The Earth is Not a Globe!?! Is God literal, water above and below the firmament?

[larsenb]

. . . . . I didn't say it proved a flat earth.
But you read into my words what you wanted to read, thus inadvertantly answering your later question regarding peer reviewed publications.

But you said: “the famous Bedford Levels experiment, conducted in the 1800’s and which demonstrated a flat earth, was repeated last year . . . “

And went on to say: “This is very real and objective scientific evidence that anyone can repeat . . . “

For me and I would guess, almost anybody, this strongly implied you thought this proved the earth was flat, not just 6 miles of it.

Then you seem to shift this implied stance by saying: “the earth is clearly optically flat”.

OK, so you don’t really believe the entire earth is flat and DO believe that the earth forms a globe. Correct?? If so, why are you even getting into this discussion?? I don’t get it.

And “the real issue here is [NOT] that there are some people who are prepared to question things, even their firmly held beliefs, and some who aren’t”. I for one, am prepared to question the 'evidence' of a flat earth. And doing so says nothing about what else I, or anyone else, may question, even what may have been firmly held beliefs.

And your statement that “the earth is clearly optically flat”, is simply a matter of perspective.

Someone orbiting the earth would say “the earth is clearly optically round and globe-like". Or someone in a high flying Concord could hold up the long edge of an 8 ½ by 11 inch sheet of paper against the horizon and see the curvature of the horizon and honestly say that the earth was optically curved, at the very least.

And you lost me on your comment about the peer review issue. I take it you don't have a citation for this later experiment you mentioned, and know that it was not in a peer reviewed paper published in a scientific journal.

Then you clearly have not been following this thread, as I have repeatedly said that I am not a flat earther. Also I would have thought you would know that "demonstrate" does not mean "prove".
The Bedford Levels experiment, and many others of a similar vain, provide evidence but not proof. There is a big difference.

No I haven't been assiduously following this thread. It's a waste of time.

So how is this experiment even evidence that the earth is flat?? Can you explain it in your own words??

I'm also genuinely curious what your belief is about the shape of the earth. If not flat, do you think it is a globe or maybe a half-dome?

[larsenb]

earth filled with water.?...

BYU and UVU scientists question research offered at a conference on the Book of Mormon . . . . Sessions' work states that Earth is filled with water and not molten rock, including a core of solid ice, and that fossilization, petrification and the planet's land forms are the result of a recent worldwide flood and not millennia of geological development. . . . .

Nelson said he wasn't concerned with the criticism of the "Universal Method," even from scientists who are members of his own faith. The creation and timeline of the Earth, Nelson said, are areas of study in which faithful Mormons can disagree.
. . . . . .

Sessions' calculates the mass of his water-filled Earth to be about a third of the scientific consensus, Jensen said. And the "Universal Model" is designed to justify a personal viewpoint, he said, rather than respond to empirical evidence.

"Just because a theory is taught for 'generations' as fact," Jarom Sessions wrote, "that alone does not make it credible or true when the observable evidence shows otherwise."m."

Who is this fellow?? To be credible, he would have to show why the seismic and other evidence used by earth scientists to explain the structure and mass of the earth, is wrong or misinterpreted. Unless he can do this, he doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.

And for him to claim and publicly say that "fossilization, petrification and the planet's land forms are the result of a recent worldwide flood and not millennia of geological development", clearly shows he understands nothing about fossil succession, and elementary geologic structures, including how and why they have come about.

He is basically repudiating several sciences involved in the study of the earth, at the stroke of a pen or video. And at first appearances, what he is doing is simply an attempt to force-fit biblical passages to observable data and the resulting science. BassAckwards.

[Kitkat]

The need for new places to live and resources to use will eventually beckon humanity off this planet. Having access to space removes the lid from the Petri dish of Earth. And we all know what eventually happens if the lid is not removed.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stat ... yanny.html

[Silver Pie]

The need for new places to live and resources to use will eventually beckon humanity off this planet. Having access to space removes the lid from the Petri dish of Earth. And we all know what eventually happens if the lid is not removed.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stat ... yanny.html

Nah. We'll have world wars and civil wars (not to mention, earthquakes, storms, fires, famine, etc.), more and more, until most of the population of this planet is gone.

[Ezra]

The need for new places to live and resources to use will eventually beckon humanity off this planet. Having access to space removes the lid from the Petri dish of Earth. And we all know what eventually happens if the lid is not removed.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stat ... yanny.html

Lack of resources??? Not even.

