If we're truly living on a globe earth that spins (or even the Geocentric model, where the universe spins around IT), with gravity, curvature, the vacuum of OUTER SPACE, earth-like solid planets and all that --

Then why don't we go into outer space? We're supposed to have rockets and stuff, right? Even if you acknowledge we never went to the Moon because of the obvious fraud, lack of repetition by any country over a span of 50 years, the suspicious "loss" of the technology to go there, as well as all the evidence we went there (telemetry data, etc.).  Let's say the Moon Landings were faked due to the Van Allen Belts which prevent human flesh from going too far away from earth. That's what I believed a year ago.

But now I see it's much worse than that. NASA is a *complete* scam, even Low Earth Orbit activities. They fake everything: rocket launches, humans floating in outer space, the space station, EVERYTHING. Their works are fakery and CGI. Nothing more. They are Astro-NOTs.

"Mars" looks like Greenland with a red tint applied. I've seen too many scuba diving suits reflected in "astroNOT" helmets -- and air bubbles escaping and rising up. In the vacuum of space. Oh, and countless funny business in Low Earth Orbit: CGI glitches, harnesses, astroNOTs getting caught in their harnesses when trying to do a somersault, dropping a beach ball and having it fall straight down, etc. Any weightlessness that's been filmed has been done using standard aircraft, such as the Vomit Comet.

If I could cash in $0.25 for every bit of evidence of NASA fraud I found, I think I'd be able to retire early.

Those refusing to entertain the notion of a Flat Earth throw out these tenuous arguments here and there, usually quite easily debunked by those knowledgeable, but even if they could make a solid case, you would still be left with my important question, the Elephant in the Room:

Why not go into "outer space" then? Because we clearly HAVE NOT gone. It's all been a scam. Why fake it, if it's possible?

They've gone through a LOT of trouble and expense to fake it. To what end?


P.S. What do you do when a man has been caught in a lie? 100 lies? 1000 lies? He is a LIAR and no longer to be trusted, that's what. NASA has been caught in so many lies, it's morally certain that everything they do is a lie, or if they occasionally tell the truth (about the weather or some such), it's to bolster their otherwise non-existent credibility. It's all for the purpose of more deception.

There is the International Space Station, which floats in space above the earth. I don't know how the flat earth idea accounts for that or any other satellite floating in orbit. Obviously there are satellites floating over the earth because we have GPS, satellite telephones, satellite internet, and other things. So how do those satellites stay suspended over the earth? Why don't they fall down? They don't have rockets continuously blasting downwards to keep them in the air.

Another thing that I thought of from another thread, distantly related to this, is how a compass works. The globe earth believes that the earth is a giant magnet, and a compass works because the needle is magnetized and drawn to the north and south magnetic poles. According to the flat earth model, Antarctica is not a continent but a wall of ice around the edge of the earth. So, where exactly is the southern magnetic pole? It must be somewhere. Let's say it's just south of Tierra del Fuego, South America. If it were there, then when you went to the Cape of Good Hope, you would be roughly east of the south magnetic pole, so the southern end of your compass needle would point towards South America, not Antarctica. And depending on where you went in the world, the direction the compass needle pointed would be dramatically different.

I have still not heard an explanation for how the sun moves in the flat earth system. Flatties claim the sun moves parallel to the ground, and in a horizontally circular motion. Both those things are independently impossible, and for different reasons. When you throw a ball through the air, it falls to the ground, it does not move parallel to the ground for even one instant of its trajectory. Moreover, an object cannot move in a horizontally circular path through the air because it takes force (centrifugal force, I believe it would be) to make something move in a circle. Unless you're talking about a boomerang, which the sun sure doesn't look like, objects move in a straight line relative to the ground when they are flying, in the sense that, if you were to throw a rock and then draw a line on the ground that precisely followed the path of the rock through the air, the line would be straight. It would not be curved.

There is no example in nature of any object being able to move in the way the flat earth system claims that the sun moves. It effectively claims that the sun (and moon) are exempt from the laws of physics.

Now, the sun in the globe earth system (whether you choose to heliocentric or geocentric model, it makes little difference) simply behaves in a manner that we see numerous other objects moving in space, so that we know for certain that such motion is physically possible. You can look at Jupiter and see its moons rotating around it in a circular motion. The globe earth simply says that that is how the sun moves around the earth, or the earth around the sun, or whatever. That is also the type of movement that we claim the satellites use that orbit the earth, that make possible GPS systems and other stuff. No one needs to posit ad-hoc explanations or invent phenomena that aren't otherwise known to exist to explain any of these things.

EDIT: typo

I don't want to derail the thread, but I am new to considering the geocentric/fe model.  Where can I find opinions about what is beyond the Antarctic ice wall, what's on the other side?  I ask because I find that search engines are increasingly biased against these things, maybe I could get some good pointers.  Thanks.

This is a good starter:
10:45
https://www.bitchute.com/video/E4yZxHcTtxB3/

There is the International Space Station, which floats in space above the earth. 

