Cosmology Debate Thread ("Space Is Fake")


Buzz Aldrin interview about moon landing is not proof that it was faked​


The moon landing broadcasted HAD fake parts. TV´s did this supposedly because of 24h broadcast. And people couldn´t tell the difference. Kubrick assistant helped the fake. This is not controversial. It is an accepted fact. So you can say there were parts of moonlanding footage shown to the public which were fake. It´s not a big stretch for the entire thing to be faked.

“The National Science and Media Museum discussed the Apollo 11 broadcast on its website ( here ): “Many broadcasters used simulations to flesh out their Apollo programming. Networks paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for scale models of Apollo command modules and rockets. During the broadcast, these were used to create simulations of the mission which were then intercut with real footage.”

“The thing to remember is what news was like in the late 1960’s, not 24-hour continuous coverage,” Margaret Weitekamp, Chair of the Space History Department at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, said by phone. “The coverage of that trip needed to be explained to the public without the ability for continuous relay of video we are now used to.”

“Animations would have been a part of a constellation of different ways that that story was told over a series of days. At the time, the coverage would have been combined with animations that helped provide a broader picture of what was being done. But this certainly doesn’t invalidate that those landings took place.”

There´s several links in that article worth reading.

I have no established opinion. But I´m inclined to believe the landing happened. The moonlanding could have happened. Maybe they landed but wasn´t possible to make footages.

But certainly they wouldn´t broadcast live something so impactful to the masses without some previous intel and calculations. It would be too reckless. The elites would first have to know what was there before revealing it to commoners. If there was a moonlanding the one broadcasted sure as ... wouldn´t be the first landing for sure. 100% sure on this. Man would have been to the moon before.

There´s also theories about humans being able to reach a certain point traveling and not overcome it. But in the 1400´s people also didn´t knew about other continents. And they existed. And intrepid spanish and portuguese reached them. Maybe there was a medieval forum were someone said there were continents with indians. And others banned him.

There´s the freemason disk video:


But I don´t have technical skills to discuss if it´s relevant or not. Watched it. Something about two suns, etc. Didn´t get it really. If anyone can add something to this gibberish.

I don´t see any practical side to this discussion though. But for people with time. That could be a nice thread. Practical implications of fake space.
 
Last edited:
scorpion said:
None of these assumptions can be taken for granted if you are going for 100% real world accuracy, but they aren't in this example. They are going for developing an understanding of basic flight dynamics. Once the basics are understood, you start adding in variables and removing the initial simplifying assumptions.
Click to expand...

Why would they teach something with assumptions that most people hold not to be true? From what I could see on their website, there was no other course where they will learn different calculations that incorporate curvature and rotation.


scorpion said:
The fact that you seem to have searched a database of scientific papers for the term "flat earth" and just posted what you came up with (completely out of context) as evidence supporting your theory is ridiculous and reveals a total lack of credibility.
Click to expand...

That is not what I did. You're making a strawman argument that is not accurate. The 1988 NASA paper is very well known, I've been aware of it for years. For the others, there is a video that cites 44 different papers, I chose two of them to use as an example.

I also never said that I believe in any particular theory, that's an assumption you're making. Nor was I making an appeal to present the best possible argument for a unified theory with what I thought was merely an interesting post that asked a question.

So if your answer is that they use this terminology in at least 40+ papers but they don't really mean it literally, that's fine. It's a valid question to ask why they would do that. Maybe each paper should be viewed individually though before assuming the same answer holds for each one. For example, it would seem that the assumptions inherent in the terminology used for the vertically polarized antenna weapon system would require extreme accuracy. This is referring to the Joseph R. Miletta paper of 2001 "Propagation of Electromagnetic Fields Over Flat Earth".


scorpion said:
Are we truly to believe this is the best evidence you can present for this argument?
Click to expand...

No.
 
It's pretty common in various fields to assume premises that don't reflect what happens in the emperical world when attempting to express a theory. There's certain ideas and theories that are expressed more clearly and elegantly when a person trying to understand the idea imagines an ideal world that is stripped of confounding factors. You might recall being in physics class where you are asked to imagine a frictionless surface. No such thing can exist in the physical world but it's useful to illustrate theories about motion.

Economics is another example where you make the assumption that people are rational actors and have full access to all information when they make a decision which we know from this observing people in everyday life isn't something actually the case for either of those things.
 
GuitarVH said:
Why would they teach something with assumptions that most people hold not to be true? From what I could see on their website, there was no other course where they will learn different calculations that incorporate curvature and rotation.




That is not what I did. You're making a strawman argument that is not accurate. The 1988 NASA paper is very well known, I've been aware of it for years. For the others, there is a video that cites 44 different papers, I chose two of them to use as an example.

