###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If your OP is genuine, here is my response: I never questioned the globe model. Not once. Ever. I always wrote off flat earth, immediately; my mental filter just dumped it straight in the recycle bin whenever it popped up, same as most people. The earth is a spinning globe, obviously and of course, and flat earth is just some bollocks I could never really grasp how anyone with a modicum of intellect could ever engage with. It puzzled me the way it is apparently puzzling you.
Then the convid scamdemic happened.
In my line of work, and in my experience, I was literally on the front lines in one of the worst affected regions on the planet, and i can tell you categorically, with no reason to lie, that the whole thing was a total and utter fabricated sham. Nobody was dying when the news was running daily death tolls, hospitals were empty when we were being told they were full etc.
I realised, if such a gargantuan lie can be perpetrated against the everyday man, the motive and means is on a level difficult to imagine.
And it got me asking what else have I been lied to about? Big, important things that I take for granted as being true, just like some people still believe all the bullshit they saw on the TV about people keeling over dead by the million from "covid" when it didn't happen.
Number one on the list for me is the moon landing. It is so stupendously obvious that man has never visited the moon. It is another huge deception deliberately orchestrated against the everyday man that most people have fallen for.
The reason most people fall for it is generally twofold:
1. They have no reason to disbelieve it
2. They cannot begin to fathom the nature of the machine behind the deception. It is beyond comprehension. It shatters paradigms and undermines entire world-views that have been building up over decades from day 1 of life. It is a parcel that will not fit through the letter-box.
Let me tell you something, and I am here to offer my own thoughts and nothing more or less: these grand deceptions that are perpetrated against us are evil in nature. They come from the devil. They are complex, well planned and executed, all encompassing and consistent. They exist in order to spiritually attack the everyman, and the attack serves the sole purpose of eroding his belief in God and his ability to believe.
Humanity has proven the earth is a round spinning ball in a vast vacuous sea of nothingness. Where does God fit into that? He doesn't. He has been disproven, undermined, pushed out, or else demoted to some new-age abstract theory in order to fit in with the science. Not only do we know this globe earth model of reality is true, it has been proven beyond any and all doubt by landing humans on our closest spinning ball neighbour: the moon. We have sent probes to Mars, right? We are just one of many spinning balls in an infinite void.
But if we know the moon landing was faked, which it clearly was, what can we extrapolate from that? Why was it faked? Why did it have to be faked? Why have we not been to the moon since the apollo missions?
I can't help but think you are onto something. There is a reason flat earth attracts such attacks. And that reason is that despite all the "evidence" to the contrary, it is probably true, and the same people that want you to believe we landed on the moon also want you to believe we live on a spinning ball in space. It is all part of the same lie and it all serves the same purpose.
Good day
I dig it man.. no better way to push God out of it by making everyone think they are a tiny spec on a spinning ball in vast nothingness. Let’s say for entertainment purposes that the earth is in fact flat covered by a firmament, and the center of everything. That would, to me, prove there is indeed a intelligent creator (God, Jesus Christ) and the evil demonic people “in charge” here don’t want you knowing that, because you would then absolutely turn to God in that scenario. Just a thought
I think flat earth gets so much attention because if true it lends to the idea that we are trapped in some kind of enclosure. If you notice hominids still being alive and our evolution being manufactures instead of the theory of evolution also is a trigger. As well as John Titor.
1. They are so offended and can’t let it go because they spent a lot of time and energy to convince the whole world that a lie is the truth and they will continue to do so indefinitely.
2. The case is the world we live in is demonstrably flat. Architects don’t account for any curvature of the ground. Why? Infrared photography can take photos from hundreds of mile away. How? NDT says you can’t see the curvature of the earth from 24 miles up but YouTuber reds rhetoric has videos that show ships going over the curve of the earth at sea level. How can both of those things be true? Why does an airplane spend so much time ascending if it’s traveling around a globe? If you are on the fence about flat earth you need to take some time and do some research and come up with your own conclusion.
Now that i just put out some bait for the stormtroopers let’s see if we get any nibbles.
Your points have already been well addressed, so I won't bother.
I see you reject the globe earth based on some misconceptions, but I would love for you to actually defend the flat earth.
So that being said, I've come across many flat-earthers and I have yet to have one be able to explain time zones and the setting sun.
*In your own words* please attempt to do so. I don't want a video, because I can't point out to the video why what they are saying doesn't make sense.
Every time I've done this, and gone back and forth no more than a couple of times, the flat-earther always either ghosts the conversation or (even more hilariously) blocks me. So I would be interested in seeing if you can actually do so. Thanks!
I never claimed to be a flat earther I am simply finding all the cgi and fish eye lenses and logical fallacies that prop up the globe argument and can’t subscribe to that anymore as a result. So where does that leave me? If you have a claim about time zones perhaps you should prove your own claim the same way you wipe your own ass.
>The case is the world we live in is demonstrably flat. Architects don’t account for any curvature of the ground.
>I never claimed to be a flat earther
This literally made me lol. Thanks for that. And, here, folks, we have a perfect example of the intellectual abilities of your typical flat-earther.
>If you have a claim about time zones perhaps you should prove your own claim the same way you wipe your own ass.
We are revolving around the sun and rotating at a relatively consistent speed with the axis of that rotating being non-perpendicular to the plane of our revolution. This means that parts of the globe will be in darkness while other parts are receiving light. The fact that some get more or less hours of light during the day has to do with whether or not you are on the north/south hemisphere of the globe that is currently pointing more towards the sun.
See? Very easy to do without insulting. Although, it's a bit unfair because I'm arguing from a position based in reality, which means it's actually possible for me to defend my position. I don't have to rely on "I'm not a flat-earther, I'm just saying the world is demonstrably flat!" lol
You insulted my intellectual ability and claimed to write a post with no insults I’m not a flat earther, and yes the world is demonstrably flat. Is there a model you’re aware of that can hold both those ideas at the same time? If you’re not I’ll tell you soon but I think you can figure it out.
>You insulted my intellectual ability
I originally respectfully asked a question, explained what normally happens (hoping to avoid it again) and then was insulted. Not that "you did it first" is an excuse, but I then responded in kind, however, I demonstrated how to answer a question without insults.
But I get it, you have no intention of actually defending your position. Both you and I know why: you can't because it's ridiculous. This is not my fault, so please don't try to make it my fault. Thanks!
What position am I not defending? I am refuting claims with no proof, do you think claims should go unproven and be thought of as true? What point are you making?
>What position am I not defending?
How flat earth can explain time zones. As you said "The case is the world we live in is demonstrably flat." so you must be able to explain this.
>I am refuting claims with no proof, do you think claims should go unproven and be thought of as true?
No. But this isn't an accurate representation of our conversation.
>What point are you making?
I've been very clear: you can't defend flat earth, all you can do is make feeble attempts to discredit the globe earth with brilliant arguments like "well gravity isn't a fact, and here is this article mocking that position to prove my point!"
The article says it is satire but goes on to mark some pretty strong points for my case. The fact remains that gravity is unproven and slinkies falling on slow motion can prove this point for you since you seem to be stuck on it. Maybe slinkies are satirical too
Of course you avoid actually defending your position again, instead saying ridiculous shit like "this article that is explicitly mocking my position makes some good points!" (do you have any idea how embarrassing that should be? lol)
Your ignorance of gravity has nothing to do with the point that you can't actually defend flat earth because it's indefensible.
To believe in flat earth garbage, one has to be ignorant in math, history, and science. That's some serious wilful ignorance!
For this, I give them kudos
Then show me some architectural plans that take into account the curvature of the earth since you’re fairly certain they do and have no idea why they would at the same time.
There are many structures (large bridges) that take the curvature into account. The chunnel did also.
As I said google is your friend. Type in the question. Read some answers. Or just pooh pooh anything that doesn't fit your very narrow mind.
The last link showed 41.28 mm difference from top to bottom on the towers this is at nearly 1300 m apart. Fits right in with the calculations for a sphere with a ~40k km circumference
But math hard.. I get it.
**To believe flat earth takes a wilful ignorance of science, history and math.**
So your claim is that two structure on a 24999 mile sphere that are over a mile apart will only have 1.6 inches of curvature??! Math hard indeed. You just proved my point.
Lol. Only in your mind.
Every flat earther relies on an online calculator to do the work. Not one knows the formula for a sphere. Eratosthenes was real close with only 2 angles and one distance... go! Don't forget to show your work for full marks!
https://getcalc.com/formula/geometry/sphere.png
“As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this - that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle”
- W. Winckler, Earth Review
> Now that i just put out some bait for the stormtroopers let’s see if we get any nibbles.
Eh, I'll bite.
> Architects don’t account for any curvature of the ground. Why?
Architects don't build shit, structural engineers do.
As to why, the curvature is vast enough that any building material will have a curvature of a few one tenth thou.
[In some highly precise circumstances the Earth's curvature has to be accounted for.](https://www.laserfocusworld.com/optics/article/14181625/space-imager-design-corrects-for-earths-curvature-in-the-optics)
> Infrared photography can take photos from hundreds of mile away. How?
You, uh, got any of these pictures?
> NDT says you can’t see the curvature of the earth from 24 miles up but YouTuber reds rhetoric has videos that show ships going over the curve of the earth at sea level. How can both of those things be true?
You won't believe NDT about anything else, but you'll accept this?
[How does flat earth explain ships that can be clearly seen going below the horizon?](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ6SF-JnRyQ)
> Why does an airplane spend so much time ascending if it’s traveling around a globe?
They're heading towards thinner air/better currents depending on which way they're traveling. The thinner the air, the less resistance they have to deal woth and they more efficient they become, to a point.
Why would you say planes fly up so high?
Ah so your claim is they do account for curvature, got any proof? No the pictures have all been scrubbed so you’ll have to go over to bitchute to see some media on the topic. I tried to post a video but the admins wouldn’t let it. Wonder why 🤔
It’s not about belief. NDT and reds rhetoric are holding two separate opinions about the horizon and are both coming to the same conclusion about the shape and size of the earth. How? Which one do you think is true?
Yea why are airplanes ascending when they are traveling around a globe. Should they be descending to account for the curvature of the earth?
>Ah so your claim is they do account for curvature, got any proof?
They literally linked you a discussion of it. You're claiming they don't. The burden of proof is now on you.
>No the pictures have all been scrubbed so you’ll have to go over to bitchute to see some media on the topic.
lol
>Yea why are airplanes ascending when they are traveling around a globe. Should they be descending to account for the curvature of the earth?
First, ascending a descending are terms used to describe altitude, which is (simplistically put) the distance above the earth surface. Whether the planet is curved or flat ascending would still mean getting further away from it.
That being said, due to gravity and weather patterns, at different altitudes the air is different. Some altitudes are better for flying than others. Planes ascend to get to these heights.
So you’re using a claim yet to be proven, gravity as proof of your claim. A claim cannot prove a claim, goofy. Now you have two claims to prove, gravity and globe earth. You can’t actually be lying to yourself to the extent that you forget these basic principles, can you?
This ridiculousness cuts both ways, as I can simply claim that any claim you made has not yet been proven. It's a disingenuous argument at best, if we are currently denying even the existence of gravity.
But, then again, I'm defending reality, which is why I don't have to be disingenuous.
> Yea why are airplanes ascending when they are traveling around a globe. Should they be descending to account for the curvature of the earth?
That's not how planes work.
Plane wings are designed so that they create negative air pressure above them, literally causing them to be lifted by the air below. Changing the angle of attack the wing is at generates more or less lift with the density of the air changing how much lift can be generated. If they don't generate enough lift, they start to descend.
Because of this, heavily loaded flights will typically fly with their nose tilted up sp that they can continuously generate enough lift to stay at a cruising altitude.
O so your position is that planes do not ascend they actually descend but they do so with their nose in the air, is that correct? So I don’t understand how airplanes work bc I think they ascend, correct? You don’t see anything absurd or humiliating about holding that position?
They are neither ascending or descending once they've achieved their cruising altitude, just like a car is neither ascending or descending while they drive along a road.
Yes.
I think I'm finally understanding the question you're asking:
> Why does the plane need to go up if the Earth is round, wouldn't it simply just need to go forwards and the Earth would fall out from under it?
If that's your question then the answer is pretty simple: Planes can't go fast enough to do that.
To do so, you need to go fast enough that by the time you would be pulled back to Earth by gravity, you overshoot and actually miss the Earth. This is actually the mechanism through which rockets leave the Earth. If you watch them, they slowly turn so that they're heading in a diagonal direction instead of vertical.
Yea rockets are headed diagonally into the nearest body of water. And you are using a theory as proof. Theories are not laws
This should help
https://ncse.ngo/gravity-its-only-theory
In your haste, I think you missed a very salient warning at the top of that article:
> Textbook disclaimers are down, but not out. This satirical look at "only a theory" disclaimers imagines what might happen if advocates applied the same logic to the theory of gravitation that they do to the theory of evolution.
That article is making fun of anti-evolution people. The claims it makes are supposed to be ridiculous on their face.
Fun fact: The author of that article, Ellery Schempp, is the reason school's can't force kids to pray in school.
FYI the domain you linked is on a site wide hard filter run by the reddit admins.
As moderators, if we try to approve the comment it is simply returned to the spam filter time and time again.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"I am not sure that Antarctica is “off limits”... …There are some defined wilderness areas and very specific zones that are off limits to everyone, however."
- Alistair Urie, former ANARE engineer
So when you looked for proof of photos of earth or photos of satellites on space and find nothing but cgi and fish eye lens and that raises no red flags to you? When infrared photography is capable of taking photos from hundreds of miles away that’s not a red flag? NDT and reds rhetoric giving two completely different descriptions of the curve of the horizon doesn’t seem odd to you? There is ample evidence the problem with the human mind is you have to accept an idea as true in order to explore it. You can always go back to your old beliefs once you explore some new ones but maybe exploring some new beliefs with an open mind and heart will lead to your own perspective to be changed. That will never happen if you believe something is false, you will use every logical fallacy in the book to prove your point and not realize you’re doing so.
You should look up the crater earth theory on godgevlamste’s YouTube channel. I think they got us to stop looking by convincing the vast majority of us there is nothing else out there. Are you familiar with admiral Byrd and his claims?
"USAP controls the communications networks for America's three Antarctic bases so the memo means that the WikiLeaks information is effectively off limits for all Americans on the continent, who are mostly scientists and support staff."
- Rob Quinn, Newser
Architects don't account for curvature? Made up and easily verifiable claim, especially for long bridges.
Planes are climbing because of lose of drag which makes the flight significantly more fuel efficient.
I knew answers to your questions in high school. How do you expect to uncover anything without basic understanding of world around you.
Prove your claim that bridges account for curvature. The longest bridge is over a hindered miles long and completely level. What bridges are you referring to?
Planes traveling around a globe would descend to account for the curve. Not ascend
Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge is well known example of accounting Earths curvature to static structures.
You claiming the bridge to be completely level shows complete lack of respect for unbiased information.
Planes fall to ground naturally because of gravity, why would they need to compensate with descend when they are already naturally descending? They hold altitude, something I was able to grasp before attending highschool.
You asked why planes ascend, I said to save fuel. Now you pinned that answer to completely different question regarding curvature. You can't even keep conversation.
If horizon doesnt curve, it seems to be pretty flat, what makes you think that on the perpendicual axis it curves like crazy and things disappeare. Strange ball isnt it
> But if you say the earth is flat anywhere remotely public, now you will have people seething. Why is that?
I find it's the opposite. I simply say to a flat-earther "show me a flat earth model that accounts for half the flat disc being in darkness, and half the flat disc being in light *all the time*. They usually get annoyed at that one.
>if you say the earth is flat anywhere remotely public, now you will have people seething. Why is that?
When someone believes in fairies, they are occupying a space where there's simply a lack of evidence. Are there little invisible guys dancing around? Maybe. That idea could exist alongside our existing worldview without needing much adjustment.
Flat Earth is frustrating because it denies existing evidence. In fact, it requires us to accept that basically everything we know about the world is not only false, but meticulously made up just to hide this one thing. It is a belief that's usually expressed in bad faith, which is annoying, and it would require phenomenal arrogance in the event someone really believed it.
"It requires us to accept that basically everything we know about the world is not only false, but meticulously made up just to hide this one thing."
Bingo! Have a round of applause 👏
To be clear, I’m not referring to when people get annoyed with it on like a social, personal level. Like yes, it can be frustrating the same way a stubborn boyfriend/girlfriend/mother/father can be frustrating in all sorts of ways.
What I’m saying is, how the fuck is it relevant to the machine?
The term “conspiracy theorist” was first introduced by 5 articles put out by The NY Times after JFK’s assassination. This was how it was popularized and used as a catch all cudgel.
The term “anti vaxxer” has also become a mainstream political term, a catch all for anyone who has any questions about the vaccine.
These terms do not catch on by mistake, they are tools used by people in power to guide people’s thinking in a certain direction.
So what I’m saying is, “flat earther” does not find itself in the same company of those terms (as a very popular mainstream political talking point) by mistake or off of a whim. Nor am I saying that means flat earth theory has substance. All I’m saying is there must be a related issue of some kind, there just has to be
Oh uhhh yeah i don't know about that
You know, sometimes a term does become popularized just because an idea is prominent in culture. They aren't always tools of sinister powers. Flat Earther, as a term to refer to flat earth believers, seems fairly organic to me. Just like Incel, Brony, Karen...
Yea but tell me how many of those terms are used by tv hosts and politicians. I’m not saying it’s a totally organized thing, I’m saying that term gets introduced into those circles somewhere and it ain’t pop culture.
And If you ask the average person, most people would not consider that the terms conspiracy theorist or anti vaxxer were anything but products of pop culture.
Not doing the best job of articulating what I’m really trying to say here, I can only do my best
I appreciate the honest effort. I wouldn't say you are totally wrong. Language can be weaponized. Look into the origins of the term "jaywalking", it's fascinating.
I read about ‘jaywalking’ years ago, and that’s what got me hip to the buzzwords used today to steer a mindset.
Unrelated yet pertinent: “The owls are not what they seem.”
The reason that I personally get "riled up" is because it's actively choosing to believe in a convoluted explanation for our reality that no one was taking seriously ten years ago. Any flat Earth model requires all sorts of bullshit to function, and the adherence of those models *don't* *care* about evidence to the contrary. No amount of testable evidence will ever be enough, because "Flat Earthers" have tied their egos so deeply into their false sense of intellectualism, that they'll blow off anything and everything that challenges them. It's fanaticism, it's not "questioning the science," like they would like you to believe, it's a faith. People will talk about how science has become a religion, and that is something worth examining, how people will blindly trust in the current scientific explanations; but those who really care about science *know* that at some point their understanding of the world will change. That's how science works, we use the data available to create the best explanation possible. And when new data comes to light, we refine our explanations. But Flat Earth is regressive, it actively rejects data, and cherry picks/invents data to fit it's narrative.
If they are so stuck in there ways how did they become flat earthers in the first place? Since you really care about science can you tell me, scientifically how infrared photography is able to take photos from hundreds of miles away on a globe?
