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.
Let’s get something out of the way. How many people do you think make up the Illuminati etc.? Probably more than a few hundred, if I had to guess. So if it were one or the other- that I had to decide whether it was more likely that there are tens of thousands of malicious people working together to deceive me, or a couple hundred, you bet I’d say it’s more likely to be the hundred. But why is it just one or the other? Both the elites and these scammers are deceiving us- and there probably is overlap. (See the OP)
I watched your video of “evidence”. A handful of poorly set up and poorly documented “experiments” where many important claims such as “I set up the laser at this height all the way over there” are never shown to be true apart from a very blurry long-distance zoom. They also do not check to see if where they’re standing is the only place they see the laser. Light spreads out over a distance, especially with air in the way. You don’t know if you’re looking at the center of the beam or just the bottom edge. Regardless, all of that could easily be faked.
I also noticed that the comments were disabled. Censorship is a favorite tool of those who fear the truth. We see the same thing on Twitter and their “misinformation” campaigns. I’ve seen plenty of flat-earth disproving videos with their comments enabled. Not afraid.
I do place an emphasis on having a “model”, because models allow us to calculate, to predict. That is the core of what science is. Models are descriptions of the order of nature. (as opposed to chaos.) Imagine thinking that the Jesuits invented the idea that the world is stable and predictable in certain ways… Anyways, what I’m looking for is coherence. Our world does not self-contradict. Any attempt to describe it must account for all relevant phenomena. Also you have not demonstrated any “breaking” of the globe model so far. See above.
The point of my list of observations was to lay out the pieces that I expect any working model to put together. They are not individually proofs that the earth is round, nor that the earth is not flat. But together, they disprove false models. For the ones you don’t dispute, we are on the same page. This is a good start.
I am specifically referring to the shape of the object itself. Which you can see using the proper protective eyewear. I have. I have also seen a total solar eclipse, which makes the sun’s circular shape and moon-like “size” in the sky very obvious (I’m talking about angles here, the proportion of the sky taken up by it, not simply the size of the actual object.).
Yes, but! As something retreats into the distance, it also shrinks. This is not observed. Minor fluctuations from atmospheric effects, maybe. The sun appearing larger on the horizon? That’s part illusion and part atmospheric weirdness. How much each factor contributes is disputable, but regardless, this does not match the idea that the sun gets farther away. Therefore, if the sun is growing closer to or retreating from any point on the earth, it must be far enough away for this shrinking effect to be negligible. So either the sun is really big and far away, or the sun is always the same distance from any observer as it moves… always. In other words, the sun exists on a sphere centered around the observer. Now combine that second idea with the idea of time zones (multiple observers) and you get issues. That is why points 2, 3, and 5 matter. Point 4 exists to establish a symmetry. Globe models, disc models, and even cylinder models obey this symmetry- this is just to rule out the really odd proposals.
Please share this debunking so I can debunk it. Regardless, you surely acknowledge that the sun is almost never directly overhead, and that its path changes seasonally. That is all that is necessary here. Another phenomenon that any model must explain.
Oh, no, my friend… This is where math gets involved. You get to answer me some questions. How far away is the sun from the flat earth? If this distance changes, what variables cause these changes, and how? (you can write this in the form of a function). Let’s start with that. Then we can get into which flat map you favor, and the path you think light travels from the sun to the earth with. These are all questions that, if the world makes any sense, should be answerable.
Who literally have nothing to gain for all their efforts?
But you fail to point out the obvious. It's all IMPOSSIBLE...REGARDLESS... if there should be hundreds of feet of earth curvature between them. That's all that matters here. So it's all gotta be fake. Even the other 1000+ videos out there. All fakes, all lies, right? There ain't an honest flat-earther out there (most of whom set out to disprove flat earth in the beginning per chance). And the very best FE supporters were all such people, trying to prove the globe and disprove FE. Strains credulity, does it not?
Well I agree with you wholeheartedly on censorship. But this particular video was borrowed from Ben (Taboo Conspiracy) by Flat Earth Dave and Ben requested disabling comments. You can find many other videos that aren't censored.
I've never seen one. Hopefully you aren't talking about Not-A-Professor-Dave, the wholly brainwashed leftist marxist who supports teen gender transition? Do you have any other videos claiming to debunk FE? I'd love to see them if so.
I have nothing against models. I agree they can be highly useful. But we must agree that models are not REALITY. A model can be built where "the math works", as long as it has built-in ASSUMPTIONS associated with it. Such is the heliocentric model, and this simply cannot be denied.
Here's an hour-long video that not only "breaks", but utterly SHATTERS the globe model. If you've got the time and interest, here's a list of 20 solid refutations:
https://odysee.com/@EricDubay:c/TheTop20ProofsEarthisNotaSpinningGlobe:b
I agree, we see circles...and due to our indoctrination we then IMAGINE spheres.
There is a complex answer to your question. It requires a significant amount of time to explain. I can't pull it off due to character limitations. But the fundamental barrier to understanding is accepting the possibility that the "sun" is not a "thing" 93 million miles away, but rather a light/projection/reflection some 3000-4000 miles away. We can't even proceed if this is rejected out of hand by you. We'll just be talking past each other.