If Americans used the water and space that they currently use for watering lawns and turned them into gardens. America would produce 5 times more then it currently does with all the farming happening in the USA. 5 times.
All that farm land could be pastures for grass fed free range animals or returned to nature.
Almost all of the shipping of food would go away. Costs would go way down.

It's not a lack of resources. It's that we are way to worldly to give up our green lawns. And too lazy to get our hands dirty growing our own food.

[Kitkat]

The need for new places to live and resources to use will eventually beckon humanity off this planet. Having access to space removes the lid from the Petri dish of Earth. And we all know what eventually happens if the lid is not removed.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stat ... yanny.html

Lack of resources??? Not even.

If Americans used the water and space that they currently use for watering lawns and turned them into gardens. America would produce 5 times more then it currently does with all the farming happening in the USA. 5 times.
All that farm land could be pastures for grass fed free range animals or returned to nature.
Almost all of the shipping of food would go away. Costs would go way down.

It's not a lack of resources. It's that we are way to worldly to give up our green lawns. And too lazy to get our hands dirty growing our own food.

Yes. The point for anyone reading this is to point out that NASA is a lie. How else do you get the world to give you all the money you want to do whatever you want, while taking a small tiny amount of that money to create CGI lies? Four letters. NASA. trillions to do whatever they want to do on earth to deceived as many as they can.

As for the yards... Plant edibles from here on out. Take out the lawn and plant edible foods. That is what we are trying to do, with the Lord's help and the concept of Eden's gardening. If you haven't watched it, you are missing out... No need to water your garden, let nature do it for you, The Lord's way...

Back to Eden Gardening:
https://vimeo.com/28055108

[Kitkat]

Yet to find a single simple video showing the earth rotating naturally, like we have the high definition CGI videos of all those supposed planets in our solar system... just turn the Hubble around, and watch for 24 to 48 hours and hit record.

[Kitkat]

Is this supposed to be part of the ISS???? It looks like a toy model in front of a camera.
http://www.isstracker.com/gallery/var/ ... 1399725548

[braingrunt]

...
just turn the Hubble around, and watch for 24 to 48 hours and hit record.
...

People keep saying this but it just aint so.
Hubble couldn't see more than a couple of km of the earth at a time. 150 arcseconds of view + 550km distance from earth + math tells the answer.
Source for 150" view: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronom ... -200-inch/
Source for 550km distance: https://www.spacetelescope.org/about/faq/

Interesting tidbit from that site:

Unfortunately, Hubble will never be turned towards Earth since a) the brightness of the Earth could be damage the telescope and its instruments; b) there is no particularly interesting astronomical research to be done there (this is the province of geophysics); and c) Hubble orbits the Earth at such a rate that any image it took would be blurred by the motion.

And if you think about it, it makes sense. Hubble's job is to look at very distant, very small, very dark things; and getting it to look at earth would be like making you look at the sun. (the telescope intentionally protects it's very sensitive eyes from bright lights)

Besides, even if hubble could do the proposed task, it wouldn't convince a single flat earther, so why bother?

PS, I advise you to separate geocentrism from flat-earth in your mind. They are not the same thing, and one does not prove the other. Geocentrism is not as obviously wrong as flat-earth, but with just a little thought, the speed distant stars would have to travel to maintain geocentric paths in 24 hours would be mind boggling and problematic.

[Ungläubige]

Yet to find a single simple video showing the earth rotating naturally, like we have the high definition CGI videos of all those supposed planets in our solar system... just turn the Hubble around, and watch for 24 to 48 hours and hit record.

Here's a simple video for you, made up of images from a geostationary satellite.

and if you're interested in trying to debunk it, heres a link to view live images in infrared, visible light, etc - taken from the same satellite.

http://www.data.jma.go.jp/mscweb/data/h ... index.html

if you really want to disprove it, look at the weather patterns for that hemisphere and correlate it with 'on the ground' weather for any of the various locations. if you find evidence that this is a hoax, share it with the world. have at it.

[Silver Pie]

Back to Eden Gardening:
https://vimeo.com/28055108

I love this video, and would like to garden this way.

[Robin Hood]

. . . . . I didn't say it proved a flat earth.
But you read into my words what you wanted to read, thus inadvertantly answering your later question regarding peer reviewed publications.

