- This topic has 6,416 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 3 days, 14 hours ago by
.
- Posts
It’s a sonic boom. Dig.
A moving car’s contained atmosphere is relative to all enclosed in the car. All moving at the same speed. It perfectly explains the earth and atmosphere and what is contained.
You only notice the speed in a moving car when the speed changes. If you are cruising at the same speed, then everything inside is still and everything outside is what is moving from that perspective. Guess what, the earth moves with the same speed. It doesn’t slow down for corners or speed up on a straight. Likewise the stars appear to be what’s moving and everything on earth and in its atmosphere is still. I even remember as a kid in the back seat of the family car watching the moon following the car. Perception Dig.
So easy to understand, that objection to this is denying basic reality. You can kick and scream all you like, but a person interested in the truth will easily see through a smokescreen that is deigned to hide the simple truth.
The deluded attempt to deny basic realities like 1+1=2. There is a God. The universe came from an infinite something. Common sense is often enough to see the delusion and this is true in this example. The earth and atmosphere are in synch and consequently, everything looks still and the stars appear to circuit from our seemingly still observation point.
Mike: Did the ancient Hebrews consider the earth to be stationary, and fixed on pillars? YES or NO?
Kathi: I don’t know.
Hmm… Well, do the scriptures say the earth is stationary and fixed on pillars? YES or NO?
Psalm 104:5 He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.
1 Samuel 2:8 …for the pillars of the earth are the LORD’S, and he hath set the world upon them.
Mike: Did the ancient Hebrews consider the sun and the moon to be two different lights in the firmament? YES or NO?
Kathi: I don’t know.
Well, do the scriptures say the sun and moon are two different lights? YES or NO?
Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Isaiah 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.
Mike: Did the ancient Hebrews consider the firmament to be a solid structure that enclosed the earth as a dome, with birds flying under it, the sun, moon and stars in it, and God’s throne resting on top of it? YES or NO?
Kathi: No.
Well, do the scriptures say about it?
Job 37:18 ESV Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?
Genesis 7:11 …on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
Exodus 24:10 And they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness.
Job 22:14 Thick clouds veil him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the vault of heaven.
Jeremiah 51:16 When he utters his voice there is a tumult of waters in the heavens…
Amos 9:6 Who builds his upper chambers in the heavens and founds his vault upon the earth…
Psalm 19:4-6 …he has set a tent for the sun, which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy. Its going forth is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit is to their ends…
Ezekiel 10:1 Then I looked, and behold, on the firmament that was over the heads of the cherubim there appeared above them something like a sapphire, in appearance like a throne.
Isaiah 66:1 Thus says the LORD: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool…”
Job 37:3 He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth.
Genesis 1:17 God placed the lights in the firmament of the heaven to shine on the earth…
There are many more, but these should suffice.
Mike: According to Gen 1:20, the birds fly in front of the raqia (in the air), not in the raqia;
Can you refute that using the scriptures or a preponderance of scholarly sources?
Kathi: I have refuted this already by showing you that the birds fly in the heaven which is raqia according to Gen 1:8.
Firstly, will you admit that the Hebrew of Gen 1:20 doesn’t say birds fly “IN” the firmament, but “IN THE FACE OF” the firmament? Will you admit that “in the face of” has the meaning of “against the part that is facing the subject”? Will you admit that it is translated most often as “before” and “in front of” – among these other ones I’ve emboldened below from NET Bible?
