NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

[Seneca]

Does Antarctica even exist?

[elmoastro]

Look at all the 9.11 youtubes and shilling for all these years. Yet in the mix is the most accurate account, obviously this site.

I've tended to shift my own metaphor/geo-view to allow for a flat model. In fact, I think a solar-circle melted by a sun/moon system makes much more sense than the model NASA has proposed. It took me asking the question as to why NASA does what they do.

I lean to the idea that there is much more land "out there" than we've been taught. To me, I can easily accept another solar-circle/plane(t) that's too far for air travel but just right for NASA rockets and shuttles. The (outer) space hoax being the distraction of a much more vast "planet" than we've been taught to believe.

I know it's not popular here, but I'm willing to look at it and even give it credence based on my own logic. To me, another population in a distant other sun-circle answers all the ancient alient possibilities--other advanced civilization flies over and pwns a simple tribe-based "earth" sun-circle. Much like Europeans bulldozing the simpler, less-tech cultures.

The subject is fascinating to me and I'm currently mapping out the 200+ research stations, both on the globe model and also the ice-ring model. Interesting that on the google earth/wiki mappings the stations are all piled on each other. My guess is that they will form a ring like a pie when plotted on the FE map.

For me, FE explains the NASA hoax completely. The how, the why, the need for tech and "satellites". I'm convinced, based on archive.org Navy publishings that satellites are dropped via aircraft and they transmit RF data back. Hence the need for large comm distances. It also explains Mars rover. Maybe they drop the Mars rover on a distant solar-cell via a shuttle or rocket and get the data back. Obviously everything we're shown is complete CGI and studio fakery and is the belief structure that is taught so as to firewall any real inquiry.

Thank you for this discussion and to you Simon for your patience in allowing it to be picked apart. I'm ok going back to ball-earth in a second if need be. I just find this exercise very stimulating because it's simpler and more plausible that we as sheep aren't fully aware of the limits of the big con going on.

[hoi.polloi]

For me, FE explains the NASA hoax completely. The how, the why, the need for tech and "satellites". I'm convinced, based on archive.org Navy publishings that satellites are dropped via aircraft and they transmit RF data back. Hence the need for large comm distances. It also explains Mars rover. Maybe they drop the Mars rover on a distant solar-cell via a shuttle or rocket and get the data back. Obviously everything we're shown is complete CGI and studio fakery and is the belief structure that is taught so as to firewall any real inquiry.

Thanks for the compliments, but you return the favor of our cogent site by posting this random gobbledygook?

[kickstones]

Does Antarctica even exist?

I dont know Seneca, but the folk in the below video think so, then again they could all be paid actors on any airplane flying over anywhere, as the fellow says at around 1:28 you could be 'on the moon'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qS_ShexHd0


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qS_ShexHd0

[Peter]

Look at all the 9.11 youtubes and shilling for all these years. Yet in the mix is the most accurate account, obviously this site.

I've tended to shift my own metaphor/geo-view to allow for a flat model. In fact, I think a solar-circle melted by a sun/moon system makes much more sense than the model NASA has proposed. It took me asking the question as to why NASA does what they do.

I lean to the idea that there is much more land "out there" than we've been taught. To me, I can easily accept another solar-circle/plane(t) that's too far for air travel but just right for NASA rockets and shuttles. The (outer) space hoax being the distraction of a much more vast "planet" than we've been taught to believe.

I know it's not popular here, but I'm willing to look at it and even give it credence based on my own logic. To me, another population in a distant other sun-circle answers all the ancient alient possibilities--other advanced civilization flies over and pwns a simple tribe-based "earth" sun-circle. Much like Europeans bulldozing the simpler, less-tech cultures.

The subject is fascinating to me and I'm currently mapping out the 200+ research stations, both on the globe model and also the ice-ring model. Interesting that on the google earth/wiki mappings the stations are all piled on each other. My guess is that they will form a ring like a pie when plotted on the FE map.

For me, FE explains the NASA hoax completely. The how, the why, the need for tech and "satellites". I'm convinced, based on archive.org Navy publishings that satellites are dropped via aircraft and they transmit RF data back. Hence the need for large comm distances. It also explains Mars rover. Maybe they drop the Mars rover on a distant solar-cell via a shuttle or rocket and get the data back. Obviously everything we're shown is complete CGI and studio fakery and is the belief structure that is taught so as to firewall any real inquiry.

