elmoastro wrote: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.
Seneca » March 9th, 2017, 4:32 pm wrote:Does Antarctica even exist?
elmoastro » March 9th, 2017, 6:05 pm wrote: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.
Peter » March 12th, 2017, 9:52 pm wrote: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 » March 13th, 2017, 6:23 am wrote: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).
kickstones » March 16th, 2017, 10:15 am wrote: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?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests