29 Feb 2020 20:07:47
I am sure everyone at some point has been the person to get the massive round of drinks in that requires the fateful tray. You take 5 steps and you wasted half of it, spilt everywhere. Yet there was hardly any motion.
Now think about this point, then watch the video.
{Ed033's Note - Yes, Earth is fixed in place, God knows where Earth is, but it doesn't move.
Agree0Disagree0
01 Mar 2020 01:14:08
Charlie Chaplin speech from the above video
01 Mar 2020 22:48:30
Looks so much better than a ball .
02 Mar 2020 00:11:44
Southern monkey. Our mass relative to the mass of the drinks play a big part. Now look at the mass of the earth and stars and now look at the mass of us. Higher the mass higher the gravity, we don't feel the spin or the earth moving due to our smallness. Do you feel yourself moving on a plane?
Why do you guys think we're so special? Why would we be a flat circle and everything else speheres. It literally makes no sense. Some of the videos I've watched on here also take the smallest physics knowledge to know how wrong they are. Or they completely ignore physics and make up there own laws of the universe.
{Ed033's Note - A lot of the physics is made up B.S. especially the stuff about the magical thing called 'gravity'.
02 Mar 2020 09:26:34
You feel when the road changes in a car or if u hit a bump.
Same as when a plane hits turbulence
U feel that to.
But while the earth spins were does the wobble come into to it .
Coz u would of thought u would feel that .
People often Ignore things when there is no obsevable proof.
02 Mar 2020 09:43:59
I’m sorry Ed but if gravity is made up then what’s the force pulling things down if we Drop them? Mountains are also formed by gravity.
{Ed033's Note - If the Earth is not a globe and the heliocentric model is incorrect, then by default the physics that explain a globe Earth and heliocentric model must be incorrect. And then people by default believe the incorrect made up physics.
I think i heard that even Brian Cox said that gravity is not a force. There is a video where someone asks Neil degrasse Tyson, 'what is gravity' and he responds with, don't know, next question. The problem is the word word 'gravity' is their go to word when they can't explain anything. These paid agent types usually drop something and say 'gravity' as though that's meant to mean something.
We observe that some stuff does fall to the ground when we drop stuff, but not everything drops to the ground, some stuff floats about.
I posted 2 videos on here where they speculated that incoherent magnetism can pull stuff to the ground?
Mountains are not formed by gravity, virtually all mountains are what's left of giant fauna and flora, but mostly the stump of giant trees. But in order to comprehend that you'd have to watch hours of video.
03 Mar 2020 07:42:37
Peteprice, if you're going to come on here arguing MSBS then at least do you MS research and get you facts straight.
The mountains actually form as a result of the tectonic plates' movement at the earth mantle according to the MS narrative. Gravity or rather incoherent magnetism, would only restrict its height.
Standard- "Or they completely ignore physics and make up there own laws of the universe. " pretty much what the MS do then. When their theory's don't work, they make rubbish up with no proof.
Maybe it is you that should 'read' up on what is 'proof' in physics.
And have you ever thought about the half-life of facts? . You act like you have all the answers, which just shows how asleep you really are.
Here's a quote from you lord and saviour.
Einstein - "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. "
But 'evolution' is flawed too. Where are the inter-species? . But you've probably paper over that crack too.
Taking everything as gospel, means you're just singing in the choir of the MSBS religion.
29 Feb 2020 20:00:35
Does our Sun set behind the distant horizon?
Or does it pass through too much atmosphere to see?
{Ed033's Note - Yes, you don't normally see the Sun fade out like in this video. This video proves the Sun doesn't set behind any curvature of the Earth. The Sun moves away from the observer until the Sun's light can't penetrate through the atmosphere between the observer and the Sun.
Agree1Disagree0
29 Feb 2020 22:08:33
*some subtext from videos I post.
Whatever the slant of whatever video, it aggravates me that people feel the need to mock the other side. It just takes weight out of the debate. You believe what you believe. Too be shamed for that in any shape or form is subhuman.
I have never said I was right. I will be happily proven wrong.
Prove me wrong on the videos I post. I encourage it.
02 Mar 2020 00:14:17
Southern konkey, that's the problem. I could make a video very easily showing whatever I like. Learn the other side mate. Read a book and study physics. You would see why we mock your views. It's because they're completely wrong. We can't argue our points because your choosing to ignore even the simplest laws of the universe. Explain your best points as to why the universe is flat. I don't want videos and I won't show you nasa videos. I'll tell you simple physics.
