13 thoughts on “Globebusters ISS Live #13 – Buzz & Other Space Chimps!”

  1. The so called stars they show at the beginning of the video are just out of focus lights.

    These guys in the video seem to fall for everything. They should spend a few minutes checking things out so that they can be more accurate. I have been studying math and science for several years and these dudes are wrong so often, like 90% of the time, one starts to think it is on purpose.

      1. Bob is a reasonable and sensible individual who does not in any way seem deceitful. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

        Agree with you.

      2. Bob sounds reasonable but his subject matter isn’t. I see a large gap in how he ‘seems’ and the general subject matter of the discussions, such as vortex math. Did you know Marko Rodin has been selling vortex math for 20 years? Notice how young he looks in the video I posted in this thread. Takes 5 minutes to discover vortex math is a hoax. In viewing many types of these videos I realized when extraordinary claims are made, one should have at least a little evidence, not even extraordinary evidence. Marko has none! Yet all these grown men giving us nuggets and advice can’t do 5 minutes of research to realize Marko has been hypnotizing audiences for 20 years with his diagrams.

        Could it be that Bobs script requires him to be reasonable? Either that or these guys are pushing garbage they have never even looked into.

        1. That’s the funny side of this campaign of pseudoscientific rubbish flooding the internet: the pitchmen, supposed “skeptical seekers of scientific truth”, display such an utter unfamiliarity with science. This absurd incongruity is a basic flaw which makes the contrived nature of their propaganda operation obvious.

          1. This is a old arguement you two bring up.

            “you need to be an expert to disagree with me”

            Do you see the problem in this?

            Exactly what evidence would make you two (and probably many others that don’t comment) consider science and math as wrong?

            Is your mind made up already no matter the evidence?

            If that is the case its called a RELIGION guys.

            Remember that the mainstream math and science you get tought in school comes from masons and other very dubious people, Pythagoras (look into his “mystery school”, the guy is considered the first mason), Edison, Copernicus, Einstein, the list goes on for days.
            Ever tought about how much of “school science” comes from NASA?

            Being sceptical is a good thing to be, but provide evidence where they are wrong or don’t speak at all.

            You spoke up with maths behind you to AB, Kham, and it got proven wrong, yet you do not change your view, you just look for better math, do you not realize this is a endless loop?

            And like in the comment above you claim Bob is wrong 90% of the time.

            Should be easy to provide examples we can test then, right?
            Back it up, get it verified, and I will join you in your view.

            If you can’t do this or get proven wrong, then at the very least realize that and stop harping the same “you can’t disagree with me unless you are a expert” mantra.

            I got enough of that in school.

            All this being said tough, i do actually agree with you two on that vortex math stuff, it looks very iffy to me, and i do not think more math is what will save us.

            Observation is King.
            And i support anyone that wants to get back to that.

            I also hold a master degree in animation, so clearly i can never be wrong about anything.
            I now expect you all to bend the knee to my opinion, that’s how it works right?


  2. The so called stars they show at the beginning of the video are just out of focus lights.

    Or diafragma and lens blurring. Zoomlenses are extremely complicated systems.

  3. Exactly what evidence would make you two (and probably many others that don’t comment) consider science and math as wrong? -Zal

    Your question is too general to answer.

    Let’s look at just one deceitful math idea. Using deceit is where these math and science hoaxers confuse people. Your question assumes we can prove the impossible, because you can’t prove something doesn’t exists, except with circumstantial evidence, the the thing doesn’t actually exist in reality. Can you prove directly that Santa Claus doesn’t exist? No, but you could come up with a pretty good case to show that for a character that is supposed to be everywhere in one night, there is a mountain of evidence missing. Unless, of course, Santa Clause is magic, like judy wood space lasers. Other forms of circumstantial evidence could be to interview everyone who says they saw Santa Clause and see if their story holds up, and we could analyze evidence such as presents left under the tree to determine their real origin. We could also analyze cookie bite mark patterns to see if all the cookie bite marks all over the world are all line up.

    My point is it is not up to us to prove these magical science and math phenomena are true. It is up to the inventor.

    However, we can provide circumstantial evidence. In another thread several vortex math picture patterns to show that Marko Rodin is basically taking one pattern out of thousands (actually millions) and calling it magical. Marko, over the last 20 years, has provided no proof of his magical theory. His purpose seems to be to confuse people interested in his theory of never-before-calculated 3-dimensional vortex math that will cure all the ails of humanity.

    vortex math stuff, it looks very iffy to me – Zal

    Iffy? Vortex math is a fraud, not iffy, an outright lie.

    1. we’re told some masons use the words geometry and masonry interchangebly:

      “At these lord’s prayers they counterfeited geometry,
      And gave it the name of masonry.”


