Sign into an existing account

The Solomon Asch Experiment

The Solomon Asch experiments, conducted in the 1950s, are seminal studies in social psychology that demonstrated the power of conformity in groups. Solomon Asch, a Polish-American psychologist, designed a series of experiments to investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could influence a person to conform.

The Experiment Setup

1. Participants: The study involved groups of 7 to 9 male college students.

2. Task: The task was a simple perceptual one, where participants had to match the length of a line on one card to one of three lines on another card. The correct answer was always obvious.

3. Confederates: All but one of the participants in each group were confederates, meaning they were in on the experiment. The real participant, unaware of the setup, was seated either at the end or second to last in the line-up.

4. Procedure: Confederates were instructed to give unanimous but incorrect answers on 12 out of 18 trials, called "critical trials."

Findings

1. Conformity Rate: On average, about one-third (32%) of the participants conformed to the clearly incorrect majority on the critical trials.

2. Individual Differences: About 75% of participants conformed at least once, while 25% never conformed.

3. Responses: When interviewed after the experiment, many participants said they did not really believe the group’s answers but had gone along with the group for fear of being ridiculed or thought peculiar. A few of them said they actually believed the group's answers were correct.

Factors Influencing Conformity

1. Group Size: Conformity increased with group size up to a point, with the highest levels of conformity observed with three to four confederates. Larger groups did not significantly increase the level of conformity.

2. Unanimity: The presence of just one ally who also gave the correct answer significantly reduced conformity. When participants had at least one other person who supported their correct choice, the pressure to conform was substantially decreased.

3. Confidence: Participants who were more confident in their judgments were less likely to conform.

Implications

The Asch conformity experiments highlighted the powerful impact of social pressure and group dynamics on individual behavior. These findings have been applied to various fields, including education, business, and politics, to understand how group influences can shape decision-making and behavior.

The Asch experiments remain a cornerstone in social psychology, illustrating the profound effect of group pressure on individual judgments and behaviors. They paved the way for further research into social influence, conformity, and group dynamics, shaping our understanding of human social behavior.

Application to the Heliocentric Lie

1. Perceived Consensus: To convince the masses of the heliocentric model, it is not necessary to convince each individual directly. Instead, the strategy involves creating a perceived consensus. If people believe that the majority, including respected authorities and peers, accept the heliocentric model, they are likely to conform to this view, even if it contradicts their own observations and logic. The Asch experiment shows that individuals often doubt their own senses when they see others unanimously endorsing a different perspective.

2. Authority and Expertise: The role of scientific authorities, educational systems, and media is crucial. By presenting the heliocentric model as an established and uncontested fact through these channels, a powerful illusion of unanimous agreement is created. Asch's findings suggest that under such conditions, individuals are likely to adopt the prevailing view to avoid social isolation or the perception of ignorance.

3. Social and Psychological Pressure: The Asch experiment highlights how social pressure can lead to conformity. In the context of heliocentrism, individuals who question or refute the model may face ridicule, ostracism, or even professional consequences. This social pressure discourages dissent and promotes conformity to the accepted narrative, further reinforcing the lie.

4. Educational Indoctrination: From a young age, individuals are taught the heliocentric model as an unquestionable truth. This early indoctrination, combined with the perception of unanimous belief among teachers, peers, and media, ensures that the belief is deeply ingrained. The Asch experiment illustrates how once a belief is established within a social framework, it becomes self-perpetuating, as individuals conform to avoid conflict and maintain social harmony.

5. Media Manipulation: The widespread dissemination of space flight narratives and astronomical imagery through movies, news, and documentaries reinforces the heliocentric model. The Asch experiment demonstrates that when an individual perceives a unanimous belief in such media portrayals, they are likely to align their views accordingly, even if they personally doubt the authenticity of space flight or astronomical observations.