Pronunciation: paw-neem’ paw-neh’ Origin: from 06437 Reference: TWOT – 1782a PrtSpch: noun masculine In Hebrew: ynpl 668, ynp 351, ynpm 190, wynpl 115, Kynpl 107, wynp 94, Kynp 73, Mynp 60, Mhynpl 56, ynplm 50, ynplw 34, Mhynp 32, Mkynpl 29, Kynpm 29, Mhynpm 27, wynpm 23, Mynpl 22, Mkynpm 19, ynpw 19, wnynpl 13, Kynplm 10, hynp 10, Mynph 10, Mhynpw 9, ynpmw 8, wynplm 8, Mkynp 8, wynpb 5, wnynpm 5, Mkynpb 4, wynpw 3, hynpl 3, Mkynplm 3, wynplw 2, hynpm 2, Mhynpb 2, Kynpb 2, Mhynplw 2, Kynplw 2, ynpb 2, Mynpm 1, wnnplm 1, Kynpmw 1, Kynpw 1, ynplmw 1, Mynplmw 1, Mynpb 1, Mynplm 1, wmynp 1, wnynp 1, ynpmk 1, hynpw 1, wynph 1, *ypw {ynpw} 1, Mhynpmw 1, hynpb 1, Mynpw 1 In NET: before 703, face 171, presence 98, front 75, ahead 42, faces 39, because 38, from 36, surface 27, in front of 17, by 15, near 14, sight 13, toward 12, against 10, of 10, favor 9, facing 9, Presence 6, to 6, partiality 6, serve 6, preceded 5, over 5, faced 5, for 5, ground 5, with 5, open 4, me 4, served 4, corresponding 4, at 4, on 3, opposite 3, used to be 3, in front 3, because of 3, due to 3, Before 3, emanates 2, Because 2, edge 2, deserve 2, direction 2, countenance 2, meet 2, entrance 2, east 2, on the front 2, leads 2, rejected 2, facedown 2, led 2, looks 2, advisers 2, predecessors 2, appear 2, pleases 2, appearance 2, refuse 2, felt obligated 1, field 1, from him 1, from me 1, escape 1, fierce 1, expression 1, esteemed 1, earlier 1, better 1, again 1, across 1, along 1, alongside 1, as long as 1, approach 1, account 1, In front of 1, At 1, As a result 1, Extending from 1, Gehazi 1, Hebron 1, assistant 1, at the front 1, characterize your rule 1, both sides 1, come across 1, coming 1, determined 1, constantly 1, front of 1, beside 1, attention 1, attacked 1, attitude 1, awaited 1, became a servant 1, does 1, interceded 1, respected 1, resolved 1, regular basis 1, right in front of 1, right up to 1, serving 1, servant 1, region 1, prior to 1, place 1, personally 1, pay no attention 1, possession 1, pouted 1, prior 1, previously 1, shame 1, show 1, turn my back on 1, top 1, to them 1, under 1, visit 1, withstand 1, watch 1, to the power of 1, to me 1, sought 1, situation 1, spoken 1, take care 1, through 1, task judgment 1, overwhelmed 1, overseas 1, you 1, intention 1, inside 1, into 1, keep 1, lead 1, land 1, in the sight of 1, in advance of 1, hide 1, help 1, head 1, him 1, honored 1, in 1, humiliated 1, left me no choice 1, lifestyle 1, next 1, myself 1, my attention 1, next to 1, of him 1, outer 1, out 1, mouth 1, more than 1, look 1, like 1, look with displeasure 1, looked 1, met 1, makes 1, guiding 1 In AV: before 1137, face 390, presence 76, because 67, sight 40, countenance 30, from 27, person 21, upon 20, of 20, …me 18, against 17, …him 16, open 13, for 13, toward 9, misc 195 Count: 2109 Definition: 1) face
1a) face, faces
1b) presence, person
1c) face (of seraphim or cherubim)
1d) face (of animals)
1e) face, surface (of ground)1f) as adv of loc/temp
1f1) before and behind, toward, in front of, forward, formerly,
from beforetime, before
1g) with prep1g1) in front of, before, to the front of, in the presence of,
in the face of, at the face or front of, from the presence of,
from before, from before the face ofSecondly, do you think that birds also fly around God’s throne, since it too is in “the heavens”? Or will you admit that there are three heavens, according to scripture, with the understanding that the birds fly in the first, the sun, moon, and stars are in the second, and God’s throne is in the third?
https://owlcation.com/humanities/Three-Heavens-According-to-the-Bible
Notice that the author considers the second heaven “outer space where stars and planets are”. So he is a heliocentrist, but still recognizes that the birds fly in the first, sun, moon and stars are in the second, and God resides in the third.