      …and that einstein proved the curvature of space-time using his fanciful geometry because he put symmetry first of course:

      “Until the 20th century principles of symmetry played little conscious role in theoretical physics. The Greeks and others were fascinated by the symmetries of objects and believed that these would be mirrored in the structure of nature. Even Kepler attempted to impose his notions of symmetry on the motion of the planets. Newton’s laws of mechanics embodied symmetry principles, notably the principle of equivalence of inertial frames, or Galilean invariance. These symmetries implied conservation laws. Although these conservation laws, especially those of momentum and energy, were regarded to be of fundamental importance, these were regarded as consequences of the dynamical laws of nature rather than as consequences of the symmetries that underlay these laws. Maxwell’s equations, formulated in 1865, embodied both Lorentz invariance and gauge invariance. But these symmetries of electrodynamics were not fully appreciated for over 40 years or more.

      This situation changed dramatically in the 20th century beginning with Einstein. Einstein’s great advance in 1905 was to put symmetry first, to regard the symmetry principle as the primary feature of nature that constrains the allowable dynamical laws. Thus the transformation properties of the electromagnetic field were not to be derived from Maxwell’s equations, as Lorentz did, but rather were consequences of relativistic invariance, and indeed largely dictate the form of Maxwell’s equations. This is a profound change of attitude. Lorentz must have felt that Einstein cheated. Einstein recognized the symmetry implicit in Maxwell’s equations and elevated it to a symmetry of space-time itself. This was the first instance of the geometrization of symmetry. Ten years later this point of view scored a spectacular success with Einstein’s construction of general relativity. The principle of equivalence, a principle of local symmetry—the invariance of the laws of nature under local changes of the space-time coordinates—dictated the dynamics of gravity, of space-time itself.

      With the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s symmetry principles came to play an even more fundamental role. In the latter half of the 20th century symmetry has been the most dominant concept in the exploration and formulation of the fundamental laws of physics. Today it serves as a guiding principle in the search for further unification and progress.”

      …but symmetry has apparently been important for quite some time; that is according to freemason’s monitor of course:

      “FROM the commencement of the world we may trace the foundation of Masonry. *) Ever since symmetry began, and harmony displayed her charms, our Order has had a being. During many ages, and in many different countries, it has flourished. In the dark periods of antiquity, when literature was in a low state, and the rude manners of our forefathers withheld from them that knowledge we now so amply share, Masonry diffused its influence. This science unvailed, arts arose, civilization took place, and the progress of knowledge and philosophy gradually dispelled the gloom of ignorance and barbarism. Government being settled, authority was given to laws, and the assemblies of the Fraternity acquired the patronage of the great and the good, while the tenets of the profession were attended with unbounded utility.
      Masonry is a science confined to no particular country, but diffused over the whole terrestrial globe. Wherever arts flourish, there it flourishes too. Add to this, that, by secret and inviolable signs, carefully preserved among the Fraternity throughout the world, Masonry becomes an universal language. Hence many advantages are gained: the distant Chinese, the wild Arab, and the American savage will embrace a brother Briton, Frank, or German; and will know, that, besides the common ties of humanity, there is still a stronger obligation to induce him to kind and friendly offices. The spirit of the fulminating priest will be tamed; and a moral brother, though of a different persuasion, engage his esteem. Thus, through the influence of Masonry, which is reconcilable to the best policy, all those disputes which embitter life, and sour the tempers of men, are avoided; while the common good, the general design of the Craft, is zealously pursued. From this view of the system, its utility must be sufficiently obvious. The universal principles of the art unite men of the most opposite tenets, of the most distant countries, and of the most contradictory opinions in one indissoluble bond of affection, so that in every nation a Mason finds a friend, and in every climate a home.
      *) Masonry and Geometry are sometimes used as synonymous terms.”

      the maths can be correct while the narrative remains a fairy-tale.

      1. i think all maths and psience experts should spend some time looking into rudolf II and his fanciful, magical bohemian court. its hocus fucking pocus just like the bohemian grove.

        1. tycho brahe showed up at rudolf’s court we’re told. you gotta check it out, there’s drunken ungulates and a pet midget. the folks that wrote the narrative outdid themselves with the rudolfine prague narrative; they even had tycho die because he was literally too polite to take the piss one night. so he died 11 days later at the tender age of 54 of course. rudolf’s court is grade-a narrative folks. and let’s not forget old rabbi loew and his golem.

          but i must admit that i agree with tycho that there is no stellar parallax.

  4. Zalian wrote:
    This is a old arguement you two bring up.

    “you need to be an expert to disagree with me”

    This is an old technique of dishonest rhetoric:


    Where did anyone say Bob is wrong because he’s not an expert?

    No one said that.

    Bob and his ilk in this fake-science propaganda campaign are beyond simply not being experts. They don’t have the first clue about the subjects they’re spreading disinformation on. They aren’t even interested in science. They’re actors portraying characters who believe screwball theories.

    Bob and his fake-science ilk have a lot in common with the priests of science they so ineffectively (pretend to) oppose, which means Bob et al. are probably false opposition put in place to neutralize genuine opposition to the scientific priesthoods of NASA and academia.

    On the one hand, there’s Michio Kaku, an educated mouthpiece of pseudoscientific propaganda. On the other hand, there’s Bob, an uneducated mouthpiece of pseudoscientific propaganda. These two fallacy clowns are working together in a dialectic to bring about the same destructive ends.

Leave a Reply