Some Common Sense Questions
Return to: It Sure Looks Flat
We note that some of these questions were inspired by a questioning source like yours truly, or perhaps yourself. Unfortunately I have lost the source's name. If anyone knows the original source, please email me [ ] and I will happily credit the person.
If the earth isn't a spinning ball.. IF it isn't ... would you want to know it?
Notice that it is merely a "conditional based" query. It tests whether you are actually capable of entertaining a possibility that may or may not conflict with your core beliefs. Much to my personal surprise, I have found that most people, when they feel backed into a corner and unable to refute the facts, will default to the position that it makes no difference if the earth is round or flat or hollow or whether it moves or not. A few will even come right out and state that they do not care. Draw your own conclusions at that point - I just smile and walk away. It DOES matter. Big time. More on that later.
Now if you managed to get past the first question, here are some that require only a little basic common sense to consider. And for those who might be wondering already, all asserted facts in the questions have been proven. They are not opinion. Neither MY opinion nor YOUR opinion makes any difference whatsoever... an incontrovertible fact is just that. How any given fact fits into one's "beliefs" is another story. So let's continue...
If the earth tilts at 23.4 degrees as alleged in the heliocentric model, why is the equator the hottest part of the planet?
Hmmm ... 90 deg. - 23.4 deg. = 66.6 deg. ... now that one may take a few aback already. But it gets even better - we can add that in the northern hemisphere summer, it is alleged that the earth's northern hemisphere is tilted AWAY from the sun and not toward it. The southern hemisphere is allegedly relatively closer to the sun and receives the more direct rays yet it is winter in the southern hemisphere. Compare how hot the sun feels to you when it is directly overhead at high noon vs. when it is either rising (approaching?) or setting (receding?) and you will see the problem more clearly. Ponder on that for a bit. Next question...
Why can't the smartest scientists prove that gravity exists?
Remember - all the factual premises are incontrovertible. Thus, you can save yourself a great deal of time and effort by simply accepting that the fact is true. There is no scientific based proof that gravity exists. Period. While most of us were told the fanciful tale of Newton being inspired by an apple falling on his head from a tree, anyone who eventually decided to look into the Theory of Gravitation soon discover that it is nothing but manufactured speculation.
Speculation is not proof - try this: we will notice that water when heated eventually starts to become quite agitated. We might then speculate that the reason it happens is because there is an invisible gremlin inside the water that does not care for hot baths and starts thrashing around as the water gets hotter. Anyone who laughs and says that is ridiculous can then be challenged to prove it is not so. Of course they cannot. The gremlin is invisible, more than fast enough to avoid capture and the agitated surface of the boiling water certainly cannot be denied. Right?! Uhhh - Speculation and theory is NOT PROOF.
Try proving that my speculated gremlin does not exist the next time you bring a pot of water to a boil. Then ask yourself why most people will point to the theory of gravity in critical support of their heliocentric model belief and become quite offended when told that the theorized force of gravity is no different than that theorized magic gremlin. Simple relative density accounts for why some things float up in the air and other things fall to the ground. Those densities can be measured scientifically. No gravity or magic gremlin is required to explain why "what goes up must fall down".
Why does the moon give off cold light?
Now here is an easy one that you can prove for yourself. Take a modern digital thermometer outside on a night featuring a full moon. Place the instrument in the shade and take a temperature reading. Then move the instrument into the full moonlight and take another reading. You will discover that it is actually cooler in the moonlight. Imagine that. Now I could provide all kinds of various sound scientific research that reveals that the properties of moonlight and sunlight are completely different but that is best left for the truly interested. In fact, there are so many problems for which science cannot explain regarding the idea that the moon is merely reflecting the light of the sun that I could fill pages with them. Feel free to do your own research at this point. In any case, the implications for the heliocentric model should be obvious.
If the moon reflects the sun's light, then why, on certain evenings, do we see the face of the moon lit when the moon is in the south west sky and the sun is in the north west sky allegedly about 93 million miles behind it?
This one is obviously somewhat related to the previous question. So just how is it physically possible if moonlight is reflected light from the sun? It might be useful to get out a pencil and paper and draw a rough diagram to illustrate the point. How is it that you can see the moon and the sun at the same time in that example? Good question. Refraction? Uh - I think not... for a number of sound scientific and observational based reasons.
If there is no up or down in space, why do we always see shooting stars coming down and never up?
Now this one may be simpler to imagine in your mind. Think back well into your childhood. Have you ever seen a meteorite shooting up from below the horizon? According to the heliocentric model, you should statistically see at least the same average number of shooting stars going up as we see coming down. There is no up or down in space according to the models. Ponder on that for a while.
Why have there been only east/west circumnavigations but not any south/north circumnavigations of the alleged globe?
Once again, I must remind you that the facts are proven. In this case, it is absolutely true that there has never been a south/north circumnavigation of the earth. Ever. You can research it until the cows come home. There never has been and there never will be. Given that is an incontrovertible fact, then the question remains - Why not?
Why are all of NASA's photos, with the exception of one (a fake, now proven by leaked NASA footage given to the BBC), all admittedly computer generated images?
Some of you probably know that NASA itself flat out admits that it uses computers and graphic manipulation software (like Photoshop) to create all those pretty images of the earth, the planets, the galaxies, etc. that they publish. Not that they had much choice since the observant on the internet were outing them relentlessly!