Conclusion

The Solomon Asch experiment reveals that convincing the masses of a lie, such as the heliocentric model, does not require direct persuasion of each individual. Instead, by creating a strong perception of consensus and leveraging social and psychological pressures, the illusion of truth can be maintained. People are more likely to conform to what they believe everyone else believes, even if it contradicts their own observations and reason. This powerful insight into human behavior underscores how the heliocentric model could be perpetuated as a grand deception.

http://granddesignexposed.com/2Adventism.html

Kabbalah: The Root of Heliocentrism

Heliocentrism, often seen as a scientific model describing the solar system, is deeply intertwined with Kabbalistic thought. The theory that the Earth orbits the Sun, known as heliocentrism, has roots in the ancient mystical traditions of Kabbalah, which have influenced various ideological systems and scientific frameworks.

The Kabbalah, a mystical and esoteric tradition within Judaism, plays a significant role in shaping heliocentric theory. This connection is evident when considering the broader context of how heliocentrism fits into a model of the universe. The adoption of heliocentrism coincided with a period of significant intellectual and philosophical change, influenced by Kabbalistic ideas.

The Copernican Revolution of 1543, which introduced the heliocentric model, was not merely a scientific fraud but also a reflection of Kabbalistic influences. Nicolaus Copernicus, whose work marked the beginning of the heliocentric theory, was part of a broader intellectual movement that incorporated elements of Kabbalistic thought.

This Kabbalistic influence is also evident in organizations like Freemasonry, which integrate sun-worship and esoteric symbolism that align with heliocentric ideas. Heliocentrism, with its focus on the Sun as the central body of our solar system, reflects the symbolic and ritualistic aspects of sun-worship found in Kabbalistic traditions.

NASA and other institutions that promote heliocentric views often align with these esoteric traditions, perpetuating a worldview rooted in Kabbalistic symbolism. This alignment is not coincidental but reflects a deeper integration of Kabbalistic principles into modern scientific paradigms.

The observable reality of a flat and stationary Earth challenges the heliocentric model, highlighting a disconnect between Kabbalistic-based theories and empirical observations. Heliocentrism, by positioning the Earth as a moving object in relation to the Sun, contrasts with the empirical evidence supporting a stationary, flat Earth.

In summary, heliocentrism is not merely a scientific model but a concept with deep Kabbalistic roots. This perspective is important for understanding the broader influences on our current scientific and ideological frameworks, particularly when considering the objective reality of a flat and stationary Earth.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3804876/Congress-passes-new-bill-giving-Nasa-19-5-billion-Mars-exploration-says-happen-25-years.html

This government:

https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024172


Wants to give this government space agency:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-01/who-got-america-to-the-moon-a-unlikely-collaboration-of-jews-and-former-nazi-engineers


$19.5 billion dollars to create a Mars fantasy in 25 years.

https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-israel-space-agency-sign-agreement-for-commercial-lunar-cooperation/

Talmudic jews shape globe propaganda.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5M7vdrBrZc

Part 1 - Angular Resolution

Globe Believers tell us boats disappear over the horizon as they move away from us due to a physical Earth Curvature.

They tell us mountains, islands and lighthouses are cut off bottom up, and shore lines are not visible at distance due to them being below the reified curve of a presupposed globe earth.

This video will demonstrate how no curvature is necessary to make objects disappear from the bottom up, it is partly due to the Angular Resolution of an object becoming too small and reaching its diffraction limit.

Here's a picture of the entire city of Chicago from the Michigan shoreline.

https://files.catbox.moe/o3hnot.jpg

Here's an abc57 article talking about the picture.

https://www.abc57.com/news/mirage-of-chicago-skyline-seen-from-michigan-shoreline

From the article:


The article has to claim this because from where the picture was taken, there should be over 2,000 feet of obstruction caused by the supposed curvature of the earth, but yet we see the entire city of Chicago which has its tallest building, the Willis Tower, standing at 1,729 feet tall.

