Doctored NASA photos, fake moon landings, fake Mars rovers.....I happen to think the Earth isn’t quite what we’ve been told. Flat, hollow with holes at both poles, elliptical? Who fucking knows at this point?
Our entire history is lies stacked on lies. I just want the truth. No more lies and deception. My mind is open and I’m ready to finally get some real answers.
Q said lots of things, most notably disinformation is necessary. We fucking research and verify. Everything. We don’t blindly accept bullshit as truth.
Lots of google earth fuckery around the poles. Ever hear of Admiral Byrd? Many things about our world have been kept from us for control purposes.
You can do all the fucking geometry you want, but in the end it’s just theory until we are told the truth about other anomalies.
Spherical earth can be repeatedly verified by independent and personal experiments. Engineering is also full of examples of designs that compensate for round earth, designs which would be inaccurate or fail if the earth weren't round.
This one, for example, was used by the Greeks to estimate the size of the Earth remarkably accurately.
It does require some mathematical work (geometry) but it's all about what shadows are cast at what lengths and directions at any one given point.
You do realize even your scientism preist NDT said that works with a flat and spherical earth right?
Come back to me when you can find a single scientific experiment (that can pass through the scientific method) with defined dependent and independent variables.
I can save you the time and assure you that no scientific experiment exists that we can use to validate the claim of spherical shape, or motion.
OK, I'll play along. Here's a small selection of the most obvious round earth evidence.
It looks round. There's a horizon and objects disappear behind it bottom first. On a flat earth, we should be seeing distant objects tens and hundreds of miles away. We don't. The curve can be confirmed to exist using lasers, flat earthers have tried and failed to debunk it. If you think the earth is flat, what should a round Earth look like?
We can predict the movement of celestial bodies (all of them round) perfectly using the heliocentric round earth model. Sun angles, sunrise and sunset times, same for the Moon, all predictable to the second all over the planet all year round. Flat earth model says they, uh, move around up there.
We understand why it's nighttime in Asia while it's the afternoon in America and morning in Europe. Impossible on a flat earth, can't illuminate part of a flat plane with a point light source, it will all be lit all of the time.
We can understand and predict different phenomena: lower sun angles and larger day length variation further from the equator all the way up to white nights, polar night and midnight sun near the poles. Midnight sun in the north while it's polar night in the south. I live in the north and I'm experiencing it now. Completely impossible to explain with a flat earth.
Seasons. Opposite seasons on opposite sides of the earth. No real seasons near the equator. All perfectly understood, explained and predicted.
Satellites and GPS. Orbital mechanics are well understood, I've worked in the industry. Low orbit satellites move in a perfectly controlled and predictable manner, communication windows depend on line of sight based on a round earth model. It's real and it works. Impossible on a flat earth.
Tides. Again, perfectly understood, explained and predicted, impossible on a flat earth.
Rotation of the earth. 15° every hour, easy to confirm with gyroscopes. Flat earthers tried and failed to debunk it.
Plane traffic. Many connecting flights in the southern hemisphere would be out of the range of current passenger planes. They aren't.
But hey, let's ignore all that because a neckbeard in a 360p youtube video told me we're being lied to and the field outside my house looks flat. The only thing flat earth theory can prove is that the Dunning-Kruger effect is real.
Na man, it's literally the opposite for every point you made or you're just wrong.
high powered modern telescopes can see WAY further than any academic curvature test suggests we should. Humans have limited eye sight but technology allows us to see further.
it's sophisticated fake science, they knew the paths and created believable fake science to go behind it.
wrong, it's possible between the moon light and sun light. They move in circles around the circular earth, the circles grow and shrink which causes seasons
GPS is real but the satellites are high in the atmosphere on advanced balloons, check our satellite crashe videos... they all have a big "parachute" aka a deflated balloon attached.
tides are not impossible, use your imagination. Cabal can cause tsunamis I doubt the tide is complicated.
plane traffic, this is just blatantly false. Most aviators operate using a flat earth map. No flights every go over the north or south pole. Many flight routes ignore the quickest route on a globe and use the quickest route on a flat earth map.
