Part of the incoherence of modern mathematics and the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic controlled NASA space program, for example, is that they habitually want to introduce the infinite into space and even into their own special advantages at the market and the bank, but the infinite doesn't fit into things like that. Trying to fit the infinite into things, and all their outer space spaceship money, they also deny creation, and, therefore, also the Book of Genesis and the Holy Bible, etc.Wholeheartedly agreed.
I’ve posted this here on CI before but it’s still one of my favs
Oh and my kids love it too :laugh1:
Hope this is all naive ignorance and not willful ignorance.
Let's have some evidence, I intentionally chose short clips. Judge for yourself.
They mean the same evidence that says we can see the curvature while standing on the earth but are also too close to the earth to see the curvature?
Evidence of space will only grow in the coming years, let's see how long people can keep denying it's part of our reality.
(https://i.imgur.com/qL70rOJ.png)
I would hope that your ignorance isn't due to your Modernist tendencies, but we all know that it is. You're cleary of bad will in that you ignore all the evidence contrary to your position and the keep posting garbage that proves absolutely nothing. You've been exposed dozens of times already, but you persist. That's what happens when a mind is corrupted by bad will and refuses to open up to the truth.None of this addresses any point I made. Just ad-hominems and baseless assertions.
They mean the same evidence that says we can see the curvature while standing on the earth but are also too close to the earth to see the curvature?You are only looking at one-sided, biased material.
This thread isn't exclusively about FE vs GE, but the lies of NASA and modern cosmology. Kindly take your anti-FE grievance elsewhere and stop derailing my thread.
Also, is all you do around here gatekeep for mainstream science? I rarely, if ever, see you post about anything else
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uulh2CTj0k4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uulh2CTj0k4):laugh2:
One giant leap
None of this addresses any point I made. Just ad-hominems and baseless assertions.
confirmation bias (aka bad will)I know that flat earthers don't like to stick to common definitions, but this is just ridiculous.
I've done that repeatedly. I do this all the time, with lots of issues, a thought experiment where I pretend that I believe the earth is a globe and want to prove it to a flat earther. I've tried to come up with solid proofs, and I come up totally empty.Did you find the measurements for the shape of the earth?
Also, couldn't be faked in the 1960ies.
I know that flat earthers don't like to stick to common definitions, but this is just ridiculous.
Not at all. You've repeatedly presented some of the shoddiest "evidence" out there, simple pictures without any context (where, when, what, how, who, no measurements or facts) and which could easily entail varous atmospheric phenomena, but you present them as proof, while at the same time you simply and gratuitously declare "refraction" for the images which show things that shouldn't be seen given the distances involved ... without any evidence. You feel as if you merely need to say the word "refraction" and you've won the argument. So "refraction" only applies to FE evidence but never to the ones that appear to support GE? In every case, the FEs give all the facts and measurements while there's never any context given to the GE ones. You've already decided that the earth must be a globe and are begging the question rather than openly considering the subject. That is textbook confirmation bias, where you cling to things that do not prove your position as if they were proof and dismiss any and all evidence to the contrary. I started a lengthy thread where I went through both sides of the argument thoroughly and explained how I arrived at my conclusion. You have never once given any serious consideration to the FE arguments and evidence but simply dismiss them out of hand. Confirmation bias and bad will.You need to understand refraction to apply it to observations.
You need to understand refraction to apply it to observations.This literally says nothing at all. It is incomplete and manages perfectly to prove without a doubt the "shoddy evidence" with regard to curvature commensurate with a globe earth.
This applies to the globe model in general - most all flat earthers are basically reviewing a book which they've never read. If you honestly look at the evidence and the measurements there is only one conclusion which can be made from that.
Let's not look at whatever you deem "shoddy evidence" (so all evidence contrary to your beliefs), but at actual measurements.
"Transcontinental Triangulation and the American Arc of the Parallel"
Published 1900, an ocean to ocean survey. Shows triangulation with spherical excess (>180° interior angle).
Knowing all the angles of a spherical triangle and one or more of the lengths of the sides it is possible to determine the radius of the sphere upon which the triangle sits. The formula is cos(c/R) = (cos(C) + cos(A)cos(B)) / (sin(A)sin(B)). Where R is the radius of the sphere, A, B, and C are interior angles and c is the length of the side opposite angle C.
Solving for R we get R = c / (acos( csc(A) * csc(B) * cos(C) + cot(A) * cot(B))).
Here's this formula in a spreadsheet with the measurements from several spherical triangles. This method uses zero assumptions to measure the radius of the earth.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kus6gZDIdR_Q3W3OnW0hNyn35CUWas5szyz_dWRwj0Q/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kus6gZDIdR_Q3W3OnW0hNyn35CUWas5szyz_dWRwj0Q/edit?usp=sharing)
Page 221 for Spherical Excess From page 901 of the PDF, number 3 in the list is the primary result of this survey.
a = 6,377,912 meters
b = 6,356,309 meters
https://mctoon27.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/transcontinental-triangulation-and-the-american-arc-of-the-parallel.pdf (https://mctoon27.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/transcontinental-triangulation-and-the-american-arc-of-the-parallel.pdf)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/605800330516627467/954380273083113512/unknown.png)(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/605800330516627467/954380273083113512/unknown.png)
Comparison with other independent geodetic measurements. Note the congruence of the results between them.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/605800330516627467/954380394923425812/unknown.png)(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/605800330516627467/954380394923425812/unknown.png)
I do this all the time, with lots of issues, a thought experiment where I pretend that I believe the earth is a globe and want to prove it to a flat earther. I've tried to come up with solid proofs, and I come up totally empty.
Here's a question for you.
Topaka, KS is about 950' above sea level. The rocky Mountains, which are about 600 miles away, have peaks of over 14,000'. If the Earth is flat, why can't the Rocky Mountains be seen from Topeka, KS, using a telescope?
I just looked it up. You can see them from Nebraska (on a clear day), which is about an equal distance away.
But between Kansas and the Rockies you'll find Denver, the "mile high city". Both topography and atmospheric conditions make a difference. There could be a thousand foot mountain 10 miles away, but if I have a 100-foot tall building 50 feet away in between me and the mountain, I won't see it.
It has to be asceratined, based on what's in between, whether there should be a line of sight. And then even with a direct line of sight there are limits to how far you can see through the atmosphere.
We can see the moon, and it is over 200,000 miles away. Topeka, KS, is only 600 miles away from the Rocky's.
So my stands: If the Earth is Flat, why can you see the Rocky's from Topeka, KS, using a telescope?
Nevertheless, FE is a bit off topic. We're speaking here about the reality of space and/or our ability to get there.
There's no way an atmosphere could exist adjacent to (basically) an infinite vacuum. That defies the laws of physics. Much less, if there were a space, has NASA demonstrated an ability to get people there ... as evidenced by the massive amounts of fraudulent videos from NASA.
Westernmost part of Kansas to the Rocky Mountains is about 800 miles (looking at Google maps). So to be able to see it would be to quadruple the world record for long distance photography, which just BARELY picked up stuff from about 230+ miles away.
Now, you could claim. Well, we can see the moon through the atmosphere #1, it's absolutely enormous compared to a mountain,
#2, it's a very bright and luminous body (unlike a mountain), and #3 we dispute that it's 260,000 miles away.
and #3 we dispute that it's 260,000 miles away.
In sum, if you could get rid of the atmosphere...
and we could prove that there should be line of sight based on the intervening topography,
then your point might have some probative value.
Not hard to do.
Recently watched “Apollo 11.” If the moon landings were faked, boy did they do a heckuva job to make it look real, as well as fool thousands of workers on the Apollo project alone, and hundreds of millions worldwide. More important, that level of deception would not only be diabolical but of such epic proportions that it would have to be orchestrated by Satan himself, with the U.S. government being the most evil entity to ever exist.
If you are truly honest about your theory, you should have no problem applying the same reasoning I just used to see through the Flat Earth error.
You're the one who's clearly dishonest, simply begging the question as "Flat Earth error" and then applying your confirmation bias to your preconceived conclusions, pretending that you have a single smoking gun proof.
You clearly haven't studied the issue in any depth. I've studied the question for about two years now...Then you should have no problem answering the points I just made.
Originally Answered: How much far could we see if earth was flat, but it had a atmosphere exactly like ours. I know that it is impossible, but in a fantasy world. How could it work?
That would all depend on obstruction and other disruptions. Air is naturally clear to our visual spectrum. In a thunderstorm, vision can be reduced to a few feet. Dust, insects, clouds and mountains… but barring that, forever.
The problem is eventually no object will be large enough to see. You could see terrain and large bodies of water.
Eventually, you would not be able to distinguish anything as the height of objects would not be enough.
Also, the mirage effect caused from heat on the ground within the few miles close to you would blur the pyramids hundreds of miles from you.
Now, if you were on a ringworld, which is like a hula hoop around a star, the star is always straight up, but you could look at objects on the curve up from you… You would need a telescope to see stuff. It would be farther away than our moon if you looked up just a few degrees.
Here's a few more smoking gun proofs. If the Earth is flat, and if the sun circles around above the earth 24/7, as the Flat Earth model I just saw claims, why is it ever dark on the surface of the Earth?
