Sun Simulation and Giant Tree Stumps (Part 2): It's none too bright in here!

Ok, onto Part 2 of my bursting of bubbles, Sun Simulation.
First of all, let's get the Elephant in the room out of the way first. Yes there are patents for various Sun Simulators, yes there are a few in use.
However...
None are orbital Sun Simulators. They're all ground based. They're also waaaaaaaaaay smaller than many of you might think and primarily used in agriculture, for use with hydroponically grown food and weather simulation experiments.
That's it.
No other uses, no other variations / sizes of it in use.

"But that's not what's in the sky. For a start, the simulated sun is white... Not Yellow! The Sun is always yellow!!", I hear some of you yelling from the back.

Yes, the Sun is Yellow... Except when it isn't. Do you know how long the Sun has been white for?
Roughly 11 years now.
After that, it'll be Yellow again, for 11 years.
After that, it'll be white again, for 11 years and so on.
Do you know why?
Because the sun has a maximum cycle of 11 years, with more solar activity, sunspots and magnetic storms.
Then it has 11 years, of it's minimum cycle, where it has less solar activity, sun spots, magnetic storms. But... Calling it a minimum, is kind of misleading as, though they happen less frequently, they're faaaaaar more intense.
The white colouration is due to this somewhat dormant state, as it's atomic and chemical structure is different and it's more volatile as a result.

Anyway, like last time, let's say for arguments sake that there really was a Sun Simulator, what would we see?
Well, for a start, for the sun to still be the size of our usual sun as we see it in the sky and just as bright, with our most powerful bulbs (led's likely) it would first of all, have to be twice the size of the sun to simulate the same light intensity and that would have to be twice as far away from the Earth too, so we could still see it and not be destroyed by the gravity from that very same object.
Result:
We all freeze. Because there's not enough heat coming from those lights and we're also twice as far away.

"But they're using mirrors not bulbs, so ner!!", I hear from the back again, "They're reflecting light from the actual sun, onto the Earth, so double ner!"

Is that so... Well, to make enough light, to light the whole sky and make, you know, daytime, you'd have to have a structure the exact same size as the Earth, in order for enough light to be reflected back onto the Earth. Also, you don't want it too close either because, gravitational effects on the planet, planet goes bang after it sucks in big mirror.
So you'd have to move the mirror further away. The further you move it, the less light it reflects at the Earth.
Less light, also means less heat = We freeze again, only this time it's dark.

"But we have it orbiting just past the moon, it's called the JWST", you say.

The JWST is tiny, we wouldn't see any light coming from it.

"But we have one orbiting and it's smaller, so closer..." you say?

Smaller, less illumination in the areas surrounding the direction the mirror is facing, meaning it will be daytime in New York and...
That's it...
Nowhere else would be in "daylight"
That's not to mention that New York would also be burning to the ground because, the closer the mirror is to Earth, the more focused the beam reflected and... Well, I think you get the idea?

Soooooo... Any questions?

Trump assassination attempt

To resolve this issue, we offered him a chance to do a live voice chat, on Data Chats, with the test of the team to aire out our differences and present evidences when needed. We even offered to find an independent moderator, to moderate that voice chat, to ensure things remained fair and everyone got a chance to respond.
Matthew refused that offer. He then left the group and when someone accidentally deleted him, a good while later, I didn't see any problem with it, after all, he'd not been on the page for some time and as far as I knew, he showed no interest in returning. Besides, if he did want to come back, he could just ask me and I'd reinstate him.

Now bear in mind, this is just for the chat page, all this time he's still been able to post to Data Drops.
Not long after that, I got a DM from Matthew, saying that he'd become aware of being banned and could I reinstate him, because he was unable to read the page. That he didn't want to rejoin, nor communicate with anyone in the group, he just wanted to be able to view it? Now, when he did this, though I was confused by his request, I still did it anyway. In my view, I didn't really see too much of a problem with it? However, I was unaware of the feelings of the rest of the team towards him and one of them, thought he'd rejoined the page and deleted him again in a panic. They then immediately informed me about it, through DM's. Matthew then DM'd me about it.

Around this same time though, there was several things going on in my personal life and so i wasn't on Telegram for extended periods, as I dealt with that, one of which being the anniversary of my brothers death last year and some other things, so it was a good while before I saw any of the DM's and replied.

Between his sending of that message and my replying, he took to his personal page and again questioned the teams integrity and my own and yet again the topic of Thumper arose, along with various other accusations and smears.
This understandably made me absolutely furious, but once again and against my better judgement, I reinstated him, but removed his ability to post to the page etc, after all he stated that all he wanted to do was read what was on it, so why would he want to post anything to chat.
If he changed his mind at some point, I'd just switch those settings back on. I also explained why it'd taken me so long to reply too, so he knew that it would take longer to get an answer from me if he needed anything?
His reinstatement, however, was on the condition that, after reading what he'd posted about his ban the last time on his page, the fact was I felt that it appeared he was trying to score points to both disingenuously make him look better from this situation, in the eyes of his group. But also make us look in the wrong and deter others from visiting the page by his followers spreading this messsge to others. For that, I made it clear he was only reinstated for as long as he didn't use anything on the chat for that purpose again. He agreed.

Then Thumper banned him randomly, because he thought it'd be funny to wind him up and he would've reinstated him if he'd reached out and stopped being a pansy?

Again, this is all during a time when I'm having things to deal with in my personal life, Matthew knew it would be a while before he got a reply and yet he went back to his page, to do exactly the same thing again.

