hollywood told you the truth NOTHING YOU SEE HERE IS REAL

[MyLadiesDaddy]

I can't wait to see them explain how the astroNOTS died on re-entry days before they were supposed to return. 

 

Of course that would mean explaining why they never left low earth orbit. You know, as high as we can go. They were in low orbit whilst NASA released some of the most PATHETIC CGI ever. They should have rehired Spielberg. 

 

Sadly on the secret re-entry it appears that there was a catastrophic disaster which resembles the space shuttle disaster. Next we'll either get robots resembling the crew or mask wearing doubles OR some lie about how they died. 

 

But they were going to go to the secret studio, "just like before", and Finnish the prepared show. No matter how they spin it those astroNOTS are dead. Here's the video....

 

 

 

[MyLadiesDaddy]

This video shows the Columbia disaster on reentry. Nearly IDENTICAL to the previous video. 

In other words that wasn't just a satellite. It was something MUCH BIGGER. 

 

 

 

 

[cranman]

14 hours ago, MyLadiesDaddy said:

I can't wait to see them explain how the astroNOTS died on re-entry days before they were supposed to return. 

 

Of course that would mean explaining why they never left low earth orbit. You know, as high as we can go. They were in low orbit whilst NASA released some of the most PATHETIC CGI ever. They should have rehired Spielberg. 

 

Sadly on the secret re-entry it appears that there was a catastrophic disaster which resembles the space shuttle disaster. Next we'll either get robots resembling the crew or mask wearing doubles OR some lie about how they died. 

 

But they were going to go to the secret studio, "just like before", and Finnish the prepared show. No matter how they spin it those astroNOTS are dead. Here's the video....

 

 

 

Why would they need to fake anything?

 

The rest of the world, in which we are competing with, is not coming out saying this is fake.  Why would they have their own space programs if it was not possible to travel to the moon or put satellites into space?

What good does it to portray a round earth if it is really flat. 

There is NO WAY they coukd keep flat earth a secret.  There is way too much technology out there that would would disprove the earth is round if it truly wasn't.   

Industries are built on a round earth theory.

Those same industries could still exist if the earth was flat.  Their products would just be designed differently. 

 

Not one person has told me why it is so important to fake a round earth theory.  

 

All the other planets are round.  They all formed the same way.

Why would earth be the only flat planet?

 

It boggles the mind that after hundred of years, many people traveled the globe and found that the earth was round. Those people traveled the earth well before NASA existed. In fact, some thought the earth WAS flat until they set sail and found out otherwise.  

 

Crazy. 

[bigwave]

5 hours ago, cranman said:

Why would they need to fake anything?

Daily budget equivalent:

• Discretionary funding only: $24.4 billion ÷ 365 ≈ $66.8 million per day

• Total funding (discretionary + supplemental): $27.5 billion ÷ 365 ≈ $75.3 million per day 

[cranman]

1 hour ago, bigwave said:

Daily budget equivalent:

• Discretionary funding only: $24.4 billion ÷ 365 ≈ $66.8 million per day

• Total funding (discretionary + supplemental): $27.5 billion ÷ 365 ≈ $75.3 million per day 

With that kind of budget, it sounds like the actually have enough funding to  build a rocket, train astronauts, have a command center and everything needed to make a moon mission successful. 

 

I don't see anything getting in the way.  There is evidence of objects  coming from deep space  into our atmosphere. We can definitely travel outside the atmosphere. 

 

[cranman]

Even if they were to fake the whole thing, why wouldn't they just show a flat earth as seen from the so called "astronauts in space" ?    Why show a round earth? 

 

Seems like a stupid thing to fake as it woukd be impossible to keep it a secret. 

 

There is more effort trying yo prove the earth is flat than round. 

[bigwave]

2 hours ago, cranman said:

Why show a round earth? 

There are so many inconsistencies seen.

 

Why show the CGI, why the green screens? Why the wires.

 

We all have seen them.

 

"Why" is what I would like to know.

 

When I see the trickery, I have to question it all.

 

Example:

When flying around the globe from the north pole, down to the south pole

and up the other side of the earth and back to the north pole,

We must see this at the south pole:

At some point (around 911 when the goberment said 2 planes took out 3 buildings)

I said "wait a minute"...

