The counter is NOT that the earth is a monopole, just a different configuration than you're expecting when thinking in terms of the globe model. You would need to think more in terms of an electromagnetic field.
No, air bubbles escaping from the craft and bubbling away, like it was filmed in a pool. It's tricky to find the videos because youtube suppresses those videos. Here's one I found (not the greatest sample I would use, but covers the bases and is short): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz5xNxMP5lA
The rest is just repeating again, that navigation is done treating the travel area as flat. Planes do not need to make adjustments for the globe, they set direction and altitude and can set an autopilot to hold that vector and will end up at the destination.
No, that doesn't prove "flatness" but that effect DOES require a second material to achieve that kind of capacitance, which the bible calls firmament.
This one is an hour long, but addresses every point you've made and more. https://odysee.com/@EricDubay:c/TheTop20ProofsEarthisNotaSpinningGlobe:b
I'm just not wanting to keep repeating, and the limits of text form preclude adequate explanation.
Ditto, I tried appealing and they sent the same generic "you broke the rules" email. I've seen the same from many other anons.
I figure it's one of those where he's going to restore prominent accounts first, then start looking through those smaller accounts once the bot issues have been more widely addressed.
Magnetic fields require poles. Unless you want to throw out Maxwell's equations. Which you don't get to do, because you have no basis for doing so, since there is a south magnetic pole and its migration has been tracked. It is a bit displaced from passing through the Earth's center
Of course, but you've been more interested in debunking than in figuring out the counter argument.
NASA fakery.
I could probably find an hour of video examples, people's hands going through objects, items dropped going full g, when it's low g, air bubbles coming out in space walks, stuff like that.
masons pageantry
Like the pageantry for the public to justify the 50 million per day for their continued existence.
Your remark about gas laws doesn't connect with anything previously discussed. If I admit a dense gas into a bucket on a centrifuge, at high rpm (multiple g's), it will be dense at the bottom and less dense at the top. (A dense gas, like sulfur hexafluoride, makes the effect easier to demonstrate. An atmospheric gas would be more difficult.) The atmosphere is dense at the bottom and less dense at the top, as you go higher and higher. These happen to be facts.
It connects because a) gases fill their container, b) in gravity the pressure will have a density gradient within that container, and c) 2 pressure systems cannot exist without a barrier between them. On the planetary scale, the atmospheric pressure is greatest at sea level and starts dropping off with altitude. The globe model has that atmosphere next to vacuum, contained by G... which is relativity, the theory that fails in 95% of predictions and does not exist at the quantum level.
You're right, I've made very few positive claims (gas laws and the electrostatic gradient of the earth, both of which are well established and both come with the implications requiring containment). Your primary point rests on appeals to NASA (a closed source, not repeatable and rests on faith of honesty) and on travel which is not a problem on a flat earth model either, look at the UN logo, the north pole at the center.
Navigation: Anyone can go to the south pole. Just go. You don't have to go by airplane.
Wrong. It is illegal because of international treaties to travel below the 60th parallel without special permissions or on guided tours.
You can watch the sun orbit a fixed point in the sky at summertime. Only also happens at the north pole, and you can go there, too.
Also not possible to go within 5 degrees of the true north pole, if attempted a military will stop you.
But you are not paying attention to the distance traveled between points. Great Circle routes are the shortest distance between two points, proven over and over again. Not possible with a flat Earth, and this has been known for 500 years or more.
Yes, that's the story, I'm well aware. Remember, until a few months ago I was making the exact same arguments (add in refraction, light bending in fluids, and other arguments that you haven't yet raised). What kicked that in the teeth was a set of emergency landings where, on the globe map meant a greater diversion than completing the flight, but on the flat map was near a straight line... there are dozens of examples.
Newtonian gravity explains nearly everything we observe in our own solar system. What happens farther away is conjecture. In any case, it is quite adequate to explain the near-Earth environment. Neither you nor anyone know anything about "dark matter" and "dark energy," even whether they exist or not (they are conjectures), so I don't have to accept them at all. Buoyancy depends on gravity---which means you don't understand it. Density means very little; mass means everything. A pound of fluff and a pound of lead have different densities, but the same gravitational attraction (a pound of force). You are just blathering. The fact is that Earth has a spherical gravity field, as we know from plenty of experience (especially orbital mechanics) and measurement.
Newtonian gravity is describing the effect and makes no attempt to determine a cause.