{Ed033's Note - The whole point of the videos so someone doesn't have to write an essay. Your mind is so closed, you won't watch the videos on here.
02 Mar 2020 15:44:14
Standard you clearly don't read my posts or watch the videos as Ed has stated.
I have never once said the Earth is flat. Find my other post to you. I am not wasting my time repeating myself.
29 Feb 2020 19:53:21
"I have flown all 'round' the 'globe' and I have seen the 'curve' for myself" - Anon
Is that because the windows distort your view?
{Ed033's Note - Exactly, the hypnotised, seduced ones think they've seen some curvature when they were up in a plane so that's the end of the story for them.
Agree1Disagree0
29 Feb 2020 21:46:20
Yeah, I put Anon out of respect of the origin of the point of view.
If they want to respond. Kudos.
29 Feb 2020 23:25:13
Everyone who says that only has a passengers view on a commercial aircraft for context.
Completely different when you sit at the front.
01 Mar 2020 06:03:29
I've slowly been going through all the videos on here the last few weeks, really interesting but I'm still open minded both ways, however even when I was a kid looking out of a plane window I knew the window caused the outside view to look curved, I'm not sure how people can't figure that one out.
{Ed033's Note - Yes, we have to keep an open mind because new info might come along, that could potentially change things.
01 Mar 2020 11:31:58
I've been in the cabin during a flight as a kid. Didn't look any different to the passenger windows.
{Ed033's Note - How about watching the video then commenting.
01 Mar 2020 19:34:59
What a kid you must have been. Not to be overawed by seeing all the instruments and controls and meeting the pilots. You looked out the window and thought yeah there’s definitely some curvature there. Must remember that when I’m an adult and someone starts talking about flat earth. Case closed.
{Ed033's Note - Nice one Rian :)
01 Mar 2020 22:32:25
Lol what's that sound!
01 Mar 2020 22:34:44
Oh!,
It's hsf scratching his nails down the chalk board, throwing his key stage books out of the window lol.
02 Mar 2020 00:26:56
Rian, it is truly amazing that you can somehow, find imaginary holes in the 19 words that I typed, yet you are unable to find (or elect to ignore) the monumental holes with in some of the discussions on here? More specifically, flat Earth and the faked Moon landing.
Additionally, where did I say anything about "taking note of the curvature" in any of the 19 words that I typed? I said it didn't look any different to the passanger windows, in reference to a post claiming the passanger windows are fish eyed. Which it doesn't and they aren't. Just a bigger field of view.
As for your comment about the instruments and not being interested in them. I was interested and I asked many questions, but I also spent a good while looking out of the window too, as I was fascinated by how different everything looked from 5 miles up.
{Ed033's Note - Nobody on here has mentioned that the passenger windows on planes are fish eyed.
02 Mar 2020 21:00:37
You were interested and you asked many questions, and you were fascinated by how different everything looked.
Wow!
Did you have lashings of ginger beer when you got home?
03 Mar 2020 10:32:05
Showing your age there, Rian. :)
03 Mar 2020 23:24:35
Ha ha good one SM. Voracious reader when I was a kid. Famous five were great reading at a certain age.
29 Feb 2020 12:23:35
Laughable picture allegedly taken of the Earth and surrounding stars from the surface of the Moon by Apollo 16 Astronaut at 11m30s. Start watching from 11m15s to 11m55s
Agree1Disagree0
29 Feb 2020 16:23:02
it's ridiculous.
Something I've seen here and also on much so called lunar footage is that the astronauts frequently kneel down and not with any care.
If you were on the moon and even the tiniest breach of your suit could result in your death, there is no way you would be kneeling on a rocky surface.
Just for added value if you look at the way they move around, it looks a lot like they are trying to find the surface with their feet as opposed to bouncing up from it. exactly what you would do if you were on a wire.
{Ed033's Note - Exactly Rian,
Also NASA don't mind talking about radiation, but they never seem to comment on how any of the equipment can stand up to the extreme temperatures. I would think the tyres on the moon buggies would freeze and crack into pieces at lower than minus 150 degrees centigrade. Also i think the batteries would also not work at the extreme temperatures.