 

[cranman]

6 hours ago, bigwave said:

There are so many inconsistencies seen.

 

Why show the CGI, why the green screens? Why the wires.

 

We all have seen them.

 

"Why" is what I would like to know.

 

When I see the trickery, I have to question it all.

 

Example:

When flying around the globe from the north pole, down to the south pole

and up the other side of the earth and back to the north pole,

We must see this at the south pole:

At some point (around 911 when the goberment said 2 planes took out 3 buildings)

I said "wait a minute"...

 

That doesn't answer the question.  What is the point of showing a round earth? 

Edited April 10 by cranman

[bigwave]

7 hours ago, cranman said:

What is the point of showing a round earth? 

Un sure - Possible explanations include:

 

To discredit God, undermine faith in the Bible and hide the firmament. 

 

For controlling the masses and obtain maximum power over them, making people easier to manipulate by undermining their trust in reality. 

 

Financial gain. Having a fake space program could fund private interests by maintaining a massive budget. 

 

Concealing resources by hiding lands beyond the Antarctic ice wall. The longest or one of the longest treaties is the Antarctic treaty that prevents others from exploiting them. There is no termination date.

 

And / or all of the above, which is more likely than not.

 

Again, I too ask why.

 

Why the wires, green screens and overall deceptions that are seen.

 

After all on a globe earth we would fly from S.F to HI like this:

 

 

[nstoolman1]

Turn your picture 90° to the right. That is how a plane flies from SF to Hi. 

[bigwave]

15 minutes ago, nstoolman1 said:

Turn your picture 90° to the right. That is how a plane flies from SF to Hi. 

Oh that's right, you only see it that way from outer space:

[cranman]

1 hour ago, bigwave said:

Un sure - Possible explanations include:

 

To discredit God, undermine faith in the Bible and hide the firmament. 

 

For controlling the masses and obtain maximum power over them, making people easier to manipulate by undermining their trust in reality. 

 

Financial gain. Having a fake space program could fund private interests by maintaining a massive budget. 

 

Concealing resources by hiding lands beyond the Antarctic ice wall. The longest or one of the longest treaties is the Antarctic treaty that prevents others from exploiting them. There is no termination date.

 

And / or all of the above, which is more likely than not.

 

Again, I too ask why.

 

Why the wires, green screens and overall deceptions that are seen.

 

After all on a globe earth we would fly from S.F to HI like this:

 

 

Why would people hundreds of years ago want to discredit God? If their was an impenetrable firmament, how do all the meteorites get through.  Volcanos are not the answer as there woukd have to active volcanos spitting rocks out around the world almost continuously. We have meteors enter our atmosphere all the time.

 

America was built by God fearing men who believe the earth was round. It it was flat, they they would have said it was flat.

 

Religion has always controlled the masses whether the earth is round  or flat. It has no affect on religion at all. Infact, there is an increase of younger people seeking religion. The shape of the earth is irrelevant.  I would bet most religious people believe the earth is round. 

They couldn't have approved funding for  a space program if  going to space wasn't possible. You couldn't keep it a secret from everyone for this many years. Listen to.what you are saying. 

 

I can find a picture about anything on line because of AI, CGI and green screens. That's a weak argument. If you show me a flat earth from space I could say the same thing.

 

The Artic Treaty pertains to a continent  not an ice wall 

What is this land beyond the ice wall talk about? Since no one has ever crossed the ice wall, how do they know there is a secret land beyond it?

 

The round earth theory makes sense and it has been proven over and over again. 

 

Why would earth be the only flat planet? Other planets are round  and have ice on them. Ice from liquid water on round planets. It's a common theme. 

 

Nope. God wouldn't create a flat planet and make it so cryptic to figure out. 

[cranman]

24 minutes ago, bigwave said:

Oh that's right, you only see it that way from outer space:

Why has no one flown  the perimeter of the flat earth and shown videos of the ice wall?  I would think at a certain altitude you wouldn't have to be that close to see it? 

 

Would we be able to see the interior wall curvature if we went to the very edge of out atmosphere?