If the sun is always circling above the Flat Earth, why do we see it rise up from below the horizon in the morning, and then dip down below the horizon in the evening? That would never happen if the sun was always circling above the Earth. And why do the people in each of the 24 time zones, see the sun rise one hour apart - exactly one hour for each time zone to the west? None of that makes any sense if the sun is always circling over head.
Nonsense.
There's tons of footage exposing the fakery beyond a shadow of a doubt.
There's absolutely nothing nonsensical about the notion that, if the Apollo program was indeed faked, then the U.S. government is the most diabolically evil entity on the planet.
But not a single person has come forward confessing to having participated in the hoax. Not one. For example, considering most of this was filmed, the production crew would have had to have been quite large to pull that off, and still, not a single one has grown a conscience and come forward? Not one gaffer? Not one key grip? Not one assistant?
Well, what I responding to was the assertion that everyone (thousands of people) would have to be invovled in the coverup.
There were probably only a few dozen people in on the conspiracy, and that reportedly also includes Kubrik. It was likely orchestrated with a minimal crew, and they had ways of controlling those few people and preventing them from talking.
Nearly all known "astronauts" are Freemasons.
This is a lame argument.
Don't know that you can't, nor do I know enough about the topography and what's in between them. And there are limitations on how far you can see in general due to just the atmosphere.This is actually the world record long distance line of sight at 273 miles:
Nevertheless, the world's record long-distance photograph is of an island that goes about 80 feet above see level with a 100-foot lighthouse on top ... from 230 miles, which should have been hidden behind several miles of curvature.
One Flat Earther has used infrared photography to see for a couple thousand miles, which would have been impossible on a ball earth.From an airplane, using an infrared camera and wrongly identifying landmarks. He didn't see as far as he claimed.
I worked at NASA for several years, and everybody is entirely compartmentalized. You'll have an entire team dedicated to working on a piece of equipment the size of a microwave oven. There are only a tiny handful of people who see the big picture.From what I know this is absolutely true (doesn't change anything about the moon landings though), but I'm genuinely interested what project you were working on. As far as I know you're a software developer, so I'm guessing something related to that.
I don't think you understand how movies are put together. Do you think they have all these extra hands on payroll simply to increase the bottom expense line?
From what I know this is absolutely true (doesn't change anything about the moon landings though), but I'm genuinely interested what project you were working on. As far as I know you're a software developer, so I'm guessing something related to that.
But please you people to consider also thing one here and thing two, these pictures here as they are and also El Teoria Demasiado.
That defies the laws of physics.
I wrote software for an apparatus to conduct experiments on the Space Shuttle related to combusion. You could control the mixture of gases that were introduced into a chamber (various proportions of them), and various things were set on fire in it, and various means were attempted to extinguish the fires. That apparatus I worked on was (allegedly) on the Columbia mission (that ended up exploding) STS-107. It was called CM-2 (Combusion Model 2). It was written in C/C++ on an RTOS (Real-Time Operating System) called VxWorks. I also wrote the software that controlled the apparatus manually and retrieved, displayed, and analyzed the data (measurements and readings) during the experiment ... which I wrote in C# .NET. I was at Mission Control when the shuttle exploded.That's some remarkable first hand experience on that significant project.
As I mentioned, I worked on the software for one of nearly a couple dozen experiments conducted on the mission, and there were engineers who build the hardware for it, including individuals dedicated to just a small piece of it.Oh yeah. This is the fate that the Apollo program and others suffered. New administration -> budget cut or change in politics / roadmap, and that was the end of these projects.
I also wrote software for a couple other things (projects that ended up mothballed due to political changes).
I even found a docuмent concerned with the CM-2 model from around that time.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20020062759/downloads/20020062759.pdf
That's some remarkable first hand experience on that significant project.
I can't help but ask the question how you got from working directly in a space program with first hand experience of how things worked to being a flat earther.
That defies the laws of physics.
Guess I'll have to ask this again: What is your background in physics?
More important, that level of deception would not only be diabolical but of such epic proportions that it would have to be orchestrated by Satan himself, with the U.S. government being the most evil entity to ever exist.
So, I was working at mission control in support of CM-2. From time to time, we'd get these telemetry windows where we could download data (when they had openings and weren't using the bandwidth for something else). Every time there was even a 5-minute opening, I was grabbing the window and downloading data from our systems. I got every last (literal) bit of data down.So you were directly in mission control?
At one point, the project manager poked fun at me for being so zealous about gettinga all the data, reminding me that the hard drive would come back down with the Shuttle. I said, "Well, you just never know what can happen."Well you sure had a sixth sense there.
I think that speaks to my point. I never saw anything of the big picture. I wrote software that controlled one tiny little apparatus. Next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. Outside of that focus, I had precious little idea of what else went on or of the big pictures. All I knew was that I was writing software to inject gases into a chamber (in various rations) and then evacuate the chamber.Specialized projects need specialized engineers/workers for sure.
Just a couple courses, in which I did very well. It's according to simple and fundamental law of physics (entropy) that ...1) we could make the distinction of atmospheric pressure there, but that's semantics. Once we establish gravity, and we measure the atmospheric pressure gradient (which I hope you'll agree on), it is evident that at the altitude where you'd probably put a container, there is a hard vacuum.
1) gas/air pressure cannot exists without there being a container AND
2) a pressurized atmosphere cannot exist adjacent to an (almost infinite) vacuum
Those are very basic conclusions deriving directly from entropy.
But it's just based on me saying it. There's a (science) Ph.D. Flat Earther who asserts the same thing.
This kind of "argument" betrays desperation, the constant ad hominem attacks and ridicule.
1) we could make the distinction of atmospheric pressure there, but that's semantics. Once we establish gravity, and we measure the atmospheric pressure gradient (which I hope you'll agree on), it is evident that at the altitude where you'd probably put a container, there is a hard vacuum.
Simple observations like sending up a balloon and seeing the blue (air/atmosphere) fade to this blackness which is commonly called space is good empirical evidence of the pressure gradient fading from 14.7psi at sea level to almost nothing, even better than what we call an ultra-high vacuum.
Guess I'll have to ask this again: What is your background in physics?
Indeed the pressure gradient is a curious question, regardless of the model. If there's no vacuum of space, and a container, it's explainable by the denser molecules moving down toward the earth and then less dense ones moving upward. We find the same conditions in the ocean, where the pressure increases as you go lower. There was even one under-ocean "lake" discovered that consisted of an extremely dense pool of salt water. Pressure decreases as you move higher. Then above the oceans you have the far less dense atmosphere. Question then is what's above the atmosphere. Traditional science holds there's a vacuum.Density is ordered only by gravity, as in itself it's just a quantity, which helps to form a relative ratio between heaver and lighter elements. Gravity is what brings the vertical acceleration into it and acts as a force, so forces like buoyancy can even exist.
"Gravity" would have to hold everything down and resist the force of an infinite vacuum, which I simply can't comprehend. I've seen vacuum experiments where you had a bowl of water on the bottom with air around it, and then a vacuum at the top. When the vacuum was "turned on", not only did the air evaculate the chamber, but the water evaporated, turned into gas, and then also evacuated the chamber ... gravity notwithstanding. So in a sense there was a pressure gradient already. It be interesting if within a chamber, on a small scale, we could recreate a simulation of the pressure gradient we have in our atmosphere and then give it a shot. I'm very skeptical that gravity can overcome an infinite vaccuum.I think the problem is that you think a vacuum "sucks" or exerts a force - it's actually always the gas at a specific density which will try to expand into an empty volume (vacuum), it actually pushes outwards into the empty space of the vacuum in a container. Now, the fact that the atmospheric pressure gradient fades to zero shows that there's a key difference between a closed system with a container and the large gas system that is the atmosphere around earth (or other planets where we observe an atmosphere).
This is basically a contemporary worship song about NASA. Hilarious :laugh2:Guy STILL cannot actually sing, firstly.
ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic controlled NASA moves to pocket a nice 39 billions to put a woman on the Moon.
https://www.9news.com.au/national/nasa-announces-plan-first-woman-on-moon-2024-multi-billion-dollar-plan/31c115ea-48a6-4291-bfbe-82c3857bf864
Their Michoud green screen warehouse facilities pocket a lot of money too.
ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic controlled NASA moves to pocket a nice 39 billions to put a woman on the Moon.
https://www.9news.com.au/national/nasa-announces-plan-first-woman-on-moon-2024-multi-billion-dollar-plan/31c115ea-48a6-4291-bfbe-82c3857bf864
Their Michoud green screen warehouse facilities pocket a lot of money too.
https://youtu.be/bXOFkqFhPME
Interesting contraption that is ...
:trollface:
https://youtu.be/GFNVEyH9lpQ
the very fact that some people are so worked up about this issue as to spend hours posting against Flat Earth says a couple things:
1) that there's something to it
2) they are deeply invested psychologically in the outcome
Otherwise, if it was just craziness and idiocy and it didn't threaten them, why would they spend so much time on it? If some guy posted on here that Joe Biden is a purple alien in a fake skin suit who comes from a race on Alpha Centauri, people may just say "ridiculous" and move on, and would certainly not spend hours debatign it. You wouldn't waste your time and you wouldn't care what some nutjob said.
I agree with the title of this thread...space is definitely gαy. :laugh1:Super hecking gαy
Catholics know that "our Columbus"( to quote Pope Leo XII-- who is Higher Authority than anyone on planet) is Reveler Of The Globe..... :popcorn:Sorry-- should read Leo XIII... :cowboy:
I was sent this. An "image from the James Webb telescope" :facepalm:
I find it interesting that they say it was damaged by small debris. So they spent $10 billion on this and couldn't engineer some protection against something that would be almost inevitable, to encounter some small debris? If it were real (rather than some money-laundering operation), people should get fired over this.We sent things through the supposedly crowded asteroid belt but all of a sudden a spaceship built with lots of gold is damaged in a way most previous supposedly interstellar craft aren't. I thought space was supposed to be super empty ;)
But the interesting part is that they claimed now that, due to the damage, they would have to submit the images to digital "processing" to clean them up. That sounds like a smokescreen in case someone detects the signs of digital manipulation of the images ("oh, yeah, that's because of the damage").
Is NASA a Space Agency or a Hollywood Movie Studio?Video attached
>> NASA has an agreement in place to rent out a portion of the "Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF)" to Big Easy Studios, a New Orleans film studio.
Portions of "Ender's Game", "G.I. Joe: Retaliation", "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" and "Jurassic world" were filmed at the NASA MAF facility.
>> Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) goes Hollywood as movie teams utilize the facility’s once-busy expanses.
>> Hugh Jackman was spotted filming a fight scene for the upcoming Wolverine movie "Logan" in front of a "green screen" at NASA's Michoud Assembly Plant in New Orleans.
>> NASA also confirms work on a Tom Cruise movie to be shot aboard the International Space Station
>> NASA blog
What's With the "Green Screen"? Learn about using the green screen technique.
On November 10, 1970 the Soviet Union launched Luna 17 spacecraft, which landed a roving vehicle "Lunakhod One" on the Moon’s surface. 🙄"It must be real because it looks so fake" -Elon Musk, probably
Why hasn't somebody spoken out?Do you know if there's a full version of the interview so we can know whether or not the clip is pulled out of context?
Now they have! The first Polish Astronaut recently got something off his chest and paid the price. :(
It's flat!
RETIRED SOVIET ASTRONAUT ADMITS THE EARTH IS FLAT (SOUND FIXED)
from video description:
This is a short but important video with a powerful message exposing probably the biggest lie these last 500 years.
Mirosław Hermaszewski is a former Soviet/Polish Cosmonaut, fighter pilot and a retired Brigadier-General.
He became the first, and to this day remains the only, Polish national in “space” when he flew aboard the Soviet Soyuz 30
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_30) spacecraft in 1978
After this interview he had a humiliating demotion of rank to officer, with the populist Law and Justice party wanting to demote him to a private, using the excuse of to tackling the legacy of the country’s communist past.
3min 13sec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHKQBJou4Iw
Do you know if there's a full version of the interview so we can know whether or not the clip is pulled out of context?
In the interview, he received some ridiculous questions, and he answered them with equally ridiculous answers in a joking tone, including the question at the end of the interview where he was asked if Earth is flat. The General was surprised by the question, but he decided to play along and answered “it is flat” for a hilarious ending.
This pattern is even more striking when you talk about the sun. If they think the sun isn't rotating around the globe of the earth, you'd think their first priority would be to figure out what, then, it is doing up there and how. But no, all they do is say casually that it is somehow magically floating in the air, suspended in space, defying the universal attraction of all things downward to the surface of the earth. Not only that, but it is somehow propelled across the surface of the earth. What propels it? Most of them don't seem to ever have thought of the question at all. Then again, they claim it moves in a circular motion. This again is impossible, since any object we see moving through the air moves in a straight line, at least in the atmosphere of the earth. They can't even claim some gravitational pull makes it rotate somehow, since they reject such. But the weirdest thing is not so much that they don't have a way to explain even the most basic components of their theory, but the way they don't even see the need to do so, even when challenged on these things by globe earthers. They can only make statements like, "Just because I don't know doesn't mean the earth is a globe." What?
This pattern is even more striking when you talk about the sun. If they think the sun isn't rotating around the globe of the earth, you'd think their first priority would be to figure out what, then, it is doing up there and how. But no, all they do is say casually that it is somehow magically floating in the air, suspended in space, defying the universal attraction of all things downward to the surface of the earth. Not only that, but it is somehow propelled across the surface of the earth. What propels it? Most of them don't seem to ever have thought of the question at all. Then again, they claim it moves in a circular motion. This again is impossible, since any object we see moving through the air moves in a straight line, at least in the atmosphere of the earth. They can't even claim some gravitational pull makes it rotate somehow, since they reject such. But the weirdest thing is not so much that they don't have a way to explain even the most basic components of their theory, but the way they don't even see the need to do so, even when challenged on these things by globe earthers. They can only make statements like, "Just because I don't know doesn't mean the earth is a globe." What?One possibility:
One possibility:https://youtu.be/pVi9BOqm36I
(http://<a href=)(https://i.ibb.co/kJH40B2/e780d12bef3ab46f.jpg)
The following video is worth watching to get some theories on just what the stars are, and the motion of the planetary and luminescent bodies in the sky
https://tv.gab.com/channel/yafer/view/what-on-earth-happened-part-x-602962980ad6f0deab1657e4
"How the Sun and Moon work on the FE model"
https://www.bitchute.com/video/QbFn6topycHC/
https://youtu.be/oAi6963bsig
Even Scripture talks about the sun, moon, and stars moving in a circuit above the earth. Just because we don't know the precise mechanics of it doesn't make it any less a reality.
Yet, accepting some explanation that is based upon assumption after assumption just because some atheistic scientists said so is even more foolish. At least in the former the FEarther has the humility to state that he doesn't know. Rather than make positive claims about the nature of the world based upon theoretical assumptions and pagan notions of the world. You have to first break down the assumptions of the dominant cosmology before you can work to build up an alternative. And even then, there are people working on that alternative, like Rob Skiba, who have been censored into oblivion.
Graphic looks like a launching space shuttle while wearing the hat, but the true source and intention becomes obvious when you flip it.(http://<a href=)(https://i.ibb.co/GTMD50R/RhJyeKz.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/dpdofDR.jpg)
Yeti, you're arguing for "smoking gun" type of evidence, but that only exists on a Perry Mason tv show.
So how did they get to the point that Kaku describes? ... by refusing to let go of the pet theories they invented based on their atheistic agenda.Yep. This, in essence, is what the problem is. They've committed to a specific position based upon their own religion's cosmology and now have to literally make everything up wholecloth, scientific method be damned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoME5ppHczYA lot of what a large expensive observatory on top of a mountain can see, let alone a giant telescope in space, cannot be seen just by looking through an easily bought telescope. The size of these telescopes greatly magnifies the light allowing otherwise invisible gas clouds and galaxies to bee seen. On top of that, they use cameras to take exposures lasting several minutes up to a few days long, which magnifies the brightness and detail by an enormous amount. Huge difference between the NASA scopes and ours, but they can just as easily fake images too.
Is this kind of photographs real or also CGI? I think I read that with a telescope that you can easily buy online you can see similar things too, maybe not as clear, but still visible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoME5ppHczY
Is this kind of photographs real or also CGI? I think I read that with a telescope that you can easily buy online you can see similar things too, maybe not as clear, but still visible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoME5ppHczYI think some of the images are certainly touched up for the "wow factor" and to appeal to the image of space that people have been sold. But I think some are real. Just not of the nature or on the scale of what they claim
Is this kind of photographs real or also CGI? I think I read that with a telescope that you can easily buy online you can see similar things too, maybe not as clear, but still visible.
Of course, I hold that they're fake. I don't agree that you can take these types of images with a telescope, but we certainly have the technology to create them. So it would all depend upon how much someone trusts NASA not to be lying. I saw someone posting on a forum who claims to have expertise in astronomy (who is not a flat earther) who said he had been excited to see the images, but then was gravely disappointed that they seem to be fakes. He said something about stars with different numbers of points in the same images. He said that the number of points on starts is an artifact of how lenses work, and he said that it's impossible for the same telescope to create a single image with starts that have a variable number of points. I can't confirm or deny this, but his comment was never addressed or refuted by the resident self-proclaimed astronomy expert on the forum.Yeah, the 25.9ghz doesn't make sense, but our common 5.8ghz transmitters are most likely running round 5-200mW of power is my guess, and not often above 1-5 watts for special use, but they wouldn't want a lot of power going to a transmitter on such a telescope. I could see there being a different number of points on the stars if different onboard cameras were used that specialized in different wavelength ranges, but I don't get why there would be points anyway. Maybe points are better than a full halo. They are caused by an imperfectly round aperture: the edge of the aperture blades cause them, but it is possible to make curved blades to eliminate the points. I don't think the telescope really needs much storage space since it is supposed to send back images as soon as possible. If it is only taking deep space images with multi day exposures each, then there is plenty of time to transmit each picture.
In any case, what has long perplexed me about images of this kind. Do you know the kind of bandwidth that would be required to download such HD images from "space" down to the earth? This would be a challenge with a fiber connection, would probably take weeks across one of those old modems people used to have, and to get the kind of bandwidth required to transmit these images within less than a couple of months to me is simply incomprehensible from the distances they claim that Webb is from the earth.
