NASA and Facebook tricked you

[Stravinsk]

With respect Strav, if you want to make a case that challenges just about everything that's widely believed you really ought to post sober as a matter of routine. There's not much point discussing something of any substance with someone who may or may not even be coherent.

I don't think I did too bad being a little buzzed - but I agree with you on posting sober. You might be surprised on how many people have adopted flat earth though, just in the last year or so.

As far as the photo is concerned, space is dark. You can see that if you look up into the sky in the night time when the sun isn't illuminating everything. So whether it was day or night at any given point on the earth isn't really the issue, the point is that taking a picture in darkness is functionally the same as taking a picture at night. And if one item is large and bright and another item is small and less bright, automatic exposure will adjust for the larger item (and in a photo like this it wouldn't be surprising for the camera to be adjusted for the earth) which means a smaller, less bright item will appear duller.

Statement : "As far as the photo is concerned, space is dark. You can see that if you look up into the sky in the night time when the sun isn't illuminating everything"

Here is the basic problem with your statement - in the Nasa footage we are looking at a Sun-lit Earth. You keep saying "night time photography" or "Space is Dark". Well, you believe the Sun is illuminating the Earth from 93 million miles away, and the photos show a Sun lit earth. So NO - it is not "nighttime" and NO - it is NOT "Dark" - the Sun's light is (according to the photos) moving through all that space to illuminate the Earth. This is doublespeak, because you are claiming also that the moon - which is in between the Sun and the Earth - is somehow not getting that light - and that it's an exposure issue.

It cannot be an exposure issue. If it were an exposure issue the earth as well as the Sun should be effected. They are not.

There is potentially a case to answer that the moon might be expected to be brighter but I'd just ask again, if NASA is pulling a hugely orchestrated conspiracy don't you think they'd have taken a few moments in Photoshop to brighten the moon up a little? The idea that they are pulling this huge cover-up but leaving subtle clues for those in the know does make the theory vastly harder to believe.

I don't know why Nasa is providing Easter eggs. But they are. Just like the word "Sex" is inverted on one of their earth "photos" in the clouds. It's either hired artists trying to let people know or it's straight out mocking the brainwashed masses.

 

[Stravinsk]

I don't know enough to know what to expect when viewing clouds from above.

Looking at the clouds in the bottom right of the earth (I think it corresponds to Antarctica) it looked as if there was some variation but that could have been down to the rotation of the earth.

I don't see any variation. If you look at the EPIC website where they show daily (or almost daily) shots of Ball Earth - the clouds also don't move with the span of the day.

As for a difference between clouds viewed from above as opposed to below - do you really expect that a cloud viewed from below that is moved by wind to reveal a clear sky will somehow still be stationary from above at the same point in time?

Here's a question for you. Given NASA has a fairly large budget, if they were going to try and produce a fake video don't you think they'd have fiddled with the clouds a bit as well? Seriously, you're talking about a couple of dozen images versus the combined resources of a major national agency and untold levels of expertise in Photoshop. If they were pulling a fast one, as you suggest, don't you think they'd have tweaked that to make it more convincing?

I don't base arguments on assumptions of what they could or might have done or why when looking at the result put forth in determining whether they are fake or not.

You're missing my point entirely. If you take a photo of something that looks bright the photo may look dim, natural, bright, or totally washed out depending on the exposure settings. The point is that your eyes receive a continuous stream of light while a photograph receives a stream of light for the time the shutter is open. Try taking a picture of a field covered in snow with a camera in fully automatic mode and you'll see it comes out looking gray. Likewise if you try and take a night shot with fully automatic settings it comes out looking a rather nasty shade of gray.

You don't need to make comments about examining my god, if you've got a case to make it needs to stand on its own merits without backhanded comments like that.

Nasa is your god insofar as you trust their photography and video and statements exclusively without question. They have set themselves up as the Masters of the Universe, telling us all the secrets of the planets and stars. If you just take their word for it, then they are like Deity to you.

With regard to your question, I have already answered this point in a post above. You keep saying "exposure" and "it's nighttime" - but it is NOT nighttime in the photos - because the sunlight is traveling all that way to illuminate the earth but not illuminating the moon. It is also not an exposure issue because an exposure issue would effect the shot of the moon as well as the earth.