29 Feb 2020 18:00:13
Don't worry, Ed. They're in a nice warm studio.
Rian, I am not sure if they were posted on here, but there are videos showing Astronauts floating back to there feet after falling over. (Basically them struggling with the wire harness, or it was the harness operators first day. ) .
You have to remember though, that these are the best of the best and they don't need to concentrate or care about what they are doing. Much like the lunar launch on Apollo 15 when all they are worried about is playing some music on a tape player, to celebrate how great the US is. It's not like if one minuscule thing goes wrong, they are all dead hundreds of thousands of miles from Earth.
{Ed033's Note - Those space suits don't have any radiation protection, the space suits cannot perform in a 1 x 10 to the minus 11 torr vacuum allegedly on the moon and i would think the space suits couldn't resist the extreme temperatures either.
29 Feb 2020 18:48:59
only a short clip so watch the whole thing.
At 2m8s was the part I was referencing earlier.
Astronauts on wires:
29 Feb 2020 19:44:22
Good vid ed33,
And I've never even thought about temperature swings tyre and batteries.
Lol rian and SM your right, the danger of the mission would give u a total different attitude towards the mission.
Think I seen a vid a few years back on here that showed stage lights falling to the floor.
And also someone pointed out how shadows of Astro not's where wrong .
Surely most must be questioning space agencies now!
{Ed033's Note - Yes all correct southampton, but the seduced people won't even take a look.
29 Feb 2020 19:58:04
Only time I've seen stars in rockets fly is when they're cgi edited in.
You regularly see Sun and moon but never stars.
{Ed033's Note - Yes, some 'space experts' and astronauts say you can see stars and some say you can't when asked.
Typically they don't show stars in space footage because until CGI came along it looked so fake.
01 Mar 2020 09:31:42
Most people can't look at the evidence because if they do and realise the moon landings were faked, then they will inevitably have to ask what else have we been lied to about?
Ask people why did Neil Armstrong hide in an office in Cincinatti University for 7 years after he 'came back'?
He was the most famous man in the world.
The answer is because he was a decent guy and he was ashamed of taking part in The biggest lie of the 20th century.
01 Mar 2020 22:36:07
Spot on rian.
05 Mar 2020 07:40:34
Not only does low gravity make one take giant steps but also be able to levitate from the looks of this! Laughable. Don't know why people don't just come out and admit it was faked.
29 Feb 2020 05:09:11
NASA STS-75 Mission footage, 1996.
Now this footage has been on a lot of 'alien' programs saying we have jellyfish swimming in space.
Think about that? Would it not be more likely that the giant water tank NASA uses to fake these missions has a bacterial or microbial plume? Someone forgot the chlorine that day?
You may say I am jumping to conclusions, but imagining them being in water is made a lot easier when NASA ask the astronaut to describe what is "'swimming in the foreground".
If they were in 'space' you would naturally say 'floating' would you not?
Either way, we have jellyfish aliens? or space is faked? You choose.
Watch from 3m26s to 5m29s.
{Ed033's Note - Yes, this looks exactly like looking at microbes in water.
Agree2Disagree0
29 Feb 2020 19:45:03
Another good vid SM.
29 Feb 2020 20:01:13
But that's what looked like was in the vid above storm looked like a type of jelly fish.
01 Mar 2020 11:34:00
So microbes are real ed? Even though the mainstream scientists are constantly going on about 'microbial life'.
{Ed033's Note - This looks like microbes or something like microbes floating in water, but NASA is saying this in outer space.
01 Mar 2020 18:37:17
Thing is hsf, you can buy a microscope for next to nothing and look at the 'microbial life' yourself.
Not so easy getting into 'space'.
{Ed033's Note - Good one SM.
01 Mar 2020 18:46:41
Well it is outer space Ed. There are particles all over the place in space, these are usually what's left of the proto-planetary disc on a microscopic scale to a city sized asteroid scale. Everything else either coalesced into planets, asteroids, moons etc. Some also got trapped in gravity wells of planets and burned up.
It's still happening today too, you ever seen a shooting star? Well that's a small space rock burning up as it enters the Earths atmosphere.
It's also worth mentioning, if this footage were recorded in 4k, we wouldn't be having this discussion because you would see the particles more clearly.
Unfortunately the camera technology in 1996 wasn't that great.
