Science-Technology
See other Science-Technology Articles
Title: RAW FOOTAGE: Balloon, aka NASA "Satellite" Floats Across Full Moon
Source:
YT
URL Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAfdkWy0QtE&feature=youtu.be
Published: Feb 3, 2018
Author: Flat Earth Dude
Post Date: 2019-09-28 17:41:37 by Liberator
Keywords: NASA, Satellite, Balloon
Views: 31094
Comments: 184
(Video taken through a Nikon P900 camera)
Poster Comment: Cool! Great shot of the Moon as well. (Sure doesn't seem like it's 239,000 miles away.) So.... is balloon technology how NASA really photographs earth? It appears they are able to attach an equipment gondola to the Balloon...and let 'er rip into Low Earth Orbit. One also wonders if "Astronauts" are actually embedded into a special Balloon gondola instead what's depicted in those dodgy "ISS" shots. Orbital velocity is the velocity needed to achieve balance between gravity's pull on the satellite and the inertia of the satellite's motion -- the satellite's tendency to keep going. This is approximately 17,000 mph (27,359 kph) at an altitude of 150 miles (242 kilometers). Without gravity, the satellite's inertia would carry it off into space. Moving juuuust a bit slower than 17,000 MPH. Source: 'HOW STUFF WORKS' https://science.howstuffworks.com/satellite6.htm
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Liberator (#0)
(Edited)
Unless One was high, why in the world would anyOne wonder that? Looks more like the house from "Up". I hope to God you still believe pizza really exists.
That's not how any of this works.
Your "wonder" can be construed in a couple different contexts... Lol, "high" as in "doing doobies"? OR, "high" with respect to the height (and speculation) that there are passengers/"astronauts" floating in what may be a NASA balloon/satellite? I realize this is NOT what we are told is the case, but, yup, it's true; "Astronauts" and Equipment actually do float around in gondolas attached to high altitude balloons. (Sure -- they are always referred to as "Weather Baloon." It provides reasonable cover for NASA. This is actually a fact my friend. (Not that NASA wants that kind of secret leaking, given its massive $52 mil per day budget for the last quarter century, and the imagery of massive rocket ship seen blasting off into the sky, presumably to orbit the alleged "globe" at 17,000 mph.) (For those interested, I'll be providing official documentation that goes back to the 1950s.) Most people also don't realize that there's currently a helium shortage and restrictions on its purchase...yes, due to NASA's "resource priority" and necessity for its ongoing NASA balloon program. Btw, these balloons are massive. They are used to lift NASA's "satellites" into Low Orbit.
Pissah.
Actually...IT IS. With respect to, 'HOW STUFF WORKS', I mis-formatted the post, so it's my fault there's some confusion. OF NOTE: According to 'HOW STUFF WORKS' and the link I provided: "Orbital velocity is the velocity needed to achieve balance between gravity's pull on the satellite and the inertia of the satellite's motion -- the satellite's tendency to keep going. This is approximately 17,000 mph.(27,359 kph) at an altitude of 150 miles (242 kilometers). Without gravity, the satellite's inertia would carry it off into space. We see neither traveling at 17,000 mph -- whether a gi-normous NASA balloon or the pix taken from NASA "Satellites" (which are actually "gondolas" tethered TO balloons at low earth orbit.)
NASA's Giant Helium Balloons will neither be escaping much beyond the stratosphere, nor dragged to earth via "gravity"... They drift (or are guided) at a very manageable speed (as captured by this amateur videographer in front of the moon), thus it is the perfect medium from which to view and photograph the earth....or be its passenger.
What would be the point of a randomly-drifting mission for either photography or passenger flight? Go take a look at the KH-11, from which the Hubbell telescope is derived. These are not randomly-drifting machines - I know; in a past life I helped to track them. When you know weeks, months or years in advance exactly when and where one would clear the horizon, that's pretty much the opposite of random.
IF you're interested in the truth of the matter...(IF NOT, PLEASE IGNORE) Check out the various links to related subject to the right (Top Chat Replay) MIND BLOWING EVIDENCE...and presentation from someone who may not be your cup of tea in manners, but he is certainly one who crushes the truth. And that's really all that matters. *Please don't dismiss this hour-plus video and case because of the uncalled for salty language within the first couple of minutes...as well as sprinkled here and there.* THIS IS WORTH YOUR ATTENTION. The Content Provider (who was coincidentally also in the service and familiar with some missions) soon calmed down and proceeds to make the case based on researched information, analyses, de-classified official documents, videotape and photos that satellites are perhaps NOT actually in orbit in space but instead are floating from high-altitude meteorological balloons. This included specific missions and sections of documents that testify to protocols, flight ranges and heights, and how HUGE balloons (the size of a football field)....(including "Drag Net" gondolas," payloads and capsules) have been captured by special aircraft. This balloon program has actually been in effect since the mid-1950s. Some interesting bookmarks: Documents of Q & A interviews with a Flight Commander regarding various missions and 9:45 (protocol in capturing the Gondola payloads) 13:00 (video of balloon launch from Antarctica, Satellite "payload.") 15:45: Antarctica Balloon Launch Program and specially outfitted aircraft that capture balloons designed to carry 8,000 lbs satellites (according to docs.) 23:45... Pilot interviewed about role in balloon-capturing protocol 25:30... Astronauts are sent to Antarctica for training. (AND FOR PRIVACY SAKE...which MAY be one reason accessing ALL land latitudes 60 degrees and south IS STRICTLY VERBOTEN.) 28:48...Chute/Deployment/Capture/Area Recovery protocol Could satellite signals be emitters placed around the edge of the flat earth? From here do they send the signal to the sky (to the dome) and the signals bounce from the top to the ground? So it seems to come from above. Maybe that's why you can't go visit what's in Antarctica. 32:27 ...On Satellite Tracking by relatively primitive means, explanations and dynamics; Number of Balloon ID'd in missions, frequency % codes; purpose. (Also launched from several European nations as early as during the mid-1950s.) HISTORY OF SATELLITE RECON (Dec-Classified 2012) Among those listed: that you might remember: the Soviet Module/Space Station, "MIR", from 1997-2002. It was launched VIA BALLOON from Norway... (see docs under "Payloads" at 44:55 and onward.) You will be shocked at just how many "Satellites" were launched NOT from "Space Rockets" but from BALLOONS.) 46:23 -- loose tethers hanging from payloard capsules) 48:05 -- NASA's Enviasat ...and other awkward listed Balloon payloads and NASA docs. 51:16 etc -- HOW IT WORKS, including balloon recon/capture aircraft like U-2S (mannned/unmanned.) The NASA $$$$$$$ money and charade this 60 year old "Space Mission is costing the USA is stratospheric (pun intended.)
I don't believe they are randomly drifting; I believe it/they are radio-controlled (just like drones and other aircraft.) There are potentially plenty of purposes or missions. Recon? Weather and atmospheric gauging and mapping? Sensor Equipment? Carrying Radio Frequency equipment? The whisper-quiet monitoring of specific people, places, and things? Go take a look at the KH-11, from which the Hubbell telescope is derived. These are not randomly-drifting machines - I know; in a past life I helped to track them. When you know weeks, months or years in advance exactly when and where one would clear the horizon, that's pretty much the opposite of random. I concur that something like a Hubble is NOT floating/drifting randomly. (I know -- in your past life knowledge and participation in space projects and engineering were your wheelhouse. It's very likely you were excellent in your expertise -- though at the same time it doesn't necessarily mean you knew what other departments' missions were or "science" from which *they* based they area of expertise on. (Fwiw, in the about video, the Hubble is discussed a bit.) Regarding "the horizon," we will have to disagree on its definition, given our limited perspective due to vanishing point of sight-line. I don't believe one technically exists as I disbelieve in the existence of earth curvature. I was going to post a very brief vid titled, "STILL FLAT." But...according to YouTube sign-in is require because the material was flagged as "Inappropriate For Some Users." (!!?!! HUH??!) Was THAT tell us?? When G00gle is deeming "Flat Earth" as "Dangerous", it means..."DANGER! TRUTH AHEAD!" Here's what I see. Am I nuts? Or is some (any) of this plausible?
Facts don't count when you debate Flattards. Math is irrelevant to Flattards and they don't recognize the concept of mathematical proofs or their finality as a problem's correct solution. I have noticed some interesting theories recently on the rise of Flat Earthers on YouBoob. Naturally, we all recognize how YouBoob is monetizing all of this while trying to use it to smear all religions, many of whose fundamentalists do reject science. It's a subtle attack strategy used by the TED people and Silicon Valley. But there is a real question of just how 'tarded the Flattards really are. And it is a serious question. These are the kids who flunked algebra and geometry and chemistry and physics. And they're the kids who argued with the teachers in every class you ever took, the contrarian adolescent types. It is a pronounced personality characteristic that they exhibit. Some people might consider the questioning of their fundamental intelligence and competence to be hitting below the belt but you can't view many of their top-rated videos - their best stuff - without starting to question if Flattards should be a category in the DSM as a mental disability or condition. [I thought Neil might like these videos; the first vlogger shows his test for dyscalculia based on an aircraft flight plan and says that no Flattard has managed to pass it with only a few even willing to try to. It reminded me of Neil's posts about aircraft flight plans on some old flat earth threads here at LF.]
No, it's not worth our attention. None of it is. We aren't going to be truth-bombed into becoming your fellow-Flattards. Nor are any of us likely to be drawn into the usual endless lists of videos and the constant moving of goalposts to allow you to harangue us all with your little problem in understanding basic science concepts that are not at all mysterious to the rest of us. It just isn't happening. Maybe you should seek help for your paranoid personality traits and your learning disabilities and your authority figure problems. But none of those is our fault or our problem. Nor are they anything new in your life because they do date back decades IMO.
Who is "our", Kemosabe?? You represent yourself, your own personal biases, programming, and ignorance. And projection. Just because YOU are blindly accepting of everything you've been told, mesmerized by and indoctrinated at all levels of consciousness by every authoritah and Rockefellerian public school/university gulag doesn't mean EVERYONE ELSE is. Sheeet. You still believe in the fairy-tale the criss-crossing of Chemtrails are "contrails" -- even though yor gubmint overlords ADMIT they are spraying the sky. We aren't going to be truth-bombed into becoming your fellow-Flattards. Again, you presume to be part of some kind of fraternal Magoo-ian Society of Lemmings. (And yes you just may be) BUT it doesn't preclude free-thinkers and truth-seekers from abandoning the zombie-land of WikiTardia and Cult of Fake Science. Are you also onboard with your fellow Magoo-ian Lemmings on 'The Big Bang'? '4.7 year old Universe'? 'Evolution' (from Plankton-to-Man)? I'll bet your "proof" of a "globe" is the one on your desk. OR cartoons & movies. The 'Universal' globe logo. Or...especially the "photos" of NASA from "Outer Space". (Did Buzz Aldrin autograph your fav?) .... the constant moving of goalposts to allow you to harangue us all with your little problem in understanding basic science concepts that are not at all mysterious to the rest of us." Aaah. The truth slithers out. It's PRIDE that won't allow you to pursue or consider the truth. Here's some "Science" for you -- NASA's own "Scientists" admit" "WE CAN'T LEAVE LOW EARTH ORBIT." (But they're "working on it!") Then please tell me, Einstein -- so exactly how did NASA fly 778,000 miles (round trip) TO the Moon and back 5 times from 1969-1972? BUT CAN'T LEAVE LOW EARTH ORBIT 50 YEARS LATER?? Here's more "Science" AND "Math for you: Tell me. How does NASA -- which allegedly accomplished the greatest feat in the annals of Human History -- "LOSE THE TECHNOLOGY" (or threw out) the "knowledge" that supposedly GOT them back & forth to the Moon?? Either NASA is lying about it and EVERYTHING -- OR worst -- you actually believe this "WE WENT TO THE MOON!" lie (along with every other lie.) If you choose to remain ignorant of the same "basic science" and "math" you claim supports truth and logic, perhaps you can explain THIS simple "Science 101" as well?: Given "Water seeks it's own level," the Nile River for 3,000 miles IS LEVEL. Ergo, that means it is FLAT. (that's right -- PROVEN: No Curvature. No "curvature" means "NO 'GLOBE''.") All this isn't even about "education" or lack of; It's about INDOCTRINATION. Maybe you should seek help for your paranoid personality traits and your learning disabilities and your authority figure problems. For demanding the truth be sought and embraced? For rejecting the obvious lies? That's a strange solution you propose.... Good luck with that altar of yours in the living room/"sanctuary," featuring a Giant Globe. The walls? Perhaps festooned with pictures of Einstein, Rockefeller, Buzz Aldrin, the NASA logo, Freemason logo, and 'All Seeing Eye'. I'm only guessing a wee bit here. And just because you hold a Doctorate in Mis-Direction (Minor in Deflection) from 'Oz U.' doesn't mean I don't respect your position.
If the earth was flat and the Nile was flat the river wouldn't flow. No rivers would flow. This is a retarded topic.
Because the public and the pols don't care about manned space exploration. The later Apollo missions aroused no public interest other than complaining about what a huge waste of money they were. So we ended up abandoning our Saturn and Jupiter launchers and any plans to build any platform big enough for manned interplanetary missions. At present, we can't even reach low-earth orbit ourselves because, since the end of our disastrous and expensive Shuttle program, we've been paying Russia to launch our astronauts and payloads to low-earth orbit. SpaceX is likely to change that in the next two years. We'll have the launch vehicles needed for manned launch to low earth orbit and to the moon and a very good prospect for launchers capable of a Mars mission, even if it isn't clear whether humans can survive long enough in space to make it to Mars aboard those ships. The Bezos rockets (Blue Origin) will also surface sooner or later and they may be quite formidable. SpaceX was first but Bezos and other will compete and the EU and Asian space agencies are trying to steal SpaceX's technology for themselves. Oh? I hadn't read that before so let's have your source for this breakthrough discovery. I am aware that many people find the behavior of rivers mysterious as can be seen on Q&A sites like Quora. Do you also assert that all oceans are exactly as "FLAT" and "LEVEL" as you claim the Nile River is? If the Nile is FLAT but the oceans are not FLAT, can you explain why? Are all other rivers also FLAT or is it only the Nile? Just a quick question: do you believe that rivers flow downhill, that water flows downhill relative to local topography? Yes or no.
Ever drove cross-country? Ever wonder who is in charge of pushing the Rockies up out of the ground so you can see them suddenly come into view,and then letting them sink back into the Earth again once you have passed that area? Where does all the ocean water go at low tide?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
The oceans would go dry after a few low tides unless there was a HELL of a lot of rain every day,
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
As higher education, Hollywood and MSM indoctrinate the sheeple into weak, over sensitized sheep, to move us further left, YOU make the idea of indoctrination more unbelievable when you associate the term with flat earth. lol
The tides are a mass illusion, created by the Freemasons on the orders of the Illuminati and with the aid of NASA. Ignore the fact that tides have been known and written about for thousands of years, it's all just #FakeHistory. They are aided in the Tidal Deception by the Jesuits who are funded by the Build-a-burgers, a new hamburger franchise. And almost no one can connect all those dots... If you don't hear from me again, you'll know that the Freemasons sent a hit man to rub me out.
I’ll suggest that it’s Liberators deep religious conviction, that doesn’t allow him to believe the earth is round. Just a hunch.
