https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pRtpEyF0uY:facepalm:
Just wait for the "landing".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pRtpEyF0uYIt conveniently cuts out...hmmm...:confused:
Just wait for the "landing".
When I hear "Bob and Doug", this is the image that pops into mind. Canadians growing up in the 80s will be very familiar with this.:cowboy:
As for the rest, I do enjoy science fiction.;)
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcat-rails-production2.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Fauction%2Fitem%2Fimage%2F57745%2Fa_Bob__Doug_on_set.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
Kasimierz? Take off, eh, you hoser! :laugh1:Take off to the Great White North, it’s a beauty way to go!
Oh my goodness, yes, good old Bob and Doug. Those were the days when there were some genuinely talented comedians. John Candy, too. Canada has produced some genuinely talented people over the years. Lately? Not so much.
Thanks a lot. Now I am sitting here singing, "Coo-oh coo coo..." :laugh1: Maybe I will sing it to the fish as I clean the aquarium lol.
You made my day! Laughing my head off...
Take off to the Great White North, it’s a beauty way to go!LOL. I have not heard their 12 Days in a long time. And as for the price of back bacon? I am terrified to look...there was a loss of over 12 000 hogs in the recent BC flooding. Back bacon in Canada now will be like gold. We had pork chops for dinner last night, but they were from take-out, so I don't know what pork is going for in the grocery stores these days.
Almost time to listen to their version of the 12 days of Christmas.
SCTV of old was hilarious. Many funny memories.
Glad to have put a smile on your face and chuckle in your heart.
Haven’t had back bacon in a while.:cowboy:
https://youtu.be/4-zzqW1WKZEWhen standing upright, they assume the same painful poses and facial expressions, trying to endure the stress wedgies caused by the wires affixed to the backs of their trousers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pRtpEyF0uYThe video feed on these SpaceX drone ships repeatedly cut out when the Falcon 9 Stage 1 booster lands, this is nothing new. May look sketchy if you want, but is not suspicious per se, because these things do land, there's lot's of intact footage of that:
Just wait for the "landing".
The video feed on these SpaceX drone ships repeatedly cut out when the Falcon 9 Stage 1 booster lands, this is nothing new. May look sketchy if you want, but is not suspicious per se, because these things do land, there's lot's of intact footage of that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDK5TF2BOhQ
LOL. I have not heard their 12 Days in a long time. And as for the price of back bacon? I am terrified to look...there was a loss of over 12 000 hogs in the recent BC flooding. Back bacon in Canada now will be like gold. We had pork chops for dinner last night, but they were from take-out, so I don't know what pork is going for in the grocery stores these days.Be careful. Most pork is coming in from China. I was shocked that chicken and pork was coming into Ireland from China. That is insane and gross.
How about Corner Gas? Red Green? Or back to the theme of space--Chris Hadfield playing with his guitar "in space?" In a weird twist, I met his sister. Nice lady. I wasn't really interested in the topic either, but it came out they were related. The others around were more interested in this fact than I was though. Someone "famous" could probably walk right past me on the street and I would be oblivious 90% of the time. Meeting an astronaut wouldn't be on a high priority list for me at all. I would rather meet the architect that built the building and discuss the construction methods. (I'm weird. Not even my husband has figured me out yet, and I don't think he ever will, poor man). :laugh1:
So, when Shatner landed, that thing hit the ground extremely hard, and I was thinking that I don't see how they didn't all break their backs. Normally you land in water. They claim they have some cushioning thing built in, but I don't know about that.I strongly believe they are already doing Blue Beam ops in remote locations :
At this point, they lie so much that I'd have to see it in person to believe it, and even then wonder if it wasn't a hologram.
A crane could be helping.It's not a crane.
It's not a crane.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5I8jaMsHYk
Ok, assuming the images are true.Hard to believe? You can watch full length streams of Falcon 9 rockets launching and boosters landing again if you want, no need to believe.
I find it hard to believe that they need a few short "burn"s only to get the tank down again. My first assumption is: breaking downwards needs as much fuel as accelerating upwards. Then discount air friction which obstructs upwards and helps downwards. Then discount weight. Less rocket downward, less fuel downward. But still they seem to need virtually no fuel at all (compared to upwards) for breaking.