{Ed033's Note - i guess if you continually repeat mainstream b.s., you lose the ability to see the obvious. Tis is clearly something [microbes?] in water and they are pretending it's outer space,
01 Mar 2020 22:38:24
Or maybe like ed and others speculate.
It was just filmed under water.
And not all that other stuff.
03 Mar 2020 08:52:04
The tech in 1996 was so bad, that's a shame. How about the tech in 1969 and how bad that must be compared with now? It must be an absolute doddle to get to the moon now by comparison and to show us crystal clear footage of them doing so, and yet.
{Ed033's Note - Should be a doddle to get to the Moon, especially if it is much closer than they say it is.
28 Feb 2020 15:01:57
The North Pole area has been erased on our modern maps, but earlier maps show what is really there?
Agree1Disagree0
28 Feb 2020 18:50:48
Was strange to find this as the first post, as I watched a different video on old maps, this morning. This lead me to Urbano Monte's map of 1587. Its width is 10 feet. It's in Italian but can be translated.
"Monte made his map to serve not only as a geographical tool but also to show climate, customs, length of day, distances within regions - in other words, to create a universal scientific planisphere. "
The question with the OP video is, why make a map with Islands and towns if they are not actually there?
Do you happen to know the context of this map, as in why it was made and who commissioned it? .
From thinking across topics like chronology changes, hidden past etc. It does seem to point to some big changes in the I600s. And isn't this the time that the printing press became a thing? . I'll have to check but sure the first printed book was the 'Gutenberg Bible'. Thought that is probably debatable.
{Ed033's Note - Printing Press was mid I400s, but as far as i'm concerned, no date prior to around 1850 is reliable.
In the O.P. video there are 3 maps shown, one is the Mercator map. It's highly likely that the Islands and towns were there. It's also likely that they have destroyed the towns there now, like they have destroyed other towns in other parts of the world either by fire or by pretending to be at war with an area to hide the real past, hide any past technology and take out any people who might have any knowledge of the past.
28 Feb 2020 06:51:00
Rupert Sheldrake gives a talk about his book, The Science Delusion, which shows the ways in which science is being constricted by the assumption that science already knows all the fundamental answers.
27 Feb 2020 14:02:36
I don't mind some conspiracies but surely you can't believe flat earth and that space doesn't exist? That's crazy talk. Physics shows us the earth is round but simply, look at the moon, look at the stars. How on earth can the stars not exist? I'm bemused.
{Ed033's Note - And you should be bemused. You can watch some videos on here and if you're still intrigued you can return and watch more videos. If you're not intrigued, then you can call it crazy and leave, it's up to you.
I'll just say 4 things here:
No. 1. The Globe model curvature maths is about 8 inches per mile squared. 1 mile = 8 inches, 2 miles is 2 squared x 8 = 32 inches. 3 miles is 3 squared x 8 = 72 inches.
So, we can see that on the Globe model at some point the curvature of the Earth means we shouldn't see objects miles into the distance.
But what if you have a good zoom camera like a Nikon P900 and someone can zoom into objects that should be hidden by the curvature of the Earth? What if people can zoom into objects that should be hidden by 100s of feet of curvature? This is why people are Globe sceptics.
No 2. What we observe is the further from a light source we are, the dimmer it appears. This can be worked out mathematically using the inverse square law of light. The Heliocentric model has the Moon being around 225,000 miles away, the Sun at around 93 million miles away and all the Stars at over 4 lightyears away.
The problem being if we take the closest of those objects, then the Moon light should be quadrillions of lumens, which is an impossibility. It's no wonder then that some people are thinking that we have a local Moon, local Sun and local Planets and Stars. But we have to call Stars, Luminaries because we have no clue what the 'Stars' we observe are.
Also when we observe the Moon at night with clouds around it, we see the clouds that are immediately around the Moon are very bright and we observe that the clouds that are just a little bit further from the Moon are dark.
No. 3. Why are all the space agencies faking Outer Space? If you don't think they are, watch some videos on here or elsewhere.
No. 4. How is it possible to have the vacuum of outer space, directly next to our pressured atmosphere?
Agree0Disagree0
27 Feb 2020 21:47:55
Ed, i love all this stuff on this site
I have a quick question.
Have you ever visited an observatory?
Thx.
{Ed033's Note - No. Glad you like this site.
