NASA's Fake CGI Ball Planets

If this video is blocked in your country, please click and watch here:  http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fb8_1433482270

For thousands of years the "planets" were known as "wandering stars" as they differ from the fixed stars in their relative motions only.  Through a telescope both the fixed stars and wandering "planets" appear as nothing more than tiny round dots of light, luminaries, circling the night sky.  They do NOT appear in any way to be spherical Earth-like terra firma capable of landing on as the Freemasons at NASA would have us believe with their fake CGI pictures and videos.  The following video exposes the entire deception proving that Earth is in fact a plane and "planets" do not exist!  They just added a "T" and you fell for it.

Read all about it in my book The Flat Earth Conspiracy:

The Flat-Earth Conspiracy Paperback:
http://www.lulu.com/shop/eric-dubay/the-flat-earth-conspiracy/paperback/product-21889483.html

The Flat-Earth Conspiracy PDF:
http://www.lulu.com/shop/eric-dubay/the-flat-earth-conspiracy/ebook/product-21889577.html

The Flat-Earth Conspiracy EPub:
http://www.lulu.com/shop/eric-dubay/the-flat-earth-conspiracy/ebook/product-21890088.html

Post by Admin on Mar 16, 2015 at 9:45am

Another assumption and supposed proof of Earth’s shape, heliocentrists claim that lunar eclipses are caused by the shadow of the ball-Earth occulting the Moon. The idea is that the Sun, Earth, and Moon spheres perfectly align like three billiard balls in a row so that the Sun’s light casts the Earth’s shadow onto the Moon. Unfortunately for heliocentrists, this explanation is rendered completely invalid due to the fact that lunar eclipses have happened and continue to happen regularly when both the Sun and Moon are still visible together above the horizon! For the Sun’s light to be casting Earth’s shadow onto the Moon, the three bodies must be aligned in a straight 180 degree syzygy.

“According to the globular theory, a lunar eclipse occurs when the sun, earth, and moon are in a direct line; but it is on record that since about the fifteenth century over fifty eclipses have occurred while both sun and moon have been visible above the horizon.” -F.H. Cook, “The Terrestrial Plane”

As early as the time of Pliny, there are records of lunar eclipses happening while both the Sun and Moon are visible in the sky. The Greenwich Royal Observatory recorded that “during the lunar eclipses of July 17th, 1590, November 3rd, 1648, June 16th, 1666, and May 26th, 1668 the moon rose eclipsed whilst the sun was still above the horizon.” McCulluch’s Geography recorded that “on September 20th, 1717 and April 20th, 1837 the moon appeared to rise eclipsed before the sun had set.” Sir Henry Holland also noted in his “Recollections of Past Life” the April 20th, 1837 phenomena where “the moon rose eclipsed before the sun set.” The Daily Telegraph recorded it happening again on January 17th, 1870, then again in July of the same year, and it continues to happen during lunar eclipses to this day. Therefore the eclipsor of the Moon cannot be the Earth/Earth's shadow and another explanation must be sought.

“A solar eclipse is the result simply of the moon passing between the sun and the observer on earth. But that an eclipse of the moon arises from a shadow of the earth, is a statement in every respect, because unproved, unsatisfactory. The earth has been proved to be without orbital or axial motion; and, therefore, it could never come between the sun and the moon. The earth is also proved to be a plane, always underneath the sun and moon; and, therefore, to speak of its intercepting the light of the sun, and thus casting its own shadow on the moon, is to say that which is physically impossible. Besides the above difficulties or incompatibilities, many cases are on record of the sun and moon being eclipsed when both were above the horizon. The sun, the earth, and the moon, not in a straight line, but the earth below the sun and moon--out of the reach or direction of both--and yet a lunar eclipse has occurred! Is it possible that a ‘shadow’ of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon, were not in the same line? Refraction, or what has been called ‘Earth light,’ will not aid in the explanation; because the light of the moon is at such times ‘like the glowing heat of fire tinged with deep red.’ ‘The reddish light made it, seem to be on fire.’ ‘It looked like a fire smouldering in its ashes.’ ‘Its tint was that of red-hot copper.’ The sun light is of an entirely different colour to that of the eclipsed moon; and it is contrary to known optical principles to say that light when refracted or reflected, or both simultaneously, is thereby changed in colour. If a light of a given colour is seen through a great depth of a comparatively dense medium, as the sun is often seen in winter through the fog and vapour of the atmosphere, it appears of a different colour, and generally of such as that which the moon so often gives during a total eclipse; but a shadow cannot produce any such effect, as it is, in fact, not an entity at all, but simply the absence of light. From the facts and phenomena already advanced, we cannot draw any other conclusion than that the moon is obscured by some kind of semi-transparent body passing before it; and through which the luminous surface is visible: the luminosity changed in colour by the density of the intervening object. This conclusion is forced upon us by the evidence.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (130-138)