Worse, they are getting even sloppier: in a recently published pic they must have been in a big hurry because the individual using Photoshop accidentally left in a layer containing the hand tool used to move layers around on the screen in Photoshop and Gimp. Whoops.
So NASA now flat out admits its fraud after being caught countless times doing all kinds of things: such as copying and pasting identical clouds in various parts of their creations and even embedding subliminal messages such as the word 'sex' in the clouds of a recent computer generated image and including the silhouette of Disney's dog Pluto in their original initial pics of the planet Pluto! Talk about 'in-your-face'!! You get the idea... they admit it!... we already knew it!... so why do they not have even ONE real photograph of the earth taken from one of the literally thousands of ALLEGED satellites we are supposed to have floating far above the planet? Just ONE real photo of a spherical earth would certainly be 'case closed', right?! Now speculate on why they have not offered even one legit real time generated photograph. Not one.
How did astronauts get to the moon when today NASA admits no one can go through the Van Allen belt?
Now that is a question that bothered yours truly and a few others way back in 1969! The question became even more critical when a NASA spokesperson for today's Orion space capsule project flat out admitted late in 2016 that they were still working on solving how to shield their instruments and potential passengers from frying due to the lethal radiation bands of the Van Allen Belts.
Did I just write that they admitted that they were not able to prevent humans or electronics from frying as they pass through the radiation? Yes indeed, I did. So why not just use the technology that they allegedly used back in the 60s and 70s to go to the moon? I guess NASA figured you would not notice or maybe that we are all too programmed at this point to even think of such an obvious question.
Oh - and in case any are wondering, nobody at Project Orion has tried to answer the question. No surprise there. When doubling down on their fairy tales or aggressive denial and attacking the questioner personally cannot work, habitual liars simply refuse to address the question.
BTW - when one of the astronauts who allegedly went to the moon was caught unprepared with a question of how they hardened themselves and the capsule from the radiation, he hummed and hah'd and then said that it was was obviously not an issue at the time or NASA would have dealt with it. Uh huh - seriously! Here today, gone later today and then its baaaack... and this time it is angry! No wonder so many now dismiss virtually everything originating from Never A Straight Answer.
Why is there no dust crater on the moon where the lunar module landed, yet there are footprints of the astronauts?
This is another of those awkward questions that simply will not go away. You see, the alleged photos of the LEM (lunar excursion module) clearly show no dust on the landing pads. None. The LEM itself is also pristine looking in every photo. No dust. So how is it that we have alleged photographs of Armstrong's footprints IN THE DUST? And while you are struggling to answer that, here is the real kicker - we are told that the moon has no atmosphere and is devoid of surface water. So how were those footprints created in the first place? It takes water/humidity (or some other adhering agent) to keep the footprint ridges in place on earth. On the moon, with no water, the disturbed dust would simply resettle immediately back to the surface. So just how were those alleged footprints made? Whoops - the big brains at NASA really screwed up there. But when they realized that mistake, it was far too late to correct it... so they just ignore it.
We could speculate endlessly on why the ISS space walk videos keep revealing air bubbles floating up and how an Italian astronaut apparently almost drowned when his suit sprang a leak on a recent ISS mission and don't get me started on the ridiculous female hair perms... the simple fact is that serious researchers into the nature of the earth or space are increasingly unwilling at this point to consider NASA as a credible source for any data.
Why are we told that when a ship descends below the horizon that it is due to the curvature of the globe yet when looked at through binoculars/telescope/camera zoom lenses the ship comes back into view?
So if our ship in the question is 30 miles away and we cannot see it with our naked eye allegedly because it has dropped 600 feet below the horizon due to the earths curvature, then what kind of voodoo binoculars are required that make that ship magically pop right back into view? I have personally read some rather tortuous attempts to play with trig. assumptions to try to account for what we can observe with our own eyes and a reasonable pair of binoculars or a zoom lens camera, but according to a math prof. in California (and a number of others, for that matter), all those attempts are bogus, requiring assumptions that simply are false. So what do you believe - that which your eyes and a zoom capable lens plus proven math are telling you or the manipulated formula of globalist believers which university math professors reject as horse hooey?
Why are there days and nights where we can see clouds BEHIND the sun/moon?
Oh oh - this one might be a tad problematic for many since nobody I have personally spoken with has noticed such a thing. Yet not only do we have many real time videos of the phenomenon, but we also have reports from hundreds of years ago from absolutely reliable witnesses asserting the same observations... including some ranking members of the British Astronomical Society. The only weak "explanation" I have discovered so far is that it is some kind of undetermined optical illusion ... much like that magic gremlin that hates warm baths, no doubt.
Do governments routinely lie to you? Does the government love you and want you to prosper and grow? Are the powerful corrupt?
Let me go out on a limb here and suggest that both camps in this issue should have no difficulty in answering those questions correctly. Just sayin'...
Have you done any of the research/experiments yourself or do you repeat whatever is served up to you by your 'authoritarians'?
If you are new to this particular issue then you have almost surely not done any actual real research or conducted any personal experiments to confirm or deny what your own senses and common sense are telling you. In fact, every programmed skeptic I have met has committed the logical sin of "citing authority" as sufficient proof for their arguments. Citing "authority" is NOT a proof. They may be correct or they may not be correct. You have no way of knowing. Thus relying exclusively upon mere "authority" for factual determination is logically unsound.