Flat Earth

[notbatman]

^^^ You're a retard if you think celestial objects or any crap NASA flys over your head is proof of anything but your stupidity. Saturn looks like an eye and the moon is round so fucking what, that doesn't prove we're on a globe faggot.

[1713537071]

1713537071

[1713537071]

1713537071

[1713537071]

1713537071

[1713537071]

1713537071

[Agarthian]

check MATE globe fakeRs.

[azkielt]

First of all this will be my last reply to this post, I don't have time to waste in something that has been proven millions of time before, you call people who belive that the earth is a sphere brainwashed, yeah! very funny cave man.

Convergence, perspective and refraction limits your field of view, you can't see the entire sky from any one point on the Earth's surface. Also atmosphereic refraction causes celestial objects to have an apprent position. You're debunking a strawman model.[/b][/glow]

Im sure you don't know what you talking about, and dont know how the experiment I propuse suffer from a strawman fallacy.

The object you're viewing in the sky could be anything from a high altitude aircraft to some kind of balloon riding the jetstream. I've seen telescopic video of an object with a blinking light that looks like a high altitude aircraft, the object was exactly where the iPhone ISS tracking app said the ISS would be.[/b][/glow]

You have seen a video? buT I have seen the ISS many times, with my own eyes passing over my city, and its not a airplane or something, i live in a 3rd world country and we don't have almost food for eat, and suppose my government spend money to fool people into belive that something is the ISS. For your info in my country we don't care of NASA or you are just a classic murica who think that America has the only space program in the world?? if the ISS were a US airplane of something we will shooting down for sure (or at least try it, lol).

Video and photographs of stars and plants taken by Nikon Coolpix P900/1000 owners all show twinkling lights that are not round at all. Again images of an object in the sky are not definitive proof NASA isn't just flying a kite up there to trick you.[/b][/glow]

I said textually "Buy a decent telescope" since when a  Nikon Coolpix P900/1000  its a telescope?? I think its a camera and I said planets, no stars.

The stars say nothing of surface below them, you're making assumptions about the lights in sky then trying to validate your globe model with those assumptions. If the stars are projections off of a curved mirror (firmament) then you'll get distortions like a change in rotation direction and 24 hour light in Antarctica (summertime) from the light wrapping around.[/b][/glow]

Said that the stars are projections off a curved mirror is valid is the same as saying that stars are Tinkerbell family sticky in black gome. The rotation is different in both hemispheres can be well explain with the spherical earth

No you don't have a different opinion, you've just been brainwashed and are regurgitating the shit you've been fed by TPTB like an absolute cuck.[/b][/glow]

You just ask for some experiment to prove yourself and don't know why you insult people when you and your flat folks are one of the most funny and creppy group that exist.

[notbatman]

^^^ Proof, there's no fucking proof we're on the surface of a spinning globe. It hasn't been proven a million times, not even once you absolute cuckold.

[BADecker]

^^^ Now relax. All this irritation over an idea that everybody knows isn't true. You are focusing yourself in the wrong place.

Everybody knows that we are not on a spinning globe. If it were spinning, we would likely fly off. As I have shown you several times, place a ball on the table, and turn it one full turn in 24 hours. Is that spinning? That's all the earth does... one turn in 24 hours. There isn't any spin to it at all!

Also as I have shown you over and over, the earth isn't flat. There are tons of mountains and valleys all over it. Even the oceans have tons of mountains and valleys underwater. Is that flat?

Your focus is entirely in the wrong direction. All you are really doing is promoting a cult. People have enough little wars going with politics. You don't need to start a new cult about something that is entirely wrong... especially a cult that shows how some other idea that doesn't exist is entirely wrong, as well.

There isn't any spinning globe earth, just as there isn't any flat earth. Why are you trying to agitate people like this with all your BS?

[notbatman]

^^^ The Earth doesn't move and any man who claims otherwise is a liar.

Source: Albert A. Michelson and Edward Morley, 1887
Confirmation: E.W. Silvertooth | US Air Force, 1984

Do I need 10 confirmations to prove my point?