You'll probably laugh at all this because it challenges something you've been indoctrinated about since kindergarten.
You need to have an open mind or this isn't the place for you.
Almost every single astronomer who says it is round has circumstantial evidence they belong to Satan cults.
There are countless engineering examples that compensate for and require round earth to function.
Do the experiment, and the math, and tell me still that the earth is flat. I could probably list a few dozen other things for you to check to again prove the earth is round.
Yeah this is where I'm at. I don't fucking know anymore. I live on a coast and can see a city 25 miles off thats supposed to be under the horizon by like 400 fucking feet. But I don't really see the sun and moon getting smaller or larger towards the horizon as they would if they were just traveling away from you. So I don't know whats the truth anymore. I don't know if I'll ever know the truth in this lifetime.
Right now I'm simply working on trying to be a good person.
Might be worth doing the math yourself, for that height thing? The examples I've seen talked about miles squared for some reason, didn't seem right.
But whatever, one thing that seems obvious, to me, is that you can see sunlight on the under side of the clouds, at sunset or sunrise. Happens all over the world, and the sun would have to be lower than the clouds as it's going over the horizon, for that to happen.
Also something to keep in mind, in my opinion, the flat earth "theory" showed up right when the mandela effect was getting big. Classic distraction there, I think? Lets people say, "you believe that, you probably believe the earth is flat too?" and whatever else?
Might be worth doing the math yourself, for that height thing? The examples I've seen talked about miles squared for some reason, didn't seem right.
You can look up "earth curvature calculator" and do it yourself.
But whatever, one thing that seems obvious, to me, is that you can see sunlight on the under side of the clouds, at sunset or sunrise. Happens all over the world, and the sun would have to be lower than the clouds as it's going over the horizon, for that to happen.
No idea man. I'm kind of done trying to explain and know every little detail about the universe and how it functions in the physical. Like I said I've seen things that are for flat earth it and against it with my own eyes, although I need to pay more attention to really tell if the sun / moon look like they're smaller closer to the horizon.
Why cant this just be light bounced off the ground, like how the moon supposedly reflects the suns light?
Is that a serious question? Maybe you haven't watched many sunsets? But you can literally see that the sun is right there, it's not "bouncing off the ground" or whatever,
Or, ok, given the situation and things in general right now, you're shilling for hypothetical undecided readers, probably, trying to sound reasonable and get a little doubt started? Whatever, no offense but I'm not going to keep on arguing here.
The sun is so much astronomically larger than the earth that the distance you travel as the earth rotates is totally irrelevant. It'd be like looking at the empire state building from the perspective of an ant from 10 feet away, and then 10 feet and one quarter inch. You'd never be able to see a difference in size there from the naked eye. Even the scale of the moon is large enough that you wouldn't see a difference (or rather, the distance between the earth and moon).
Also, if you trust Q, Q post 2622 clearly dictates that the earth is not flat.
I could point you to dozens if not hundreds of engineering designs that functionally rely on and compensate for the Earth's roundness.
There are also experiments you personally can do if you so desire to prove the earth round.
This one, for example, was used by the Greeks to estimate the size of the Earth remarkably accurately.
It does require some mathematical work (geometry) but it's all about what shadows are cast at what lengths and directions at any one given point.
That said what you said about focusing on being a good person is far more important than knowing the nature of the Earth unless you work in a field (like engineering) that may require appropriate design knowledge.
The sun is so much astronomically larger than the earth that the distance you travel as the earth rotates is totally irrelevant. It'd be like looking at the empire state building from the perspective of an ant from 10 feet away, and then 10 feet and one quarter inch. You'd never be able to see a difference in size there from the naked eye. Even the scale of the moon is large enough that you wouldn't see a difference (or rather, the distance between the earth and moon).
I am aware of what the heliocentric model states.
Also, if you trust Q, Q post 2622 clearly dictates that the earth is not flat.
Q is rather self aware. If Q were to say that the earth is flat, no one would believe anything else that was said.
I could point you to dozens if not hundreds of engineering designs that functionally rely on and compensate for the Earth's roundness.
Go ahead.
It does require some mathematical work (geometry) but it's all about what shadows are cast at what lengths and directions at any one given point.
Yes, I've heard about that experiment. The calculations depend on the assumption that the earth is round, and then backtrack from there that since this math works out that must mean the sun is this far away and so on and so fourth with more math. It's basically a house built on sand phenomena. It relies on a false premise and then tries to force math to work so its true.
That is not exactly correct. What is done is one is measuring the shadows of each stick and their angles. If the earth were totally flat, these should be indicative of that; either they'd be the same lengths and angles or they'd be indicative of a "point" of light at a certain distance; the shadows would match (think a dark warehouse with a single hanging bulb with two sticks, and the shadows that would cast).
Those shadows are not cast by the sticks; the ones that are are indicative of some angle between the flat surface in each area. This means that the earth has some degree of curve (or angular shape, but I've not seen anyone argue that there are seams where different flats merge). From there it's a question of "is the earth a sort of flattish bowl, or a full blown spheroid?". From there, you calculate the differences in surface angle alongside the distance. that tells you the rate of curve. That rate allows you to calculate the size of a sphere from that; whether or not the earth IS that full sphere is then the point of question. If the sphere is hugely larger than the apparent surface area of the earth, that would tell you that "saucer earth" is true. You'll find that the area of the sphere would be pretty close to matching the supposed area of the earth.
There is no house of sand here. It's just geometry.
Other engineering designs:
Long range gunnery tables account for spherical earth. What looks to be a good analysis of that here
The entirety of the GPS system relies on round earth.
Maps and coordinate systems. Most maps and their respective coordinate systems are overlaid in such a way to account for the distortion from the creation of a two dimensional projection of a three-dimensional object. If these maps were inaccurate, ships, planes, trucks, and damn near anything else traveling significant distances would be unable to reach their destinations accurately. You can read more about the details of these projections here and here
Railways are made to minimize travel distance. Their routes would be different if the earth were flat. There are documents that can be found from early to present describing this. More info can again be found here: https://flatearth.ws/c/construction
Suspension bridges: The tops of the "towers" of some of the longest suspension bridges are a tiny bit farther apart (than the bottoms) to account for the difference. If the earth were flat or anything but round there, the difference would be a construction weakness and potentially ruin the bridge. Blueprints for these bridges will show this and likely show the reasoning behind it.
I could do more but until you can explain these thoroughly it'd be a waste of my time.
"Q is rather self aware. If Q were to say that the earth is flat, no one would believe anything else that was said."
So you're suggesting Q tells people what they want to hear rather than the truth? Do you understand what kind of implications that would have on everything said by Q?
dude... this is easy... light refraction, ever shine a light through a glass of water? light literally bends around the curvature meaning you can see distant objects farther than you would think sometimes. Telescopes literally make use of this phenomenon to function... alot of people having trouble with this literally need to go back to grade school science class not to sound harsh
Doctored NASA photos, fake moon landings, fake Mars rovers.....I happen to think the Earth isn’t quite what we’ve been told. Flat, hollow with holes at both poles, elliptical? Who fucking knows at this point?
Our entire history is lies stacked on lies. I just want the truth. No more lies and deception. My mind is open and I’m ready to finally get some real answers.
I'm in the camp of undecided too and until I build the foundations to be able to research it more thoroughly for myself, I'll remain open minded.
Q post 2622 - the Earth is not flat.
There are experiments you can perform yourself to verify the Earth is very much a globe.
This one, for example, was used by the Greeks to estimate the size of the Earth remarkably accurately.
It does require some mathematical work (geometry) but it's all about what shadows are cast at what lengths and directions at any one given point.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5122095/The-experiment-ancient-Greeks-used-Earth-round.html
I appreciate the input.
Start by looking at how many famous round-earth astronomers through history were freemasons and therefore possibly satanic; its 100% of them
Theres no real foundations needed. Just look up Eric Dubays top videos of all time on youtube, he explains it pretty well.
Solid playlist...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiUlIsT5YoQ&list=PLEzivhxtxgbtrtyKphTY5_5vifQ8-Ynes&index=8
Handshake trying to lump flat earth into a Q theory forum. Q specifically said the earth is not flat.