Every single time I see an image that shows an object that should be hidden beneath a supposed physical horizon caused by the supposed curvature of the globular Earth, I'm told it's a "mirage" or that it's "refraction." So they claim that curvature still exists but the lack thereof is only an illusion. I'm going to address this fallacy and prove that mirages and refraction do not create such an illusion.

Let's start with mirages.

The claim in the article is that a "superior mirage" is what's causing the illusion. What's a mirage? It's a reflection. A reflection is the act of light reflecting back. Reflections cause inversion.

Here's an example of a "superior mirage."

https://files.catbox.moe/huri1b.jpg

Notice the inverted image of the ship above its true position. The ship is reflecting off the atmosphere above it.

Here's an example of an "inferior mirage."

https://files.catbox.moe/eeg4ad.jpg

Notice the inverted image of the ship below its true position. The ship is reflecting off the surface below it.

The differences between "superior" and "inferior" are simply the position of the mirage.

Is the article suggesting that the mirage is somehow a projected image above the object's true location and without inversion? Maybe they meant to say "Fata Morgana," a "complex" form of superior mirage visible in a narrow band right above the horizon.

So it's "complex." What makes it so complex? Basically, the only thing complex about it is that it's actually not a mirage at all but a misinterpretation of what is called a "false horizon."

Here's an example of a "false horizon."

https://files.catbox.moe/9az794.jpg

Notice the image on the left. It appears to be a ship floating in mid-air. If we were to change the color temperature in the photo, like we see in the image on the right, we can see that it's actually not floating in mid-air but is floating on a section of water that is experiencing a mirage effect. It's caused by a change in the refractive index due to the high temperature near the water and the lower temperature above it. Remember, mirages are reflections. It is reflecting the sky above it, giving the illusion that it itself is part of the sky. So technically, it's just an "inferior mirage" of the sky. Notice where the mirage ends. It's creating a "false horizon." This type of inferior mirage can also be seen on solid surfaces.

Here's an example of an asphalt road experiencing the same type of inferior mirage.

https://files.catbox.moe/o4ctaa.jpeg

The reality is, there is no such thing as a mirage that can be seen as a non-inverted image projecting above an object's true position. The only examples that exist are provably misinterpreted false horizons.

Now that we've established that the Chicago photo isn't caused by a "mirage," let us take a look at the possibility that refraction's causing the illusion.

Refraction's the process by which light shifts its path as it travels through a material, causing the light to bend. That's what refraction is, but most people misunderstand the effect of refraction.

Here's an example of refraction.

https://files.catbox.moe/e9ehww.jpg

Notice you are viewing the pencil as it exists in two different mediums. From your position you see that above the water, the pencil is surrounded by air as you'd normally see it. As it enters The denser medium water, which acts as a lens that bends light, you see that it magnifies the pencil. A lens has limitations though. When an object is magnified within a lens, the entire image is expanded from the center of the lens outward, cutting off the edges that no longer fit in the lens. Since the pencil isn't directly in the center of the image being magnified, it expands outward, giving the illusion of a broken pencil. Also notice that you cannot see the eraser anymore because the bottom of the image is also cut off when it is magnified.

Here's another example that shows what a pencil would do in 3 different positions.

https://files.catbox.moe/yzyz9b.jpg

Notice the image on the far left. The pencil is positioned in the center of the glass. The lens magnifies the image from the center outward. Since the pencil is in the center, it remains in its horizontal position but magnifies, only cutting off the top and bottom slightly. Now notice the image on the far right. The pencil's placed close to the left edge of the lens. Since the lens is magnifying the image from the center of the lens outward, part of the pencil is cut off due to the limitation of the lens not being able to fit the entire image that's now being magnified.

Now that we understand what both reflection and refraction is, and the actual effects they create, let me give you an example of refraction occurring naturally in the atmosphere.

https://youtu.be/Y0bQm8sJwd4

This is called the "Shrinking Mill" because of the refraction that occurs regularly in this area. Notice the object being refracted is magnified at a distance, then reduces in size as it's approached. This effect is no different than holding a magnifying glass out from your face and bringing it closer. You'll notice the closer the magnifying glass is to your face, objects will appear smaller, allowing more of the object to fit inside the lens.

