others might get the idea.
it’s not a real Picture Allan, it’s an “Artist’s concept” of the ISS. If you photograph the Moon with visible craters and such, you’ll see no stars on your pic. You may see the Jupiter and Saturn, but stars are not bright enough. It’s a question of contrast = brightness distance between the bright and dark parts of your picture. I photographed the ISS many times and always used exposure times of about 1/2000 of a sec. Otherwise you’ll only get a bright star and see no details. I would expect the same contrast problem in space. Except I don’t think, they take pictures like that you posted in space. It’s also CGI or “artists concept”. So whatever they show us, if there are stars or not, it’s all faked. This way or the other.
Dear friends,
there are too many “Artist’s concepts” in NASA production in my opinion, but no such photos I would expect.
Argument regarding brightness/exposure difficulty is probably valid in most cases.. But I can imagine situations without too bright objects in the scene.
1. Allan’s camera situated _below_ Earth atmosphere, in Earth shadow (night), Sun and Moon are out of his view. He definitelly CAN take a photos of stars and Milky Way.
2. A camera situated _above_ Earth atmosphere, in Earth shadow, Sun and Moon are out of its view. Is there any obstruction to take photo of stars? Is there any other difference between 2. and 1. except atmosphere? Have you ever seen such a photo, please? Because I DID NOT (I do not count photos from Hubble, because they are usually heavily manipulated, colored etc.)
3. Camera mounted on DSCOVR (which is located directly between Earth and the Sun in L1 point, 1,5 milion km away from Earth), Sun is behind camera, camera is in the shadow of the DSCOVR, no brightly lit part of the DSCOVR in the camera view. Is it in your opinion possible to take a photo of Earth and Moon in the middle with stars visible around? If I would be the owner or designer of DSCOVR than I would want such photo absolutelly.
BTW my very close family member is astrophysicist, researcher of physics of galaxies. He worked on VLT telescope, he can order photos from Hubble etc. When I asked him: “Are stars visible above atmosphere, are stars shining in visible spectrum?”, he replied without hesitation: “Yes”.
Marion, of course stars would be visible from above. Why not? Just not together with other much brighter objects. If your family member really gets photos made by Hubble is another question. Maybe Hubble is just a network of regular earthly telescopes. I don’t believe Hubble is somewhere there in space and sends high resolution pics back to Earth. When it was supposedly launched 1990, there wasn’t any high resolution digital cameras. Analog cameras had only a very small resolution. FOC containing only 512 pixel sensors (not 512×512, only 512 pixels in total) would never produced the pictures they showed us. And they would have to use this 512 pixels 512 times to create one picture while the telescope rotates around the Earth. Also the quality of the pictures supposedly from Hubble evolved through the years with the quality of digital cameras. All pictures supposedly made by Hubble were made here on earth using the latest possible technology and common optical telescopes.
Awesome stuff! Simple but compelling. If it looks like that for you down yere, it should look even better up there. Secret Space Program is the big one for sure! What’s in Antarctica? Bariloche? UFOs!! I believe!!!