- for name lol
I don't know about the last bit, if they're truly a civilization advanced enough to reach the stars and so on, I wonder what that implies for their social structures. I'd be inclined to believe that they'd need to have learned some pretty hard lessons about cooperation and morality. The more I see the more I'm convinced that only a post "awakening" society would be capable of advancing that far instead of stagnating and degrading.
Then again, they might just be so different from us that these comparisons don't even remotely hit close.
Either way, if they are morally and philosophically advanced, I don't think they'd glean entertainment out of watching humanity suffer. Maybe encouragement when watching us overcome, but sadism doesn't really fit well in my eyes.
Big chunk totally automated by the looks, all these profiles without profile pictures and really mundane names. Many with grammar and punctuation too impeccable for real people.
"None of my friends and family members have had any serious reactions.the only one we felt was local pain, slight fever and chills that lasted 24 hours", "The dude says a lot of the business may not recover, the dead won’t recover either!", "We all knew at some point during the interview, political views would surface.", "I wish interviews with people who have had a Covid-19 shot with minimal side effects would be given equal airtime."
Some errors but for the most part it's far too consistent to be real people.
Can do all sorts of experiments with the sticks. Hell, if you can't find someone else that's done it, it's not too hard of an experiment if you're careful. Maybe you could be the first!
Source wise it traces back to this document: https://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USN-GUNS-AND-RANGE-TABLES/OP-770-1.html which admittedly could be faked, but I don't know if you could really get that much in a way of a direct military source for range tables for antique weapons systems.
GPS and other satellite systems are far too dynamic to be balloons. Signals drop in and out, some are stationary (geostationary orbit), some are high speed movement. Many of these systems rely on triangulation; that is to say measuring distances (likely often by measuring transmission delay) and using some fairly straightforward geometry to determine position on the ground. If you were to dig around enough and find the programs or some data from one of those calculations, you could see that the distances reported are properly aligned with round earth.
And that's without considering the satellites you can observe moving at high speeds in the night sky; too high of speeds for balloons.
That part of the map you've picked out is rightfully a pretty circular sentiment, but my original point of the differences in projections and so on stands regardless of that.
I'd need more context on the sailor thing. What time in history? Any time before satellite mapping will have some pretty big inaccuracies just because ground mapping is not easy and navigation wouldn't be as high accuracy or quality either [as in, getting "coordinate" positions or the likes].
The bridge compensation is still a pretty significant amount in engineering and construction. Just because it has the capacity to flex doesn't mean that the position when it comes to "true" isn't important. Hell, if that compensation weren't needed and the earth were flat, the natural resting position should be flexed towards equal distance at top and bottom, but it isn't.
For the final point, you'll need to provide more direct context. where can an image be seen, at what distance, of what. There are a lot of factors that come into play with stuff like that, just saying an ethereal "people can see an image 25 miles away without distortion and clear" isn't exactly a scientific argument. If it were, so would "Humans can see their toe when their foot is behind their head"; it's an unapproachable statement that can't be scientifically explained when left so detail-less and nebulous.
I'm an engineer from a family full of hardcore engineers. Our work and entertainment is heavily entangled with the sciences and so on. Without disclosing too much personal information, I'm involved in software moreso, but the extended family I speak of is pretty close. Altogether, my family has worked on damn near every sort of engineering across all kinds of projects; construction, aircraft (aeronautics) [civilian and military], automotive, circuit boards/electronics, lighting, electric wiring, communications, and I'm sure plenty of more they've been less able to disclose.
One thing that unites just about all of this work is physics. None of this engineering would be possible without a pretty deep understanding of the laws of physics as they are widely understood; kinaesthetics, thermodynamics, electrics, aeronautics, etc. are all crucial in these fields. For example, without a detailed understanding of the behavior of electricity, no complex circuits could be designed. Without thermodynamics, machinery or constructions would overheat, crack, combust, etc. because they would improperly or inefficiently handle temperature changes. Without understandings of rotational properties (kinaesthetics), engines would destroy themselves and not function properly. Without aeronautics, aircraft wings wouldn't generate the right lift, propellers wouldn't propel, and so on. These are just small examples of where an accurate understanding of physics is necessary.
Now, these same laws of physics are the ones which dictate the necessity of round earth. But that isn't all of it.
Many of these relatives have done jobs that specifically pertain to round earth. One of my older relatives (sadly no longer with us) worked on (military) aircraft as far back as the Korean war. Others have worked on more recent aircraft. This would have involved a lot of things, including/especially the navigational systems, which would be different between flat or round earth.