Hard to believe? You can watch full length streams of Falcon 9 rockets launching and boosters landing again if you want, no need to believe.
There's another one coming up today, actually: https://twitter.com/SpaceX
Only the booster stage is coming back down, carrying way less weight due to stage 1 and stage 2 being disconnected already and way less fuel in the tanks, so it's rather easy for these powerful engines to brake the rocket. Air friction works the same both ways. It's exponentially easier to produce the necessary deltaV (and thus fuel used) the less mass your rocket has.
Hard to believe? You can watch full length streams of Falcon 9 rockets launching and boosters landing again if you want, no need to believe.
This subject is entirely irrelevant to the question of Flat Earth. But, regarless, there's been so much fakery from the space agencies, SpaceX, etc. that I'd have to watch it in person and then, after it landed, go up to it and touch it. Whether this rocket is fake, I can't say for sure, but I'm certainly not taking SpaceX's word for it after they've been caught faking other stuff.It isn't entirely irrelevant per se (I think some points that could be made require the nature or the non-nature of space to be discussed) but I think this thread is just focusing on space rather than Flat Earth. Unfortunately there are 3+ FE debate threads going nowhere, this is just focusing on space being the ultimate platform for fαℓѕє fℓαgs and fake happenings. I think the line in the sand as a sanity check is the Moon landings. I am a globetard (reluctantly but it is entirely from independent astronomy rather than others' arguments) and think they were 100% fake. Do any of the multiple Round Earthers in this thread think they are real? If so, why?
This subject is entirely irrelevant to the question of Flat Earth. But, regarless, there's been so much fakery from the space agencies, SpaceX, etc. that I'd have to watch it in person and then, after it landed, go up to it and touch it. Whether this rocket is fake, I can't say for sure, but I'm certainly not taking SpaceX's word for it after they've been caught faking other stuff.Oh, I thought we were discussing still discussing what the thread title says - "In This Thread: Fake Space Footage".
It isn't entirely irrelevant per se (I think some points that could be made require the nature or the non-nature of space to be discussed) but I think this thread is just focusing on space rather than Flat Earth. Unfortunately there are 3+ FE debate threads going nowhere, this is just focusing on space being the ultimate platform for fαℓѕє fℓαgs and fake happenings. I think the line in the sand as a sanity check is the Moon landings. I am a globetard (reluctantly but it is entirely from independent astronomy rather than others' arguments) and think they were 100% fake. Do any of the multiple Round Earthers in this thread think they are real? If so, why?I too am a globetard and am not currently convinced the Apollo manned Moon landings did or didn't happen, but am open to good arguments for either side.
I too am a globetard and am not currently convinced the Apollo manned Moon landings did or didn't happen, but am open to good arguments for either side.That post is shady for sure, it doesn't sit well that they examine the claim of it being faked by using CGI as a measuring stick. Nobody makes that claim, it is the definition of a strawman. The funny thing about that particular link is that none of the points directly address any concerns surrounding the landing. Sure, the theory behind the rockets and everything else is solid and how we get up there works but once people are up there everything is shady. Astronauts FaceTiming with the entire world is possibly, theoretically doable with S-Band in the 60s, maybe I can buy that possibility but the externalities are too sketchy and there are so many problems with the pictures and video.
There are just some things that are hard to refute when it comes to proving we were actually up there: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/28172/how-do-we-know-the-apollo-moon-landings-are-real
But then you have the shady official footage of rickety Moon buggies and rattletrap landers and photos were everything other detail just screams fake.
What I think is the most plausible scenario is that we did send unmanned rockets with probes up there several times (this is shown in the article linked above) but no man ever set foot on the Moon.
But perhaps there are some easy "one ends all" arguments to disprove the landings?
That post is shady for sure, it doesn't sit well that they examine the claim of it being faked by using CGI as a measuring stick. Nobody makes that claim, it is the definition of a strawman. The funny thing about that particular link is that none of the points directly address any concerns surrounding the landing. Sure, the theory behind the rockets and everything else is solid and how we get up there works but once people are up there everything is shady. Astronauts FaceTiming with the entire world is possibly, theoretically doable with S-Band in the 60s, maybe I can buy that possibility but the externalities are too sketchy and there are so many problems with the pictures and video.Some believe the Moon landings were faked using CGI. This is supposed to prove how a current CGI model of a Moon lander environment gives the same results as a photo from back in the day, but that's putting the cart before the horse because we have the possibly faked photo from the 60ies and then create CGI 60 years later to more or less mach the photo in question? So yeah, that doesn't prove anything.
