Neil deGrasse TysonEarth is not only oblate — wider at the equator than pole-to-pole, but pear shaped — slightly wider just south of the equator. Sep. 19, 2014
from NASA Website
LOOKS ROUND TO ME!!…PRE-OBLATE, PRE-PEAR..,
….Post Flat
FAKE CGI FROM “OFFICIAL” NASA PHOTO “BLUE MARBLE”
Astrophysicists and NASA say now the Earth is oblate, pear shaped!
, due to the pull of the oceans by the moon’s gravity some 238,000 miles away that slosh the oceans back and forth twice per day .
Really? Consider the “facts” as laid out by current Programmed Parrot Scientists (PPS’s)
- The Moon has 1/6th the gravity pull of Earth
- The Moon is 1/4 the size of Earth
- Newton 3rd Law says Size matters in regards to amount of gravity
- Astro-nots are said to be near weightless at 100 miles above Earth
How can the moon with 1/6th gravity move the Oceans on Earth????? Enough to change the shape of the Earth? WTF?
And the Programmed Scientists parrot:
The Earth is actually an Oblate spheroid but only just slightly.
You can generally call the Earth a sphere because it is mostly spherical but not entirely so.
The Earth is only approximately spherical, so no single value serves as its natural radius. Distances from points on the surface to the center range from 6,353 km to 6,384 km (3,947 – 3,968 mi). Several different ways of modeling the Earth as a sphere each yield a mean radius of 6,371 kilometers (3,959 mi). Regardless of the model, any radius falls between the polar minimum of about 6,357 km and the equatorial maximum of about 6,378 km (3,950 – 3,963 mi)
So it is roughly 30 km wider around the Equator than going from pole to pole. This is partially due to the pull of the moon on the Earth and the rotation of the Earth.
the Earth deviates from a perfect sphere by only a third of a percent
See Related:
How Does the Moon’s Gravity Move our Oceans?
Show Me the Curve?
Where is the Curvature? Part II
Flat Earth Confessions; Missiles Never Correct for Curvature
Aplanetruth.info 
Since the Earth (hypothetically) exerts way more gravitational force on the Moon than the Moon does on the Earth, why is the Moon not also pear shaped? Actually it should look like a squash or even a cucumber since the Earth’s pull would be that much greater, at least according to NASA.
LikeLike
when you sail around the world do you start east or west north or south
LikeLike
So here’s a few counter arguments:
===The Blue Marble and Earth’s Appearance===
“This spectacular “blue marble” image is the most detailed true-color image of the entire Earth to date. Using a collection of satellite-based observations, scientists and visualizers stitched together months of observations of the land surface, oceans, sea ice, and clouds into a seamless, true-color mosaic of every square kilometer (.386 square mile) of our planet. These images are freely available to educators, scientists, museums, and the public.” – http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=57723
It’s a composite of many images. It’s not just a one shot. Hence the repeating cloud patterns.
As for the inconsistency in Earth’s appearance… you get that not every image can be taken from the same angle, on the same day, with the same weather, and with the exact same equipment and other conditions, right? And, as it’s been explained, composites are made. So because it’s imperfect, it’s fake, right? Is that what you’re gettin’ at?
===The Earth’s Shape===
Take notice that the image of the Earth’s “true shape” says this:
“Gravity Field and Steady-State Ocean Circulation Explorer (Goce) image of earth (BBC)”
Keywords: “Gravity Field”.
It’s an exaggerated image that attempts to show the distribution of gravity on Earth, and how it’s uneven, and how it affects the distribution of water and oceanic circulation. That is not an image showing the shape of the Earth. The Earth isn’t a lumpy potato looking thing, it *is* an oblate spheroid (bulging at the equator).
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20335-earth-is-shaped-like-a-lumpy-potato#.VSPq0pPYHE4
“In the visualisation, the vertical scale has been exaggerated by a factor of 7000, so the pits and crests are 7000 times shallower or taller, respectively, than depicted here.”
===The Astronauts (and a little bit extra)===
“Newton 3rd Law says Size matters in regards to amount of gravity”
Wrong.
1. Newton’s third law states that “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”. It says nothing about how size affects gravity.
2. Size does not affect gravity. It affects tidal forces (hence why we’re safe on Earth, but a black hole with the same mass as the Earth would tear us apart).