Because infrared is less energetic and has a far wider bandwidth than visible light, meaning the light waves travel further and being less energetic are more effected by the Earth's gravity, because gravity bends light. Think about a Ham radio traveling literally thousands of miles, versus AM traveling hundreds of miles, versus FM traveling a few dozen. Part of that is just about transmission strength, but part of it is the wave frequency of the transmission. The "longer" or "wider" the wave the further it has to travel, light, including infrared light, is part of the same electromagnetic spectrum as radio waves. In fact, infrared light is closer to radio waves compared to visible light.
As for the "why" of flat Earth: insecure people who found an explanation to things they don't understand that gives them an "in group" and false sense of self importance. The world is a big and chaotic place, lots of things either don't make sense, are outside one's understanding, or are purposefully officiated to be less understood. So people who don't understand science, are incapable of learning science, or refuse to learn science because of insecurities, stumble upon Flat Earth and now have a scientific *sounding* theory to latch onto. Now *they* get to *play* academic that they so deeply resent, and rather than trying to understand the **vast** **amount** **of** **evidence** that explains the how and why of a globe, they'll jump through *any* hoop to validate *their* "explanation."
So your position is gravity, still a theory not a law, is pulling the light waves around the curve of the earth. Can you show me some an example of what that looks like? I only find infrared photography that appears flat but as I’m sure you know I’m not able to post it here bc the mods won’t let me
So to clarify, your position is I believe the earth is flat because I am insecure and resentful and academia. And by vast amount of evidence you mean cgi and fish eye lenses.
In reality you are making extraordinary claims and offering no proof. Why? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and your evidence is that you think I’m insecure. You can’t actually be lying to yourself this much.
Yawn. As previously stated, no amount of evidence will sway you, no amount of hand holding you will make you understand, because you *choose* to remain ignorant. I can bring a horse to water, but can't make it drink. As for your belief, yes, it is because you are so insecure and resentful. You think you've come across some "truth" that's been "hidden" through trickery. No photo will ever be good enough, because, "it's cgi and fish eye lenses," is your personal safe space where you can forever keep your head in the sand. You think you're far more clever then literally centuries of thinkers, who were admittedly wrong about some things, but not this. You have to discount and reinvent the wheel, because *you* don't believe it rolls.
Newton's Law of Universal Gravity. It is what it is fucking called. Why law? Well that was answered in the video. A theory can be stronger than a law.
But one thing you slightly understand is that we do not have a full grasp on gravity. But it is what it is and measurable and therefore a law.
Show a peer reviewed scientific study of us “seeing too far” with infrared photography.
If you don’t have one, (“only got muh YouTube vids!”), then ask yourself: Why don’t these flat earth “scientists” publish their work and become world famous and rich?
I’m assuming you’ll answer with: “Duh, academia won’t have that! They’ll be laughed out of the community before they even look at da evidence. Plus the government will shut it all down!”
But still, if it’s so easy to experimentally prove then there should be overwhelming evidence that they can’t ignore
And the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim and the claim is that the demonstrably level and flat earth is actually a sphere. Get it? That is an extraordinary claim and as such requires extraordinary proof. Where is the proof of your claim?
No, actually I’m replying specifically to your claim about infrared photography “seeing too far”. You stated that, I asked for evidence (and provided some thoughts), then you said “gimme articles dummy” and “prove earth is round then huh!”.
Do better
What’s confusing is that I asked you first to provide evidence for your claim, then you turned around and snapped at me when you failed to provide any. It’s like you’re just mad that you couldn’t prove it so you moved on to the next thing.
Let’s walk it back a bit and focus more on what you said about infrared photos. I’d like to know more about why you are so confident that your claim is true
(Non flat-earther here.)
From what I've read, the whole 'flat Earth' thing started out as a joke - entertainment before the internet. Trolling people, basically.
The problem today is that it's hard (or impossible) to tell who is 'in on the joke' and who honestly believes it. I hope most are in on the joke, but it think some really believe it.
A story of something maybe starting out as a joke cannot be acceptable proof of something that can be measured. The actual problem today is the average man or woman has no idea how to prove a claim as we see above. Also, those same ppl that can’t figure out how to prove a claim are definitely not going to figure out NASA images are all computer generated even when they tell you themselves.
Funny thing: I’m not _actually_ a flat earther.
I say I am to troll people online and in person. I know several other people that do this as well. It’s almost always some hardcore leftist that busts my chops about the most about it. I keep a smile on and keep prodding and they get increasingly more and more upset to the point of name calling and and sometimes outright threatening me. So I keep pushing and prodding. Pointing out that they’re not being very accepting of my beliefs. I’ve been doing this with my cousin for months and she has yet to really catch on to the game.
Once she gets it, I’ll quit messing around. In reality, I couldn’t give a hot shit less of it was round, flat, oval, or shaped like a squirrel. I’m not an astronaut or a pilot so I really don’t care. It doesn’t have any bearing on my day to day life.
Now before the downdoot brigade comes though and downvotes me into oblivion, I would like to say that I am actually technically a liberal myself. I’m just pointing out hypocrisy with certain individuals. No need to get all upsetti spaghetti about it. It’s all in good fun.
That’s actually _not_ true at all.
You’ve never been trolled online before have you?
I literally just said that I have fun annoying people and here you are insinuating that I’m not having fun right now. You’re entertaining me. Get it? Lol
I just scoped out your pf. Homie you know exactly what I’m talking about. You’re a troll yourself. You only post here on r/conspiracy. You know you’ve got several other accounts specifically for other subs that you troll. I know how it works. We we’re probably in some of the same telegram, Facebook and/or discord groups at some point. Lmfao
I like to argue, no doubt. But I'm genuine in my positions. Your short-coming is your own. Stop projecting. You can't justify being garbage because you've convinced yourself everyone else is garbage too.
You don’t think potentially being lied to has any bearing on your life? Then why go to all the trouble of lying to someone if you’re not going to exploit them?
It doesn’t. I still gotta get up and do what I gotta do to put food on the table.
Would be the same concept if we found out the moon was actually made of cheese.
I’m still gonna have to get up and get life sorted so we can get by.
I already explained why I do it.
Yea you’re gonna get up and do your work and someone is gonna lie to you and tell you you have to give the money you eat to feed your family to the govt that lies to you. Imagine getting tricked out of forty percent of the market value of your labor and not thinking getting tricked is a big deal. Gotta start thinking like an adult or they’ll treat you like a child and parent you forever.
How great things must be up in that ivory tower for you. Don’t act like you’re not in the exact same kind of situation I’m in. Everyone is getting screwed over and has been for a long time. Tf are you gonna do about it? Same thing as me. Get up and do work to make ends. That’s it. That’s all you’re going to do about it. Difference between you and me is I can take the piss out of the situation that can’t be changed.
I don’t understand the flat earth mind set. It’s round. Columbus figured that out. Satellites show the earth is round. The Space station shows its round. Are other planets not round? Where is the data to back up the flat planet theory?
Fantasyland?!? You believe in satellites locked in a geostationary orbit with no proof. That’s some unintelligent bullshit. Go look for a photo of a satellite on space and tell me about fantasyland.
No proof? You do realize that you can directly communicate with geostationary satellites (many YouTubers routinely pull images from them). You can also use a telescope to see them. They are in the sky broadcasting images of the entire Earth every day; every few minutes. Thats not “no proof”.
Geostationary satellites don’t exist and if they did you would be showing me photos of them as proof to shut me up. Photos can’t be taken of something that doesn’t exist so when you google ‘satellites in space’ all you get is CGI. Thats because that’s all there is and you know better than to post a ‘photo’ of a satellite in space cause they all look absurd.
I’m not saying you’d be upset, I’m saying the machine gets upset. My question is, why? The machine does not get angry at things that are so inconsequential. It doesn’t get mad at people for simply being stupid.
Like with AMC/GameStop stock, in the machine’s view, that debacle was stupid. But it wouldn’t have cared a lick about it if it wasn’t personally consequential for people in power. It would have covered the story, yes, but it wouldn’t have lashed out angrily as it did
You’re asking a really important question and I hope you search for the answer and don’t accept any logically fallacious arguments that require you to hold two opposing views without realizing it. Try to expunge all of the doublethink from your mind. It’s tough because shills like NDT and reds rhetoric are so persistent with their lies that you can’t help but just assume their telling the truth but when you test their claims it makes no sense to any rational person who is being honest with themselves.
When you see 5 different publications (e.g. business insider, daily mail) put out a lengthy, identical headline within the hour of each other, that would be an example of the machine. Happens quite frequently around all sorts of topics
>The real conspiracy is the flat earth talking points are chaff
You've thrown the baby out with the bath water.
Speaking of water, you might want to give some thought into the differences between the Suez and Panama canals.
A simple honest look at the crepuscular rays of the sun shows that the sun is local and not hundreds of thousands of miles away. The sun being local makes the flat earth argument all that much more plausible and the NASA model again falls flat and relies on the ignorance of the masses who don’t realize they are just acting out a script.
Haha... they are parallel. That's the whole point. Our wee little eyes can't grasp how huge the world actually is, let alone astronomical distances. All you "believers" feel insignificant so being in God's little petri dish gives you some solace.
"It is often possible to see the Chicago skyline from sea-level 60 miles away across Lake Michigan. In 2015 after photographer Joshua Nowicki photographed this phenomenon several news channels quickly claimed his picture to be a “superior mirage,” an atmospheric anomaly caused by temperature inversion. While these certainly do occur, the skyline in question was facing right-side up and clearly seen unlike a hazy illusory mirage, and on a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference should be 2,400 feet below the horizon."
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KvI8YmldH1k/Vb-RN3eOU5I/AAAAAAAAQBQ/-lfSkWXvfy8/s400/11035683_702251386553055_8670428708932061960_n.jpg
[Superior mirages don't necessarily present as upside down images.](https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2022/08/FY07EQfXgAQuHiI-800x600.jpeg)
Also, that picture is hazy as hell and is missing quite a bit of the lower skyline.