Another thing that puzzles me. They spent $10 billion on this thing. Reportedly it only has 68GB of onboard storage capacity. That's far less than your average home laptop has (typically at least 250GB now). Based on the Webb image/data sizes, that's enough for maybe 200 images before the internal storage would be full. But how long does it take to transmit that much data from as far away as Webb allegedly is? Even if it were possible to transmit that kind of data from that far away, the rate at which it could transmit it couldn't keep up with preventing the storage from getting full. Finally, there's the claim of a 25.9 Gigahertz signal. OK, but we're not beaming this across a house or even a couple houses. Webb is allegedly a MILLIONS miles away. It would take a long time for any given pixel to be transmitted a million miles, but how is that signal pinpointed to be received by a single receiver ... when both the telescope and the earth are allegedly in motion? It's also well known that the higher Gigahertz signals, while they have higher bandwidth, also have LESS RANGE. Just see it in your typical home WiFi router. Those usually have an option of either 5 or 2.4 GHz. 5 gives you better bandwidth, but you have to be a lot closer to the WiFi antenna to use it because it has a poor range compared to the 2.4 GHz. I simply don't see how it's possible to transmit that amount of data reliably from a million miles away, to a targeted receiver, on a NARROW band (required for higher data rates). These aren't like radio signals where you could blanket many square miles with them.
I don't think the telescope really needs much storage space since it is supposed to send back images as soon as possible. If it is only taking deep space images with multi day exposures each, then there is plenty of time to transmit each picture.
Yep. This, in essence, is what the problem is. They've committed to a specific position based upon their own religion's cosmology and now have to literally make everything up wholecloth, scientific method be damned.
:trollface:
Many of the SpaceX pictures were clearly hoaxed. During that one mission with the "amateur astronauts," SpaceX tweated out a view of earth from the cupola that showed the earth to be a ball that was 50x smaller than what it should have been at their purported altitude. Then during the Tesla in space stunt, you could see the earth "glitching" behind the Teslas, while the Teslas itself was unaffected, proving that the background was independent from the Tesla.Totally fake and super gαy
Sunrise below the clouds? Maybe. I'm skeptical. But an interesting video either way.Don't be too skeptical. I think it was someone on CI who used that video as a FE proof somehow, you can think of a way to make it work. :clown:
https://youtu.be/XQKS0kvTWzQ
Totally fake and super gαyDefine gαy regarding space related stuff.
Don't be too skeptical. I think it was someone on CI who used that video as a FE proof somehow, you can think of a way to make it work. :clown:If it isn't obvious...
Define gαy regarding space related stuff.
Super hecking gαyAlso literally just super ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ
(https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--hJCCWIT---/t_Preview/b_rgb:191919,c_limit,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1561193340/production/designs/5131662_0.jpg)
Also literally just super ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖAs for that sodomshuttle…….
Define gαy regarding space related stuff.
Of course it is a fake distraction and money laundering.Because NASA has Freemasonic, occult, satanic roots.
Who cares?
Because NASA has Freemasonic, occult, satanic roots.
All evidence points to a fake, staged "alien" (demonic) invasion. More than one Vatican source has pushed the notion that "aliens" from other solar systems may not have experienced the Fall and may be more spiritually advanced than we are. They may be the ones to "baptise us."
Yes, and they're ramping all that up as we speak, gradually "disclosing" this, that, and the other thing.The alien Antichrist scenario is in my "top 3" most plausible. I'd say it's far more likely than the "politician scenario" that a lot of Protestants and Catholics lean toward. Yes, a lot of politicians are total maggots and demonic, but they're still no Antichrist.
I'm a firm believer that the Antichrist will be presented as a alien. It'll be explained that Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, etc. ... were all really aliens, as this Alien Antichrist replicates their miracles and even changes appearance to look like them. 99% of the world will be duped by this. Of course, as you pointed out, the Vatican is all on board with this ... as it has been in total lockstep with ever piece of the Globalist agenda.
Alien Antichrist will "part the Red Sea" (as Moses did), multiply loaves/fishes, heal illnesses, etc. etc. And prophecy indicates that his final act will be to mimic the Ascension into Heaven, at which point he will finally be struck down and destroyed.
I don't see any other scenario in which all Catholics, heretic/schismatic "Christians", Muslims, and Jєωs would all buy in to a single religious figure.
The other two I see as likely are, that he could simply come as an ape of Christ, presenting himself as the Messiah and performing miracles openly for all the world to see in order to back it up, while preaching his own false gospel.
That's possible, although I don't think atheists or just agnostic/worldly types would get on board. Alien Antichrist is probably something these types could also get on board with. Plus, this Christ figure would have to present himself in such a way as to be consistent not only with the Second Coming of Christ, but also with the First Coming of the Jєωs Messiah (which they hold is not Christ). If he presented himself as Christ returned, the Jєωs would be put off by that. If he presented himself as the Jєω Messiah different from Christ, that would put off "Christians," and then not sure how it would mesh with what Muslims believe. If he preached Allah, he'd put off the other two groups.That's true. Especially since that moron Dawkins was out there preaching panspermia just a few years ago, and I know I was heavily into the "ancient aliens" theory back when I was an atheist. Couple that with the massive push in Hollywood and other entertainment media for the theory, and they would eat it right up.
That's why I lean strongly toward Alien Antichrist. We see the programming going on now to prepare people for believing in aliens. And with the Alien scenario, all but Traditional Catholics with the strongest faith will likely lose their faith, such an impression with the alien arrival spectacle create. If they can shape-shift into Moses, Jesus, Mohammed and replicate their miracles, and claim that these religious figure were in fact aliens, they'd probably cause 99% of humanity to lose their "faith" in whatever religion, and he'd have the atheists and agnostics on board as well.
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/BFYLNwlsSNtcc/giphy.webp?cid=6c09b9520a051f749c79b23ecb2c6fe8402b0121195567a6&rid=giphy.webp&ct=g)Well done DL!
James Webb fake as hell
https://youtu.be/dYDSFc6t6gA
Here's a question for you.That is easy I am there every Sunday for Mass at a CMRI mission. TopEka, or as I like to call it, EAST BERLIN west, is such a depressing horrible vortex of evil that it REFRACTS all goods into non-existence. Note that Topeka is about miles west of Stull KS, which was , while I was in school at KU, one of the 7 gateways to HELL!! is so depressing I sometimes can't see my hand in front f my face. it's also near St. Mary's ks where my wife's family resides and soaks up all the delicious SSPX drivel
Topaka, KS is about 950' above sea level. The rocky Mountains, which are about 600 miles away, have peaks of over 14,000'. If the Earth is flat, why can't the Rocky Mountains be seen from Topeka, KS, using a telescope?
Yeah, Buzz is a funny guy. It's humorous to watch his face during that talk. I also found it funny when Buzz punched Sibrel, who did have it coming, as he was rather obnoxious.
(https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2297a79e73bff4d07d21b833d050d0c1)
ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic controlled NASA may kill people if they guess that's what to do. There's an awareness out there that they murdered USAF Lieutenant Colonel Virgil Grissom and companions in a staged capsule fire, for example. So being a Freemason and having to lie your life away about stupid fake trips to the Moon can probably wear on the test subject area. A lot of NASA and the astronauts are crazy. NASA can't even get it straight which way the Moon goes, basic astronomy, yet they act like they've been there and Pluto.
Aldrin doesn't seem like he's a very stable person.he's not. he is ia bipolar. I used to sell a med for that . he gave a talk to us in Dallas i 2004. was a big fan of quetiapine(Seroquel) i used to sell it.
spacesuit snorkels?
Who claims humans have been to Pluto???Not the humans as their bones but as their devices and crafty crafts. They claim to have sent camera equipments out there to fly by the Plutonian shores and take space pictures.
The look on Aldrin's face while Trump talks about Space Force says it all :laugh1:Religion of space, science and politics are to bring peace and unity to the world? More lies from trump to remove Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1611525045691588609
.
"Gibs fo NASA but none fo me"
The fact that NASA was responsible for the deaths of astronauts in Apollo 1, then Challenger, then Columbia, speaks volumes.Challenger hoax? Was the 1986 Challenger Space Shuttle Disaster a Hoax? Did somebody collect insurance money?
And yet how many times did men land on the moon? Cough, cough, cough. ::)
Hopefully when we enter Heaven, we will see the truth about the Earth, the universe and everything.
Personally I think that Voyager will return to Earth seeking its creator because some aliens would have found the probe, and for laughs, decided to send it back our way. :trollface:
(The whole "amassing so much knowledge it achieved consciousness" bit is great science fiction but utterly impossible of course)
Challenger hoax? Was the 1986 Challenger Space Shuttle Disaster a Hoax? Did somebody collect insurance money?
just by the way, is there any resource about Galileo's telescope, and that it's been exaggerated to students that he could see the moons of Jupiter sand so forth?I can see the moons of jupiter with regular binoculars. I imagine Galileo could see much more with the quality of scope they could build back then.
I can see the moons of jupiter with regular binoculars. I imagine Galileo could see much more with the quality of scope they could build back then.