But you said: “the famous Bedford Levels experiment, conducted in the 1800’s and which demonstrated a flat earth, was repeated last year . . . “

And went on to say: “This is very real and objective scientific evidence that anyone can repeat . . . “

For me and I would guess, almost anybody, this strongly implied you thought this proved the earth was flat, not just 6 miles of it.

Then you seem to shift this implied stance by saying: “the earth is clearly optically flat”.

OK, so you don’t really believe the entire earth is flat and DO believe that the earth forms a globe. Correct?? If so, why are you even getting into this discussion?? I don’t get it.

And “the real issue here is [NOT] that there are some people who are prepared to question things, even their firmly held beliefs, and some who aren’t”. I for one, am prepared to question the 'evidence' of a flat earth. And doing so says nothing about what else I, or anyone else, may question, even what may have been firmly held beliefs.

And your statement that “the earth is clearly optically flat”, is simply a matter of perspective.

Someone orbiting the earth would say “the earth is clearly optically round and globe-like". Or someone in a high flying Concord could hold up the long edge of an 8 ½ by 11 inch sheet of paper against the horizon and see the curvature of the horizon and honestly say that the earth was optically curved, at the very least.

And you lost me on your comment about the peer review issue. I take it you don't have a citation for this later experiment you mentioned, and know that it was not in a peer reviewed paper published in a scientific journal.

Then you clearly have not been following this thread, as I have repeatedly said that I am not a flat earther. Also I would have thought you would know that "demonstrate" does not mean "prove".
The Bedford Levels experiment, and many others of a similar vain, provide evidence but not proof. There is a big difference.

No I haven't been assiduously following this thread. It's a waste of time.

So how is this experiment even evidence that the earth is flat?? Can you explain it in your own words??

I'm also genuinely curious what your belief is about the shape of the earth. If not flat, do you think it is a globe or maybe a half-dome?

I don't have all of the answers.
But, since you asked, I will do my best to explain my position.

The earth is optically flat. In other words it appears to be flat as far as we can see. I have never seen the curvature of the earth, nor have I met anyone who has.
We are taught from a young age that the earth is a globe, by people who have also never seen the curvature. We are also taught in a subtle way that to believe otherwise is evidence of a primitive mind and stunted intelligence. We are also shown that anyone who believes the earth is flat is game for ridicule.
However, our daily experience is of a flat plane and not of a spheroid.
This smacks of cognative dissonance.

For me that is an invitation to investigate. I refuse to believe I am too thick and too primitive to be able to investigate things for myself. I am very independently minded. I refuse to accept at face value information which I can't verify in some way.
I don't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt (there will always be doubt) but I do need evidence.

So when it comes to the shape of the earth I am not so proud and puffed up as to believe I have all of the answers. There certainly exists evidence that the earth is a sphere, but this is not my evidence. This is evidence that is presented to me by others. There is also contrary evidence that the earth is a flat plane. Again most of this is presented by others.
However, I have been able to conduct my own experiments in this regard. So far the results of these are consistent with a flat immovable plane rather than with a spinning ball.
They are, however, far from conclusive.

So, something's up. I have become suspicious that both camps are talking past each other and that both are missing the whole truth. I was interested in an article I recently read in a scientific journal where scientific thinkers were seriously hypothosising that we "live" in a Matrix type reality, and that this whole experience we call life is a simulation. Apparently, they have stumbled across evidence which leads them to this train of thought.

Now, I don't know if this is true because I can't investigate it for myself. But I feel it could be. I have always felt that this whole adventure isn't real. Our perception of reality is so limited, our view of the universe so restricted, and our understanding of ourselves and our purpose so inhibited, that to be dogmatic about anything, especially something we can't see (eg. the curvature of the earth) is foolish beyond words.
So, if we do exist in some kind of simulation, then the earth and it's shape is whatever our perspective and perception is within the Matrix. The possibilities are endless.

In other words, truth could very well be stranger than fiction.

[gclayjr]

Robin Hood,

The earth is optically flat. In other words it appears to be flat as far as we can see. I have never seen the curvature of the earth, nor have I met anyone who has.

Ever been in an airplane? Maybe you should fly over and pay a visit to the Colonies and get to see things from the air. Maybe you could circumnavigate the earth seeing all that used to be of the empire upon which the sun never set. Maybe I could show you great High culture stuff, like a Drag Strip or a tractor pull while you were here.

