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.
First point; yes, they would have to point the laser as level as possible, my point relates the laser being straight across the 20 miles, or curved. That's why I'm saying that setup would need to be put in place and kept in place for some time to "average" the discrepancies created by varying temperature, humidity and pressure data. At the scale of a laser Level that is neglible, but over many miles it's not.
Next, the question of the moon is absolutely valid, the way it's locked innplace with the same face pointing towards the earth, even the "scientists" can't adequately explain that.
To the last points; there's a time investment, since this is new, and I'm (in spite of any belief you might have) am not being dismissive.
On the first point, we can agree that if the researchers are being truthful, no laser light could ever been seen under any and all circumstances simply and easily due to the many hundreds of feet of earth curvature. The fact that they can pick up these lights means something is amiss. In another thread a guy has explained it away as possibly having to do with "certain parts of the earth are flatter than others and these guys must have picked those spots". I'm like, well, whatever you wanna believe....sigh...
Agreed. a significant time investment. And if you really aren't interested, I'd highly recommend you don't waste your time. I didn't in the beginning. I wasn't ready. I tried for a few weeks and was just bored and unprepared to do any critical thinking. But if you are, here's a pretty solid 1hr10min video that goes over some of the better FE proofs that have been fleshed out over the past few years. It more or less condenses the work of probably 100 people, 5 years and probably 10,000 hours worth of video into a tight 1hr10. It's a good starting point anyway. I wish I could have started with this when my FE journey began.
https://odysee.com/@EricDubay:c/TheTop20ProofsEarthisNotaSpinningGlobe:b
Anyway, good luck to you either way and whatever you do, keep that open mind whichever direction you take!
Clarification on the first point, the light from the laser is going exactly in the direction it's pointed. Straight to where I've used laser levels to ensure that everything was lined up as perfectly as possible. Yes, there are flat areas, I mean, where I live there are mountains 60 miles away that I can see most days, where spherical curvature should have a majority of those mountains concealed.
I promise that I'm not being dismissive of the arguments... but that earlier video, his first question why the jet doesn't have the earth spinning away, the answer is that it remains relative, when you leave the surface, there's a spin velocity that's not lost, the acceleration east or west is relative to that spin. I forget which, but it's noticeable in the difference in travel time going east-west vs west-east.
Also worth noting that I'm avoiding discussion on gravity, because that's a concept that is at best poorly understood and there's no model available to have a theory of gravity that works at all scales.
Seeing mountains from great distances is a commonplace occurrence and doesn't really lend itself to these discussions. Case in point, 60 miles accounts for approximately 2100 feet of alleged curvature. So if your mountain is taller than 2100 feet (and assuming your relative elevations are similar) this makes perfect sense that you can see it from that distance "on the globe", and even greater probably. I remember I could see Mt. Shasta (~14,000 feet) on I5 at nearly 100 miles away on clear days which would only account for 6200 feet of alleged curvature.
I presume you're referencing the Owen Benjamin meltdown video. I simply shared that as a hiliarous/painful example of what virtually all of us once experienced. Nobody wants to be a "flat-earther"...even now. And that video is over 5 years old. We knew a whole lot less back in those days.
As to your point, I wholeheartedly disagree. There's no way the "atmosphere" is velcroed to the surface. Every fiber of my being and all the common sense I've accrued to date suggests otherwise. I bought into that argument for about 3 months because everybody else I talked to did too, despite my intuition telling me otherwise. Then one day, I was laying on the beach and watching the clouds moving east to west (against the alleged rotation) at a leisurely pace of 1-2 MPH and watched the birds and the bees effortlessly flying in that same westerly direction as well and I could no longer maintain that absurd idea.
And then I thought about the NY to SF and SF to NY flight times and, like I had known all along but been in deep brainwashed denial about, I knew it would literally be impossible to make the SF to NY flight at 500 MPH with a rotating ball beneath it moving at 800 MPH while the clouds, birds and bees effortlessly traveled in all 4 cardinal directions with the same amount of grace and pace.
And I'll save you the effort should you care to look up what the "experts" have to say on this point. The answer is "no", it's not the same as pouring a drink up in an airplane. This is yet another false equivalency they cabal uses to hold you in the matrix. Being inside the pressurized cabin of a closed-system is NOT THE SAME as the open-system of earth. In order to make each situation equivalent, you need to go sit on the wing of the plane and try to pour your drink. Simple.
The differences are negligible and are entirely due to the prevailing jet streams that can enable the plane to pick up 100MPH when they gain enough altitude.
If you were on a spinning globe, you should be able to fly from NY to SF (~2000 miles) at 500 MPH average airspeed in about an hour and a half as every hour you're covering 1300 miles (+800 for the rotating globe). It's also worth noting that each leg of the trip uses virtually the same amount of fuel. So there's no difference between flying with the spin or against the spin. That makes zero sense of course. It should take ENORMOUSLY MORE power and fuel to push against the velcro'ed rotating atmosphere. Like exponentially more. And, oh yeah, jet airframes would disintegrate if they had to push against an 800 MPH force as they're only integrity rated to about 600 MPH.
None of it makes any sense if you simply stop and think about it. Just look at some clouds. They aren't moving at 802 MPH (800 MPH is a rough estimate of the average speed for the United States. If you live in Ecuador, make that 1037 MPH, +2 MPH for the cloud. You get the gist. Throw out all you've been taught and look up with the innocence of a child. It will all become abundantly clear to you if you do.
Gravity is, and always will be, an unprovable, unmeasurable THEORY. But it's the "Globe savior" for literally dozens of arguments. Nobody disagrees on the 9.8m/Sec^2 math. We suggest that the "force" making "what goes up must come down" is simply electrostatic attraction. And this is quite MEASURABLE and PROVABLE. The higher you rise above the ground, the more positively polarized the ions are. Such that the ground/water generate a tremendous downward pull with its negatively charged ions. This attraction is perfectly explains observable phenomena and can be measured, unlike gravity.
Now, entering into the speculative realms, it's been hypothesized that if we were in fact living in some sort of a "dome" (the waters above and waters below) than we could actually build a working model using two Gaussian plates, above and below, to explain the ionic polarization and electrostatic attraction perfectly. If there's no upper "lid", we can't explain the observed phenomena. Which leads me to believe the dome theory is likely correct.
There are several videos out there which appear to demonstrate some sort of a "force field" that can't be breached. The most famous is the "Go Fast Rocket" demonstration that some amateurs launched several years ago with a camera on it. It traveled over 73 miles up and then Poof, hit "something" that immediately stopped it in its tracks. The previous record was 72 miles. The owners said it did not run out of fuel. Things that make you go hmmmm, yes?
Anyway if there were a dome, naturally it wouldn't be equal heights form all points. It should be lower in areas like Australia, southern Chile, Argentina, etc. and higher as you approach the north pole (on the flat earth model). I've heard some people suggest the max height is 86 miles but I don't know how that person came to that conclusion so it's just pure speculation at this point.
Anyway, here's the video of the GoFast Rocket.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEIG9NiTTwk
What do you think happened?
Well, I have to say that I am simply baffled.
Most of that list of 20 proofs, I might have a counter to, but then most of those counters I might come up with are also addressed. Ex; treating the large scale engineering projects would consider that they would be roughly at the same level at each individual point, so any adjustments for slope are effectively negated.
I'd want to see more detailed model, then would need things addressed like how precession fits in and similar... I'm not jumping ship, but it's safe to say those last few responses have cored a hole in my brain.