Thank you for this discussion and to you Simon for your patience in allowing it to be picked apart. I'm ok going back to ball-earth in a second if need be. I just find this exercise very stimulating because it's simpler and more plausible that we as sheep aren't fully aware of the limits of the big con going on.

In an airplane you can follow the sun, or run away from it, faster than on land. This can be done anywhere on earth. The people the opposite side of the world see different stars. Or, another part of the world which is also in darkness at the same time as where you are, can see stars appear on the horizon as you lose sight of them on the horizon, following the rotation of the earth.

The above can only happen on a globe. I'm sure that none of the youtube FE hosts believe in FE. Sometimes this is obvious. The only thing I don't really understand if it is DBA, which seems a likely candidate, is why some of their anti-NASA stuff is so good, and sometimes original.

But whoever they are they're some government agency/agencies and they're paid. I think we all agree on that. An interesting development but once you've seen a few it gets rather dull, which incidentally would coincide with any - discredit/bore or irritate people off - type of idea.

[Peter]

Having said that I accept the globe earth, there is much in astronomy where a ludicrous theory is promoted rather than just saying “we don’t know”.

The Big Bang theory has to be the most ludicrous religion disguised as science, probably created to bolster the atomic bomb myth. The moon always shows us the same face. Accepted theory is that its rotation is coincidentally exactly synced with the earth’s, both of them from their original big bang inertia billions of years ago. There must be unknown forces. Also gravity theory is lacking. Also planets have been shown to slow down and then speed up. But they too are supposed to be moving under their big bang inertia. Magically they lose some of that inertia and then somehow regain it.

I must admit not to having checked if they’ve come up with answers to the above in recent years, to patch up those theories. But I don’t believe much of official cosmology.

[hoi.polloi]

Having said that I accept the globe earth, there is much in astronomy where a ludicrous theory is promoted rather than just saying “we don’t know”.

The Big Bang theory has to be the most ludicrous religion disguised as science, probably created to bolster the atomic bomb myth. The moon always shows us the same face. Accepted theory is that its rotation is coincidentally exactly synced with the earth’s, both of them from their original big bang inertia billions of years ago. There must be unknown forces. Also gravity theory is lacking. Also planets have been shown to slow down and then speed up. But they too are supposed to be moving under their big bang inertia. Magically they lose some of that inertia and then somehow regain it.

I must admit not to having checked if they’ve come up with answers to the above in recent years, to patch up those theories. But I don’t believe much of official cosmology.

Peter, while I agree the Big Bang is absurd, I would like to know the supposed times planets speed up or slow down. Simon's new theory may debunk such a belief and that is why I ask.

[Peter]

Hoi I'm afraid it is a long time ago that I read about the slight aberrations in speeds of some planets. I just remember the point that hit me was that it was an accepted theory and that it contradicted the accepted theory about the forces which move planets. I don't know the current situation but about 10 or more years ago it was simultaneously accepted as reality that Jupiter's light is purely solar reflection and that Jupiter reflects more light than it receives from the sun. So while I continued observing with my telescope I lost interest in cosmology theory because it was hypocritical and rigid.

The Vatican used to try to force a monopoly view on cosmology. Big western government, dangerously bloated from excessive taxation and loans, has taken over, and ultimately employs all astronomers, and thus our present dark age.

Edit: I have been meaning to take a look at Simon's theory, seemed interesting, but needs a decent amount of concentration to follow (for me anyway).

[simonshack]

Edit: I have been meaning to take a look at Simon's theory, seemed interesting, but needs a decent amount of concentration to follow (for me anyway).

Dear Peter, my theory isn't actually out there yet - am currently working on it tirelessly 24/7 - like a 'mad wannabe scientist' (and have been for a long time now : I keep telling Hoi that I'm almost ready to release it - but then I keep finding ever more corroborating aspects to it... someone please stop me! ). Since I've made enormous progress since my tentative / early musings over at our "SSSS" thread, I would not advise you to spend much time reading through them - they may only confuse you, for they were - in fact - only early musings (although a precious few were heading in the right direction - and helped me wrap my head around some fundamental aspects of what was then just a nascent, fledgling theory). Two things, I can anticipate, are for sure though: both the Copernican and the FE 'cosmic models' are demonstrably invalid / impossible.

[roastrunner]

Peter, I wanted to address something you said, which is that the cause of the Earth's and moon's synchronous rotation is coincidental. If true, I agree that would be extremely hard to believe.