This particular post of yours is hysterical. BRAVO!! "Debate"?? Did you really mention, "Debate"?? Can you FAIL more miserably on that count, my frothing friend? At least I see others here posing serious, valid questions and challenges -- even though they may disagree with NASA/Flat Earth/911 challenges. Back to your concept of "debate": ""FLATARD! FLATARD! FLATARD!...YouBoob! YouBoob! YouBoob! Mental disability!!" does NOT constitute a "debate"; Or any reasoned discussion and challenge of simple claimed facts, math, or science. Neither do tantrums and hysterics over sources you hate and resent (YouTube) because they circumvent the "official" sources of "truth" and happen to expose previously pre-YouTube actual hidden truth. (Btw, baiting Neil/Ping into entering the fray? Lame.) As the resident self-annointed arbiter of consensus and "acceptable subject matter" at LF, are you sure you even know the definition of "debate"? (I mean other than the same ol' puerile "Flatard" ad hominims I've seen from millennials and "adolescent types" -- yes, the same compliant pods you attempted to control, and indoctrinate as a teacher of the Rockefellerian agenda.) Facts don't count when you debate Flattards. Math is irrelevant to Flattards... Oh, the irony. Have you always been such a condescending, no-nothing little pr*ck? Last evening, Prof. TooConservative, I lobbed 4 clear Test Questions for you to answer. They were "Factual," "Scientific," AND "Mathematical". As you routinely do, you engaged in your usual gaslighting attempt, not only failing to answer the questions, but changing the subject and entire premise... But for now -- and for the sake of credibility and honesty, please answer just these a few still un-answered questions and explain NASA's own large credibility problem. Ignoring them won't make it go away. And besides -- I reeeeealy wanna believe!! QUESTION #1: FACT: Given NASA's own "Scientists" admit" "WE CAN'T LEAVE LOW EARTH ORBIT" (But they're "working on it!"). Simple logic and math: How then is NASA's claim to have traveled 778,000 miles (round trip) to the Moon AND back 5 times from 1969-1972 possible? (especially when 50 YEARS LATER they CAN NOT?) Can you kindly work out that "Math" AND "Science" for us? QUESTION #2 (includes assumptive premise): Can we all agree on this? Given one accepts the established "Historical/Scientific Fact" NASA claims to have accomplished -- that is the greatest of feat in the annals of Human History: Plotting a precise course to and landing men on the Moon 239,000 miles away AND returning. Safely. FIVE TIMES. 50 years ago. But...HOW is this all possible when NASA now admits escaping the SAME "Low Earth Orbit" is now NASA's "biggest challenge"? They admit it's a problem that is still not figured out... QUESTION #3: Please rationally or logically explain how it was possible (or believable) that NASA "LOST THE TECHNOLOGY" (or threw it out)? IF NASA has indeed already traveled back & forth to the Moon FIVE times, without any discussion about what it now says are current grave problems/solutions about leaving "Low Earth Orbit", how are NASA and any of those 169-1972 missions believable or credible?? Yes, I'm stupid; (Maybe I have a "mental disability" as you suggest.) Because I don't understand the above unanswered questions. But as a really smart teacher and person, I'm sure YOU can explain how these "facts," "Math," and "Science" is possible. And how NASA went to the Moon 5 times. And now? Nope, we are told by NASA itself: WE. CAN. NOT. THANKS.
Just a hunch. GI, in case you hadn't seen my posts on how and why I disbelieve the "Earth is Round" indoctrination/lie we've been taught from the crib-to-grave, it's short and sweet... Once upon a time (until this past February) I was just like you. I never gave the shape of earth a passing thought. The idea of considering this world was anything BUT round hadn't even entered my mind. I thought "Flat Earthers" were nutty, looking for another "conspiracy theory" to embrace. I even shared this thought with Deckard: "They are making ALL CTs look bad." Then on a whim I lightly investigated the subject, "Flat Earth." I found it strange that for such a wacky, absurd subject, it was being too heavily censored and overly ridiculed. Especially now. IF it's so ridiculous, it should just blow away on its own, right? (But it's not. Flat Earth belief is instead spreading. For good reason.) The further process of mine went this way: On WHAT scientific "evidence" could Flat Earth possibly be based on? It began with and was reinforced by the Lack-of-Any-Credibility of our institutions. THEY opened up this can o' worms. NASA has always been suspect. Flat Earth/Spinning Ball belief is a slow process. It is based on challenging several institutional baked-in "Scientific facts." (which turn out only to be theories supported by OTHER theories.) OTHER people who have explained and figured out the truth via real science. Belief in my own personal observation (that's shared by others.) Understanding physics (ex; water seeks its own level; the earth = 70% water.) Antarctica restrictions. NASA hoaxes. Yes -- the Genesis chapter on Creation and the Bible did become a big factor in my belief. It spoke of and reinforced the truth about this world/realm. Truths snowball. You don't return to a world that lies to you, to me every day. Why? DECEPTION = CONTROL. We see it in play EVERY day, don't we? (And yes, "Globe Earth has especially been about "hiding God.")
Well, yeah, pretty much. Simple logic and math: How then is NASA's claim to have traveled 778,000 miles (round trip) to the Moon AND back 5 times from 1969-1972 possible? (especially when 50 YEARS LATER they CAN NOT?) Elon Musk could do it, now. He's got Falcon 9 to reach low- and high-earth orbit and Falcon Heavy to reach the moon and he's starting testing on SpaceX Starship to send large payloads to Mars (or very large payloads to Earth orbit or to the Moon, the kind you need for big space colonies or a moon colony). But NASA itself? Hell no. They have no contracted production of Saturn and Jupiter launchers that they own which they did have during the Apollo launches. And they don't even have the crappy, explosive, crew-killing, vastly overpriced Shuttles. So they can't even actually get to the ISS using NASA-owned launchers. Instead, they're paying SpaceX for cargo resupply flights and NASA and its Western partners all have to pay through the nose to use the old Russian launchers which are developing a really bad safety record. Not only that, but they don't have the Shuttle to launch the KH spy satellites and other classified military launches; those are now controlled directly by the Pentagon and they launch on their old ICBM-based launchers which NASA never operated or launched at all. So the Pentagon and SpaceX and SLS and Boeing and others can all make orbit and some of them can or will reach the moon in the next few years and SpaceX (and likely Blue Origin) will go to Mars by 2025. But NASA? They have nothing but a fistful of options to buy rides at $60M a pop from the fucking Russians. NASA does have contracts for SLS (Space Launch System) to produce some very large launchers through 2030 which cost upward of a billion dollars a launch. Good luck to NASA trying to sell that to Congress! But SLS is actually just a front for Boeing and Lockheed to sell their very overpriced single-launch crappy technology to Congress under cost-plus contracts, the kind they love for Pentagon contracts that are so lucrative. Here's a 2-minute video on the various launch platforms that are current or upcoming. You should watch it so you can grasp a few basic facts about modern American rocketry. One way or the other, we are going to have launchers far bigger than the old Saturn/Jupiter rockets that we used for Apollo. If we choose well (SpaceX or Blue Origin), we'll slash launch costs to a small fraction of what we pay for launches currently. SLS continues to miss its mileposts. And Trump and Company are taking launches away from SLS and they're giving those launches to SpaceX. Musk is gobbling it all up. NASA can barely launch a weather balloon using its own owned-and-developed technology. So that statement by NASA was entirely correct and probably understates just how defunded NASA has become, largely because there are a lot of U.S. senators that think we need to go to private launch companies to commercialize space. Which is the correct way to do space, given how cheap SpaceX launches are compared to anything NASA can contract from SLS or the upcoming Blue Origin vehicles. NASA really just runs our legacy spaceports and tracking system and providing some astronaut training serverice and not much more. Because Congress doesn't trust them to build anything any more. And with good cause. It's very clear to me that you have almost no factual knowledge of these programs and the technology involved, let alone the political wrangling in Congress. You simply don't understand these things and so you huddle back, posting these fact-free CTs about how "it's all a lie!". Pretty sad really. You don't seem to have the knowledge even to evaluate these programs on even an elementary basis, the kind we might expect to see from a middle-school student. NASA did scrap its Jupiter/Saturn launchers entirely. And much of the data used for launches and for vehicle tests was in software for obsolete computers. Over the decades, if you follow the computer tech news as I have for many years, you would be aware of the efforts to salvage the poorly-stored mag tapes and punched cards that NASA did keep. Hobbyists actually had to build custom hardware or use very old surplus tape drives and card readers and then write software just to extract the original data and source code. And it is not complete because the originals were so poorly stored that some are simply unsalvageable. This is not dissimilar to Hollyweird losing a lot of old B-movies because the celluloid film aged badly or was stored poorly, leaving us without archival copies of a lot of old movies and cinema serials and old theater newsreels. Then you also have a number of fires that happened in the film archive warehouses of the now-defunct movie studios of the era. When your studio is failing and you're firing people, preserving your worthless old films is low priority. And if you've insured your film archive (which is commercially worthless), an insurance payout from an arson is a good way to monetize it instead of continuing to pay to keep an archive that no one wants. So...once they had the Shuttle, NASA made preserving the documents and software and toolchains a very low priority. At the time, NASA believed we wouldn't want to go back to the moon, that the future of space flight was Shuttles in Earth orbit and that the moon and the other planets would all be explored by robots which were much cheaper. But you don't know any of this because you actually prefer these laughable Flattard conspiracy theories. You spend your days watching their Flattard videos with three fingers buried deep in your ass, finally convinced you've caught those bounders in their lies. You convince yourself that people don't want to be around you because the Freemasons and Jesuits have brainwashed them while NASA manufactures fake space programs and launches fake moons and planets to deceive them all and that you are some brave freedom fighter, fightin' for da Trut' against The Man. And that someday you will finally prevail over all those Smart People who passed those darned math and science classes back in high school. And it never works out for you, does it? I suppose it really eats you up when you really let yourself think about it. So you don't think about it and prefer to flood some meaningless chitchat forums like LF with your propaganda. At least it keeps you busy so you don't have to confront the real problem you have in bringing the hoi polloi to understand what you think is Da Trut' on any given day (but which is guaranteed to change regularly). It's all very mysterious to you, isn't it? I don't doubt that it is. Have a nice day.
G.I., this statement of the hardships of the CT lifestyle made me LOL. Not quite enough to bring tears to my eyes but close enough. Ah, the hardships of unrelenting unrequited paranoia over decades as the entire framework of your mental function... I think Liberator needs a new gig, something novel. We should try to help Liberator create his own lucrative Kookery so he can make some money from being retarded. How about Flat Moon theory? Or Flat Mars theory? Or even Flat Sun theory? Or is it all just a conspiracy to make us believe that only the Earth is FLAT? It is a little fun to review the physicists who posit that the entire universe itself is actually a flat disc and that the apparent 3 dimensions of Newtonian physics is actually merely an artifact of our senses and instrumentality. But they can't prove that any more than they can prove anything from String Theory or that huge waste of time they call the Multiverse.
Fair question... I obviously don't have all the answers, but since "Science" deals far more presumptive theory more than Fact (like "Gravity"), I'll share what I've researched: Vast subterranean oceans below the earth's existing oceans and even under the land ebb and flow. What causes it is anybody's guess. This has been theorized by some scientists as a large factor in causing the tide fluctuations. (Of course we've all been taught to believe the Moon's "gravitational pull" is THE one and only cause.) To what degree you consider the possibilities of recent theories, "Settled Science" or today's "science" is up to you. Ever drove cross-country? Ever wonder who is in charge of pushing the Rockies up out of the ground so you can see them suddenly come into view,and then letting them sink back into the Earth again once you have passed that area? Sure... Yup. That's one amazing sight; Mountains emerging at the horizon, then eventually disappearing beneath it. You're referring to the optics of perspective and objects that seemingly disappearing below the horizon. It's because our ability to see is limited by factors -- like haze. But mostly because everything has a vanishing point at which objects converge into a point...finally disappearing. For instance: This is the perception of expected curvature (based on the formula of 8 inches per mile squared) that appears to "hide" the Rockies, ships, land, etc which appear as if they pass beneath the horizon. One problem: That "formula" is proven NOT to work. It's documented that people are seeing 40-hundreds of miles to objects over a horizon that should not be able to be seen. IF you were to look through high-powered binoculars or telescope at the Rockies you've just "seen" disappear below the horizon, they'd suddenly re-appear again through those magnified specs. This proves they actually did not "fall below the horizon." Here is an excellent, detailed explanation of why "curvature" is a matter of perspective, and why all the world's water and oceans are absolutely level.
Another TooConservative FAIL. (and More irony, lol.) Here a "new gig" for you, TC: Instead of creating your usual silly, embarrassing mis-direction and diversions, stop attempting to distract everyone from your painful inability to answer the simple questions I posed to YOU. Yes, YOU. So...why not ANSWER THEM? Those NASA questions I asked YOU are not going to go away by themselves, are they? Hey -- we can play this game all day....
[NASA lost/sh*t-canned the Moon Technology, because it's] "archive that no one wants...Low priority." Have a nice day. Hilarious. Are you fricking kidding me?? All that wasted time and space. And yet, you still managed NOT to answer my simple questions reasonably, logically. AGAIN: HOW did NASA land men on the Moon 50 years ago...BUT NOW ADMITS IT CAN'T LEAVE LOW EARTH ORBIT? Ergo, CAN'T RETURN TO THE MOON? If that "technology" was so obsolete and unwanted, wouldn't it have made sense to refine EXISTING MOON-TRAVEL KNOWLEDGE and TECHNOLOGY?? (unless...it never existed to begin with. Oooops.)
LF such a "meaningless chitchat forum" that you've compulsively obsessed on and tossed away quite a bit of personal credibility capital on trying awfully hard to discredit every "CT" that's come down the pike. Is this my problem...OR YOURS?
I know you think you're being all critical here but this only reveals exactly how ignorant of the subject you really are. NASA is, in fact, lying here. You don't even seem to notice the actual lie they are telling the public. NASA can't even reach low-earth orbit since the end of the Shuttles. They simply don't own any hardware. And everything they're doing relies on Russian launches, on SpaceX, and on eventual SLS launches. Yet you keep believing that somehow NASA actually can, today, reach low-Earth orbit? Using what launch platform, you dumbass? They don't have any. And the Pentagon's launchers belong to the Pentagon, SpaceX and Blue Origin and a few other small launch operators are not owned or controlled by NASA. And SLS is probably 2-3 years away from launching anything despite the fact that their entire launch platform is based on those stupid solid boosters that the Shuttle used. And that was supposed to be a way to save money? Yet most big SLS launches will cost over a billion each. You could argue that NASA controls and funds SLS so NASA will finally pretty much own a launch platform if/when SLS flies. But Congress and the entire tech community increasingly want to defund SLS too as SpaceX keeps demonstrating that it can capably launch the scheduled SLS payloads to spec and at a small fraction of the cost that SLS (Boeing/Lockheed) were going to charge for those same launches. You really should read the Ars Technica articles on space launches. They do weekly updates on all the different platforms, have live launch videos, etc. It's probably the best space news site around nowadays; they want to capture the space nerds long-term and they have pretty much succeeded. ArsTechnica: Rocket Report: 9/27/19 More work to go ... "It's not certified for all of our most stressing national security space orbits," Gen. Thompson said. "We continue to work with SpaceX to mature their design, and I think that's going well." Launch vehicle systems are certified for specific mass and orbit combinations. Eventually, the Falcon Heavy is likely to be certified for all nine of the DOD reference orbits. (submitted by Ken the Bin and Unrulycow) At some point, I think Musk might just buy NASA. And Congress might just let him. The space nerds would likely all approve.
Can you tell me what you think is at stake here at LF? Let's assume you achieve your maximal goal: to convert every last contrarian old asshole at LF to all your CTs. You'd have a small cheering section for your CT nonsense. All 20 of them. And they aren't on Twitter or Fakebook so you can't even consider any of LF's readers to ever post anything anywhere else to advance your kookeries on any other website. With LF, there is no there there. Deckard faces the same problem with his stuff. The only people who believe are the same people who already believed the same CT material well before Deckard or you posted about your Latest Kook News. We shouldn't overestimate the reach of LF as a forum. It's just chitchat for 25 rightwing men over 50.
Ah.... no. If I was out with a group a guys having beers, and one stated out loud that... “ Rosie O’Donnell is the hottest, sexiest, bitch alive and he dreams night and day of her naked”... I wouldn’t let that just blow away. If he was a true friend, I’d stage a fucking intervention.
That’s impossible. Even a flat earther... can see that the moon is FUCKING ROUND... it’s funny how the government makes the flat moon appear round. lol
Just the fact that at night, you see a ROUND MOON... should start some critical thinking, outside of the government distrust. Unless you think the government is projecting that in the nights sky... to indoctrinate you. So, here is the million dollar question. If you were standing on the moon... and you looked at earth and noticed it was ROUND... would you believe your eyes?
Maybe - Gatlin might be a woman though. Anyways, as I was driving east this morning I watched a beautiful sunrise over Lake Huron and started thinking about this flat earth stuff. The sun appears to move across the sky from east to west, right? If the earth is flat, why doesn't the entire earth experience daylight the same way? Why is it nighttime on the other side of the world when it is daylight here?
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Well, it could be round in profile but still just be a flat disk. The Freemasons might be involved, trying to make us think those flat disks are globes (a.k.a. planets). And the Jesuits are involved. And the Bildybergs. And the Illumnati. And maybe the Reptile People. Come to think of it, the only kook theory Liberator hasn't posted about here at LF is the Reptilians. The Atlantic: How to Spot the Reptilians Running the U.S. Government Yep, supposedly 12 million Americans think the world is run by lizard people. Here's an old clip from 2012 where comedian Louis CK asks Donald Rumsfeld about Reptilians on the Opie & Anthony show.