3. What actually affects the gravitation forces exerted on other objects is mass and distance.
“Astro-nots are said to be near weightless at 100 miles above Earth”
This is true. But you don’t understand what the words you’re using mean, so you think that this is a contradiction in the “NASA story” when it’s not.
1. They are experiencing zero weight. Or, rather, more accurately, they’re experiencing no G Forces.
2. Astronauts experience 10% less gravity up in the ISS compared to people on the surface of the Earth.
3. They experience this because of the fact that they’re orbiting the Earth. Basically, we don’t feel our weight when we’re falling, because weight requires an opposite contact force, like what we feel when we stand on the ground or sit in a chair. And so when we fall, we’re “Weightless”. The ISS is perpetually falling towards the Earth, but because it has a sideways velocity, it moves around where it’s being pulled towards. It falls down, but the Earth curves away from it, in this sense. So it perpetually is swung around and around, and so because of this sideways falling, the astronauts never experience weight while they’re up there.
Detailed-as-fuck explanation:
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Weightlessness-in-Orbit
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you!! Well put! I was about to do just what you did here and I am certain not nearly as well, so thank you!
LikeLike
It’s a common misnomer to believe that astronauts are weightless in space orbit, but that’s simply not the case: Astronauts are in a state of perpetual free-fall, and are no more weightless than a sky-diver. The difference is that a sky-diver falls more or less straight down. An orbiting object falls in a long arch, like a football thrown down the field. A rocket-propelled astronaut is so high, and moving so fast, that his arc follows the curve of the Earth’s surface. As he falls, the ground curves out from underneath him, so he doesn’t ever hit the ground. If an astronaut wasn’t moving forward fast enough to “outrun” the curve of the Earth, he’d fall straight down- just like the astronaut who parachuted out of the ‘Red Bull’ balloon.
LikeLike
AnaseSkyrider
It’s a composite of many images. It’s not just a one shot. Hence the repeating cloud patterns.
Due to this simple reason, flat earthers and many others will still not believe that the earth is a sphere.
LikeLike
… But, then again, after taking another look at it, the cloud formations are of different sizes.
How big of an area does the satellite take a picture of?
Wouldn’t the clouds have dispersed and changed shape, as the ones where I live do. So, there would not be a second image of the same cloud shape/formation due to the wind.
I do not believe the earth is flat, but I do wonder what ‘they’ are hiding!
LikeLike
What makes these idiots think NASA give a fried rats testicle what they think of an image, I think they copy cloud structures just to taunt this bunch of brainless losers, and they laugh all the way home – flat earthers are sport. I think it’s hilarious. By the way, it’s a ball and the sane people love it that way. 🙂
LikeLike
its not only in clouds in their Fake images but their are hundreds of issues with dumb ball earth models that everyone does not even question because we are brainwashed as children. We live in the matrix and its time to wake up, we live on a plane. The horizon is flat and comes to eye level no matter how high you go as footage sees , the north pole the stars make perfect circles and if we are moving at those velocities in one direction and stars all directions the constellations would incur substantial parallax and change weekly. nasa hides stars in their images as they know they would be called on it. if we leave the city and see more stars because of clear atmosphere then why in space with no atmosphere would it be blocked? Ah the sun, watching the sun move in sped up long period footage looks like its the one moving towards the camera and gets bigger then shrinks and gets smaller and smaller until your eye sight reaches its limit and the cloud line and air conditions block it. the sun and moon circle us and that is what a ying yang really is. South pole is a circle of ice. everyone on the planet no matter where you are see the same moon the same face no other angle, the light is different to sunlight as they have different attributes, its emitting its own light. people are viewing objects that should be well beyond the curve and no images not from fake nasa images ever show a curve. when boats disappear over the horizon you can take a zoom camera and get it back. the bottom disappears first because the light is being obscured by water. Eratosthenes a Greek mathematician used his formula to calculate the distance of the sun using the angled sun rays and marking where they fell and tracing the source to its origin. its much closer to us. our ancient ancestors knew the truth but our governments led by free mason magicians hide the truth from us and their symbol represents the angles of the sun. the earth is a plane and when they discovered this they hid it so you never know that we are not random and living with billions of other planets we we have a creator. a purpose. its like looking down a hallway our vision perceives the halls to merge until its one point, that is how our eyes work they converge so it appears like it is setting and rising when its really just far off.all this footage is on youtube. you will wake up.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“its not only in clouds in their Fake images but their are hundreds of issues with dumb ball earth models …”
Such as?