However there's a logical explanation. The real mystery is how so large a body as our moon exists in the first place. But given that it's there, the theory is that the "tidal locking" appeared slowly over millions or maybe billions of years. Slight bulges in both the Earth and the moon create unequal gravitational force between them as they rotate, eventually settling on a matching rotation to both bodies as the entropic state. Meaning that gravity works to keep the bodies synchronized together, given the imperfect mass distributions that are always going to exist

I believe that theory to be correct. I think it makes sense at any rate.

[Peter]

Roastrunner re:

"Peter, I wanted to address something you said, which is that the cause of the Earth's and moon's synchronous rotation is coincidental"

Just to clarify - that is what I read in an authoritative and officially accepted publication many years ago which I thought was nonsense. Something along the lines of what you said - tides and so on - is more likely and is also a theory that is out there but there is/was some confusion as to whether the tides effect the moon or the moon effects the tides. Tides are in a state of flux oc and it is a hypothesis which consists mostly of knowledge voids, but it may be the best so far and a start in the right direction.
------------------------------------------------------
Simon that seems a very difficult but fascinating and worthy endeavor.

[kickstones]

Whilst looking for material authenticating the existence of Antarctica on archive.org I happened to come across - William Carpenter's “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe”

As the post querying the existence of Antarctica was on this thread regarding NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY I thought I'd take a quick look at its content, and found this following so called 'proof'...

57. The Newtonian hypothesis involves the necessity of the Sun, in the case of a lunar eclipse, being on the opposite side of a globular Earth, to cast its shadow on the Moon: but, since eclipses of the Moon have taken place with both the Sun and the Moon above the horizon, it follows that it cannot be the shadow of the Earth that eclipses the Moon; that the theory is a blunder; and that it is nothing less than a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

While there may or maybe not a perfectly good explanation for this so called 'proof', it does raise to my mind an unexplained phenomenon I myself have oft encountered whilst walking home at night / early morning, why is it that the shadow on the moon does not align to my viewpoint of the position of the Sun in relation to Earth's position at that moment in time, if that makes sense?


https://archive.org/details/onehundredproofs00carp

[Peter]

FE = DBA seems the most likely and logical. I'm surprised though that a lot of their anti-NASA stuff is such high quality though. A lot of it is original and highly convincing, in fact the best quality NASA debunking out there.

Why? Too much money and time on their hands so they make their non-disinfo part of their campaign too convincing?

[hoi.polloi]

While there may or maybe not a perfectly good explanation for this so called 'proof', it does raise to my mind an unexplained phenomenon I myself have oft encountered whilst walking home at night / early morning, why is it that the shadow on the moon does not align to my viewpoint of the position of the Sun in relation to Earth's position at that moment in time, if that makes sense?

That is a rather separate issue (though one I've noted and tried to make people address in the "Cold of space" thread) from "Flat Earth".

Please see my posts there re:

How Is the Moon Lit?
Part I: viewtopic.php?p=2388703#p2388703
Part II: viewtopic.php?p=2392185#p2392185

However, please note a lot of these subjects, as we must admit per the reasonable proofs there is an active DBA campaign against us, are encouraged as a way to make us argue in circles (no pun intended). So please, let us not dredge up old science things while critical media fakery goes unexamined, unless you think you can come up with a true and proper system (as Simon is doing — and believe me, it's a lot of work). I would love to discuss many of these subjects, but they simply become too far out there, too quickly, for them to be of use to us right now. So please forgive us if we put aside these topics for the time being, as the active campaign continues to make the subjects not so much "taboo" as a risk. That is, a risk to give attention on the DBA video artists working on sliding propaganda (anti-"September Clues" and otherwise) in their otherwise "intriguing" videos.

(That is to also admit my own interests in the great scientific and philosophical issues of the world, and therefore my contribution to those talking subjects which may be weaponized by those less benevolent than me, of course. I have censored myself here, on these subjects, for the over all benefit of this forum's main topic. It has not made me less interested. On the contrary, I may find other venues for my thoughts on these subjects and I suggest you try as well. Using what we know about "intelligence" groups trying to derail us should be a powerful technique to approach the wide open world of available knowledge out there to be gained and shared, and to avoid bad people, distractions and people who want to bribe and/or control the dialogue.)

[patrix]

NASA's Flat Earth DBA in action on the streets...

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWmVNHgT3Jg