Well, he is very bitchy and does like to try to be emotionally manipulative. So you might be right. Well, as I understand it, most of them think the sun is much smaller and weaker than we are taught and it has kind of a directional light, like a flashlight. And it circles around the Flat Earth in a circle which makes it look like we're on a rotating globe that circles a star with the globe's rotation causing half of the globe to illuminated at once, resulting in a steadily moving day/night on the surface of the globe. Here's a picture of what most of them think the sun and moon are. Of course, they all seem to have their very own special theories about this and how it works. They get Very Angry if someone questions any of it. Here's a more animated version.
So, the moon is a huge fucking casino chip... or is it more like a gargantuan tuna can?
And when the Earth is between the Sun and the Moon, the Earth casts a shadow on the surface of the Moon, and the shadow is fucking CURVED, as in coming from a SPHERE.
I don’t think I’ve laughed this hard, from a LF thread, ever.
Well, it's already too late for Liberator to launch a Flat Sun theory. The Flat Sun Society is already around with websites, Fakebook pages, and videos.
Well...um...shit, I don't know. Trying to keep all these kook theories straight is too confusing. : )
Interesting. If the sun is flat, is it fucking hot on both sides, or just the side that faces the earth? So the sun is like a gigantic puck light?
I think they squabble over that, like a fight over religious doctrine. They also have this thing where, of course, the earth is under a big dome to hold all the air in and also to keep the water from all running off the edges of Antarctica - which is surrounding the entire Flat Earth - and so the dome must contain all the places that we can travel. They get into fights about whether the sun and the moon are both inside the dome or whether the moon is inside the dome but the sun is outside the dome. Think about that one for a while. AFAIK, Liberator has not indicated his position on whether the sun and moon are both inside the dome (or not). Here's another pic to illustrate: Please don't ask me questions like that. I can only tolerate so much dumbassery per day. LOL Just to cheer us up, here's another Flat Sun picture. It's from the Flat Sun Society.
I think I understand. God's name is Seneca Crane. His original intelligent design was the arena for the Hunger Games. That went so well in the first book that he upscaled it to create Earth. That was before the third book where Katniss shot an arrow into the dome, creating climate change and the end of the games. The end.
So, just so I understand, the earth is like a frisbee, in a Vintage Lady Schick hairdryer table lamp. Got it. Thanks.
I had previously been led to believe it was a space pizza made by a sky wizard. I have reached a new state of enlightenment.
That’s it... you solved it. If earth is like a “space pizza“, then the water doesn’t run over the edges... because of the CRUST. You’ll win the: Nobel Prize The Copley Medal Albert Einstein World Award of Science And the Wolf Foundation Prize
I think we've all lost at least one IQ point just from reading this thread. Millions of our neurons committed suicide rather than to be forced to parse and process even more stupidity. But maybe that is just letting the Flattards win, by wearing us down with their Monumental Stupidity until our brains are exhausted and we just mumble, "OK, whatever you say, just leave me alone." I'm going to have a sip of a quality cognac and try to forget about frisbees and Lady Schick hairdryers and flat objects in general. : )
Well well... I must say I'm amused and encouraged by how well the thread has gone. There has at least been some cursory contemplation, examination, and consideration of how the actual realm created by God might operate. And at least TooConservative now finally admits that NASA lies. (But not specifically the BIG LIE that NASA never landed on the Moon. And CAN'T.) Ergo, you still have NOT answered the bell. Btw -- "Low Earth Orbit" is considered 99 to 1200 mi. But THIS is the reality: NASA balloons can reach up to 120,000' beyond earth; THAT IS THE REAL "LOW EARTH ORBIT." (Yes, propelled over the Earth by...(drum roll: Nothing but Primitive NASA BALLOONS. No Virgina, there ARE no propelled "Satellites" orbiting Earth at 17,000 MPH. Sorry to burst your bubble.) NASA and SPACE X Rockets are all show. Their rockets are UN-MANNED, and blast off, eventually curving laterally...eventually crashing over water -- which is why ALL NASA and all "Space" complexes are located at Cape Canaveral and Houston. (where spash-downs of the Rocket corpses occur -- as well as the Gondola/Capsules float down via parachutes -- WITHOUT WITNESSES.) *DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.* Q: WHY WE CAN'T EVER LEAVE "LOW" EARTH ORBIT: The truth: The Bible speaks of a "Firmament" (or glass dome) within which He placed the stars, the Moon, AND the Sun.) Yes, this means there is NO "Outer Space" or "Billions of Light Years"; It also means both the Sun and Moon are necessarily very close to Earth; With similar diameters (proven by geometric calculations) to be approximately 30 miles. Again -- look at that balloon floating past the Moon. Magnification reveals the truth: IS real close. (Look up 'OPERATION DOMINIC'. It was a futile attempt to detonate nukes in order to "blast through" the Firmament. That's right -- WE CANNOT EVER LEAVE THIS REALM.) MOREOVER, as per Genesis account (and your own eyes) -- the Earth is FLAT, IMMOVABLE, and...a CIRCLE (Not a "BALL.") There is ZIP proof that either the Sun and Moon are anything BUT circles as well. We do not know whether they are "discs." (The "Dark Side" of the Moon?? No one has STILL seen "it." All we see of the Moon is the SAME markings . From no matter which part of Earth you look at it. A "Round" Sun, GI? And "round" MOON?? You mean...like a BALL?? How do we know that? Is it because you've been told that's the case since you were doing ca-ca in your over-filled diaper?? Is your "testimony" it based on "Science" books, Hollywood movies, Star Trek, and NASA- created CGI images and illustrations? https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/ https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/thestudio/ The Studio is a team of designers, artists, makers, strategists, and thinkers. We are passionate about helping scientists and engineers imagine the future, and giving people a sense of awe about the universe. You can dismiss 'Flat Earth' proofs all you want (while ignoring hundreds of them-- including your own eyes); But at the same time, we're all still getting bombarded and bamboozled by this fake matrix of civic, media, Hollywood, and scientific "reality" your Overlords have created. Put down the Schlitz tall-boy and...SNAP OUT OF IT.
Dedicated to NASA's true-believers and the Trekkies:
The sun appears to move across the sky from east to west, right? If the earth is flat, why doesn't the entire earth experience daylight the same way? Why is it nighttime on the other side of the world when it is daylight here? I'm not sure I understand the full context of your question. We know by personal observation that the Sun circles over earth along various paths depending on the time of year, obviously taking 24 hours to complete its circuit over the plane. THAT SAID... Your question does cause a very interesting further pause in the areas of earth which are receiving sunlight during a typical 24-hour day.... If (as we are told) the "globe" is perpetually spinning east at @1000 MPH, AND the sun (we are told) is stationary, wouldn't that mean almost the entire "globe" should be bathed in sunlight ALL the time?
No it wouldn't. The earth's circumference is 24,901 miles, which means an entire rotation takes 24 hours or one day. Why is it light on one side of the world and dark on the opposite side at the same moment?
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. That doesn't explain sunspots or the ensuing disruptions to satellite communications at certain times of the year, not to mention UV rays, suntanning and skin cancer. More shenanigans by NASA perhaps? (And furthermore, why do people use the phrase "not to mention..." and then go on to mention the items they were not going to mention?)
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. From what I have read, that operation was simply high altitude nuclear tests. When I did a search for "Operation Dominic", I stumbled across something called Operation Fishbowl That's right -- WE CANNOT EVER LEAVE THIS REALM. Bill Nye the Science Guy agrees. Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. In case you may have glossed over this video (and respective flagged time-markers), there are much pertinent information, analysis, official documentation, and awkward (for NASA) Balloon missions. This analysis provides at least one major motive for making the entire continent Antarctica and any trespassing of HUGE area south of 60 degrees a strictly verboten "NO-GO" area. One obvious Reason: It is a staging area and base for hiding NASA Balloon/Satellite departures, aka "Launches." If you watch (please stay with it -- it'll open your eyes), you will learn the fascinating air force protocols and techniques for launching, monitoring and capturing these NASA Balloons; Technical information; and video. IMPORTANT: This proves without a shadow of doubt that the "fuel" of actual NASA "Satellite Launches" is Helium, and the medium, BALLOONS. Need "proof"? The author of this video provides a copy of the official log of names of the Balloons/Satellites BY DATE and Project name that were launched. Including the one name you should recognize: 'MIR'. You remember it, right? MIR was called an "INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION". Check out the logs from 1997-2002. MIR was launched VIA BALLOON. It was also supplied VIA BALLOONS. No, NOT via "Rocket Ships." (see docs under "Payloads" at 44:55 and onward.) Why else should this cited official log and references of 'MIR' to the Balloon log be extremely fascinating? Let's refer to NASA's "facts": ... Adding modules over the years, and then sometimes rearranging them, the Russians had built the strangest, biggest structure ever seen in outer space. Traveling at an average speed of 17,885 mph, the space station orbited about 250 miles above the Earth. SOURCE: NASA History https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4225/mir/mir.htm FACT: 1) I think we can all agree that Balloon can NOT soar 250 miles above the Earth. 2) As already mentioned and cited, "Low Earth Orbit" is defined as between "99 miles and 1200 miles", true and actual "Low Earth Orbit" is considerably less. If NASA's Balloons are only able to attain altitudes of up to 120,000 or 140,000 feet, isn't that actually closer to say 25 miles?? 3) This also obviously means 'MIR' was certainly NOT "traveling at an average speed of 17,885 mph" as NASA stated.
When I did a search for "Operation Dominic", I stumbled across something called Operation Fishbowl Yes, and THAT ("high altitude") is exactly how the Dominic mission would understandably be described to the public. In truth, it really was indeed a "high altitude test." But to "test" exactly what? (THE FIRMAMENT, aka God's Dome.) The Soviets also tried their best as well during the 1950s. THEY ALL KNOW THE TRUTH. Other non-mainstream sources tell the real truth for the reason behind that insane mission. "Dominic = Dominion of God". They knew what it was. And tried to crash through His Dome/Firmament. Yup, Fishbowl was another bizarre experiment/mission/attempt to crack the Firmament/Dome and escape beyond.... Were the true intentions divulged, it would justifiably evoke incredulity and uber-raised eyebrows, wouldn't it? I'd also seen Bill Nye's statement. It's strange, isn't it? NOT because it's true, but because he's been one of the public faces of shilling for Establishment's Fake Science Op.
The surface of the Nile -- like all water and oceans IS flat. It's bottom slopes. Rivers flow because its water-mass pushes it...where it finally seeks and finds its ultimate level. In the case of the Nile, The Mediterranean Sea. In the case of the Great Lakes, Niagara Falls and St. Lawrence River -- the Atlantic Ocean. And so forth.
Congratulations! In a sea of TooConservative's abject absurdity and hyperbolic turds, you've succeeded in staining LF with a top 5 all-time stupid post. This gaslighting technique of yours and censorship crusade -- how's that working out for you? Your lame derision and mockery of those who have looong exposed the Rockefellerians/Jesuits/Bilderberg/Illuminati/Freemasons/CFR elites for what they are -- actual dark, subversive organizations and entities intent in ushering their dystopic One World Government -- no longer works. That BS may have worked 10 years ago. The truth about those orgs and their like-minded agenda to control EVERYTHING is out there all over the place, exposed for the world to see (much to your chagrin, frustration, and futile efforts to support censorship and to restrict sharing free knowledge.) THE GALL OF TRUTH SEEKERS!! How dare we! This collective of Global/Elites (as you named some of them) are openly and actively changing this world for the worst with their Globalist NWO agenda. Even YOU know it... So calm down. It's ok to surrender and refrain from your cartoonish portrayal and lies that these elite orgs are just benign, phantom organizations, the victims of unfounded paranoia from "CTs".
Btw, have you contemplated and understood THE ramifications regarding the Nile River? If its surface is FLAT for its entire 3,000 miles, that means there is absolutely NO earth curvature (as we are told should be the case) for 3,000 miles. There's no refuting this. The reason a barge is used to videotape and document the trip along the river is so the result can't be faked.
("If (as we are told) the 'globe' is perpetually spinning east at @1000 MPH, AND the sun (we are told) is stationary, wouldn't that mean almost the entire "globe" should be bathed in sunlight ALL the time?") No it wouldn't. The earth's circumference is 24,901 miles, which means an entire rotation takes 24 hours or one day. Yes, I agree. This is in accordance to the Scientists' "Spinning Globe Earth" theory AND Earth-revolves-around-the-Sun" theory. Why is it light on one side of the world and dark on the opposite side at the same moment? Because it takes @24 hours for the Sun to shine to perpetually rotate in a circuit over the entire face of the Earth. AND, because the Sun is local and NOT 93,000 million miles away.
That doesn't explain sunspots or the ensuing disruptions to satellite communications at certain times of the year, not to mention UV rays, suntanning and skin cancer. TC's understanding of the Sun's short (local) distance from Earth by Flat Earthers and Bible-Earther literalists is correct. As to just what "sun spots" are, there ARE interesting theories as you might assume. Regarding "disruptions to satellite comms"? Electro-magnetic interference is a primary theory. UV rays? Dunno if its possible to explain the composition and dynamics of some things. Like the Sun AND Moon. Theories? Of course. (And furthermore, why do people use the phrase "not to mention..." and then go on to mention the items they were not going to mention?) Maybe...For the same reason, "Furthermore", "Moreover," and, "I-forget-to-include-this" are used.
I enjoy using "It goes without saying". You have to give them hope that you won't be saying anything more on that topic but then can stare them in the eyes as they slowly realize it was just a ploy. : )
"Needless to say..." ;-)
I don't dispute that, I think we just disagree as to why it's restricted.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Perhaps you should consider whether my mocking to get you to defend your Rockefellerians/Jesuits/Bilderberg/Illuminati/Freemasons/CFR CTs is because I am a crafty Reptilian, trying to deflect your attention away from us Reptilians. BTW, I don't recall that you've ever taken a position on Reptilian Theory. So here's your chance to go on the record. After all, no one knew you were into Flat Earth Theory until just this year.
From what I have seen, it's one flat-earther with a Pinterest page. I'd also seen Bill Nye's statement. It's strange, isn't it? NOT because it's true, but because he's been one of the public faces of shilling for Establishment's Fake Science Op. After researching that quote, it appears to have been taken out of context and used in a flat earth meme.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Congratulations! In a sea of TooConservative's abject absurdity and hyperbolic turds, It's called a straw man: Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. I'm with you on pretty much everything else Lib, so I am not going to make fun of you for your flat earth beliefs. At this point in time however I'm not on board. What you are saying might very well be true.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. So here's your chance to go on the record. Good thing you didn't ask me.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. I’m not a huge fan of Dicktards, we ain’t best buds... but damn, that’s an excellent question he asked. If the earth is FLAT, how is it sunny on one side and dark on the other at the very same moment? Does NASA make the water in your toilet spin one direction, when you flush?
I'm not going to take that chance. Wait your turn.
I bet the dam Gypsies had something to do with it,too!
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
That's not a bet I would be placing money against.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Gravity is now a THEORY????? I hope someone responsible ends up taking over your finances so you don't end up homeless and hungry. BTW,that was where I quit reading. I just don't have the necessary patience to go any further. Sorry.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Yew talk-kin bout ME,boy? Ah bet you talk-kin bout me. WATCH IT,causen ahs watching YEW,TO!
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
I just had a birthday very recently so I do feel I am now a qualified member in good standing of LF's elite Contrarian Old Asshole Club. Of course, I lack your considerable seniority so I'm really just a Junior Asshole at this point.
ISA watch-in you,to,boy! Dam trubblemakin killjoy!
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Ah didn get no memburshp dos. Whurs mah monie?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Not to worrie. I am shore you will grow into hit.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
If the earth is FLAT, how is it sunny on one side and dark on the other at the very same moment? I'm always up for honest and legit questions (or issues.) You internally you envision a globe-earth as we've all been told/taught in the Heliocentric Model -- that the Earth is angled at 23 degrees as it rotates around the Sun. In the Flat Earth model version of Day/Night, the Sun rotates are IT. The magnetic North Pole is dead-center of the Flat Earth model. (The restricted Antarctica and unknown-beyond is the outer ring.) As you see here, the Sun rotates in its circuit from East to West, illuminating half the world every 12 hours -- just like the Globe Earth model. It shifts its circuit and angle slightly as the Seasons are also demonstrated. These are just a simple demonstrations.