“that everyone does not even question because we are brainwashed as children.”
Education is not the same thing as brainwashing. Besides: I’ve questioned the model and I still come out in favor of the idea that it is spherical. Got a problem with that?
“We live in the matrix and its time to wake up, we live on a plane.”
No we don’t, no we don’t, and no we don’t. Let’s see your arguments.
“The horizon is flat and comes to eye level no matter how high you go as footage sees”
At the height of Mount Everest, the horizon is three degrees below eye-level.
a = arcsin(d/h+r), where d is the distance to the horizon (found with d = √(h+r)^2 – r^2) ), h is the observer’s height above the horizon, and r is the Earth’s radius.
You’re not going to notice the horizon dropping down with cameras going up the atmosphere that can’t maintain level, nor on the ground. You need accurate measuring devices to do that.
“the north pole the stars make perfect circles”
… And … ? Of course it’s going to make circles because the north pole is near Earth’s northern rotational axis. Now explain the fact that you can’t see the southern pole star from the northern hemisphere, or how when you’re on the equator you can see the sky rotating from two different axes of rotation, and how you can see those southern stars rotating in the opposite direction.
“and if we are moving at those velocities in one direction and stars all directions the constellations would incur substantial parallax and change weekly.”
In one direction … ? We’re orbitting. In a Newtonian sense, we’re not moving in one direction. A circular path is a change of direction. That’s why a rotating frame of reference is an accelerating frame of reference.
Are you saying that the Earth’s rotation should incur substantial parallax, or just it’s orbit as well? Your comment is so ill-conceived in writing that I can only *barely* understand why you’re full of crap.
But fuck it. Here’s an excerpt from a previous comment exchange I had on YouTube where I already addressed stellar parallax, and the pole-stars.
“This is a demonstration of the fact that Polaris is so fucking far away that it doesn’t even matter if Earth moves from one end of its orbit to the other.
In this diagram, we’re trying to solve for α. We know the length of d in this diagram; it’s the distance to Polaris. We know the length of o as well; it’s the radius of Earth’s orbit times 2.
So we have
o = 2 * 92,960,000 mi
o = 185,920,000 mi
and so since Polaris is 433.8 light years away, that means
d = 2,550,150,000,000,000 mi (or 2.55015 x 10^25 mi)
Knowing just this information, we can find the parallax angle α. Angle α is as follows:
α = arctan(o/d)
α = arctan(185,920,000 / 2,550,150,000,000,000)
α = arctan(0.0000000729055154)
α = 0.000004177178º
Oh… Gee… I guess that explains why you’re fucking retarded. It doesn’t even matter if Polaris isn’t directly overhead of Earth in one end of its orbit. We’re dealing with lightyears. No matter how precise you get, it’s still going to be INCREDIBLY small changes in angle. The most change you can get out of Polaris’s position, relative to Earth, is when the fucking rotational axis of Earth precesses. And that’s not even it moving relative to Earth, that’s just adjusting the angle we see it at from the ground.”
So no, the Earth’s motion wouldn’t incur lots of stellar parallax because the stars are many light years away. Your argument doesn’t debunk the spherical heliocentric Earth model.
“nasa hides stars in their images as they know they would be called on it.”
[CITATION NEEDED]
You know that cameras have… exposure level… right? RIGHT!?
“if we leave the city and see more stars because of clear atmosphere then why in space with no atmosphere would it be blocked?”
Because of CAMERA EXPOSURE. You can’t sit there and bitch about NASA and its photos when NASA also produces lots of photos of stars and the space. What the fuck do you think the Hubble Deep Field is? Your conspiracy doesn’t make any sense.
“Ah the sun, watching the sun move in sped up long period footage looks like its the one moving towards the camera and gets bigger then shrinks and gets smaller and smaller until your eye sight reaches its limit and the cloud line and air conditions block it.”
[CITATION NEEDED]
“the sun and moon circle us and that is what a ying yang really is.”
… WHAT DOES THE FUCKING YING YANG HAVE TO DO WITH ASTRONOMY!?
And no, a Ying Yang is a taijitu meant to represent the balance between light and dark, and in the light you can find a tiny bit of darkness and in the dark you can find a tiny bit of light. The sun and moon don’t represent this at all considering that they both illuminate the sky (and the moon doesn’t even produce it’s own light). Your analogy is completely fucking confusing and useless. It doesn’t make an argument. It doesn’t mean anything. It’s just word-salad.