See also…
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_151.cfm
https://www.psalm11918.org/Articles/Did-You-Know/Scripture-Describes-Three-Heavens.html
So Kathi, you have not “refuted” anything at all. What you’ve done is found yourself backed into a corner after first bringing up Gen 1:20, and are now trying your best to – as the BioLogos source I’ve quoted words it – “gain traction by swimming against the strong current of what we know of the ancient world”.
I find this to be disingenuous, especially in light of these words that you yourself wrote in another post…
I can understand how the ancient people would perceive that there must be something solid to hold up the water above the expanse and that the earth was flat. That was then, this is now after much evidence to the contrary.
So you basically acknowledged that the ancient people believed in a solid firmament supporting waters, and a flat earth. And this acknowledgement finds agreement from virtually every Biblical scholar from the early church fathers until today. In fact, Martin Luther said…
“There is talk of a new astrologer [Nicolaus Copernicus] who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.
This was indeed the understanding of all ancient cultures during the time the OT was written. It was the understanding of those who wrote the scriptures. Your statement above has explained your position well. You clearly know that the ancient Bible writers understood a flat earth that was affixed on pillars and stationary, with a sun, moon, and stars moving around it overhead in a solid firmament that supported waters and God’s throne above it. So while you can claim that there is now “much evidence to the contrary”, thus proving the Bible writers wrong or misguided, you cannot honestly try to force the Bible into teaching something it clearly doesn’t, like birds flying among the billions of stars and planets of the vast vacuum universe in which you currently believe.
T8: …the Bible references the going down of the sun a number of times.
Why do you keep telling this falsehood? I’ve already corrected you a number of times about it. Let me do it again…
Psalm 19:6 NIV
It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other…
Here’s the NET Bible translation…
Psalm 19:6 NET
It emerges from the distant horizon,1 and goes from one end of the sky to the other;2 …
Here’s what those two footnotes say…
- Heb “from the end of the heavens [is] its going forth.”
- Heb “and its circuit [is] to their ends.”
Do you see how David actually said that the sun’s “going forth is from the end of the heavens”? Do you see how the majority of English translators render those Hebrew words as “the sun rises at one end of the heavens”?
So here’s my one simple question that you will ignore…
T8: In Psalm 19:6, did King David actually say the sun rises? YES or NO?
T8: Be wise Mike. I am not saying this Atheist is a man to be admired or to aspire to. I am saying ignore the manner of this man and look only at this arguments…
And I’m saying you will know them by their fruits. I’m also saying present one of those arguments for us to discuss. Pick the best one that can be verified by normal everyday people like us.
D4T: Gene, you constantly bring up these “proofs” but fail to present it. Is there a reason for this?
The reason is that his only evidence is NASA images that he couldn’t possibly prove are real… while we’ve undeniably proved that many of them are clearly fake. One of my favorites is the clip of the three ISS actors floating and pretending to be fixing something on the ISS when the zero-G plane (vomit comet) ends its dive and they all crash down to the floor on live footage. If you come across that one, please post it here or send me a link so I can cut that part out of a longer video.
I wonder if Gene thinks Howard from the Big Bang Theory TV show was really in space too. I mean, look at that pen floating in the zero gravity at the 40 second mark. It must be real, right? 🙂
T8: “A moving car’s contained atmosphere is relative to all enclosed in the car. All moving at the same speed. It perfectly explains the earth and atmosphere and what is contained.”
Wait, the atmosphere is “contained”? Are you referring to a firmament?
At any rate, you did not address my questions.
* If the road is moving in one direction at 60 mph and you were traveling in the opposite direction, how fast would you have to go to make any headway?