Here's the most popular 24-hr southern sun debunk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR4R8Id4B80
The FE model explains this perfectly as the sun traverses between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn every 365 days. For a very brief period only, the sun is directly above your location and it migrates between the two. And this obviously perfectly explains seasons, the closer the sun is to your location during this transit, the warmer, and vice versa. The globe model explanation is positively baffling (warmer and summertime when we're this unimaginable 3 million miles further away from the sun in the north... I think this has to do with that magical fee mason invented "tilt"...what is it again? 23.4 degrees? Hmmm? 90 degrees minus 23.4 degrees equals..... 66.6 whaaaaaaat? :).
Math is a model. With false assumptions, anybody can make "the math" work. This is the part you're unwilling to admit to I'm afraid. Allow me a few assumptions and I can build you a working model with "maths". But that doesn't mean it's REAL....because it's a mental abstraction. And I realize this is hard to accept...darn near impossible I'd guess.
Already mentioned this. The best we can estimate from ALL THE AVAILABLE RESEARCH (not just cabal-sanctioned textbooks and NASA) estimates range from 3000-4000 miles away. Here's a fascinating video by an alleged free mason explaining the FE model for your viewing interest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SMjVkJaq8w
Fascinating stuff regardless of whether you accept it as a possibility or not. It matches up very well with many ancient texts from a variety of cultures. This should not be overlooked as we're living out the movie (which was really a documentary) "Idiocracy" as we speak.
This is a complicated and time consuming topic as I mention above. I'll see what I can dig up in the next couple of days and start a single thread with some videos and explanations for you. Unfortunately you're won't get your FULL & COMPLETE "Model replacement" with it. We readily admit we don't know "everything" at this stage. We don't have that $60million dollar a day budget your trusted NASA team has. We're at a bit of a disadvantage on numerous fronts in this regard.
But I'm happy to stick with it if you are and we'll see where we get...
Well, better get typing. Because this is the most important thing to me. Because, if the sun does not noticeably change distance but does change its angular position, and time zones exist, a curve is the only logical explanation.
Assuming your proofs aren’t faked, and the observations I contributed are correct, some light has to bend somewhere, and I find it easier to believe that it happens over the special air conditions just above the surface of a body of water than over the entire sky in every direction- in such a way that it happens to “falsely” look like the celestial bodies move around the surface of a sphere from our perspective.
Also I don’t get why you’re so hung up on the word “model”. We model everything we can’t see. The first model everyone creates in their mind is called “object permanence”. You’ve said that we can’t see further than about 6 miles on a good day, so how do we know what happens past that, and on larger scales? Models.
In the other comment when I said “Hitler drank water” it was supposed to be in reference to people joking that “therefore water is evil”. Not everything an evil person does is evil. Not everything a liar says is a lie. Every one of our traitorous “health” organizations says that we need to breathe air to survive.
Well I've given this the old "college try" but I've come to the conclusion that there are just too many new ideas you first have to accept, before you could even begin to parse through a dozen or more videos you would otherwise have little interest in watching in earnest. There are just ten too-many steps.
The heliocentric model has got you tied up in knots such that you openly declare "nothing else is logical". I can agree this is so if you believe in the following utterly nonsensical ideas:
And these are just a few of my favorites. It is these things, wholly unproven, flush with assumptions, theory and supposition that you have accepted as "true". All of which would need to be first seen, then questioned, then unwound before you would let down your guard about some observed phenomena that holds sway over you now.
It's just too big of a mess. There's a far easier way;
Go get yourself a Nikon P900 or set of high-powered binoculars and go to a large body of water and see for yourself that you can zoom in on boats and objects that should be demonstrably "behind/below the curve" according to the mainstream narrative. The laser light tests over lakes are even better for seeing further. There's nothing to argue about once you have first hand knowledge.
I'm hung up on the word "model" only because, as is often the case, people mistake them for reality. And the heliocentric model is a particularly egregious example of this phenomena as it is built on innumerable theories and assumptions, having no actual basis in reality. And I might add, theories and assumptions that globe-defenders refuse to acknowledge at all costs, lest it threaten to shatter their mental paradigm.
I'm just after the truth, nothing more. If it were a sphere and there was even a semblance of proof, I'd change my mind in a heartbeat, happy to admit I was once fooled by the FE crowd. But I can't find any proofs, no matter where I look. I've listened to the globers and flatters duke it out in debates for hundreds of hours. The globers always come off irrational and defensive (as they must) and never bring a proof to the table that can't be easily explained or debunked by the flatters. Wouldn't you think the globers would have dozens, even hundreds of irrefutable scientific proofs in their arsenal? I sure as heck did when I started my research. What a shock to find out they have **ZERO-ZILCH-NADA" to back up their EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS -- completely lacking even a modicum of EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE!!
Most importantly, the globers can't produce any SCIENCE that is verifiable and repeatable to support any of their most grandiose claims - gravity, vacuums, rising horizon, no gas dissipation, bending of no-thing, fantastical speeds, satellites, orbits, moon-landings, etc. Literally none of it adds up and these ideas have more holes in them then a brick of Swiss cheese. But fortunate from them, since they can't actually prove any of these things, it's likewise impossible for us to disprove that which hasn't yet been proven.
And unfortunately, an observed phenomena is not science as I thought we were originally going to discuss. From an FE perspective, it's based on human perception and optics that deal with lights, luminaries, domes, refractions, lensing, atmospheric conditions, and a whole host of other things that don't fit into the heliocentric model mental construct. As such, we'll obviously have to end this discussion as it's just not possible for you to unwind things until you've decided you want to. That much is clear.
Good luck!
Yeah… I think we’re done here.