I saw it multiple times, I believe you guys too. The term “shapeshifters” or “reptilians” or “flat earth” that we saw in various posts here and on other sites.
I will show you how it’s used by the bad guys to strengthen the “conspiracy theorist” label and slow down awakening.
Example:
”Billy Corgan: ‘Shapeshifting Reptilians’ Run The ‘Satanic’ Music Industry”
https://newspunch.com/billy-corgan-shapeshifting-reptilians/
My reaction to it is:
Add “flat earth” to it and you can easily label all inconvenient truth as “conspiracy theory”.
As simple as that.
They could have done it better this way: ‘Shapeshifting Reptilians’ who live on the opposite side of the Flat Earth Run The ‘Satanic’ Music Industry”.
Recall Pelosi saying on video:
We smear somebody with falsehood and all the rest, then you (journalists) print it and we say: The Press has published that (…) - it legitimises what we said, .. etc.
Talking about “shapeshifters” and “reptilians” is a similar tactic but it’s used to strengthen “conspiracy theorist” label.
When do they need to strengthen the “conspiracy theorist” label?
-
when the label stops working,
-
when people discover that all previous conspiracy theories came out to be a reality,
-
when we’re winning awakening the masses.
The deep state has to stick some bullshit they can call later so that people won’t believe it, otherwise the “conspiracy theorist” label will stop working at all.
Think about it as a slider that reflects the % of the truth within the “conspiracy theory” space.
-
We prove something was real, we move the slider closer to 100%
-
We say that the difference between the conspiracy theory and the reality was 2 years, 6 months and now it’s 2 months.
-
We’re destroying the term (a weapon) the C_A has created to prevent awakening.
-
They want to move the slider back where it was, closer to 0% so the term (a weapon) can be used again.
It’s NOT about the flat earth or reptilians.
It’s about Awakening.
Everyone who pushes these theories is either unaware or is a shill working for the deep state for money. People who try to justify “we use it to label (them)” are also either unaware or are paid shills who word Kadr to prevent awakening.
When we hear someone like this article and person “witnessing” it (especially famous person) - we have to note it as he isn’t on our side and will betray us. These celebrities are bought to make a contrast between:
- their lies and fake reality they want us to live and believe in,
versus:
- the truth about their pedo perversions, rapes, blackmail and satanic sacrifice.
Once they add something crazy and unreal to the second group - people are more likely to sit in the first box. Be aware of that!
Even if you’re crazy enough to believe that reptilians are real - it’s your choice. But if you really support the Great Awakening - you need to be aware that normies won’t move from the box 1 to box 2 if you add too much for them to accept. Knowing that: avoid flat earth and reptilians terminology here, leave it for yourself for later, if you enjoy it and focus on Great Awakening.
It’s a social engineering, consciously used by the Deep State.
At this stage anyone pushing flat earth and reptilians theories slows down the awakening process, no matter if consciously and intentionally or not.
I’ve made this post quite long and intentionally used the keywords in the title. Some shills will jump in and start calling me names without even reading the whole post. Once you’ve read the whole thing up until here - you understand who can sponsor to push these theories. Let them to reveal themselves, check their posts and their other comments, give your vote to the article and comments. Digital battlefield.
Yes. Please share your ground level observations so we can prove once and for all to these flattys the world is a spinning ball. Thank you in advance.
Think about the sun. You can observe that:
The sun appears circular.
The sun appears to maintain its shape as it moves across the sky.
The sun appears to maintain its size as it moves across the sky.
The sun appears to rise from and set beneath ground level.
These phenomena are true no matter your longitude.
Different longitudes observe different times of day simultaneously.
Certain latitudes (above the arctic circle) may not see the sun rise and set every day, though it does move.
All of these facts are verifiable either by yourself, or by talking to trusted people living around the world (and in Alaska).
I have yet to find or be told a flat earth theory that is able to explain all of these factual observations at the same time.
None of your points support that the sun is a SPHERE (a ball), nor that the earth is rotating. In fact, if you carefully read back your own points you will see that this is so.
Evaluate your own points in relation to a MOVING LIGHT (sun) and a STATIONARY PLANE (earth). They all work perfectly.
If the sun were a light moving across a planar earth, it would appear to get smaller as it moves farther away from directly overhead. This is not observed. Try again.
Sometimes it does appear smaller, sometimes it appears larger. Atmospheric lensing causes these phenomena.
If it weren't a "ball of hydrogen gas" 93 million miles away (fraudulent calculation) but rather a projected, reflected light more along the order of 3000 miles away, you've got to rethink the entire basis of your argument.
You're trapped in lies if you wish to cling to nonexistent gravity, floating rocks in the sky, burning balls of gas that don't dissipate into a vacuum, etc.
See how one lie leads to another, to another, to another until you're lost in a fabricated model?
Find out how they supposedly calculated the size and distance of the sun. Was it based on one or more ASSUMPTIONS? If it was, how many more ASSUMPTIONS do you think can be built on the first?
Totally agree about the sun. The moon has me a little perplexed though. It lights up like a flashlight. And sometimes earths shadow is curved impossibly. Also just how sometimes half the moon is completely missing when you should at least see an outline. And why doesn’t the sun pull it into its gravitational pull. It’s always bothered me. Also how the sun and moon are basically the same size as you look at it.