Are you one of those conspiracy folks who believe that all of the pictures taken from outer space of the global earth, and all of those peiople who have gone into space and orbited the earth, are liars? Do you believe that the moon landings were faked?

I knew you bought into some of those strange Socialist Economic ideas, but I generally thought you are otherwise reasonable.... but Flat Earth?

Regards,

George Clay

[Robin Hood]

Robin Hood,

The earth is optically flat. In other words it appears to be flat as far as we can see. I have never seen the curvature of the earth, nor have I met anyone who has.

Ever been in an airplane? Maybe you should fly over and pay a visit to the Colonies and get to see things from the air. Maybe you could circumnavigate the earth seeing all that used to be of the empire upon which the sun never set. Maybe I could show you great High culture stuff, like a Drag Strip or a tractor pull while you were here.

Are you one of those conspiracy folks who believe that all of the pictures taken from outer space of the global earth, and all of those peiople who have gone into space and orbited the earth, are liars? Do you believe that the moon landings were faked?

I knew you bought into some of those strange Socialist Economic ideas, but I generally thought you are otherwise reasonable.... but Flat Earth?

Regards,

George Clay

I have certainly been in an aeroplane, including trips to the colonies.
What I saw at 36,000 feet was a flat horizon which rose to my eye level; exactly what one would expect to see while flying over a flat plain. There was no evidence of curvature whatsoever.
However, this is not surprising as there is no reason to assume the curvature would be visible at that height. Pilots don't routinely see it. In fact, it appears that it can't be seen from 120,000 feet either, according to pictures apparently taken from a high altitude weather balloon!

But just because we don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

With regard to the photo's taken of the earth, these are, by NASA's own admission, composites. They can't get far enough out to get a picture, apparently.
I find this rather troubling given that a number of probes have been sent into outer space and taking a picture of the earth should be pretty simple. They don't do it though. I don't know why.

The most famous picture is of the Earth-rise seen from the Moon. This was taken from the surface of the Moon during the Apollo 11 mission. The problem is, that according to some sources it appears to be photo-shopped. Apparently it is possible to install software these days that can detect photo-shopping. I don't know the truth in this regard. I do find it odd though that Apollo's 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 found time to drive around on a jeep-type vehicle and even play golf on the Moon, but never thought to take another picture of the Earth.

There are more questions than answers. But I am convinced we are only seeing things we expect to see and only within a very narrow band of reality.
I don' know about conspiracy theories, but I do know, from my own experiments, that all is not as we're told it is. I have conducted my own experiments and cannot detect a curvature when I should be able to.

Like I said, I am coming around to the idea that this whole existence is some kind of simulation. There are too many glitches. When we die we simply unplug from this "reality" and proceed.

[gclayjr]

Robin Hood,

The most famous picture is of the Earth-rise seen from the Moon. This was taken from the surface of the Moon during the Apollo 11 mission. The problem is, that according to some sources it appears to be photo-shopped

I am a little hazy on this. Which version of Photo-Shop were they using in 1969?

And you can see the curvature of the earth from 35,000 ft. It is even more dramatic, if you observe motion over time rather than simply a static look out the window.

Regards,

George Clay

[braingrunt]

And that flat earth video where they put the image of earth in photoshop and brighten the colors, revealing some squaring: they don't know what they are talking about. Jpeg compression always creates those kinds of artifacts when targeting web-size/quality. It's how it compresses and they just erode their credibility again.

You can do this yourself. open a file in paint, fill the image with black, paint a small blue circle, and save at as jpg at about 70% quality. open it in more serious editor and up the lightness. You'll see similar squaring as in the flat earth video. I did this myself.

[iWriteStuff]

I voted "The Earth is Flat and hollow" because science is for losers. :-B

Seriously, why are there 18 pages of debate on this?

"The angels do not reside on a planet like this earth; But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire...."
- D&C 130:6-7

It takes a strong imagination not to understand that literally. Our planet is like God's - a globe. Other times referred to as a "sphere":

Sphere: a perfectly round geometrical object in three-dimensional space that is the surface of a completely round ball.

I look forward to seeing you guys back at the debate on Page 100. Carry on. :ymparty:

[shadow]

What I saw at 36,000 feet was a flat horizon which rose to my eye level; exactly what one would expect to see while flying over a flat plain. There was no evidence of curvature whatsoever.