Gravity is ABSOLUTELY only a theory created by the Cult of Fake "Science" to explain all its other BS. I hope someone responsible ends up taking over your finances so you don't end up homeless and hungry. BTW,that was where I quit reading. Wait a minute; Aren't you the one who actually believed Elon Musk floated a CAR in "Outer Space"?? I should be worried about YOU. Reading NOT necessary:
I don't think you've researched the phenomena of "eclipse" much.
I've found numerous corroborative sources. Many which document and detail those same similar missions. Very interesting. And disturbing. During the 1950s and early 1960s, the US military and its various newly created "National Security" agencies and depts had virtual carte blanche to do whatever they wanted. Remember -- in virtual secret, they began conducting crazy medical/drug experiments on its own military personnel and those in jail; sent huge task forces to explore Antarctica (see Admiral Byrd), detonated high alt nukes, underground and above ground nukes just miles from Western US population centers. And how many Pacific Islands did they contaminate indiscriminately? It appears quite a few of these operations were rogue, "playing with House Money." (We also know certain Alphabet Agys, MSM, and Social Media giants are all in bed together, quashing truth while advancing lies and a Coup, focusing on other ways and operations that endanger us all.) Back to the issue at hand on controlling information and criminalizing "CTs".... There are ramifications and dangers from the massive info take-downs, censorship, and deep-sixes of truth and "truthers", and "CTs" -- many related to "Flat Earth," 911, NASA, JFK, PizzaG*te, "False Flags", 0bama's BC, etc. These days the only way to find this kind of stuff is to diligently drill down for and find one good source; usually that source will have bookmarked similar channels...and so forth. It's one reason I feel we have only so much time before ALL truth is gone, leaving nothing but mis-info & dis-info. I have been monitoring this kind of stuff in real time at YT for the past six months. Just months ago YT's algorythms were bouncing you to related material. They've shut that down. You'd be shocked at the volume that's already been disappeared.
These are just a simple demonstrations. From your video it appears that much of the world remains in darkness all the time seems to me. I was watching the sun chasing the moon - that video depiction seems sketchy, no offense.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. That's one reason why I haven't completely dismissed your flat earth beliefs. Somebody or several somebodies do not want this information to be seen. Same thing happening with numerous other sites that are anathema to those who preach the official government dogma,
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. I don't think you've researched the phenomena of "eclipse" much. Try your mindless bullshit on Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson. Start at 2m23s https://youtu.be/hLPPE3_DVCw?t=143 Start at beginning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLPPE3_DVCw StarTalk Neil deGrasse Tyson takes on the subject of our spherical world, and this time he has not only science but history on his side. If you want to follow along and then test your knowledge, enroll in this Brilliant course: Note: In illustrating a total lunar eclipse we used a bit of animation that didn’t portray Earth’s umbra and penumbra accurately. To see a graphic that accurately depicts both portions of Earth's shadow in space, visit
No. "Space" "floated a car in space" because everything in space is weightless. Planets float in space. Do does the Sun. Just in case you don't know,they are all heavier than a car.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Well, heavy is kind of a relative term. They recently celebrated the first orbit of the car out to a near-Mars trajectory. Musk says they might someday send a small launch just to take some photos of it to see how badly space has treated it. Since space is really hard on things, the car will just disintegrate mostly. After a year of cosmic rays and unprotected solar radiation, all the car's paint, tires, plastics, and leather have already turned to space dust, a little cloud floating around the decaying car. The metals and carbon fiber parts will last somewhat longer. Some years from now, it will be aluminum frame and what little bits of glass haven't been broken by micro-meteorites that keep bashing it. It's still the only vehicle certified as a road vehicle to be launched into space. Funny, Musk shopped it around and offered free launch space to the Air Force and NASA and they all turned him down. They wouldn't put their stuff on his rocket. He flies it once (with all 27 rocket engines firing and then spectacularly lands both boosters in tandem back in Florida and the core booster on his barge at sea) and now they line up to pay him to launch stuff on his Falcon Heavy.
Weight measures the force of gravity. To compare objects floating in space, mass would be the measurement of comparison.
Which is why I said it was a relative term. On round (oblate spheroid) Earth, it is the force of attraction between your own mass and the immensely greater mass of the planetary gravity well. On Flat Earth, there is no such thing as gravity. They insist that objects fall to the ground because the entire Flat Earth, sun and moon and the firmament (base of the flat earth) are all thrusting "upward" toward the sky. So objects do not fall to the ground at all; instead the ground is constantly rising up to hit the (falling) object. Thus the notion of gravity that we know from Newtonian physics is just another fancy lie promulgated by NASA, the government, the Jesuits, the Freemasons, the Build-a-burgers, and all those smart kids who passed science, math, and physics. And they're all wrong or just lying about it. To hide the fact that the Earth is both flat and is thrusting "upward" eternally. Flattards are what you get when you neglect science education while still raising kids to believe they're all very special and smart.
WHO?? The embarrassing, beclowned McScience Shill?? Who next? Bill Nye?? *cringing* https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/21/scientists-who-are-actually-really-stupid-1-neil-degrasse-tyson/ Scientists Who Are Actually Really Stupid: #1, Neil deGrasse Tyson He says Venus is suffering from global warming, for instance. His Twitter feed, naturally, is packed to the gills with daft comparisons, meaningless apples-to-oranges number crunching and red meat for his hyper-progressive fan club. 400,000: Americans who died fighting in World War II. 400,000: Americans who died by household Firearms since 2001 — Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) November 9, 2015 I have seen and heard quite enough of this...er...doctor. With respect to the subject at hand and so-called, "expertise" -- according to McD Dyson, the Earth is "Pear-Shaped." What's interesting about that authoritative description is, IF McD Tyson actually believes the Southern Hemisphere bulges, ergo IS much wider than the Northern Hemisphere, it ironically blows apart the entire array of perfectly round "BLUE MARBLE" fake photos NASA has been feeding a gullible public since 1969. (You HAVE seen the inconsistent array I presume?)
HA! What a bizarre comment. "Science Education"?? "Raising kids"?? Remind us again -- what is your Doctorate in? For how long did you quash the curiousity of while teaching/indoctrinating your 7th grade pods? Actual "Science"? NOT your forte. GATE-KEEPING and DIS-INFO is. Bravo! The best propaganda always contains some truth as you have always managed. (The purposeful mis-spelling above of "Build-a-burgers" is always a cute touch, btw.) Your Elite Masters don't care about holding the fort at so small a forum (as you claimed recently) at LF. I know...It galls you; The free flow of hidden information that exposes your heroes. Yes, your Gatekeeper Efforts commendable, if a bit OCD. If any curious posters and lurkers want to investigate any of the above organizations , please do. As with all "controversial" sources, you'll want the truth, so ignore mainstream sources. Prepare to be amazed, disgusted and shocked at what you find.
No offense. The "Sunlight" is not to scale. Nor is it the proper coverage. It as I mentioned is a simple demo of the sun's theoretical direction on a Flat Earth -- as well as its circuit that create seasons. It is NOT CGI enhanced, obviously (which NASA Studios/Hollywood $$ does routinely.) (There was also an interesting brief theoretical simulation of how the Sun and Moon are perhaps magnetically "attached" to the Earth.)
Liberator you aren't to smart. You are gullible. God sits on the circle of the earth. It is pointless to debate retard stuff like this. It is like debating that a square wheel is better than a round one. Or some such stupid shit.
Same thing happening with numerous other sites that are anathema to those who preach the official government dogma... That is exactly what these subjects ALL have in common: Accounts that are anathema to "official government dogma" are being declared "dangerous." It can't be a coincidence. It's Twilight Zone/Black Mirror Orwellian predictive programming run amok.
The first line of Isaiah 40:22: “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth.” Do you know the difference between "circle" and "Globe" or "Ball"? God does. Don't believe me -- LOOK. IT. UP. "Waters ABOVE the Firmament"; Water BELOW the Firmament. I can cite chapter and verse which support this realm is NOT what we ALL once gullibly believed (from Institutions and Authoritahs that do nothing but LIE to us. Or DO you believe them?) Liberator you aren't to smart. You are gullible. Do you know the definition of "gullible"? And "irony"?? "It is pointless to debate retard stuff like this." You mean "stuff" like "TRUTH"? If that's a problem for you, just let me know.
Yep the earth was surrounded by water. The floodgates of heaven were opened up and it rained on us. You are gullible. No sense in arguing a retarded point. You're a decent person but you're as wrong as you can be. Like TC said you will convince on one of your delusions.
And you know this because...We've been taught this for 100 years in our "Science" book? "Science" is TESTED. The "floating" demonstrations you see on the ISS are sloppy pull-wires, CGI, and other tricks that are DOCUMENTED. The entire Space X and Car/Musk stunt with the car was matted on a CGI background. Because it was LIVE, the techs didn't react immediately to it (didn't you watch the video I posted??)
You've gone full retard now. Bye.
Floodgates of the Heavens (as well as "The great founts of the deeps below the Earth) were indeed opened up; But the water above the Firmament remains. It's not as though God ran out of water above the Firmament. You are gullible. No sense in arguing a retarded point. There are numerous points -- all interrelated to this realm called "Earth," as well as with respect to the Cosmos -- i.e. the Moon, Sun, and Stars (ALL by the way of which are placed within The Firmament according to the word of God in Genesis. Again -- don't take my word for it. READ IT.) Like TC said you will convince on one of your delusions. TC has gaslighted you?? Wow.
I hope you and TC have a beautiful Honeymoon.
That car,with the fake-suited astronaut behind the wheel,HAS to be THE coolest thing ever launched into space. Doing that was a pure stroke of genius. Not quite up to landing the rockets at the sage sites they took off from from a practical point of view,but cool none the less. Nobody can doubt the genius of Musk as a salesman.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Clever bastids,ain't dey? They ain't fooled weuns,tho!
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
And you know this because...We've been taught this for 100 years in our "Science" book? "Science" is TESTED. The "floating" demonstrations you see on the ISS are sloppy pull-wires, CGI, and other tricks that are DOCUMENTED. The entire Space X and Car/Musk stunt with the car was matted on a CGI background. Because it was LIVE, the techs didn't react immediately to it (didn't you watch the video I posted??) You're funny.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
It's now widely regarded as the most effective car advertising gimmick in the history of advertising. Musk managed to use both of his major companies, Tesla and SpaceX, to cross-promote each other in a unique and unprecedented way. Musk said it had an added benefit of expanding the ideas of what we can launch into space and do in space. Which is his mission in life. He does have a knack for this stuff. Like when he sold his Not A Flamethrower flamethrowers. He skirted legal niceties and sold 20,000 for $500 each, all on pre-order in five days. He could have sold a few million of them if he'd wanted to. I don't doubt they'll become collectibles. Nice way to net $10 million in sales without even trying, all based on a throwaway joke tweet by Musk. Someone called him on it and he decided to take the challenge and had his engineers crank out a design in only a few days. After some testing and legal work, Musk shipped them only a few months later. TheVerge: I have a Boring Company Not-A-Flamethrower Yeah, you could just buy/build a weedburner which is about what they are. But Musk's is a lot more fun because it comes in a gun-like format to make your neighbors a little nervous.
Since 1996, Neil Degrasse Tyson has been the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the Rose Center for Earth and Space in New York City. All your life, you have been a sniveling asshole.
He IS just the face, a "salesman" for the Tesla, Space X, the entire "We be going to Mars soon!!" teenage wet-dream -- on that we agree. (Though there's no way any of what is presented as his "ideas" and "invention" are his; nor the financing of such expensive projects.)
Would you like to have an actual debate of facts regarding eclipses -- or would you rather engage in presenting one's case (punctuated by this kind of childishness?) Hey -- it's not MY fault you regard the dubious showman McD Grasse so highly.
True enough. He does have a degree in astrophysics. But his day job is running a planetarium projector for the stoners and talking politics at night for the Dems on CNN & MSNBC. He has the degree but no one is offering him a real job as a working astrophysicist. Tyson is an affirmative action astrophysicist; I think his entire career can be summed up by observing: he's black. I don't think he could be even be considered a fairly serious astronomer, like Carl Sagan for instance. Whether you liked his politics or not, Sagan was a real brain and was a force in astronomy and astrophysics for about 50 years. I'm not sure even Hawking was ever so influential as Sagan. Bill Nye is another supposed science authority. He got a BS in mechanical engineering at Cornell, worked for some years at Boeing before trying his hand at comedy. That led to his gig at PBS for a puny 5 years on his own show. Then, when those late-Nineties kids grew up, Netflix hired him as a familiar face from the childhood of the Millennials and gave him a show to preach global hotting to them based on that previously established reputation from their childhoods. Just because Sagan and Hawking are gone doesn't make Tyson and Nye into real scientists. They're no more impressive now than they ever were, maybe less so since they've graduated to using their fame to pretend they have expertise outside of fields in which they hold degrees. And they do that on a regular basis.
The Falcon Heavy which sent his car into a near-Mars orbit was entirely capable of going to Mars. The car was not sent to Mars because that would have required a full upper-stage with all the propulsion and thrusters and communications and computers. Musk was only after the initial certification so he could then pursue the nine different types of Pentagon launch contracts. Which is what he is doing. His big rocket, Starship, a rocket capable of launching 30-40 Tesla cars to Mars could make its first run to Mars as soon as 2022. And then return and land on Earth under its own power. When Musk starts flying Starship, the Flat people are going to find it very hard to deny the reality of outer space. There will simply be too much evidence, too many ways for amateur astronomers to see and track these stainless steel spaceships. Musk did get a lot of early venture capital from his buddy Sergei Brin at Google. Musk was producing real products in demand unlike Google with its creepy Google Glass and other spying tech so Musk was a good investment, even as just a write-off to avoid paying taxes. But Musk's success with SpaceX is so considerable that he really doesn't need Google's money any more. Musk's estimated worth is now $19 billion. But he bet everything he had on SpaceX and the first Falcon launch. He would have been almost dead broke if it had failed because Musk spent all the money he made from Paypal on SpaceX. Musk is getting ready to launch his low-earth internet constellation to blanket the earth in internet access. It's called Starlink and will consist of ~7,500 satellites in low-earth orbit. And they will all be launched on SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets. He launched the first 60, as a test, in May 2019 and it was a perfect deployment, as tracked by radar from Earth. I watched it in real time, as I and many other space nerds watch everything SpaceX launches and deploys. Musk is undoubtedly the greatest industrialist of the 21st century. He is likely to become the greatest entrepreneur of the 21st century except Bezos (currently #1) saw where Musk was going and the vast fortunes to be made in space so Bezos started Blue Origin to build big rockets, just to frustrate Musk and try to deny him that top dog status. Musk vs. Bezos? I say Musk unless Bezos really found his own von Braun. And no one thinks he did 'cause all the real talent wants to work for Musk.
No, I do not desire to debate your insanity. Your bull shit deserves no respect, and will receive none from me.
Yes, the Hayden Planetarium has a staff one one and he runs the projector. Yes. Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson "has a degree" as you put it. Actually, the Dr. appellation infers he has more than one degree. The schools were Harvard and Columbia. He has a bachelor's in physics from Harvard, and a Doctorate in astrophysics from Columbia. He does not run the projector. Dr. Tyson is "director of the Hayden Planetarium and worked on an extensive renovation of the facility, assisting with its design and helping raise the necessary funds. The $210 million project was completed in 2000, and the revamped site offered visitors a cutting-edge look at astronomy." If you feel a flat earth idiot is more knowledgeable about flat earth than a guy with a doctorate in astrophysics, well bless your heart. Carry on and don't let me disturb your intellectual search for truth on Youtube, or flat earth threads on LF. Good luck with the effort of you and Liberator to weigh the car of Elon Musk in space.
I think there is nothing especially outstanding about Tyson's career. Certainly, he is more of a celebrity than astrophysicist like Sagan was for many years. And Tyson, like Nye, get a steady bit of attention from the libmedia outlets and they make statements on political matters as part of their public persona. And I don't think the West will fall to Flat Earther drivel any time soon. If anything, the public consensus against Flat Earth ideas are stronger as a result.