[BADecker]

^^^ You never heard of earthquakes, or volcanoes, or bulldozers?

All you have to do is get into a car, and zoom down the interstate at 70mph. That isn't you moving. Just look at your relationship to the car to prove it. It's the earth moving under the car... or airplane if you use a plane rather than a car.

The stars and the sun are stationary. The earth moves. Even if the stars are only projections, the projections are stationary. The earth moves. Your references would be mistaken if you (and sometimes the experimenters) weren't mistaken in your (their) understanding of your (their) references.

Get out of your stupid cult before it drives you into solitary in a straitjacket. Aren't you happy enough with the simple fact that you made it to the funny farm?

[sirazimuth]

No you don't have a different opinion, you've just been brainwashed and are regurgitating the shit you've been fed by TPTB like an absolute cuck.

^^^ You're a retard if you think celestial objects or any crap NASA flys over your head is proof of anything but your stupidity. Saturn looks like an eye and the moon is round so fucking what, that doesn't prove we're on a globe faggot.

^^^ Proof, there's no fucking proof we're on the surface of a spinning globe. It hasn't been proven a million times, not even once you absolute cuckold.

^^^ The Earth doesn't move and any man who claims otherwise is a liar.

Quoting batty is a phukking riot because you don't need to add any commentary to show he's either a frikkin lunatic
or more than likely, just enjoying his daily troll session. Or both....

Oh look... I just noticed he likes to use the latest overused fashionable internet ad hominem attack term...  "cuck(old)".

 He's cool man....

First of all this will be my last reply to this post, I don't have time to waste in something that has been proven millions of time before, you call people who believe that the earth is a sphere brainwashed, yeah! very funny cave man.

Convergence, perspective and refraction limits your field of view, you can't see the entire sky from any one point on the Earth's surface. Also atmospheric refraction causes celestial objects to have an apparent position. You're debunking a strawman model.[/b][/glow]

Im sure you don't know what you talking about, and don't know how the experiment I propose suffer from a straw man fallacy.

The object you're viewing in the sky could be anything from a high altitude aircraft to some kind of balloon riding the jetstream. I've seen telescopic video of an object with a blinking light that looks like a high altitude aircraft, the object was exactly where the iPhone ISS tracking app said the ISS would be.[/b][/glow]

You have seen a video? buT I have seen the ISS many times, with my own eyes passing over my city, and its not a airplane or something, i live in a 3rd world country and we don't have almost food for eat, and suppose my government spend money to fool people into believe that something is the ISS. For your info in my country we don't care of NASA or you are just a classic murica who think that America has the only space program in the world?? if the ISS were a US airplane of something we will shooting down for sure (or at least try it, lol).

Video and photographs of stars and plants taken by Nikon Coolpix P900/1000 owners all show twinkling lights that are not round at all. Again images of an object in the sky are not definitive proof NASA isn't just flying a kite up there to trick you.[/b][/glow]

I said textually "Buy a decent telescope" since when a  Nikon Coolpix P900/1000  its a telescope?? I think its a camera and I said planets, no stars.

The stars say nothing of surface below them, you're making assumptions about the lights in sky then trying to validate your globe model with those assumptions. If the stars are projections off of a curved mirror (firmament) then you'll get distortions like a change in rotation direction and 24 hour light in Antarctica (summertime) from the light wrapping around.[/b][/glow]

Said that the stars are projections off a curved mirror is valid is the same as saying that stars are Tinkerbell family sticky in black gome. The rotation is different in both hemispheres can be well explain with the spherical earth

No you don't have a different opinion, you've just been brainwashed and are regurgitating the shit you've been fed by TPTB like an absolute cuck.[/b][/glow]

You just ask for some experiment to prove yourself and don't know why you insult people when you and your flat folks are one of the most funny and creppy group that exist.

Dude, you are just feeding his ego with your sensible replies.
I hate to say this, but you are wasting your time. This joker has been trolling flat earth nonsense for 4 years
just to pull in replies like yours so he can just post farcical memes (funny too, I might add) and  blather on and on with his meaningless drivel rebuttals that
are designed to sound like he knows what he's talking about to the average schmuck, when in reality, it's just pure trolling word salad nonsense. Don't engage him.
Just call him out for what he is like I do. Probably a lonely individual whose only sad accomplishment in life is this 700+ page April fools joke thread on Bitcointalk.
And I give him credit for that, btw. It's actually quite entertaining at times. Just don't take it too seriously.

[exemplaar]

Irrefutable flat earth proofs:



Bonus video(netrix can't handle the flat) with vod spotted at 4.21 mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhCP7-6676I

Earth is flat motionless plane covered by a firmament dome, exactly as it is written in The Word of God.

[notbatman]

It's possible to reproduce The M&M Experiment with a modern fiberoptic or ring-LASER gyroscope.

Can I get a second confirmation?



edit:

I think the MEMs chip in a smartphone could also perform a mechanical variation of the experiment.

I think the chip might be sensitive enough to pick up the motion of the stars with their 23h 56m rotational cycle. The Michelson interferometer was able document this displacement using 19th century technology. In the 21st century fiberoptic, ring-LASER and MEMs gyroscopes allow for the displacement to be directly measured by anybody.

[odolvlobo]

Irrefutable flat earth proofs:

• Measurable curvature: It is measurable, you just disagree with the results, or believe that they are falsified by a massive conspiracy perpetuated by millions of people.
• "Water finds its own level": What the heck does that mean? If it means that the surface of water is level, then that doesn't prove a flat earth unless you disagree on how gravity works.
• The horizon rises to eye level: What that heck does that mean? If you are talking about perspective, then that does not prove a flat earth.
• "Just zoom in": Zooming in been done to show that the earth is not flat, but you reject cases where it clearly shows curvature and dispute the rest as not sufficiently compelling. How does your picture of a mirage help? It obscures the horizon/water line.
• Measurable parallax: consider yourself refuted (unless of course you believe that astronomers are in on the conspiracy): https://lco.global/spacebook/parallax-and-distance-measurement/
• Polaris is fixed: For the record, Polaris is not "fixed". It moves just like the rest of the stars. Either way, that doesn't prove a flat earth.
• No multidirectional movement of star trails: That doesn't prove anything. Why would you expect that?
• Same constellations: What does that prove?

[notbatman]

Irrefutable flat earth proofs:

• Measurable curvature: It is measurable, you just disagree with the results, or believe that they are falsified by a massive conspiracy perpetuated by millions of people.
• "Water finds its own level": What the heck does that mean? If it means that the surface of water is level, then that doesn't prove a flat earth unless you disagree on how gravity works.
• The horizon rises to eye level: What that heck does that mean? If you are talking about perspective, then that does not prove a flat earth.
• "Just zoom in": Zooming in been done to show that the earth is not flat, but you reject cases where it clearly shows curvature and dispute the rest as not sufficiently compelling. How does your picture of a mirage help? It obscures the horizon/water line.
• Measurable parallax: consider yourself refuted (unless of course you believe that astronomers are in on the conspiracy): https://lco.global/spacebook/parallax-and-distance-measurement/
• Polaris is fixed: For the record, Polaris is not "fixed". It moves just like the rest of the stars. Either way, that doesn't prove a flat earth.
• No multidirectional movement of star trails: That doesn't prove anything. Why would you expect that?
• Same constellations: What does that prove?

Reality check, lets go over some of your points!



* It's actually the globe fags who disagree with observation and measurement.





* The horizon rises to eye level because it's the product of perspective and convergence on a plane. Just look at the globohomos screaming how they can't understand perspective!





* If you watch a boat go "over the horizon" with the naked eye you can still observe it with a zoom lens, proving it disappeared due to convergence. There's no mountain of curved water the boat went up over and behind like the globe faggots claim.





* Stellar parallax a non-sequitur due to atmosphere refraction not being accounted for; the margin of error due to star twinkle is greater than any claimed measurements the faggots make.