Post by Admin on Mar 18, 2015 at 3:20am

There is not a south pole on Earth nor a "southern pole star" like Polaris, and all the stars in the southern hemisphere do not rotate around it. Imagine a planetarium dome with all the stars fixed in it, and the dome is so large that perspective doesn't allow you to see the furthest southern stars from the middle directly under Polaris. If you could see them from that vantage point you would find them traveling much faster than the Northern constellations rushing around the outside of the dome, NOT circling the opposite direction around a southern pole star as they claim.

“Another thing is certain, that from within the equator the north pole star, and the constellations Ursa Major, Ursa Minor, and many others, can be seen from every meridian simultaneously; whereas in the south, from the equator, neither the so-called south pole star, nor the remarkable constellation of the Southern Cross, can be seen simultaneously from every meridian, showing that all the constellations of the south - pole star included - sweep over a great southern arc and across the meridian, from their rise in the evening to their setting in the morning. But if the earth is a globe, Sigma Octantis, a south pole star, and the Southern Cross, a southern circumpolar constellation, they would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude, as is the case with the northern pole star and the northern circumpolar constellations. Such, however, is not the case.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (286)

“It has often been urged that the earth must be a globe, because the stars in the southern ‘hemisphere’ move round a south polar star; in the same way that those of the north revolve round the northern pole star. This is another instance of the sacrifice of truth, and denial of the evidence of our senses for the purpose of supporting a theory which is in every sense false and unnatural. It is known to every observer that the north pole star is the centre of a number of constellations which move over the earth in a circular direction. Those nearest to it, as the ‘Great Bear,’ etc. are always visible in England during their whole twenty-four hours' revolution. Those further away southwards rise north-north-east, and set south-south-west; still further south they rise east by north, and set west by north. The farthest south visible from England, the rising is more to the east and south-east, and the setting to the west and south-west. But all the stars visible from London rise and set in a way which is not compatible with the doctrine of rotundity. For instance, if we stand with our backs to the north, on the high land known as ‘Arthur's Seat,’ near Edinburgh, and note the stars in the zenith of our position, and watch for several hours, the zenith stars will gradually recede to the north-west. If we do the same on Woodhouse Moor, near Leeds, or on any of the mountain tops in Yorkshire or Derbyshire, the same phenomenon is observed. The same thing may be seen from the top of Primrose Hill, near Regent's Park, London; from Hampstead Heath; or Shooter's Hill, near Woolwich. If we remain all night, we shall observe the same stars rising towards our position from the north-east, showing that the path of all the stars between ourselves and the northern centre move round the north pole-star as a common centre of rotation; just as they must do over a plane such as the earth is proved to be. It is undeniable that upon a globe zenith stars would rise, pass over head, and set in the plane of the observer's position. If now we carefully watch in the same way the zenith stars from the Rock of Gibraltar, the very same phenomenon is observed. The same is also the case from Cape of Good Hope, Sydney and Melbourne in Australia, in New Zealand, in Rio Janeiro, Monte Video, Valparaiso, and other places in the south. If then the zenith stars of all the places on the earth, where special observations have been made, rise from the morning horizon to the zenith of an observer, and descend to the evening horizon, not in a plane of the position of such observer, but in an arc of a circle concentric with the northern centre, the earth is thereby proved to be a plane, and rotundity altogether disproved - shown, indeed, to be impossible.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (284-6)

Post by schpankme on Apr 20, 2015 at 2:44am

This is about what I see from my Dobson 6"

Post by o on May 22, 2015 at 8:45pm

The horizon seems to be sooo straight as my paint program suggests

1946 German V-2 rocket (White Sands Missile Range, Mexico City)



1948 US V-2 rocket (White Sands Missile Range, Mexico City)

Post by schpankme on May 23, 2015 at 12:01am

Great find.