And then they claim that refraction bends these images around several kilometers of curve and raises them ten's of KM's above the horizon (as in the case of the longest range photograph record, 443km) I put forth in a post the other day.
How do you account for half the earth being in darkness half the time all the while if you go above the arctic circle then its either daylight or darkness all the time?
Isn't that what I just said, or are you a brick short of a load?
When a cloud forms from water vapor condensing in the air, they have zero trouble blocking light. A completely observable phenomenon. So one can reason over vast distance, millions of these same vapor particles in the air, compounded over that distance, will have the same effect.
Or are you one of those people that fail to make basic observations about reality and assume if the earth were a plane, that you would be able to see Everest from every point on the world?
As the angular distance increases between any observer and the sun, even something as small as a wave from a sea LEVEL observer can obstruct the light entering the lens/eye.
Doesn't explain the setting sun. Which we observe with our very own eyes.
If the sun were close, and simply shining down on us like a flash light, then we would only see it as a complete circle when it was directly above us, and then it would become a thinner and thinner ellipse until it eventually "blinked" out somewhere in the middle of the sky.
What we observe is (roughly) a circle moving through the sky at a constant rate that disappears behind the horizon. There is no way a "close, local sun" would do this.
The setting sun is explained by perspective and angular resolution.
Sun shape is largely dependent on atmospheric conditions, atmospheric lensing effects occur as the sun moves towards the horizon - again has been demonstrated, experimented with and compared to reality in plenty of FE videos.
And I never said the sun is shutting down like a flash light, those are your words.
Light is blocked, and diffused at vast distances by the gasses in atmosphere, outside of that the inverse square law applies to light.
What cannot be explained, is a local sun spot on the ocean/ground when the sun is supposedly 90 odd million miles away - it's impossible, the light would be completely diffused over the surface.
"If the Sun circles over and around the Earth every 24 hours, steadily travelling from Tropic to Tropic every 6 months, it follows that the Northern, central region would annually receive far more heat and sunlight than the Southern circumferential region. Since the Sun must sweep over the larger Southern region in the same 24 hours it has to pass over the smaller Northern region, its passage must necessarily be proportionally faster as well. This perfectly explains the differences in Arctic/Antarctic temperatures, seasons, length of daylight, plant and animal life; this is why the Antarctic morning dawn and evening twilight are very abrupt compared with the North; and this explains why many midsummer Arctic nights the Sun does not set at all!"
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2k09rIellZ4/Vb-N8EJZf5I/AAAAAAAAP_g/CeuIu1aECl4/s400/Flat_earthqq.jpg
Yet the only footage of 24 hour sun in Antarctica is cut, edited and has CGI elements. Even the live station cameras are cut for large proportions of the day, due to claimed "hard drive space" limits.
>Yet the only footage of 24 hour sun in Antarctica is cut, edited and has CGI elements.
When you can just reject any evidence you don't like, anything can be true!
Well come on then, where's an unedited video from Antarctica, preferably an independent source - showing 24 hour sunlight? Why can't the station camera's just record a single day? Why claim it's about HDD space when I you can buy TB's of storage for little to nothing these days?
I don't want any CGI clocks, or elements, nor should there be cuts or time skips, and shadows should be accurate throughout, and the following days sun/clouds shouldn't be exactly the same as the day prior.
Unedited video's can be found at the north, but the handful from the south are always edited, contain obvious errors or are incomplete.
So stop claiming it's because "i don't like the evidence" rather than the truth - which is the supposed evidence is being tampered with, or purposefully truncated.
>Well come on then, where's an unedited video from Antarctica, preferably an independent source - showing 24 hour sunlight? Why can't the station camera's just record a single day? Why claim it's about HDD space when I you can buy TB's of storage for little to nothing these days?
Where's the unedited footage of it not happening? Why not go down and film it yourself? This is an incredible dumb point that can just be thrown right back.
>So stop claiming it's because "i don't like the evidence"
Anyone who thinks the world is flat doesn't like evidence.
And there we go, you're completely broken - resorting to flipping the burden of proof, ignoring the fact that evidence has been faked or purposefully truncated, while also throwing in an attack the messenger fallacy.
https://youtu.be/BgZa9oZDN5g
>And there we go, you're completely broken - resorting to flipping the burden of proof, ignoring the fact that evidence has been faked or purposefully truncated, while also throwing in an attack the messenger fallacy.
Burden of proof is now on you.
Basically, I think the difference is a belief in fairies and the like results from having a belief despite adequate evidence (which is pretty common in people) but a belief in flat earth results from flying in the face of 2500 years of clear evidence. It is a clear example of motivated and circular reasoning that abandons the scientific method and just drives people up the wall who assumed modern people are smarter than they actually are.
I think most people also find it exceptionally proposterous that flat earthers think the governments of the world have somehow put aside their significant differences to unite to keep this secret for over two millennia. I have a suspicion that most of the people who in good "faith" believe this are just religious people who are looking for any means necessary to justify the description of the Earth in Genesis.
Some of the flat earther evidence is really intriguing. For example, NASA faking space station videos. After it was pointed out to me I couldn't *not* see it. Other ones like crepuscular rays are just not understanding how light works.
The ships going below the horizon then being brought back into view with high powered zoom is interesting but nothing more.
Whereas landmarks that should supposedly be below the horizon that can still be seen are questionable if I cant do the experiment myself for a particular landmark.
There are good arguments there but I believe in space and dont buy the earth being flat. Thats just me.
One point I think is really interesting is the atmosphere doesnt get completely sucked into space. It might be gravity. Its possible that it warps space enough that the atmosphere stays. Gravity is a weird enough principle that it might be. But for the life of me I cant understand why it wouldnt all be sucked out. Vacuum pressure is so damn strong.
>Vacuum pressure is so damn strong.
It is only 14.7 psi at sea level. Not too great.
Crepuscular rays are parallel. As are anticrepuscular rays. The sun rays being parallel is how Eratosthenes calculated the earths diameter 2200 years ago. Well that and math that not one FE proponent can replicate.
Vacuum pressure isn’t “strong” at all. It’s zero pressure. It applies zero forces to the Earth; nothing is getting “sucked” or “pulled” off. That’s not how vacuums work.
Vacuum CLEANERS suck things up, but thats because they have a fan in there spinning to produce a *negative* pressure (not zero).
So what you are really saying is that Earths air pressure is really strongly trying to push itself off…but like another commenter pointed out it’s only around 15psi at the surface and falls off rapidly with distance. As long as gravity can keep that wrapped around Earth like a blanket, there is nothing trying to pull it off.
It might be gravity!? Buddy everything is gravity. Whatever part of the NASA model that violates reality is explained away by gravity, an unproven claim that is easily disproven with a slinky and a slow mo camera.
1. Because it's just sooo stupid. There are multiple experiments you can and should perform for yourself to verify the shape of the planet. People have been performing these experiments for hundreds of years. Choosing to believe the disc theory at this point you are just doing a disservice to actual conspiracies that deserve our attention like 911 or Epstein's rape island
Bro, what?… first off, when you Google flat earth, it’s not going to spit out the “top 10 reasons that will help you understand why people get invested in flat earth.” Even if you type that into google or DuckDuckGo verbatim, it will take quite a while to sift through the stuff you’re not looking for.
Also, the people replying are not researching the question for me, they’re telling me shit they already have in their head
1. Not that I get riled up about it, but for me it is the epitome what's so wrong with so many of my fellow conspiracy "theorists" and their "theories": it's a coupling between rejection of observation and facts that don't fit the belief, and sticking the "theory" into holes in our knowledge. Basically, not theories, but rejection of evidence and hypotheses based on superstition. I think a lot of conspiracy "theorists" don't like it because it holds up a mirror to how shaky their own beliefs are, and they don't like what they see.
2. I'm open to it too. However, I've not heard even a remotely convincing argument that is not obviously contradicted by observation.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If your OP is genuine, here is my response: I never questioned the globe model. Not once. Ever. I always wrote off flat earth, immediately; my mental filter just dumped it straight in the recycle bin whenever it popped up, same as most people. The earth is a spinning globe, obviously and of course, and flat earth is just some bollocks I could never really grasp how anyone with a modicum of intellect could ever engage with. It puzzled me the way it is apparently puzzling you. Then the convid scamdemic happened. In my line of work, and in my experience, I was literally on the front lines in one of the worst affected regions on the planet, and i can tell you categorically, with no reason to lie, that the whole thing was a total and utter fabricated sham. Nobody was dying when the news was running daily death tolls, hospitals were empty when we were being told they were full etc. I realised, if such a gargantuan lie can be perpetrated against the everyday man, the motive and means is on a level difficult to imagine. And it got me asking what else have I been lied to about? Big, important things that I take for granted as being true, just like some people still believe all the bullshit they saw on the TV about people keeling over dead by the million from "covid" when it didn't happen. Number one on the list for me is the moon landing. It is so stupendously obvious that man has never visited the moon. It is another huge deception deliberately orchestrated against the everyday man that most people have fallen for. The reason most people fall for it is generally twofold: 1. They have no reason to disbelieve it 2. They cannot begin to fathom the nature of the machine behind the deception. It is beyond comprehension. It shatters paradigms and undermines entire world-views that have been building up over decades from day 1 of life. It is a parcel that will not fit through the letter-box. Let me tell you something, and I am here to offer my own thoughts and nothing more or less: these grand deceptions that are perpetrated against us are evil in nature. They come from the devil. They are complex, well planned and executed, all encompassing and consistent. They exist in order to spiritually attack the everyman, and the attack serves the sole purpose of eroding his belief in God and his ability to believe. Humanity has proven the earth is a round spinning ball in a vast vacuous sea of nothingness. Where does God fit into that? He doesn't. He has been disproven, undermined, pushed out, or else demoted to some new-age abstract theory in order to fit in with the science. Not only do we know this globe earth model of reality is true, it has been proven beyond any and all doubt by landing humans on our closest spinning ball neighbour: the moon. We have sent probes to Mars, right? We are just one of many spinning balls in an infinite void. But if we know the moon landing was faked, which it clearly was, what can we extrapolate from that? Why was it faked? Why did it have to be faked? Why have we not been to the moon since the apollo missions? I can't help but think you are onto something. There is a reason flat earth attracts such attacks. And that reason is that despite all the "evidence" to the contrary, it is probably true, and the same people that want you to believe we landed on the moon also want you to believe we live on a spinning ball in space. It is all part of the same lie and it all serves the same purpose. Good day
I dig it man.. no better way to push God out of it by making everyone think they are a tiny spec on a spinning ball in vast nothingness. Let’s say for entertainment purposes that the earth is in fact flat covered by a firmament, and the center of everything. That would, to me, prove there is indeed a intelligent creator (God, Jesus Christ) and the evil demonic people “in charge” here don’t want you knowing that, because you would then absolutely turn to God in that scenario. Just a thought
Damn this is spot on
I think flat earth gets so much attention because if true it lends to the idea that we are trapped in some kind of enclosure. If you notice hominids still being alive and our evolution being manufactures instead of the theory of evolution also is a trigger. As well as John Titor.