Relativity was used to explain gravity at the interstellar scale, it has failed to produce accurate predictions 95% of the time. So, to "fix" the theory that should have been reconsidered or scrapped altogether, they created the concepts of dark matter and dark energy, so, you're correct that they are conjectures. EVERY CLAIM involving space DEPENDS ON relativity as a cause for the motions.
The earths magnetic field works just as well with a north pole surrounded by a southern pole, and produces fewer artifacts when viewed as the UN logo, especially when focused on the antarctic region.
You don't know that NASA is not a trustworthy source when it comes to space information. Bigotry against Germans and Masons is not an argument. (I am a quarter German and I have observed casual bigotry against Germans most of my life. But without them, Americans would not have reached the Moon, so your slur is really quite ungrateful.)
I know they are an untrustworthy source because of how much fake shit they put out as fact. ISS where the astronauts are clearly in a green screen (or chromakey) wearing harnesses. I was also talking specifically about the nazis traded during operation paperclip. Von Braun, THE expert in rocketry decided to have a biblical reference explicitly referencing Psalm 19:1 "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." Also, every single astronaut that went to the moon was a high level mason.
Why that's important is that the masonic view of the earth IS the flat earth model.
Gravity compresses the atmosphere the same way it compresses the ocean waters, or the rocks of the Earth. Or holds you to the ground. You have no way of saying it doesn't or that it is "too weak." You can't produce a calculation to save your life.
I keep raising electrostatics as a better explanation because electrostatics are 10^19 stronger than gravity even claims to be, and gravity on the experiential level is simply downward acceleration and at the quantum level DOES NOT EXIST.
As for gas laws, it's not a calculation required, it's the concept. If you have a high pressure tank and pop it open, the overall pressure will equalize. If you put a low pressure tank in atmosphere and open it the air will fill the tank. The law, which you haven't attempted to rebut, absolutely precludes "pockets" of gas density surrounded by ~0 density, where a tank of propane will be more dense at the bottom and have a minimum density at the top.
So far, I doubt that you know anything. You don't know enough to avoid making foolish and ignorant statements. You think this is insulting, but that only shows your arrogance. If you took these injunctions to heart, you would be embarrassed and ashamed.
It's not that I'm taking the insults to heart, if I was I would just avoid the discussion, rather, I'm pointing out that the reaction to go for insults is a statement on its own. Keep in mind, I've allowed you to make the points to defend the globe model, I've barely raised any of the issues that suggest otherwise, mainly because you're not willing to acknowledge an alternative.
Keep in mind, I've allowed myself to remain on the defensive position, I've not really raised any of the issues that are created with the globe model.
You really like to lay the insults on thick, I remember doing the exact same thing when anyone wanted to discuss the topic, that was until I was challenged to actually hear out the arguments and saw each point I would have made fall apart with clear demonstrations that are repeatable.
Your main argument rests on travel and circumnavigation, because of perspective a person that went on the trip would have no perceptible difference to say that they had travelled a lap around a globe or a circular path around a circular plane. The reason why east-west / west-east travel makes no difference for a globe or planar earth is because the compass points north, so you can travel east and adjust latitude to avoid objects and will eventually circumnavigate. North-South circumnavigation would present a problem on a plane because when you crossed the south pole, say in the atlantic ocean, you should cross the other side on the pacific (approximately), but the singular route that was by a Rothschild, he went to the North Pole, traveled to the south pole and returned the way he came (Not circumnavigated). That's no longer an option as there are treaties that make it illegal to travel below the 60th parallel, except for through special permissions and can only go where guided.
Which version of gravity are you using? Newtonian gravity (g) is just the downward acceleration of objects, or gravity in relativity (G) that tries to explain that mass bends space-time, but the theory failed to explain 95% of the observed motion in the universe. So, in order for you to accept relativity you MUST accept dark matter and dark energy, it is a requirement for the globe model as you are defending it. You do correctly note that these are simply conjectures in order to sustain the theory, saying that there's mass and energy that cannot be observed that are modifying things so that it fills the gaps in relativity theory. There is no gravity at the quantum scale, at that scale it's electrostatics only. Interestingly, density, buoyancy and electrostatics completely explains the effect of gravity.
You misunderstood my point about venting, the fuel tank of the rocket is a pressure vessel with the opening at the bottom that is ignited. The thermal expansion from liquid to gas is more than sufficient to sustain the ignition, and would be served better with a regulator (like you'll have on a propane tank) instead of a gas to increase the pressure output of the hydrogen. All this falls into appeals to NASA, which was started through operation paperclip and is full to the brim with masons. They are not a trustworthy source.
