20 Lesta Nediam LNC2018-02-26 2340 +Tomfoolery

Lesta Nediam LNC2018-02-26 2340 +Tomfoolery
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hApfLabMIUY&lc=Ugxj1YuAZ67JY7UmR414AaABAg
https://pastebin.com/7eZ0AgjR
__

Thank you for taking the time to read the PDF and for responding to the five questions. I have not read JLB's response to the five questions, either.

For everyone's benefit: The first 21 pages of the PDF prepare the reader for the five questions that are asked on page 22. From page 23 onwards the PDF covers some basic objections and nuances to those questions.

The 5,500-word PDF uses a large font with plenty of spacing so that it is easy on the eyes to read. Most people should get through it in around 30 minutes.

Again, thank you for taking the time to read the PDF and for providing your answers to the five questions.


__


You mentioned that you have never tracked the "ISS" but have observed other "lights" in the sky ("satellites"). In order to deduce that "outer space" must exist it is best to witness the "ISS" as it passes over your location - rather than trying to figure out the same things by observing smaller and more difficult to track "satellites".

Everyone can easily see the "ISS" with the naked eye and, for reasons that will become self-evident, it is an ideal object for us to conduct repeatable and verifiable observations which permit us to deduce that "outer space" must exist (as JLB has characterised it).

With a Google search you can find NASA's "spot the station" section on their website. The information that "NASA" provides to the public regarding *when* and *where* the "ISS" can be seen in the sky is *precise* and *always accurate.*

If the "spot the station" website indicates that in several weeks' time the "ISS" will be visible at location X during time Y, then that is where the "ISS" will be seen provided the sky is clear during the viewing opportunity.

There are no last-minute cancellations due to technical difficulties!

This means that *something* above us is being tracked and its *path* is *known* and can be accurately, consistently, and repeatedly *predicted.*

Before I continue I would like to repeat what I wrote on page 21 of the PDF:


_"It would be *dishonest* for someone to claim there is no "empirical evidence" for "outer space" *because he or she has chosen to turn a blind eye to observations and measurements that can be made* by anyone with working eyes."_


__


Simply find out when the bright light in the sky that's consistently referred to as the "ISS" will pass over your location. *And, also find out when the "ISS" will pass over a friend's location who lives in another country.*

Either the "ISS" will be seen at your location or your friend's location first, it does not matter which.

With these introductory remarks in mind I'll now add some notes to the five questions while addressing some of the points you made:




1) The reason for the first question is as follows: If there is *only one* bright light in the sky that's consistently referred to as the "ISS", then it *must have* travelled from your location to your friend's location (or vice versa) in the specified time.

With that information you can calculate the approximate speed needed to get from one location to the other. You will find that the calculated speed will be in accordance with the claimed speed of the "ISS".

The "ISS" is the brightest light in the sky and *at no time does anyone ever observe more than one "bright ISS light" in the sky at the same time!* Certainly not in proximity to each another.

From this we can deduce: *If there is only one "ISS light" in the sky, then it must be travelling at the claimed speed.*

And, if the "ISS" *is not* travelling at the claimed speed, then there would need to be *many* bright "ISS" lights in the sky that are spread out above us so that a bright "ISS light" can be seen at each location! (Otherwise it could not arrive at the scheduled time.)

If that were the case, then people would routinely observe *many* of these bright "ISS" lights in the sky. But they don't, they observe *only one.*

Therefore, the "ISS" object in the sky that everyone can see (and reliably predict in advance when, where, and for how long it will appear) must be travelling at the claimed speed.




2) The reason for the second question is as follows: If there is a "shape" to the "ISS", then it cannot be *purely* a "light" and must instead be a *physical object.*

If the "ISS" is just a "light", then we *cannot* use it to prove that "outer space" exists in a way that would satisfy someone like JLB.

But, if the "ISS" is a *physical object* (that reflects rather than emits light), then we *can* use it to prove that "outer space" must exist.

That's why it is important to do our own observations of the "ISS" in order to determine that there *is* a "shape" to it.

To the naked eye the "ISS" appears as a dot of light without shape, but *some* shape can be discerned when that same dot of light is viewed through a telescope.

However, there is an even better way to know the "ISS" is a physical object. At various times (which are known in advance) we can observe the "ISS" transiting the Moon. When the "ISS" passes in front of the Moon we can observe that it does not appear as a bright light (like it does when reflecting sunlight) but instead it appears as a physical object with a distinct shape to it.

