Flat Earth Rabbit Hole-Thanks Eddie

[Craig Murray]

All I want to know is where are all the pics of the entire earth from space? I'm not saying the earth is flat, just want to see pictures of the entire round earth from space, not cgi

There are tons of pictures of Earth from low Earth orbit. There are thousands and thousands of very high resolution photos taken from low orbit, even with the camera tilted up showing a the curvature of the Earth. Someone already posted a link into this thread with a few.

What you wont see are lots of pictures with the entire Earth in the frame that is not a bunch of CGI work. That's because none of our satellites are up that high. And humans have never been above low-Earth orbit either. So the photos we have are from very low. From up higher we have little to nothing. Our satellites don't work once they get inside the Van-Allen belts. And humans certainly can't pass through it. So above a certain altitude we have almost nothing.

As far as NASA hiding stuff, I suspect that has a lot more to do with Military than with hiding something about the shape of the Earth. They are certainly hiding the fact that humans have never been outside of a low-Earth orbit. They are hiding the fact that petroleum is abiotic (that is, it's not a "fossil fuel", it's a product of the mantle of the Earth itself, a renewable resource).

The Earth is almost certainly round (spherical), NASA is totally full of shit, and it takes a huge amount of work to get even a little bit of truth out of the universe.


Here is a quote from a former president.

“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” – Woodrow Wilson, from his book The New Freedom (1913)

[Aaron Gustaveson]

There should be tens of thousands of pictures of the entire earth from space. But there's not, just a bunch of cgi composites. Google "earth from space", nothing but fake pics. I'm not saying the earth is flat, I'm just saying NASA is hiding something from us. I do believe 1000% that the moon landings were all hoaxes tho.

What software are you using to determine if an image is fake? Why do you think the moon landing were fake? That would mean that the USSR and many other governments a well as independent groups were all in on the hoax.

[Aaron Gustaveson]

How can you tell these are fake?

http://planetary.org/explore/space-t...ww.google.com/

[Aaron Gustaveson]

I don't think the earth is flat but I do question the shape. Also question gravity. Einsteins time/space and the ground moving up rather than the object falling down. If time and space bend could the Earth possibly be a flat earth bent into a cylinder? We know the map and globe incorrectly show the size of countries, would they still fit nice if they were proportionately sized? I have no clue what's going on lol

So what shape do you think the earth is, a cylinder? That would def require different laws of gravitation. What about gravity do you question?

"and the ground moving up rather than the object falling down."

You are misunderstanding something here.

"If time and space bend could the Earth possibly be a flat earth bent into a cylinder? "

Spacetime "bends", or is distorted by matter, not the other way around. Let say the earth was the shape of a toilet paper roll, unless gravity works dramatically differant than we observe, over time the shape would collapse into a sphere.

Modern globe show correct proportional sizes of countries/continents. When you try to represent the surface of the earth on a flat surface, like a map, the sizes have to be distorted.

[Aaron Gustaveson]

They are certainly hiding the fact that humans have never been outside of a low-Earth orbit. They are hiding the fact that petroleum is abiotic (that is, it's not a "fossil fuel", it's a product of the mantle of the Earth itself, a renewable resource).

Just to be clear, the moon is outside of low earth orbit. How do you think petroleum is formed?

[Aaron Gustaveson]

[Craig Murray]

How do you think petroleum is formed?

It's not just me. Hundreds of scientists published in dozens of journals know perfectly well that the vast majority, if not all, petroleum is produced abiotically. Just do some homework and learn for yourself.

Even the incredibly conservative wikipedia has a nice little section on it. As you are rightly skeptical, start there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abioge...troleum_origin

This is a vast subject with a great deal of information already in the scientific journals. You're going to need a little bit of knowledge about geology and some chemistry if you want to actually understand the geologic processes involved, but if you're actually interested in the truth, you'll learn.

And just to be clear, this is not some fringe theory. These theories go back to the beginning of geology and the first refinement of petroleum. In fact if you ask a Russian geologist he will almost certainly tell you exactly what I'm telling you, that oil is produced deep within the Earth abiotically (essentially non-organically). The Russian public scientific literature has been clear about this since the 50's when Russia became one of the largest exporters of petroleum in the world.

Careful though, it's a big subject and I would suggest you'll need to spend significant time if you want to actually understand how petroleum is formed and know what to believe. Good luck, and have fun!

[Aaron Gustaveson]

Im sure it's not just you but I was asking you. First step in doing some homework and learning for myself.