27 Feb 2020 22:45:01
Forgive me, I wasn't calling you crazy moreso the idea. I'm not often interested in debates because it's just 2 people trying to make the other believe their view. However, I shall watch how much of the videos you've shared I can bare, before my science knowledge shakes its head at it.
You should read astrophysics for people in a hurry, by Neil degrasse Tyson. He has a chapter called 'on being round' and it very adaquetly explains it I believe.
1. how have you came to the conclusion we shouldn't see objects in the distance? That does not make sense to me unless I'm misunderstanding you.
2. The Sun is 400 times bigger than the moon, yet 400 times further away from the earth than the moon. This is maybe why the moon and sun look the same size. The reason the sun's luminosity is much higher is due to the amount of energy the sun has. It's literally a burning ball of energy while the moon is a chunk of the earth orbiting us.
3. If outer space is being faked, then Elon Musk is wasting a lot of time on his company space x. I have nothing else to say on this, as I could also say the star Sirius doesn't exist, although we can see it.
4. Why can't you have that?
Just to be clear, do you think other planets are flat as well or only earth?
Cheers.
{Ed033's Note - 1. I'm not saying we shouldn't see objects in the distance. If we can see them then we can see them and something is there. Nobody knows how far Stars are away from us, i'm sying they're not lightyears away.
2. Nobody knows whether any of this is correct. It's all theory. This site shows the problems with those theories and shows an alternative.
3. Of course we can see the luminary we call Sirius, but it's not lightyears away, it's local and likely in the Firmament. If Elon Musk wants to be part of the Spac Agencies ,then Space X has to do fake outer space like all other space agencies around the World.
4. Earth is not a planet. The 'planets' are luminaries, i don't now what planets are but they are not flat, the planets move, the Earth is stationary, the Sun, Moon, Planets and Stars move above the Earth. The heliocentric model is an incorrect theory. The heliocentric model has Earth spinning at 1000 miles per hour, Earth rotating around the Sun at 66,000 mph, The Sun moving through the Milkyway at 500,000mph and the Milkyway moving through the Universe at over 1 million mph . And yet there is evidence that Earth is not moving, The Michelson-Morley experiment is devastating to the heliocentric model.
The Earth is a realm fixed in place, doesn't move, doesn't rotate and above it are the Sun, Moon, and Luminaries (Planets and Stars).
28 Feb 2020 07:20:12
Standard. I can only speak for myself but it's not a case of believing that the Earth is flat. (And I don't believe anyone on this site has said space doesn't 'exist'. It just doesn't in the form of mainstream perception. )
It is more a case of NASA faking space and the fact there is no photos of the Earth that haven't been run through the 'Blue Marble' framework (basically photoshopping) where they layer 2d images across a globe model.
NASA even sent a 'satellite' into 'space' just to take photos of the Earth. Yet on closer examination, they are still using the 'Blue Marble' 3d model to run the images through. Now why is that? Why not just take a picture and show us the raw image. Why are they altering the image? for what purpose?
NASA also faked the Moon missions. If you care to take the time on these pages you will find the NASA footage they didn't want you to see.
The question of the flat Earth becomes a possibility because of these things.
Then to add weight you have the Antarctic Treaty. You can not go beyond 60 degrees south latitude without permission from higher powers. And then It would be impossible to explore because of the limitations.
The say it is 'pure' down there. But I have seen uninhabited island/ lands strewn with crap from the western world. How does this not get to Antarctica? . I assume all climatic airflow also circumvent this part of our world, as there is no pollution down there?
Basically things just don't add up. I have just posted a video on the 'dogma' of science as we know it. How they make us believe things are fact when it true reality they are no better than unproven theories with no one bit of proof to back it up.
Gravity is something that is also brought up with the flat Earth model. But gravity has a serious flaw. And to cover up this flaw mainstream science has created 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' to patch the glaring holes in this flaw. That's 96% of our supposed Universe. So they have a theory that is 96% incorrect.
Things like this go unnoticed when people just believe what they are told. If you want a serious career in the sciences, you dare not question the dogmatic truth.
I could go on, but I feel my words fall on deaf ears.
{Ed033's Note - Sounds all good to me Southern Monkey, thanks.
26 Feb 2020 17:13:19
Duccablue, You asked why we can't see stars on the videos shot in space.
This was NASA's first attempt at filming the stars. After seeing this, that was a completely laughable attempt at showing stars, it seems they just don't bother trying to show them at all anymore.