From this we can deduce: *The "ISS" is a _physical object_ that _reflects_ light and not _merely_ a "light".*




3) The reason for the third question has been explained above in my notes to the first question. The third question asks for confirmation that the "ISS" object must be travelling at the claimed speed. If this is denied or disputed, despite what has been pointed out, then a good reason needs to be given.




4) The reason for the fourth question is that unless the "ISS" is travelling in a frictionless environment its speed is not physically possible.

Furthermore, the shape of the "ISS" (which we can determine by observing it during a lunar transit) suggests it is *not* aerodynamic!

So, even if the "ISS" were simply a high altitude drone in the atmosphere it is not suitably shaped for such incredible speeds! (I.e., the tremendous speeds needed to get the "ISS" object from one location to another as mentioned above.)

From this we can deduce: *The "ISS" is travelling too fast to be in an atmosphere, especially given its shape. Thus, the "ISS" must be travelling through a frictionless environment (i.e., "outer space").*




5) The reason for the fifth question is as follows: If the "ISS" were inside an atmosphere, then it would need to be regularly refuelled as something would need to be powering it. (Unless, of course, it is in a frictionless environment: i.e., "outer space".)

If the "ISS" object were in an atmosphere, then at some point _something else_ would have to catch up to it and _somehow_ refuel it! All the while the "ISS" would have to carry on with its predicted path (known to us in advance) while whatever refuels it remains invisible!

>> *The point is that we would now need an explanation for the "ISS" that is even more far-fetched, and even more unlikely, than what is already being claimed about the "ISS"!* <<

For example, it is easy for someone to claim the "ISS" is a "hologram". It takes no effort to make such a claim. But how exactly would that work in the real world? It would require *very advanced technology* (of the sort there is no parallel for) to produce a perfect hologram, without fail or a glitch, *every day of the year!*

It is also easy for someone to claim that the "ISS" is being powered by some kind of advanced technology that does not need refuelling (again, of the sort there is no parallel for).

All of these possibilities are easy to suggest. Sure, these possibilities could even be true! But, *if* they are true, then all of them require technology that's far beyond what would be needed to have the "ISS", as it is observed and currently understood, in the first place!

It is clear that any alternative explanation for the "ISS" ends up requiring belief in even bigger absurdities than the current explanation. That does not make sense when the current explanation is being rejected on the grounds it is too absurd to be true!

It is fascinating to me that some people find it easier to imagine (and believe) that the "ISS" is a hologram (or something else requiring highly advanced technology) than a *mundane physical object* in low-Earth orbit.

In order to cling to the fantasy that "outer space" does not exist a person has to find a way to believe utter nonsense. The consequence of holding a belief in nonsense is that it distorts a person's belief with regard to many other things as well.

On page 27 of the PDF I pointed out that it is absurd to claim "mechnical watches" do not exist because digital watches exist. (An approximate of someone saying, "the ISS does not exist as we're told because it is instead an advanced hologram.")

For someone to deny that "mechnical watches" exist, he or she might claim that a particular mechanical watch is really just a digital watch made to resemble a mechanical watch. *But a digital watch requires technology that's more advanced than a mechanical watch!*

So, while it may be the (unlikely) case that mechanical watches do not exist, if we happen to live in a world of digital watches, then mechanical watches would likely exist, too!

Mechanical watches would likely exist in a world that has digital watches. An actual "ISS" would likely exist in a world that has a hologram "ISS". And so forth.

In a world of digital watches it is more likely than not that mechanical watches would or could exist. And, in a world with a hologram "ISS" it is more likely than not that an ordinary "ISS" would or could exist.

__


Thank you again for reading the PDF and answering the five questions. Let me know your thoughts on what I have written if you'd like to continue the conversation.

P.S. I have added a copy of this reply to my Google Plus just in case this reply is not publicly visible for some reason.




__________
2018-03-02 1115

+TomFoolery __ As with the "ISS", you lose sight of the Sun before your friend sees it in a far away country. How can you be more confident than not that the Sun your friend sees is the *same* as the Sun you saw?

How can you be more confident than not that the Sun hasn't been magically replaced with another in a kind of perpetual relay race for the Sun?

I'll tell you how. We can be more confident than not it's the *same* Sun because it (and the Earth etc.) follows a *known path* that can be *predicted well into the future* with great *precision.*

>> *The same goes for the "ISS".* <<

If there were to be *more than one* "ISS" object (that is magically replaced in a kind of perpetual "ISS relay race" in-between where you see it and your friend sees it), then they must all still maintain the same *known path* that can be *predicted well into the future* with great *precision.*

That's rather incredible.