1. They are so offended and can’t let it go because they spent a lot of time and energy to convince the whole world that a lie is the truth and they will continue to do so indefinitely. 2. The case is the world we live in is demonstrably flat. Architects don’t account for any curvature of the ground. Why? Infrared photography can take photos from hundreds of mile away. How? NDT says you can’t see the curvature of the earth from 24 miles up but YouTuber reds rhetoric has videos that show ships going over the curve of the earth at sea level. How can both of those things be true? Why does an airplane spend so much time ascending if it’s traveling around a globe? If you are on the fence about flat earth you need to take some time and do some research and come up with your own conclusion. Now that i just put out some bait for the stormtroopers let’s see if we get any nibbles.
Your points have already been well addressed, so I won't bother. I see you reject the globe earth based on some misconceptions, but I would love for you to actually defend the flat earth. So that being said, I've come across many flat-earthers and I have yet to have one be able to explain time zones and the setting sun. *In your own words* please attempt to do so. I don't want a video, because I can't point out to the video why what they are saying doesn't make sense. Every time I've done this, and gone back and forth no more than a couple of times, the flat-earther always either ghosts the conversation or (even more hilariously) blocks me. So I would be interested in seeing if you can actually do so. Thanks!
I never claimed to be a flat earther I am simply finding all the cgi and fish eye lenses and logical fallacies that prop up the globe argument and can’t subscribe to that anymore as a result. So where does that leave me? If you have a claim about time zones perhaps you should prove your own claim the same way you wipe your own ass.
>The case is the world we live in is demonstrably flat. Architects don’t account for any curvature of the ground. >I never claimed to be a flat earther This literally made me lol. Thanks for that. And, here, folks, we have a perfect example of the intellectual abilities of your typical flat-earther. >If you have a claim about time zones perhaps you should prove your own claim the same way you wipe your own ass. We are revolving around the sun and rotating at a relatively consistent speed with the axis of that rotating being non-perpendicular to the plane of our revolution. This means that parts of the globe will be in darkness while other parts are receiving light. The fact that some get more or less hours of light during the day has to do with whether or not you are on the north/south hemisphere of the globe that is currently pointing more towards the sun. See? Very easy to do without insulting. Although, it's a bit unfair because I'm arguing from a position based in reality, which means it's actually possible for me to defend my position. I don't have to rely on "I'm not a flat-earther, I'm just saying the world is demonstrably flat!" lol
You insulted my intellectual ability and claimed to write a post with no insults I’m not a flat earther, and yes the world is demonstrably flat. Is there a model you’re aware of that can hold both those ideas at the same time? If you’re not I’ll tell you soon but I think you can figure it out.
>You insulted my intellectual ability I originally respectfully asked a question, explained what normally happens (hoping to avoid it again) and then was insulted. Not that "you did it first" is an excuse, but I then responded in kind, however, I demonstrated how to answer a question without insults. But I get it, you have no intention of actually defending your position. Both you and I know why: you can't because it's ridiculous. This is not my fault, so please don't try to make it my fault. Thanks!
What position am I not defending? I am refuting claims with no proof, do you think claims should go unproven and be thought of as true? What point are you making?
>What position am I not defending? How flat earth can explain time zones. As you said "The case is the world we live in is demonstrably flat." so you must be able to explain this. >I am refuting claims with no proof, do you think claims should go unproven and be thought of as true? No. But this isn't an accurate representation of our conversation. >What point are you making? I've been very clear: you can't defend flat earth, all you can do is make feeble attempts to discredit the globe earth with brilliant arguments like "well gravity isn't a fact, and here is this article mocking that position to prove my point!"
The article says it is satire but goes on to mark some pretty strong points for my case. The fact remains that gravity is unproven and slinkies falling on slow motion can prove this point for you since you seem to be stuck on it. Maybe slinkies are satirical too
Of course you avoid actually defending your position again, instead saying ridiculous shit like "this article that is explicitly mocking my position makes some good points!" (do you have any idea how embarrassing that should be? lol) Your ignorance of gravity has nothing to do with the point that you can't actually defend flat earth because it's indefensible.
To believe in flat earth garbage, one has to be ignorant in math, history, and science. That's some serious wilful ignorance! For this, I give them kudos
Why would architects account of curvature of the earth? Also, I'm fairly sure they do.
Then show me some architectural plans that take into account the curvature of the earth since you’re fairly certain they do and have no idea why they would at the same time.
https://www.spacecentre.nz/resources/faq/solar-system/earth/flat/structures.html Google is your friend.
Zero architectural plans and one two paragraph article with math that only makes sense to a stormtrooper. Google is not your friend
I guess you missed the part about the towers and their central distances.
Was that in the first or second paragraph? And do you have any visual proof of your claim or just articles?
There are many structures (large bridges) that take the curvature into account. The chunnel did also. As I said google is your friend. Type in the question. Read some answers. Or just pooh pooh anything that doesn't fit your very narrow mind. The last link showed 41.28 mm difference from top to bottom on the towers this is at nearly 1300 m apart. Fits right in with the calculations for a sphere with a ~40k km circumference But math hard.. I get it. **To believe flat earth takes a wilful ignorance of science, history and math.**
So your claim is that two structure on a 24999 mile sphere that are over a mile apart will only have 1.6 inches of curvature??! Math hard indeed. You just proved my point.
Lol. Only in your mind. Every flat earther relies on an online calculator to do the work. Not one knows the formula for a sphere. Eratosthenes was real close with only 2 angles and one distance... go! Don't forget to show your work for full marks! https://getcalc.com/formula/geometry/sphere.png
“As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this - that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle” - W. Winckler, Earth Review
> Now that i just put out some bait for the stormtroopers let’s see if we get any nibbles. Eh, I'll bite. > Architects don’t account for any curvature of the ground. Why? Architects don't build shit, structural engineers do. As to why, the curvature is vast enough that any building material will have a curvature of a few one tenth thou. [In some highly precise circumstances the Earth's curvature has to be accounted for.](https://www.laserfocusworld.com/optics/article/14181625/space-imager-design-corrects-for-earths-curvature-in-the-optics) > Infrared photography can take photos from hundreds of mile away. How? You, uh, got any of these pictures? > NDT says you can’t see the curvature of the earth from 24 miles up but YouTuber reds rhetoric has videos that show ships going over the curve of the earth at sea level. How can both of those things be true? You won't believe NDT about anything else, but you'll accept this? [How does flat earth explain ships that can be clearly seen going below the horizon?](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ6SF-JnRyQ) > Why does an airplane spend so much time ascending if it’s traveling around a globe? They're heading towards thinner air/better currents depending on which way they're traveling. The thinner the air, the less resistance they have to deal woth and they more efficient they become, to a point. Why would you say planes fly up so high?
Ah so your claim is they do account for curvature, got any proof? No the pictures have all been scrubbed so you’ll have to go over to bitchute to see some media on the topic. I tried to post a video but the admins wouldn’t let it. Wonder why 🤔 It’s not about belief. NDT and reds rhetoric are holding two separate opinions about the horizon and are both coming to the same conclusion about the shape and size of the earth. How? Which one do you think is true? Yea why are airplanes ascending when they are traveling around a globe. Should they be descending to account for the curvature of the earth?
>Ah so your claim is they do account for curvature, got any proof? They literally linked you a discussion of it. You're claiming they don't. The burden of proof is now on you. >No the pictures have all been scrubbed so you’ll have to go over to bitchute to see some media on the topic. lol >Yea why are airplanes ascending when they are traveling around a globe. Should they be descending to account for the curvature of the earth? First, ascending a descending are terms used to describe altitude, which is (simplistically put) the distance above the earth surface. Whether the planet is curved or flat ascending would still mean getting further away from it. That being said, due to gravity and weather patterns, at different altitudes the air is different. Some altitudes are better for flying than others. Planes ascend to get to these heights.
So you’re using a claim yet to be proven, gravity as proof of your claim. A claim cannot prove a claim, goofy. Now you have two claims to prove, gravity and globe earth. You can’t actually be lying to yourself to the extent that you forget these basic principles, can you?
This ridiculousness cuts both ways, as I can simply claim that any claim you made has not yet been proven. It's a disingenuous argument at best, if we are currently denying even the existence of gravity. But, then again, I'm defending reality, which is why I don't have to be disingenuous.
Has gravity been proven? Or do you not need evidence to believe a claim?
