1
supermario2360 1 point ago +1 / -0

Round or spherical? Round can describe a sphere or flat circle...

2
supermario2360 2 points ago +2 / -0

No problem. In my opinion, it is worth it to think outside the box. Everyone has been indoctrinated about space and the planets and the sun and the big bang, etc. Take a step back and maybe you can find deception/ half truths/ brainwashing. Hey 9 out of 10 scientist agree because they are paid off. The 10th scientist is discredited/ shunned/ or outright killed to keep the narrative. This may not be true in all cases... The covid conspiracists may have been right the whole time but science says "trust science and nothing else". And some of the critical hinging elements of the scientific explanation of reality are theories and not concrete repeatable fact. Theories coming from ones brain, which is not a mechanical device recording data such as a spectrophotometer. Even "gravity" varies in strength across the earth. Do we trust scientists who may or may not be taking bribes?

1
supermario2360 1 point ago +1 / -0

Even scientists can't agree upon the worthiness of observable and instrumental documentation. 'Tis science... No consensus because different trains of thought and methodologies. Who is right? The science will change and humans will deliberate on the next big thing. Science isn't always right... Humans are imperfect. And apparently, I have unsubstantiated personal bias even though many scientists use observations with their eyes as part of their method.

1
supermario2360 1 point ago +1 / -0

Excellent. People, we don't need eyes for science. Thank you for confirmation, you blinded me with science. Anything else you want to say?

2
supermario2360 2 points ago +2 / -0

In my option, I do have a clue. What else would you like to attack me for?

3
supermario2360 3 points ago +3 / -0

I would assume wavelengths VISIBLE to the human eye. How hard do we have to think about this?

3
supermario2360 3 points ago +3 / -0

Visible observations using one's own eyes... Quite powerful

4
supermario2360 4 points ago +5 / -1

Visible observations are part of science. Sometimes they have more impact than the current "scientific" explanation.

1
supermario2360 1 point ago +1 / -0

Exactly, my comment said these add to the side effects of 5g in my opinion...

1
supermario2360 1 point ago +1 / -0

To add to it, increasing chemtrails, satanic rituals, more air pollution, questionable vaccinations, 3rd wave feminism, normalization of homosexuality and transgender bs, increased propaganda and mental illness, fluoridated and chlorinated water, and GMO foods probably compound the problem in my opinion.

1
supermario2360 1 point ago +1 / -0

Looks more realistic than NASA in real life

1
supermario2360 1 point ago +1 / -0

English mainly. Took 2 years of German, and very little Spanish. Even less Hebrew... On my journey, I have learned that the KJV isn't close enough to the original writing. So strongs concordance was my go to. Now, with your help, I have expanded to bible study tools and the translation/meaning is more in depth. I still haven't found the sphere translation (only the website that was provided in your link below the biblehub website)... Hebrew is read from right to left, but I don't know the alphabet or pronunciation.

1
supermario2360 1 point ago +1 / -0

Also, the site you linked includes speculation, theories and hearsay. Anyone can say anything on the internet. Why should I believe you?

0
supermario2360 0 points ago +1 / -1

OK do you have experience with linguistics/ translation? Are you inferring that the Strong's translation is inaccurate/misrepresentation? Later in that passage he stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent. Spherical tent? Circular tent? Which makes more sense? And the BDB translation is a vault. According to nasa its a spherical tent lololol those people are occultist masonic secretive cabal.

0
supermario2360 0 points ago +1 / -1

From Isaiah 40:22 Strong's Hebrew 2329: 1) circle, circuit, compass 2) (BDB) vault (of the heavens)

1
supermario2360 1 point ago +1 / -0

Can one change lenses to a non fisheye one? And one would need a capable balloon (weather balloon?) and strong broadcasting equipment to send video signal to "satellites" to have video feed/location tracking. On top of that, one would probably need clearance to be in the airspace and proper simulations to make sure it doesn't land in a populated area. And at that point, why not CGI some shit in too ( special interest groups keeping the narrative going)? Lol

1
supermario2360 1 point ago +1 / -0

Which language are you referring to?

1
supermario2360 1 point ago +1 / -0

Apparently, many people agree with the satanic occult masonic cabal. Hope you people have a breakthrough and wake up to the deception. Remember, the science is not the be all end all. All scientists agree because the dissenters are discredited, denounced, or outright silenced (killed). Hope that gives you a big hint.

0
supermario2360 0 points ago +1 / -1

I've seen amateur astronomers view "planets" and they appear to be light pulsing and fluctuating in size, shape, and speed. Very different from the "professional" astronomers that use computer programs with their telescopes. I believe those programs deceive the observer by displaying artificial images of planets ( images that are spoon fed on TV, internet, NASA, etc) and not the actual view of the telescope. Gonna post link

1
supermario2360 1 point ago +1 / -0

And before there was our observable reality, there was a hot ball of something that blew up. Where did this thing come from and was there nothing there before it?

1
supermario2360 1 point ago +1 / -0

I am totally wrong? What do they believe in then?

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›