“South pole is a circle of ice.”
[CITATION NEEDED]
“everyone on the planet no matter where you are see the same moon the same face no other angle,”
Considering that the Moon is really far away, this isn’t a surprise. Meanwhile, you can’t explain it on a flat Earth model where everything is within a couple thousand miles away. The irony. *You* are the one who can’t explain it.
“the light is different to sunlight as they have different attributes, its emitting its own light.”
[CITATION NEEDED]
“people are viewing objects that should be well beyond the curve and no images not from fake nasa images ever show a curve.”
You mean somewhat beyond the curve, like a few miles, like when light refracts? Call me when you can see Japan from California. My number is 1-800-Not-Gonna-Happen.
“when boats disappear over the horizon you can take a zoom camera and get it back.”
[CITATION NEEDED]
“the bottom disappears first because the light is being obscured by water.”
[CITATION NEEDED]
“Eratosthenes a Greek mathematician used his formula to calculate the distance of the sun using the angled sun rays and marking where they fell and tracing the source to its origin. its much closer to us.”
Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth. He didn’t calculate the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Even if you bring the Sun in closer, and make it smaller, in order to account for the shadows observed from Syene and Alexandria, you then create a problem where people will see the Sun in significantly different places (and see sunspots in different places) that don’t match up with observation.
“our ancient ancestors knew the truth but our governments led by free mason magicians hide the truth from us and their symbol represents the angles of the sun.”
You mean variables? So math proofs are part of the conspiracy? Holy fuck, you’re a deluded retard. People believed that the Earth was spherical before there were large global government conspiracies.
“the earth is a plane and when they discovered this they hid it so you never know that we are not random and living with billions of other planets we we have a creator. a purpose.”
The shape of the Earth has no bearing on whether or not we’re created, and your own argument is absolutely destroyed considering that most people on Earth are theistic, with the major three religions being Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, in that order. Islam and Christianity make up slightly over 50% of the global population. Your argument makes no damn sense.
“its like looking down a hallway our vision perceives the halls to merge until its one point, that is how our eyes work they converge so it appears like it is setting and rising when its really just far off.all this footage is on youtube. you will wake up.”
Except that the Sun and Moon would never go below the horizon, and if the Moon and Earth were moving in those kinds of paths, we’d see them speed up and slow down relative to our view, just like how a train moving when it’s close looks like it’s moving faster than when it’s far away, even if it’s moving at a constant speed. The Sun and Moon don’t do this. You also can’t explain timezones on a flat Earth, and how the Sun can appear to set for one person yet not set for another person.
LikeLike
Do you really believe a Creator would make it this complicated? FE is simple, elegant and our TheoCosmology. KJV is a made up lie by the Roman Catholics to promote their own agenda. Islam was created by the Jesuits, as told by Father Rivero, who worked deep inside the VAtican. The jews are Court Hofjudens’ who serve the Knights of Malta, the military arm of the Jesuits. links above in header. bone up!
LikeLike
I also noticed that my comments were deleted. I’m pretty sure I wrote a second comment that was thirty pages long and debunked his bullshit *hard*. But I write comments like these all the time, so I pretty much forget them after I write them, so I have no idea what I wrote.
LikeLike
Guy,
Perspective cannot change a round image into a semi-circle (or any related subsection of the image), exactly as the sun appears to us twice daily. It’s actually quite a ridiculous idea.
Time to choose again what you’re actually watching, and how and why it’s possible.
LikeLike
Can anyone on this topic point me to NDGT’s source of proof for his claim that the earth is “pear shaped”? Thank you.
LikeLike
I didn’t find any NDGT sources, but these were on the first page of a google search:
https://www.quora.com/Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-says-the-earth-is-pear-shaped-Why-do-images-of-earth-show-it-as-round
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth
A few more from a site that discuss earth weather and science. These might be useful in a well-rounded view of earth, and how weather is affected by its shape. Pretty basic, with good graphics as well as science.
Click to access Latitude_Longitude.pdf
Click to access Pressure-Density.pdf
Click to access Global%20Winds.pdf
As far as science, it is rather difficult to understand the earth or much of reality well without it. Here is an overview site for those who might find it useful.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/
LikeLike
May I suggest the reason you did not find any proof sources for ND Tyson’ s claims is because they cannot be substantiated via the scientific method. Also, I was very disappointed that underlings had to explain what NGT meant. No explanation needed as he was very plain.