Elon Musk does more to educate people against Flat Earth ideas than almost anyone. You can't argue with all those launches and the new satellites in orbit. It is a reason why Musk seems to be hated by the Flat Earther types. Musk's goals are to make space launches an order of magnitude less expensive. Musk wants lots more space launches and space travel. So the best way for Musk to achieve that is to drive the costs down considerably with reusable rockets. There are millions of Americans who see these launches and see the first-stage launchers return and land some minutes later. Musk has launched on the West Coast too.
Musk is actually capable of creating technology companies as a real entrepreneur. He does things. He really wants to change the way Americans think about space by cutting launch costs to a small fraction of what they have been for decades. SpaceX reusable rockets are a revolutionary change in the launch business. Everyone is realizing that SpaceX is gobbling up the launch market and getting ready to dominate the heavier launches like Pentagon satellites with Falcon Heavy rockets. Musk is a major disruptive force in the launch industry. Some of the competition like the EU space agency are looking to make their own reusable rockets. So are the China, India, etc. Russia seems to have announced recently that they're going to build another 10 Proton launchers, probably trying to keep those assembly lines open. Proton is based on their old 1965 design, nothing modern about it. Their new Angara rockets are upcoming, including crew versions. None have reusable rockets so the launch costs will be much higher than Musk's.
That's HUGE,and I don't care who you are or what standards you pretend to hold. Anybody that claims it isn't huge is a clueless fool that needs to be ignored.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
That is not like you,but I can't blame you on this one. When someone won't even believe their own eyes because they think they are lying,you just have to give up.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
I guess DISH and DIRECTV hang their satellites from the dome of the firmament.
Musk may/probably will,go down in the history books as "The Henry Ford of Space Travel". And he will deserve it.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Naw,they use crop dusters flying around in circles.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Well, you don't get very consistent answers if you ask the Flat Earthers whether the moon and the sun are 1) inside the dome or 2) outside the dome or 3) the moon is inside the dome and the sun is outside the dome. Apparently the Flatters think that satellites, if not a complete NASA deception, are nothing more than big dirigible balloons that fly around the upper atmosphere of the flat earth. So they think that the Directv/DISH satellites are actually big balloons that mimic the behavior and the position in the sky of a satellite. So they might even be seen by telescopes from Earth and even appear at precalculated positions of the sky but that doesn't mean anything; it just means that NASA's deception is so cunningly constructed that the fake satellites/dirigibles do mimic the sky position of the satellite they are pretending to be. But of course they're all just fake NASA dirigibles, not actual satellites. There is no way to soften the implications of such a belief system. It's just so fundamentally wrong that it is tragic.
TC, believe it or not I will give you points for at least attempting to frame the Flat Earth/Firmament Realm & paradigm (or as you put it, "Belief System") within the scope of honesty. In your defense, for those who've grown up marinated in the "Space Race-John Glenn-Moon Landings" years (or, having worked for any government institution -- AND still trust them), the far less likely it is that you will more accepting of changing gears and re-considering the possibility (or strong probability) that our reality is not as we've been told. I'll address your skepticism separately. AS BULLET POINTS. a) "You don't get very consistent answers [from] Flat Earthers" TRUE. That's because "Flat Earthers" are not monolithic in belief. They may be comprised of both Christians AND Atheists; May base fundamental beliefs on the Bible, Science, Common Sense, Observations, or overlapping; The one consensus: Governments, "Authoritahs" and "Science" Communitah LIE. b) There are "inconsistent answers" from Flat Earthers on "whether the moon and the sun are 1) inside the dome or 2) outside the dome or 3) the moon is inside the dome and the sun is outside the dome." TRUE. There is no consensus on these assertions. Again, these answers coincide on whether the individual "Flat Earther" relies on Scripture for support of cosmological placement. c) "Apparently the Flatters think that satellites, if not a complete NASA deception...nothing more than big dirigible balloons that fly around the upper atmosphere of the flat earth." TRUE. I'd posted the same video assessment and revelations that actually document the NASA deceptions (SEE ABOVE, Post #54) which actually have and still do launch and use giants Balloons (no, NOT "dirigibles") for Satellites propulsion and monitoring of Earth. But only from Low Earth Orbit. Documented: "Space Stations" like Mir were launched and propelled via Balloons/"Gondola." The extent and degree of past & present NASA deception, fraud, and hoaxing has not been difficult at all to document and prove. d) "They think that the Directv/DISH satellites are actually big balloons that mimic the behavior and the position in the sky of a satellite." True (in a sense) Communication "Satellites" are nothing but very high "substitute communications towers" which are local and NOT "spinning around the globe at 17,000 MPH" (the speed which is most documented as necessary to maintain earth orbit). The medium of the vast majority of "Direct TV/DISH"-type communications and reception remain those fancy phone and communications towers you see everywhere -- including atop the highest buildings. e) "NASA's deception is so cunningly constructed that the fake satellites/dirigibles do mimic the sky position of the satellite they are pretending to be." Building "Satellite Dishes" are pointed in a particular direction OF A PARTICULAR TOWER according to one's geographical position -- and set in parallel positions. NOT "straight up into the sky." The Dish on your roof is certainly NOT constantly tracing a moving "Space Satellite" either. (Q: Exactly which direction in the sky would your roof Satellite Dish be pointed if "Space Satellites" are allegedly orbiting the globe at 17,000 MPH? How would that work when your specific particular Satellite is on THE OTHER SIDE OF EARTH OVER CHINA?) There is no way to soften the implications of such a belief system. It's just so fundamentally wrong that it is tragic. Once one connects the huge dots and learns the truth about NASA, "science," and our actual realm, the very same thoughts occur to us. Except that your undying beliefs and loyalty to institutions don't enrage and trigger us.
Speaking of someone, "believing their "own eyes," if it's on Tee-Bee, are you really sure you can? HAVE YOU HEARD OF, Deep Fake? We are told this is OLD tech: Do you realize how scary-close today high-tech CGI software simulates "reality" now is? Check out this 3 year old CGI "space" software for beginners and intermediate users down below. It's called Blender. Can you imagine the 2019-2020 Blender version for expert Users?? Space VFX Elements Video Course for Blender:
Certainly all of us have our strengths and weaknesses in comprehension of various subjects and things. I know I have my weaknesses, so I can empathize with others who have them, even if they are weak in areas I'm strong in. TC, I remember you posting that photo that showed one of the Apollo landing sites from the lander with the earth hugely lit behind it on the horizon. I pretty much knew immediately it was doctored as the earth wouldn't be on the horizon for any Apollo mission, and the shadows didn't match earth's spherical illumination. Earth was also way too detailed for the cameras they had back then. It was a beautiful shot designed for desktop backgrounds, but was not real. That stood out to me but not to yourself, I suppose, and others. Certainly you're better than me in other areas. Then there is at least one person on this site for whom it is not possible for police to ever commit a sin. It could be said that that person suffers from a form of "dyscalculia" related to police. I'm sure many of us would say similar for those with "Trump derangement syndrome" because they cannot fathom Trump ever doing anything good. Another person here is a baseball, hot dogs and apple pie version of the worst of head-chopping ISIS members, yet still professes Christianity. I've said before and say again, My theory is that people have an overwhelming ability to believe things even if they are completely untrue. Liberator, whom I still do like and respect, believing the earth is flat is a validation of that theory, which I've subscribed to even before I read of his stating his belief. It's the same reason why most people's religious beliefs reflect that of their parents, no matter what the faith is-- Christianity, Judaim, Islam, Buddism, Hinduism or even Atheism. If it were otherwise then we'd see religious beliefs homogenously spread throughout the world, but we don't. Entire countries are by and large one faith, and remain so from one generation to the next. So.... that's okay. It's the old cliche. Do you/we accept people who see the world differently than we do? Or do we make a big stink about it and call them stupid? The old saying comes to mind, which I like: And when you think about that quote, it inescapably means that all of us are fools. The only difference is that some of us know it, and some of us don't.
The statement I heard was, I believe, taken out of context.
We shouldn't call Liberator "stupid"...that's a harsh word. How about gullible, that's better. Are you a fool, Pinguinite? I don't think so, except when it comes to God. It seems you can't use your excellent logic to bring yourself to a sufficient understanding of God.
Pinguinite used to profess to be a christian.
What happened to him, that he would turn away from the love that is in Christ?
I cannot find that thread now, not sure if it was deleted. Perhaps it was on a thread that was off-topic and hijacked into Moonbattery. And I do not concede that those very famous photos were not taken on the moon. What I recall is that there are a lot of people who don't seem to understand the small size and scale of the moon in general and particularly how that difference from Earth's size leads to things that would be anomalies. Except the moon is 250K miles away, 1/6 the mass of the earth, distance to the horizon on the moon is about half the distance to horizon on Earth, etc. I would also point out that the most famous of the Apollo photos of Earth was the one from Apollo 8 which showed the earth rising over the horizon as Apollo 8 came around the moon, a picture known ever since as Earthrise. (Apollo 8 was the main flyby of the moon, testing the Apollo system for suitability in a moon landing during Apollo 11.) Of course, you can choose to believe the moon landings were all faked, that they were filmed by Stanley Kubrick as propaganda on a sound stage, etc. But that doesn't make it true. Well, it is a fundamental question and not just one of manners or humoring people who are mentally deficient. Is 1+1=2 just an opinion? Is the Flat Earth just an opinion? Are the value of vaccination programs in public health just an opinion? Are the cargo cults of primitive tribes worshiping modern aircraft that fly over their jungles just another opinion? Is a square any different from a circle? Or is that just another opinion? There is a big difference between humoring someone and agreeing with them. And humoring people disputing the most basic science/math facts can lead to tragic results, usually for them but sometimes for others. If you're just saying that truth doesn't matter at all if it might hurt someone's feelings, then you should just come out and say that.
Gullible might apply. But I would say it applies to people who believe the earth is either flat or only 6000 years old. Or that God would condemn souls to hell for all eternity because their physical brains didn't somehow have recorded within them in some biochemical way some notion of Jesus being the son of God. How logical is it that one would face an eternity in hell because a Christian who was supposed to share the gospel 2 days before the person died in an accident? You have your explanation for how that is just and okay. And Liberator has his explanation for how the earth is flat. Stone has his explanation for the earth only being 6k years old.... we all have explanations for what we believe, but that does not make them true. I say God is better than that. And with the model I subscribe to, he is. All falls in place very very well. The model of God that you 3 subscribe to does, I say, sell God short. Or maybe I'm just gullible too. Well, no "maybe" about it. Everyone of us is gullible, in one way or another. We are all fools, in the end.
It's here somewhere, but even I'd have trouble finding it. It was 2 real photos, one of the earth and one from Apollo that were merged together. But the shadows of rocks on the moon showed the sun was to the left of the camera, while the earth illumination made it clear the sun was behind the camera. No biggie though. It was a beautiful picture, and no one says that art cannot be done in such ways, and all paintings could be said to be "fake" in not conveying reality accurately. In all you listed, I believe vaccinations do convey immunity. I also believe they have killed people. You list it among other things that suggest not advocating vaccines is kookery. Well, it depends on what things you consider facts. The truth does certainly matter. Even if our perception of it is inaccurate. Confusion is part of life.
Why can't the Earth be only 6000 years old? Don't tell me you believe in evolution, too. You should spend some time pondering the impossible complexities of a cow's udder...you would never, ever believe in evolution again!
Because that person WANTS to spend eternity in hell. That person does not want to be with God...so He sends them to the place He created for Lucifer. Very simple actually.
No it isn't true because I believe it. It is what a critical look at the evidence says. How were fossils formed on the scale they are unless buried in mud very quickly all over the earth. If there was no great flood there would be no fossil record that we have today.
I think Google has hid the search results and buried them for this site. I used to be to find my song parody about burning the Koran. I can't find it with google anymore. It used to be the number one search result with the key words I would find it with. Now nothing.
Why can't the universe be as old as it is big? Do you doubt the speed of light is what science says it is? Is the furthest object away no more than 6000 light years distant? You choose.... **we**... choose to believe what we want. And that which we choose to believe, we call truth. For me, it is illogical to believe that God created a universe/earth just 6000 years ago and made it look like it was far older. Christianity teaches God is not the "author of deception". Well, if He made the universe look older than it is, that would be pretty deceiving. As for evolution, it explains a lot and I have no problem with it. But it's not compatible with your version of truth.
Or because they never heard the gospel because some Christian failed to do as ordered. Or because that person was born in a pure Islamic culture and died at 6 years old, having never heard about Jesus. Yes, very simple.
God created a finished universe. The speed of light doesn't disprove anything. However the amount of dust on the moon proves without doubt that the earth is young and not billions or even millions of years old. Or did I read that you think that is a hoax? I honestly don't remember. I know liberator believes such nonsense.
You should study the Bible more and you would know this. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) Now that you know this you should revise your thinking and not use this as an excuse to not believe in God anymore. Yes I said believe in God. Believing in a hypnotist carnival act is not believing in God.
Why wouldn't you have a problem with something that can't be duplicated in the lab. Something with no evidence. If there is evidence you should share it. Something that has never been witnessed but would be witnessed if it was happening. There are no new species evolving. A peach tree is always a peach tree and never changes into anything else. All the other species 100 percent of the time produce after like kind and have never been shown to produce a new or different species. So frankly people who believe in evolution are kind of dumb. Maybe not dumb in all ways but certainly dumb on the fairy tale of evolution. It is bullshit and you should know better because you are smart generally speaking.
It isn't so simple. I should have put that a couple posts above. But it really isn't that simple since you ommited what I quoted from scripture. What is simple though. Jesus is either a liar or telling the truth. I say he is telling the truth. You can call him a liar if you want the choice is always yours.
How is that deception? How else could He create time and space unless He actually selected a time as to how His creation would look? Adam and Eve were created to be a certain age, and again, how is that deception? When God made the universe it didn't look older than it is...it looked brand spanking new...the universe had not yet "fallen" through man's sin.
Where do you get this strange notion that God made the world look older that it is? Here is the fact. Doubters trying to disprove God grasp at straws like the speed of light and try to put God in a box and say he has to wait for light to come to the earth and he couldn't just make a finished universe. Tell me why God couldn't have made a finished product? I mean you have no problem thinking brain structures, lungs, blood flowing, sexual organs for reproduction naturally comes into being by dirt sitting around for a long time. You have to have a really active imagination to believe that bull shit.
Do you really believe thear are versions of the truth. I don't believe that. I believe something is either true or it is not. Therea are no different versions of the truth. That is silly. Maybe you meant people believe things to be true that aren't and act as though it was.
Why wouldn't you have a problem with something that can't be duplicated in the lab. Something with no evidence. If there is evidence you should share it. Something that has never been witnessed but would be witnessed if it was happening. I won't debate evolution now. But suffice to say that a great many people consider denying evolution on par with denying a spherical earth. You don't believe evolution because it conflicts with your belief in the Bible as the "Word of God" literal truth. As far as I'm concerned, you validate my point that people will believe what they choose to believe.
I used to queston the Bible because of evolution. Then I did some research and learned that there isn't anything to it that is scientific. It is a religion. It is wise of you not to debate evolution. The facts aren't on evolutions side. You should read a book by Gary Parker a former evolutionist professor head of the science department at some university that I forget the name of. He was biased towards evolution. Or if you don't want to then don't.
We are observing things with telescopes that scientific consensus says is upwards of 10 billion light years away, meaning the light departed from those objects 10 billion years ago. If the universe is not anywhere close to that age, then did God, when he created the universe 6000 years ago, also create that light so that when we see it now would make us *think* that we were viewing those objects as they were 10 billion years ago. Was God too impatient to wait 10-13 billion years for the universe to play out, and just set the stage to give that illusion? To me, this is flat earth talk. You consider the Bible to be the "Word of God" and you construct your entire world view around that premise. The difference between us is I go beyond that. I don't concede without question that the Bible is the infallible "Word of God". You do. Certainly you consider many creations of man to be defective, but the Bible is somehow immune to being influence by the failings of man. You do not allow for what I consider a plausible history which, to my satisfaction, explains why and how the Bible came to be and is regarded with such reverence as it is today.
Is that a fact or opion. Oh it is an opinion. Why couldn't the creator have created a complete universe? Why is that impossible?
No silly God made a complete universe. He made light move fast so it would be constant. You are making excuses.
Of course there are. A plain reading of just about anything illustrates that all too well. Only one truth, but many versions of it as people believe what they will.