You would need a good explanation as to how *multiple* un-aerodynamic "ISS" objects are able to travel at great speed through the Earth's atmosphere while maintaining the *same* known path.

How do you imagine it works? Really, how? You can't just skip over this, you need an actual answer. It is easy for anyone to claim there could be multiple "ISS" objects in the same way it is easy for anyone to claim the "ISS" could be a hologram.

But do either of these claims stand up to proper scrutiny? *No, they don't.*

It is easy to make wild claims but you must have a good reason to think it's more likely to be the case than not. Without a good reason you may as well abandon reality and embrace whatever fantasy takes your fancy.

If you try to imagine how *multiple* un-aerodynamic "ISS" objects, all travelling at great speed within the Earth's atmosphere - along the same known path - would work, you end up having to imagine bigger and bigger absurdities.

On the other hand, everything works out *perfectly* with just one "ISS" object travelling through a frictionless environment (i.e., "outer space").

Can you come up with a good reason to think we should be *more confident than not* that there are multiple un-aerodynamic "ISS" objects, all travelling at great speed within the Earth's atmosphere, along the same known path that can be predicted well into the future with great precision?

To conclude there must be more than one "ISS" object because "outer space does not exist" would be to presuppose the conclusion. It is circular reasoning. In the parlance of informal fallacies, you would be "begging the question".

If there are multiple "ISS" objects, then where do you imagine they go when they can no longer be seen by you or your friend? Do you imagine they slow down and stop? Do you imagine they magically vanish? If you want anyone to take your claim seriously, then you need a good answer.

Sure, the "ISS" object is not ordinarily visible during the day but it can be easily seen in the day *during a solar transit* with a camera that has been fitted with a solar filter.

Do you imagine the diabolical pranksters at "NASA" send forth an "ISS" clone to transit the Sun for those *fleeting* occasions (all of which can be predicted in advance) so as to not get caught out?

Or, perhaps it is more likely that there is *just one* "ISS" object and it maintains the same known path *because* it is travelling through a frictionless environment. *And the reason we cannot see it most of the time is not because it isn't there, but because the conditions needed to see it are absent.*

But, once those viewing conditions arise, such as at dawn, at dusk, and during the fleeting moments of a solar (or lunar) transit, we *can* see it.

Even though we cannot always see it: at all times the "ISS" *is exactly where it is supposed to be* (as can be predicted by anyone, including you) well into the future.

*It is good to be skeptical but not when it causes us to abandon what's reasonable in order to embrace what's absurd, just to cling to an incorrect belief that we are emotionally attached to.*

Despite what has been pointed out, is there a *good reason* why you would refuse to accept it's more likely there is *just one* "ISS" as opposed to many?

Are you _that_ invested in the belief "outer space" cannot exist?!

Come now, of course "outer space" exists: what we can repeatedly observe and measure about the exterior of the "ISS" *necessarily proves* that "outer space" *must* exist. Pay no heed to those who tell you otherwise. They can only hold you back and slow you down.

P.S. I have again copied this to my Google Plus just in case it is not publicly visible as a YouTube comment.



__________
2018-03-03 0610

+TomFoolery and +JLB __ Thank you for your replies. Okay, I have thoroughly read what both of you have had to say and think I understand the issue that everyone is having with this matter.

Really, it effectively comes down to *how many* "ISS" objects in the sky there are. Most people who believe "outer space" exists just assume, accept, and trust that there is *only one* "ISS" object.

However, those who are skeptical about "outer space" - or outright reject it - do not necessarily make that assumption and accept the possibility for *more than one* "ISS" object in the sky.

After all, *more than one* "ISS" object in the sky changes everything regarding the possibility for "outer space". And, unlike the Sun, no group of trusted investigators can have eyes on the "ISS" object 24/7/365.242196.

And so, with this better understanding, I should be able to give each of you a tailored reply that clears everything up.

In order to do that properly, *let's see if we can at least come to a basic agreement on the logic of something.* (For the sake of clarity, I'll write the following logic out again further below.)


*If* there is *only one* "ISS" object in the sky, and it is an *un-aerodynamic physical object* (rather than merely a "light"), *then* "outer space" (which for all intents and purposes means a "frictionless vacuum/environment") *must* exist.


On the other hand, *if* there is *more than one* "ISS" object in the sky, then what we can observe about a particular/individual "ISS" object *cannot* inform us as to whether or not "outer space" exists.