I also never said that I believe in any particular theory, that's an assumption you're making. Nor was I making an appeal to present the best possible argument for a unified theory with what I thought was merely an interesting post that asked a question.

So if your answer is that they use this terminology in at least 40+ papers but they don't really mean it literally, that's fine. It's a valid question to ask why they would do that. Maybe each paper should be viewed individually though before assuming the same answer holds for each one. For example, it would seem that the assumptions inherent in the terminology used for the vertically polarized antenna weapon system would require extreme accuracy. This is referring to the Joseph R. Miletta paper of 2001 "Propagation of Electromagnetic Fields Over Flat Earth".




No.
Click to expand...

This man sees the hidden meanings. Very perceptive. It is obvious from my time on planes that the earth is flat. I have never seen curvature of any kind. The papers cited are just more evidence. Why would they base important theories on a flat earth, because it is.
 
scorpion said:
Flat Earth (and apparently its cousin, "space is not real") are psy-ops intentionally designed to sow division and confusion among those who reject mainstream narratives, and to discredit other so-called "conspiracy theories" by lumping them in with what most people clearly recognize to be obvious nonsense.

Example:

Bob: Have you actually looked into 9/11 or the JFK assassination? It's obvious the government is covering things up.
Mike: Oh don't tell me you believe all that conspiracy crap. Next thing you're gonna tell me the Earth is flat!

If you actually believe in Flat Earth, you need to seriously take a step back and re-examine your thinking, because the reality is you've simply fallen for a psy-op that was intentionally created to sucker in critical thinkers and re-direct their energy in a manner that is not only harmless to the elites, but completely self-discrediting. In other words, by pushing Flat Earth nonsense, you are doing the Deep State/Globalist elites a favor.
Click to expand...

^ co-signed
 
Last edited:
GuitarVH said:
I was just answering your question as to what the motivation would be to challenge the ancient and Biblical cosmology, especially within the last 100 years with the Big Bang theory, ever-expanding space and trillions of different galaxies and solar systems. It is completely different than what people believed for thousands of years.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but there's a big leap from that to saying that satellites are fake, and the moon landings + planets/moons within the solar system that you can see for yourself. (with or without telescope) Saying that satellites are fake is also by extension a flat-earth argument, which I understand is a banned topic.
 
I actually just realized EVERYTHING is fake. We are just living in a simulated world where we all communicate through a forum on some web hosted equilibrium where everything is almost close to the real thing which doesn't exist.

Get a grip guys, more important things to deal with.
 
I actually wouldn't be surprised if an "the Internet is fake" thread pops up in the next few months. After have you ever actually touched the Internet or seen it through a telescope? Have you been able to feel it's supposed tube like structure?
 
Why the clown response to my posts? It is clear, the members here are part of the system to suppress the truth. Mr Guitar through his study of acoustic equations and by reference aeronautical equations has determined, quite correctly I might add, that the earth is flat and that space is nonexistent. He’s a wise man, more so than the others here.

What you are seeing is, at best a hologram projected from the center of the earth to give the illusion of celestial bodies. As the first post states, this hologram is really just reflecting the back of a frying pan. The supposed heat from the sun, is really coming from the center of the earth and molten lava.

It can be proven through using a large octagonal device and blasting acoustic waves through the atmosphere. In fact, the ancient Egyptians used this technology to levitate stones, and in early Christianity the singing of hymns was used to hit a certain frequency that would lead to mystical experiences. There is even evidence the communion host was made from a psychedelic plant.
 
Wutang said:
I actually wouldn't be surprised if an "the Internet is fake" thread pops up in the next few months. After have you ever actually touched the Internet or seen it through a telescope? Have you been able to feel it's supposed tube like structure?
Click to expand...

In fact, it is quite fake. What we are on right now is actually a simulated mental projection, not quite like The Matrix, but with eerie similarities. Remember that the people in charge give secret clues to their agenda. The Matrix is quite real, and what happened is we were fused with technology and became cyborgs thousands of years ago, perhaps with the help of a different planetary civilization.

What we are on right now is the simulated construct of that technology.
 
Johnnyvee said:
Yeah, but there's a big leap from that to saying that satellites are fake, and the moon landings + planets/moons within the solar system that you can see for yourself. (with or without telescope) Saying that satellites are fake is also by extension a flat-earth argument, which I understand is a banned topic.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here has claimed stars, planets and moons are fake.
There is a big difference between claiming something is fake, and claiming something is not what they tell us it is.

I DO believe that planets and moons are "real" but that doesn't mean they are physical things you can "land" on.
They could simply be far away permanent lights or gases which are in a fixed place.

In fact people have taken close up live moving videos of stars and planets with high powered telescopes and rather than look like physical things, they actually look like they are fixed lights or gases behind a large surface of water making them wavy and moving.