Arguments saying we can see astronauts outside the ISS using amateur gear also I find a bit hard to believe, this would 100% require you to use software to clean up the images. This in itself requires me to need to see it to believe it TBH. If you've ever worked with CCD gear you will note how much cleanup and "stacking" goes into a clean looking image. What you see, with the naked eye, is never what is seen when people post pictures online. I took a look at one of the images and the astronaut is 2px large. One of those StackExchange links says you could do it with a Dobsonian but anyone who does astronomy will tell you how hard any kind of astrophotography is with a Dobsonian, let alone spotting men on the ISS :laugh1:. Even with automated mounts the ISS HUSTLES through the sky, it's very difficult to track and to resolve such a small object, have near perfect seeing conditions throughout the sky (not just in one small area) makes me scratch my head a little. It's true that large enough Dobsonians could resolve that level of detail but I'd like to know his mount among other gear, at that point those 2 px could be a "mount smear" from the scope tracking.Well if you don't clean up / process the images it will just give you lots of atmospheric perturbations but it still works. You can also see the ISS as a bright dot zooming by under the right conditions if it's sunlit but the sky is dark enough so you're in dusk/night already.
A lot of claims these people are making sound good on paper but if you spend any time on a scope they are a bit hard to stomach.
If you want to perpetrate a gargantuan hoax, you do it once, heave a sigh of relief if you think you've succeeded and leave it at that. You don't go repeating it multiple times with ever-increasing chances of being found out. The hoaxers sometimes forget that there were nine moon missions, six of which landed on the lunar surface...That really makes me think.
Tracking the ISS in realtime with a backyard telescope:
If we can find ONE ITEM of proof that NASA faked anything in space, we can logically conclude that the WHOLE THING IS FAKE.The thing that really irks me is the reasons we supposedly *aren't* going back to the Moon. This is almost more convincing than anything else. Other than the fact that it happened during the decade of everything being a fαℓѕє fℓαg or inside job, the 60s.
(I've seen many dozen such proofs)
Just like a man who is caught in ONE LIE is a LIAR and you can no longer trust him. Ditto for someone caught stealing. You can't trust him with money anymore.
Because the logic is water-tight:
WHY would NASA fake or lie about any aspect of the moon landings? If they had a technical hurdle, glitch, malfunction, etc. why not COME CLEAN about it and TELL US *before they are caught* that they had to CGI or stitch something together? But when they let us THINK it's real/live, and we catch them, well that's called CATCHING A LIAR IN HIS LIE and then you have proof of shenanigans.
Then the big question arises: WHY are they pretending that some space missions took place for real, when they were staged underwater? What else are they lying about?
Logically? I'd say ALL OF IT. It's always cheaper to film something in a desert somewhere, than to go into Low Earth Orbit, much less the Moon and do the same thing. If they are "up for a lie" -- willing to lie to the public -- then they're going to do it a lot more than once!
It's cheaper/easier to remote control a rover in Greenland than it would be to send a rover to Mars.
Matthew,
According to official figures, one should NOT be able to see the ISS.
According to this link, a 12" telescope can magnify objects to 610x the size of what is seen by a human eye. You stated that the ISS is 50x the height of a plane. I believe that 610x magnification should be sufficient to assume you could see the ISS at the claimed height in some detail.
Additionally, from the numbers I was able to find, the ISS averages a height of about 250 miles above the earth. Average cruising altitude for commercial planes seems to be about 36,000 feet, or about 6.8 miles. This would suggest that the ISS is actually only about 36.76x the cruising altitude of a plane.
I forgot one important detail -- the criticism was that people were claiming they could make out the ISS going across the sky with the naked eye.
As for the cruising altitude of planes, YES I'll admit the source I quoted was a bit "biased" and rounded down the cruising altitude to 5 miles, so it would be a nice round figure (and larger!) 50X difference.
I will concede that it's really only a 36X difference in altitude. Let's agree that the factoid in question was biased, and just a bit over-zealous in their difference estimates of 50X.