While I don't _fully_ agree with that since we _can_ calculate many things from a fleeting lunar/solar transit using math/geometry I am happy to agree with the the logic of the above in order for us to make meaningful progress on this thread.


So, the question is, do you also agree with this logic? To be clear I am asking both of you:


__________

>>> *DO YOU AGREE WITH THE LOGIC* that *IF* there is *ONLY ONE* un-aerodynamic physical "ISS" object in the sky (i.e., the "ISS" object that you see and your friend in a far-away country sees is the *same* object and it's not merely a "light") *THEN* that "ISS" object in the sky *MUST* be travelling through a "frictionless environment" (i.e., "outer space") in order to achieve/maintain its speed? <<<


_(I agree *with the logic of this* and would like to know if you also agree. Let me know if you do or don't agree when you reply!)_


__________


*If you agree with the logic of that, then let me know.* It would mean we are all on the same page (in agreement with the logic of what I asked), and I can give a follow-up reply that's tailored to each of you.

Now, I don't want to put words into TomFoolery's mouth, or misrepresent anything he has written, but unless I am mistaken (please correct me if I am!) he seems to have already agreed with the logic of what I asked above when he acknowledged it would be a logical consequence considering he wrote this:

_"It would need to be in a vacuum to travel that fast."_


*Yes, I agree!*


But, do you both? If you *don't* agree, or if TomFoolery has since changed his mind, that's okay.

If either of you disagree with the logic of what I have asked you, *then let me know why* so I can think about things further before sending a tailored follow-up reply.

__


If the question I have asked above is confusing or unclear, let me know and I will try to word it better.

If you are unsure what it is I am asking you, let me know. Hint: I am asking if you agree with the logic of what has been written in the paragraph above beginning with *"DO YOU AGREE..."* followed by "let me know if you do or don't agree".


P.S. This has been copied to my Google Plus so that others can more easily follow our conversation.

Also, I am not receiving notifications for this thread so I apologise for my late replies.

Finally, if you feel as though I am not answering your questions, or if you feel I am avoiding them, just make a note of what you would like me to answer and let's discuss everything after we have come to an agreement (or not!) with the logic of the above.

Remember, this entire thread stems from the *five questions* I asked in my 32-page PDF to JLB which TomFoolery has made an effort to answer (and remains the only person to have done so - thanks again for responding).




__________
2018-03-03 1625

John le Bon (JLB) wrote:
_"Lesta, you keep asking question after question, but continually you fail to do the one thing I have asked of you: provide *evidence* that outer space is real."_

Your frustration is understandable!

You must be truly baffled as to why I would continue to harp on and on about the *same five questions* that I asked you in my 32-page PDF almost ten days ago!

It has been more than a week and you have not yet figured out *how* or *why* our shared and repeatable *empirical observations* of the "ISS" necessarily proves that "outer space" (as *you* have characterised it!) *must* exist.

I _know_ you're big on "empirical evidence" and so I completely understand your frustration with me since you have not yet grasped how or why my *five questions* provide the very evidence you keep asking for!

You keep asking me for evidence and I keep giving it to you. But because you don't understand what I am giving you (how or why it is evidence) you end up thinking I am not giving what you are asking for!

*No wonder you're feeling frustrated, JLB!*

But that's okay. You'll eventually get there because I have faith you really do want to arrive at the truth (or don't you? LOL!).

It seems like you have hit a wall. If you would prefer to sit this conversation out, that's okay. Just let TomFoolery take over for you.

Otherwise, my relentless questions *about the same darn thing* are going to drive you insane! _They sure will!_

Until the penny has dropped and you are able to understand *why* I am relentlessly asking *the same basic things* about the "ISS" my questions are going to seem bizarre, inappropriate, nonsensical, and puzzling.

_They sure will!_

It's just as well that TomFoolery has *already proven* he grasps the *logical implication* of there existing *only one* light in the sky that's consistently referred to as the "ISS".

TomFoolery wrote:
_*"It would need to be in a vacuum to travel that fast."*_

Indeed! TomFoolery gets it! _Whew!_

So, sit this one out JLB if you feel like you've hit a wall. Feel free to jump back into the conversation I am having with TomFoolery once the penny has dropped about my *five questions.*

By all means have a crack at answering what I asked in my previous reply. Even if you don't yet understand why I would be asking it, just humour me with an answer.