* If the atmosphere is moving at 1,000 mph and you were flying in the opposite direction, how fast would you have to go to make any headway?
Do do you see the point? Both examples describe the object upon which the force of the vehicle is being applied to be in motion, like you are saying. The only way, according to physics, that there would be no difference in speed in relation to direction is if there were no motion.
Go with me in your mind to a very large conveyer belt about the circumference of the earth. It is moving in one direction at 1,000 mph. You are sitting in a car on that conveyer belt and your car is in park. You can observe that in relation to the belt you are not moving. But you now put the car in neutral and the belt begins to roll under you faster and faster. The atmosphere does not propel you along because it does not have enough force to move a 2,000 pound car (the car is aerodynamic) [much less a 900,000 pound airplane!]. Now you can observe that you and the belt are not going the same speed. In order to catch up and begin moving at the same speed as the belt now you need to go about 1,000 mph.
Is that the world you think we live in?
Lets add another question to the list;
*Do you believe that the thin atmosphere can propel a 900,000 lb airplane to a 1,000 mph?
Mike….interesting point abou O ZERO GRAVITY, I HAVE SOME “REAL” EXPERIANCE WITH THAT.
TRUST ME IF YOU ARE UP IN THE SKY ABOUT A 10000 FEET IN A PLANE, AND STALL IT OUT AND TURN AND DIVE BACK TO WARTH AT A SPEED FASTER THE THE PULL OF GRAVITY, YOU WILL EXPERIENCE O GRAVITE, AND I HAVE PERSONELY HELD A PINCLE AND PLACED IT AT DIFFERENT POINTS AND IT JUSTED FLOATED STILL ANY WHERE I PLACED IT. SO THERE IS SUCH A THING AS Ò GRAVITY, IF YOU EXCEED THE GRAVATONAL PULL TOWARD THE EARTH.
AS far as the tons of proof over 60 years that t h e earth is round, only an idiot would think that it is all a “conspiracy theorie” of somekind going on for over 60 years now.
Everything you and Dig, has brought up here, has not only been prover wrong, with the proofs to back it up, which anyone with a computer can easely find on the internet today, clearly explanied in great detail all over the place.
You people have yet to show “ONE” creditable “PROOF” OF ANY CONSPIRACY THEORIE, whatsoever.
This whole thing is nothing but a complete wast of our time.
Peace and love to you and yours. …..gene
Nick….Well not a complete wast of time, because it shows us how people can be so gullible they will believe anything, so there is a lesson in this after all.
Peace and love to you and yours. …….gene
Mike: Did the ancient Hebrews consider the earth to be stationary, and fixed on pillars? YES or NO?
T8: Probably. It looks that way from our perspective, so it is true in that sense. … Genesis seems to describe what we see and experience…
Thank you for your straightforward and honest answer, T8. In your understanding, the world in which we live is very different from the world described in the scriptures – but that is because the writers of scripture were relaying things from their own perspective, and got a lot of things wrong. And since that is the case, it is not I who tries to prove the Bible wrong, but you who has already accepted that it is wrong.
This thread is to show you that you don’t have to do that. You can truly trust the Bible and accept the truth that our world is exactly as God and the writers of scripture described it in God’s written word.
You can trust that the heavens and the earth are only about 6000 years old. You can trust that God created in six literal 24 hour days. You can trust that He formed the earth from the waters on day two, and created the sun, moon and stars on day four. You can trust that the sun runs a circuit over the earth, while the earth remains stationary and fixed on pillars. You scoff at the ridiculous claims of the evolutionists, yet adhere to the claims of the heliocentrists when they have no more verifiable proof to offer than the evolutionists – and while you and I can both verify that their model doesn’t match observation.