There was evidence, you just didn't apply it. Next time you're up in the air grab some peanuts and some good binoculars and look towards Mt. Everest and tell me if you can see it. On clear days, you should be able to IF the earth is flat. You're only flying about 10K feet higher than it's elevation. Should be VERY easy to see. With good binoculars you can see a detailed moon. Mt. Everest should be a breeze to see.
With a good telescope you can see the rings of Saturn but you can't see Mt. Everest from your back yard? Even Mr. KitKat can't climb King's Peak (the highest point in Utah) with a good telescope and find Mt. Rainier (highest peak in Washington). He should almost have a straight line shot (Rainier is a bit higher) but because of the earths curvature he won't find it. All he can do is eat a Snickers and ponderize. Simple experiments. You can even go to the ocean and watch a big ship leave. Eventually you'll just see the top of it until it finally disappears. That reminds me, ever sat on the beach in So. Cali and looked through a telescope at Hawaii? Simple experiments.

[Robin Hood]

What I saw at 36,000 feet was a flat horizon which rose to my eye level; exactly what one would expect to see while flying over a flat plain. There was no evidence of curvature whatsoever.

There was evidence, you just didn't apply it. Next time you're up in the air grab some peanuts and some good binoculars and look towards Mt. Everest and tell me if you can see it. On clear days, you should be able to IF the earth is flat. You're only flying about 10K feet higher than it's elevation. Should be VERY easy to see. With good binoculars you can see a detailed moon. Mt. Everest should be a breeze to see.
With a good telescope you can see the rings of Saturn but you can't see Mt. Everest from your back yard? Even Mr. KitKat can't climb King's Peak (the highest point in Utah) with a good telescope and find Mt. Rainier (highest peak in Washington). He should almost have a straight line shot (Rainier is a bit higher) but because of the earths curvature he won't find it. All he can do is eat a Snickers and ponderize. Simple experiments. You can even go to the ocean and watch a big ship leave. Eventually you'll just see the top of it until it finally disappears. That reminds me, ever sat on the beach in So. Cali and looked through a telescope at Hawaii? Simple experiments.

It's reasoning like that that gives the "globe-earthers" such a bad reputation in flat earth circles. There is such a thing as perspective, which ensures that we can't see infinitely. When you see Saturn through your telescope you're actually seeing only a few centimeters, ie the distance from your eye to the lens of the telescope.
Excuse the pun, but this isn't rocket science.

[shadow]

What I saw at 36,000 feet was a flat horizon which rose to my eye level; exactly what one would expect to see while flying over a flat plain. There was no evidence of curvature whatsoever.

There was evidence, you just didn't apply it. Next time you're up in the air grab some peanuts and some good binoculars and look towards Mt. Everest and tell me if you can see it. On clear days, you should be able to IF the earth is flat. You're only flying about 10K feet higher than it's elevation. Should be VERY easy to see. With good binoculars you can see a detailed moon. Mt. Everest should be a breeze to see.
With a good telescope you can see the rings of Saturn but you can't see Mt. Everest from your back yard? Even Mr. KitKat can't climb King's Peak (the highest point in Utah) with a good telescope and find Mt. Rainier (highest peak in Washington). He should almost have a straight line shot (Rainier is a bit higher) but because of the earths curvature he won't find it. All he can do is eat a Snickers and ponderize. Simple experiments. You can even go to the ocean and watch a big ship leave. Eventually you'll just see the top of it until it finally disappears. That reminds me, ever sat on the beach in So. Cali and looked through a telescope at Hawaii? Simple experiments.

It's reasoning like that that gives the "globe-earthers" such a bad reputation in flat earth circles. There is such a thing as perspective, which ensures that we can't see infinitely. When you see Saturn through your telescope you're actually seeing only a few centimeters, ie the distance from your eye to the lens of the telescope.
Excuse the pun, but this isn't rocket science.

So why can't you see Mt. Everest? It's not rocket science to figure out how telescopes work regarding X power and zooming. A mountain a couple hundred miles away should be visible using simple math equations, and yet they remain hidden under the horizon. Correct, it's not rocket science. You validate the ignorance of "flat-earthers".

[Finrock]

What I saw at 36,000 feet was a flat horizon which rose to my eye level; exactly what one would expect to see while flying over a flat plain. There was no evidence of curvature whatsoever.