However, the point stands. The factoid I'm quoted stated: "If the plane was just 2X higher, it would not be visible. Now imagine it [36X] higher. You're NOT going to see it with the naked eye."
36X, 50X -- even 10X would make the point. If the plane is quite small to the naked eye at 1X cruising altitude, and invisible at 2X, something at 10X or more is NOT going to be visible with the naked eye.
Matthew,I think you may have missed part of my previous post? I haven't seen anyone say they can see details with the naked eye. Maybe I didn't look deep enough? The above is my best response as to why you can see it with the naked eye with everything as I currently understand it.
It is my understanding that you can pretty much only see the ISS with the naked eye when it passes over during the night time and also is reflecting the sun's light back towards the earth.
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/4034/can-i-see-the-iss-from-the-surface-with-the-naked-eye
If you look at the second post from this thread, there is a time lapse photo shown of the ISS. In this photo, it appears as a tiny but very bright streak. You cannot see any details, but you notice it because it reflects light.
On an airplane at night you can see the lights better than you can see the whole body of the plane during the day. The lights are way smaller than the plane itself, but since they are bright they are very visible. Can you see any details on the lights themselves? No, not really, but they're still visible.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://optcorp.com/collections/12-inch-telescopes%23:~:text%3D12%252Dinch%2520Telescopes%2520offer%2520exceptional,to%2520see%252016.2%2520magnitude%2520stars!&ved=2ahUKEwjo0cDvmO_0AhWaGTQIHVsXCCcQFnoECAQQBQ&usg=AOvVaw07N-h6qjhUZrTtnc9bBsyR
According to this link, a 12" telescope can magnify objects to 610x the size of what is seen by a human eye. You stated that the ISS is 50x the height of a plane. I believe that 610x magnification should be sufficient to assume you could see the ISS at the claimed height in some detail.
Additionally, from the numbers I was able to find, the ISS averages a height of about 250 miles above the earth. Average cruising altitude for commercial planes seems to be about 36,000 feet, or about 6.8 miles. This would suggest that the ISS is actually only about 36.76x the cruising altitude of a plane.
This seems to not be that large of a stretch to me, unless I am missing something? I wonder how small the shooting stars we see in the night sky are. They look very small but make a very bright streak. I think this might be a somewhat comparable situation.
This being the case, why didn't Russia join in with the doubters and proclaim a fraud. If anyone could provide evidence of a fraud it would have been Russia.
They had faked the Gagarin tour.
Why then didn't the USA demonstrate a Russian fake or fraud. Both competitors were in the same race watching and checking on each other as no other country or space team could do. And don't tell me each side was not certain as to what the other side was up to or achieving. Can you even imagine the consequences and shame on the fraudsters if either got the opportunity to expose the other as faking their claimed achievements. That would have been as good a victory as anything their space teams could have dreamed of. But neither happened most likely because each country knew the truth.
I would say they BOTH were faking, and also both were on the same side. America and Russia were controlled by the same people, even back then. Don't kid yourself.Exactly.
Now that I think about it, I think no restoration CAN come until something happens to all the Baby Boomers. They are the defenders of all the lies and lying systems in place today. From the banking system, the insurance system, the 2-party political system, the media, academia, you name it. Younger people are rejecting all those things -- in droves. But they aren't yet the ones in power.Yes, and it's why the social/media/hollywood elite is trying to cater to the Millenials, so they can corrupt/control them for the "next step" in their plans for humanity. But what's interesting is the current "fork in the road" for all of humanity:
Today, Grandpa and Grandma are the MOST attached to the Moon Landings, etc. because they enjoy a sort of vicarious pride in what was "accomplished", because they were there to see it on TV, it was their generation, etc. Just like Grandma and Grandpa are the MOST attached to Vatican II, because they were the young people who welcomed it in and accepted it. They were the young hippies in the 70's. It's the younger priests who aren't invested in Vatican II, who are more likely to question it and even reject it.This. Every generation has its struggles. Obviously Millennials were the first in the "LGBT" push but Boomers were the most psyopped (which set the stage for the LGBT push because of people being "accepting"), and they love it. It's funny you mention parents working because my Mom retired but actually went back to her old job and limited her hours so she rakes in maximum on social security PLUS a salary. Her friends are all doing this too, I don't get it at all.