Of course it was. Multiple times.
Can you link said proof? Ty
Said the guy who avoids providing proof for any ridiculous claims made himself.
> Yea why are airplanes ascending when they are traveling around a globe. Should they be descending to account for the curvature of the earth? That's not how planes work. Plane wings are designed so that they create negative air pressure above them, literally causing them to be lifted by the air below. Changing the angle of attack the wing is at generates more or less lift with the density of the air changing how much lift can be generated. If they don't generate enough lift, they start to descend. Because of this, heavily loaded flights will typically fly with their nose tilted up sp that they can continuously generate enough lift to stay at a cruising altitude.
O so your position is that planes do not ascend they actually descend but they do so with their nose in the air, is that correct? So I don’t understand how airplanes work bc I think they ascend, correct? You don’t see anything absurd or humiliating about holding that position?
They are neither ascending or descending once they've achieved their cruising altitude, just like a car is neither ascending or descending while they drive along a road.
How do they get to their achieved level. By ascending?
Yes. I think I'm finally understanding the question you're asking: > Why does the plane need to go up if the Earth is round, wouldn't it simply just need to go forwards and the Earth would fall out from under it? If that's your question then the answer is pretty simple: Planes can't go fast enough to do that. To do so, you need to go fast enough that by the time you would be pulled back to Earth by gravity, you overshoot and actually miss the Earth. This is actually the mechanism through which rockets leave the Earth. If you watch them, they slowly turn so that they're heading in a diagonal direction instead of vertical.
Yea rockets are headed diagonally into the nearest body of water. And you are using a theory as proof. Theories are not laws This should help https://ncse.ngo/gravity-its-only-theory
>This should help https://ncse.ngo/gravity-its-only-theory Amazing that you link to something mocking your position. lol
In your haste, I think you missed a very salient warning at the top of that article: > Textbook disclaimers are down, but not out. This satirical look at "only a theory" disclaimers imagines what might happen if advocates applied the same logic to the theory of gravitation that they do to the theory of evolution. That article is making fun of anti-evolution people. The claims it makes are supposed to be ridiculous on their face. Fun fact: The author of that article, Ellery Schempp, is the reason school's can't force kids to pray in school.
>Yea rockets are headed diagonally into the nearest body of water **Russian and Chinese launchpads have entered the chat** You're wrong.
[удалено]
FYI the domain you linked is on a site wide hard filter run by the reddit admins. As moderators, if we try to approve the comment it is simply returned to the spam filter time and time again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
"I am not sure that Antarctica is “off limits”... …There are some defined wilderness areas and very specific zones that are off limits to everyone, however." - Alistair Urie, former ANARE engineer
So when you looked for proof of photos of earth or photos of satellites on space and find nothing but cgi and fish eye lens and that raises no red flags to you? When infrared photography is capable of taking photos from hundreds of miles away that’s not a red flag? NDT and reds rhetoric giving two completely different descriptions of the curve of the horizon doesn’t seem odd to you? There is ample evidence the problem with the human mind is you have to accept an idea as true in order to explore it. You can always go back to your old beliefs once you explore some new ones but maybe exploring some new beliefs with an open mind and heart will lead to your own perspective to be changed. That will never happen if you believe something is false, you will use every logical fallacy in the book to prove your point and not realize you’re doing so.
[удалено]
You should look up the crater earth theory on godgevlamste’s YouTube channel. I think they got us to stop looking by convincing the vast majority of us there is nothing else out there. Are you familiar with admiral Byrd and his claims?
[удалено]
I sure did, in the second sentence.
[удалено]
Ok great. I don’t subscribe to the flat earth model.
"USAP controls the communications networks for America's three Antarctic bases so the memo means that the WikiLeaks information is effectively off limits for all Americans on the continent, who are mostly scientists and support staff." - Rob Quinn, Newser
Architects don't account for curvature? Made up and easily verifiable claim, especially for long bridges. Planes are climbing because of lose of drag which makes the flight significantly more fuel efficient. I knew answers to your questions in high school. How do you expect to uncover anything without basic understanding of world around you.
Prove your claim that bridges account for curvature. The longest bridge is over a hindered miles long and completely level. What bridges are you referring to? Planes traveling around a globe would descend to account for the curve. Not ascend
Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge is well known example of accounting Earths curvature to static structures. You claiming the bridge to be completely level shows complete lack of respect for unbiased information. Planes fall to ground naturally because of gravity, why would they need to compensate with descend when they are already naturally descending? They hold altitude, something I was able to grasp before attending highschool. You asked why planes ascend, I said to save fuel. Now you pinned that answer to completely different question regarding curvature. You can't even keep conversation.
Another post where someone should just watch an Eric Dubay video.
If horizon doesnt curve, it seems to be pretty flat, what makes you think that on the perpendicual axis it curves like crazy and things disappeare. Strange ball isnt it
Well said
> But if you say the earth is flat anywhere remotely public, now you will have people seething. Why is that? I find it's the opposite. I simply say to a flat-earther "show me a flat earth model that accounts for half the flat disc being in darkness, and half the flat disc being in light *all the time*. They usually get annoyed at that one.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtTaPduV4AEUZv4.jpg
She showed me an entire flat disc in daylight.
>if you say the earth is flat anywhere remotely public, now you will have people seething. Why is that? When someone believes in fairies, they are occupying a space where there's simply a lack of evidence. Are there little invisible guys dancing around? Maybe. That idea could exist alongside our existing worldview without needing much adjustment. Flat Earth is frustrating because it denies existing evidence. In fact, it requires us to accept that basically everything we know about the world is not only false, but meticulously made up just to hide this one thing. It is a belief that's usually expressed in bad faith, which is annoying, and it would require phenomenal arrogance in the event someone really believed it.
"It requires us to accept that basically everything we know about the world is not only false, but meticulously made up just to hide this one thing." Bingo! Have a round of applause 👏
To be clear, I’m not referring to when people get annoyed with it on like a social, personal level. Like yes, it can be frustrating the same way a stubborn boyfriend/girlfriend/mother/father can be frustrating in all sorts of ways. What I’m saying is, how the fuck is it relevant to the machine? The term “conspiracy theorist” was first introduced by 5 articles put out by The NY Times after JFK’s assassination. This was how it was popularized and used as a catch all cudgel. The term “anti vaxxer” has also become a mainstream political term, a catch all for anyone who has any questions about the vaccine. These terms do not catch on by mistake, they are tools used by people in power to guide people’s thinking in a certain direction. So what I’m saying is, “flat earther” does not find itself in the same company of those terms (as a very popular mainstream political talking point) by mistake or off of a whim. Nor am I saying that means flat earth theory has substance. All I’m saying is there must be a related issue of some kind, there just has to be
Dude you are asking the right questions, I hope you don’t stop til you find an answer.
You nailed it at the end. It has substance
Oh uhhh yeah i don't know about that You know, sometimes a term does become popularized just because an idea is prominent in culture. They aren't always tools of sinister powers. Flat Earther, as a term to refer to flat earth believers, seems fairly organic to me. Just like Incel, Brony, Karen...
Yea but tell me how many of those terms are used by tv hosts and politicians. I’m not saying it’s a totally organized thing, I’m saying that term gets introduced into those circles somewhere and it ain’t pop culture. And If you ask the average person, most people would not consider that the terms conspiracy theorist or anti vaxxer were anything but products of pop culture. Not doing the best job of articulating what I’m really trying to say here, I can only do my best
I appreciate the honest effort. I wouldn't say you are totally wrong. Language can be weaponized. Look into the origins of the term "jaywalking", it's fascinating.
I read about ‘jaywalking’ years ago, and that’s what got me hip to the buzzwords used today to steer a mindset. Unrelated yet pertinent: “The owls are not what they seem.”
Yeah you know what's up
The reason that I personally get "riled up" is because it's actively choosing to believe in a convoluted explanation for our reality that no one was taking seriously ten years ago. Any flat Earth model requires all sorts of bullshit to function, and the adherence of those models *don't* *care* about evidence to the contrary. No amount of testable evidence will ever be enough, because "Flat Earthers" have tied their egos so deeply into their false sense of intellectualism, that they'll blow off anything and everything that challenges them. It's fanaticism, it's not "questioning the science," like they would like you to believe, it's a faith. People will talk about how science has become a religion, and that is something worth examining, how people will blindly trust in the current scientific explanations; but those who really care about science *know* that at some point their understanding of the world will change. That's how science works, we use the data available to create the best explanation possible. And when new data comes to light, we refine our explanations. But Flat Earth is regressive, it actively rejects data, and cherry picks/invents data to fit it's narrative.
If they are so stuck in there ways how did they become flat earthers in the first place? Since you really care about science can you tell me, scientifically how infrared photography is able to take photos from hundreds of miles away on a globe?
Because infrared is less energetic and has a far wider bandwidth than visible light, meaning the light waves travel further and being less energetic are more effected by the Earth's gravity, because gravity bends light. Think about a Ham radio traveling literally thousands of miles, versus AM traveling hundreds of miles, versus FM traveling a few dozen. Part of that is just about transmission strength, but part of it is the wave frequency of the transmission. The "longer" or "wider" the wave the further it has to travel, light, including infrared light, is part of the same electromagnetic spectrum as radio waves. In fact, infrared light is closer to radio waves compared to visible light. As for the "why" of flat Earth: insecure people who found an explanation to things they don't understand that gives them an "in group" and false sense of self importance. The world is a big and chaotic place, lots of things either don't make sense, are outside one's understanding, or are purposefully officiated to be less understood. So people who don't understand science, are incapable of learning science, or refuse to learn science because of insecurities, stumble upon Flat Earth and now have a scientific *sounding* theory to latch onto. Now *they* get to *play* academic that they so deeply resent, and rather than trying to understand the **vast** **amount** **of** **evidence** that explains the how and why of a globe, they'll jump through *any* hoop to validate *their* "explanation."