There was evidence, you just didn't apply it. Next time you're up in the air grab some peanuts and some good binoculars and look towards Mt. Everest and tell me if you can see it. On clear days, you should be able to IF the earth is flat. You're only flying about 10K feet higher than it's elevation. Should be VERY easy to see. With good binoculars you can see a detailed moon. Mt. Everest should be a breeze to see.
With a good telescope you can see the rings of Saturn but you can't see Mt. Everest from your back yard? Even Mr. KitKat can't climb King's Peak (the highest point in Utah) with a good telescope and find Mt. Rainier (highest peak in Washington). He should almost have a straight line shot (Rainier is a bit higher) but because of the earths curvature he won't find it. All he can do is eat a Snickers and ponderize. Simple experiments. You can even go to the ocean and watch a big ship leave. Eventually you'll just see the top of it until it finally disappears. That reminds me, ever sat on the beach in So. Cali and looked through a telescope at Hawaii? Simple experiments.

It's reasoning like that that gives the "globe-earthers" such a bad reputation in flat earth circles. There is such a thing as perspective, which ensures that we can't see infinitely. When you see Saturn through your telescope you're actually seeing only a few centimeters, ie the distance from your eye to the lens of the telescope.
Excuse the pun, but this isn't rocket science.

Regardless of the fact that you are seeing only a few centimeters, if you have binoculars you should be able to see Mt. Everest when you are on an airplane if the Earth is flat and given no cloud cover. The same principles that apply to viewing Mt. Everest through binoculars are in play with viewing Saturn through a telescope. The point is that with some device that extends your ability to see far off like binoculars, you should be able to see Mt. Everest while flying in an airplane if the Earth were flat.

-Finrock

[gclayjr]

Robin Hood,

It's reasoning like that that gives the "globe-earthers" such a bad reputation in flat earth circles. There is such a thing as perspective, which ensures that we can't see infinitely. When you see Saturn through your telescope you're actually seeing only a few centimeters, ie the distance from your eye to the lens of the telescope.
Excuse the pun, but this isn't rocket science.

Actually it's reasoning like yours that gives you "flat earthers" such a bad reputation among people who actually believe in science, observation and rational thinking. Among the various crazy conspiracies out there this is actually the craziest. I did a little research on this. In order for your theory to "work? you have to make the following assumptions (Based upon statements by those who actually believe this hogwash)

1.) All of NASA is in on a conspiracy to deceive us about the Earth being the center of the Universe as built by God

2.) All of the people involved in space programs or for deploying satellites in all countries of the world are in on the conspiracy ( I guess that includes a number of my own close relatives who are in on this conspiracy)

3. Any pilot in history who claims to have circumnavigated the earth from pole to pole is in on the conspiracy which includes the military of most nations.

4) All pilots and Ships navigators make sure that they only go around the plate shaped surface and never go towards any edge in accordance with the conspiracy

5) All physicists who have done any experimentation with gravity is in on the conspiracy, because there no such thing as gravity (it is some electromagnetic force that holds us to the flat earth

6) All of the scientists who have experimented with light are in on the conspiracy (because in order to explain why you can't see Mt. Everest, flat earthers have come up with a theory that light only travels so far then it stops. It is also how they explain how it can be day time in Australia while night time in England also

7) of course everybody who has ever "photo-shopped or in other ways helped hide the evidence is in on the conspiracy

8) Heck even Galileo has to be in on this conspiracy.


.... and nobody ever over all of the history of the earth revealed this great secret !! No Wikileaks, no Edward Snowdens or nothing ever !!!!!


This requires so insane a level of people over history conspiring to hide the fact that we re really at the center of the universe that it boggles the mind and makes such fruitcake ideas such as that the airplane hitting the Pentagon on 9-11 2001 was an optical illusion seem rational.

And you wonder why nobody listens to the cry wolf wolf conspiracy folks' warnings!

Its a shame, because if you ever actually stumbled upon a REAL conspiracy, you couldn't warn anybody, because nobody could tell the difference between that and the rest of this BS.


Regards,

George Clay

[Kitkat]

With better technology, we can now go back to the original 16mm film reels from moon landings to be able to study color banding, audio, strange weather and shadow anomalies. Doesn't help to dispel the evidences mounting for flat earth and the dome God put over her.

Some of the most revealing info that comes from analyzing these videos are the responses from the astronauts to an unknown voice.

[Kitkat]

Grab some buttered popcorn and about an hour of your time...

Why would NASA FAKE it? One theory.

[Kitkat]

A good read on the topic of a flat earth in the Bible...
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm