RE: Can NASA pictures be considered real or they are just deceiving art?
I'm pretty doubtful about all astrophysics science except of what can be observed (and mainly verified) from Earth. Even then you must be careful about explanation of the experiment/observation and where this theory leads you. Anyway for people like me whatever you cannot be proven by experiment on Earth is just an issue of faith. I'm Christian and I believe in Jesus because He was proven in my life undoubtedly (on the other hand I must say I sought Him a lot and put a lot of effort into it even though for many years I had no evidence whatsoever). For purely scientific theories I keep my mind open so I don't believe flat earth much more than I believe round/rotating Earth just because I cannot verify enough evidence by myself. Actually more I research both models, more problematic issues I find with rotating sphere model. But flat-earth research is also contaminated by deceiving people and fake organizations filled with free-masons and other doubtful people (like Flat Earth Society), who spread non-sense arguments to undermine the research, and so you need to find genuine people in the area. I must say Eric Dubay makes lot of sense to me and many of his arguments are pretty strong. Feel free to check his statements for yourself
Eric Dubay makes zero sense, all his claims have been debunked 2 years ago. Please do not fall for it, it's a lie to take your money.
I've never seen his arguments really debunked, can you point me to some good source?
Just look around Youtube for "flat earth debunked" or something, when looking at that information with an open mind you'll get in the right direction. You should probably start by looking at the angular size of the sun when filmed with solar filter and the fact that you can't see Polaris from the far below the equator.
Well, yeah, I've seen some of those and also those debunks debunked back :). It's really hard to go though all the claims. There are lots of half-truth and diversions. Something is wrong here - in both models. NASA could help but I'm pretty sure they are not telling us the all the facts they know.
UPDATE: I verified that part of Eric's argumentation is definitely not correct. So yeah, it's needed to test everything from all sides.
No, the heliocentric model is just fine for the most part. NASA lying doesn't immediately imply that earth has to be flat or that you have to assume it's geocentric for example. Most problems are with things like the big-bang (cosmic background radiation), dark energy/matter and black holes.
Hmm, I must say I have actually lot of basic problems with rotating Earth, mechanics of individual layers and transition between them - ground, clouds, atmosphere, space with all the motion. Everything is too smooth and there are no mechanical effects (accelerations) visible while traveling through these layers. It looks much more static and that makes flat-earth static Earth (or static Sphere) much more acceptable to me. When this is somehow explained one can start to think about these "higher" issues like dark matter, etc. Earth as a moving system doesn't make any sense to me and nothing like that is observed and no mechanical consequences (during space flights, etc.) are observed as well. There is no fixed binding that holds ground to atmosphere and still the atmosphere looks like completely following the ground. And then flights of planes in various directions without any adjustment or speed delta don't make any sense related to expected effects of rotation.
Have you seen the documentary "the principle" by Robert Sungenis? It's about geocentrism, if you haven't seen it will be very interesting to you. Scientists have refuted it in some way, but it can't harm watching since it has a lot of interviews from mainstream scientists in it.
I'm sticking with heliocentrism for now though, but who knows what the future holds ;)
Yeah, I've seen that document some time ago, it was interesting but I haven't fully grasped it. I need to see it again, thanks for reminding. Anyway I found this presentation of Dr. Robert Sungenis - everything is slowly explained and shown, history included. It's over 2 hours long, but worth looking. It also nicely shows how science twists when it hits philosophical barriers.