Here’s another thing to think about: the tides. The tides sync up perfectly with the moon’s periodic motion, and do not increase or decrease in intensity with the phase of the moon.
I’m gonna assume you already accept that the same thing pulling us to the ground also governs the motion of the sun and moon. Because we have equations for that. The easiest one to apply would be Newton’s law of gravitation, which is accurate in all but the edge cases (stuff that gets really close to the sun). If you look at the equation, you can see that the force of gravity depends on two things: mass and distance, and these factors act opposite to each other. So, thinking about the gravity of two objects, even if one is much less massive than the other, if you get close enough to the smaller object (and far enough away from the larger one), the smaller object’s gravity dominates. So that’s one explanation why the moon (an object) stays linked to the earth (an object), as opposed to the sun (an object). Look into “Lagrange points” for some interesting extra info resulting from this sort of system.
I don’t know enough to talk about the optical properties of the moon, but remember that (according to the commonly accepted theory) the phases are the moon’s shadow, lunar eclipses are the earth’s shadow.
Scientists consider the relative size of the sun and moon in the sky to be a coincidence. God probably made it that way for good reason.
>>> I’m gonna assume you already accept that the same thing pulling us to the ground also governs the motion of the sun and moon.
You give flerfs too much credit.
I can send you a 4th grade science book if you like.
LOL. Truth. My 4th grade teacher was a genius as it pertains to the solar system. Why don't more idiots follow the simple teachings from their public school? Don't tell me they are just teaching what their told to teach. That's more lies!
Choose any 3 points on the earth. Make sure they are at least 2000 nm apart to get sufficient resolution. Use flight planning software to draw a round trip triangle direct between these 3 points. Add the interior angles of the triangle. You will find it adds up to more than 180 degrees. That can only happen because you are operating on a positively curved surface. And because it works for ANY 3 points you choose anywhere on the earth's surface, the earth can only be an ellipsoid of some kind. You can do the exact same test with boats on the ocean. You honestly don't need anything more than that. Flat earth is mathematically, provably wrong in so many simple ways when you understand basic geometry.
2000 nano meters? I'm not even clear what you want to replace this with? 2000 kilometers? That would be the only thing that makes any sense. You didn't put much effort into this post, not sure why I'm wasting my time.
A 2000 KM distance implies 1 million feet of curvature (189 miles) on the fantasy ball earth. You need TRIGONOMETRY to solve this math, not geometry.
How can you draw a triangle on a curved surface? It's impossible of course. The sea captains of days gone by all used their sextants in precisely the correct way, with a flat earth at the base of their TRIANGLE, and managed to get to their destinations as calculated. Which of course, is impossible on a curved surface.
"Flight planning software" is all corrupted with the man-made, free mason infused, totally unreal, false "Magnetic declination" fraud. No such thing exists. This is the trick they used to transform a flat surface into a ball. GPS leverages the same deception.
Eliminate magnetic declination and, voila, the deception is exposed and successful sextant navigation works and then another piece of ACTUAL REALITY is restored.
nm = nautical miles. Yes. It can also mean nanometers, but clearly not in this context. You are intentionally trying to be obtuse.
Nonsense. I'm as straight a shooter as you'll ever come across.
You can dilly-dally around with beliefs, models, frameworks, assumptions, abstractions, conceptualizations, man-made software and all the rest for the remainder of your life to uphold the heliocentric model. None of it proves the globe because the globe and all its "models" are built on hundreds of lies and assumptions, most of which we've shattered.
Or you can take the easy route and go get yourself a Nikon P900 or P1000 (or borrow or rent one) and sit at the beach and watch boats disappear from your visual field and then zoom your camera in for many miles further to the same boats as they head out to sea....and you can see the hull and all. That's what I did. Didn't cost me a cent as I borrowed a friend's camera and I didn't have to trust anybody else.
This simple exercise that literally anybody can do regardless of intellectual or economic status is all that's needed. Because these boats should be "hidden by the curvature" and they're not. Full Stop!
Or, you can logically and rationally conclude that aren't thousands of random people trying to deceive you (like NASA clearly is) and see for yourself from the comfort of your living room on all the major video-sharing platforms.
How's that for straight shooting? Nothing to argue about.
What I find remarkable is that 9 out of 10 people I talk to refuse to see for themselves and ASSUME that the online videos are either deceptions or misunderstandings...all thousands of them...lol. Talk about irrationality! The only explanation I can arrive at in these cases is cognitive dissonance. Nothing else makes sense.
Yes, and for the same reason it is not possible to map the Earth's surface as a flat representation without distortion. The larger the span of the map, the greater the distortion. Surveyors discovered that they couldn't really patch together coordinate grids if they were rectilinear (discrepancies at the edges).
Thank you. I wish I knew geometry better. I’m sure flatheads will argue that the flight planning software is built on the round earth model. But of course it is. Would they build a flight planning software on the back of a giant turtle? Lol.
A better question would be on the implications to physics required to have a flat earth that maintains the consistency it does to corroborate what can be derived from ground levels.