/vx/ - Videogames and Paranormal

Whoops, that was talking about >>164129

The Flat Earth Psyop?

Flat Eartherism is still a homosexual psyop designed to associate valuable theories with pseudoscientific "You can't convince me the earth isn't a flat plane" junk.

What value is there in pretending everyone's telescope is an optical illusion device, stars aren't real, the world's a flat plane surrounded by ice, and meteors are chemtrails?

There is evidence that GamerGate is right about the feminist infection in video games journalism, and journalism in general.

I know this is an old example, and the rot goes much deeper than feminism and video games. Feminist rot in games journalism is just a symptom of judaist rot in the media, the banks, academia, and more.

Why are the flat earthers even here, specifically? They can peddle their bullshit anywhere. They can talk about it on Twitter or Facebook. They don't get censored. No government monitors or shuts down their retarded Las Vegas conventions for people who think aliens abducted them. They aren't a threat to the Jewish globalists.

There are valuable political topics to be discussed here. Talking in circles with a flat earth believer is like talking in circles with a "Aliens are real and they probed my favourite celebrity's anus" believer. Ancient Aliens lied to you, there is no Easter Bunny and the superheroes you unironically pay to see in jewish cinemas while drinking corn syrup and AIDS-infused nigger semen were not inspired by half-alien half-Greek demiods who actually existed.

>>164347
>Why are the flat earthers even here, specifically?
Dude, it is just an enclosed plane. No reason to get upset.

>>164349
It's easy to assume a position is the default truth and then pretend any disagreement, scrutiny, or doubt is "Making a claim that must be proven to my satisfaction", but what proof would satisfy a flat-earther?
>>164350
Any feelings you think I have are irrelevant to the question at hand. Why would flat earthers come HERE specifically, when they are permitted on facebook but anti-vax posts aren't?

>>164351
>Why would flat earthers come HERE specifically
Say it with more precision: this is a containment bread that is not spilling to other boards, so, chillax fren.

>>164036
Have some moar.

>>164354
Its a sphereoid retard, the radius varies. For example, the radius is greatest at the equator, and smallest at the north or south pole. Which is why you cant use a simplified equation to determine the distance to the visible horizon, you have to account for their specific location when calculating the distance to the visible horizon.
But rather than grasp why you (and the videographer) embarrassed yourself last time, you both decided to embarrass yourselves a second time. Thank you for that

>pic related
Oof, that too is embarassing

>>164346
>the glove is mental insurance that there is no creator
Where does this idea even come from? How is that supposed to stop people from believing in God?

>>164095
>>164097
>>164098
Still no answer to these?

Heliocentric theory vs Theocentricism.

This is what flatties consider a 'rebuttal'.
>>164369
Get used to it, and welcome to the flat earth thread; where OP will disregard/ignore every point that refutes his premise, fuck off for days/weeks, and then reappear with FB-tier memes and videos, posturing that his lack of scientific comprehension is proof of a flat earth.

>>164379
What is theocentrism?

>>164385
Let me reiterate. What is theocentrism supposed to mean in this context?
No part of the definition is necessarily opposed to heliocentrism, or in any way equivalent to geocentrism.

>>164386
I think the difference is Anon's theories versus Celestia's creation.
Anon can speculate all day long, but Celestia's truth remains.

>>164387
Based and Celestiapilled.

>>164379
Look, even Twilight is arguing that the world is round

>>164389
Equestria might be round, perhaps surrounded by the Forever Ice Ring, but the fact is that Equestria is fixed and unmovable while the sun and the moon make turns around it.

>>164390
too easy
Since you're here, I trust you're gonna get on that backlog of reasons the earth is sphereoid? You know, in between trying to use a girls cartoon to try and validate your laughably ignorant stance?

>>164391
>I trust you're gonna get on that backlog of reasons the earth is sphereoid?
>projection
The backlog is a deluge of proofs that Earth is a plane.

>>164386
Can I get an actual answer to this one?
I keep hearing this idea that the earth bring round is supposed to make people less religious or something, but when I ask how I never get an answer.

>>164394
His position is that there are vague and/or loosely interpreted statements in the bible that to a flat earther is 'proof' of a flat earth, which is then asserted to be God's design, which then infers that to see the world as NOT flat goes against God.

>>164395
>His position is that there are vague and/or loosely interpreted statements in the bible that to a flat earther is 'proof' of a flat earth,
That is not true. This bread is totally filled with non biblical proof.