I don't care who says it's so, if you take a picture of the moon with the exposure turned down it will come out gray. That's a simple fact. Feel free to test it with an SLR if you don't believe me.

And yet show no such exposure problems with the earth behind it. Right.

This really does nothing to bolster your case. If the case is there you can make it without references to "my programming" and general backhanded insults. Feel free to make a case but when your posts show a lack of understanding of photography and rely as much on backhanded insults and comments about "the establishment" it starts to look like little more than "the mainstream media won't report this, but you must believe it because it's true" without at least attempting to cover the possibility that the mainstream media isn't reporting it because it simply isn't true.

For what it's worth I find alternative theories interesting to explore, especially if they at least appear to have a little meat on the bones. If you're going to do little more than make vague comments about "my programming" and "appeals to authority" and "government masters" your post immediately comes across as little more than an outlandish conspiracy theory that relies on blind acceptance that Government Is Evil and therefore automatic rejection of anything the government says.

You are correct, making the statement doesn't bolster my case, but it is true nevertheless. Tango - you are programmed, as is just about everyone in the world if they have gone to public schools that teach a globe earth and are regularly fed the Globe in thousands of images a day, in movies, news programs - heck - even browsers like FireFox show a fox around a globe. The image of Globe earth is EVERYWHERE and it is part of the brainwashing.

 

[tango]

I don't think I did too bad being a little buzzed - but I agree with you on posting sober. You might be surprised on how many people have adopted flat earth though, just in the last year or so.

The number of people who adopt it isn't relevant, it's just a variation of the "appeal to authority" you disliked earlier. Popularity does little more than "prove" the adage that 100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

Statement : "As far as the photo is concerned, space is dark. You can see that if you look up into the sky in the night time when the sun isn't illuminating everything"

Here is the basic problem with your statement - in the Nasa footage we are looking at a Sun-lit Earth. You keep saying "night time photography" or "Space is Dark". Well, you believe the Sun is illuminating the Earth from 93 million miles away, and the photos show a Sun lit earth. So NO - it is not "nighttime" and NO - it is NOT "Dark" - the Sun's light is (according to the photos) moving through all that space to illuminate the Earth. This is doublespeak, because you are claiming also that the moon - which is in between the Sun and the Earth - is somehow not getting that light - and that it's an exposure issue.

It cannot be an exposure issue. If it were an exposure issue the earth as well as the Sun should be effected. They are not.

It's hard to know for sure, given I've never tried to take a picture under conditions anything like these. I don't know what the other side of the moon looks like, so can't comment on how reflective it might be, or indeed whether it's reflective at all. For all I know there could be an alien base covering it.

I don't know why Nasa is providing Easter eggs. But they are. Just like the word "Sex" is inverted on one of their earth "photos" in the clouds. It's either hired artists trying to let people know or it's straight out mocking the brainwashed masses.

[/QUOTE]

I can't say I noticed the word "sex" in the clouds. It could be hired artists trying to let the cat out of the bag, it could be confirmation bias, it could be blind chance. Having not noticed it, it's hard to say what it might or might not be.

 

[tango]

I don't see any variation. If you look at the EPIC website where they show daily (or almost daily) shots of Ball Earth - the clouds also don't move with the span of the day.

As for a difference between clouds viewed from above as opposed to below - do you really expect that a cloud viewed from below that is moved by wind to reveal a clear sky will somehow still be stationary from above at the same point in time?

My point was that the clouds we see from the ground may or may not reflect clouds as seen from above. Things may look different from above, given clouds can be at any level from more or less ground level (when it's raining/foggy) to tens of thousands of feet up. It's far from implausible that clouds not visible with the naked eye from earth are visible from above.

I don't base arguments on assumptions of what they could or might have done or why when looking at the result put forth in determining whether they are fake or not.

It doesn't hurt to consider plausibility. Otherwise you end up with an enormous conspiracy, a global coverup, orchestrated by people who are smart enough and thorough to pull off such a con trick while simultaneously being sufficiently disinterested that they couldn't even be bothered to spend 30 seconds per image brightening the moon up a bit.

