Mega Thread The Flat Earth Mega thread.

[Hawk Dork]

Its the RAND (McNally) Corporation pulling the strings hey?

Shhhhhhhhhhhh the internet has ears

 

[exe ex machina]

Oh I missed this. Thank god someone started it over again here where we can get back to discussing the topic genuinely

 

[darthbards]

Oh I missed this. Thank god someone started it over again here where we can get back to discussing the topic genuinely

I hope so. Our understanding of the universe is so poor it needs to be acknowledged as such which gives weight to theories like these.
I'm very sceptical about the ice wall but consider it no less fabricated than dark matter or energy.

Human history is the greatest fabrication of all and so many made up theories are openly taught to our children, we really should be concerned and not force our bias upon them,it's their journey. Our kids need to be told the difference from what is a fact and what is a theory. They are clearly being brainwashed by mainstream propaganda.

 

[David Schwarz]

2/118 GG.exe

 

[bontshow]

GG's behaviour in this thread shows just how desperate TS got when he was our saviour

 

[exe ex machina]

Here, I will say it -- EVERYTHING we've ever been told is a lie.

 

[Duritz]

Don't want to read 100 pages of this, but has anyone mentioned the purpose of this conspiracy? There must be millions of people in on it, people involved in space research, gps tech, satellite tech, maritime travel, polar research etc etc etc, it'd be an enormous plot. So to what end? If the earths flat, why go to such extreme ends to hide it? Seems a bit random.

Yes fair question and this has been brought up a few times ITT. I know because I have been one of the people contributing to this thread when it was on the conspiracy board.

So, why has it happened? What is the point of propagating a round earth theory if the world is actually flat? Who benefits?

Well, as cannot explained several pages back, it's because of Jesuits in China.

So now you know.

 

[exe ex machina]

It's impossible to use horizon as indicator of flat or spherical earth. Because from our perspective we will never see a curvature (if the earth were round), from any major altitude. 100 feet, 1000 feet, 100,000 feet. It's always going to look flat. We'd have to look at the Earth from approx 4500 MILES above it to start seeing a curvature. That also means NASA are faking images to make the Earth look round when they wouldn't be able to see curvature either.

I do believe NASA/etc are faking so much tho. The green screens, the wires on their trousers (notice how everyone's trousers at the crotch are pulled up but everything else isnt. There was a video I posted Top 10 reasons or something, and in there you can see all the bullshit.

Also, there are still plenty of oddities still that support a non-Heliocentric view. Just as there are factors/data that still support a spherical globe.

In all truth, I'm neither for or against. There really isn't proof for EITHER supposition - flat or round, geocentric or heliocentric. Not YET anyway.

 

[exe ex machina]

Look for the green screen stuff in this video. Among other bits in it. So obvious.
Also, notice how ISS astronauts always have the crotches of their pants pulled up, where the wires are attached, but no other fabric on their bodies is pulled tightly back like the crotch of the pants are.

 

[darthbards]

It's impossible to use horizon as indicator of flat or spherical earth. Because from our perspective we will never see a curvature (if the earth were round), from any major altitude. 100 feet, 1000 feet, 100,000 feet. It's always going to look flat. We'd have to look at the Earth from approx 4500 MILES above it to start seeing a curvature. That also means NASA are faking images to make the Earth look round when they wouldn't be able to see curvature either.

I do believe NASA/etc are faking so much tho. The green screens, the wires on their trousers (notice how everyone's trousers at the crotch are pulled up but everything else isnt. There was a video I posted Top 10 reasons or something, and in there you can see all the bullshit.

Also, there are still plenty of oddities still that support a non-Heliocentric view. Just as there are factors/data that still support a spherical globe.

In all truth, I'm neither for or against. There really isn't proof for EITHER supposition - flat or round, geocentric or heliocentric. Not YET anyway.

It is impossible for us to make any worthwhile conclusions using human senses. They are just that,we are well aware that other creatures on earth have better and worse senses than humans in all areas.

We are also becoming aware of the quantum world.

We cannot say what we observe is real. We cannot confidently say that when we are not observing a planet that it is there like it was when we observed it. We want to think we know everything,but like we teach children we can't always have what we want.

We are human,that is all,we need to embrace that before we can move anymore forward.

Our development of AI and SI is the key. The humans with the brains and the money understand this. We are trapped inside our own perception.

The chances the earth isn't flat is one in a billion,and they are awfully tiny odds,the dudes with the money know a fair bit about odds.

 

[BrewSmackerVeiny]

It's always going to look flat. We'd have to look at the Earth from approx 4500 MILES above it to start seeing a curvature.

Where have you got this figure from?
Google said -

You should be able to detect it from an aeroplane at a cruising height of around 10,600 metres (35,000 feet), but you need a fairly wide field of view (ie 60 degrees) and a virtually cloud-free horizon.Aug 30, 2016

 

[exe ex machina]

Where have you got this figure from?
Google said -

I was reading a debate between a flat earth scientist and a spherical earth scientist, somewhere on the internet, can't remember where now, a Google+ group discussion or something, where they agreed that about 4500 miles would be about right. Using examples like a flea on basketball surface would be similar math, and that an elevation of something like 100,000 feet is akin to a flea being about a half a millimeter above the surface of the basketball and that it would not be able to perceive a curve. They were both applied mathematicians or something, going on about angles and measuring the distance of the sun etc.