That the earth is flat isn’t the laughable idea, T8. That we live on a spinning ball that holds aircraft carriers upside down while allowing butterflies to roam freely in a bunch of air that is somehow velcroed to the earth and isn’t affected by the huge vacuum of space that resides right beside it or centrifugal force; and can see objects much farther in the distance than we should because refraction lifts them up and places them perfectly on the horizon is the laughable idea. I truly hope you are able to overcome your indoctrination and see what millions of people have only just begun to see. I hope you’ll come to understand that thousands of people who had turned from the Bible because it’s words didn’t align with man’s description of the world have now turned back to God because of their newfound knowledge that the world is exactly as the Bible described it all along. The testimonials just keep pouring in of people returning to the truth because of the flat earth movement.
Gene: Mike….interesting point abou O ZERO GRAVITY, I HAVE SOME “REAL” EXPERIANCE WITH THAT.
TRUST ME IF YOU ARE UP IN THE SKY ABOUT A 10000 FEET IN A PLANE, AND STALL IT OUT AND TURN AND DIVE BACK TO WARTH AT A SPEED FASTER THE THE PULL OF GRAVITY, YOU WILL EXPERIENCE O GRAVITE, AND I HAVE PERSONELY HELD A PINCLE AND PLACED IT AT DIFFERENT POINTS AND IT JUSTED FLOATED STILL ANY WHERE I PLACED IT. SO THERE IS SUCH A THING AS Ò GRAVITY, IF YOU EXCEED THE GRAVATONAL PULL TOWARD THE EARTH.
So then you’ve experienced first hand what people pay to experience in “vomit comets”. Here’s NASA version of what you experienced…
So, were you in outer space when you experienced this weightlessness? Of course not, right? So what makes you think people have to be in outer space to experience it now? The people in the above video weren’t in outer space, right? That’s why I brought up the video of the three ISS actors who were floating in a mock-up of the ISS when the vomit comet stopped diving. Right on the live footage all three of them came crashing to the floor of the “ISS”. Do you think that could happen in real outer space, Gene? Can the weightlessness on the ISS just all of a sudden end, and cause astronauts to stop floating and crash to the floor? Of course not, right? So when we are able to witness these three astronauts doing exactly that in what we’re told is the real ISS in real outer space, are we able to conclude that these three dudes weren’t really in a space station in outer space? Of course we can, because there can be no other rational conclusion. And if these three weren’t really floating around in the ISS in real outer space, why did NASA tell us they were? And since it’s clear that NASA lied about these three guys being in outer space, we have to ask WHY they would lie about it and fake it so that it appeared (at first) that they were floating in the ISS in outer space. Why fake something they can do for real, Gene? Why fake something and pass it off to us as if it is the truth?
Btw, the fact that denser objects fall towards the earth until they hit a denser or equally dense medium has nothing to do with the laughable concoction called “gravity” (which just means “weight”). It just means that things which are denser than the medium they are in will fall down, and keep doing so until they reach a medium that is as dense or denser than they are.
T8: Taken from Paekakariki Hill today. Another shot of Ruapehu.
Fantastic photo. I will likely add it to my YouTube video, which I’ve almost finished. While researching for the video, I discovered that while Ruapehu peaks at 9100 feet, its base rests on the Taupo Plateau, which itself varies from 2000 to 3000 feet above sea level. So I split the difference, and did my calculations based on 9100 feet minus 2500 feet for the plateau. And when you add the 122 miles distance into the earth curve calculator, the results are that a staggering 80% of Ruapehu should be hidden by curvature. That means everything under the yellow line should be hidden…
But I’ll be sure to link the video here when I’m done.
T8, I also did my own “camera on the ground” test with my Dad and his golf cart last weekend. I got some good results that will help you understand why the bottoms of things “disappear” when there is no curve for them to go over. Now I just need the time to get all these things done… and that is somewhat lacking these days.
T8: Actually it looks like they changed the tilt or angle of the Earth.
