We will probably never believe in not breathing, so I guess they will never be "complete".

Seriously, this quote prima facie concerns politics and business and govt propaganda. Easily-verified observation, not so much.

Seriously, God made breathing an involuntary action for a reason.  Belief in its usefulness has nothing to do with it.  Sure, we can choose to hold our breath, but only for so long.  Stupid example, although meant in jest.

What anyone with eyes to see can, in fact, observe is that the moon landing myth is utter nonsense.  Officialdom lies at every turn and plenty of it pertains to observable phenomena.

That and the results of Michelson-Morley inspired the establishment to create the mythical/legendary figure of Al Einstein.  They had to make something up to rescue their non-geocentrist paradigm.

Another experiment that's been flushed is Airy's "Failure".  Dismissed as a failure because it proved the opposite of what they wanted, but it was nonetheless conclusive proof for the fact that the stars move in relation to the earth rather than the other way around.  So they label it a "Failure" and throw it into the dustbin of failures in history.  It was no failure.  It proved that the earth is stationary vis-a-vis the stars.

Could you elaborate on the results of these experiments? I thought M-M failed to detect the aether, and I'm unfamiliar with Airy.

Nobody on Earth has ever been able to determine by way of the empirical method this order.

This is an entirely false statement. If you understood Sungenis's work at all you'd know he has multiple volumes of work and 2 docuмentaries proving it with empirical science alone.

And that's one of the biggest reasons I care about the Flat Earth issue.  These atheistic scuм "scientists" have brainwashed people into regarding their science as absolute truth, causing people to doubt the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.  Untold millions have lost the faith on account of these scuм, and I will fight them with every breath that's left in me.

If the Flat Earth movement can spread and gain momentum, a lot of people could be shocked backed into the corner of realize that Sacred Scripture was right all along and these pseudo-scientific buffoon were a bunch of lying criminals.

This is an entirely false statement. If you understood Sungenis's work at all you'd know he has multiple volumes of work and 2 docuмentaries proving it with empirical science alone.

No asceth, he has not proved geocentrism by way of empirical science. The problem with determining whether the sun and stars revolve around the Earth as we see them do, or whether the Earth orbits the sun while revolving in a fixed-star universe as we are told they do, is one of relative movement in space. Only if we could position ourselves outside the universe and look in at it, would it be possible to see if any body or bodies are fixed, and only then could science know the true order of its many movements. But because we are confined within our place in space and cannot reach beyond the universe for observation and confirmation, man’s science cannot confirm or falsify how the universe works.This concept can be recognised through Kurt Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem; that full validity of a system, including a scientific one, cannot be demonstrated within that system itself.  Richard Dawkins himself has admitted: ‘It is not actually provable that the Earth orbits the Sun, but it is perverse to deny it.’ (Richard Dawkins, speaking on gαy Byrne’s The Meaning of Life, RTE, 18th Oct. 2015.)

Yes, since the latter part of the 18th century, empirical science, real science, has conceded that there is no way of proving for certain the true order of the universe - and consequently its laws - for the simple reason that science cannot verify Archimedes’s ‘one fixed point’ in space to determine the movements within it. This intractable problem for physics is called relative movement in space, and this simple relativity was once, and must become again, an accepted principal of sane reasoning.

Go ask Sungenis and he will confirm he has never proven geocentrism with the empirical method. 

Also, I know I'm opening a can of worms by saying this, but I find it difficult to take Holy Scripture literally in scientific matters. Take for example this passage from Genesis 1, 14:
On first glance, this sounds like a description of Sun and Moon in the poetic style of Genesis by a terrestrial observer. As we now know, the Moon is only reflecting light and isn't a light source per se, so how can this passage be taken literally? The same problem applies to all the other arguments regarding flat Earth, the Earth dome, Geocentrism and so on.

No Dankward, you are not opening a can ofg worms, you are simply expanding the debate to one of the most important subjects that has arison from the historical submission of churchmen and secularism that the Catholic Church was wrong in its defence of Biblical (and visual) geocentrism up to the 18th century when it was falsely believed that heliocentrism was proven true by Newton, stellar aberration and stellar parallax and later by Foucault's Pendulum.

The new DOGMA that arose from the above illusion was spelled out by Pope John Paul II when addressing his Galileo Commission findings in 1992.

‘(12): Let us recall the celebrated saying attributed to Cardinal Baronius “In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning.”’ --- Pope John Paul II’s Galileo Commission address, 1992.

In fact, the above hermeneutics is Protestant, invented by the reformer Rheticus as we read below to save his Biblical changes.

‘Before he left Varmia in 1541 [when Cardinal Baronius was 3-years-old] Rheticus had composed his own small tract to demonstrate the absence of conflict between heliocentrism and the Bible…. He went on to make a distinction that is still part of the faith-science dialogue: In the Bible the Holy Spirit’s intention, declared Rheticus, is not to teach science but to impart spiritual truths “necessary for Salvation.” Moreover, whatever descriptions of nature that do appear in the Scriptures, they are “accommodated to the popular understanding.”’ (Dennis Danielson: The First Copernican, Walker & Co., 2006, p.108.)

In Pope Benedict XV’s 1920 Spiritus Paraclitus it says

‘Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture,’ and that all the rest -- things concerning “profane knowledge,” the garments in which Divine truth is presented -- God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author’s greater or less knowledge. Small wonder, then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science. Some even maintain that these views do not conflict with what our predecessor laid down since - so they claim - he said that the sacred writers spoke in accordance with the external - and thus deceptive - appearance of things in nature .’

So, who are Catholics to believe, the Protestant Rheticus, Cardinal Baronius, Pope Benedict XV, or a papal Commission?

