1
Qteepie 1 point ago +1 / -0

What I find strange is the people that crawl out to defend him and the others like its their mission (it probably is). All the grifters fit a similar profile, like theres some sort of grifter factory, with an army of defenders.

1
Qteepie 1 point ago +1 / -0

You’re one of the better sports about this whole issue. Most people devolve into name calling by now. Many of the arguments you’ve provided are far better than I’m used to encountering. I don’t actually think the earth is flat, but I don’t know that it’s round anymore either. This is more of an exercise in frivolity for me. Part of the great awakening is coming to the realization that much of what we’ve been “taught” was actually indoctrination into some sort of satanic nightmare.

Do you believe in god? Who is the god of Freemasons? Do Freemasons go to space? Do they go to the moon? Are Freemasons trustworthy? Why does the number 666 appear over and over again when looking at the heliocentric model measurements? Just a coincidence? Why did the results of the rectilineator experiment suggest earth is concave?

2
Qteepie 2 points ago +3 / -1

These guys don’t drop red pills lol they regurgitate anon research and pontificate their own prognostications. Nothing they say ever comes true. And precisely 0 of it is from inside sources. Do they spread the message effectively? In this past yeah but Q is about thinking for yourself. Ditch the gatekeepers, especially those ripping people off.

1
Qteepie 1 point ago +1 / -0

Idk about you but after reading this post I signed up for not one but TWO of his classes. Who doesn’t wanna learn how to talk to spirits and raise the dead? I l’ve also retained Martin Geddes as my consultant for the great awakening. Couldn’t have made a better choice lol.

1
Qteepie 1 point ago +1 / -0

No buddy, I didnt ask for an example proving the earth spherical. I asked you to demonstrate curvature. I ask this because I know it cant be done and its fun watching people try to explain it. What you did was start with the assumption that it is a sphere, and then used that as a basis to explain why it is you see lights in the sky in a different manner based on your position. None of that proves curvature. You chose this "example" because you are unable to directly physically demonstrate curvature.

The horizon always rises to eye level and is always flat, no matter how high you go. How do you explain the horizon rising to eye level if you are on a ball? No matter the size, on a ball, as you ascend the horizon will drop below center. For some strange reason, that doesnt happen on earth. What youre saying about horizon visibility based on height is incorrect. You need to learn about perspective and convergence. Your sight is not infinite. Ships do not sail over the curve- check the p900 videos of out of sight objects supposedly below the horizon being brought back into full view using powerful magnification.

Night and day have nothing to do with physically proving curvature. Again, you are using lights in the sky to draw conclusions.

Using a theory of a force you cannot detect also has nothing to do with curvature. Lets focus on curvature for now. I am willing to debate these other issues with you separately.

Show me the experiment that measures the curvature lol. Show me the photo that shows curvature (without using NASA or gov space agencies of course lol).

Thats a nice formula you've got there, but youre engaging in pilpul. The 8" per mile squared formula is just fine for approximating the curvature dip on distances up to several hundred miles. Only when you get past a certain point does it produce erroneous mathematical results.

1
Qteepie 1 point ago +1 / -0

so flashing lights in the sky are your physical proof of curvature of earth? thats very puzzling to me. couldn't we just measure the curve? do you understand spherical geometry? can you provide me with the formula for determining the curvature rate of a 25k mile circumference sphere?

1
Qteepie 1 point ago +1 / -0

Even when accounting for atmospheric refraction, are there any long distance objects visible that shouldn’t be? Can refraction be used to explain away all of these objects?

0
Qteepie 0 points ago +1 / -1

Can you map Antarctica? Can you go to Antarctica? Can you map a place you’re not allowed to go to? Have you ever personally mapped anything? Do you trust the maps you’ve been given? Can you navigate using a flat map? Is circumnavigation only possible on a globe or is there another possible model? How are maps and circumnavigation “proof” of spherical earth? Isn’t there some sort of physical evidence you can provide? Why not?