The highest altitude shown above the Earth was said to have been accomplished in 1935 by the Explorer
balloon, which ascended to 13.7 miles, and claimed to "detect" the Curvature of the Earth.

V2 Camera Views of Earth, 1946

Post by Admin on May 23, 2015 at 11:23am

The Numeric Language of Secret Societies

Occult Numerology

9/11 Numerology

Numerology - 5

Numerology - 7

Numerology - 12

Numerology - 13

Numerology - 33

Numerology - 40

Numerology - 666 (1)

Numerology - 666 (2)

Post by micra on Jun 22, 2015 at 8:54am



Soon to arrive on our screens, Pluto, from Disney's aptly named "New Horizons" mission.

Before the glorious CGI imagery we have a taster from 54.8 million miles away,
using the on-board pinhole camera.

Which at first glance would show Pluto and its partner to be flattened cardboard boxes.

Post by AohnJbel on Jul 8, 2015 at 1:46am

    I'm sitting here at my sister's house.  On my laptop, sitting on the couch as usual while my brother in law is watching their gigantic flat screen.  The "Science Channel". Comets and the moons of Saturn in all their CGI glory.  My brother in law, mesmerized at the thought that someday, we may travel to an intergalactic ski resort on an "ice moon" just like Hoth....or a desert planet reminiscent of Tatooine.  "Just don't mess with the Hutts...they're gangsters!"  I snicker. I speak out "Why CGI?  Why can't they show us real pictures and HD video of these "celestial balls" floating all over the universe?  All these probes and they don't bother mounting a HD camera just to show us what all this CGI is based on!!!"  He doesn't even look at me, he's in a trance marveling at human ingenuity.  "Human gullibility" is more like it.  He thinks I'm insane.  Even though I've never really engaged him about the FE, he knows I am not a baller anymore.  He and my sister simply ignore me and change the subject when I say something like "These flat Earth researchers are really making me think.  You wouldn't believe how some of this is actually making sense to me.  I mean, isn't it cool that we live in a society where we are free to think whatever we want and view material on the internet that would NEVER be on regular TV!?!?  I must admit, I never thought I'd entertain this idea!  You two should check out this little film I watched about it.  It'd be FUN!  Eh?..........EH???" .......(complete silence)......."Oh boy, we're tired.  I'm exhausted and he's gotta come help me with this, uh, thing...ya.....maybe another day!" sister says. "Goodnight!"

    What I really wanna do is FUCKING TIE THEM TO A CHAIR AND PROP THEIR FOGGY EYES OPEN WITH THAT THING THEY USED ON MALCOLM MCDOWELL IN CLOCKWORK ORANGE AND SCREAM AT THEM AT THE TOP OF MY LUNGS WHILE FORCING THEM TO WATCH FLAT EARTH VIDEOS AND REVISIONIST FILMS UNTIL THEY BREAK INTO TEARS OF IMPENDING DOOM FOLLOWED BY HYSTERICAL LAUGHTER AND THANKS FOR SHOWING THEM THE LIGHT!!!!!!!!!...........but that probably wouldn't help.  I want to tell them EVERYTHING they know is wrong and we've all been duped by the biggest conspiracy in human history.  I want to tell them why I snicker and laugh under my breath every time I see them watching some NASholes on their TV.  I want them to understand why I NEVER watch TV and I want their 3 beautiful girls to grow up in truth without the appalling materialism they are becoming indoctrinated into.  I've been trying to soft-sell them for months now JUST TO WATCH A 15-10 minute introduction to FE in hopes that they'll be interested but alas.....they don't even want to think about, considering to set a date, where we might discuss the possibility, of them just giving it a little looksey.  I mean, they're the only family I've got and I feel the overwhelming need to help them.  They're just to damn zombified.  They watch TV or play farmville every waking moment they're not working or screwing.  What can be done????  

    Does anyone have any advise for me.  I don't want to scare them off from the idea altogether.  Sorry if this is a bad section to write this.  I'm new here and the fake CGI balls were right in my face on this monstrous LCD screen 10 feet away so I ended up here.  Thanks in advance for any advise or info where I can find it.  

Post by Douglas Sea on Jul 9, 2015 at 1:54pm

I think that I heard Boyland in one of his obnoxious rambling rants that the continents just do not fit on the spinning ball...is this correct? that if we tried to place all of the land masses onto a ball there would not be room? ...or at least no room available for the size of the claimed sphere? I mean oblate sphereoid?..sounds like they might need an ointment for that...