Too bad the docuмent in which it was claimed that Galileo could see the moons was exposed as a forgery:Do you have any math to back it up? What is absurd is subjective. The math proving the size of the moons around jupiter as seen through 16x magnification from their nasa advertised size and distance is objective.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/23/galileo-manuscript-fake-university-of-michigan
Galileo's telescope was basically no more powerful than today's binoculars.
You can only see the moons of Jupiter because they're not actually the 500+ millions miles from earth that they claim it is. It's absurd to think that you can see moons, the largest of which is a little bigger than mercury, from 500+ million miles away ... just as it's absurd to claim that starts could be visible (from Hubble) from 28 BILLION LIGHT YEARS AWAY, or from 4,000 light years away with the naked eye. It's preposterous. Even the largest "start" at those distances would shrink to nothingness. Not to mention that the inverse square law of light's brightness would absolutely eliminate the ability of a light to be seen at those distances.
These are lights in the firmament, much closer than modern "science" claim.
Do you have any math to back it up? What is absurd is subjective.
just by the way, is there any resource about Galileo's telescope, and that it's been exaggerated to students that he could see the moons of Jupiter sand so forth?
Even at 1000x larger, the size and shape of Proxima Centauri would not be visible. Perhaps at 10,000 times magnification.This is why stars appear to be plasma even to superzoom cameras, not to mention the fact that those cameras can have a hard time getting a sharp focus on stars. Add in atmospheric distortions, and there's no way of getting a clear image of something so small.
In re-reviewing this thread it's clear to me that moon hoaxers should admit that they're speculating. I don't see any information they have that should lead them to know the moon landings didn't happen.
Having no hard science knowledge I once started a thread asking moon landing hoax proponents on CathInfo to try to convince me that the moon landings were fake. They did such a poor job of convincing me, and were nasty to me as well (especially the twerp NeilObstat), that I summed up the thread:
Has there ever been one of the thousands of NASA conspirators who came out and told the world it was all a fraud?
There's been plenty of proof presented. Your claims are based on your filtering out of the evidence due to your confirmation bias. Stop being such a snowflake, "boo hoo, they were mean to me" (while it's OK for you to call Neil a "twerp"). In point of fact, anyone who believes that the moon landings were real is either intellectually dishonest (propagandized and clinging to it for emotional reasons) or just an idiot ... or some combination of the two. Evidence is absolutely overwhelming that the moon landings were a hoax ... regardless of what you think about Flat Earth.
:facepalm: I really expected more from you, cassini. There were no "thousands" of conspirators. NASA (I worked there for nearly 5 years) is about a compartmentalized as any organization can get. Very few individuals have any knowledge of the bigger picture, and most are consigned to working on one small part of the whole. I wrote software for a thing that was the size of a large microwave oven, and had no idea about what it was even a part of, nor did the people who worked on the hardware aspect. But, yes, there was a man who was a military guard who came out on his deathbed with a confession that he stood guard over the studio where the moon landings were filmed.
I find it perplexing that people like yourself and Sungenis promote NASA when they're the most hostile opponents of geocentrism that you'll ever find. You could write volumes larger than Sunenis' massive tomes on provable NASA fraud.
But these lame arguments about the thousands of conspirator are akin to the nonsense about why people don't fall off the edge of a Flat Earth. They're really beneath your intellect, and therefore it's a sign of some brainwashing.
I asked a very interesting question. I asked if there were even ONE of the thousands who worked for NASA who came out to tell the truth? You could have answered with 'yes, there was a man who was a military guard who came out on his deathbed with a confession that he stood guard over the studio where the moon landings were filmed.' To accuse me of promoting NASA with this question is a bit of an exaggeration.
If the moon landing can be faked, can a real moon landing be faked as being fake?
Yet another problem for the globe.Not bad, I watched the original and I looked up the camera used, and it may be possible to get such good night images with it, but...
So this video takes some footage made by a pilot that shows the night sky (stars) over the course of a long flight. Problem is that the same stars remain in view during the entire recorded trip. But if the plane were dipping its nose as would be required to go around the globe, they would have moved out of frame. I can't find any fault with this argument here. I'm looking for another one I saw a couple days ago where the Go Fast rocket could see the moon when it was supposed to be on the other side of the "globe".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFz4ZZd1zj4
Not bad, I watched the original and I looked up the camera used, and it may be possible to get such good night images with it, but...
Shouldn't the stars get closer as he flies, and look like they are getting farther apart (zoomed in) as he flies closer to the stars ahead of him just like how e see distant trees and mountains space out as we get closer and drive by? Shouldn't he eventually fly under and past some stars, similar to how they said it should happen according to the google globe simulation? It only makes sense that something similar would happen when flying on a flat earth, unless the flat earth is floating in a universe of stars several light years wide.
It is strange that the stars don't move like in the google sim, but I don't think the sim takes into account the rotation of the stars, because I couldn't notice anywhere near as much rotation, if any, as in the real video. But, it's just as strange that I can measure the distance between some stars, which I would think would be quite close to a flat earth, and either not see a change in the distance between them, or see them get closer together as if the plane was flying away. I started by measuring a pair of stars just to the left of center, and they ended up at the far right by the end with no noticeable change in the distance between them. I also measured some that were very far left, to take into account the rotation, and they got significantly closer together by the end.
So, in my opinion, yet another problem with trusting videos.
I find it perplexing that people like yourself [cassini] and Sungenis promote NASA
Last time I checked Sungenis does NOT accept the manned moon landings, and as far as I know he NEVER accepted them. Hmmm. Strange way to promote NASA.He cites their satellite images, and the Planck probe.
Last time I checked Sungenis does NOT accept the manned moon landings, and as far as I know he NEVER accepted them. Hmmm. Strange way to promote NASA.
He cites their satellite images, and the Planck probe.
Did you read his FE book? He spent a significant amount of time defending the integrity of NASA.
He cites their satellite images, and the Planck probe.
Yes, indeed. Sungenis does cite the findings of the Planck probe. (Are Flat Earthers against those findings?) And why exactly does Sungenis do this?
The European Space Agency, in cooperation with NASA sent up the Planck probe in 2009. The findings of the probe did not support the Big Bang model as NASA, no doubt, was hoping it would. The Big Bang theory and the cosmological principle were actually falsified by the 2013 Planck data. To cut to the chase -- the Planck data dramatically support a geocentric universe. There is no getting around that fact. So... thank you ESA and thank you NASA! God can use even his enemies such as NASA and the ESA to show forth the truth!
Today I had a thought. Outerspace is satanic inversion.
An open 'infinite' empty space vs a closed finite solid space
Has there ever been one of the thousands of NASA conspirators who came out and told the world it was all a fraud?
Yes, indeed. Sungenis does cite the findings of the Planck probe. (Are Flat Earthers against those findings?) And why exactly does Sungenis do this?
The European Space Agency, in cooperation with NASA sent up the Planck probe in 2009. The findings of the probe did not support the Big Bang model as NASA, no doubt, was hoping it would. The Big Bang theory and the cosmological principle were actually falsified by the 2013 Planck data. To cut to the chase -- the Planck data dramatically support a geocentric universe. There is no getting around that fact. So... thank you ESA and thank you NASA! God can use even his enemies such as NASA and the ESA to show forth the truth!
I hope we can all agree that what is commonly referred to as outer space is actually a closed finite solid space.I meant open vs closed as in, the firmament is solid so it's not open, you can't go through it, but outer space is open so you can go there.
So that video wasn't faked?
For sure, the Hollywood Jєω-boys operating at NASA did a good job of cover-up... but over the years, things leaked out.
(https://www.bitchute.com/video/ELIRCJFpVPzK/)WIKILEAK'S FOOTAGE OF NASA FILMING THE MOON LANDING ON EARTH (https://www.bitchute.com/video/ELIRCJFpVPzK/)
"Show business is an extension of their judaic religion"
John Lennon, 1964
Yes, indeed. Sungenis does cite the findings of the Planck probe. (Are Flat Earthers against those findings?) And why exactly does Sungenis do this?
The European Space Agency, in cooperation with NASA sent up the Planck probe in 2009. The findings of the probe did not support the Big Bang model as NASA, no doubt, was hoping it would. The Big Bang theory and the cosmological principle were actually falsified by the 2013 Planck data. To cut to the chase -- the Planck data dramatically support a geocentric universe. There is no getting around that fact. So... thank you ESA and thank you NASA! God can use even his enemies such as NASA and the ESA to show forth the truth!
Sungenis also minimizes NASA's fraud, admitting only a single example of NASA fraud (an example of a photoshopped earth on the moon-landing pictures), that he trivializes as a "foible". In point of fact, one could fill volumes larger than Sungenis' own books with provable NASA fraud. If NASA's capable of the monumental lie of faking the moon landings, who knows what else they're lying about?
This. The number and quantity of NASA *known* frauds is on a similar scale to the number of stars in the universe... ;)
Use your brains, people. If the universe and reality were truly as they describe -- "outer space" that could be traveled through, earth being a globe, NASA being an organization dedicated to Aeronautics and Space doing legitimate space travel, etc. -- then THEY SHOULD NOT EVEN OWN A SINGLE GREEN SCREEN.
There is *no* reason for a "space travel" organization receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from the Government every year to have a Green Screen setup on the premises. No reason at all.