Here's a video of an experiment anyone can do debunking the globohomo claim that the atmosphere isn't magnifying things.

https://youtu.be/YG40kkbh734

Here are some practical experiments that can show you the results we see in our observable reality.

https://youtu.be/UFP4HQQoejs

Here's an example of how refraction would actually prevent you from seeing objects at great distances.

https://youtu.be/s-PhStb6mTQ

Notice how objects at the bottom of the lens disappear as it magnifies. This is because our apparent horizon acts as the bottom of the lens as it's at the bottom of the medium creating the magnification effect.

This is how refraction works. It doesn't magically project an image of an object above its true position. Not only is it nonsense to say it's refraction that allows one to see an object beyond a supposed physical horizon caused by supposed curvature, it's asinine because refraction would actually do the opposite and hide an image you actually could see if it wasn't being magnified by refraction.

Being able to see the entire city of Chicago from the shoreline of Michigan is due to the atmospheric conditions creating a LACK OF REFRACTION and it's NOT producing a magnifying effect, allowing the bottom of the lens to be viewed as normal. Like taking the water that's causing refraction out of the glass, allowing you to see the pencil as it truly is.

If we were to view a picture of Chicago from the shoreline of Michigan on a different day with different atmospheric conditions, we will get different results. Like the following.

https://files.catbox.moe/f1g8jb.jpeg

Conclusion: There is no curvature to the earth and any claim that a mirage or refraction can bend light in such a way as to project an image above an object's true position making a globe Earth appear flat is just false. It simply does not work that way and not a single bit of evidence exists that would suggest otherwise.

The Flaws in Heliocentric Claims: Gravity, Atmosphere, and Lunar Tides

https://files.catbox.moe/lkcyvy.png

The heliocentric model, which posits that the Earth revolves around the Sun and the Moon orbits the Earth, is deeply ingrained in modern scientific thought. However, this model contains several inconsistencies and contradictions, especially when examining the behavior of our atmosphere and the influence of gravitational forces. By exploring these contradictions, we can expose the weaknesses in heliocentric claims regarding the atmosphere and the Moon's effect on tides.

The Atmosphere and the Vacuum of Space

One of the most glaring issues with the heliocentric model is the explanation of how our pressurized atmosphere can exist next to the near-perfect vacuum of space. According to the second law of thermodynamics, gases should naturally move from areas of higher pressure to lower pressure until equilibrium is reached. In this case, the high-pressure atmosphere should expand into the vacuum of space, yet this does not happen.

Proponents of the heliocentric model argue that gravity prevents this expansion. They claim that gravity, even at its weakest point on the edge of the atmosphere, is sufficient to keep the gases from dissipating into space. However, this explanation is fraught with problems. Gravity's pull weakens with distance, and at the edge of the atmosphere, it is significantly weaker than at the Earth's surface. The notion that this feeble gravitational pull can counteract the natural tendency of gases to expand into a vacuum is highly questionable.

The Moon and Tides

The explanation for tides in the heliocentric model further complicates the picture. It is claimed that the Moon's gravity is strong enough to cause high and low tides on Earth. This implies that the Moon's gravitational pull can influence the Earth's oceans, which are under the strongest influence of Earth's gravity. If the Moon can exert such a force on the Earth's oceans, then logically, the Moon's gravity should have an even stronger effect as we move upwards from the Earth's surface towards the Moon.

At higher altitudes, the Earth's gravitational pull weakens, while the Moon's influence would ostensibly become stronger. Therefore, at the edge of the atmosphere facing the Moon, both the Earth's and the Moon's gravitational forces should be competing for the same matter. This competition is further complicated by the presence of the vacuum of space, which would naturally draw the atmospheric gases outward.