Wiki has an entry but says in the second sentence,
"The two principal abiogenic petroleum hypotheses, the deep gas hypothesis of Thomas Gold and the deep abiotic petroleum hypothesis, have been scientifically discredited and are obsolete"

First time Ive ever heard anyone suggest that wiki is conservative.

Where did you get your knowledge of geology and chemistry?
How do you access scientific journals, most cost money?

[Craig Murray]

Im sure it's not just you but I was asking you. First step in doing some homework and learning for myself.

Wiki has an entry but says in the second sentence,
"The two principal abiogenic petroleum hypotheses, the deep gas hypothesis of Thomas Gold and the deep abiotic petroleum hypothesis, have been scientifically discredited and are obsolete"

First time Ive ever heard anyone suggest that wiki is conservative.

Where did you get your knowledge of geology and chemistry?
How do you access scientific journals, most cost money?

I have degrees in Computer Science, Mathematics, and Geology. Wikipedia is extremely conservative. And journals do not cost much money; when you are an engineering professional you can afford that kind of thing. It's also common to have access to them when you are a student. It's also common for corporations to subscribe to journals and grant access to their employees. Also many journals will give you the abstracts for free and allow you to purchase papers on a per-paper basis. This way you do not have to have full subscriptions to every journal. You can subscribe to the primary ones and then supplement with articles from other journals on a per-subject basis. Finally while my degress are limited to to Geo, CS, and Math, I have spent considerable time studying other sciences. In fact I was considering a degree in Geophysics instead of Geology. I have studied Chemistry as well since it plays a large role in understanding geology. At my school a significant number of chem classes are required for a degree in geology.

"The two principal abiogenic petroleum hypotheses, the deep gas hypothesis of Thomas Gold and the deep abiotic petroleum hypothesis, have been scientifically discredited and are obsolete"

That's incorrect for a number of reasons, but it's nice to see you've at least taken enough initiative to read a wikipedia page. Now keep digging. The truth is there but it does not yield it's bounty easily.

A couple more clues to help in your travels:
1. It's common for oil companies to return to wells that have been completely drained to find significant amounts of petroleum in them. Sometimes they can return multiple times to retrieve more.
2. Many oil companies are now drilling wells far deeper than any organic depositional material is found. Petroleum is often found as an inclusion in granitic deposits far below the level of organic deposition.
3. There are many prominent figures in the field of Geology that have abiotic theories, despite what wikipedia tells you. If you search for them and read their work, it will help you understand both sides of the debate.

Here is a pretty good starter article that has most of the hard science stripped out so it is readable to the layman.

http://www.viewzone.com/abioticoilx.html

To be honest though, if you really want to understand the subject, you will need to do extensive homework. Spending a couple hours using google isn't going to do much for you, other than to hopefully show you that there is a great deal of evidence for abotic oil including studies which have produced it. It's kind of like Climate Change. Everyone thinks they know about it, what's true, and what's not. But almost no one has actually studied the science at all. They don't really know much of anything, which terrifies them, and leads them to think they know everything.

Let me try to be as simple and clear as I can about how it works: All that is required is produce petroleum is calcium carbonate, carbon, and pressure. All 3 of those things are available in abundance in the magma of the Earth. Interestingly once you've studied the subject enough, the idea that petroleum is NOT a mantle product is pretty absurd. It's the calcium carbonate that was what lead geologists astray in the first place. A great deal of it is produced on the surface of the Earth as the result of life. However we have since learned that it is a Mantle product and that is not at all controversial science. To prove the potential Russian scientists have created petroleum using nothing but those things I mentioned. While wikipedia may overlook that kind of work, it is not lost on most open-minded professional geologists working in the oil and gas industry, I can assure you.

In fact NASA itself will confirm abotic methane. Read about Saturn's moon called Titan. NASA will tell you it has oceans of liquid methane. Yet according to a biotic-only production of hydrocarbons that is impossible, unless there was massive amounts of life on Titan. So where did all that methane come from? I'll tell you, it came from the abotic production of hydrocarbons.

Good luck!

[Craig Murray]

If this set of facts doesn't at least get you thinking that there might be some shit you are wrong about, nothing will:

nat·u·ral gas
noun
flammable gas, consisting largely of methane and other hydrocarbons, occurring naturally underground (often in association with petroleum) and used as fuel.
(from google search of "what is natural gas")

The lakes of Titan, Saturn's largest moon, are bodies of liquid ethane and methane that have been detected by the Cassini–Huygens space probe, and had been suspected long before.[2] The large ones are known as maria (seas) and the small ones as lacūs (lakes).[3]
(from wikipedia)