in the sky above (within your firmament)
I thought this might be your answer, but I wanted at least to verify that you'd thought about this as opposed to just parroting a meme.
I'm not altogether interested in the flat earth or fake-space debates any longer. I don't go for them myself, but I don't begrudge the people who do. These views just aren't consequential enough to truly bother me (at least at this moment; perhaps I'm wrong and they are immensely important).
That said, I am 'with' a couple of the positions that tend to get clustered with this crowd. First, I don't believe man has stepped foot on the moon. Second, there's something going on with Antarctica. I don't endorse any of the concrete stories about what's going on with Antarctica (there's too much wild fucking speculation), but I feel confident there are secrets being kept from us about Antarctica, and human history more generally. Humans didn't just suddenly civilize six thousand years ago.
But as it concerns space being fake, there are some things I'm not prepared to accept. First, that the sun and stars are all located in a firmament surrounding earth - something like a dome. That requires two different explanations for both kinds of object, when there is the simpler explanation that they are all objects of the same kind at vastly greater distances from each other. Second, there are planetary bodies in this system that would require some explanation. I'm not at all prepared to accept that the photographs we have of these planets are all 'faked'.
Typically when it comes to a conspiracy, I need to be able to see the means, motive and opportunity. In terms of means and opportunity, there exists a disinformation machine today that satisfies both of these in almost all cases. But when it comes to space, I don't see the motive. All too often I'm met with the answer that the motive is religious, i.e. to cause us to lose faith in the scriptures or something, and this just doesn't do it for me. The Bible shouldn't be considered as giving us a literal astronomy. A cosmogony, sure, but not a literal account of the crude structure of the universe. I don't put a scientific explanation above the Bible - please don't get me wrong here; rather, I see them as dealing with different domains needing explanation.
Maybe @PS or @KingOfWhiteAmerica would care to weigh in. The one thing I will say re: space is that I do consider geocentrism a strong possibility, which might be thought to fit with a scriptural interpretation of the cosmos. In the end, to unequivocally prove geocentrism v. heliocentrism would seem to require a fixed object to triangulate against, and everything in space is in motion. Perhaps it is the case that earth is not, and the universe moves about the fixed planet earth, or perhaps it's a relativistic issue where one could arrive at the same result by considering everything else as moving relative to our inertial frame. Again, these are interesting topics, but not ones which my worldview requires for a foundation.
Flat-Earth is the least-likely cosmogony; spaceballs is the likeliest, but the Concave Earth actually has a lot going for it. The only “weirdness” required is “bendy light”, and it works wonders for gravity, being a kind of outward pressure pushing out - that is, down in a concave earth.
I’m a Young-Earth TradOx, and I still acknowledge spaceballs to be the likeliest. I do believe we’re massively lied to about the nature of the Heavens - enough to justify the assertion that space is fake and gay - and I also believe “extraterrestrials” are demonic in origin.
Antarctica is indeed a massive conspiracy. I suspect it has something to do with the “fossil fuel” industry.
suspect it has something to do with the “fossil fuel” industry.
you mean like, the growing GMO canola to turn into "crude oil" ? Don't need Antarctica for that. Probably more something to do with vast amounts of land/minerals there as Admiral Byrd said larger than the USA. Or the contients that lay beyond it; such as the ones depicted in that old Japanese map.
I am not familiar with concave earth. I'm assuming the idea is we're like a bowl, where all of the landmass sits on the inner surface of the bowl?
I cannot get behind the young earth position, but again not much hangs on it either way from my perspective. Existence itself is miraculous enough, that whether earth came into being !snap! just like that, or congealed from the dust and gas left over from a supernova across billions of years, is not much of a consequence to my belief system. I find the latter likelier, but again, for me scientific explanation has a certain domain of reality it is epistemically closed in explaining. If the outcome is X, I need not have a firm position on whether X came to be instantaneously, or whether it was first Y and gradually became X. Both are instances of existence which in any case are non-random, which is logically enough to get me where I need to be. The Logos of the universe is on display in either case.
it's not frutiful to debate the topic, for me this is like Santa Clause Easter bunny stuff. But you are obviously an idol worshipper by your idolotry in the (((Bible))) and worship of (((God))) and his fabled son (((Jesus))) who you so quickly accept just as Mormon's accept their Freemason Bible author too.
There are a couple themes here that should be blatantly obvious but to sumrize it: you believe in fables which are conveniently all invisible and as such require you to suspend then giveway your authority in order for them to be valid. Cause if you were to reject and retain your authority to analyze, observe, prove the constant barrage of frauds the same hoaxters have been fleecing you with for centuries then you would not find the hard evidence - Santa, Jesus, and zero gravity/giant planets/snow on Mars/dinosaurs/viruses et all are frauds based on invisible things that only work because you BELIEVE. NASA earning $50 million a day taxpayer budget is evidently not motive enough for you. Only the selfish, lazy, and incompetent or all of the above enable NASA to extract that much and there's a whole fleet of military Judeao Masonic industrialists who are lining up to get ever more of these fat contracts apart of this gift that keeps on giving; an even wilder success than religions thanks primarily to a rebranding of it into "science".
With that out of the way, get a Nikon P900 and zoom into the stars and 'planets' for yourself. They are not the masonic CG images fed to us by the priests of NASA/JAXA/ESA/ISA et all. They are literally glowy orb energy things (I dunno man, they're not solid). The sun, the moon and all of these bodies seem to be translucent light phenomena not unlike a rainbow. But don't take my word for it, I am just trying to share the extent of paradigm shift needed to comprehend this; but its not hard after you see amateur video of stars - and while you're at it look at helium balloon camera launches of our beautiful flat plane as they make their ascent up there.
Finally, it seems we do agree on the basis of the topic - ie its not particularly relevant to our current situation; more prudent to focus on issues local in your area; there are more pressing matters but obviously knowing more again as you suggest like wtf is going on in Anarctica would be nice.
Traditional Christianity took over the entire ancient world, because the common man of the age recognized the completion of their ancient Faith that they inherited from their peasant ancestry. We remain a powerful intellectual force right up to the modern day - somewhat less so than before, but still present - because the worldview is logically complete and consistent.
You’ve got this view that kindergarten-level Sunday School “Jesus-loves-me-this-I-know—cuz-the-Bible-tells-me-so” of what constitutes Christianity. I wouldn’t be surprised if it never occurred to you there was anything more to it.
You probably figured all these heavy-hitting ancient, medieval and early-modern philosophers and scientists over the last couple thousand years just wanted to believe in Easter Bunnies or some shit. The logical inconsistency of that thought hasn’t really dawned on you, yet.
I just want to point out ((())) hates Christ. They won't even speak His name most of the time. I watched a debate between a Catholic and a very prominent Jewish rabbi/philosopher recently, and the rabbi would not even refer to Christ by name, despite the fact they talked about the situation for around an hour. He would only say, "That situation 2,000 years ago."
In my humble opinion, it's time for you to reconsider your ideas about God, Christianity, and the Gospels.
(post is archived)