Competing Gravitational Forces

If the Moon's gravity can pull on the water at the Earth's surface, where Earth's gravity is strongest, it stands to reason that this pull would be even more pronounced at higher altitudes, where Earth's gravity is weaker. Consequently, the gases in the atmosphere at the edge facing the Moon should be caught in a tug-of-war between the Earth's and the Moon's gravitational forces. The vacuum of space would add another layer of complexity, as it would exert a force causing the gases to expand outward.

This situation leads to a paradox: if gravity is indeed responsible for holding the atmosphere in place, then the Moon's gravitational pull should disrupt this balance, particularly at the edge of the atmosphere. The competing forces of Earth's gravity, the Moon's gravity, and the vacuum of space create a scenario that the heliocentric model fails to adequately explain.

Conclusion

The heliocentric claims that gravity can hold the atmosphere in place and that the Moon causes tides on Earth are fraught with inconsistencies. The second law of thermodynamics dictates that gases should expand into a vacuum, yet we are told gravity prevents this, even at its weakest point. Furthermore, if the Moon's gravity can cause tides on Earth, it should also significantly affect the atmosphere, particularly at higher altitudes where Earth's gravitational pull weakens. The heliocentric model's inability to reconcile these competing forces and natural laws highlights its flaws and calls into question its validity. By examining these inconsistencies, we can see that the explanations provided by the heliocentric model are not only implausible but also contradictory.

https://www.jewishindependent.ca/50-years-of-jews-in-space/


How about that. Lol. The first man to ever leave this earth was a jew.


Poor jews. You know it's real because they told you that a jew died.


So touching that they could tie the Holocaust into outer space.


For a white guy institution, Make sure Lennon a lot of Jews take the spotlight.


Dreidels in space. Lol. You know how much taxpayer money it costs when they claim to take anything into outer space? We're paying for dreidels?


They wouldn't understand the jewish bloodletting symbolism.


This bastard is Mr. Magoohing his way through space. Lol.


I bet those faggots did.


Fuckin jews getting their dreidel lodged into the air intake.


jews built the ISS. Who would have guessed?



Lol. When asked what his favorite thing is about traveling to outer space, the jews says that he gets to see their handiwork.

Let's just list some other jewish astronauts.

Jerome Apt: Four missions, 1991 to 1996. Author of Orbit: NASA Astronauts Photograph the Earth (National Geographic Society). Received the NASA Distinguished Service Medal in 1997. In 2012, the International Astronomical Union approved the name “Jeromeapt” for the main-belt asteroid 116903.

Martin Fettman: 1993 mission. Has published more than 100 articles in refereed scientific journals.

Scott J. Horowitz: three missions, 1996-2001. Four Space Shuttle flights. A retired U.S. air force colonel.

Garrett Reisman: 2008 and 2010 missions. Joined SpaceX in 2011 as a senior engineer working on astronaut safety.

Gregory Chamitoff: 2008 and 2011 missions. The Lawrence Hargrave Professor of Aeronautical Engineering at the University of Sydney, Australia; professor of engineering practice in aerospace engineering at Texas A&M University.

Ellen Louise Shulman Baker: three missions, 1989-1995, the last of which was the first Space Shuttle mission to dock with the Russian space station Mir, and involved an exchange of crews. Logged almost 700 hours in space.

Marsha Ivins: five missions, 1990-2001. Spent 55 days in orbit, on missions devoted to such diverse tasks as deploying satellites, conducting scientific research, and docking with Mir and the ISS.

John M. Grunsfeld: five missions, 1995-2002. In January 2012, returned to NASA and served as associate administrator of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate.

Judith Resnik: first Jewish American and the first Jewish woman in space. Died on Challenger, January 1986.

Dave Gordon is a Toronto-based freelance writer whose work has appeared in more than 100 publications around the world.

https://youtu.be/9W7wBNoZN7Y?si=6d4afUOQGw0bzHoJ&t=67

Just arrived from space

source: jews