When I watch the weather channel and they pimp the spinning ball it looks so silly like there would be no room left for Asia and Europe....and AohnJbel you might be better off introducing the material to the kids, a video or two here and there...the azimuthal equidistant map and UN flag and possibly take a George Carlin approach with the brainwashed adults.....

Post by micra on Jul 11, 2015 at 6:26am

Pluto comes into focus.



as reported on the BBC News Network (who ever they are),

"This is a real moment in time for you to watch us turn a point of light into a planet."
said Alan Stern, New Horizons' principal investigator.

"Nothing like this has been done in a quarter of a century and nothing like this is being planned again by any space agency".

- New Horizons has recovered from its weekend hiccup, in which the probe tripped itself into a protective safe mode and dropped communications with Earth for over an hour.

Engineers (who ever they are) say they understand the cause of the computer glitch.

This particular type of error, they stress, has now been ruled out for the probe's next few historic days.

Scientists (who ever they are) have released their latest map of Pluto, using images from the inbound New Horizons spacecraft.

It unwraps the visible parts of the sphere on to a flat projection, giving another view of the features that have started to emerge in recent days. -

Interesting describing the spacecraft as "inbound".

Post by raymond on Jul 16, 2015 at 1:42pm

Speaking of the latest news regarding the 'planets in our solar system' ...

https://imgur.com/a/9QgnT

What? You don't believe these are 'actual' pictures? Not even the one of Saturn - with it's 'hexagonal storm vortex at the north pole' - eclipsing the Sun?

What about this one of Pluto?



Surely NASA would never lie to us.

/sarcasm - if it wasn't apparent enough already

Post by banazir on Jul 18, 2015 at 4:23am

Ha! Nice, you beat me to it.

m.foopets.com/topics/show/2641854?forum_id=1000011&post_count=3

Post by HarunDada on Jul 21, 2015 at 1:14pm

NASA just released a new "photo" of the Ball Earth from 1 million miles away.

See article here: news.yahoo.com/gorgeous-nasa-photo-captures-earth-1-million-miles-194222734.html

Funny to me how it is still a perfect sphere (not an oblate spheroid or pear shaped) and you cannot see the thousands of satellites that are suppose to be orbiting the Earth????

The title of the article says it's a photo, but in the article they revert back to using the "image" description.

Post by HarunDada on Jul 21, 2015 at 1:17pm



The new "Blue Marble"

Post by nicetomeetyou on Jul 22, 2015 at 6:22am

the nasa movie studio did it again - its full of stars -the new blue fake

Post by charlesthereborn on Jul 24, 2015 at 3:44am



Here we go again! Nothing says the earth isn't special, than by introducing us to it's older, bigger brother.

Post by damnice on Aug 9, 2015 at 7:26am

NASA's new DSCOVR satellite is producing some amazing realistic "photos" of Earth and the Moon.



There are so many things wrong with this sequence of images. See if you can spot them all. I'm sure I missed a few.

1. The clouds make no changes in position from beginning to end, there are some very slight changes in shape in a few spots but it's obviously not enough for a 6-8 hour shift. Clouds MOVE in the real world. Spiral formations like the one off of Mexico would actually rotate.

2. The cloud complexity also seems too simple and small for the portions of Earth they are covering. There is way more variety in cloud patterns above just the US in a day than the entire blue marble appears to contain.

3. It appears as if the entirety of Alaska and most of Canada are above the Arctic Circle in this view, this is said to be from July 16 close to the solstice yet only around a third of a portion of Alaska/Canada are that far north to experience 24 hour sunlight. If they could have given a full 24 hour view it would be easier to be sure.

4. The same photoshop layers admittedly used to create the blue marble are all apparent in these supposedly real photographic images(light blue outer ring, hot spot for the sun, cloud cover, etc)

5. There is a small dark spot that appears in the top left area of the Sun's hot spot in the 17th frame and it moves along with the clouds like a mini eclipse of the hotspot for the next 3 frames.

6. Somebody forgot to photoshop in Typhoon Halola that would have been full hurricane strength and in view on the 16th of July in the pacific. Halola would have been right about where the Sun's hot spot is in the final frame...WHOOPSIE.