Examples of what I mean:




 
Johnnyvee said:
Yeah, but there's a big leap from that to saying that satellites are fake, and the moon landings + planets/moons within the solar system that you can see for yourself. (with or without telescope) Saying that satellites are fake is also by extension a flat-earth argument, which I understand is a banned topic.
Click to expand...

I never made a reference to satellites or the moon landings. No one said the sun, the moon, the planets and stars don't exist. Some people believe space isn't as vast and endless as what is currently taught, involving light years of distance and millions of galaxies. Instead they believe it is smaller, though still quite large from our perspective on earth.
 
We seem to have at least 2 different new members who have signed up to this forum yesterday and today, and are only posting in this thread and no other thread on the forum.

They seem to be pushing in 2 opposite extremes. One new member is trying to derail this thread with a very hostile attitude and personal insults, while the other new member is pushing the alternative theories to such extremes, that rational and calm discussion of ideas becomes lost in hyberbole.
 
GuitarVH said:
I never made a reference to satellites or the moon landings. No one said the sun, the moon, the planets and stars don't exist. Some people believe space isn't as vast and endless as what is currently taught, involving light years of distance and millions of galaxies. Instead they believe it is smaller, though still quite large from our perspective on earth.
Click to expand...

Maybe not you, but many others in this thread. The OP even started the thread with pics of solar system moons, saying that they're the backs of frying bans. A general problem is what I call out-of-context replies. It means that someone replies to an answer to another poster, but not knowing the context of that reply.
 
GuitarVH said:
I never made a reference to satellites or the moon landings. No one said the sun, the moon, the planets and stars don't exist. Some people believe space isn't as vast and endless as what is currently taught, involving light years of distance and millions of galaxies. Instead they believe it is smaller, though still quite large from our perspective on earth.
Click to expand...

Ahh I lost any respect for you, quite cowardly I might add! You beat around the bush posting papers referencing flat earth and even in a space is fake thread, then when faced with resistance you tuck your tail between your legs and run!

‘Oh no, I AM posting in the space is fake thread, but but but I never said the sun, moon, or stars don’t exist!’

I’d like you to look down and check that you actually have two spherical shaped objects between your legs, instead of a gash! My guess it’s the latter!
 
For those who have never seen it, here is the ONLY press conference the 3 astronauts gave after allegedly landing on the moon in 1969.
Notice the excitement and smiles on their 3 faces !
Notice how proud and confident they are of their amazing achievement !

Also notice also how they can't agree between the 3 of them on what they saw or what they did, keeping looking down, keep fidgeting in their seats like a schoolboy caught doing naughty things, can't keep their hands still, keep looking at eachother nervously every time they are asked a question they aren't sure how to answer, have hesitant and trembling voices like they are about to burst into tears at any moment, and even go as far as to claim they didn't see any stars while on the moon. (minute 1:04:49 in the video below)

The question and answer section with the press starts at minute 46:15 into the video, which is the most ominous part.

 
Last edited:
ShoodaSiratig said:
Why the clown response to my posts? It is clear, the members here are part of the system to suppress the truth. Mr Guitar through his study of acoustic equations and by reference aeronautical equations has determined, quite correctly I might add, that the earth is flat and that space is nonexistent. He’s a wise man, more so than the others here.

What you are seeing is, at best a hologram projected from the center of the earth to give the illusion of celestial bodies. As the first post states, this hologram is really just reflecting the back of a frying pan. The supposed heat from the sun, is really coming from the center of the earth and molten lava.

It can be proven through using a large octagonal device and blasting acoustic waves through the atmosphere. In fact, the ancient Egyptians used this technology to levitate stones, and in early Christianity the singing of hymns was used to hit a certain frequency that would lead to mystical experiences. There is even evidence the communion host was made from a psychedelic plant.
Click to expand...
@Cynllo Can we get troll and ban hammer emojis for guys like this?
 
Caduceus said:
For those who have never seen it, here is the ONLY press conference the 3 astronauts gave after allegedly landing on the moon in 1969.
Notice the excitement and smiles on their 3 faces !
Notice how proud and confident they are of their amazing achievement !

Also notice also how they can't agree between the 3 of them on what they saw or what they did, keeping looking down, keep fidgeting in their seats like a schoolboy caught doing naughty things, can't keep their hands still, keep looking at eachother nervously every time they are asked a question they aren't sure how to answer, have trembling voices like they are about to burst into tears at any moment, and even go as far as to claim they didn't see any stars while on the moon.

The question and answer section with the press starts at minute 36:30 into the video, which is the most ominous part.

Click to expand...


That just means the moon landing is fake, not space itself. Masons love to position themselves above God which this whole charade might part of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top