Now that I think about it, I think no restoration CAN come until something happens to all the Baby Boomers. They are the defenders of all the lies and lying systems in place today. From the banking system, the insurance system, the 2-party political system, the media, academia, you name it. Younger people are rejecting all those things -- in droves. But they aren't yet the ones in power. The Boomers are reluctant to retire. Both of my parent-in-laws are pushing 70, and neither have retired.
I would say they BOTH were faking, and also both were on the same side. America and Russia were controlled by the same people, even back then. Don't kid yourself.
Even though it was "the good old days" cherished by Baby Boomers everywhere. Sure, in a few limited ways American life hadn't yet descended to today's infernal depths. Men were more manly, etc. But that doesn't change the fact that (((they))) had a pretty good grip on all major countries back then. Recall that the Federal Reserve act was passed in 1913. After World War I, the world was mostly theirs. After World War 2, it was all over.
And women have been wearing pants since the 20's or maybe earlier. My wife's grandmother who died in her 90's wore polyester pants. You have to go back before THAT generation to get a generation of women who wore skirts/dresses all the time. And guess what? They aren't alive anymore. That's how messed up the world is, in many departments. When even your grandma and grandpa can't help you, to pull you back to the correct path, to reality.
Today, Grandpa and Grandma are the MOST attached to the Moon Landings, etc. because they enjoy a sort of vicarious pride in what was "accomplished", because they were there to see it on TV, it was their generation, etc. Just like Grandma and Grandpa are the MOST attached to Vatican II, because they were the young people who welcomed it in and accepted it. They were the young hippies in the 70's. It's the younger priests who aren't invested in Vatican II, who are more likely to question it and even reject it.
Now that I think about it, I think no restoration CAN come until something happens to all the Baby Boomers. They are the defenders of all the lies and lying systems in place today. From the banking system, the insurance system, the 2-party political system, the media, academia, you name it. Younger people are rejecting all those things -- in droves. But they aren't yet the ones in power. The Boomers are reluctant to retire. Both of my parent-in-laws are pushing 70, and neither have retired.
FACT: The ISS is not much bigger than a 747 jet.While the ISS is a bit bigger than a Boeing 747, it's well in the same order of magnitude, so that's a fair comparison. So we agree on the facts.
FACT: A 747 is tiny enough at cruising altitude.
FACT: The ISS is supposed to be 50 times higher in the sky.
According to official figures, one should NOT be able to see the ISS. The idea that we can see it from earth is a HUGE joke, which proves that most people don't think, and don't want to know the truth. Just like most everyone wears masks, even though we didn't wear them before 2019 and they in fact do nothing. They just do what they're told, believe what they're told.
Except for some who are awake.
It is the largest artificial object in space and the largest satellite in low Earth orbit, regularly visible to the naked eye (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_eye) from Earth's surface.[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#cite_note-15)[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#cite_note-16)Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, they cite sources for that. There are also tons of amateur videos showing that you can see the ISS zooming by. This is usually done at night when the ISS is still sunlit, because otherwise it of course couldn't be seen with the naked eye because there's no contrast to see it against. That's why it's hard to see airliners at day, but at night you can see them easily from their blinking beacons (if they aren't chemtrails :laugh1:).
If we can find ONE ITEM of proof that NASA faked anything in space, we can logically conclude that the WHOLE THING IS FAKE.No, that's not a logical conclusion. Even if you could conclusively prove that the moon landings are fake, that wouldn't prove that the ISS or satellites or Earth photos are fake.
(I've seen many dozen such proofs)
Just like a man who is caught in ONE LIE is a LIAR and you can no longer trust him. Ditto for someone caught stealing. You can't trust him with money anymore.
Logically? I'd say ALL OF IT. It's always cheaper to film something in a desert somewhere, than to go into Low Earth Orbit, much less the Moon and do the same thing. If they are "up for a lie" -- willing to lie to the public -- then they're going to do it a lot more than once!