4
Qteepie 4 points ago +4 / -0

its doesn't really make a difference though. If you are valuable enough of a target that they will remote activate your mic for surveillance, if that doesnt work they will just use another more traditional method to surveil you. The truth is we are already in the surveillance state and its never going away. The choice we have is whether they control the laws surrounding it or we control the laws. Internet Bill Of Rights?

-2
Qteepie -2 points ago +1 / -3

“Which if you look how they figured this stuff out in the first place there multiple easy ways to prove it.” Alright then, so easily do it for me? This guy said the moon was proof the earth is a globe. Can you do a bit better than that?

0
Qteepie 0 points ago +3 / -3

The math is still correct for distances up to a limit. The formula begins to lose accuracy after very long distances. For the purposes of demonstrating the curve, or for figuring out whether an object should be behind the horizon, this formula is adequate.

3
Qteepie 3 points ago +5 / -2

That’s a retarded argument. “Something else is a sphere, so this must be a sphere too.” Why do you need to use lights in the sky as evidence that you’re on a sphere? Wouldn’t there be some better evidence like the physical curve? I’m not a flat earther. You’re a ball earther, even though you have no physical proof. A belief taught to you by free masons.

-5
Qteepie -5 points ago +3 / -8

Nothing you said is relevant to my question. I don’t care about the CIA, or the term conspiracy theorist, or the shape and parallax of the moon. I also don’t care what the shape of objects in the sky are. You believe that the earth is a ball with 25k mile circumference. That means there will be curvature of 8” per mile squared. I ask again, are you able to demonstrate this curvature to me without using NASA as a source?

15
Qteepie 15 points ago +20 / -5

Most people here aren’t ready for this one yet. I have a hunch the Space Force we are being shown publicly which was wrestled out from the grip of the Air Force is a distraction & not the real space force. Revelations to be made.

-1
Qteepie -1 points ago +2 / -3

“Trust the science” from a supposed Qanon moderator. Kek. If the data was irrefutable, there’d be no flat earthers. You obviously can’t tell when you’re being lied to. What was Einstein’s response to Michelson Morley experiment? Oy vey it’s all relative!

-1
Qteepie -1 points ago +2 / -3

I don’t believe in a flat earth. You believe in a round earth, although you haven’t any proof. I used to believe that too. Now I recognize that satanic Jews run the world and using free masonry have given us a cosmological model that is likely as fake as everything else they give us (money, media, politics, etc). If something cannot be demonstrated, then it is believed in with faith. Saying we are too small to determine the physical state of our existence isn’t really an argument in favor of anything. Go ahead & demonstrate the curvature you claim is there. Go ahead and demonstrate the movements you claim are there. You can’t. Nobody can, and it has to be explained using theory. “Oh its because it’s relative to the size or relative to the speed.” Except NASA of course. They can show you pictures of the roundness. But none of those are real, and it’s easy to prove that. So it’s your choice whether to believe a bunch of Freemasons or not. Makes little difference to me. Perhaps Lord Stephen Christ was right about it being concave. Who knows. What I know is we aren’t given the truth, that’s for sure.

0
Qteepie 0 points ago +2 / -2

My original request was for you to demonstrate the earth to be globular without citing space agencies. I am trying to help you realize that what you accept as evidence is clearly not. Eratosthenes did not prove the earth to be round lol. The earth can be flat with a local moving sun and produce the same results. Demonstrating the earth to be a spinning globe moving through space is no easy task, and I doubt you can do it. You start with the assumption that it is such and then find evidence to support the assumption. The funny part is, your direct observation of reality would indicate to you the earth is flat and motionless. People choose to defy their own senses to support a model of reality bestowed upon them by a very questionable authority.

1
Qteepie 1 point ago +2 / -1

terrific im glad you brought this up. I pose a question:

Is it possible for this experiment to produce these results only in the heliocentric model? is there perhaps another cosmological model that works? Does this possibility invalidate the so called proof?

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›