Gravity is too weak to produce that effect, a better answer would be the electrostatic gradient of 100V/m all the way up to the ionosphere, the problem goes back to a container because that kind of capacitance is only possible if there's a secondary material with the gap to hold the opposite charge.
Is your next argument going to be that I need to "trust the science"? Because I know a thing or two about physics that I learned in engineering.
I remember that level of antagonism, what you are feeling is called "cognitive dissonance". You've been trained, as I was, the position on the globe, that the globe travels around the sun, etc. Yes, 90 - 23.4 = 66.6 degrees from the equator, like I mentioned, and wiki rounds to 66000 mph (or 67000), but the number is 66600 mph in text books. The globe and solar centric model is exactly that, it is a model of reality, not necessarily reality.
Now, you've raised a few significant points, circumnavigation, propulsion, fisheye lenses and green screen. (Even though you completely ignored what was raised, I'll address even repeating if required)
Circumnavigation, east-west is absolutely possible regardless if the earth was flat or a sphere. The distinction is that one means travelling an ellipse vs travelling in a circle, though the only circumnavigation route possible is south of America and the tip of Africa, the route Magellan took was nowhere near an "ideal" route.
What is the force of gravity? Your initial response will be 9.8 m/s^2, BUT, the earth is rotating at 1100 mph which means that it needs to be 9.8 + the centrifugal force but varies on latitude. Further, relativity and discussions of gravity as a force ONLY accommodates about 5% of universal motion measurements, meaning that the relativity required for the globe model is at best inadequate or inaccurate, which is why there was the need to create "dark matter' (matter that does not interact with the rest of the universe) and "dark energy" (energy that does not interact with the EM spectrum).
Finally, with the "added pressure" of helium for propulsion, a gas form of a liquid is many times more than the liquid, so when the hydrogen becomes a gas, if there's anything needed would be to LIMIT the volume of gases being burned rather than adding pressure to the container (except maybe the last 5-10%).
Which also raises a different point, space is a vacuum, right? Gas laws are that two pressure systems will equalize without a container, so, the earth has an atmospheric pressure adjacent to an infinite vacuum. That is a physical impossibility without a container (and no, gravity does not suffice as it is a force that is 10^-40 smaller than required)
I'll share the story again here because it seems to apply.
About 20 years ago I had an incident where I fell into a coma for 3 days, I was told after that it was "encephalitis", though by no metric did I "die" I did have an NDE during that time (which at the time I also would not have accepted).
While I was in the coma, I had an interaction with what I can only describe as a guardian angel (at the time I assumed it was a nurse, but when I woke up and started walking around before release, I was asking around for the nurse that would look like my vision, and each nurse told me that there was nobody with that appearance).
Anyway, I don't remember much of the conversation, but do remember that it was more, the part that stuck with me was when the angel told me "Do not worry, everything always works out exactly the way it is meant to."
Catch up to modern times? I put out much harsher insults whenever I came across people pushing a flat earth model above and beyond that. It wasn't until being challenged to actually hear out the arguments before drawing conclusions that I actually realized just how tenuous the globe model is in actuality.
The globe model comes with a series of positive claims; the earth spins on it's north-south axis 23.4 degrees from the north pole (66.6 degrees north from the equator) and rotates around the sun at 66 600 miles per hour, the sun itself rotating around the milky way at 23.4 degrees above the galactic plane (66.6 from that planes tangent).
East-West circumnavigation is absolutely possible in either model, I actually went back further as proof to Eratosthenes, who used the sticks and their shadows to calculate out the distance of the sun... even with no concept of refraction, those numbers are still treated as approximately accurate. The "flat earth" map is best illustrated as the UN logo, with the north pole in the center and the south pole as the circumference.
NASA needs to justify the 50 million dollars per day they spend, that pressurizer shouldn't be needed when the rocket fuel is liquid hydrogen that will evaporate at -250C and expand drastically from its liquid form. If you're talking about the ISS, you're incorrect, they all use fisheye lenses (as well as plenty of greenscreen / chromakey compositing), hell, even NASA admits that the "blue marble" photos are all composites.
In the flat earth model, there is a dome (firmament).
NASA is also the biggest consumer of helium, so, either not at all or something quite different from what we are told... also, 99% of communications are through underground cables.
Orbit following a curved path, are you talking visible curves or curves from the projection onto the map? The second is a result of fisheye lensing, shift the angle and you could make it look like we live on the inside of a sphere.
The topic is heavily restricted on YouTube, searching the topic leads people to "flat earth society" (glowfag group) and a small group of anti-flat earth people. When you find the real discussion of the topic and examine the arguments, there's a lot more merits to the topic than people realize.