How does the sky curve downward to form the dome we live in?  I mean if we live in a dome, the earth and sky have to meet right? The horizon view literally does thar right? 

 

The sky can curve but the earth cannot? 

[cranman]

 

How hard would it  be for someone  to sail towards the horizon in one direction before they saw the ice wall?  Earth isn't so big that it has prevented sailors for hundreds of years fron achieving this feat.

 

Hmmmm. Just not buying this flat earth theory yet. 

[cranman]

Splash down operation being shown live right now. 

How can this be faked?

It's a long process.  

[cranman]

SPLASHDOWN:  That was AWSOME! 

[bigwave]

 

And from a different perspective:

 

[cranman]

36 minutes ago, bigwave said:

 

And from a different perspective:

 

Or 999

[bigwave]

How about this math?

[nstoolman1]

https://www.quora.com/What-exactly-is-8-inches-per-mile-squared-and-why-do-flat-Earthers-say-it-so-much

 

What exactly is 8 inches per mile squared, and why do flat Earthers say it so much?

 

8″ per mile^2 is a variation of y=x^2, which (every kid learns in middle school) is the equation for a parabola. If you know what a parabola is it is not a circle or a sphere.

Samuel Rowbotham used it in his 19th-century book “Earth Not a Globe” because even though he dropped out of school before his teens he was enough of a con man that he understood that using this equation calculates a ridiculously-large amount of Earth curvature - many times more than is actually the case.

Flat Earthers like to continue to use it today because it supports their “I see more of this thing across the lake than I should be able to, thus proving the Earth is flat” argument.

An excellent example: people often like to photograph the Chicago skyline from the dunes in Indiana. The distance is roughly 32 miles across Lake Michigan, but using the equation for a parabola the Earth curvature should be 29 miles - far too much to see even the tallest skyscrapers, which you do in reality see. Thus they get to proclaim “flat Earth proof!”

Use the real formula of h = r∗(1−cosθ) however, and the “drop” at that distance is more like 550 feet, which nicely matches nearly any and all photos or videos taken of Chicago from the Indiana dunes (roughly the bottom half of the Willits/Sears tower is hidden by the water).

Here’s a nice visual to demonstrate. Using 8″ per mile^2 the Earth would HAVE to look like the purple line. Even more absurd, that formula assumes the vertex (the point) is always underfoot, so you have the steepest drop looking in any direction. So not only would the Earth be pointy, the point would move as you do.

The nice green and blue Earth’s curvature on the other hand is nicely described by the equation h = r∗(1−cosθ). I hope this makes the stupidity of using the wrong equation all the more obvious.

UPDATE: There’s an FE-run “Earth drop calculator” web app that I’d bookmarked some time back and had used to output the “wrong” value shown in my answer. I was in a hurry when I wrote the original answer above (and maybe a little lazy) and never bothered to double check the numbers, especially since the flattie insisted that 8” per mile^2 was correct. A little while later it occurred to me that number looked a little severe (and a few Quora users pointed it out too) - even for a misapplied equation - and sure enough when I manually calculated it his app was exaggerating the numbers much worse than the parabolic equation does already.

When I went back to query the author what was going on, no response. I queried a few more times, providing a little math evidence, and suddenly the web page disappeared. I am going to keep the original number in my answer though because I think it nicely demonstrates how far the FE community will go to deceive and prop up their bogus assertions.

In the end I stand by everything else in my answer. 8” per mile^2 is totally wrong, and the error gets worse the farther you go out. It’s really not even that accurate if one’s goal is to make real-world short-distance approximations because it can only calculate the height of targets hidden if the perspective was at 0 cm from the Earth’s surface. At 0 cm a 96' object would be hidden at a distance of 12 miles. On the other hand, at 5'7" above the Earth’s surface (the eye height of a six-foot man), a 12-mile distance would only obscure a 55' object. That’s a nearly 50% discrepancy! The error increases as you get nearer, and of course go the other direction and the parabolic error takes over, so it is erroneous both near and far.

I will concede, however, that with the distance given across Lake Michigan the 29 mile “drop” is a bit too much… even for a misapplied parabolic equation.