HMMM...
(Q post 2622)
Q said lots of things, most notably disinformation is necessary. We fucking research and verify. Everything. We don’t blindly accept bullshit as truth.
Lots of google earth fuckery around the poles. Ever hear of Admiral Byrd? Many things about our world have been kept from us for control purposes.
You can do all the fucking geometry you want, but in the end it’s just theory until we are told the truth about other anomalies.
NASA altering photos is because it's a military operation. They scrub classified info from everything.
I can confirm from my own math and observations that the planet is definitely round.
^ I'd back you up on that 100%
Q has also said that the earth is not flat. Post 2622.
You're probably right about the first three points but the Earth is very much round. The evidence is overwhelming.
Haven't looked into it too much yet I see. You'd be surprised, spherical earth is a bit of a paper tiger.
This statement reminds me of this video
https://files.catbox.moe/tj6wnh.mp4
Spherical earth can be repeatedly verified by independent and personal experiments. Engineering is also full of examples of designs that compensate for round earth, designs which would be inaccurate or fail if the earth weren't round.
This one, for example, was used by the Greeks to estimate the size of the Earth remarkably accurately.
It does require some mathematical work (geometry) but it's all about what shadows are cast at what lengths and directions at any one given point.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5122095/The-experiment-ancient-Greeks-used-Earth-round.html
You do realize even your scientism preist NDT said that works with a flat and spherical earth right? Come back to me when you can find a single scientific experiment (that can pass through the scientific method) with defined dependent and independent variables.
I can save you the time and assure you that no scientific experiment exists that we can use to validate the claim of spherical shape, or motion.
prove it. simply have nasa take a real photograph from orbit. oh wait...
OK, I'll play along. Here's a small selection of the most obvious round earth evidence.
But hey, let's ignore all that because a neckbeard in a 360p youtube video told me we're being lied to and the field outside my house looks flat. The only thing flat earth theory can prove is that the Dunning-Kruger effect is real.
Time lapse of stars around Polaris, flat earthers are fine with that,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp6UkqIwVfk
Same exact thing in the southern hemisphere, crickets,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPLQSmcaWNU
who said anything about flat earth? I said nasa can't provide a real photograph from space.
Na man, it's literally the opposite for every point you made or you're just wrong.
You'll probably laugh at all this because it challenges something you've been indoctrinated about since kindergarten.
You need to have an open mind or this isn't the place for you.
Almost every single astronomer who says it is round has circumstantial evidence they belong to Satan cults.
If you believe Q posts Q post 2622 clearly states the earth is not flat.
You can also prove it with independent experiments, such as the one used by the Greeks.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5122095/The-experiment-ancient-Greeks-used-Earth-round.html
There are countless engineering examples that compensate for and require round earth to function.
Do the experiment, and the math, and tell me still that the earth is flat. I could probably list a few dozen other things for you to check to again prove the earth is round.
who said anything about flat earth? I said nasa can't provide a real photograph from space.
Overwhelming evidence?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiUlIsT5YoQ&list=PLEzivhxtxgbtrtyKphTY5_5vifQ8-Ynes&index=8
Crappy quality youtube videos are as good as flat earth proofs will ever get.
Solid debunk sleepy! I should have realized that myself. Thanks for clearing things up for everyone.
Yeah this is where I'm at. I don't fucking know anymore. I live on a coast and can see a city 25 miles off thats supposed to be under the horizon by like 400 fucking feet. But I don't really see the sun and moon getting smaller or larger towards the horizon as they would if they were just traveling away from you. So I don't know whats the truth anymore. I don't know if I'll ever know the truth in this lifetime.
Right now I'm simply working on trying to be a good person.
Might be worth doing the math yourself, for that height thing? The examples I've seen talked about miles squared for some reason, didn't seem right.
But whatever, one thing that seems obvious, to me, is that you can see sunlight on the under side of the clouds, at sunset or sunrise. Happens all over the world, and the sun would have to be lower than the clouds as it's going over the horizon, for that to happen.
