I wasn't trying to debate you and I'm not trying to debate you now I was just asking you a question and made a few statements but since you are now insinuating that I'm a shill if I further the conversation which I will respect your beliefs although I must say that I went through the proper process in which ones self must go through in order for one to change his own beliefs. It was a 3yr step by step process in which I gathered all of the information that I could find from each side of the equation with only one source of information rejected I didn't include any type of information provided by NASA on the grounds that due to the fakeness was no longer credible. Three years I studied without leaning towards one side of the other unit I was completely satisfied that one side weighed more than the other. One side being flat earth completely decimated the globe model it had won the Earth is flat.
And you came to your conclusions based on a debate of a few people on each side making their argument and in your mind you determined a winner which proved to you the earth was a globe. 🤔 Really okay it is you that is remeniscent to being a shill because no intelligent critical thinking person would ever come to their conclusions based upon the winner of a debate. The earth is flat.
No, it's not that I don't believe that an honest person can review and draw that conclusion, I completely acknowledge that using ground-level observations that a flat earth model makes sense. The problem is that, when it comes to physics, complexity grows with scale and complexity is often counter-intuitive (especially when you get into thermodynamics).
It would also be a mistake to trust NASA in any sense, I agree with you there.
I also acknowledge that science, as a field, has been corrupted so thoroughly that trust is in short supply.
What I say isn't about stifling you or shutting down the topic as much as it is to minimize the attack surface where the platform can be presented in discrediting lights. Most normies will shut down any conception of flat earth discussion, it is used regularly, and was one of the more common attacks on the chans that came up so frequently that the anons pushed Q to address the topic. Don't forget, I hold no power here, I can't stop you from bringing up the topic and me thinking that it is a shill topic is just an opinion that holds no real weight.
That said, the other half, the topic of electric universe theory, look up "antigravity lifter" (it's poorly named, but the effect is real). It uses a principle of 'asymmetric capacitance' which alone gives credence to the theory, without diving into the depth of supporting evidence. It is a separate and distinct theory from flat earth.
I wasn't trying to debate you and I'm not trying to debate you now I was just asking you a question and made a few statements but since you are now insinuating that I'm a shill if I further the conversation which I will respect your beliefs although I must say that I went through the proper process in which ones self must go through in order for one to change his own beliefs. It was a 3yr step by step process in which I gathered all of the information that I could find from each side of the equation with only one source of information rejected I didn't include any type of information provided by NASA on the grounds that due to the fakeness was no longer credible. Three years I studied without leaning towards one side of the other unit I was completely satisfied that one side weighed more than the other. One side being flat earth completely decimated the globe model it had won the Earth is flat. And you came to your conclusions based on a debate of a few people on each side making their argument and in your mind you determined a winner which proved to you the earth was a globe. 🤔 Really okay it is you that is remeniscent to being a shill because no intelligent critical thinking person would ever come to their conclusions based upon the winner of a debate. The earth is flat.
No, it's not that I don't believe that an honest person can review and draw that conclusion, I completely acknowledge that using ground-level observations that a flat earth model makes sense. The problem is that, when it comes to physics, complexity grows with scale and complexity is often counter-intuitive (especially when you get into thermodynamics).
It would also be a mistake to trust NASA in any sense, I agree with you there.
I also acknowledge that science, as a field, has been corrupted so thoroughly that trust is in short supply.
What I say isn't about stifling you or shutting down the topic as much as it is to minimize the attack surface where the platform can be presented in discrediting lights. Most normies will shut down any conception of flat earth discussion, it is used regularly, and was one of the more common attacks on the chans that came up so frequently that the anons pushed Q to address the topic. Don't forget, I hold no power here, I can't stop you from bringing up the topic and me thinking that it is a shill topic is just an opinion that holds no real weight.
That said, the other half, the topic of electric universe theory, look up "antigravity lifter" (it's poorly named, but the effect is real). It uses a principle of 'asymmetric capacitance' which alone gives credence to the theory, without diving into the depth of supporting evidence. It is a separate and distinct theory from flat earth.