So then why is so much of the alleged footage from ISS cleary faked?  Not necessary if there's actually a real ISS up there.

So then why is so much of the alleged footage from ISS cleary faked?  Not necessary if there's actually a real ISS up there.

Yes. That is the point of this thread. Why the fakery? Why would they play Hollywood in a studio somewhere with CGI, harnesses, hair gel, and other nonsense, if they could just film the real astronauts on the space station? It's almost as if there IS no real space station, which is why they have no choice but to fake it...

What bothers me, is when people give SOME organizations 500 "passes" for lying, while they give other men and organizations just 1 or 2 passes. Why the inconsistency?

Imagine if Fr. Pfeiffer, Pope Michael, or the Dimond Brothers claimed to have a Trad Catholic commune of 5,000 souls, but every piece of "evidence" for this place turned out to be horribly fake. Say their scenic photos are found in Google images; several of their scenic photos were screen captures from Lord of the Rings; vast evidence of using CGI/green screens, and many individuals pictured are tracked down, and actually live in subdivisions in other cities throughout the USA. And plenty of other evidence of fakery and chicanery.

Let's say their motivation was to collect donations and bequests from all over the world, to fund their heroic venture.

How long before you wrote them off as liars and con-men? Would they be given as many "passes" as mainstream-lovers give NASA? I guarantee you they would NOT. For some reason, because NASA is NASA, little boys like rocket ships, exploring the "planets" fires the imagination, a love of sci-fi, boyhood memories of the "moon landings", a love of science from their youth, a love of astronomy, and a host of other reasons -- some men will give NASA a ridiculous latitude to be caught in lies. When faced with such lies, these individuals get hostile and/or plug their ears and sing "lalala I can't hear you..." The cognitive dissonance is painful.

But I struggle to come up with an adequate analogy, because in the case of a commune, you'd have Google Earth/Google Maps, possibly an address, and unlike Antarctica, there aren't dozens of countries (many of them enemies to each other!) guarding it with ridiculous quantities of powerful military hardware. So realistically we COULD get in our car and find out the truth about a "mythical Trad Catholic commune" for ourselves. With "outer space" or Antarctica, however, it's outside the reach of most of us to verify it personally.

What bothers me, is when people give SOME organizations 500 "passes" for lying, while they give other men and organizations just 1 or 2 passes. Why the inconsistency?

Imagine if Fr. Pfeiffer, Pope Michael, or the Dimond Brothers claimed to have a Trad Catholic commune of 5,000 souls, but every piece of "evidence" for this place turned out to be horribly fake. Say their scenic photos are found in Google images; several of their scenic photos were screen captures from Lord of the Rings; vast evidence of using CGI/green screens, and many individuals pictured are tracked down, and actually live in subdivisions in other cities throughout the USA. And plenty of other evidence of fakery and chicanery.

How long before you wrote them off as liars and con-men? Would they be given as many "passes" as mainstream-lovers give NASA? I guarantee you they would NOT. For some reason, because NASA is NASA, little boys like rocket ships, exploring the "planets" fires the imagination, a love of sci-fi, boyhood memories of the "moon landings", a love of science from their youth, a love of astronomy, and a host of other reasons -- some men will give NASA a ridiculous latitude to be caught in lies. When faced with such lies, these individuals get hostile and/or plug their ears and sing "lalala I can't hear you..."

But I struggle to come up with an adequate analogy, because in the case of a commune, you'd have Google Earth/Google Maps, possibly an address, and unlike Antarctica, there aren't dozens of countries (many of them enemies to each other!) guarding it with ridiculous quantities of powerful military hardware. So realistically we COULD get in our car and find out the truth about a "mythical Trad Catholic commune" for ourselves. With "outer space" or Antarctica, however, it's outside the reach of most of us to verify it personally.

It is mind blowing that Catholics sidle up to liars even after they are proven liars.  The geocentric globers for instance, know that NASA has lied, but they say that NASA doesn't lie about everything.  How do they know that? Why give liars another opportunity to lie to you by believing a single thing they say?  Robert Sungenis is one of those Catholics and leads their pack.  More interesting about Sungenis however, is that every single science source of his is an evolutionary Big Banger. Is there not some point at which one has to question the rocket scientists?  Knowing many of the arguments, Sungenis wrote a tome attempting to shame flat earth.  I do believe some people are duped, but others, like Sungenis, I wonder if he isn't a shill for bigger entities.  It's not just the globe, Sungenis vigorously defends the notion that Russia was already consecrated and the SSPX are in schism.  3 big strikes, all based on lies.     

Wow, that doesn't look good for Sungenis. Just lost a ton, about 99%, of my respect for him.
What a flaming moron. He might have an IQ, but he completely lacks wisdom.

Yep. I have to wonder, how can someone be squarely on the wrong side of three of the most divisive and important problems leading Catholics into a great apostasy?