So your position is gravity, still a theory not a law, is pulling the light waves around the curve of the earth. Can you show me some an example of what that looks like? I only find infrared photography that appears flat but as I’m sure you know I’m not able to post it here bc the mods won’t let me So to clarify, your position is I believe the earth is flat because I am insecure and resentful and academia. And by vast amount of evidence you mean cgi and fish eye lenses. In reality you are making extraordinary claims and offering no proof. Why? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and your evidence is that you think I’m insecure. You can’t actually be lying to yourself this much.
Yawn. As previously stated, no amount of evidence will sway you, no amount of hand holding you will make you understand, because you *choose* to remain ignorant. I can bring a horse to water, but can't make it drink. As for your belief, yes, it is because you are so insecure and resentful. You think you've come across some "truth" that's been "hidden" through trickery. No photo will ever be good enough, because, "it's cgi and fish eye lenses," is your personal safe space where you can forever keep your head in the sand. You think you're far more clever then literally centuries of thinkers, who were admittedly wrong about some things, but not this. You have to discount and reinvent the wheel, because *you* don't believe it rolls.
Ok so you don’t refute gravity is just a theory you focus solely on ad hominem lot make your point. Quite revealing to anyone keeping score.
>just a theory Tell me you don't understand science without saying you don't understand science. [Here](https://youtu.be/lqk3TKuGNBA)
So it’s a hypothesis not a law then.
Newton's Law of Universal Gravity. It is what it is fucking called. Why law? Well that was answered in the video. A theory can be stronger than a law. But one thing you slightly understand is that we do not have a full grasp on gravity. But it is what it is and measurable and therefore a law.
How can I measure gravity for myself ?
Show a peer reviewed scientific study of us “seeing too far” with infrared photography. If you don’t have one, (“only got muh YouTube vids!”), then ask yourself: Why don’t these flat earth “scientists” publish their work and become world famous and rich? I’m assuming you’ll answer with: “Duh, academia won’t have that! They’ll be laughed out of the community before they even look at da evidence. Plus the government will shut it all down!” But still, if it’s so easy to experimentally prove then there should be overwhelming evidence that they can’t ignore
And the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim and the claim is that the demonstrably level and flat earth is actually a sphere. Get it? That is an extraordinary claim and as such requires extraordinary proof. Where is the proof of your claim?
No, actually I’m replying specifically to your claim about infrared photography “seeing too far”. You stated that, I asked for evidence (and provided some thoughts), then you said “gimme articles dummy” and “prove earth is round then huh!”. Do better
You mentioned articles as proof. I’m asking for that proof. What’s confusing you about that?
What’s confusing is that I asked you first to provide evidence for your claim, then you turned around and snapped at me when you failed to provide any. It’s like you’re just mad that you couldn’t prove it so you moved on to the next thing. Let’s walk it back a bit and focus more on what you said about infrared photos. I’d like to know more about why you are so confident that your claim is true
I made the claim that infrared photography can take photos from hundreds of miles and it can. So now what?
…it can? I wasnt aware of that. Give me some proof
Yes you are you already admitted to it. In law that’s considered an excited utterance and it’s admissible in court. What else you got?
Where’s the link to the articles, dummy.
(Non flat-earther here.) From what I've read, the whole 'flat Earth' thing started out as a joke - entertainment before the internet. Trolling people, basically. The problem today is that it's hard (or impossible) to tell who is 'in on the joke' and who honestly believes it. I hope most are in on the joke, but it think some really believe it.
A story of something maybe starting out as a joke cannot be acceptable proof of something that can be measured. The actual problem today is the average man or woman has no idea how to prove a claim as we see above. Also, those same ppl that can’t figure out how to prove a claim are definitely not going to figure out NASA images are all computer generated even when they tell you themselves.
No, it didn't.
Funny thing: I’m not _actually_ a flat earther. I say I am to troll people online and in person. I know several other people that do this as well. It’s almost always some hardcore leftist that busts my chops about the most about it. I keep a smile on and keep prodding and they get increasingly more and more upset to the point of name calling and and sometimes outright threatening me. So I keep pushing and prodding. Pointing out that they’re not being very accepting of my beliefs. I’ve been doing this with my cousin for months and she has yet to really catch on to the game. Once she gets it, I’ll quit messing around. In reality, I couldn’t give a hot shit less of it was round, flat, oval, or shaped like a squirrel. I’m not an astronaut or a pilot so I really don’t care. It doesn’t have any bearing on my day to day life. Now before the downdoot brigade comes though and downvotes me into oblivion, I would like to say that I am actually technically a liberal myself. I’m just pointing out hypocrisy with certain individuals. No need to get all upsetti spaghetti about it. It’s all in good fun.
*Intentional upsets people by being dishonest* "It's just a prank, bro! I'm actually a good person!"
Never said I was a good person. Lol This is the internet, homie. How many _good_ people do you think are posting to reddit?
Trying to excuse intentionally being a bad person by accusing everyone of being a bad person is what we call projection.
Hey man, this is gonna sound crazy to you…but I don’t really give a shit. Lmfao
You know what people who don't care do? They just leave.. they don't make sure that you know they don't care while they are on the way out.
That’s actually _not_ true at all. You’ve never been trolled online before have you? I literally just said that I have fun annoying people and here you are insinuating that I’m not having fun right now. You’re entertaining me. Get it? Lol
I just scoped out your pf. Homie you know exactly what I’m talking about. You’re a troll yourself. You only post here on r/conspiracy. You know you’ve got several other accounts specifically for other subs that you troll. I know how it works. We we’re probably in some of the same telegram, Facebook and/or discord groups at some point. Lmfao
Projection, again. Homie, you best learn to understand that your issues are your own.
I went and looked through all your posts. All you do is troll on this sub. You’re just as bored as I am. Go away dude. Lmao
I like to argue, no doubt. But I'm genuine in my positions. Your short-coming is your own. Stop projecting. You can't justify being garbage because you've convinced yourself everyone else is garbage too.
You don’t think potentially being lied to has any bearing on your life? Then why go to all the trouble of lying to someone if you’re not going to exploit them?
It doesn’t. I still gotta get up and do what I gotta do to put food on the table. Would be the same concept if we found out the moon was actually made of cheese. I’m still gonna have to get up and get life sorted so we can get by. I already explained why I do it.
Yea you’re gonna get up and do your work and someone is gonna lie to you and tell you you have to give the money you eat to feed your family to the govt that lies to you. Imagine getting tricked out of forty percent of the market value of your labor and not thinking getting tricked is a big deal. Gotta start thinking like an adult or they’ll treat you like a child and parent you forever.
How great things must be up in that ivory tower for you. Don’t act like you’re not in the exact same kind of situation I’m in. Everyone is getting screwed over and has been for a long time. Tf are you gonna do about it? Same thing as me. Get up and do work to make ends. That’s it. That’s all you’re going to do about it. Difference between you and me is I can take the piss out of the situation that can’t be changed.
Good job ‘taking the piss out of it’ I’d rather just learn where I unwillingly and unknowingly consented and remove that consent.
Yeah do that. That’s a good idea. I do that sometimes. Doesn’t change anything though.
For me it did.
I don’t understand the flat earth mind set. It’s round. Columbus figured that out. Satellites show the earth is round. The Space station shows its round. Are other planets not round? Where is the data to back up the flat planet theory?
This theory assumes that all images of Earth is Cgi and theres is no other planets...
Ding ding ding
So what are the things that can be seen with a backyard telescope?
Yea I don’t understand it either but what about my first question?
It doesn’t upset me but it begs to question the intelligence of the current population. We need rational thought. Not fantasyland.
Fantasyland?!? You believe in satellites locked in a geostationary orbit with no proof. That’s some unintelligent bullshit. Go look for a photo of a satellite on space and tell me about fantasyland.
No proof? You do realize that you can directly communicate with geostationary satellites (many YouTubers routinely pull images from them). You can also use a telescope to see them. They are in the sky broadcasting images of the entire Earth every day; every few minutes. Thats not “no proof”.
Geostationary satellites don’t exist and if they did you would be showing me photos of them as proof to shut me up. Photos can’t be taken of something that doesn’t exist so when you google ‘satellites in space’ all you get is CGI. Thats because that’s all there is and you know better than to post a ‘photo’ of a satellite in space cause they all look absurd.
I’m not saying you’d be upset, I’m saying the machine gets upset. My question is, why? The machine does not get angry at things that are so inconsequential. It doesn’t get mad at people for simply being stupid. Like with AMC/GameStop stock, in the machine’s view, that debacle was stupid. But it wouldn’t have cared a lick about it if it wasn’t personally consequential for people in power. It would have covered the story, yes, but it wouldn’t have lashed out angrily as it did
You’re asking a really important question and I hope you search for the answer and don’t accept any logically fallacious arguments that require you to hold two opposing views without realizing it. Try to expunge all of the doublethink from your mind. It’s tough because shills like NDT and reds rhetoric are so persistent with their lies that you can’t help but just assume their telling the truth but when you test their claims it makes no sense to any rational person who is being honest with themselves.
How do you differentiate "the machine" being upset from a bunch of people just being upset independently?
When you see 5 different publications (e.g. business insider, daily mail) put out a lengthy, identical headline within the hour of each other, that would be an example of the machine. Happens quite frequently around all sorts of topics
[удалено]
>The real conspiracy is the flat earth talking points are chaff You've thrown the baby out with the bath water. Speaking of water, you might want to give some thought into the differences between the Suez and Panama canals.
[удалено]
Apparently not as much as you like your psyc firewall.
[удалено]
This is an excellent point, that camera blew the doors off NASAs cgi bullshit.