Some have worked in navigational systems outside of that. Again, the details of such navigational systems depend greatly on whether or not the earth is a spheroid.
I'm sure there have been other projects. Given some of the companies they've worked for, I'm especially inclined to believe that.
None of these individuals are by any means left wing or satanic or anything but hard working God loving Americans that want to keep it great (or make it great again). They all find the concept of flat earth rather preposterous, because of just how much would have to be different or changed or non-functional for the earth to be flat. Very little of what we do, know, work on, enjoy as hobbies, etc. would work the way it does if the earth were actually flat.
Many are space enthusiasts, on top of that all; far more than your casual "huh let me watch rocket go vroom" folks, people that might even go so far as to run the moon landing calculations purely for fun. The entirety of flat earth theory runs so diametrically in opposition to everything known about space travel, orbital mechanics, and, by extension, physics, that there would be glaring errors across all of it, from the math and concepts of the space travel to the functioning of a propeller.
To many of us, "round earth" is just as much an obvious and regularly encountered fact as the sky looking blue or the fingers on our hands.
Is it possible the earth is flat? Anything is possible. The mountain of proof that would need to be provided, the volume of counter-explanations for each difference or discrepancy in physics and so on, all of that, would be astronomical. I've never seen any such explanations or justifications, only highly surface level or circumstantial flawed arguments. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. I've seen those proofs for many things, especially Q stuff (or the "awakening" as you call it). I've never seen those kinds of proofs to totally dismantle and replace general physics or globular earth.
Damn being so patronizing must be hard for you.
I live, breath, and work in a world that requires round earth to function. If earth were not round nothing I do would work.
I'll try one on you: the sky never actually looks blue. It always looks dark green. Oh, you don't believe me? Satanic Hollywood always portrays it as blue, and you believe that? Must be hard learning the truth.
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:
- 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?
- Proof
- Proof (just a statement of bs to back up the bs? "This is wrong because it's wrong" nonsense?)
- what. Prove it, again
- Sources, because it's almost certainly not the "balloon" in the way you think it is
- "use your imagination" to explain flat earth tides? Excuse me? Alright I'll make up some random bullshit and make it true, too.
- If you knew aviation you'd know that what you're saying is an argument that doesn't follow. Maps operate on a small enough scale that a normal spherical to flat projection typically works, except when you get to more extreme north and southward directions. On the larger scale, routes do not fit well on a flat earth map (which projection do you even mean, there's a lot of different flat maps out there) because they curve along the projected flat map instead of being a straight line, typically. Again, that all depends on what kind of map projection you're looking at.
I laugh at this because I've worked in fields and around people that worked in said fields in which round earth is an absolute and designs would fail if it were not.
I have a very open mind; I'm open to hearing arguments, and when I know they are false I'm open to refuting them when they are incorrect.
Do you know how many astronomers, astrophysicists, physicists, engineers, pilots, and more can say with absolute certitude from personal experience that the earth is indeed round? If all of them have enough circumstantial evidence to you that they belong in Satan cults, YOU have enough circumstantial evidence to belong to a Satan cult.
Even fucking Q said that "No.", the earth is not flat. Q post 2622.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
^ This, if this were the data off of some raid like proposed, the REAL data would likely be even more in Trump's favor because of non-digital fraud.
Also, people suggesting the forensic audits will get the true results are missing/forgetting that many many Trump votes were disposed of. Shredded, "lost in the mail", etc.; we'll NEVER get those all back, or probably even most of them. So while we may toss the bunk Biden ones, or swap the ones counted for Biden that are actually Trump votes, we'll never know the real results.
That's what people said about Cruz before he did some more cuckish things.
Just because they learned a technique from defeats and observing, doesn't mean they're aligned with Trump at all. Not saying you're suggesting that, but just making that clear.
Cancer isn't like any other disease. It's not something that was made out of thin air, its a biological phenomenon that can occur in a host of locations in the body from a number of triggers.
Cancer occurs when the genetic lines of a cell that dictate the rate of reproduction is damaged. Instead of reproducing at a normal rate, the cancer cell reproduces continuously; instead of naturally replacing cells as they die, it creates a mass of cells, each of which reproduces at a heightened rate. That is a cancerous tumor.
Caught early, cancer tumors can be removed and life can return to normal. Too late, and the cancer cells get spread throughout the body in the blood, where they take root and form other tumors. Depending on the location of those tumors, surgical removal may be effectively impossible.