Faking the landings would be an unimaginable task, with the amount of information we have from the flights, and the number of people that would have to be involved to fake this massive, publicly visible operation.But this may be a weak argument. The wikileaks video is quite suspicious too, yes.
https://news.sky.com/story/meteoroid-hit-has-caused-significant-uncorrectable-damage-to-james-webb-space-telescope-12655489
[color=var(--shade-2)]:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
[/color]
This. Every generation has its struggles. Obviously Millennials were the first in the "LGBT" push but Boomers were the most psyopped (which set the stage for the LGBT push because of people being "accepting"), and they love it. It's funny you mention parents working because my Mom retired but actually went back to her old job and limited her hours so she rakes in maximum on social security PLUS a salary. Her friends are all doing this too, I don't get it at all.Very sorry but Gulf Of Tonkin alleged 'incident' actually DID happen. See W Carroll--70 Years Of Communist Revolution... :popcorn:
One of the most uncomfortable questions about Vietnam... Why did none of the "peace" types and hippies at Woodstock etc call the Gulf of Tonkin a fαℓѕє fℓαg? Everyone was so invested in stopping the war but no one paused to question the initial cause? You can only attribute this to programming (Gen X was the first generation to reject politics as a whole and be post-political rather than apolitical, which is why Gen Xers are so open to cօռspιʀαcιҽs but Boomers aren't).
I would say they BOTH were faking, and also both were on the same side. America and Russia were controlled by the same people, even back then. Don't kid yourself.Yep. The Antarctic Treaty supports the notion that "opposing" governments been in this thing for the long haul.
No, that's not a logical conclusion. Even if you could conclusively prove that the moon landings are fake, that wouldn't prove that the ISS or satellites or Earth photos are fake.There's an old saying, "What goes up, must come down." Unless of course, it's powered. The ISS may exist, but it is a powered craft, not a satellite hanging "in orbit". Powered makes more sense because we know they lie. Satellites may exist, but they aren't "in orbit" either. Why? Because there are many proofs satellites are either powered craft or outfitted balloons. Another consideration is that towers are everywhere down on earth (even hidden as fake trees) because communication waves are short and need boosting. Why send outrageously expensive equipment up to do a job when everything is already down here? Cross Atlantic cables lie on the bottom of the ocean between the US and Europe for super fast communications. Why go up? The final question raised is why don't communications work everywhere if tons of satellites triangulate to cover the earth? I have a two mile dead zone, under a wide open sky, near my house, where my radio doesn't work, streaming cuts out and my phone is dead. Why?
Very sorry but Gulf Of Tonkin alleged 'incident' actually DID happen. See W Carroll--70 Years Of Communist Revolution... :popcorn:Evidence that the incident was real?
Evidence that the incident was real?There is chapter in the book about Gulf Of Tonkin alleged 'incident'... :popcorn: Also re: assassination of Diem..
There is chapter in the book about Gulf Of Tonkin alleged 'incident'... :popcorn: Also re: assassination of Diem..Yeah, I get there is a chapter on it, what is the argument presented? I don't own the book so I need the position articulated to me.
These new docuмents and tapes reveal what historians could not prove: There was not a second attack on U.S. Navy ships in the Tonkin Gulf in early August 1964. Furthermore, the evidence suggests a disturbing and deliberate attempt by Secretary of Defense McNamara to distort the evidence and mislead Congress.
National Propaganda Radio clip in which reporter says 2025 will be "the first" manned lunar landing:Note that this is a NASA spokewoman, a NASA employee.
https://noagendaassets.com/enc/1658440718.332_artemismoontrip2kickernpr.mp3
15 second clip
roscoe, put down the MJ already. Declassified docuмents and phone calls prove that that Gulf of Tonkin never happened. There had been an earlier incident in the Gulf, but the one that was used to get the Congressional approval for the Vietnam war never happened:laugh1: :laugh2:
https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2008/february/truth-about-tonkin#:~:text=These%20new%20docuмents%20and%20tapes,the%20evidence%20and%20mislead%20Congress.
And, yes, Rampolla was a Mason, and the earth is stationary while other things move around it.
:laugh1: :laugh2:The burden of proof is on you, not on us. Your theory is novel, not ours.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wtke9StIFgwSomebody forgot to man the propaganda station in China. If this wasn't about wasting billions of dollars while people are in need of food and water and shelter, this joke would be funny.
Scroll around to different timestamps, especially 24 seconds in lol
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wtke9StIFgw
Scroll around to different timestamps, especially 24 seconds in lol
Satellites may exist, but they aren't "in orbit" either. Why? Because there are many proofs satellites are either powered craft or outfitted balloons.