I was also disappointed that the sources you cited were all heliocentrists in contradistinction to the currently accepted scientific model.
Science states there is eternal matter without proof. The scriptures declare the world and all things were created by Jesus Christ. In the interview in question NDT claims the earth was always spinning from the beginning. Science cannot prove it is spinning now, how can they prove it was spinning before man? The bible, science, and our own observations say the earth is not moving. NGT further states that gravity keeps all things in balance. However, the scriptures declare that Christ Jesus upholds all things by the word of his power. It appears plain to me that science without proof via the scientific method is religion. It is called Scientism and there are many adherents.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Manny: Actually, you were the one who apparently couldn’t find any of these sources, since you asked for our help to try and find them. I’m not your research assistant, but as a gesture of community support, did a basic search.
re: “I was also disappointed that the sources you cited were all heliocentrists in contradistinction to the currently accepted scientific model.” I guess I didn’t try and slant the search towards any bias, but searched on the main topic “earth shape”, as I recall.
BTW; who decides what is “the currently accepted scientific model” anyways?
Did I miss the existence of scientific sites for a FE model? Please help us out with some links, because I’m really interested in the mechanical nature of the FE sun-moon-earth system (from a scientific perspective of course).
LikeLike
He’s playing this bullshit game with “geocentrism” posited by scientists talking about relativity. FE people attempt to distort the idea that the observer is at the center of the universe into the idea the that universe is actually geocentric. Using the same principle, if one were on Mars, the universe would seem to be mars-centric, and if one were living in Andromeda, the universe would appear to be Andromeda-centric. Just more lies from FE liars.
LikeLike
“Science states there is eternal matter without proof.”
Even protons and neutrons decay, dude. And, in fact, matter-anti-matter reactions obliterate matter. No one takes the “Matter cannot be created or destroyed” idea seriously anymore. In reality, it’s that energy cannot be created or destroyed. And even scientists aren’t really sure if that’s 100% true because quantum mechanics shits on a lot of ideas in classical physics.
“The scriptures declare the world and all things were created by Jesus Christ.”
And why the fuck should I take the Bible seriously? Do you honestly fucking thing that the Bible is better than all of our modern advancements?
“In the interview in question NDT claims the earth was always spinning from the beginning.”
As it would have had to be because of the fucking accretion disk not being a motionless cloud, but a swirling disk of debris. This doesn’t mean that it can’t be cancelled out, or that other interactions can’t completely fuck things up, but those circumstances are much rarer and it’s why most things in our solar system are not retrograde in rotation or in orbit.
“Science cannot prove it is spinning now,”
Yes we can. Look up “CoolHardLogic Testing Geocentricism” and debunk his videos. Get back to me when you realize you’re a moron.
“how can they prove it was spinning before man?”
Do you even know what an inference is? You seem to think that the only reliable information is the kind of direct information that comes from the stupid Ken Ham “Were you there!? NO! So take my book seriously even though I wasn’t there!” arguments.
“The bible, science, and our own observations say the earth is not moving.”
The Bible does, but science does not. Your “own observations” I won’t deny are telling you that it’s stationary, but that’s because your observations are most likely completely shit.
“NGT further states that gravity keeps all things in balance. However, the scriptures declare that Christ Jesus upholds all things by the word of his power.”
So you take one unfounded claim more seriously than another unfounded claim? Wtf is wrong with your brain?
“It appears plain to me that science without proof via the scientific method is religion.”
People figured out words for these things hundreds of years ago. Fucking get an education. Something that is pretending to be scientific without any actual science involved (e.g. observations and evidence) are called *PSEUDO-SCIENCE*.
I’m so fucking sick and tired of religious ideologues like yourself sitting there in their fucking armchairs denigrating the hundreds of years of technological and intellectual advancements made by science while using technology they would’ve accused of being magic if they went back to the fucking stone age where their religious books came from.
You don’t get to sit there and believe in bronze age religions and then pretend that you’re superior because science is a religion as well. The only argument you could even come close to making is that everyone is a retard and that includes yourself. You haven’t made yourself superior; you’ve only attempted to drag everyone else into the mud with you. Which you didn’t even do very well at that.
I’m also sick of people pretending that ‘things I think are bullshit = a religion’. You’re abusing the fact that the term “religion” is vaguely defined in pretty much any application of the word so that you can use its negative sting to piss off people like myself. Well congratulations: You succeeded, and now you get a response.
Come back when you have something of actual substance to bring as an argument.