Even if you don't think I am providing you with any "empirical evidence" for "outer space" you are intelligent enough to understand the structure of a logical argument, yes? So there is no reason why you can't answer what I asked above in my previous reply.

I'll make it easy for you and repeat it here. Remember, you are being asked if you agree with the "logic" of the following:


__________
>>> *DO YOU AGREE WITH THE LOGIC* that *IF* there is *ONLY ONE* un-aerodynamic physical "ISS" object in the sky (i.e., the "ISS" object that you see and your friend in a far-away country sees is the same object and it's not merely a "light") *THEN* that "ISS" object in the sky *MUST* be travelling through a "frictionless environment" (i.e., "outer space") in order to achieve/maintain its speed? <<<
__________


For any intelligent person there should be no problem understanding what has been asked and stating if, in principle, it is agreed to or not. I certainly agree to the logic, but do you? If not, why not?

If you're feeling especially brave, then have a stab at the *five questions* I asked you in the 32-page PDF almost ten days ago. (I.e., the five questions which TomFoolery has had a go at answering. Refer to the start of this thread!)

Again, don't worry if at this time you don't understand why I would be asking those *specific* five questions - just have a go at them anyway.

_Humour us! Do it for the LOLs!_

Until the penny has dropped, you simply aren't going to mentally grasp why I would keep guiding the conversation back to the *five questions* I originally asked of you in my 32-page reply around 10 days ago.

So far, *only* TomFoolery has responded to them (again, refer to the start of this thread). I _don't_ want to pretend I am some kind of mind-reader, but I would _hazard a guess_ that it's because he actually understands _why_ I have asked those specific five questions.

Unless I am mistaken, TomFoolery seems to understand what it means (i.e., the logical implication) if there is *only one* "light in the sky" that's consistently referred to as the "ISS".

*It means it must be travelling through "outer space" as you have characterised it (a vacuum or "frictionless environment").*

On the other hand, you're not on the same page as TomFoolery and myself so you're only able to contribute the following sentiments:

John le Bon (JLB) opined about Lesta (emphasis mine):
_"So far it seems like the closest you are going to come to providing evidence is to point to the light in the sky we call the 'ISS' *and claim that it somehow proves outer space is real."*_

LOL! Sit this one out, JLB. You're in way over your head.

Let TomFoolery and myself discuss the matter and we can try to explain it to you as we go. For example, my current understanding is that TomFoolery isn't convinced there can be *only one* "ISS" object in the sky because, _unlike the Sun,_ a team of trusted investigators cannot have eyes on the "ISS" object 24/7/365.

*That's a fair criticism!* TomFoolery is on point. That kind of criticism comes from the mind of someone who *actually understands* the issue.

If a team of investigators were somehow able to track the *same* "ISS" object around the Earth 24/7/365 (like can be done with the Sun), then TomFoolery would happily accept "outer space" must exist. (If that is an incorrect interpretation of what TomFoolery is saying, then he should correct me.)

So, let TomFoolery take over for you. Jump back into the conversation when you have understood what we are discussing and can add to the discussion with comments that remain on point.

If you choose to sit on the sidelines (that's what I recommend for *this* particular discussion thread), then I'll do my best to explain things for you in a really simple way as TomFoolery and myself carry on with our discussion.

Cheers!

__________
P.S. This reply has been copied to my Google Plus so that others can keep a track of this conversation since my replies on this thread are not immediately (or reliably) visible to the public.




__________
2018-03-03 1745

+John le Bon __ You wrote:
_*"Lots of words. Zero evidence. A classic example of empty rhetotic."*_

Ah, it would be an example of "empty rhetoric" if only that's what it was. But alas, it is not. As you well know, those who hate reading never have opinions worth hearing. A failure to read what I have written, and a failure to understand what I have written, are not valid arguments against what I have written.

It is easy to offhandedly say what you have but can you actually show that what I have written amounts to nothing more than "empty rhetoric"? You cannot. Any effort to show others that my words amount to nothing more than "empty rhetoric" will only make it clear to all and sundry, that you are just playing games.

*If you ask someone for evidence, but close your eyes, cover your ears, and squeal "la la la" each time it is presented to you, then how do you expect anyone to consider you anything more than a court jester who is being satirically skeptical?*



____________________________________________________________
My name is Lesta Nediam and I am cracking reality like a nut.

Lesta on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/c/LestaNediamHQ

Lesta on Twitter
https://twitter.com/lestanediam

Lesta on Google Plus
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ

What does not exist - exists to exist.
What exists - exists to always exist.
As it is written - so it is done.