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2A8E5MX/red-clouds-at-sunset-altocumulus-ondulatus-2A8E5MX.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/517/19008955290_b6604d6360_b.jpg
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e4b3d6906c5a46de15fac52cb565e245.webp
Found this in the results for those pics, lol,
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6875.0
Also something to keep in mind, in my opinion, the flat earth "theory" showed up right when the mandela effect was getting big. Classic distraction there, I think? Lets people say, "you believe that, you probably believe the earth is flat too?" and whatever else?
You can look up "earth curvature calculator" and do it yourself.
No idea man. I'm kind of done trying to explain and know every little detail about the universe and how it functions in the physical. Like I said I've seen things that are for flat earth it and against it with my own eyes, although I need to pay more attention to really tell if the sun / moon look like they're smaller closer to the horizon.
Why cant this just be light bounced off the ground, like how the moon supposedly reflects the suns light?
Is that a serious question? Maybe you haven't watched many sunsets? But you can literally see that the sun is right there, it's not "bouncing off the ground" or whatever,
https://images.theconversation.com/files/372776/original/file-20201203-23-heriyu.jpg
https://allytravels.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/basic-sunset-800x618.jpg
Or, ok, given the situation and things in general right now, you're shilling for hypothetical undecided readers, probably, trying to sound reasonable and get a little doubt started? Whatever, no offense but I'm not going to keep on arguing here.
The sun is so much astronomically larger than the earth that the distance you travel as the earth rotates is totally irrelevant. It'd be like looking at the empire state building from the perspective of an ant from 10 feet away, and then 10 feet and one quarter inch. You'd never be able to see a difference in size there from the naked eye. Even the scale of the moon is large enough that you wouldn't see a difference (or rather, the distance between the earth and moon).
Also, if you trust Q, Q post 2622 clearly dictates that the earth is not flat.
I could point you to dozens if not hundreds of engineering designs that functionally rely on and compensate for the Earth's roundness.
There are also experiments you personally can do if you so desire to prove the earth round.
This one, for example, was used by the Greeks to estimate the size of the Earth remarkably accurately.
It does require some mathematical work (geometry) but it's all about what shadows are cast at what lengths and directions at any one given point.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5122095/The-experiment-ancient-Greeks-used-Earth-round.html
That said what you said about focusing on being a good person is far more important than knowing the nature of the Earth unless you work in a field (like engineering) that may require appropriate design knowledge.
I am aware of what the heliocentric model states.
Q is rather self aware. If Q were to say that the earth is flat, no one would believe anything else that was said.
Go ahead.
Yes, I've heard about that experiment. The calculations depend on the assumption that the earth is round, and then backtrack from there that since this math works out that must mean the sun is this far away and so on and so fourth with more math. It's basically a house built on sand phenomena. It relies on a false premise and then tries to force math to work so its true.
Last to first:
That is not exactly correct. What is done is one is measuring the shadows of each stick and their angles. If the earth were totally flat, these should be indicative of that; either they'd be the same lengths and angles or they'd be indicative of a "point" of light at a certain distance; the shadows would match (think a dark warehouse with a single hanging bulb with two sticks, and the shadows that would cast).
Those shadows are not cast by the sticks; the ones that are are indicative of some angle between the flat surface in each area. This means that the earth has some degree of curve (or angular shape, but I've not seen anyone argue that there are seams where different flats merge). From there it's a question of "is the earth a sort of flattish bowl, or a full blown spheroid?". From there, you calculate the differences in surface angle alongside the distance. that tells you the rate of curve. That rate allows you to calculate the size of a sphere from that; whether or not the earth IS that full sphere is then the point of question. If the sphere is hugely larger than the apparent surface area of the earth, that would tell you that "saucer earth" is true. You'll find that the area of the sphere would be pretty close to matching the supposed area of the earth.
There is no house of sand here. It's just geometry.
Other engineering designs:
I could do more but until you can explain these thoroughly it'd be a waste of my time.
dude... this is easy... light refraction, ever shine a light through a glass of water? light literally bends around the curvature meaning you can see distant objects farther than you would think sometimes. Telescopes literally make use of this phenomenon to function... alot of people having trouble with this literally need to go back to grade school science class not to sound harsh