Nasa is your god insofar as you trust their photography and video and statements exclusively without question. They have set themselves up as the Masters of the Universe, telling us all the secrets of the planets and stars. If you just take their word for it, then they are like Deity to you.

I wasn't aware I trusted their photography exclusively. Thanks for clearing up my opinions for me

With regard to your question, I have already answered this point in a post above. You keep saying "exposure" and "it's nighttime" - but it is NOT nighttime in the photos - because the sunlight is traveling all that way to illuminate the earth but not illuminating the moon. It is also not an exposure issue because an exposure issue would effect the shot of the moon as well as the earth.

I covered this already. It's functionally similar to taking a night shot because space (the black bit around the earth) is, well, dark. So you're shooting a bright object in the night. If you're trying to get multiple objects correctly exposed in a night shot it's remarkably difficult, especially given the satellite probably doesn't have a flash powerful enough to do the job.

And yet show no such exposure problems with the earth behind it. Right.

I already covered this in another post, it is interesting that the earth is brighter than the moon. But without knowing the relative brightness of the two objects as seen from wherever the satellite was it's hard to determine whether this is a valid objection or not. So we go back to the question of whether NASA would use a bright hockey puck or a dull hockey puck to produce a fake video, when the difference in cost is trivial.

You are correct, making the statement doesn't bolster my case, but it is true nevertheless. Tango - you are programmed, as is just about everyone in the world if they have gone to public schools that teach a globe earth and are regularly fed the Globe in thousands of images a day, in movies, news programs - heck - even browsers like FireFox show a fox around a globe. The image of Globe earth is EVERYWHERE and it is part of the brainwashing.

I can't say I regard icons used for popular applications to be a source of information regarding science. Thunderbird uses an icon of a blueish bird-like thing cradling an envelope in its wings but to suggest it supports the theory that email is sent in envelopes by mythical blue birds is clearly absurd.

You keep saying I'm programmed, and to an extent it's obvious that everybody who has any form of education at all is programmed. But that in and of itself doesn't make a case either. If you want to present a case that a widely held belief is wrong you need clear and concrete evidence for it. A video that's debatable (as we're demonstrating right here in this thread) coupled with endless assertions of "being programmed" isn't proof of anything.

For what it's worth I personally couldn't care less if the earth is spherical or ovoidal or flat or resting on the back of a turtle. It actually makes zero difference to my day-to-day life. If I drive somewhere it doesn't matter, if I get on a plane to go somewhere it doesn't matter whether the plane is following a great circle around a spherical earth or taking the scenic route to trick me into thinking the earth is round. So there's really little point insisting that I'm "programmed" as if I have any particular investment in the earth being a particular shape. And once again, when your focus is more on insisting that I'm "programmed" and less on the specifics of the question it starts to look more like a conspiracy theory based on little more than vague assertions paired with the observation that "the lamestream media" isn't reporting it and only "sheeple" are uncomfortable with the truth.

It's clear that if the earth truly is flat then the level of scientific untruth pushed upon us by the scientific community is enormous. That level of coverup is inevitably uncomfortable to accept, should it turn out to be true. But equally a claim as profound as the earth being flat requires something more than a couple of videos to prove it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Nasa didn't trick me

 

[Stravinsk]

The number of people who adopt it isn't relevant, it's just a variation of the "appeal to authority" you disliked earlier. Popularity does little more than "prove" the adage that 100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

No, that is not "appeal to authority" it is Argumentum ad populum (widespread belief or bandwagon argument) which is appeal to popular opinion. I realize it is a logical fallacy, but it's the same one you used when you said:

With respect Strav, if you want to make a case that challenges just about everything that's widely believed you really ought to post sober as a matter of routine. There's not much point discussing something of any substance with someone who may or may not even be coherent.

So I merely countered that with the statement that belief in flat earth is growing exponentially. This doesn't make it true or a logical proof - but it does counter your own appeal to popular opinion.

It's hard to know for sure, given I've never tried to take a picture under conditions anything like these. I don't know what the other side of the moon looks like, so can't comment on how reflective it might be, or indeed whether it's reflective at all. For all I know there could be an alien base covering it.