 

[exe ex machina]

Another way to put it, like they were talking about, is that the horizon is not a thing. It can't be quantified. It's basically just where the edge of our seeing powers end, where the earth meets the sky. So it's ALWAYS going to be flat to the eyes -- whether naked, via camera or telescope. We are far too close on the surface of a plane to see curvature. The higher one goes the more one can see. And it would require a distance of 4,500 miles (they agreed) to see curvature.

 

[darthbards]

Where have you got this figure from?
Google said -

Google's cool,but it's a human thing. We are not talking about medicine etc and human stuff like that here

Our perception beyond ourselves is poor. Your question is fair,I'm just attempting to answer it within the correct and acknowledged perspective.

 

[Rankin_1925]

Australia won't make 180. Book it and come at me.

Bookmarked. Your views on cricket are about as knowledgeable as your views on the shape of the earth

 

[darthbards]

Another way to put it, like they were talking about, is that the horizon is not a thing. It can't be quantified. It's basically just where the edge of our seeing powers end, where the earth meets the sky. So it's ALWAYS going to be flat to the eyes -- whether naked, via camera or telescope. We are far too close on the surface of a plane to see curvature. The higher one goes the more one can see. And it would require a distance of 4,500 miles (they agreed) to see curvature.

I'm not happy with any telescope argument. It is still the human eye looking through the telescope. It's nothing more than a magnified misconception of one of our senses.

 

[exe ex machina]

That's why that video of the camera about 100,000 feet up, panning 360 degrees only shows a flat earth 360 degrees. Because the Earth is so massive still and we're not high enough, the "horizon" (the land meeting the sky) always going to appear flat as far as the eye can see.

I'll see if i can find that video.

 

[exe ex machina]

This video will suffice, I'm still looking for the other one tho...

 

[darthbards]

That's why that video of the camera about 100,000 feet up, panning 360 degrees only shows a flat earth 360 degrees. Because the Earth is so massive still and we're not high enough, the "horizon" (the land meeting the sky) always going to appear flat as far as the eye can see.

I'll see if i can find that video.

An interesting question is,why aren't we taking any photos of the earth from these explorations we are sending to far off galaxies?
The children of science are getting excited we have found these recent seven planets yet we are still unable to view unedited vision of our own to a worthwhile and acceptable standard.
Why is NASA treating us like children?

 

[darthbards]

The earth isn't ******* flat holy shit

Take it to the Bay

 

[BrewSmackerVeiny]

Google's cool,but it's a human thing. We are not talking about medicine etc and human stuff like that here

Our perception beyond ourselves is poor. Your question is fair,I'm just attempting to answer it within the correct and acknowledged perspective.

You couldn't possibly answer my question unless you knew where gg.exe got the figure of 4,500 miles.

 

[exe ex machina]

Here's a high-def photo of a basketball (i reduced its size from 3000 to 1000 btw).

I dunno, but that would probably be about 4500 miles in flea language. Not sure.




Here's a series of cropped pics trying to get a flea's pov if its a millimeter above the surface, or what would seem to be 100,000 feet in the air like the dogcam-sports balloon camera.



Here's one like about 200,000 feet above the earth, like about 2mm to a flea



And here's a cropped one trying to get even further away like maybe 1,000,000 feet or so, about a centimeter above the basketball.

 

[exe ex machina]

From the OP's video "200 Proofs" is this comment on the youtube page...

George Mason 3 months ago
I was in the US Navy and operated Radar systems designed to track air and surface targets, a system accurate enough to guide missiles to the target for a direct hit at 100 miles. We consistently tracked surface ships up to 30 miles away when they had "supposedly" fallen over the horizon. Keep in mind Radar is a radio signal that has to reflect back to the transmitter essentially in direct line of sight. We could track air targets up to 60 miles out that were flying over the surface, again well beyond the supposed curvature. People would try and rationalize it by saying "the signal was reflecting off the atmosphere", which is completely ridiculous as we could get rage rate (relative speed of the target to the ship), bearing and distance readings from the return signal which is impossible for that to happen from a scattered, "reflected off the atmosphere" RF signal that had to be processed by a signal processor that would have no way of knowing that effect was in play not would the signal be strong enough to be detectable!

 

[exe ex machina]

Even tho it's from Eric Dubay (i dont know why that matters), the video in the OP 200 Proofs is a must watch.

It's a hardcore 2 hours long. But who has the cojones to watch it all like me? So much scientific talk, point form, no superfluous dramatic music and narration. Would be good if some spherical earther would watch it all like me and provide science back to debunk/contest the points made. Point by point.

 

[exe ex machina]

The points he makes in the #20s are pretty interesting.

All about the spinning of the earth.

For instance, for those too weak to watch the video, here's a little something...

If the Earth spins at 1,000 mph, east to west, and a plane is flying 1,000 mph in the same direction, then it would be like it were suspended in mid air, never actually arriving at a destination. Planes are only now starting to fly at 1,000 mph. But at 500 mph it'd basically take so long for it to reach its destination as the destination would be getting further away, unable to make up ground. While a plane flying north-south, would reach a destination so much quicker because it's not fighting the rotation, however it's destination would now be somewhere else, rotated around.