"Stargazer" balloon launch.
There is some confusion though with astronauts and 'experts', as to whether you can actually see stars in space, or not?
Agree0Disagree0
26 Feb 2020 18:13:36
Reposts of NASA faking outer space posted originally by Souther Monkey.
1. where someone's head outside the space shuttle gets in the way of the model and 2. recent video where NASA launches a satellite into a tank of water with the lights off.
Why do they need to always fake outer space?
This is NASA footage of the STS-8 Challenger mission, 1983.
At 3min 27s you can see the launch of the satellite from the cargo bay. Does anything catch your attention at this time?
Like the giant head floating in space?
Clearly the astronaut narrating missed it.
Also, at 4m 12s, get ready to turn the Earth on!
Here is the launch of the 'Solar Orbiter' a few days ago.
7m23s switch Earth on.
7m26s - 7m30s They don't think the Earth is curved enough. 7m30s ah that's better.
You can see the underwater satellite launch at 7m37s.
Mariana trench here we come!
26 Feb 2020 19:42:26
Just to add to this thread.
The 'experts' tell us space in Sunlight is 250C and in darkness is -140C to -170C.
If you had a standard kitchen oven big enough to fit a car in and set to max temp, circa 250C, what do think would happen? .
If you had a freezer that could hit -140C or below and put a car in it, what do you think would happen.
If you put a car in a box that went from -140C to 250C in an instant, what do you think would happen?
Now think of the fakery of Tesla's 'Starman'. Earth glitches at 3:20 and 3m36 onward you see the flat earth satellite projection spread across the 3D globe model.
and you have to love a bit of Bowie (RIP)
26 Feb 2020 19:48:14
People, as in you the reader of this post, SPACE AS WE KNOW IT IS FAKE.
{Ed033's Note - What! All the space agencies fake Outer Space because there is no Outer Space?
26 Feb 2020 22:48:36
Ok guys i'm pretty much on board with F.E etc, just wondering about the ISS onboard tour videos where they are supposedly inside the station floating around for ages showing you around the station, it's half decent fakery.
{Ed033's Note - Hi Liv4Life, They must have learnt a few things from the movie Gravity with Sandra Bullock. They are going to get better at the fakery. The ISS onboard tour videos are like the illusionists, Criss Angel, Derren Brown, David Blaine, David Copperfield; i don't know exactly how they do the illusions, but i know they're illusions.
26 Feb 2020 23:02:50
Respect Ed33 And southern monkey.
Persistence is what is needed. I have been looking at space for years and love lol Listening to cox and so on .
Since five or six years ago came across flat earth. And that is when I went down the hole so much. people need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Nasa is fake.
Mainstream Education is lies.
{Ed033's Note - Imo, Brian Cox et al are paid to hypnotise the masses to keep them believing in the mainstream consensus.
Yes, NASA is Not A Space Agency.
27 Feb 2020 01:10:22
They are ed33
That's why I said it
They're paid to use their English to seduce u with their theories'
I just never knew how to break it down .
Fair plays
There is just too much fakeness from mass and Main science Sudoscience.
27 Feb 2020 01:55:29
And so all satellites are actually something along the lines of a hot air balloon? It's quite amazing how they've managed to keep it so secret this whole time, and that there haven't been more prominent whistle-blowers from inside NASA and other space organisations. Definitely well played by the lizard gang.
{Ed033's Note - Yes, all satellites are attached in some way to high altitude balloons.
NASA employees turn up to work and work on their compartmentalised jobs. I would imagine that even the frogmen divers (with flippers, mask and oxygen tanks) in the water tanks with the astronauts, think they're helping astronauts practise for outer space, rather than knowing, that all astronaut space walks are astronauts in tanks of water being helped by divers and filmed by other divers. This is why we see bubbles in the space walk videos. One of the videos on here contains a reflection of a diver in the astronauts visor.
26 Feb 2020 17:00:17
I had to watch this a second time just because I couldn't believe what I heard.
Nasa fail at launching 'mammoth balloon' to 'float a satellite' in space. Hahaha, why do they need a 'balloon' to float a satellite in space?
{Ed033's Note - Great find SM, if people don't know, all of our satellites are attached to high altitude balloons.