And you won't ever in your lifetime. Neither will 99.99% of the population (I'm allowing for the tiny percent that we are supposed to believe are traveling space and supposedly setting up these satellites - which I don't believe).

So you just have to take their word for it. When you look at the moon with your own eyes and take a photo using normal exposure you will see nothing like the grey washed out thing Nasa has provided us - but somehow...you are persuaded that the other side of the moon might look like that? Ok. Because you saw a picture and Nasa says so, right? And you trust them, right?

I can't say I noticed the word "sex" in the clouds. It could be hired artists trying to let the cat out of the bag, it could be confirmation bias, it could be blind chance. Having not noticed it, it's hard to say what it might or might not be.

Not in that picture. Try this one:

From Nasa's website: https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/nasa-captures-epic-earth-image

Now here is that exact picture flipped 180 degrees:

Upper right hand area.

 

[Rens]

It does look too perfect and photoshopped their pics, but that doesn't convince me that it's all not true. They photoshop people all the time, but there is some truth to how they look and they do exist.

 

[Stravinsk]

Just wanted to note that in this supposed image of earth from space (direct from NASA website):

1. The equator (allowing for supposed tilt of earth) is now in the Tropic of Cancer
2. The Northern and Eastern United States (and Canada) are wholly or partially covered in water (blue sections not covered by clouds).
3. Large sections of Venezuela, Columbia and Brazil appear to be wholly or partially covered in water.

Never mind that it neither looks oblate or pear shaped as the latest "scientific gods" at NASA have said.

 

[Stravinsk]

Nasa didn't trick me

Ya sure?

Oh, the weather outside is frightful,
But the fire is so delightful.
And since we've got no place to go,
Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!

Wait. This is Australia, mate!!

Huh? What's your point dude?

Well, it's still Christmas, and I have a big present for ya!

Link:

www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88104main_H-1391.pdf

Read the summary (short paragraph) and the first 2 paragraphs in the Introduction.

Cool huh?

 

[Stravinsk]

I thought I would include this in this thread because it fits with the theme and might serve as useful for anyone who has found the subject interesting, intriguing or frightening:

Strongs H5375,H5376,H5377, H5378, H5387

נָשָׂא

NASA - In Hebrew

Original Hebrew did not have diacritics (accents above and below Hebrew letters). They are included here because I didn't want to edit them out manually and bother with a photo and also couldn't find a good online source for Original Hebrew without the diacritics.
This word, without diacritics, has the following meanings:

1) To lift up, to rise, to bear, to carry, to exalt (H5375,H5376)
2) To beguile, deceive, delude (H5377)
3) To lend on interest or usury (H5378)
4) Prince, Captain, chief, ruler (H5387)

These are all the meanings of NASA (נָשָׂא - without diacritics) in Hebrew.

---

In Greek many of the words for "destroy" or "destruction", "perish", "lost" are variants of the word

Apollo

Strongs G622 - Apollymi https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G622&t=KJV
Strongs G684 - Apoleia https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G684&t=KJV

9-11, September 11th. Apollo 11.​

Revelation 9:11 ​

"And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon"

Strongs G623 https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G623&t=KJV

Apollyon means "Destroyer" ​

 

[TurtleHare]

I don't think I did too bad being a little buzzed - but I agree with you on posting sober.

Do ya think the entire thread might have been when you were on a buzz cuz this stuff is far out there and I thought that people who believed the earth was flat died out centuries ago. If NASA is tricking us then why would they even have an organization for so many years if it means absolutely nothing since it's all a lie anyway according to you and your fellow believers?

 

[Stravinsk]

Do ya think the entire thread might have been when you were on a buzz cuz this stuff is far out there and I thought that people who believed the earth was flat died out centuries ago. If NASA is tricking us then why would they even have an organization for so many years if it means absolutely nothing since it's all a lie anyway according to you and your fellow believers?

You thought that because you were taught that. It is part of the programming - anyone who believes the earth is flat is an uneducated stupid moron who probably has difficulty with basic math. That's what they teach you from a very early age - and that idea is reinforced over and over and over in the course of a lifetime so that you will never consider the idea. It's laughable because the programming says it's laughable.

I did not come to the conclusion of a flat, motionless earth over the period of a day or even a month. It took over a year. I was taught (and believed) the Globe model for most of my life. That being said, I knew there were things that didn't add up. Such as flight times. If I travel from Australia to California, the flight time is the same as if I travel from California to Australia. But the earth is supposed to be spinning at over 1000mph at the equator. So the flight times should be drastically different. But they are not. They are the same. Even if one believes that the atmosphere is spinning with us on one of the flights the plane must be moving against it. But the flight times are the same.

Nasa IS tricking you. Have a look at the photos in this very thread. Do you believe that much of North and South America is under water? Do you believe that the North American Continent grew in size between 2007 and 2012?

The organization exists and is believed because we are programmed from a very early age into the Heliocentric model and much of our human pride and entertainment (science fiction movies) is tied to it. We are also programmed to believe that anyone who questions it is an idiot.

 

[tango]

No, that is not "appeal to authority" it is Argumentum ad populum (widespread belief or bandwagon argument) which is appeal to popular opinion. I realize it is a logical fallacy, but it's the same one you used when you said:

So I merely countered that with the statement that belief in flat earth is growing exponentially. This doesn't make it true or a logical proof - but it does counter your own appeal to popular opinion.

Hence I said it's a variation of the appeal to authority. My primary point was about posting drunk - it's one thing to have some general chit-chat with someone who has had a few beers (I've done it myself, both as the person with a few beers down and the person without) but trying to have a detailed conversation gets difficult if one or both parties isn't fully coherent.

And you won't ever in your lifetime. Neither will 99.99% of the population (I'm allowing for the tiny percent that we are supposed to believe are traveling space and supposedly setting up these satellites - which I don't believe).

So you just have to take their word for it. When you look at the moon with your own eyes and take a photo using normal exposure you will see nothing like the grey washed out thing Nasa has provided us - but somehow...you are persuaded that the other side of the moon might look like that? Ok. Because you saw a picture and Nasa says so, right? And you trust them, right?

Where did I ever say I trust them? I don't have any particular reason to believe, or disbelieve, the photos they post. Truth be told most of the time it makes little difference to my life.

Not in that picture. Try this one:

From Nasa's website: https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/nasa-captures-epic-earth-image

Now here is that exact picture flipped 180 degrees:

(image cut for brevity)

Upper right hand area.

Meh, it kinda-sorta-looks like it's there but only in the sense that so many other things can kinda-sorta-look like they are there. I've seen clouds that look like cats, like camels, like sharks, like all sorts of things. That's what I've seen looking up at them. It's not beyond possibility that clouds kinda-sorta-look like something else. Honestly that doesn't really persuade me either way.

 

[Stravinsk]

Where did I ever say I trust them? I don't have any particular reason to believe, or disbelieve, the photos they post. Truth be told most of the time it makes little difference to my life.

You defended their CGI video saying it was an exposure issue. In other words, you took their word that what you were seeing was true and then when it was questioned by me you came up with an excuse about exposure that doesn't hold up. You also defended the idea that clouds across the entire earth don't move at all over a 6 hour period or so.

Yes, you trust them, or you did when you wrote those statements.

As far as making a difference to your life - you wouldn't know this until (and if) you actually become a believer. Go read Genesis 1. Do you believe it? Is there a firmament and water above us as it says? Or is this a lie?

Meh, it kinda-sorta-looks like it's there but only in the sense that so many other things can kinda-sorta-look like they are there. I've seen clouds that look like cats, like camels, like sharks, like all sorts of things. That's what I've seen looking up at them. It's not beyond possibility that clouds kinda-sorta-look like something else. Honestly that doesn't really persuade me either way.

True, I've seen different shapes in the clouds too. Difference is - what you are seeing is "SEX" spelled out in clouds over a very large area.

Do you also believe that the North and South American continents are largely covered by water as the picture shows?

 

[Stravinsk]

If I'm not mistaken, the flat Earth model says that the disk we live on is accelerating through space at about 9.8 m/s[sup]2[/sup], thereby giving the illusion of gravity. We would therefore be traveling at nearly 150 times the speed of light by now.

You are mistaken. That is the controlled opposition that is the official "Flat earth Society".

Is this the theory that the Flat Earth Society has been put into place by the conspirators to make the entire flat Earth model look kooky?

The person who started the "flat earth society" started it to mock it. It was a parody site intended to mix in truth with nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Ferrari

One of the nonsense theories is the so called "accelerating upward earth through space". It is absolutely absurd and is included for the express reason of poisoning the well.

Flat earth model is NOT just that the earth is flat - but that we are the center of the universe, and the heavenly bodies revolve around us. Therefore any pictures or ideas of earth as a disk floating through (or accelerating through) space is part of the effort to discredit it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I like some NASA photos.

 

[tango]

You defended their CGI video saying it was an exposure issue. In other words, you took their word that what you were seeing was true and then when it was questioned by me you came up with an excuse about exposure that doesn't hold up. You also defended the idea that clouds across the entire earth don't move at all over a 6 hour period or so.

Yes, you trust them, or you did when you wrote those statements.

As far as making a difference to your life - you wouldn't know this until (and if) you actually become a believer. Go read Genesis 1. Do you believe it? Is there a firmament and water above us as it says? Or is this a lie?

I don't particularly trust one side or the other, I merely looked at two conflicting statements and decided which one sounded more plausible.

I don't particularly need Genesis 1 to be literal or figurative, it makes little difference to my life. If God made the earth in 7 days as we would understand it (i.e. 168 hours), or in 7 metaphorical days (which could be just about any period of time imaginable) doesn't change my day-to-day life.

True, I've seen different shapes in the clouds too. Difference is - what you are seeing is "SEX" spelled out in clouds over a very large area.

What I'm seeing is a pattern of clouds that kinda-sorta-looks like the word SEX. That might be some kind of easter egg put in place by someone in on a big joke, or it could be a simple matter of chance. It could even be as simple as confirmation bias.

Do you also believe that the North and South American continents are largely covered by water as the picture shows?

I wouldn't necessarily draw any conclusion one way or the other based on individual pictures.

To be honest with you, the argument of yours that I find most curious is the issue of flight times between continents.

 

[Stravinsk]

I don't particularly need Genesis 1 to be literal or figurative, it makes little difference to my life. If God made the earth in 7 days as we would understand it (i.e. 168 hours), or in 7 metaphorical days (which could be just about any period of time imaginable) doesn't change my day-to-day life.

How you view the world makes a huge difference on how you view God. When (and if) you realize the lie - you realize the implications of it. Billions every year stolen from western nations in the space programs for which they give us cartoons and computer generated imagery. Your mind - stolen from you - told what to believe and how to think as opposed to what your own eyes tell you. The knowledge (not just a vague belief) - that there IS a Creator, and this place we live can be nothing but intelligently designed. You allege it would make no difference - but I'm telling you that it makes a huge huge difference - but one can't really grasp this until you accept it.

What I'm seeing is a pattern of clouds that kinda-sorta-looks like the word SEX. That might be some kind of easter egg put in place by someone in on a big joke, or it could be a simple matter of chance. It could even be as simple as confirmation bias.

It clearly spells SEX. Sure, it's possible that all those clouds over a vast area just happened to form into the one word that is intimently tied to human procreation and base desire - but the chances, while possible, are very low. Why not "car" or "bus" or something else?

I wouldn't necessarily draw any conclusion one way or the other based on individual pictures.

Why not? If you believe the picture - it is clear that large parts of ocean cover both the north and south American continents. One can either accept that the picture represents reality or accept that it is a fiction.

To be honest with you, the argument of yours that I find most curious is the issue of flight times between continents.

Here's an experiment for you as well as anyone else who reads this. Next time you get a chance to watch Sunset or Sunrise:

1. Sunset - *just after the sun disappears beyond your view* - ask yourself - Why is the area I am standing in still showing light that gradually fades to darkness? Now go to the globe model. As soon as the sun disappears over the spinning earth - you should immediately be plunged into darkness - the area all around you. Not gradually - immediately.

2. Sunrise - *before the sun appears over the horizon, between first light but before sunrise* - ask yourself - Why is the area I am standing in being gradually lit? Now go to the globe model. As soon as the sun appears over the spinning earth - you should immediately be plunged into light - the area all around you. Not gradually - immediately - and the area around you shouldn't have shown any lighting whatsoever BEFORE the sun peaked over the horizon. But it does, and we call this "first light".

 

[tango]

How you view the world makes a huge difference on how you view God. When (and if) you realize the lie - you realize the implications of it. Billions every year stolen from western nations in the space programs for which they give us cartoons and computer generated imagery. Your mind - stolen from you - told what to believe and how to think as opposed to what your own eyes tell you. The knowledge (not just a vague belief) - that there IS a Creator, and this place we live can be nothing but intelligently designed. You allege it would make no difference - but I'm telling you that it makes a huge huge difference - but one can't really grasp this until you accept it.

I must be missing something here. Why can't there be a creator who created a universe with the earth in it somewhere? I don't see how the generally accepted view of the earth as a spheroidal planet that kinda-sorta-interacts with the sun much like an electron interacts with an atomic nucleus does away with the need for it all to have been created. Even the atheistic worldview that supports a Big Bang not initiated by any deity requires that something happen to cause it. Does God become any smaller if his creation is round rather than flat?

You keep talking about this concept of my mind stolen from me but you really need to come up with something more than that. There are all sorts of ideas out there that use little more than the fact they aren't mainstream as "support" - the whole "mainstream media won't tell you this" line doesn't really work because it doesn't address the possibility that the mainstream media isn't reporting on it because it isn't true. So how about a little less rhetoric about minds being stolen and blind trust and a little more explanation of why your theory is accurate and the generally accepted theory is not?

It clearly spells SEX. Sure, it's possible that all those clouds over a vast area just happened to form into the one word that is intimently tied to human procreation and base desire - but the chances, while possible, are very low. Why not "car" or "bus" or something else?

So if it did kinda-sorta-spell "CAR" or "BUS" or "HAHA" would you be taking a different stance on its significance or otherwise? What if a pattern of clouds looked sort of like this: セックス - would you regard that as significant? Would you regard it as an easter egg intended for those who read Japanese? (It spells out the word "sex" in Japanese, in case you were wondering)

Why not? If you believe the picture - it is clear that large parts of ocean cover both the north and south American continents. One can either accept that the picture represents reality or accept that it is a fiction.

I've seen a few things show up completely unexpectedly in my own photography, sufficiently so to not put too much stock in one picture that appears to show something unexpected. I've personally taken a photograph that appeared to show a cat with two tails and another that clearly showed what appeared to be a UFO hovering at about chest height in the forest. Neither are what they appear, but both took me a little while to figure out just what had happened to cause the photographs to appear that way. (The cat with two tails was a black cat and the shadow of its tail simply happened to align perfectly with the base of its actual tail; the "UFO" was a collection of diffraction artefacts that just happened to look much like a saucer)

Here's an experiment for you as well as anyone else who reads this. Next time you get a chance to watch Sunset or Sunrise:

1. Sunset - *just after the sun disappears beyond your view* - ask yourself - Why is the area I am standing in still showing light that gradually fades to darkness? Now go to the globe model. As soon as the sun disappears over the spinning earth - you should immediately be plunged into darkness - the area all around you. Not gradually - immediately.

2. Sunrise - *before the sun appears over the horizon, between first light but before sunrise* - ask yourself - Why is the area I am standing in being gradually lit? Now go to the globe model. As soon as the sun appears over the spinning earth - you should immediately be plunged into light - the area all around you. Not gradually - immediately - and the area around you shouldn't have shown any lighting whatsoever BEFORE the sun peaked over the horizon. But it does, and we call this "first light".

Diffraction of light through the atmosphere?

In the flat earth model how do you explain the sun dropping out of view but the twilight not turning to darkness for some time? Your "experiment" is really nothing of the sort, it's little more than taking an observation and making some claims (specifically that the observation doesn't tally with a spherical earth) yet without explaining why it would tally with a flat earth.

 

[Stravinsk]

I must be missing something here. Why can't there be a creator who created a universe with the earth in it somewhere? I don't see how the generally accepted view of the earth as a spheroidal planet that kinda-sorta-interacts with the sun much like an electron interacts with an atomic nucleus does away with the need for it all to have been created. Even the atheistic worldview that supports a Big Bang not initiated by any deity requires that something happen to cause it. Does God become any smaller if his creation is round rather than flat?

You keep talking about this concept of my mind stolen from me but you really need to come up with something more than that. There are all sorts of ideas out there that use little more than the fact they aren't mainstream as "support" - the whole "mainstream media won't tell you this" line doesn't really work because it doesn't address the possibility that the mainstream media isn't reporting on it because it isn't true. So how about a little less rhetoric about minds being stolen and blind trust and a little more explanation of why your theory is accurate and the generally accepted theory is not?

Tango, with regards to your last sentence, I have linked for you and anyone else who reads this thread a link to an ENTIRE BOOK containing 200 proofs that can be downloaded FOR FREE. That is IN ADDITION to the various videos posted. Have enough respect not to mischaracterize the position as "lacking in explanation"

Have you even read the book provided? Have you looked at the videos provided? With all due respect - one has to look at evidence before one can refute it. You keep towing the excuse of the "generally accepted theory". And once again - I'm going to point out that this is nothing but a logical fallacy - Argumentem Ad Populum. Sorry - herd mentallity is not a logical or intellectual position to take with relation to any position.

So if it did kinda-sorta-spell "CAR" or "BUS" or "HAHA" would you be taking a different stance on its significance or otherwise? What if a pattern of clouds looked sort of like this: セックス - would you regard that as significant? Would you regard it as an easter egg intended for those who read Japanese? (It spells out the word "sex" in Japanese, in case you were wondering)

Are you intentionally being daft? Most of the internet is in English - it has become very much the universal language. While there are some pages and videos that are in other languages - the majority of it is in English. So it makes the most sense to print out a message in English that really can only be see if one takes an analytical look. If it spelled something else I probably wouldn't mention it or see it as much of anything besides an oddity. At this point I have to ask you if you are being intentionally daft again. Surely you are aware that SEX and Sexual imagery is used as a mass marketing tool to sell all kinds of products? Or is this news to you?

I've seen a few things show up completely unexpectedly in my own photography, sufficiently so to not put too much stock in one picture that appears to show something unexpected. I've personally taken a photograph that appeared to show a cat with two tails and another that clearly showed what appeared to be a UFO hovering at about chest height in the forest. Neither are what they appear, but both took me a little while to figure out just what had happened to cause the photographs to appear that way. (The cat with two tails was a black cat and the shadow of its tail simply happened to align perfectly with the base of its actual tail; the "UFO" was a collection of diffraction artefacts that just happened to look much like a saucer)

So you are arguing that because of shadows and diffraction this accounts for vast sections of continents being under water. Your comparison isn't even apples to oranges. You can't explain it, it just "seems right" because it's some excuse. But hey! You might be right! Maybe when that photo of the earth was taken from that satellite someone stepped into the shadow of the sun and it made the oceans seem to spread out all over the continents! Yay! What a relief I couldn't possibly consider this lame theory that NASA lied! Star Wars, Star Trek, Sci-fi entertainment - welcome back!

Diffraction of light through the atmosphere?

In the flat earth model how do you explain the sun dropping out of view but the twilight not turning to darkness for some time? Your "experiment" is really nothing of the sort, it's little more than taking an observation and making some claims (specifically that the observation doesn't tally with a spherical earth) yet without explaining why it would tally with a flat earth.

Hold on a minute. You believe the earth is a globe spinning around the Sun. Since you believe the Sun to be a very large body in relation to the Earth then it follows that all the Sun's rays will hit the earth in a parallel manner and that only clouds could possibly account for those pesky slanted "crepuscular rays". So it also follows that on the spinning globe model where the light of day is accounted for by the Earth spinning INTO the Sun's rays - it should also follow that there is no sunlight PRIOR to that line of sunlight being reached. I'm not talking about seeing a line of light in the distance somewhere, I'm saying that in our experience light appears AROUND US in gradual degrees BEFORE the sun show's it's face above the horizon. This can't be argued with diffraction. The model you accept has light being instant upon sunrise and instantly extinguished upon sunset. That is what the Globe model says, Tango - like it or not. And like it or not - that is not what we see at first light before sunrise or last light after sunset.