That’s how the graphic designer pasted the earth into the image. He had to make sure the continents were where they were supposed to be in relation to the moon. But there are a bunch of people who make YouTube videos as they are doing it. You can watch them click on the official NASA site, select a picture, import it into their photo program, and increase the levels. Here’s one of them from the Christian speaker Rob Skiba…
The whole thing is only 8 and a half minutes and goes through a few different faked NASA images. But if you’re in a hurry, you can watch from the 2:00 mark to the 3:30 minute mark and witness Rob pull the image off the NASA website, put it in Photoshop, and adjust the levels. And like I said, there are a bunch of other videos out there with people doing the same thing.
T8: Let me get this straight. I cannot answer all the questions demonstrated by videos but when I find a video that debunks a point or points, then you will not watch the video. No wonder you believe the earth is flat then. Wilful ignorance is bliss.
I believe the earth is flat based on an abundance of observational evidence I can verify myself, and based on the authority of scripture. But no, you have posted 30 “everything flat earth debunked” videos here already, yet can’t bring yourself to admit that the shape of the earth cannot possibly be determined by measuring shadows in two places – which is usually the very first go-to argument made by the “debunkers”. When you are willing to admit that undeniable fact from the first debunking video you posted – a fact that was even admitted by Neil DeGrasse Tyson – I just might start to take you seriously again, like in the old days when we were iron sharpening iron.
T8: I will put the relevant points into my own words. It will actually help me to understand the answers better too.
Not points – with an “s” – but point. Pick ONE point, put it into your own words, and let’s discuss the empirical facts associated with that ONE point. Btw, it’s telling that you keep forcing these videos on us and saying they debunk everything the flat earthers say, but now admit that you don’t even fully understand the basis of the rebuttals they make.
Kathi: Mike,
Here are my thoughts about the lunar eclipse as it eclipses from the top down or from the bottom up. It has to do with what hemisphere you are on. In other words, to those on the Northern hemisphere, if the moon is going from 5 degrees north of the ecliptic plane to 5 degrees south of the ecliptic plane in it’s orbit, it will eclipse from the bottom up and if it is going from 5 degrees south of the ecliptic plane to 5 degrees north of the ecliptic plane it will eclipse from the top down.
It that were the case, we’d have people shooting footage of top-down eclipses for every single eclipse. It has only occurred on 12-10-11 and 1-31-18 as far as I’m currently aware. Although I did think I should add the days between those two, and go back in time the same amount of days from 12-10-11 to see if the previous one did it too. Because maybe these special light patterns are on a timer, like the rest of the heavens God created. But as with the other hundred irons I have in the fire right now, I just haven’t had the time to do it yet.
Kathi, I’m asking you to seriously think this out for a few minutes. It doesn’t have to be the earth, moon and sun. It can by any single light source, and any two objects. Do it yourself at home. Take an apple and a banana, or a peach and a potato, and turn on one lamp in the room. Have one object in each of your hands, and try anything you can think of to make the object closer to the lamp cast a shadow on the other object where the part of the second object that is closest to the shadow cast from the closer object remains lit while the part further away from the shadow cast by the first object is in the shadow of the first object.
I just drew this example…
I used a lamp, a ball, and a square. But do you understand that what you’re seeing is impossible? The part of the square that is actually in the shadow of the ball cannot be the lit part – while the ball is somehow shadowing the part of the square that isn’t even in the shadow of the ball. Now, here’s one of the images I took myself 1-31-18. Maybe you’ll be able to understand better from a front-on example…
I’m standing on the blue earth, looking up to the west at the moon. The sun is about to rise behind me in the east. Now, if that big blue earth I’ve drawn is what’s causing the shadow on the top of the moon, how can the sun be shining through the earth to light the bottom so brightly? And if it’s the sun shining over the top of the earth to light the bottom of the moon, then how can the earth be what’s causing the shadow on the top of the moon?
I really don’t know how many different ways I can explain such a simple concept. The moon cannot possibly eclipse from the top-down while setting in the west and the sun rising in the east. Here’s a video from you really need to watch…
There are many different videos of top-down eclipses in it, but check out the dude starting at the 6:15 mark. He is watching the moon eclipse in Illinois while the sun is up in the sky (making it impossible for the earth to be what’s causing the shadow), and the eclipse is occurring from the top down. Watch as he tries to explain that even though he can see the sun in the sky where he’s at, it is still somehow shining around the entire under side of the earth to light the moon from the bottom. Such is the indoctrination that people will come up with and believe such absurdities to explain away the fact that what they’re witnessing with their own eyes belies the heliocentric model. It’s funny to see him try to wrap his head around what’s happening… and also sad.
Gene: Nick….show ne where i “mock” any teachings, of Jesus, what i mock is you misunderstandings of what he was saying…not uderstanding Jesus said “IF” I cast out”, he didn’t say he did that as you believe.
I thought Jesus didn’t say anything at all in scripture, because it was always the “spirit of the anointing” or whatever doing the speaking through him. 🙂
Mike,
you said:
One of my favorites is the clip of the three ISS actors floating and pretending to be fixing something on the ISS when the zero-G plane (vomit comet) ends its dive and they all crash down to the floor on live footage.
Have you even considered that astronauts go through a very long training period before they launch, covering every detail over and over while filming it for their educational purposes???
T8: The video in your post Mike is debunked. The boat in the video is on the near side of the horizon and is small, so disappears due to its size, not the curvature of the Earth.
I’m not sure which video you’re talking about, because I have posted videos that have small boats, medium sized boats, and huge boats all “disappearing over the horizon” – only to be zoomed back into view. But let’s have an actual discussion about it, okay? What size of boat (height from water line to top) do you say would disappear due to it’s small size before it goes over the curved horizon? 5 feet tall? 6 feet? 8 feet? What size boats disappear due to size?
Mike….That video is exactly right, that is exactly what happens if you take a plane theough those same manovers that is exactly what happens, i personely experience that, not as long as the did because they were are a higher altitude then i was. The qeuzeness is produced because you stomach muscles always have gravit pulling on them, when you remove the gravitional pull your stomach muscles constrict and causes you to feel quize. Everything in that vido is accurate. As i said i personally experienced it. So you conspiracy BS, won’t work on this for me at least.
Only an idiot would disbelieve that, as far as I am concern, having personally experienced. Goes to show how truly you FLAT EARTH, fruit cakes are in denial. IMO
Peace and love to you and yours. …..gene
Kathi: Have you even considered that astronauts go through a very long training period before they launch, covering every detail over and over while filming it for their educational purposes???
Sure… they’d have to, right? Because nobody in their right mind would try to do something like, say, land a vehicle on the moon without first getting it right a thousand times on the earth, right? You know… like Neil and Buzz and Michael allegedly did with the moon lander without ever once successfully landing it on earth. 😀
But yeah, we can watch hours of footage of astronauts training for space walks in a huge aquarium with a life sized replica of the real ISS that’s in real outer space. We’re not supposed to notice that the inward pressure they’d feel from being under water is the complete opposite of outward pressure they’d feel in the vacuum of space. We’re not supposed to see the thousands of air bubbles floating through space on their “real” ISS space walks. (Search YouTube for “Bubbles in Space”) And we’re not supposed to make the connection that not only one, but two different space walkers have almost drowned when their helmets inexplicably filled up with water in the vacuum of space. Of course you’ll find hundreds of “explanations” for all of these verifiable things – but that’s where discernment comes in.
But anyway, the video I’m talking about wasn’t a test. It was presented to the world as live footage of astronauts doing maintenance on the ISS. Unfortunately, they only have 30-40 seconds to float freely (without the wires and harnesses that show in dozens of other official NASA ISS live feeds) before the vomit comet has to nose-up again, and they lose their weightlessness. In this case, the timing was off, and the footage was still streaming to the public when the plane nosed-up and the three actors crashed to the ground hard. I was looking for it earlier, but didn’t find it right away. It’s included in a bunch of the “NASA ISS Hoax” compilations that you can find all over on YouTube – but I don’t have time right now to find that one clip for you.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
