Has there ever been one of the thousands of NASA conspirators who came out and told the world it was all a fraud?

Piece of the Firmament?  African natives call it "Sky Stone" and claim it fell from the sky.


There was a guy some time ago who posted about "Sky Ice" that they allegedly discovered in Antarctica, but his story could not be verified.

https://adrenogate.net/wp/2021/10/13/the-sky-ice-of-antarctica-the-wall-and-the-firmament-what-they-found-when-they-drilled-into-it/

  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.

Given the lies that are coming out about so much these days, such as the reasons Americas used to go to war everywhere, it is very possible that America also lied about a moon landing to get the better of the Russians who were also bragging about going to the moon. That said, whether they did or not really doesn't affect the lives of many. There are far more important aspects of our lives on Earth today that need correction.

My interest and purpose in defending geocentrism is the effect it had in eliminating the Supernatural creation by God. Unfortunately to do so exposes popes and clergy running the Catholic Church from the 18th century as promoting what their predecessors defined as formal heresy. Whether men got to the moon or not is nothing compared to the exposure of the heresy that led to Modernism, the heresy of all heresies as Pope St Pius X called it, totally unaware that he too was involved when designating Fr G. Hagen SJ, a gold-medal heliocentrist as head of the Vatican observatory. To expose facts like these does not go down too well with 'traditional' Catholics who think all before Vatican II were faultless. Only on CIF is this truth allowed. You see wee defend the teaching of all the Fathers and popes of 1616 and 1633 but to do that one has to expose the U-turn that began in 1741.

If the moon landing can be faked, can a real moon landing be faked as being fake?

Yet another problem for the globe.

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".

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.

Upon reading your comment, I looked to see if the stars actually got farther apart, simply taking a straight-edge and marking the distance between the two at the beginning and at the end, and they do in fact appear to be slightly farther apart from one another, and appear to be larger.  As to how much farther apart they should have been and how much larger, that would depend on the distance travelled vs. how far away they actually are from the plane, which is an unknown, and both could also be affected by things like moisture in the atmosphere.  Also, given that the stars are on/in a curved surface, the dome of the firmament, the perceived distance between them would also depend upon whether you were looking at them straight on or from a slight angle.  So I see that as inconclusive, but I did not find what you claim, namely, that the start got "closer together" at the end.  I found the opposite.  And given your globe model, and the purported distance you claim the stars are from earth, that shouldn't happen either.  So it's a wash.

Once again, you won't actually analyze what you're looking at but assume there MUST be "something wrong" with the videos.  Which video don't you trust, the video the pilot took of his flight or the Google simulator?  Perhaps the pilot was a stealth Flat Earther who manipulated the video?  So Google simulations are inaccurate ... except when they appear to depict a globe?  So not sure what you mean about "trusting" the video.

Probably the only case one one might make against the video is that if the stars were possibly rotating downward at the exact same rate at which the plane was dipping its nose down.  I find that unlikely but someone should do the math.  He was trusting the Google simulator as being accurate, and I'm not sure if took into account the time lapse and the movement of the stars in the time allotted.  Nevertheless, the stars should be moving down and to the right, and if we judge how far to the right they moved, if there was a similar downward movement, it wouldn't have been enough to keep up with the change in the plane's angle.

But your case against it doesn't actually address the core point of the video, that the stars would move up and out of frame as the plane dips its nose to follow the curvature of the earth.  As usual, it's a red herring thrown out there as a distraction.  You bolded the statement I made regarding the core problem, namely, that the stars remain within the viewing frame for the entire duration of the flight when they should have moved significantly up and out of view.

Of course, it's also extremely condescending and insulting that you assume that we merely "trust" what videos say.  You assume incorrectly.  If I post a video here, it's because I've analyzed its claims.  I reject a fair number of Flat Earth videos as fallacious ... despite what you might think.  I do not engage in the same confirmation bias that you have repeatedly demonstrated, and that you demonstrate once again ... by assuming that there MUST be "something wrong" because ... you already know the earth is a globe.  You might recall that I posted where I can't see anything wrong with the claims of this video.  That's because I thought through them.  I think through all of them and try to poke holes in the analysis.  You, on the other hand, "know" up front that it's wrong and are looking for reasons to dismiss it.  You won't evaluate the matter with an open mind and apply objective analysis to it.  Instead, you throw out a red herring about the distances of the stars, which is not directly relevant to the point being made.

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.