LikeLike
Harmony, perhaps you have forgotten, but I asked you if the earth were tilted, rotating, and revolving in the Mars based model, and the proof for this via the scientific method. Still waiting…
LikeLiked by 1 person
SG, here are your comments/questions and my responses. Sorry for the delay.
Manny: Actually, you were the one who apparently couldn’t find any of these sources, since you asked for our help to try and find them. I’m not your research assistant, but as a gesture of community support, did a basic search.
Thank you.
re: “I was also disappointed that the sources you cited were all heliocentrists in contradistinction to the currently accepted scientific model.” I guess I didn’t try and slant the search towards any bias, but searched on the main topic “earth shape”, as I recall.
At the risk of repeating myself from another thread I would kindly remind you that in GR you do not and cannot know what is moving absolutely. This was my disappointment that the authors of those articles/answers for NDGT were ill informed of their own science or were disingenuous. At the risk of repeating myself I sent you a number of quotes in support of this on another thread. Some were from Einstein, himself.
BTW; who decides what is “the currently accepted scientific model” anyways?
Reread the quote from George Ellis, an honest and highly respected heliocentrist from 1995. If you need more current quotes, let me know. BTW, what scientific model do you subscribe to and why?
Did I miss the existence of scientific sites for a FE model? Please help us out with some links, because I’m really interested in the mechanical nature of the FE sun-moon-earth system (from a scientific perspective of course).
Unfortunately, I cannot help you here. What I can tell you, however, is that there is no scientific proof for a tilted, rotating, and revolving globe. There is scientific proof for a motionless earth. There is also the proof of our senses, and the scriptures. This is a three fold cord not easily broken. Keep in mind the relativists today have no problem with earth being the center of mass in the universe, the sun doing its dance from Cancer to Capricorn and back again, and the stars exceeding by a large measure the speed of light in their daily revolution in the motionless globe model. Best to you. Manny
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your little makeshift pictures are really stupid. Anybody can open paint and write a bit of text over some shitty picture you found on google images.
LikeLike
[…] does account for a heliocentric view of the world without any physical proof for hundreds of years until contradictory photographic “evidence” that couldn’t hold up in a court of law was presen…. Do you care enough about this essential premise on which we build faith in everything else God […]
LikeLike
I love all the insults when some people try to explain their point of view, its very funny how irate they get. Anyway, it does not matter to me if the earth is flat, round or whatever someone wants it to be, I still would love to be shown high rise buildings across a large city that are NOT vertically parallel to each other and that complete mystery of curved water.
LikeLike
The difference in the angle between high rise building on different sides of a high rise city is too small to see, but is there. As an example, bridges with long spans have the towers slightly further apart at the top than the bottom due to curvature. In the case of the Humber Bridge in the UK, it is 1.4 miles (2.2km) long, the towers are 155metres (510ft) tall. The towers are 36mm (1.5in) further apart at the top and the bottom. Stand far enough back that you can see two structures that are 1.4miles apart. Do you expect to see something just 1.5inches? The angle of lean of the towers is 0.013 degrees. Do you expect to see that?
LikeLike
[…] Are you putting your trust in a secret branch of government that “proves” its case for a globe earth that rotates around a stationary sun with contradictory “photographic“ “evidence” that couldn’t hold up in a court of law fo… […]
LikeLike
[…] Are you putting your trust in a secret branch of government that “proves” its case for a globe earth that rotates around a stationary sun with contradictory “photographic“ “evidence” that couldn’t hold up in a court of law fo… […]
LikeLike
[…] Are you putting your trust in a secret branch of government that “proves” its case for a globe earth that rotates around a stationary sun, while admitted it hasn’t yet been done astronomically, with contradictory “photographic“ “evidence” that couldn’t hold up in a court of law fo… […]
LikeLike
[…] https://aplanetruth.info/2016/01/27/show-us-the-pear-shape-of-earth-nasa-and-mr-astrophysicist-neil-… […]
LikeLike
[…] trust in a secret branch of government that “proves” its case for a globe earth with contradictory “photographic“ “evidence” that couldn’t hold up in a court of law, while admitting it hasn’t yet been done […]
LikeLike
[…] trust in a secret branch of government that “proves” its case for a globe earth with contradictory “photographic“ “evidence” that couldn’t hold up in a court of law, while admitting it hasn’t yet been done astronomically? As detailed in later posts, Space is […]
LikeLike