Over 1000 doctoral scientists agree with you. https://dissentfromdarwin.org/
I honestly don't have time and little inclination to look into this, but the quote above is not necessarily an indictment on evolution as a whole. Rather it's an indictment of "random mutation" and natural selection as the basis of how complex life came to be. In other words, what if evolution is real but does NOT involve "random mutation". What if there is some biological mechanism that facilitates evolution without "random mutation" being an ingredient? What if there are mutations driving evolution, but they do not happen randomly? Beyond that, one major problem with creationism is that it's a theory that cannot be disproven. That is, no amount of physical evidence that is collected could definitively show that creationism/intelligent design could NOT have happened. That's important because any theory that cannot be disproven cannot be proven either. Creationism/intelligent design is therefore a "default" theory that one subscribes to if there are no other known theories that can work.
I understand about time/inclination, believe me, I do. But you ought to take a moment and click on the link. (audio on) When a 1000 scientists make a statement regarding their skepticism of Darwinian evolution your might call that a paradigm shift. Something big has happened. Where it might lead, I do not know.
Was that the opening post on that old thread about burning the Koran? [found using DuckDuckGo, using search terms burning the Koran site:libertysflame.com]
I listened to the short clip. It's not anything substantiated in the short length it is. More akin to a movie trailer. But my current belief set doesn't really care how we got here. It allows for either creationism / intelligent design OR evolution, or a combination of the two. It doesn't matter which it is, or if it's something else entirely, because our humanity is only incidental. Our bodies, including our brains, do not define what or who we are. It's rather what we have, or what we possess. Put another way, they are temporary rental units, not things we own for "life". I.e., the life of the soul. With the Christian belief set you subscribe to, you don't quite have that luxury. Humanity has to be something special, above and beyond the animal kingdom. The story of Genesis provides that explanation of how & why humans are special. Whatever weaknesses evolution has, creationism has the difficulty of explaining why so much of the human body has things in common with various primates. Even Human DNA is very close to the same as chimpanzee DNA. Why would that be, in the intelligent design scenario? My favored question: What is it about Human DNA that gives rise to an immortal soul that defies all laws of thermal dynamics that chimpanzee DNA does not possess? Those are rhetorical questions. I can't promise any long winded discussions as I've had with Liberator. But with my belief set, human conception in no way causes any immortal soul to be created (why would it, given souls defy basic universal laws?), and what makes us spiritually special above and beyond the animal world has zero, zip, zilch to do with our humanity. So I'll clarify that my belief set in no way requires evolution to be the explanation for our human origins. Bottom line is, the human race exists. It came into existence some way, some how. What makes you and I special is something that goes far and away, above and beyond the human genome, beyond even this universe.
We humans have a spirit that can relate to God, Who is Spirit. If not evolution, how? (Every human being wants to know the how and why of our existence...I know that you are no different, Ping)
Something that can't be disproven can't be proven. What a load of crap. If apple trees started evolving and having a new kind of fruit on them. That would disprove creationism because things produce after like kind. If a monkey turned into a man that would disprove creationism. You don't see your own made up biases. How do you disprove the big bang? Stick that in your fuse box.
What if imaginations are not scientific. It is how we got the imagined theory of evolution. Frankly a lame theory that makes no sense in the real world. It doesn't happen. Never happened. No examples to demonstrate it. It ie deception for people who don't want to believe it might upset their world and they will have to admit they are living as sinners. That is why we all get to choose heaven or hell.
Do **you** want to know how humans came into existence? It doesn't seem so. With creationism, you simply accept that God made us and have no concern for the how's and why's. The biggest question we already know the answer to... we DO exist. I think, therefore, I am. The how is one question of many we don't have answers to, and is more academic than critical. The Newton model I subscribe to does allow for "intelligent design", or the means of physical life to be altered or even created outright by entities from the spirit world. The detailed history of human creation is somewhat analogous to knowing the exact route someone took from their home to meet me at a restaurant. It's not really the most pressing question I'd have for them upon meeting.
No it would not. Creationism involves, from the perspective of our physical world, new life forms springing into existence. There is nothing about creationism that states that evolution can't also exist. Even if all life did evolve from primordial goo over the last 4.5 billion years, a new life form could divinely appear tomorrow, in full glory showing off the power of "intelligent design". None of us can prove such a thing cannot happen, as none of us can prove alternate universes do not exist, or what the nature of them is or in what ways they can or cannot impact our universe. But creationism, even if proven, does not disprove evolution. And evolution, even if proven, does not disprove creationism. Strictly speaking, in science terms, both can co-exist, even if one were to deem them incompatible from a religious perspective. You and I don't communicate all that well. That's why I've not responded to many of your posts.
You claim evolution is bogus because it's never been proven in a lab. Well, has creationism been proven in a lab? Have some experiments been conducted that has successfully shown new life forms divinely springing into existence on empty and sterile tabletops? You have no evidence of creationism. You do have, allegedly, evidence that discounts evolution. But even if evolution is disproven, that does not prove creationism. As I said previously, creationism is a "default" theory. It's something people might believe if they don't have any other theory to explain, to their satisfaction, the origin of complex life. Evolution is one theory, but next year someone might come up with a totally different theory. Creationism has never been proven and regretably is incapable, by its very nature, of being disproven, unlike evolution.
lol
I have the answers... Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
I pretty much knew immediately it was doctored as the earth wouldn't be on the horizon for any Apollo mission, and the shadows didn't match earth's spherical illumination. Earth was also way too detailed for the cameras they had back then. It was a beautiful shot designed for desktop backgrounds, but was not real. Interesting, Ping... You've simply shared an observation that questions the integrity of NASA, and suddenly TC immediately makes you the subject of an Inquisition, aggressively attempting to gaslight even you. WHY should you or anyone else be harassed and on the defensive simply defensive simply for sharing a valid observation?? I'd say this says quite a bit about Tooconservative's agenda. By your own observations, logic, and common sense you *knew* that NASA Apollo photo was an absolute doctored-fake. (NASA has been busted so many times with they hoaxing, CGI, and sloppiness that it is beyond embarrassing.) 'Earthrise' was the one and ONLY "photograph" taken "by Astronauts" allegedly "on the Moon. That's it. FIVE trips on the Moon (supposedly). ONE PHOTO. (Does that make ANY sense at all??) Earthrise is a PROVEN FRAUD. (The size/proportion of "Earth" from the "Moon" is comically wrong as well.) ONLY loyalists of NASA's lies (*cough, TC) dismiss even questioning the obvious il-logical and impossibilities of their sloppy photos, ridiculous shadows and countless inconsistencies while "on the Moon." THAT said, that quibble is hardly the worst of the exchange. Part of TC's Inquisition: "Is 1+1=2 just an opinion?...(followed by badgering and peppering with several questions by TC that challenged your intellect and integrity...) Well, it is a fundamental question and not just one of manners or humoring people who are mentally deficient....humoring people disputing the most basic science/math facts can lead to tragic results, usually for them but sometimes for others...There is a big difference between humoring someone and agreeing with them." Hilarious. "TRAGIC RESULTS"?? "For them and others"?? Bwaahaaa!! -- what a hyperbolic Drama Queen you've become. Attempting to blatantly gaslight Pinguinite not only insults his intelligence and integrity, but that of the rest of the entire forum. Casting such dispersions on Ping or myself (through Ping) is a new low for you. Except that only YOU pretend not see it. The *rest* of us DO. Here's a "fact," TC -- YOU are NOT the arbiter of "manners," nor "truth" or "facts"; Not close. Nor of "basic science/math facts." NOR ESPECIALLY of integrity or intellectual honesty. You don't actually care about "facts"; Who are you kidding? You care only about Gate-Keeping and maintaining institutional "official" narratives. It's pathological. On behalf of LF, I'm going to suggest that you may want to pull back the reins a bit in your crusade in questioning the mental health of anyone here. Some introspection is desperately needed. In other words, SEEK HELP.
The old saying comes to mind, which I like: A fool thinks himself wise, but a wise man knows he is a fool. And when you think about that quote, it inescapably means that all of us are fools. The only difference is that some of us know it, and some of us don't. Nicely stated. (I doubt you'll get a sincere, thoughtful response). Your point is well taken. Simple conversations and exchanges of ideas don't necessarily mean we must agree on any of all of what is discussed. You and I have always proven that. And so have many here at this forum. LF has never been an echo chamber. Neither have LP or 4um.
That is a completely false suggestion. [Edit: I responded as though you suggested NASA itself created that doctored photo, which you did not state. Apologies...] We do not know who doctored the 2 photos. Most likely it was done by artistic type, not for the purpose of faking any moon landing evidence, but rather to simply make a cool desktop background photo. As I said, it was a beautiful work. Certainly we do not accuse artists of trying to mislead people when they do similar photo splicing of various images. We cannot & should not be overly paranoid. I assume you mean photos of the earth from the moon, as there are plenty of images alleging to be of the landing sites themselves. If you examine the moon map of the alleged landing sites, none are on the edge of the moon as viewed from earth. Therefore, the earth would have been relatively high in the moon-sky as viewed from the landing sites -- one thing that tipped me off that TC's posted photo was doctored as it showed earth on the horizon. But even if the Apollo astronauts turned their camera to the sky to photo the earth, there probably would have been no moonscape visible to give the photo context. And if the sun appeared directly in the photo, it might have wrecked any such image anyway. Keep in mind these were 1970's vintage cameras, now nearly 50 years old. Any such moon shots today would be far superior in quality. Proportions can be misleading, as they can vary depending on the lens used. You've certainly seen photos of the moon on, say, a beach setting where it appears far bigger, in relation to other objects, than it does to the human eye. That happens when a telephoto lens is used. The reverse happens with a wide-angle lens, making the sun or moon appear as a mere dot. Your mind is made up, and that's fine. Whatever the truth is re: Apollo missions, the truth will be revealed as technology improves. I was surprised to learn that the Hubble space telescope, while powerful enough to look at galaxies billions of light years away was not powerful enough to show the moon landings. I'm sure you'd say that is one more excuse to cover the fraud (though you certainly would say there is no Hubble telescope orbiting the earth anyway). You are satisfied that the moon landings were faked and the earth is flat. I am satisfied that the earth is round and the moon landings were, in all likelihood, real. That's fine. Best to you...
Absolutely!
Earthrise is a PROVEN FRAUD. (The size/proportion of "Earth" from the "Moon" is comically wrong as well.) ONLY loyalists of NASA's lies (*cough, TC) dismiss even questioning the obvious il-logical and impossibilities of their sloppy photos, ridiculous shadows and countless inconsistencies while "on the Moon." As I mentioned - and is copiously documented in many other places - Earthrise was a photo snapped from moon orbit as Apollo 8 came around from behind the moon, making Earth appear to "rise" over the clearly visible horizon. It was unscheduled but the astronauts found the site of colorful Earth so compelling that they grabbed some color film and took the photo. They weren't supposed to use the color film for that but they ended up taking one of the most famous photos in the history of human space flight. Apollo 8 did not land on the moon. It was a test of the 3-stage Saturn V rocket, the capsule, the use of von Braun's preferred orbit, etc. Apollo 9 was a fuller dress rehearsal for the entire lunar mission but never did leave Earth orbit. Apollo 10 was a full dress rehearsal for the lunar landing and had all the equipment needed to land but it, like Apollo 8, only orbited the moon and did not land. It was used to fully test every system except the lander. Apollo 11 was the mission that finally landed on the moon. So all your blathering is just more Flat nonsense because you don't even understand the fundamentals of the Apollo program. Yet I think you are old enough to recall at least some of the Apollo missions. Pinging people to a post is a "new low"? LOL.
Earthrise was taken from lunar orbit by Apollo 8, which never landed on the moon. By your own observations, logic, and common sense you *knew* that NASA Apollo photo was an absolute doctored-fake. (NASA has been busted so many times with they hoaxing, CGI, and sloppiness that it is beyond embarrassing.) 'Earthrise' was the one and ONLY "photograph" taken "by Astronauts" allegedly "on the Moon. That's it. FIVE trips on the Moon (supposedly). ONE PHOTO. (Does that make ANY sense at all??) Earthrise is a PROVEN FRAUD. (The size/proportion of "Earth" from the "Moon" is comically wrong as well.) ONLY loyalists of NASA's lies (*cough, TC) dismiss even questioning the obvious il-logical and impossibilities of their sloppy photos, ridiculous shadows and countless inconsistencies while "on the Moon." You're just a liar. And an ignoramus. You are the "PROVEN FRAUD" on this thread, not the old Earthrise photo from Apollo 8. I decided to ping Neil to this post, even if you call pinging someone a "new low", even for me.
Way back when you and I started our conversation I asked you if you could describe God, and now I want to take up that challenge again. You say "God is better than that" and use the masculine third-person, singular personal pronoun "he". If you can, please flesh out these thoughts you have about God. For example, is God the originator of your belief system? Does God play a central role in your belief system? Is God actually a "he"? How is he better? Does God just stand off in the distance as you live out your life in your belief? Is God a person? You've already given us a rundown of your beliefs, can you tell how He (or he) actually fits in to it.
I was short on time yesterday. Let me revisit this. You say they can both be true. So the earth could have been created in the timeframe the Bible describes, thousands of years ago. And it can also be true that it was billions of years ago. No they cannot both be true. You also said there can be two truths. No only on truth. For example the Easter bunny exists or he doesn't. Both can't be true. Please explain how two things that are different can both be true. They can't so I expect a dodge here. Stick that in your fuse box simply means think about that.
You know nothing but what you're told and seen regarding "Earth Rise" from MSM sources. The result is predictable. All I see from you is Projection. And using the usual lame techniques of disinfo, misinfo, red herrings. It began with your moniker, 'Too Conservative". Frankly, your ignorance of NASA hoaxes, it's supposed missions, it's Visual Studios (oh yes -- they indeed have a "Studio"), its entire organization (established and entrenched with and by former Nazi scientists), history of lies and theatrics (working closely with both Walt Disney and Stanley Kubrick), and over all Agenda is sorely and comically lacking. The total time I've spent scrutinizing NASA, the "cosmos", actual Earth & Space Science and Theory, Creationism vs Evolution, the politics OF "Politics" and of Globe Earth Agenda -- compared to what is obviously a cursory level of examination -- is substantial. While you regard all NASA and Government as idols upon which you place at your personal altar of credibility and "truth," I believe the exact opposite is the case. Only one of us can be right.
For example the Easter bunny exists or he doesn't. Both can't be true. Please explain how two things that are different can both be true. They can't so I expect a dodge here. He doesn't need my defense, but Ping didn't say there ARE "two truths"; He maintained there "can be" -- as in, "possible." (It doesn't mean I concur with him.) Belief in multiple truths makes one an agnostic, or unsure of THE definitive truth. With respect to the rest of your post, I see a bunch of irony. "The Government is lying to us! The Government is telling the Truth!" (Tell me -- which statement is true and which statement is false? OR...are they BOTH true, or BOTH false??)
How "low" is an abyss?
You are overly rigid in your way of thinking Stone. I referred to creationism and evolution being not incompatible. Nowhere did I refer to the age of the earth. You equate creationism with a 6000 year old earth. I don't subscribe to that at all. Life could have, for example, been divinely started billions of years ago, and evolved from that point forward. At points throughout earth's history, life could have been divinely modified. Who knows? Who could authoritatively say it couldn't have happened? I do not in any way subscribe to the theory of a 6000 year old earth. That notion is quite incompatible with observation, in my opinion. As I see it, if it is 6k years old, then God made it intentionally look like it was billions of years older than that in which case it's not the fault of scientists for having been fooled by God. Further, it's clearly illogical to suggest the earth is only 6k years old while having no problem with the universe being many billions of light years in size. Why shouldn't the earth and universe be as old as it is big? You are locked into your myopic view of the earth and universe being in the form as described by a theologian-scientist who lived some 5000 years ago who doubtless had no clue about even the most basic of scientific principles. I said no such thing. Read what I wrote again. I said there are differing **versions** of the truth. Do you disagree? You also said at one point I called Jesus a liar, when I never made any such claim whatsoever. Not even close. You are demonstrating an inability to truly listen to opposing views. How can you enlighten other people with their shortcomings in understanding if you do not really listen to them?
He doesn't need my defense, but Ping didn't say there ARE "two truths"; He maintained there "can be" -- as in, "possible." A little better but no, I didn't say that either. See my post to stone.
Way back when you and I started our conversation I asked you if you could describe God, and now I want to take up that challenge again. Maybe I'll respond later, but some of what you ask is, in my view, immaterial.
