Flat Earth

And they weren't the slightest afraid to scratch or tear the pressurized soft costume while jumping around on the moon.
It is interesting though, while i'm sure all of it was filmed on earth, it seems they took few extra steps to create footages about mysterious ruins on the moon for the alien narrative.

For me the sabotaging of the space/aliens/multiunivers narrative by the emergence of the Earths shape discussion is the main indication it wasn't purely just a psyop. Though i think it was still managed to some extent and extra publicity given to it for some reason.

Also i remember just before the emergence of the Flat Earth discussion there was very active discussion against the rotation of the Earth around its axis. Maybe this was set to be undermined by leaking even more preposterous idea of the Flat Earth to public, which even if true, would probably marginalize the whole movement in the sight of public.

And curiously, the axial rotation is what has supposedly shaped all the globes. Maybe they overdosed public with (twisted?)truth to keep the official narrative from collapsing.
 
Last edited:
Bogdan said:
They want to tell us, that some dudes flew in a tincan 384400 km through space, able to counter this enourmous force, landed, then rode a makeshift caddy in rubber suits and played golf on there? Then flew back again? Give me a damn break.

the physics they tell us make space flight (in a conventional way) impossible.
Click to expand...

This is still a question-begging line of argument. NASA is unreliable, you say, because certain NASA claims are implausible in light of data...you got from NASA.

Bogdan said:
They say the atmosphere on the moon is 0.3 nPa (10-12 torr or even lower when they say "For most practical purposes, the Moon is considered to be surrounded by vacuum.") while the largest vacuum chamber can only produce 130 μPa or 10−6 torr? The LHC at CERN uses 10-10 torr they say.
Click to expand...

Well if they say so...

What grounds are there for assuming the moon is surrounded by vacuum? What reason is there to assume that space technology is limited to what NASA puts out for public exhibition? Why believe anything NASA (wikipedia, etc.) says? The whole argument is vacuous.

kd-755 said:
Overt space tech fails the water supply test every time
Click to expand...

I can imagine a similar test proving the impossibility of interstate motorcycle travel on the grounds that no horse could be sustained by fodder limited to such meager storage space. That's probably a stupid example, but you know what I mean.
 
What was the volume of water sent up in an Apollo rocket?
What was the volume of water sent to the moon on the moon lander?
What was the volume of water held in the Gemini spacecraft?
How is the ISS resupplied with water?

What powers satellites at thousands of miles per hour?
What guidance system is able to detect a collision at such speeds?
What is able to divert the satellite from the collision at such speeds?

If space is somewhere human bodies can visit without a resupply of water then I am Lord Lucan!

Incidentally the same water supply test when applied to all the wooden ship 'exploring voyages' in days of yore shows them to be either faked or just as likely they were always sailing in sight of land armed with maps from even earlier days of yore with water sources marked upon them. Without water human beings die. Knowing where to find water is a survival fundamental for all living beings even horses. Set one free and follow it and it will find water for you.

Not really all that much to do with the op premise but space is not the final frontier. Letting go of what you have been told you know is.
 
The whole space program is vacuus. Nasa gets away with space travel because people don't pay attention to the picky details -- like how air pressure goes from 14.7 psi on earth to 0.00 a mere 62 miles up.

The only way for a vacuum to exist is if there is a contained "space" for gas particles to disperse. All gas laws require a volume for pressure to accumulate. Heavy density forms at what we call the bottom. Lighter density becomes nil at the top.

By contained, we need a hard surface to constitute the area's volume.
But why can't we see the top? The lid, so to speak.

Pretty much all ancient "myths" speak of a very visible firmament, some metallic or crystalline structure with a bumpy surface. Some describe it as hammered or pitted, possibly a welded construction.

This video, or maybe a timelapse, shows what may be the thing itself. It's a shame the opening image displays a graphic which obscures the view.


View: https://youtu.be/3x3APUxiSd4
 
I just came across this image from April 1st 1960 an event horizon so too speak.
324271main_tiros_full.jpg
Source
 
Well, I believe that the Earth is flat, or at least where we live is quite flat. Now, knowing what the size of the Earth really is is a problem.

In the old Stolen Story, a topic arose about living on a Super-Earth or rather, that the Moon is actually a hologram of the Earth in the sky (or Dome of the Earth) and that we actually live in one of the craters of the Super Earth.

According to this theory, the aliens would be beings that come from other craters on this Super Earth.

Thus, the Earth would be round, just gigantic and would continue to expand and the crater in which we live (limited by the edges of Antarctica) would be somewhat flat.

But there are varied theories like Hollow Earth, Convex Earth, Universe Hologram.
[automerge]1606803898[/automerge]
JWW427 said:
In an alternate universe, timeline, or reality, planets may have more linear 2D physicality. Anything is possible.
However, Im of the humble opinion that our efforts are better suited to historical mysteries that need solving soon, for the world is waking up and we are on the front lines of a war. The enemy of freedom, awareness, truth, and self-determination is at our doorstep. Triage of topics is a necessary tool.
Click to expand...