7. Pacific Ocean, why you so small? In the last few frames you can see the entirety of Australia and still see most of the United States & Mexico. Try to create this same view on Google maps...you can't, one of them is wrong...maybe both? I looked at several different interactive globe programs, they are all a little different but some are closer to the "photo". It's probably because of continental drift.

8. A speck or two for stars. Come on...really, just like EVERY SINGLE PHOTO ever published by NASA, their cameras just can't see them. Even 3 billion miles away from the Sun at Pluto, stars are just so invisible through the emptiness of space.

9. The Moon...I've seen more realistic spheres on Dolly Parton's chest. They've got to be kidding on this one. A blurry almost uniformly colored gray smudge moves across the camera view. I'm guessing they scanned an old newspaper image of what the "dark side" of the moon looks like.

10. The Moon and Earth shadow. If we're to believe the position of the DSCOVR between the Earth and Sun's gravitational pulls, and the Sun's hot spot then the shadow on the Earth and Moon are impossible. Especially on the Moon when it first comes into view, the shadow would have been on the lower left, and it would have shifted to no shadow at all across the center. This never happens, the shadow is perpetually on the right side.

Post by gnosticwarrior on Aug 9, 2015 at 11:51am

Great post! This might be the most laughable yet; that moon looks like a cardboard cutout. One thing that always gives it away for me is the constant changing in the sizes of the oceans and continents. Which is it, NASA?

Post by sargentsucks on Aug 9, 2015 at 1:59pm

#11 From start to finish we see about 75 to 80% of the surface area of the "planet", yet no Europe, no Africa, no Antartica, no Asia, no Russia, no Middle East, no India, no Siberia and even only a portion of the Atlantic Ocean and South America. I guess all of these places are on one "ribbon of imagery" of 15 to 20% of the "planet".

Post by HarunDada on Aug 13, 2015 at 10:38am

NASA is in full spin doctor mode after they released the fake CGI gif from the DSCOVR satellite of the moon revolving around the Earth.

People are waking up to the fraud! Nice!

www.theverge.com/2015/8/12/9137493/moon-earth-gif-totally-real-debunking-twitters-conspiracy

Post by csp on Aug 13, 2015 at 11:06am

LOL, this is hilarious:

Cloud shapes are actually fairly constant, so while their absolute position may change relative to the surface of the Earth, their larger overall structures remain intact.

It also looks like they deleted all the comments and locked commenting?

lizardking wrote:Post by damnice on Aug 9, 2015 at 7:26am

NASA's new DSCOVR satellite is producing some amazing realistic "photos" of Earth and the Moon.



There are so many things wrong with this sequence of images. See if you can spot them all. I'm sure I missed a few.

I forgot to follow this up when I posted it but there was another HUGE glaring overtly obvious problem with this video NASA released of a sequence taken in the middle of July with DSCOVR. IF the heliocentric model was real this one proves their fabrication of this video beyond reprisal. The North Pole on June 20-21 would be pointed DIRECTLY at the Sun, if you think of the North Pole's relationship to the Sun in the Heliocentric model like an hour hand on a clock throughout the 12 months just like 12 hours on a clock face, with the solstice being 6:00, July 16(when this is claimed to have been captured) would be roughly about 7 o'clock, yet look at the spin and the location of the North Pole. It's somewhere around 8:30-9:00. Way too far around to be July. Boom, fake.

Couldn't find an ideal thread for this story. Solar flares can cause earth's 'protective magnetic field' to shrink, and... CRACK! LMTO!

https://www.rt.com/viral/365328-magnetic-field-cracked-solar/

Is this a prelude for getting through the Van Halen... I mean, Van Allen "radiation belts"?

A casual news release about the Saturn Cassini probe's final farewell:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_SATURN_CASSINI_FINALE_FLOL-?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-09-15-14-52-06

Note that in the 12th - 14th paragraphs they invited ground telescopes to view the grande finale and even stated that the Space Heroes bravely and carefully piloted the probe to properly ditch it on Saturn, stating that "Scientists wanted to prevent Cassini from crashing into Enceladus or Titan - and contaminating those pristine worlds" (Dunn, 2017).

Yes. You are reading that correctly, Enceladus and Titan are pristine worlds and Saturn is a space probe junkyard.

Reference:
Dunn, Marcia. "Farewell Cassini: Saturn Spacecraft Makes Fiery, Final Dive." Associated Press. September 15, 2017. Web.