So, for the first time I did something I don't usually do and I decided to consult the team, rather than just automatically reinstate him, as would usually occur, if someone messages me about being banned?

(To be absolutely clear: I never ban anyone, unless they're spammers / bots, or on the very rare occasion, that they fit the profile of a 77th like op, of which there has been 2.
If you plead your case, for why you were using their same tactics, your ban gets lifted. Message me with a barrage of insults instead, or not at all and it usually indicates you're an op. Or, as is often the case, myself and my sausage fingers, or a new admin has done it by mistake.

In any case, you get reinstated)

This time I decided to talk to the team, to see how they felt about me lifting Matthew's ban and basically put it to a vote. I thought that was the fairest way to do it?

When I consulted the team, about this new ban and whether they thought I should reinstate him again, they each told me what they thought. These are a few of their main points:

1) The thought of Matthew lurking in the background, at random and seemingly taking notes, to be used against them and at a later date, made them extremely uncomfortable and actually caused them to not feel as though they could 'speek freely' as a result.

2) His tendency to seemingly take up the opposite side of the argument, with only a select few of the research team, irrespective of how implausible, ridiculous and / or demonstrably wrong that opposing argument was, he would take that position. This gave the appearance of this not being a legitimate opinion that he was genuinely holding and more in line with it being deliberately targeted towards them and just to cause an argument, for reasons of... Who knows, more point scoring perhaps?

3) His tendency to do this and often, for them, made an already challenging environment on the page difficult to be in (keeping a page 100% free speech, is more difficult than you think? Causing tremendous strain on the admins and myself, but is also extremely rewarding because of this. Think of the wild west, but as chat page and you'll be pretty close to what it's like?) So due to his constant and repetitive back and forth with this select number of the admin, his whining when he was insulted by them, constant requests for the banning of tbose admin and the general drain this had on the team, this was reflected on the page and traffic dropped significantly.

4) His request to only view the page and not interact, nor communicate in any way, raised serious suspicions and concerns, as to his true motivations.

There were more points raised, but these were just a few of the keys. Many of the research team felt that, if he was allowed back on, then they would regrettably be forced to leave, because the page would no longer be the safe space it is, for people to say what they like?
Now remember, all this time, he had never been banned from the main Drops page, just on Chat. He's still able to post on Drops, those posts automatically are forwarded to the Chat page and so he is still able to read the comments on his posts and any replies to those comments.

This is just a ban for the chat page, a page he did not want to communicate on, just view what we were saying?

After hearing the points from the team, I then had a think about whether or not to agree to his request and after careful deliberation, I concluded that, because he didn't want to communicate with the group, that he just wanted to read what was being said and no one was sure why that was and his past actions raised serious concerns.

So for the following reasons, his wanting to lurk and not communicate. That this would actually have a chilling effect on the ability for people to be able to 'speak freely'. I had no choice but to consider this as his deliberate attempt at sabotaging the page and to affect how the page is run, in his favour.,

No one who visits Data Chats, should feel unable to state exactly what's on their minds, how they feel and how they think? But know that, when doing so, you should expect to be challenged, questioned and yes, on occasion mocked for your opinion. As long as you can handle that, then you'll be perfectly fine on our chat page, those who aren't tend to leave of their own accord. Matthew didn't want to be part of that, he didn't want to be involved and he likely had an ulterior motive for doing so than what he had stated.

This was the reason for his ban. Yet he stated that, because of this, we were no longer a 100% free speech platform and demanded that I state as such in future. That statement he has repeatedly made and that statement is 100% false.

Anyone is more than welcome to join our chat, say what they actually think and stay for as long as they want? That had always been the ethos behind Data Chats and will always remain our ethos. Matthew's ban was for his actions being centred around his lack of interest in communicating and the reasons stated above.

I have requested that he retract his statement and write an apology, within 24 hours. He's offered to amend his statement, giving my reasons for his ban and not to retract his false allegations.

So with that in mind, I decided to release a public statement detailing the actual events leading up to today and to clarify what, I am sure Matthew hasn't either detailed, nor made clear and likely angled to make him look like a victim, or persecuted in some way?

Finally, throughout all of this, Matthew has never been, nor will be banned from posting on the Data Drops channel, because, despite all this, I still consider Matthew a highly competent researcher and when he's not acting like he has been, concentrating on actual subjects that doesn't involve other channel owners etc he can produce high quality work and his posts are extremely good.

Aaaannnnyyyywwwwaaaayyyy...

Apologies for the length of this statement, but there was a great deal to cover and this is still just a cliffnotes version, of Matthew's strange and suspect behaviours.

Thank you

Sam Fisher (Sam Fisher Data Drops/Chats)

t.me/SamFisherDatadrops

t.me/SamFishersDataChats

Got up for my 3am shift today and seen that Donald Trump had an assassination attempt on his life!

I was very shocked to see that happen.

I hope he is ok ❤️🙏💯

It reminded me of this card from the illuminati card game.

Matty
@MattyMooreChannel Telegram

Who is this guy in the navy jacket ???????

The Matrix offered me money to sell my soul and aid the devil.

I refused.

They found a man with massive influence who also has genuine moral character and lives true to god.

So they attempted to cancel me.

They failed.

Soon they will try and kill me.

Can you see what is happening?

Pray for Donald Trump 🙏

They found an idiot.

They let him on the roof.

They let him set up a rifle.

They ignored the warnings from the crowd about this man with a gun aimed at the president.

They let him take shots at Trump.

When trump fell down they took him out before he could talk.

Coup.