AND... this is what NASA told you? *snicker* FIVE MOON MISSIONS. But only ONE SINGLE photo of Earth from the Moon and/or it's alleged orbit? Egads. The degree of suspension of logic and intellectual contortionism required to accept this notion as truth, and NASA as truth-ful is... off the chart. The "Earth Rise" photo has undergone a simple forensic examination. It is actually just a primitive cut & paste job. DOCUMENTED. CONFIRMED. (Just not by NY Times/FNC/National Geographic, MSM. Thus, IT can't be true!") But let's leave that be for the moment refer to the past findings by the world's best engineers and techies on their forensic examination of the highly intricate technology and blue prints that documented NASA's missions that landed multiple men on the Moon AND return them safely.... OH WAIT. What's that you say? That's no longer possible. WHY?? That's right -- NASA "lost" that technology. Too bad. I guess "SH*T HAPPENS", right? Here's some more irony: It was A K A Stome himself who reported this RIGHT HERE at LF!
Why isn't it a case of Scientists (man) who are "fooled" and "wrong"?? (Or even lying??) Isn't this entire theory based wholly on "Science's" interpretation of "Dating" methodologies by using carbon-based rocks and matter? Q: Are those various Dating Methodologies proven? Or still just "theories"? I thinks its extremely interesting that Carbon-14 dating is not only notoriously and inconsistent (wrong), but would indeed chronologically coincide with The Great Flood of Noah as documented in the Bible as well as many cultures around the world (A "half-life" measurement is said to be 5,730 years; Noah's Flood is said to have occurred about 5,000 years ago. A great many geologists do believe that the world wide strata was indeed created by the massive Great Flood -- into which fossils are embedded. I have examined both cases and theories. Establishment science has dated the various layers of earth and strata into supposed "Ages" which they claim was supposedly laid millions of years apart -- instead of during one major cataclysmic event just thousands of years ago. If the Jurassic era was some 50 million years ago as claimed by establishment science, how then would it be possible to find preserved "Dinosaur" tissue and blood cells? Even IF "entombed? Here are two theories dismissed by Establishment Science regarding Carbon-14 Dating: 1) Great Flood greatly disrupted carbon ratios in the earth, as well as the atmosphere that produces the ratios of radioactive and stable carbon. 2) Carbon dating today assumes that the system has been in equilibrium for many thousands of years. However, the Flood buried large quantities of organic matter containing stable carbon. Source: https://genesisapologetics.com/faqs/carbon-14-dating-does-it-go-beyond-biblical-history/
So you eliminated one class of problem with geology and how God would have had to create the earth in such a way as to make it look 4 billion years old. You still have the problem with God creating the universe with all those light particles traveling in all directions from every sun. We are seeing light with telescopes that have been traveling toward us for hundreds of thousands of years. Other more exotic particles arriving on Earth have been en route for millions or billions of years. God is quite the prankster, it seems.
Well, Apollo 8 was somewhat tense for the public since no one had gone in full lunar orbit yet and the feds and NASA and the media were promoting the crap out of Apollo. So Apollo 8 got more attention from the public than some of the later Apollo missions that actually landed. By the time of the last moon landing, they carried very little of it on TV or in the news. Apollo 11 was the Big Kahuna. So Apollo 8 got a lot of attention for a test flight and the chief product it is remembered for is the unplanned Earthrise photo. The Apollo 8 crew rushed to get color film in the camera because it was such an unplanned photo shoot. You can hear the audio of them talking as they rushed to load the camera at the Wiki link I gave you. Apollo 8 just happened to come around the far side of the moon in their 4th orbit and the moon rose perfectly over the moon's horizon as seen from their very very tiny spacecraft window, they slapped film in the camera and got a few shots. And that was the photo used for the first of the two most famous space photos ever, both of them huge hits with the public as posters and again when they were made into large glossy postage stamps.
Yes, that's one of my points. Unless Y6k creationists would suggest the universe is far older than the earth is (which some may) then yes, God must have created the photons mid-flight to make it appear they were sourced from these very distant sources hundreds of millions & billions of light years way. At least God would only have to do that for photons heading for earth, which would ease the difficulty of the task rather substantially. It would seem. Depending on who you ask.
Uh-oh, you've given it some thought. You know that sounds like God is out to get us. : )
Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible. Yes! God does have a sense of humor ;-)
Yes, I've got a mirror too! ; )
LOL!
One also wonders if "Astronauts" are actually embedded into a special Balloon gondola instead what's depicted in those dodgy "ISS" shots.
#2. To: Liberator (#0)
'HOW STUFF WORKS'
#3. To: Hank Rearden (#1)
Unless One was high, why in the world would anyOne wonder that?
#4. To: Hank Rearden (#1)
I hope to God you still believe pizza really exists.
#5. To: Tooconservative (#2)
That's not how any of this works.
#6. To: TooConservative (#5)
(Edited)
#7. To: Liberator (#6)
They drift (or are guided) at a very manageable speed (as captured by this amateur videographer in front of the moon), thus it is the perfect medium from which to view and photograph the earth....or be its passenger.
#8. To: All, TooConservative, Hank Rearden, Deckard, Watchman (#6)
#9. To: Hank Rearden (#7)
What would be the point of a randomly-drifting mission for either photography or passenger flight?
#10. To: Hank Rearden, Pinguinite, Liberator (#7)
Go take a look at the KH-11, from which the Hubbell telescope is derived. These are not randomly-drifting machines - I know; in a past life I helped to track them. When you know weeks, months or years in advance exactly when and where one would clear the horizon, that's pretty much the opposite of random.
#11. To: Liberator (#8)
(Edited)
*Please don't dismiss this hour-plus video and case because of the uncalled for salty language within the first couple of minutes...as well as sprinkled here and there.* THIS IS WORTH YOUR ATTENTION.
#12. To: Tooconservative (#11)
(Edited)
No, it's not worth our attention.
#13. To: Liberator (#12)
#14. To: Liberator, Hank Rearden, Pinguinite, sneakypete (#12)
Here's some "Science" for you -- NASA's own "Scientists" admit" "WE CAN'T LEAVE LOW EARTH ORBIT." (But they're "working on it!")
Given "Water seeks it's own level," the Nile River for 3,000 miles IS LEVEL. Ergo, that means it is FLAT. (that's right -- PROVEN: No Curvature. No "curvature" means "NO 'GLOBE''.")
#15. To: Liberator (#12)
#16. To: A K A Stone (#13)
No rivers would flow.
#17. To: Liberator (#12)
All this isn't even about "education" or lack of; It's about INDOCTRINATION.
#18. To: sneakypete (#16)
The oceans would go dry after a few low tides unless there was a HELL of a lot of rain every day,
#19. To: sneakypete (#15)
#20. To: Tooconservative, Hank Rearden, Pinguinite, Grand Island, sneakypete, A K A Stone, Deckard (#10)
"Facts don't count when you debate Flattards...[[blah, blah]...Globetards...YouBoob...mental disability..."
#21. To: GrandIsland (#19)
I’ll suggest that it’s Liberators deep religious conviction, that doesn’t allow him to believe the earth is round.
By what common sense and observations could it be based on?
By whose authority is it based on?
Aren't these very same authorities and scientists obviously lying about more than two genders? "Climate Change"? "Evolution"? The Coup against Trump? Colleges teaching "Resistance 101"? "Diversity is our Strength"? "White Privilege"? "Evil Men." All-things-0bama. 911. Politically-based False Flags. And so forth. Big Lies, Small Lies, Medium Lies from our establishment. Big Picture: Agenda supported by Lies is out of hand...
#22. To: Liberator, Hank Rearden, Pinguinite, Grand Island, sneakypete, A K A Stone, Deckard (#20)
Oh, the irony. Have you always been such a condescending, no-nothing little pr*ck?
QUESTION #1: FACT: Given NASA's own "Scientists" admit" "WE CAN'T LEAVE LOW EARTH ORBIT" (But they're "working on it!").
QUESTION #3: Please rationally or logically explain how it was possible (or believable) that NASA "LOST THE TECHNOLOGY" (or threw it out)?
#23. To: GrandIsland, Liberator (#21)
I thought "Flat Earthers" were nutty, looking for another "conspiracy theory" to embrace. I even shared this thought with Deckard: "They are making ALL CTs look bad."
#24. To: sneakypete (#15)
(Edited)
Where does all the ocean water go at low tide?
#25. To: Tooconservative, GrandIsland (#23)
I think Liberator needs a new gig, something novel.
#26. To: Tooconservative (#22)
(Edited)
(TC SPAMMING NONSENSE)
#27. To: Tooconservative (#22)
"...meaningless chitchat forums like LF..."
#28. To: Liberator (#26)
HOW did NASA land men on the Moon 50 years ago...BUT NOW ADMITS IT CAN'T LEAVE LOW EARTH ORBIT? Ergo, CAN'T RETURN TO THE MOON?
This is how SpaceX just keeps stealing payloads from cancelled SLS launches and expanding the launches it is qualified to perform, all without any real competitors. Everyone else just talks while Musk launches stuff and makes it look easy. Falcon Heavy rocket is now fully certified. Now that the Falcon Heavy rocket built by SpaceX has flown three flights, it is "fully certified" for Air Force missions. However, work remains to make the vehicle eligible to fly missions to all of the Department of Defense's reference orbits, Lt. Gen. John Thompson, commander of the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center, told SpaceNews.
#29. To: Liberator (#27)
Is this my problem...OR YOURS?
#30. To: Liberator (#21)
I found it strange that for such a wacky, absurd subject, it was being too heavily censored and overly ridiculed. Especially now. IF it's so ridiculous, it should just blow away on its own, right?
#31. To: Tooconservative (#23)
How about Flat Moon theory?
#32. To: Liberator (#21)
(Edited)
#33. To: Tooconservative, Liberator (#29)
We shouldn't overestimate the reach of LF as a forum. It's just chitchat for 25 rightwing men over 50.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#34. To: GrandIsland (#32)
So, here is the million dollar question. If you were standing on the moon... and you looked at earth and noticed it was ROUND... would you believe your eyes?
#35. To: Deckard (#33)
(Edited)
Maybe - Gatlin might be a woman though.
Anyways, as I was driving east this morning I watched a beautiful sunrise over Lake Huron and started thinking about this flat earth stuff. The sun appears to move across the sky from east to west, right? If the earth is flat, why doesn't the entire earth experience daylight the same way? Why is it nighttime on the other side of the world when it is daylight here?
#36. To: Tooconservative (#34)
(Edited)
Well, it could be round in profile but still just be a flat disk.
#37. To: GrandIsland, Tooconservative (#31)
(Edited)
Even a flat earther... can see that the moon is FUCKING ROUND... it’s funny how the government makes the flat moon appear round.
#38. To: nolu chan (#37)
and the shadow is fucking CURVED, as in coming from a SPHERE.
#39. To: GrandIsland, Liberator (#23)
How about Flat Moon theory? Or Flat Mars theory? Or even Flat Sun theory? Or is it all just a conspiracy to make us believe that only the Earth is FLAT?
#40. To: GrandIsland (#36)
So, the moon is a huge fucking casino chip... or is it more like a gargantuan tuna can?
#41. To: Tooconservative (#39)
to launch a Flat Sun theory.
#42. To: GrandIsland (#41)
Interesting. If the sun is flat, is it fucking hot on both sides, or just the side that faces the earth?
So the sun is like a gigantic puck light?
#43. To: Tooconservative (#42)
Here's another pic to illustrate:
#44. To: nolu chan, Tooconservative (#43)
#45. To: GrandIsland (#44)
#46. To: nolu chan (#45)
I had previously been led to believe it was a space pizza made by a sky wizard. I have reached a new state of enlightenment.
#47. To: GrandIsland (#44)
So, just so I understand, the earth is like a frisbee, in a Vintage Lady Schick hairdryer table lamp.
#48. To: Tooconservative, GrandIsland, Deckard, Nolu Chan (#47)
#49. To: All (#48)
#50. To: Deckard (#33)
I was driving east this morning I watched a beautiful sunrise over Lake Huron and started thinking about this flat earth stuff.
#51. To: Liberator (#50)
If (as we are told) the "globe" is perpetually spinning east at @1000 MPH, AND the sun (we are told) is stationary, wouldn't that mean almost the entire "globe" should be bathed in sunlight ALL the time?
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#52. To: Tooconservative (#35)
Well, as I understand it, most of them think the sun is much smaller and weaker than we are taught and it has kind of a directional light, like a flashlight.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#53. To: Liberator (#48)
(Edited)
(Look up 'OPERATION DOMINIC'. It was a futile attempt to detonate nukes in order to "blast through" the Firmament
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#54. To: Liberator, TooConservative, A K A Stone, Hank Rearden, Deckard, Watchman, GrandIsland, nolu chan, Pinguinite, All 25 Posters at LF, Undetermined Lurkers (#8)
#55. To: Deckard (#53)
From what I have read, that operation was simply high altitude nuclear tests.
#56. To: A K A Stone (#13)
If the earth was flat and the Nile was flat the river wouldn't flow. No rivers would flow.
#57. To: Tooconservative (#34)
The Freemasons might be involved, trying to make us think those flat disks are globes (a.k.a. planets). And the Jesuits are involved. And the Bildybergs. And the Illumnati. And maybe the Reptile People.
#58. To: A K A Stone (#13)
(Edited)
#59. To: Deckard (#51)
#60. To: Deckard, TooConservative (#52)
(Edited)
(TC: "Well, as I understand it, most of them think the sun is much smaller and weaker than we are taught and it has kind of a directional light, like a flashlight.")
#61. To: Liberator (#60)
Maybe...For the same reason, "Furthermore", "Moreover," and, "I-forget-to-include-this" are used.
#62. To: Tooconservative (#61)
#63. To: Liberator (#54)
...the entire continent Antarctica and any trespassing of HUGE area south of 60 degrees a strictly verboten "NO-GO" area
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#64. To: Liberator (#57)
Your lame derision and mockery of those who have looong exposed the Rockefellerians/Jesuits/Bilderberg/Illuminati/Freemasons/CFR elites for what they are -- actual dark, subversive organizations and entities intent in ushering their dystopic One World Government -- no longer works. That BS may have worked 10 years ago.
#65. To: Liberator (#55)
Yup, Fishbowl was another bizarre experiment/mission/attempt to crack the Firmament/Dome and escape beyond....
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#66. To: Liberator (#57)
The Freemasons might be involved, trying to make us think those flat disks are globes (a.k.a. planets). And the Jesuits are involved. And the Bildybergs. And the Illumnati. And maybe the Reptile People.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#67. To: Tooconservative, Liberator (#64)
BTW, I don't recall that you've ever taken a position on Reptilian Theory.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#68. To: Liberator, Deckard (#51)
Why is it light on one side of the world and dark on the opposite side at the same moment?
#69. To: Deckard (#67)
Good thing you didn't ask me.
#70. To: Tooconservative (#18)
The tides are a mass illusion, created by the Freemasons on the orders of the Illuminati and with the aid of NASA. Ignore the fact that tides have been known and written about for thousands of years, it's all just #FakeHistory. They are aided in the Tidal Deception by the Jesuits who are funded by the Build-a-burgers, a new hamburger franchise.
#71. To: GrandIsland (#19)
I’ll suggest that it’s Liberators deep religious conviction, that doesn’t allow him to believe the earth is round.
#72. To: Liberator (#24)
I obviously don't have all the answers, but since "Science" deals far more presumptive theory more than Fact (like "Gravity"), I'll share what I've researched:
#73. To: Tooconservative (#29)
Let's assume you achieve your maximal goal: to convert every last contrarian old asshole at LF to all your CTs.
#74. To: sneakypete (#73)
WATCH IT,causen ahs watching YEW,TO!
#75. To: nolu chan (#37)
And when the Earth is between the Sun and the Moon, the Earth casts a shadow on the surface of the Moon, and the shadow is fucking CURVED, as in coming from a SPHERE.
#76. To: Tooconservative (#74)
And when the Earth is between the Sun and the Moon, the Earth casts a shadow on the surface of the Moon, and the shadow is fucking CURVED, as in coming from a SPHERE.
#77. To: Tooconservative (#74)
Of course, I lack your considerable seniority so I'm really just a Junior Asshole at this point.
#78. To: GrandIsland, Deckard (#68)
I’m not a huge fan of Dicktards, we ain’t best buds... but damn, that’s an excellent question he asked.
#79. To: sneakypete (#72)
Gravity is now a THEORY?????