That leaves radiation treatment (chemotherapy). I'm not terribly familiar with the specifics, but it basically involves blasting the body with radiation and somehow focusing the tumor with the greatest radiation blast. It needs to kill cells to be effective; that's why people get so deathly ill from chemotherapy (and often die from that rather than the cancer). You're literally frying your body in the hopes of frying the tumor enough to exterminate it.
It is a horrible procedure, but one that is sometimes effective; this is why cancer cases that are already almost certainly terminal are typically not given chemotherapy (why make someone sicker than they have to be before they die, if they are going to die anyway for sure.). It is not an evil treatment, but an alternative would be immensely good.
So what causes cellular mutations? That isn't all totally nailed down, but it typically involves either ingesting something the body does not handle well or being exposed to unhealthy levels of certain radiation.
In this sense, it would be completely accurate to say that people are exposed to astronomically more carcinogens (cancer causing agents) than just about ever in history, by an order of magnitudes. Synthetic materials everywhere, plastics, chemicals that degrade, toxic fumes, insulation (asbestos), all of it; it's all around us and has a huge variety of pathways to ingestion.
I think a lot of this can be traced to greed; continuous interruption of testing, etc., all in the name of cheap materials and mass production without regard for the human consequences. Perhaps there is a more sinister motive behind some of it, but I honestly don't see the need for there to be one.
There are other factors in the development of cancer. While it's not definitive, many believe general bodily health, stress levels, and similar things can be important factors in the body's defense against cancer. In a society with huge numbers of people morbidly obese and unhealthy, you may very well have another vector of cancer occurrences.
In short, I don't really believe it's possible for cancer to be "manufactured" by the cabal. Cancer is a bodily process, like, per say, cardiac arrest, not as much a "disease" in the sense of like, a viral or bacterial infection.
The generic-ness of cancer is also why there isn't really such a thing as a "cure for cancer"; the question is more of which cancer.
Sources: I've had several family members have long and intensive battles with cancer. I watched them fight like hell and live years beyond the estimates of the doctors. I watched them try all sorts of procedures in hopes for a cure; some of them rather novel and ingenious, some, like chemo, the equivalent of "beating the sickness out of someone". God knows one of Trump's greatest decisions in his time as president was "the right to try" for medicine. If someone is on deaths doorstep, they deserve the right to try procedures otherwise unapproved.
If the cabal has been suppressing treatments and cures like it seems they have, they've got some serious hell to pay (as if they didn't already).
Honestly if that's as far as they got I'll take it.
I've always said that you don't need to like a politician or the president; he doesn't need to be your friend or anything. He's not really there to be a figure to worship or even necessarily be a moral paradigm. He just has to do the job the right way and well. It deflates the whole "Trump is a racist thing" in potency without even caring about it; so what if he is, if his policy is good?
That said Trump is the best!
^ Fair catch, I, too, believe climate change happens. In fact, if the earth isn't either warming or cooling at any one point, I'd be enormously alarmed.
To be fair, though, I am trying to quite their arguments; part of the illogical nature of those arguments is that they conflate an issue with a very specific agenda/narrative. To them, "climate change" can ONLY mean one thing. Denial of that one thing is "denial of climate change" as a whole; just like being against the covid vaccinations (or now forced vaccinations) is being "anti-vax", despite that many people that are against the covid vaccinations are for other vaccines.
Either way, I will edit it to reflect this!
^ This.
DS consistently utilize this tactic for damage control. Just like with Cuomo - they talked about how he was a predator but never mentioned killing the elderly; or Gates - sex pest, barely any mention of being a pedo or connections to Epstein or the far more sinister things he's done.
That said, it's still a win. We keep pushing the narrative back; eventually they'll be forced to admit it was intentional, probably.
This is also why I expect them to be "ahead" of the curve on the vaccine danger, now. As the health conditions reach critical mass and become impossible to ignore, they'll slightly preempt it by spotlighting doctors finding out the dangers and making it out to be a total accident instead of anything malicious. They lost their window to get everyone vaccinated before it explodes, so now I expect them to take what they got and run.
Literal logical fallacy (improper appeal to authority), probably among the top three, alongside ad homenim and ad populum.
For those who don't know;
- Ad homenim is personal attacks/attack on a person's character rather than their arguments: "You're racist so you're automatically wrong!".
- Ad populum is basically when someone asserts that the majority must be right: "99% of scientists say Climate Change* is real, so it's real!".
*the Climate Change agenda/narrative, not literal climate change
edit: added star to clarify as per valid concern from MyDaughtersDaddy