* Polaris doesn't move, ancient sundials prove this.





* Airy's Failure experiment proves the stars are in motion. BTW Eisenstein was put to bed by variations on the Sagnac experiment so faggots can fuck off with their non-sequitur relativistic explanations for the experiment.





You need to clarify your final point as it doesn't refute anything but your intelligence; not an argument. We're not moving and we're not stuck to the surface of a ball.

[BADecker]

Irrefutable flat earth proofs:

• Measurable curvature: It is measurable, you just disagree with the results, or believe that they are falsified by a massive conspiracy perpetuated by millions of people.
• "Water finds its own level": What the heck does that mean? If it means that the surface of water is level, then that doesn't prove a flat earth unless you disagree on how gravity works.
• The horizon rises to eye level: What that heck does that mean? If you are talking about perspective, then that does not prove a flat earth.
• "Just zoom in": Zooming in been done to show that the earth is not flat, but you reject cases where it clearly shows curvature and dispute the rest as not sufficiently compelling. How does your picture of a mirage help? It obscures the horizon/water line.
• Measurable parallax: consider yourself refuted (unless of course you believe that astronomers are in on the conspiracy): https://lco.global/spacebook/parallax-and-distance-measurement/
• Polaris is fixed: For the record, Polaris is not "fixed". It moves just like the rest of the stars. Either way, that doesn't prove a flat earth.
• No multidirectional movement of star trails: That doesn't prove anything. Why would you expect that?
• Same constellations: What does that prove?

Reality check, lets go over some of your points!



* It's actually the globe fags who disagree with observation and measurement. - Actually, it is FE people who don't realize that observations are two dimensional flat pictures of three dimensional existence. If they realized this, they would stop interpreting the third dimension in second dimension flat terms, and go on to the reality of 3 dimensions.

https://i.imgur.com/MULMYBb.png



* The horizon rises to eye level because it's the product of perspective and convergence on a plane. Just look at the globohomos screaming how they can't understand perspective! - The horizon never rises to eye level. It only appears this way because seeing is two dimensional. To prove this, place the center of the pupil of the eye at ground level, and you will see a horizon that is at ground level. An appearance of horizon rising to meet the eye depends on the direction that the eye is pointed in, the height of the eye above the ground, and perspective. This shows that FE usage of horizon has nothing to do with FE.

https://i.imgur.com/F9pYw25.jpg



* If you watch a boat go "over the horizon" with the naked eye you can still observe it with a zoom lens, proving it disappeared due to convergence. There's no mountain of curved water the boat went up over and behind like the globe faggots claim. - No, you can't still view it with a zoom lens. If FE pictures show this, it is FE CGI.

https://i.imgur.com/sVleYY7.jpg



* Stellar parallax a non-sequitur due to atmosphere refraction not being accounted for; the margin of error due to star twinkle is greater than any claimed measurements the faggots make. - Measuring multiple parallaxes against each other using trig, shows the distance of the sun to be about 93,000,000 miles from the earth, and about 800,000 miles in diameter... even using FE calculations with such a simple instrument as a sextant. GPS sattelites are real.

https://i.imgur.com/kbifFeY.jpg



* Polaris doesn't move, ancient sundials prove this. - Egyptian records chiseled into brick and stone from thousands of years ago show us that there was a different North Star back then. The Great Pyramid has this built right into it in the so-called ventilation shafts that exist pointing at various stars.

https://i.imgur.com/M16af8u.jpg



* Airy's Failure experiment proves the stars are in motion. BTW Eisenstein was put to bed by variations on the Sagnac experiment so faggots can fuck off with their non-sequitur relativistic explanations for the experiment. - Airy's Failure simply proves that FE people have an entirely wrong interpretation of the way the aether works, even though standard science attempts to work around the aether existing at all.

https://i.imgur.com/1HOe2fz.jpg



You need to clarify your final point as it doesn't refute anything but your intelligence; not an argument. We're not moving and we're not stuck to the surface of a ball.