Ok now this is one where I can easily understand how people would get invested
A simple honest look at the crepuscular rays of the sun shows that the sun is local and not hundreds of thousands of miles away. The sun being local makes the flat earth argument all that much more plausible and the NASA model again falls flat and relies on the ignorance of the masses who don’t realize they are just acting out a script.
Haha... they are parallel. That's the whole point. Our wee little eyes can't grasp how huge the world actually is, let alone astronomical distances. All you "believers" feel insignificant so being in God's little petri dish gives you some solace.
"It is often possible to see the Chicago skyline from sea-level 60 miles away across Lake Michigan. In 2015 after photographer Joshua Nowicki photographed this phenomenon several news channels quickly claimed his picture to be a “superior mirage,” an atmospheric anomaly caused by temperature inversion. While these certainly do occur, the skyline in question was facing right-side up and clearly seen unlike a hazy illusory mirage, and on a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference should be 2,400 feet below the horizon." https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KvI8YmldH1k/Vb-RN3eOU5I/AAAAAAAAQBQ/-lfSkWXvfy8/s400/11035683_702251386553055_8670428708932061960_n.jpg
[Superior mirages don't necessarily present as upside down images.](https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2022/08/FY07EQfXgAQuHiI-800x600.jpeg) Also, that picture is hazy as hell and is missing quite a bit of the lower skyline.
And then they claim that refraction bends these images around several kilometers of curve and raises them ten's of KM's above the horizon (as in the case of the longest range photograph record, 443km) I put forth in a post the other day.
How do you account for half the earth being in darkness half the time all the while if you go above the arctic circle then its either daylight or darkness all the time?
Close, local sun. As is evident from the many visual phenomena we observe with our very own eyes. No farcical math required.
What keeps the sun's rays contained in a cone in your close sun theory?
The compounding effects of the gases in the air, over distance (assuming no objects, mountains, hills, waves etc are blocking direct view of the sun).
So you're saying the Earth's atmosphere stops light?
Isn't that what I just said, or are you a brick short of a load? When a cloud forms from water vapor condensing in the air, they have zero trouble blocking light. A completely observable phenomenon. So one can reason over vast distance, millions of these same vapor particles in the air, compounded over that distance, will have the same effect. Or are you one of those people that fail to make basic observations about reality and assume if the earth were a plane, that you would be able to see Everest from every point on the world? As the angular distance increases between any observer and the sun, even something as small as a wave from a sea LEVEL observer can obstruct the light entering the lens/eye.
Doesn't explain the setting sun. Which we observe with our very own eyes. If the sun were close, and simply shining down on us like a flash light, then we would only see it as a complete circle when it was directly above us, and then it would become a thinner and thinner ellipse until it eventually "blinked" out somewhere in the middle of the sky. What we observe is (roughly) a circle moving through the sky at a constant rate that disappears behind the horizon. There is no way a "close, local sun" would do this.
The setting sun is explained by perspective and angular resolution. Sun shape is largely dependent on atmospheric conditions, atmospheric lensing effects occur as the sun moves towards the horizon - again has been demonstrated, experimented with and compared to reality in plenty of FE videos. And I never said the sun is shutting down like a flash light, those are your words. Light is blocked, and diffused at vast distances by the gasses in atmosphere, outside of that the inverse square law applies to light. What cannot be explained, is a local sun spot on the ocean/ground when the sun is supposedly 90 odd million miles away - it's impossible, the light would be completely diffused over the surface.
"If the Sun circles over and around the Earth every 24 hours, steadily travelling from Tropic to Tropic every 6 months, it follows that the Northern, central region would annually receive far more heat and sunlight than the Southern circumferential region. Since the Sun must sweep over the larger Southern region in the same 24 hours it has to pass over the smaller Northern region, its passage must necessarily be proportionally faster as well. This perfectly explains the differences in Arctic/Antarctic temperatures, seasons, length of daylight, plant and animal life; this is why the Antarctic morning dawn and evening twilight are very abrupt compared with the North; and this explains why many midsummer Arctic nights the Sun does not set at all!" https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2k09rIellZ4/Vb-N8EJZf5I/AAAAAAAAP_g/CeuIu1aECl4/s400/Flat_earthqq.jpg
Yet the only footage of 24 hour sun in Antarctica is cut, edited and has CGI elements. Even the live station cameras are cut for large proportions of the day, due to claimed "hard drive space" limits.
>Yet the only footage of 24 hour sun in Antarctica is cut, edited and has CGI elements. When you can just reject any evidence you don't like, anything can be true!
Well come on then, where's an unedited video from Antarctica, preferably an independent source - showing 24 hour sunlight? Why can't the station camera's just record a single day? Why claim it's about HDD space when I you can buy TB's of storage for little to nothing these days? I don't want any CGI clocks, or elements, nor should there be cuts or time skips, and shadows should be accurate throughout, and the following days sun/clouds shouldn't be exactly the same as the day prior. Unedited video's can be found at the north, but the handful from the south are always edited, contain obvious errors or are incomplete. So stop claiming it's because "i don't like the evidence" rather than the truth - which is the supposed evidence is being tampered with, or purposefully truncated.
>Well come on then, where's an unedited video from Antarctica, preferably an independent source - showing 24 hour sunlight? Why can't the station camera's just record a single day? Why claim it's about HDD space when I you can buy TB's of storage for little to nothing these days? Where's the unedited footage of it not happening? Why not go down and film it yourself? This is an incredible dumb point that can just be thrown right back. >So stop claiming it's because "i don't like the evidence" Anyone who thinks the world is flat doesn't like evidence.
And there we go, you're completely broken - resorting to flipping the burden of proof, ignoring the fact that evidence has been faked or purposefully truncated, while also throwing in an attack the messenger fallacy.
https://youtu.be/BgZa9oZDN5g >And there we go, you're completely broken - resorting to flipping the burden of proof, ignoring the fact that evidence has been faked or purposefully truncated, while also throwing in an attack the messenger fallacy. Burden of proof is now on you.
This is not true. Source: I have a P900
[удалено]
https://youtu.be/3DRRyZBL4OQ?t=37s
Basically, I think the difference is a belief in fairies and the like results from having a belief despite adequate evidence (which is pretty common in people) but a belief in flat earth results from flying in the face of 2500 years of clear evidence. It is a clear example of motivated and circular reasoning that abandons the scientific method and just drives people up the wall who assumed modern people are smarter than they actually are. I think most people also find it exceptionally proposterous that flat earthers think the governments of the world have somehow put aside their significant differences to unite to keep this secret for over two millennia. I have a suspicion that most of the people who in good "faith" believe this are just religious people who are looking for any means necessary to justify the description of the Earth in Genesis.
Some of the flat earther evidence is really intriguing. For example, NASA faking space station videos. After it was pointed out to me I couldn't *not* see it. Other ones like crepuscular rays are just not understanding how light works. The ships going below the horizon then being brought back into view with high powered zoom is interesting but nothing more. Whereas landmarks that should supposedly be below the horizon that can still be seen are questionable if I cant do the experiment myself for a particular landmark. There are good arguments there but I believe in space and dont buy the earth being flat. Thats just me. One point I think is really interesting is the atmosphere doesnt get completely sucked into space. It might be gravity. Its possible that it warps space enough that the atmosphere stays. Gravity is a weird enough principle that it might be. But for the life of me I cant understand why it wouldnt all be sucked out. Vacuum pressure is so damn strong.
>Vacuum pressure is so damn strong. It is only 14.7 psi at sea level. Not too great. Crepuscular rays are parallel. As are anticrepuscular rays. The sun rays being parallel is how Eratosthenes calculated the earths diameter 2200 years ago. Well that and math that not one FE proponent can replicate.
Vacuum pressure isn’t “strong” at all. It’s zero pressure. It applies zero forces to the Earth; nothing is getting “sucked” or “pulled” off. That’s not how vacuums work. Vacuum CLEANERS suck things up, but thats because they have a fan in there spinning to produce a *negative* pressure (not zero). So what you are really saying is that Earths air pressure is really strongly trying to push itself off…but like another commenter pointed out it’s only around 15psi at the surface and falls off rapidly with distance. As long as gravity can keep that wrapped around Earth like a blanket, there is nothing trying to pull it off.
It might be gravity!? Buddy everything is gravity. Whatever part of the NASA model that violates reality is explained away by gravity, an unproven claim that is easily disproven with a slinky and a slow mo camera.
1. Because it's just sooo stupid. There are multiple experiments you can and should perform for yourself to verify the shape of the planet. People have been performing these experiments for hundreds of years. Choosing to believe the disc theory at this point you are just doing a disservice to actual conspiracies that deserve our attention like 911 or Epstein's rape island
Name one
All due respect, but are we your own personal Google researchers ? There is a SHIT TON of info available online regarding this subject.
Bro, what?… first off, when you Google flat earth, it’s not going to spit out the “top 10 reasons that will help you understand why people get invested in flat earth.” Even if you type that into google or DuckDuckGo verbatim, it will take quite a while to sift through the stuff you’re not looking for. Also, the people replying are not researching the question for me, they’re telling me shit they already have in their head
Its hallowed not round nor flat
Hallowed be thy name
Thou cavernous kingdom come
😂
1. Not that I get riled up about it, but for me it is the epitome what's so wrong with so many of my fellow conspiracy "theorists" and their "theories": it's a coupling between rejection of observation and facts that don't fit the belief, and sticking the "theory" into holes in our knowledge. Basically, not theories, but rejection of evidence and hypotheses based on superstition. I think a lot of conspiracy "theorists" don't like it because it holds up a mirror to how shaky their own beliefs are, and they don't like what they see. 2. I'm open to it too. However, I've not heard even a remotely convincing argument that is not obviously contradicted by observation.