 

 

 

 

[cranman]

1 hour ago, nstoolman1 said:

https://www.quora.com/What-exactly-is-8-inches-per-mile-squared-and-why-do-flat-Earthers-say-it-so-much

 

What exactly is 8 inches per mile squared, and why do flat Earthers say it so much?

 

8″ per mile^2 is a variation of y=x^2, which (every kid learns in middle school) is the equation for a parabola. If you know what a parabola is it is not a circle or a sphere.

Samuel Rowbotham used it in his 19th-century book “Earth Not a Globe” because even though he dropped out of school before his teens he was enough of a con man that he understood that using this equation calculates a ridiculously-large amount of Earth curvature - many times more than is actually the case.

Flat Earthers like to continue to use it today because it supports their “I see more of this thing across the lake than I should be able to, thus proving the Earth is flat” argument.

An excellent example: people often like to photograph the Chicago skyline from the dunes in Indiana. The distance is roughly 32 miles across Lake Michigan, but using the equation for a parabola the Earth curvature should be 29 miles - far too much to see even the tallest skyscrapers, which you do in reality see. Thus they get to proclaim “flat Earth proof!”

Use the real formula of h = r∗(1−cosθ) however, and the “drop” at that distance is more like 550 feet, which nicely matches nearly any and all photos or videos taken of Chicago from the Indiana dunes (roughly the bottom half of the Willits/Sears tower is hidden by the water).

Here’s a nice visual to demonstrate. Using 8″ per mile^2 the Earth would HAVE to look like the purple line. Even more absurd, that formula assumes the vertex (the point) is always underfoot, so you have the steepest drop looking in any direction. So not only would the Earth be pointy, the point would move as you do.

The nice green and blue Earth’s curvature on the other hand is nicely described by the equation h = r∗(1−cosθ). I hope this makes the stupidity of using the wrong equation all the more obvious.

UPDATE: There’s an FE-run “Earth drop calculator” web app that I’d bookmarked some time back and had used to output the “wrong” value shown in my answer. I was in a hurry when I wrote the original answer above (and maybe a little lazy) and never bothered to double check the numbers, especially since the flattie insisted that 8” per mile^2 was correct. A little while later it occurred to me that number looked a little severe (and a few Quora users pointed it out too) - even for a misapplied equation - and sure enough when I manually calculated it his app was exaggerating the numbers much worse than the parabolic equation does already.

When I went back to query the author what was going on, no response. I queried a few more times, providing a little math evidence, and suddenly the web page disappeared. I am going to keep the original number in my answer though because I think it nicely demonstrates how far the FE community will go to deceive and prop up their bogus assertions.

In the end I stand by everything else in my answer. 8” per mile^2 is totally wrong, and the error gets worse the farther you go out. It’s really not even that accurate if one’s goal is to make real-world short-distance approximations because it can only calculate the height of targets hidden if the perspective was at 0 cm from the Earth’s surface. At 0 cm a 96' object would be hidden at a distance of 12 miles. On the other hand, at 5'7" above the Earth’s surface (the eye height of a six-foot man), a 12-mile distance would only obscure a 55' object. That’s a nearly 50% discrepancy! The error increases as you get nearer, and of course go the other direction and the parabolic error takes over, so it is erroneous both near and far.

I will concede, however, that with the distance given across Lake Michigan the 29 mile “drop” is a bit too much… even for a misapplied parabolic equation.

 

 

 

 

Um, ok.   I didn't follow any of that.

I was a terrible student in school.

But I'll yake your word for it. 

Lol.

 

 

[nstoolman1]

15 minutes ago, cranman said:

Um, ok.   I didn't follow any of that.

I was a terrible student in school.

But I'll yake your word for it. 

Lol.

 

 

Don't take my word. I am also terrible at complex math. It's from an author who explained it. 

[MyLadiesDaddy]

3 hours ago, nstoolman1 said:

Don't take my word. I am also terrible at complex math. It's from an author who explained it. 

So it depends on "who you believe" right? 

Sorry, but I'm gonna have to go with God's explanation. 

To each his own. 

[bigwave]

I could not have said it any better myself:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/zuY66Sax2RKj

[bigwave]

Why the trickery?

 

Why is there gravity in the iss?

 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/MIyAWoWw6IHA