Green Screen technology is for TRICK FILMING -- special effects -- doctored videos -- end of list. Using "special effects" is more proper to Hollywood and creating on-screen video fantasies than exploring "space" with robotic and human-piloted spacecraft.
Does the Texas Department of Transportation -- responsible for improving and maintaining highways in Texas -- own a green screen? Of course not. What would be the purpose? They probably own heavy equipment for building roads -- but they have no reason to make videos, much less DOCTORED ones. They have a concrete (pardon the pun) job to do out here in the real world. Allegedly, it's supposed to be the same with NASA. Just stop and think about it.
According to NASASpaceflight.com, after the Space Shuttle Program ended in 2011, space in the MAF was rented to a film studio for a time. According to a NASA progress report, in 2011, MAF's Building 420 was leased to Big Easy Studios, a private film production company. "GI Joe II," "Ender's Game," and "Jurassic World" were major commercial films made at Big Easy Studios. However, this contract was a temporary short-term agreement, and they are no longer among the tenants of the facility. Big Easy Studios later filed a case against NASA for refusing to extend the contract at the New Orleans facility, according to legal docuмents available in the public domain. Big Easy Studios alleged a breach of contract claiming they had "made various improvements to the facility in anticipation of executing a long-term lease agreement". The case docuмents show that Big Easy Studios first filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims on 28 June 2017, alleging a "breach of its Contract(s)," proving that its tenancy ended some time prior to that.
In an email response, a spokesperson for the Michoud facility told Logically Facts that the contract with Big Easy Studios ended in 2016. "NASA Michoud rented out an underutilized warehouse to Big Easy Productions from 2011 to 2016. Following their departure, there have not been any film companies located at the facility," they said.
NASA Helped Build the Battle School (kind of)
We all know that the Ender's Game kids get sent away to space school to learn how to deal with Zero G's and space oddities and whatnottery. BUT what we learned on set was that actual real life NASA spaceship bits were included on the Battle School set.
Ender's Game was filmed inside the giant NASA soundstage in Louisiana. A place where actual rocket ships have been built. Now the whole thing is kind of empty and houses a ton of rejected or defunct NASA bits. Cue a giant mob of NASA workers tossing out old parts, in front of the Ender's Game crew. Obviously the production designers flipped, and asked NASA if they could use any of these trash bits for the movie — and after checking with the higher ups NASA said yes. So if you look closely at the screws, bolts, door handles inside the dorm rooms of the Salamander Army you will be seeing actual rocket parts here and there.
This is the same made up fake news that has been posted here like 2 years ago. Maybe you "do your research" before you repost those lies? This claim its simply false.
.....
green space... not green screen. Nasa is actually proud of having over 300 acres of green around it's rocket assembly factory. once again, you just found a meme and believed it was true. also, no movies were ever recorded there...
.....
It's an assembly facility. Do you even look up shit before making these?
This is certainly a novel interpretation. Unfortunately for Moss, it totally distorts the words of Romans 11:17-20… Moss believes that the “root” of Romans 11 is Israel, not Christ, and that as the Gentiles are saved as they are grafted into Israel. This is wrong. The root is Christ, not Israel.….It is as if Moss is saying, “You Gentiles are only saved because of us Jєωs, and in order to appreciate that fact, you should practice these Jєωιѕн rituals.”
Paul does not say 'root of Israel.' He refers to Israel as a 'branch,' not the 'root.' One cannot be both a branch and a root, which means that someone else is the root, which is Christ...the Church does not draw nourishment from the 'root of Israel' for Israel is not the root in Paul’s analogy. Christ is the root, and Israel is merely a branch...Whatever else Benedict XVI believed about the relationship between Christians and Jєωs, he never says “Israel is the root” in Paul’s analogy.
For if their (the Jєωs’) rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? If the firstfruits are holy, so is the whole batch of dough; and if the root is holy, so are the branches.
But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place and have come to share in the rich root of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. If you do boast, consider that you do not support the root; the root supports you. Indeed you will say, ‘Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.’ That is so. They were broken off because of unbelief, but you are there because of faith. So do not become haughty, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you either. (Rom. 11: 15-22)
How does one reason with a man who, when he is told that someone rejects a belief which he has attributed to him, insists that that person must be lying, and that secretly he must still affirm that belief?...
I for one think that Judaizing is a serious problem in today's Church, and hope to be an effective opponent of it. The reason I don't want Sungenis writing about Jєωs and Judaism is not because I oppose any and all criticism of them, but because after such and so many egregious violations of justice and charity, Sungenis has disqualified himself from engaging these issues....
Sungenis goes on to make the absurd claim that his critics have attacked his wife and children. Not surprisingly, no quotations are provided. This is because no one has ever attacked his wife and children. It was Sungenis who tried to bring his wife into this debacle by claiming her as an independent witness to the events surrounding Michael Forrest's departure from CAI. Even then, Sungenis' critics never attacked her, they simply asked him questions with a view to establishing whether she really was an independent witness, or whether she got her information second-hand from him. Not surprisingly, Sungenis was very cagey about answering their questions. As Jacob Michael discovered, this is because he [Sungenis] had already admitted that she was only a second-hand witness in his essay "Jacob Michael and the Jєωs"....
A young man named Steve Tolles sent this quote to Sungenis, and Sungenis promptly and without verification published it as sure evidence that Roy Schoeman is indeed a Judaizer. Soon after, Sungenis' own most devoted defender, Mark Wyatt, googled the quote and discovered that it was patched together from some of Schoeman's actual words . . . and other material of unknown origin. . . . Sungenis' reaction was truly reprehensible: he stated that he would assume the quote was genuine until proven otherwise, he requested a signed affidavit from Schoeman swearing that he did not write the words in question, and he suggested that perhaps Schoeman changed his original words at the Association of Hebrew Catholics conference before putting them on the AHC website...
Schoeman did in fact publicly repudiate all the heresies which Sungenis has attributed to him. Schoeman has not merely repudiated them in private correspondence. And what was Sungenis' reaction? He said that it was "disingenuous" of him to attempt to disavow them. On other occasions as well, Sungenis has insisted that Schoeman actually does hold these beliefs which he professes to repudiate. So, rather than admit that he has misrepresented Schoeman, Sungenis prefers to imply that he is a liar. This is no way to treat anyone, much less a Catholic brother in Christ....
The best definition of anti-Semitism, I believe, is the one most commonly found in dictionaries: prejudice against Jєωs. And prejudice is best understood according to its etymology: to pre-judge. The αnтι-ѕємιтє will form hostile judgments about Jєωs prior to any dispassionate consideration of rational evidence. His treatment of Jєωs and Jєωιѕн issues will be, to put it mildly, heavily biased and tendentious. So will be his exegesis of texts by and about Jєωs. He will have an irrational predisposition to see the worst in Jєωs, and to see Jєωs in the worst. He will suspect his enemies to be secret Jєωs, even in the absence of evidence. He will habitually, uncritically swallow any spurious claim which disparages Jєωs (any stick good enough to beat the Jєωs with), and seek to undermine any statement which praises them. Lastly, when the issue is the Jєωs his faculty of reasoning will be manifestly impaired. Now, on to specific things that Robert Sungenis has said and done....
1) Sungenis: “I am merely doing the same thing Jesus did when he confronted the sins of the Jєωs…Unfortunately, the Jєωs haven’t changed in our day. They are still the same godless racists they were in Jesus’ day. Few of them have repented of their sins.” (page 10)
2) Sungenis: “The nation of Israel has control of AMDOCS, the central telephone operation in the United States. It's one way the Mossad spies on American citizens, including you and those you talk to." (page 30)
3) Sungenis: “Do I need to say more? I have the whole history of Catholicism behind me, and these Fathers, Doctors, Saints and the God-Man himself said much worse things about the Jєωs than I ever have. What is really happening today folks is that we have been taken over by Jєωιѕн propaganda, and there are a few Catholic/Jєωιѕн ideologues…Many of them are paid handsomely by Zionist groups to say whatever they can to silence people like me. They are bent on promoting the godless state of Israel for some pie-in-the-sky dream they have, even against their own Catholic religion (at least that’s the religion they claim to have), and they will smear anyone who gets in their way. The Jєωs have done this for centuries against good people, and it continues today.” (page 19)
Sungenis: “If you have no political affiliation with these neo-cons, then I suggest you put a disclaimer on your site, otherwise people are going to get the wrong impression, and you can't blame them if they do. Any person with common sense who sees their names on your web site would assume that you support the political views of the aforementioned unless you say otherwise.”
(Sungenis, Q&A, January, 2005, Question 3).
Sungenis: “A few months ago I had made a quote about Michael Hoffman (Jєωιѕн critic) stating that, at this point...I would trust Michael Hoffman a lot more than I trust Michael Forrest… Obviously, Mr. Forrest is a conniving slanderer, just like Jacob Michael and Benjamin Douglass.”
“Sungenis: Actually, as of now, I trust Michael Hoffman a lot more than I do Benjamin Douglass.”
(Page 12 (http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/bd2.pdf))
Sungenis: “Mr. Forrest yelled to me on the phone that I was an αnтι-ѕємιтє…My wife was a witness to the whole fiasco. No one else was an eyewitness…”
(Christopher Blosser and the Catholic ADL, page 3)
Sungenis: "My conversations on the phone are often held on speaker-phone, and my wife, since she works for CAI as a secretary and bookkeeper, is often listening to my conversations, whether by happenstance or deliberately."
(e-mail of January 20, 2007)
Sungenis: "Mr. Forrest never denied to me that he had a gig or a promoter for the gig around the beginning of 2005. He told me these things on the phone, and my wife remembers it because I told her about the whole conversation."
(JMATJ, p. 54, emphasis added)
Let me state this clearly, and, I hope, for the last time: I am not now, nor ever have been, nor ever could have been, anti-Semitic. I do not, nor have ever, denied the tragic and unforgettable occurrence of the h0Ɩ0cαųst or its impact on the Jєωιѕн people.
As another blogger has noted publicly:
"It was an iceBERG that sunk the Titanic. Coincidence you say? I think not!"
Don't forget it's dangerous to work for NASA. What did they know? 74 deaths in 2 years? 47 plane crashes?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wUtRzP6hD0
This blog was originally created in response to Robert Sungenis’s problematic views and history related to the Jєωιѕн people. In 2006 during negotiations with Sungenis we expressed our willingness to take down this material if he would remove all such material and provide assurance that there would be no return to it.Yet another confirmation Sungenis cares about his image very much.
Unfortunately, those negotiations were unsuccessful. Recently Sungenis contacted one of our contributors and indicated that he was removing the material to which this blog responds and that there would be no return to it. As this essentially meets the objective we sought in 2006, we were willing to take down the material originally hosted here.
This answers the conundrum "How do you get thousands of people to stay quiet about a deception?"
1. Compartmentalization. The janitor doesn't know the big picture what the Directors of NASA know. Heck, most of the software developers don't even know.
2. Those with strong morals/backbone, love of the truth etc. end up "ѕυιcιdєd", committing ѕυιcιdє with 3 shots to the back of the head (get it?)
Yet another confirmation Sungenis cares about his image very much.What follows below under the asterisks are a few lines that you conveniently left out. Please note the second sentence: "He has not done so." If this was about image he certainly would have done so!
This answers the conundrum "How do you get thousands of people to stay quiet about a deception?"Then these Fed employees (and contractors) all sign NDA's and get scared by legal threats if they ever release classified information. They also get the "rah rah" speech about keeping "national security" secrets for the "good of the country". And I'm sure they get paid VERY well, so there is a disincentive to get fired.
1. Compartmentalization. The janitor doesn't know the big picture what the Directors of NASA know. Heck, most of the software developers don't even know.
2. Those with strong morals/backbone, love of the truth etc. end up "ѕυιcιdєd", committing ѕυιcιdє with 3 shots to the back of the head (get it?)
:laugh1: :laugh2:Typical reaction of bloggers!
OK, but then the pressure got to him.
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2015/01/29/701295/10117740/en/Statement-From-The-Principle-Executive-Producer-Robert-Sungenis-Addressing-Accusations-of-Anti-Semitism-and-h0Ɩ0cαųst-Denial.html
But then maybe he does sincerely believe that the h0Ɩ0cαųst happened.
Sungenis: " I do not, nor have ever, denied the tragic and unforgettable occurrence of the h0Ɩ0cαųst or its impact on the Jєωιѕн people."
Always is:
1. Sun-genius himself
2. A Sun-genius employee
3. A Sun-genius relative
4. Who else would carry water so dutifully and tirelessly???
FWIW, Always, you never even began to answer my questions in the other thread. I know, you expect everyone else to care when your questions are not (in your mind) answered -- although they were answered by three people when only addressed to one -- and no one is supposed to notice that you yourself fail to do what you ask (i.e., demand like a whining baby) of others. Not exactly surprising.
If this is a direct, accurate quote, perhaps Bobby Sun-genius should redo basic grammar. Re-read the bold; it is comically erroneous. FWIW, the quote, even if rendered in correct English, hardly makes one think he could be called a h0Ɩ0h0αx denier, even in a mild sense.Accuse him of being disingenuous if you are so inclined but this is not really the smoking gun some individuals claim it to be. Sungenis knew exactly what he was saying and he was very careful to never speak of any gas chambers or 6 million. Believe me or believe him if you wish to contact him -- if he was ever cross examined regarding his views on the h0Ɩ0cαųst in a German courtroom he would be in major trouble because he is far from accepting the official h0Ɩ0cαųst narrative and in common parlance that is referred to as being a "h0Ɩ0cαųst denier."
All these Flat Earthers do is ask the right questions, demonstrate evidence, connect the dots -- and gently help you to draw the right conclusions. You're free to disagree, if they're illogical. But they're not. The evidence is always indisputable. They do an EXCELLENT job making their case, 99% of the time.Insert Trump "WRONG!" meme :laugh1:
Insert Trump "WRONG!" meme :laugh1:Truely this flat vs globe business is too high for me. I will just say geocentrism (as per the fathers) and call it a day. I don't think I will get 100% confirmation on either side of this at any rate.
The no star movement during flight video :
https://youtu.be/2mxjwJh-GkQ
What a load of crap. He's talking about some longer video, but only shows short sections, while distracting you with his FE talk. Then he says he'll finally show you the full length video, all 2000 miles of it (supposed to be like 4900 miles as he said earlier). These flat earth video makers often do this thing where they show contradictory evidence while distracting you with FE talk. He finally shows a 2000 mile clip, and says watch this one star that is rotating down, when we are supposed to be looking for an overall rising of all stars. I rather find roughly the center of rotation and see that those stars are all rising much more than in the south west video.
"3D model of globe shadow proves flat earth" One of the worst FE proof videos I've seen because it does such a good job of proving GE.
https://youtu.be/IHAtHTxH6Jo
He starts out by showing pictures of the rising/setting sun casting a shadow of a tall mountain up onto some clouds, but quite foolishly claims that the shadow is cast down onto the clouds from above, simply because he can come up with pictures proving that that is possible, even though he was just showing some pictures where the mountain clearly was not reaching as high as the clouds. The shadow can be cast up and down depending on the time of day. More obvious FE deception just like any other common NWO conspiracy deception advertised right in front of people through movies and such "Eyes Wide Shut". But he's got more. As if the mountain casting a shadow up is not obvious enough proof of some kind of spherical shape, he goes a step further by demonstrating what a basic simulation of the earth's surface (excluding mountains) would look like casting a shadow up on the clouds. He can't accept GE with the proof in front of him, so he scrambles for some crap that will stick, and the globe surface caused shadow almost sticks.
I found this video funny because as he runs the simulation, he stops it such that it shows the mountain casting a shadow upward, and the sun illuminating the clouds from below, as I have observed in real life as a proof that the sun sets below cloud level, and says that this view proves GE wrong. He literaly shows proof of GE by simulation to you while telling you it is proof of FE. I was confused at first, but the I realized he's talking about the obvious line between light and dark on the clouds as the earth casts a shadow from it's surface. That clear division between light and dark is not so obvious in real life because his simulation uses parallel light rays, which isn't exactly realistic. In real life the sun is larger than the earth, so it can shine light a huge variety of angles, some of which can very slightly reach around the globe to a small extent. Also, real life sunlight is quite divergent, and scatters even more when interacting with the air and any clouds it shines through on the day side before reaching the twilight zone. The surface of earth is not perfectly flat due to hills and trees and such, so the line between light and dark on the clouds will really be jagged if the light rays were perfectly parallel. Couple that with the scattered divergent light of real life, and some refraction, and the real life distances (the simulation was not to scale) and you get a nice gradual transition between light and dark such that you aren't sure where the shadow precisely begins or ends. But they get hung up on that rather than realize that the simulation really proves the sun does set below cloud and mountain level, far lower than the FE model claims since he mentions in the video that the FE sun doesn't rise or set, but only gets closer and further.
The video of the Go Fast Rocket proving FE was pretty bad. They guy puts in the time and location, good, and the flat map representation of the globe displayed shows the moon's location happens to be arranged such that North America and the launch site is in the upper left corner, and Australia and the moon is at the lower right corner. The guy's like "Look, the moon's all the way over Australia on the other side of the globe". He fails to mention how the moon is on the east side of Australia, the same side as USA, and that the edge of the moon goes off the map and reappears on the left side very close to USA. You FE's do once again what you accuse GE's of doing: throwing crap against the wall hoping something sticks. You get so caught up in the appearances demonstrated by 2d representations of a 3d object, that you can't understand how stuff on a globe works. The solarsystem model he uses is far from to scale. The moon is so close that it is easily hidden behind the earth, while the smaller asteroids farther back are not hidden. On top of that, he forgets that the rocket was 73 miles high, which would give it a better view of seeing the moon from behind the globe.The globe looks curvy in the onboard video at 73 miles up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=001IXnp0ogc
You can even get a glimpse of the yo-yo despin string and weight a couple of times. Compare the curve seen to the simulation below at 73 miles.
https://youtu.be/08-YbvOCwGw
A demonstration like this may be a good reference point for someone who will personally travel up to these altitudes, but cameras on balloons and such can't be trusted to demonstrate the effect well in real life because the lens often adds, removes, or reverses the curve depending on if the camera is centered above, on, or below the horizon, or they don't have a wide enough angle coupled with a wide enough play back screen to match the field of view of our eyes. If a person travels extremely high, they will naturally look toward the horizon, which will be lower, but they may not realize that they are looking lower than straight out. You FE's will come up with any individual excuse at any one time to maintain an absolute certainty that the earth is flat, but you so conveniently forget much of the evidence and arguments against FE, except for the weakest ones. Is it intentional or just blindness? Or is it the result of some limited mental capacity, since many FE's have a hard time grasping basic physical concepts and picturing such things in their mind, which is fine, because not everyone has the same skill set. Perhaps this is why they are so heavily reliant upon and easily deceived by videos.