That said, because this is a topic that is useful to smear, not relevant to Q, and other reasons, it's best kept to conspiracies.win. You'll find that there's some high level discussion and without doing some research will be quickly stuck appealing to NASA or calling them idiots.
Short answer, yes, that seems plausible.
That's where I struggle to believe that human minds could make plans that far out and accurately enough to where they could have Q posts where people are finding 'proofs' 5 years out now. (Unless they happened to encode the drops such that they are leveraging the gambler's fallacy, where people tend to focus on the hits, and the misses get ignored) That kind of plan would need to have branches for various contingencies, counter-moves, delays, etc. where the further out things get the less likely that things would remain relevant to anyone who is given aspects of that plan.
This is why thinking through what would be needed, looking glass tech or actual time travel becomes the most likely tools that could meet the needs of making a plan AND maintaining a level of certainty in outcomes to be able to lay it out for people outside the plan and to show "future proving the past drops" 5 years out now.
Yes. Just because diamonds are found only in a handful of regions, but where they are they are plentiful.
DeBeers is the one that has gathered most of them and keeps them locked away in a mountainside vault, they are the source of that scarcity.
Fair question. Absent some super-intelligent general AI housed on some super quantum computer that's far beyond what's publicly known.
The reason has to do with what and how AI learns and the limits on what can be learned. At its simplest level, an AI is a map of neurons. Each neuron accepts inputs multiplied by a weight (the weight represents what is learned and gets adjusted during training) and the outputs are a result of an activation function (a non-linear equation to determine how much that neuron is activated). The more complex the map, the more intricate things it can learn.
Then there are the limitations; a few years back there was an image recognition AI that those involved wanted to test to figure out what it was actually learning, so they chose to check how it would distinguish between a wolf and a german shepherd. The result was that wolves were called wolves when there was snow in the background and a german shepherd if there was grass... IOW, the distinction was nothing relating to the animal itself.
To close the circle, an AI could be used to craft posts in ways to obfuscate the original author, but absent it being a general intelligence that also understood human nature, cause-effect relationships in the political sphere, a grasp of how optics of events get filtered by people in different spheres while providing double meanings and presenting some as proofs of validation that continue on several years out. It's a challenge that is orders of magnitude more complex than any currently known AI system. Literally, the time travel theories are more probable than anything that could be extracted from all intelligence sources fed into it in live time.
Umm... that is THE only correct answer.
If he's alive, he would be in some form of protective custody and/or a new name. So, the answer is "no" to keep anyone from trying to find them.
If not, then it's a truthful answer.
No problem, that's about as simple as I can explain without needing what might be a chapter of a book. I also like explaining the topic from the perspective of a modestly informed amateur (my home computer could really only replicate experiments that are now 30+ years old)
The previous approach was more complicated, but is what's still used on phones for autocorrect, where the AI "Learns" the token (word) and words that are generally connected with that word ("is a" would be an example of commonly connected) and then a "forget" zone because you generally want to write something like "a tent is a tent", so, it was inferred context mainly because you don't generally repeat.
Yes, GPT is an AI. I forget the GP part, the T means "transformer" which is how that AI learns to understand the context of text.
Dog bites man vs Man bites dog. Token wise are identical, add key and value pairs to the text read and it might be 1, 2, 3 vs 3, 2, 1 which would be distinct sequences that could have different learned meanings.
No.
It's possible that they used a GPT AI (which was far less advanced when Q posts started) COULD relate to crafting messages in a way that avoids detection. However, there's no possibility that Q posts were made with an AI independently while maintaining the deltas, proofs, etc. that stretch out into 5 years from original posts.
Yes, except you can't have a molten magnet (the globe model), you CAN have a disk magnet where the interior is north and the outer rim is south. Generates the same magnetic Flux.
Like I said about the spacewalk, not the best example, but there are numerous examples, the best videos get buried by the algorithms. Once you spot the bubble you see it rise like a bubble floating to the surface of a pool. (They happen to train for spacewalks in a pool)
You can't have watched past the first or second points, which comes off a little cringey. The 8 inches square per mile distance is accurate up to about 3000 miles distance, meanwhile there are photos showing mountains hundreds of miles away that should be hidden completely by the geometric horizon, covers refraction, and more.
The fact is that there isn't any 1-2 pieces of evidence that can Wipeout decades of indoctrination.
The Bible describes the firmament as what was created to separate the "waters above from the waters below", and always references the "face" of the Earth. Once again, Von Braun chose a specific verse that referenced the firmament to be added on his tombstone.