For Tradition and the Fathers, Genesis was a virtual treasure trove of divine, historical and natural knowledge (scientia). It tells of the supernatural creation of the world and all in it, from to the perimeters of genetics with all its ‘kinds’ including the creation of man and woman. It has the only history of the Antediluvian races from Adam and Eve and their longevity that harmonises with cutting-edge genetics and astronomy. It records the universal deluge of Noah caused by God which in turn explains how the topography of the Earth formed as now witnessed; with vast plains and mountains of sedimentary and igneous rock deposited around the Earth, and why billions of mixed fossils are deposited in them, every one non-changing perfect kinds as Genesis records.

‘In the field of science the Bible also triumphs continuously over any form of criticism. Both, astronomy, geology and other areas of science support the Bible. The Bible mentions, among other things, scientific objects that were discovered by man only centuries later….. For example, according to medical science there is a piece of wear-resistant skin on the enamel of our teeth called the ‘cuticula dentis’ (Job 19:10). This has been discovered only recently….
In Genesis (17:12) and Leviticus (12:2-3) God orders every boy of eight days old to be circuмsized. On the eight day [modern science found] the coagulating factor prothrombin is more profused in the blood than at any other point in life. Vitamin K, which is of extreme importance in this regard, reaches its peak on the eight day (see The New Directory of Thought, 1954, p.534)….
Many critics have mocked the text in Leviticus (11:6) wherein it is said the hare is a ruminant [cud-chewing animal]. In 1940, the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London (pp.159-163) for the first time in history described and confirmed the amazing way in which rabbits and rabbit-like animals ruminate.’(Robin de Ruiter: Worldwide Evil and Misery: Mayra Publications, 2008, p.25.)

To our knowledge, no matter how many say the Bible wasn’t written to teach us anything more than ‘how to get to heaven,’ no science, no anthropology, archaeology or anything has ever shown mundane references in the Bible to be untrustworthy in any sphere, whether in its age of the world, its geocentrism, the ‘vapours’ of the sun, the shape of the Earth (Is.40:18-22), its floodwater-caused geology, its water cycle (Eccles.1:7), its fixity of kinds, diversity of species, assessments of nutrition, methods of generation, its sanitation laws (Deut. 23:12-14), its rules for quarantining (Lev.13:1-5) and other references.
I will get to light next.

How come we have telescopes that can see distant planets/stars (millions and millions of miles away) but these same telescopes can't reach china/russia from the US?  Makes no sense.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.

On first glance, this sounds like a description of Sun and Moon in the poetic style of Genesis by a terrestrial observer. As we now know, the Moon is only reflecting light and isn't a light source per se, so how can this passage be taken literally? The same problem applies to all the other arguments regarding flat Earth, the Earth dome, Geocentrism and so on.

‘Day 1: In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said: Be light made. And light was made. And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. And he called the light Day and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.   
Day 4: And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth, to rule the day and the night and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

Now it is known that St Augustine also had a problem with light created before the sun so would not go along with six literal days of creation. Augustine proposed that all was created complete immediately but presented in Genesis by way of a six-days to emphasise order in His creation.

Before we can go on to the two lights of day 4, let us consider Augustine's proposal. Having first created heaven and Earth in darkness, the Book of Genesis tells us God then created ‘light.’ He then divided this light from the darkness causing what mankind experience as day and night on Earth. Today, science knows what light is, describing it as within a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Accordingly, when God first created light, he in effect must have created electromagnetism to provide light throughout ‘heaven and Earth.’ So it was possible for God to create light on the first day.

It was on the 4th day that God created the sun and moon, the sun also to generate light for day on Earth, and the moon to reflect the sun's light on the Earth. The problem as you put it is no problem. Reasd Day 4 above again and it fits the reality for both sun and moon shine light to Earth.

St Basil, in his Hexaemeron, explains why God created light before the sun:

‘However, the sun and the moon did not yet exist, in order that those who live in ignorance of God may not consider the sun as the origin and father of light, or as the maker of all that grows out of the earth. That is why there was a fourth day, and then God said: “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven.”’ (Hm. VI:2)

Mary of Agreda wrote: Moses says that it was void, which he does not say of the heavens, for God had created the angels at the instant indicated by the word of Moses: “God said: Let there be light, and light was made.” He speaks here not only of material light, but also of the intellectual or angelic lights…

 Having first created heaven and Earth in darkness, the Book of Genesis tells us God then created ‘light.’ He then divided this light from the darkness causing what mankind experience as day and night on Earth. Today, science knows what light is, describing it as within a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Accordingly, when God first created light, he in effect must have created electromagnetism to provide light throughout ‘heaven and Earth.’

Finally,  Domenico Cassini, by 1680, discovered the stars, sun and planets orbit the Earth by way of cassinian ovals. Later it was discovered that Cassinian ovals are also used for modelling electro-magnetic activity in the case of wires of equal current and direction or like-point charges. In other words Cassini, by way of his oval find (not kepler's ellipses), showed uis all the orbits in the universe are electromagnetic orbits. It later was discovered that Cassini's ovals are related to Phi which in turn is also found in a number of natural spirals are produced such as found in spiral galaxies, the human ear, snails, shellfish, leaf-shapes, flower petals, daisies, cauliflowers, broccoli, sunflowers, pineapple fruitlets, pine cones, curved waves, buds on trees, starfish. The measurement from the navel to the floor and the top of the head to the navel is the golden ratio. Animal bodies exhibit similar tendencies, including dolphins (the eye, fins and tail all fall at Golden Sections), starfish, sand dollars, sea urchins, ants, and honey bees etc.