We have to be careful how we go about seeking truth, and to what extent we believe certain things, or we can easily be deceived and obstinately get trapped in lies. Think any normal person, how they are thoroughly and hopelessly deceived about a great number of things, or certain resistance priests who care so much about truth and the faithful, yet they are blind to their errors. Wake up, and be careful. What makes people so certain about what they think they know? Is it some sort of pride? Blindness by some sin of vanity or misplaced priorities? Having your heart (inner most thoughts and desires) set on a flat earth, that seems to be where your treasure is. Might it be more profitable to discuss the properties of heaven and hell?
What a load of crap.
What follows below under the asterisks are a few lines that you conveniently left out. Please note the second sentence: "He has not done so." If this was about image he certainly would have done so!I guess you don't know what playing both sides means. He's trying to please both Catholics and the mainstream mob.
***************************************************************************************
This is not intended to imply that Sungenis has retracted and/or apologized for the statements on Jєωιѕн issues that were formerly docuмented here. He has not done so. Instead, he has recently stated, both publicly (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=619356591445593&set=a.104545786260012.2844.100001137739551&type=1&comment_id=1885852&offset=0&total_comments=364) and privately, that he believes God has given him a new vision/direction related to the issue of geocentrism (http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/). As a result of his desire to pursue this new vision/direction, Sungenis writes, “I’ve publically declared that I am no longer addressing [Jєωιѕн] issues and don’t wish to discuss them with anyone” and “I . . . will never discuss them again.” However, he has said that he still personally holds to the same beliefs and considers them to be true.
Until you explain how your cosmology includes a firmament that keeps waters from inundating the earth, you're just another run-of-the-mill Modernist heretic who rejects the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.I don't reject the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, but I'm no expert on interpreting it, and I know that our language and understanding of things is far enough removed from that used in scripture that it may be quite possible to reconcile GE with anything in it.
When I have time, I'll show you why your post is total garbage ...Please don't, do something useful. I'd much prefer you'd spend as much time as you would on the FE/GE stuff fervently praying for me, for the church clergy, that the chastisement won't be as bad as it would be, for all struggling souls that they make very good use of what little time we have, and that we diligently learn and keep all of God's commandments.
I don't reject the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, but I'm no expert on interpreting it, and I know that our language and understanding of things is far enough removed from that used in scripture that it may be quite possible to reconcile GE with anything in it.
Please don't, do something useful. I'd much prefer you'd spend as much time as you would on the FE/GE stuff fervently praying for me, for the church clergy, that the chastisement won't be as bad as it would be, for all struggling souls that they make very good use of what little time we have, and that we diligently learn and keep all of God's commandments.
Please don't, do something useful. I'd much prefer you'd spend as much time as you would on the FE/GE stuff fervently praying for me, for the church clergy, that the chastisement won't be as bad as it would be, for all struggling souls that they make very good use of what little time we have, and that we diligently learn and keep all of God's commandments.
Please don't, do something useful. I'd much prefer you'd spend as much time as you would on the FE/GE stuff fervently praying for me, for the church clergy, that the chastisement won't be as bad as it would be, for all struggling souls that they make very good use of what little time we have, and that we diligently learn and keep all of God's commandments.Sooo...why are you wasting your time on this site (instead of praying, helping out at church, etc), telling everyone what to do? That's how liberals act...they want to control everyone and have society run "their" way.
I guess you don't know what playing both sides means. He's trying to please both Catholics and the mainstream mob.
What's the big deal? Are your feelings hurt that I choose to ignore your questions? Amazing, that you keep harping on them. You are continually contemptuous of me and my friend Robert Sungenis. (Hope you can learn to spell his name some day.) So why in the world should I answer your questions.
I am just pointing out your rank hypocrisy - something anyone can see. It has nothing to do with feelings. You cry about Tradman not answering within a few hours, but dodge the questions of others for days. I couldn't care less, but your failure to reciprocate just proves you are what I have called you -- a soy-boy punk, like unto...
(moderated)
I know full well how to spell Bobby Sun-genius' name, but your Fan-Boy stance makes poking fun irresistible.
Always (formerly known on CathInfo as klasG4e and Charity)
You cry about Tradman not answering within a few hours, but dodge the questions of others for days.Always admitted in another thread that he doesn't know much about science and can't argue/defend Sungenis' positions. So he just defends Dr S, as a friend. :facepalm:
Always admitted in another thread that he doesn't know much about science and can't argue/defend Sungenis' positions. So he just defends Dr S, as a friend. :facepalm:
I have never called anyone a liar on CathInfo even in trying to defend my good name because I have not known with absolute certainty their interior forum. I will say, however, for the record that you have often said things about me that are not true. Your above words are one more example of this.
Uh, this is absolutely FALSE, as you wrongly (and ignorantly) accused me of calumny -- even after being shown that your accusation was bogus by myself and Lad
Yet another NASA "foible" --:laugh1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cceyaU0OzjI
Great video from Flat Earth Dave (alas, in an interview with the "Syncretism Society", but the information is independent of that context) where in rapid-fire fashion he explains the movements of the sun. Demonstrates the rules of perspective, shows footage of sunset taken by soldier in Afghanistan (over very dry desert) showing sun shrinking as it recedes (can't happen with 93-million-mile-away huge sun), also shows the image of the apparent sunset zoomed in on to show that it's still well above the horizon line. I wish he had added his video (taken from a drone) of the sun just fading away into nothing without going down at all. Yet you have some posters here who claim that all you have to do is look at a sunset to see the earth is a globe. Nonsense. If the sun is a huge object 93 million miles away, moving a couple thousand miles farther away as the earth rotates would not cause it to shrink noticeably in size. It would only be .006% farther away in a 1/4 rotation of the "globe", so would not shrink.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIQlLGRmbxc
Yet another NASA "foible" --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cceyaU0OzjI
Great video from Flat Earth Dave (alas, in an interview with the "Syncretism Society", but the information is independent of that context) where in rapid-fire fashion he explains the movements of the sun. Demonstrates the rules of perspective, shows footage of sunset taken by soldier in Afghanistan (over very dry desert) showing sun shrinking as it recedes (can't happen with 93-million-mile-away huge sun), also shows the image of the apparent sunset zoomed in on to show that it's still well above the horizon line. I wish he had added his video (taken from a drone) of the sun just fading away into nothing without going down at all. Yet you have some posters here who claim that all you have to do is look at a sunset to see the earth is a globe. Nonsense. If the sun is a huge object 93 million miles away, moving a couple thousand miles farther away as the earth rotates would not cause it to shrink noticeably in size. It would only be .006% farther away in a 1/4 rotation of the "globe", so would not shrink.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIQlLGRmbxc
This will be interesting to try. Great videos.
Excellent. Can't wait to look at the moon between my legs. :laugh2:
Demonstrates the rules of perspective, shows footage of sunset taken by soldier in Afghanistan (over very dry desert) showing sun shrinking as it recedes (can't happen with 93-million-mile-away huge sun),Unless viewed by a camera. It's an optical illusion. There's my hint, and since you are so smart, I'll leave the rest to you to figure out as to how the illusion works.
also shows the image of the apparent sunset zoomed in on to show that it's still well above the horizon line.So? He couldn't wait for the sun to actually set? It plays out nicely as another illusion.
Unless viewed by a camera. It's an optical illusion. There's my hint, and since you are so smart, I'll leave the rest to you to figure out as to how the illusion works.
India lands on the moon. The country filled with Hindus who still crap 💩 in the street. Yeah, they went to the moon. :jester:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/india-is-the-first-country-to-land-at-the-moons-south-pole-133322596.html
India lands on the moon. The country filled with Hindus who still crap 💩 in the street. Yeah, they went to the moon. :jester:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/india-is-the-first-country-to-land-at-the-moons-south-pole-133322596.html
Vikram will remain idle for hours to allow lunar dust to settle.
It also begs the question "Who filmed the lander?"
I don't think they were pretending that it was real footage. But their CGI job was so bad that it speaks to their incompetence in other areas as well. If you're spending that much money on a lunar mission, surely you can spent a few extra bucks on putting together some quality CGI. I know from direct experience with Indian software developers that they simply can't write quality code.
Kind of makes me wonder if this news tidbit will tie into the "Alien Invasion" op that is sure to come. If not directly then maybe indirectly as more "proof" that outer space is real and to get people to thinking of "outer space" again.Are you old enough to remember those low production quality black and white sci fi movies?
Although I would be amused at a headline that said something like...
"Moonians pissed off that Earthly-Indians landed on and destroyed their home base. Moonians coming to attack Earth soon for revenge."
If nothing else a terrible B movie.
Are you old enough to remember those low production quality black and white sci fi movies?