You really need to get down to reality. If you did, your ability to calculate all kinds of things could make you a really good scientist, rather than an attempted cult leader.

[notbatman]

^^^ Claiming ships not visible to the naked eye can't be seen with a zoom lens is a ridiculous argument.






I made realization that Relativity never had leg to stand on. Let me explain, Newton whose various laws absolutely refute his own theory of gravity was big on thought experiments and one of them was the bucket argument:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_argument

TL;DR -- "... rotational motion cannot be defined as the relative rotation of the body with respect to the immediately surrounding bodies. ..."

Relativity was an emergency measure implemented by the establishment to counter the direct measurements made by the M&M experiment that proved the Earth is motionless. Relativity was never a valid argument and I can't understand how it was even allowed to be proposed in light of the bucket argument. Relativity was quickly falsified by replications of the Sagnac experiment, the results of which are completely ignored publicly by the establishment to this day, that is of course all while they use the latest in aether technology in your smartphone sensors.

[BADecker]

^^^ Claiming ships don't disappear over the horizon where they CAN'T be seen with a zoom lens is simply ludicrous. How do we know? Because you can place your eye an inch above the water line, and watch it happen within a few hundred feet.


Relativity is a theory. If it is real, such is not known. The theory is being used to find out information. Some of the information that Relativity Theory produced is nuclear power plants, and both the atomic and hydrogen bombs.

So, who cares if Relativity remains a theory, since you seem to have found things that prove the theory is incorrect. Others have done so, as well... including a current German scientist that shows that Relativity and Gravity theories don't mix in the microscopic world, and the Electric Cosmos theories which explain a whole bunch of universe observations much better and more accurately than nuclear (which comes from Relativity Theory.)

The M&M observations do not prove. They theoretically prove. If you like those theories better, that is up to you. Use them to make practical things happen.

Aether works in its inner workings through various dimensional shapes in various dimension, all in the submicroscopic. Nobody understands them. We know a little about up to 32 dimensions. And we know 6 dimensions clearly. And we know 7 thru 14 reasonably well. But you are trying to throw out all the observations of thousands of other people in favor of your own, and you don't even know the aether that well, yourself.

You are turning what you think you know into a cult by believing it. I mean, it wouldn't be a cult if you believed it. But you make it into a cult by adamantly believing it.

[exemplaar]

badecker defending his idol - the globe:



Easy question:



Dishonest person or low level jesuit sellout?

[odolvlobo]

... globohomos ... globe faggots ... faggots ... faggots can fuck off ...

For every person that believes that the earth is flat, there are thousands of people that don't. So, if you are going to advocate for FE, then like it or not you are going to have to address the same questions and arguments over and over again, regardless of how ridiculous they might seem.

If you are serious about trying to wake people up, then maybe you are going about it the wrong way. Readers of your posts will think that if you must resort to name-calling and spewing insults, then maybe you really don't have anything credible to say, and you are just some crazy brainwashed cult member.
 

[BADecker]

^^^ And he can't even give a logical, on-point explanation of something as simple as watching a boat or ship going over the horizon, when the eye/camera is only an inch above the water.

[odolvlobo]

One of these arent in the bible.

Funny. That image could just as easily be a statement about all of the ridiculous nonsense that is in the bible, seeing how the only thing not in the bible is the rational one.

[notbatman]

^^^ And he can't even give a logical, on-point explanation of something as simple as watching a boat or ship going over the horizon, when the eye/camera is only an inch above the water.

Because it's not simple however, at an inch you're going to get blocked by waves.

The horizon line is not at a fixed point, it's optics. With the human eye the vanishing point and horizon line are about 3 miles away for the average person. With a zoom lens the distance to the horizon changes and can be extended. Sitting, standing or on the top of the CN tower the horizon line is always at eye level, it moves with you because its an optical phenomenon created by convergence and perspective on a plain and not some curved surface a ship can sail up, over and behind.






Kings Dethroned (Audiobook) -- https://youtu.be/1rdvjsqD8BE (2:32:33)