#80. To: nolu chan (#37)
(Edited)
And when the Earth is between the Sun and the Moon, the Earth casts a shadow on the surface of the Moon, and the shadow is fucking CURVED, as in coming from a SPHERE.
#81. To: Deckard (#65)
From what I have seen, it's ['Operation: Fishbowl' info is] one flat-earther with a Pinterest page.
#82. To: Liberator (#78)
As you see here, the Sun rotates in its circuit from East to West, illuminating half the world every 12 hours -- just like the Globe Earth model. It shifts its circuit and angle slightly as the Seasons are also demonstrated.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#83. To: Liberator (#81)
I have been monitoring this kind of stuff in real time at YT for the past six months. Just months ago YT's algorythms were bouncing you to related material. They've shut that down. You'd be shocked at the volume that's already been disappeared.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#84. To: Liberator (#80)
And when the Earth is between the Sun and the Moon, the Earth casts a shadow on the surface of the Moon, and the shadow is fucking CURVED, as in coming from a SPHERE.
780K subscribers
https://brilliant.org/StarTalk/
https://www.startalkradio.net/shedding-light-on-earths-shadow-in-our-recent-youtube-video/
#85. To: Liberator (#79)
Aren't you the one who actually believed Elon Musk floated a CAR in "Outer Space"??
#86. To: sneakypete (#85)
Planets float in space. Do does the Sun. Just in case you don't know,they are all heavier than a car.
#87. To: Tooconservative, sneakypete (#86)
Well, heavy is kind of a relative term.
#88. To: nolu chan, sneakypete (#87)
Weight measures the force of gravity.
#89. To: nolu chan (#84)
Try your mindless bullshit on Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson.
#90. To: Tooconservative, ALL (#88)
Flattards are what you get when you neglect science education while still raising kids to believe they're all very special and smart.
#91. To: Deckard (#82)
From your video it appears that much of the world remains in darkness all the time seems to me.
#92. To: Liberator (#91)
#93. To: Deckard (#83)
Somebody or several somebodies do not want this information to be seen.
#94. To: A K A Stone (#92)
(Edited)
God sits on the circle of the earth.
#95. To: Liberator (#94)
God does. Don't believe me -- LOOK. IT. UP. "Waters ABOVE the Firmament"; Water BELOW the Firmament.
#96. To: sneakypete, Deckard, GrandIsland, nolu chan, A K A Stone (#85)
"Space" "floated a car in space" because everything in space is weightless.
#97. To: Liberator (#96)
e "floating" demonstrations you see on the ISS are sloppy pull-wires
#98. To: A K A Stone (#95)
(Edited)
#99. To: A K A Stone (#97)
#100. To: Tooconservative (#86)
They recently celebrated the first orbit of the car out to a near-Mars trajectory.
#101. To: Tooconservative (#88)
Thus the notion of gravity that we know from Newtonian physics is just another fancy lie promulgated by NASA, the government, the Jesuits, the Freemasons, the Build-a-burgers, and all those smart kids who passed science, math, and physics.
#102. To: Liberator (#96)
Space" "floated a car in space" because everything in space is weightless.
#103. To: sneakypete (#100)
That car,with the fake-suited astronaut behind the wheel,HAS to be THE coolest thing ever launched into space.
#104. To: Liberator (#89)
#105. To: sneakypete (#100)
Nobody can doubt the genius of Musk as a salesman.
#106. To: nolu chan (#104)
(Edited)
All your life, you have been a sniveling asshole.
#107. To: nolu chan (#104)
Since 1996, Neil Degrasse Tyson has been the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the Rose Center for Earth and Space in New York City.
#108. To: Liberator (#105)
He IS just the face, a "salesman" for the Tesla, Space X, the entire "We be going to Mars soon!!" teenage wet-dream -- on that we agree.
(Though there's no way any of what is presented as his "ideas" and "invention" are his; nor the financing of such expensive projects.)
#109. To: Liberator (#106)
Would you like to have an actual debate of facts regarding eclipses
#110. To: Tooconservative (#108)
But his day job is running a planetarium projector
He has the degree
#111. To: nolu chan (#110)
(Edited)
If you feel a flat earth idiot is more knowledgeable about flat earth than a guy with a doctorate in astrophysics, well bless your heart. Carry on and don't let me disturb your intellectual search for truth on Youtube, or flat earth threads on LF.
#112. To: nolu chan (#110)
(Edited)
Good luck with the effort of you and Liberator to weigh the car of Elon Musk in space.
#113. To: sneakypete (#100)
Nobody can doubt the genius of Musk as a salesman.
#114. To: Tooconservative (#108)
His big rocket, Starship, a rocket capable of launching 30-40 Tesla cars to Mars could make its first run to Mars as soon as 2022. And then return and land on Earth under its own power.
#115. To: nolu chan (#109)
No, I do not desire to debate your insanity. Your bull shit deserves no respect, and will receive none from me.
#116. To: Tooconservative (#112)
Elon Musk does more to educate people against Flat Earth ideas than almost anyone.
#117. To: Tooconservative, nolu chan (#112)
Elon Musk does more to educate people against Flat Earth ideas than almost anyone. You can't argue with all those launches and the new satellites in orbit. It is a reason why Musk seems to be hated by the Flat Earther types. Musk's goals are to make space launches an order of magnitude less expensive. Musk wants lots more space launches and space travel. So the best way for Musk to achieve that is to drive the costs down considerably with reusable rockets.
#118. To: nolu chan (#116)
I guess DISH and DIRECTV hang their satellites from the dome of the firmament.
#119. To: nolu chan (#116)
I guess DISH and DIRECTV hang their satellites from the dome of the firmament.
#120. To: Tooconservative, nolu chan (#119)
(Edited)
Nolu: ("I guess DISH and DIRECTV hang their satellites from the dome of the firmament.")
#121. To: sneakypete, Tooconservative, A K A Stone, Deckard, ALL (#115)
When someone won't even believe their own eyes because they think they are lying,you just have to give up.
#122. To: Tooconservative, Liberator (#10)
[I thought Neil might like these videos; the first vlogger shows his test for dyscalculia based on an aircraft flight plan and says that no Flattard has managed to pass it with only a few even willing to try to. It reminded me of Neil's posts about aircraft flight plans on some old flat earth threads here at LF.]
A fool thinks himself wise, but a wise man knows he is a fool.
#123. To: Liberator (#20)
FACT: Given NASA's own "Scientists" admit" "WE CAN'T LEAVE LOW EARTH ORBIT" (But they're "working on it!").
#124. To: Pinguinite, Liberator (#122)
Or do we make a big stink about it and call them stupid?
#125. To: watchman (#124)
#126. To: A K A Stone (#125)
Pinguinite used to profess to be a christian.
#127. To: Pinguinite (#122)
TC, I remember you posting that photo that showed one of the Apollo landing sites from the lander with the earth hugely lit behind it on the horizon. I pretty much knew immediately it was doctored as the earth wouldn't be on the horizon for any Apollo mission, and the shadows didn't match earth's spherical illumination. Earth was also way too detailed for the cameras they had back then. It was a beautiful shot designed for desktop backgrounds, but was not real. That stood out to me but not to yourself, I suppose, and others. Certainly you're better than me in other areas.
So.... that's okay. It's the old cliche. Do you/we accept people who see the world differently than we do? Or do we make a big stink about it and call them stupid?
#128. To: watchman, Liberator, A K A Stone (#124)
We shouldn't call Liberator "stupid"...that's a harsh word. How about gullible, that's better.
Are you a fool, Pinguinite? I don't think so, except when it comes to God. It seems you can't use your excellent logic to bring yourself to a sufficient understanding of God.
#129. To: Tooconservative (#127)
I cannot find that thread now, not sure if it was deleted. Perhaps it was on a thread that was off-topic and hijacked into Moonbattery. And I do not concede that those very famous photos were not taken on the moon.
If you're just saying that truth doesn't matter at all if it might hurt someone's feelings, then you should just come out and say that.
#130. To: Pinguinite (#128)
earth is either flat or only 6000 years old
#131. To: Pinguinite (#128)
How logical is it that one would face an eternity in hell
#132. To: Pinguinite (#128)
Stone has his explanation for the earth only being 6k years old.... we all have explanations for what we believe, but that does not make them true.
#133. To: Pinguinite, tooconservative (#129)
It's here somewhere, but even I'd have trouble finding it.
#134. To: watchman (#130)
Why can't the Earth be only 6000 years old?
#135. To: watchman (#131)
Because that person WANTS to spend eternity in hell.
#136. To: Pinguinite (#134)
Why can't the universe be as old as it is big? Do you doubt the speed of light is what science says it is? Is the furthest object away no more than 6000 light years distant?
#137. To: Pinguinite (#135)
Or because they never heard the gospel because some Christian failed to do as ordered.
#138. To: Pinguinite (#134)
As for evolution, it explains a lot and I have no problem with it.
#139. To: Pinguinite (#135)
Yes, very simple.
#140. To: Pinguinite (#134)
Christianity teaches God is not the "author of deception". Well, if He made the universe look older than it is, that would be pretty deceiving.
#141. To: Pinguinite (#134)
You choose.... **we**... choose to believe what we want. And that which we choose to believe, we call truth. For me, it is illogical to believe that God created a universe/earth just 6000 years ago and made it look like it was far older. Christianity teaches God is not the "author of deception". Well, if He made the universe look older than it is, that would be pretty deceiving.
#142. To: Pinguinite (#134)
But it's not compatible with your version of truth.
#143. To: A K A Stone (#138)
#144. To: Pinguinite (#143)
#145. To: watchman (#140)
How is that deception? How else could He create time and space unless He actually selected a time as to how His creation would look? Adam and Eve were created to be a certain age, and again, how is that deception?
When God made the universe it didn't look older than it is...it looked brand spanking new...the universe had not yet "fallen" through man's sin.
#146. To: Pinguinite (#145)
We are observing things with telescopes that scientific consensus says is upwards of 10 billion light years away, meaning the light departed from those objects 10 billion years ago.
#147. To: Pinguinite (#145)
when he created the universe 6000 years ago, also create that light so that when we see it now would make us *think* that we were viewing those objects as they were 10 billion years ago.
#148. To: A K A Stone (#142)
Do you really believe thear are versions of the truth.
#149. To: A K A Stone, Pinguinite (#144)
The facts aren't on evolutions side.
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
#150. To: watchman (#149)
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
#151. To: Pinguinite (#150)
(Edited)
I honestly don't have time and little inclination to look into this
#152. To: A K A Stone (#133)
I used to be to find my song parody about burning the Koran. I can't find it with google anymore.
#153. To: watchman (#151)
#154. To: Pinguinite (#153)
What is it about Human DNA that gives rise to an immortal soul that defies all laws of thermal dynamics that chimpanzee DNA does not possess?
It came into existence some way, some how.
#155. To: Pinguinite (#150)
Beyond that, one major problem with creationism is that it's a theory that cannot be disproven. That is, no amount of physical evidence that is collected could definitively show that creationism/intelligent design could NOT have happened. That's important because any theory that cannot be disproven cannot be proven either.
#156. To: Pinguinite (#150)
What if there is some biological mechanism that facilitates evolution without "random mutation" being an ingredient? What if there are mutations driving evolution, but they do not happen randomly?
#157. To: watchman (#154)
If not evolution, how? (Every human being wants to know the how and why of our existence...I know that you are no different, Ping)
#158. To: A K A Stone (#155)
If apple trees started evolving and having a new kind of fruit on them. That would disprove creationism because things produce after like kind.
How do you disprove the big bang? Stick that in your fuse box.
#159. To: A K A Stone (#156)
(Edited)
No examples to demonstrate it. It ie deception for people who don't want to believe it might upset their world and they will have to admit they are living as sinners.
#160. To: Pinguinite (#158)
both can co-exist
#161. To: Pinguinite (#157)
The how is one question of many we don't have answers to
#162. To: Queen of LF Gaslighting, Tooconservative, Pinguinite, ALL (#127)
(Edited)
TC, I remember you posting that photo that showed one of the Apollo landing sites from the lander with the earth hugely lit behind it on the horizon.
#163. To: Pinguinite, ALL (#122)
Do you/we accept people who see the world differently than we do? Or do we make a big stink about it and call them stupid?
#164. To: Liberator (#162)
(Edited)
By your own observations, logic, and common sense you *knew* that NASA Apollo photo was an absolute doctored-fake. (NASA has been busted so many times with they hoaxing, CGI, and sloppiness that it is beyond embarrassing.)
'Earthrise' was the one and ONLY "photograph" taken "by Astronauts" allegedly "on the Moon. That's it. FIVE trips on the Moon (supposedly). ONE PHOTO. (Does that make ANY sense at all??)
Earthrise is a PROVEN FRAUD. (The size/proportion of "Earth" from the "Moon" is comically wrong as well.) ONLY loyalists of NASA's lies (*cough, TC) dismiss even questioning the obvious il-logical and impossibilities of their sloppy photos, ridiculous shadows and countless inconsistencies while "on the Moon."
#165. To: Liberator (#163)
Simple conversations and exchanges of ideas don't necessarily mean we must agree on any of all of what is discussed. You and I have always proven that. And so have many here at this forum.
#166. To: Liberator, Pinguinite (#162)
Earthrise' was the one and ONLY "photograph" taken "by Astronauts" allegedly "on the Moon. That's it. FIVE trips on the Moon (supposedly). ONE PHOTO. (Does that make ANY sense at all??)
Casting such dispersions on Ping or myself (through Ping) is a new low for you.
#167. To: Liberator, Pinguinite (#162)
I'd say this says quite a bit about Tooconservative's agenda.
#168. To: Pinguinite (#128)
I say God is better than that. And with the model I subscribe to, he is.
#169. To: Pinguinite (#158)
But creationism, even if proven, does not disprove evolution. And evolution, even if proven, does not disprove creationism. Strictly speaking, in science terms, both can co-exist, even if one were to deem them incompatible from a religious perspective.
#170. To: Tooconservative (#167)
You're just a liar. And an ignoramus. You are the "PROVEN FRAUD" on this thread, not the old Earthrise photo from Apollo 8.
#171. To: A K A Stone, Pinguinite (#169)
You also said there can be two truths. No only on truth.
#172. To: Tooconservative (#167)
I decided to ping Neil to this post, even if you call pinging someone a "new low", even for me.
#173. To: A K A Stone (#169)
You say they can both be true. So the earth could have been created in the timeframe the Bible describes, thousands of years ago. And it can also be true that it was billions of years ago.
You also said there can be two truths. No only on truth. For example the Easter bunny exists or he doesn't. Both can't be true. Please explain how two things that are different can both be true. They can't so I expect a dodge here.
#174. To: Liberator (#171)
#175. To: watchman (#168)
#176. To: Tooconservative, A K A Stone (#166)
Earthrise was a photo snapped from moon orbit as Apollo 8 came around from behind the moon...
#177. To: Pinguinite (#173)
(Edited)
As I see it, if it is 6k years old, then God made it intentionally look like it was billions of years older than that in which case it's not the fault of scientists for having been fooled by God.
#178. To: Pinguinite (#173)
(Edited)
I do not in any way subscribe to the theory of a 6000 year old earth. That notion is quite incompatible with observation, in my opinion. As I see it, if it is 6k years old, then God made it intentionally look like it was billions of years older than that in which case it's not the fault of scientists for having been fooled by God. Further, it's clearly illogical to suggest the earth is only 6k years old while having no problem with the universe being many billions of light years in size. Why shouldn't the earth and universe be as old as it is big?
#179. To: Liberator (#176)
FIVE MOON MISSIONS. But only ONE SINGLE photo of Earth from the Moon and/or it's alleged orbit?
#180. To: Tooconservative (#178)
You still have the problem with God creating the universe with all those light particles traveling in all directions from every sun. We are seeing light with telescopes that have been traveling toward us for hundreds of thousands of years. Other more exotic particles arriving on Earth have been en route for millions or billions of years.
God is quite the prankster, it seems.
#181. To: Pinguinite (#180)
At least God would only have to do that for photons heading for earth, which would ease the difficulty of the task rather substantially.
#182. To: Pinguinite, Tooconservative (#180)
At least God would only have to do that for photons heading for earth, which would ease the difficulty of the task rather substantially.
God is quite the prankster, it seems.
#183. To: watchman (#182)
Yes! God does have a sense of humor ;-)
#184. To: Tooconservative (#183)
Yes, I've got a mirror too! ; )
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]