Agree1Disagree0
26 Feb 2020 19:24:05
I love watching through old archive footage, Ed. Back then, 'they' didn't have to worry about whether people believed 'them' or not.
Difficult to imagine a time, nowadays, where most had to go to the cinema to watch the 'Pathe News'.
A time where, 'We', the 'public' were just in awe of the 'moving pictures', 'flicks'. And things like, 'We', 'the public's trust' of those in power', were taken advantage of far more easily.
Hang on, is that no different from today? Just that we have a far more technological 'elite', with a greater budget?
{Ed033's Note - When everyone used to gather around the wireless and later on, the T.V., the 'elite' could get people to believe whatever the 'elite' wanted them to believe. Luckily some of us have broken out because of the www.
25 Feb 2020 13:28:39
This is crazy. The European Space agency put out a video and said it was the ISS taken from a Soyuz spacecraft. Starting at 44 seconds into the video, A clear model of the ISS is being shown to us as the real ISS.
Agree1Disagree0
25 Feb 2020 14:29:30
Explain how this is a clear model?
{Ed033's Note - Wow, it's obvious
25 Feb 2020 14:46:33
Here is the full video:
25 Feb 2020 23:05:39
Explain how it isn't hsf.
It's so fake it's hilarious.
26 Feb 2020 08:17:07
I'm not saying I know that this is for sure the real deal but it's not obvious to me that its a model. Being an unfamiliar shape, a one off machine, and the only other examples most of us see being actual models, I can see why that connection might be made but I've got to ask, if it is genuine footage of the ISS, how would you expect it to look? How would it differ from what we see here?
Silly question maybe but related and I'm sure some of you clever dudes can explain it to me. Why don't I see any stars in this video, I would have thought being above the light pollution of the Earth, I'd see billions up there?
{Ed033's Note - They haven't put stars in the background because it would be too difficult to figure out where all the stars should be placed and how they should look.
It appears that they can never get far enough away from Earth to photograph it as a whole, this is why the Earth presented to us is strips of photographs curved around a ball in photoshop or placed into a 3d modelling software and presented to us as CGI.
Also, on a lot of the Earth from allegedly outer space, you typically don't see any recognisable land masses. Do you see any land masses in the above video. If not why not?
Also you either see clouds moving and the Earth being stationary or the Earth rotating and the clouds still or both not moving.
If you don't know, in order for the heliocentric model to work, Earth spins at around 1000 miles per hour, the Earth rotates around the Sun at 66,000 mph, the Sun moves through the Milky Way at 500,000 mph, the Milky Way moves through the Universe at over 1 million mph.
What we see with any space agency video in outer space is not consistent with the heliocentric model.
25 Feb 2020 12:20:51
I imagine this won't get posted, like the rest of my posts for the last two weeks, but who knows maybe this will get posted.
1). If there is a dome encasing the Earth, how is it supporting it's own weight?
It would need support beams to stop it collapsing in on its self.
2). Why is the dome made of crystal like you say? There are many more natural substances out there which would be better to use.
3). You've mentioned that the Sun is within this dome, can you explain why we're not all irradiated and/ or burned to death?
4). Assuming Betelguise goes Supernova within our lifetime, how will that be explained?
{Ed033's Note - 1). This is some awesome creation we're living in and whoever created it should be able to create an impenetrable weightless barrier if they wanted to. Maybe we'll be able to do it one day if we develop the technological know how.
2. I don't know what the Firmament is made from. It could be liquid. If someone was to came up against a see through impenetrable barrier, how would people describe it? It has been described as crystal like. People can watch the videos on here that are possibly showing the Firmament at timestamp 24 Feb 2020 13:44:21 and timestamp 18 Feb 2020 07:46:28 .
3. The mainstream theory of the Sun is incorrect. We know the Sun exists because we can observe it. I don't know where the actual physical Sun is exactly located and i don't know whether the Sun we see through our Personal Atmospheric Dome (P.A.D.) is a projection of the actual Sun, but we know that we're not being irradiated and / or burned to death becuase we haven't been irradiated and / or burned to death.
4. We don't know exactly what the luminaries above us are. They could be plasma? The mainstream notion that they are Suns is just a theory. We can give names to these luminaries (such as Betelguise) and they may fade out, grow or change from time to time.
{Ed033's Note - Yes, Earth is fixed in place, God knows where Earth is, but it doesn't move.