If people found out that:

1- Heliocentrism is false and the shape of the Earth is completely different from what people say would question all of history.

The Flat Earth, or discovering the true shape of the Earth, is the fundamental step for any historical lie to fall.

Without Heliocentrism the lie about billions of years, carbon dating, Darwin's evolution fall and with them this whole fraudulent system.

Even the pathetic Enstein (who is only so famous for saving Heliocentrism) would perish.

For those who do not know (I doubt anyone here knows this) they have never been able to prove that the Earth moves. It is known as Airy's Deception.

To summarize, they tried to prove that the Earth was moving, they didn't succeed and then Einstein (stealing Poincaré's work) came up and saved Heliocentrism with a wonderful theory and "proving pictures" that gravity (which has never been proven to exist) did the trick. light bends when passing near "planets" ... they did not think that the difference in density between the media makes light change its course (something we learned as children at school).

Well, I think that all fronts to combat lying should be supported.
 
Last edited:
Bogdan said:
It is claimed, that SOFIA is taking all the so called space pictures of stars and galaxies. Then, the pictures are released to be from the Hubble space telescope.

I would almost place bets that this acronym is no coincidence.

This is an interesting call with notes concerning this:

Click to expand...


Hadn't come across that plane before. Have just had a look. It appears to go under an alternative name also of Clipper Lindbergh. Presumably after a Nazi Sympathiser (rumoured) and general aviation hero Charles Lindbergh.

Charles Lindbergh - Wikipedia
 
Clipper was an early name for photographers I remember reading somewhere. They clipped images of life or some such wordage.

That plane eh, who'd have thought it.
Which types take the images attributed to satellites?
U2's, Sr 71's or does every airliner carry a camera pod or three?
 
kd-755 said:
Clipper was an early name for photographers I remember reading somewhere. They clipped images of life or some such wordage.

That plane eh, who'd have thought it.
Which types take the images attributed to satellites?
U2's, Sr 71's or does every airliner carry a camera pod or three?
Click to expand...
A lot of google earth images have Airbus copyright!
 
Because "flat earth maps" are rather flat. Very accommodating idea in terms of viewing, filing and archival.
 
The FE is stationary. It is not rotating, nor is it moving upwards at a certain speed, nor is it an infinite plane.

It is very easy to prove that the surface of the Earth is plane.

The explosion which occurred at Tunguska (1908, June 30, 7:15 am Siberia time, 0:15 London time) was seen instantaneously from London (5,200 km distance), Antwerp, Berlin, Stockholm. On a globe the humongous curvature would have blocked an explosion which took place at some 7 km in the atmosphere, from a distance of 5,200 km.

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.
 
kd-755 said:
I just came across this image from April 1st 1960 an event horizon so too speak.
Source
Click to expand...

Why did it take me so long to find this forum? I am continually surprised when posters present ideas and discussions. I've been a flatearther for over 5 years and get nothing but abuse and mockery everywhere else. Not here.
There really are critical thinkers out there! I give many thanks to a certain "conspiracy nut" who brought SH to my attention.

As to photos of earth from space, they are non-existent.
Like the one above, the earliest images were sliced and spliced. poorly.
Modern cgi has improved so much that Sophia and other planes can photograph slices of real estate which are blended perfectly, giving us gps and updated Google maps.
moon-earth-photo-1966.jpg

first-photo.jpg
 
Last edited:
The only thing that interests me is what you yourself have done, have experienced, have observed to prove these claims to yourself.
1. The FE is stationary.
2. It is not rotating,
3. nor is it moving upwards at a certain speed,
4. nor is it an infinite plane.
 
kd-755 said:
The only thing that interests me is what you yourself have done, have experienced, have observed to prove these claims to yourself.
1. The FE is stationary.
2. It is not rotating,
3. nor is it moving upwards at a certain speed,
4. nor is it an infinite plane.
Click to expand...

1. Global SAGNAC EFFECT formula proves the Earth is stationary
2. See 1
3. The vertically pointed Sagnac interferometer would pick up any upward movement in a fraction of second on the fringes (Sagnac applies to both rotational and linear/translational/uniform motion)
4. An infinite plane requires attractive terrestrial gravitation: the Biefeld-Brown effect exact formula derived by H. Weyl and B. Ivanov proves that gravity cannot be attractive
 
Tips
Tips
Please respect our Posting Rules.

Similar threads

F
The Nature of the Beast (Part 5) The Gnostics, Archons & Devas
Replies
9
Views
16K
Belialith
Belialith
F
The Nature of the Beast (Part 2): Denizens of the Invisible Realm
Replies
10
Views
10K
Belialith
Belialith
Back
Top