hollywood told you the truth NOTHING YOU SEE HERE IS REAL

[bigwave]

 

Mas?:

 

[bigwave]

LGD I hope I'm not piling on again - LOL:

 

 

 

[bigwave]

The above several post were brought to you by:

 

[bigwave]

How about the USSR checking out the firmament? This document comes from declassification by the CIA:

 

[bigwave]

Not too clear but it is saying the missile positions in space is computed relative to a flat nonrotating earth:

[bigwave]

Why would they do the analysis relative to a flat earth if the earth was a ball 25,000 miles in circumference? 

 

Does it simplify the math with the flat earth model? 

 

After all we are dealing with rocket scientist - yes "rocket science."

 

Or how about this:

We see this over and over again - the equations are defined by a flat nonrotating earth.

 

"...flight dynamics of a ridged aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat, stationary earth":

More to come - I got to go:

[Shabibilicious]

2 minutes ago, bigwave said:

Why would they do the analysis relative to a flat earth if the earth was a ball 25,000 miles in circumference? 

 

Does it simplify the math with the flat earth model? 

 

After all we are dealing with rocket scientist - yes "rocket science."

 

Or how about this:

We see this over and over again - the equations are defined by a flat nonrotating earth.

 

"...flight dynamics of a ridged aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat, stationary earth":

More to come - I got to go:

 

I've asked others, but nobody ever responds, hoping maybe you will.  If the Earth is flat, then it would be reasonable to think the moon is flat....So why would the flat moon be turned on it's edge, rather that flat face up, like the flat Earth?  Same question for a surely flat Sun.

 

GO RV, then BV

[nstoolman1]

58 minutes ago, bigwave said:

Why would they do the analysis relative to a flat earth if the earth was a ball 25,000 miles in circumference? 

 

Does it simplify the math with the flat earth model? 

 

After all we are dealing with rocket scientist - yes "rocket science."

 

Or how about this:

We see this over and over again - the equations are defined by a flat nonrotating earth.

 

"...flight dynamics of a ridged aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat, stationary earth":

More to come - I got to go:

 

Your articles have the word assuming in them alot.

You quote the very agency that you say can't be trusted.

You all say science is of the devil but use science to attempt to prove a point.

No flat earth picture of more than two continents or the Antartica in it or it is not true.

Anybody know how high up a camera would have to be to get such a shot?

[Shabibilicious]

12 minutes ago, nstoolman1 said:

 

Your articles have the word assuming in them alot.

You quote the very agency that you say can't be trusted.

You all say science is of the devil but use science to attempt to prove a point.

No flat earth picture of more than two continents or the Antartica in it or it is not true.

Anybody know how high up a camera would have to be to get such a shot?

 

The simplicity of disproving flat Earth is the anomaly.....Where are the ice walls? How would it ever get dark on flat Earth? Where's the pic of all continents at once (great point, made by you)? and why are flat moon and sun standing on edge? etc. etc.  

 

GO RV, then BV

Edited April 30, 2021 by Shabibilicious

[bigwave]

56 minutes ago, nstoolman1 said:

quote the very agency

If you look close only 1 or 2 is from nasa... The Army MIT and others are all lying too?

[bigwave]

1 hour ago, Shabibilicious said:

So why would the flat moon be turned on it's edge

Don't know and I don't pretend to know it all.

 

Where you can see 1 fault you have to suspect all....

[nstoolman1]

44 minutes ago, bigwave said:

If you look close only 1 or 2 is from nasa... The Army MIT and others are all lying too?

 

43 minutes ago, bigwave said:

Don't know and I don't pretend to know it all.

 

Where you can see 1 fault you have to suspect all....

By your reasoning, if you don't trust one you can't trust any of them.

So if fault is found in 1 flat earth premise then all are bad?

[bigwave]

8 minutes ago, nstoolman1 said:

By your reasoning

I do feel the Army is more trustworthy.

 

On that same note I trust my senses too.

 

I do not feel we are spinning and there is a ton of evidence that suggest we are a flat stationary enclosed system.

 

Plus - the bible has more than 200 references that we are flat with a firmament.

 

Like I have said before we have to agree to disagree on this one nstoolman1.

 

 

 

 

[bigwave]

1 hour ago, nstoolman1 said:

So if fault is found in 1 flat earth premise then all are bad?

You know I was just thinking about the word assume:

 

I wonder why they did not use the curved earth model to do all the calculations by assuming the earth was round.

 

Just a thought.

[MyLadiesDaddy]

7 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

I've asked others, but nobody ever responds, hoping maybe you will.  If the Earth is flat, then it would be reasonable to think the moon is flat....So why would the flat moon be turned on it's edge, rather that flat face up, like the flat Earth?  Same question for a surely flat Sun.

 

GO RV, then BV

Everything you ask in both your post can be summed up in one understanding, it's all about perspective. As a trucker I've seen many different things from several different angles and I can assure you that perspective is everything. 

 

As for the moon and sun, they are described as "Lights" in the word of God. 

[bigwave]

 

If we are one a globe then the following must be true too:

 

Yet none of the above papers published took this into consideration.

 

They (the authors / scientist) based everything on a flat, stationary nonrotating earth, enclosed at that.

 

[bigwave]

This is a better description of Pythagoras THEROM:

[bigwave]

[bigwave]

Our "hero's" went to the moon in this:

[bigwave]

On 4/30/2021 at 7:20 AM, Shabibilicious said:

Where are the ice walls?

Remember these two?

The recorded the ice wall to be between 50,000 and 60,000 miles.  Just a hunch, but one probably took a slightly different route:

[bigwave]

Reflection off of the firmament?

 

[nstoolman1]

 

Pythagoras Therom

Formula

	=	side of right triangle
	=	side of right triangle
	=	hypotenuse

 

1 hour ago, bigwave said:

Our "hero's" went to the moon in this:

Yes, it was designed for the rigors of space and moon landing, not for earths heavy gravity or air resistance.

 

And your rainbow picture is a double one. Based on your question you would think you see 2 every time a rainbow appears. Usually not the case. 

 

1 hour ago, bigwave said:

 

 

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/261547/northern-hemisphere-compass-points-where-in-southern-hemisphere

If you keep 2 bar magnets together opposite poles attract. We all know that. A freely suspended bar magnet will also align with Earth magnetic field. Earth is a big magnet and needle in the compass is also a magnet.

If you think the Earth's magnetic north is north pole then the needle in the compass with red Mark should be south pole and vice versa. That is why they attract and needle in compass with red end point should always point Earth north pole irrespective of which hemisphere.

Magnetic compass usually come with error, manufacturers will specify error correction table based on your position on earth. Magnetic compass maybe reliable up to 70 degrees latitude but as you move close to poles the compass is of no use. That is why aircrafts fly in polar regions do not rely on magnetic compass. I hope this answer helps.

[bigwave]

Before and after pictures :

 

 

 

They look really ashamed here: 

Heck I would be jumping for joy if I made it there and back in that:

 

 

 

 

[nstoolman1]

40 minutes ago, bigwave said:

Before and after pictures :

 

 

 

They look really ashamed here: 

Heck I would be jumping for joy if I made it there and back in that:

 

 

 

 

 

 

That bottom pic needs to be put in perspective. Was it taken after a grueling day of press junkets?

Were they tired of stupid questions from the press? When were the 2 pics taken? Could they be reversed?

 

[bigwave]

2 hours ago, nstoolman1 said:

Were they tired

Yeah, that's it they were really tired.

 

Cool.