>>164395
Preferably from the person with that position.

>>164397
Good luck getting an intellectually honest answer

>>164398
Sure, I don't really need to be reminded. Hearing it from someone else isn't helpful though.

>>164399
More helpful than anything you're likely to get from OP
Im giving him the cance to - for once ITT - prove me wrong

>>164400
>More helpful
Not really...

>>164400
>Im giving him the cance to - for once ITT - prove me wrong
After more than a thousand posts proving that Earth is a plane and still can't connect the dots.

>>164402
Can you answer my questions?
>>164369
>>164394

>>164403
I warned you,....

>>164404
Yes?

https://youtu.be/Rx2G6jyxMKo
Its friday again!

>>164408
>Its friday again!
YAY!
Let me drop some redpills before I leave.

>1st photo of earth, taken in the 1970s from space, back when computers operated from punch cards and didnt have image rendering capability, let alone editing
But of course, "space isnt real", it is claimed

>>164409
>we don't feel a thing
We don't feel anything because we, our bodies, and the world around is is moving at the same rate.
It's like how you don't feel motion when an airplane is cruising at consistent. You only feel it when it changes course.

>>164411
>world around is is moving at the same rate.
If the orbit of the fictional ball is elliptic then we should totally feel the motion.
See >>150031

>Flat Earth, Common Sense & Beauty Put Together!
https://odysee.com/@EddieAlencar:a/flat-earth,-common-sense-beauty-put:0
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/IdJ5eeKkNclZ/
A compilation of this cunt's redpills

>Flat Earth Society
>controlled opposition
In plain sight.

>>164415
>I can totally feel it when a car accelerates from 50mph to 50.05mph over the course of several hours
Thats effectively what you're claiming in ignorance.

Water boils at different temperatures, the further from sea level one travels.
The globe model asserts that this is due to a decreasing atmospheric pressure, the higher one's altitude.
How does a Flat Earth explain this phenomenon?

>>164415
>>164418
>>150031
You feel when a plane or car changes course because your own body has it's own momentum that tries to stay it's own course

The Earth being in an orbit isn't changing any momentum, the momentum is in a non-circular orbit, you have the same momentum as the Earth so you feel nothing

This isn't hard

>>164434
So what you're saying is, claims that one 'would feel a/the change' are spurious and invalid?

>>164456
You'd feel it if it actually changed, like if the earth suddenly veered off it's orbit due to impact with a similarly-sized object.
The earth has been spinning/revolving the same way it has been for millions of years, along with everything on the surface of the earth, so nobody feels it.

>>164459
But but... Owen Benjamin said...

>>150031
>>164415
>why don't we feel it?
This question was answered centuries ago.

>>164354
Take tide elevation into account, the elevation of the boat and camera, and the fact that the earth isn't a perfect sphere.

>>164385
>>164386
So, what is it supposed to mean?

>>164465
Or the fact that the model (perspective aside) depicts a right triangle from which simple pythagorus will show that the model is uselessly imprecise and capable of producing values in the four figure percentage range of error

>>164354
Not hard, you're just fudging numbers

>>164529
>Ex-Flat Earther
Once redpilled there is no turning back.

>>164529
Feels like 2014 youtube. I don't want to go back

>>164530
I don't think he was ever redpilled. It's been almost 10 minutes and he just keeps talking about how people are looneys for not trusting the media

>>164531
The takeaway is that according to the ex flat earth youtuber, flat earth youtubers are not 'true' flat earthers because they (Bob in particular, but with call-outs to DITRH and others) make regular-interval attempts to 'prove' that the earth is flat (and universally fail) whereas a 'true' flat earther wouldnt even entertain the notion, conduct a test, etc because they are too busy 'knowing with absolute conviction' that the 'earth is flat'. This is an important distinction because, in a startling twist of events the 'no true scotsman' fallacy is NOT a fallacy when dealing with flatties.
What this means is, whatever the individual's cause (mental/psychological/developmental/learning/etc disability), there is an absolute refusal/inability to accept or acknowledge ANY evidence excepting what is assumed to support the premise, as has been thoroughly illustrated by/through this thread. Note how OP doesnt indicate specifically how claims "prove" a flat earth, he instead points at the "mountain of evidence"; he doesnt understand the material - even that which purports to indicate a flat earth - sufficient to argue the point and instead relies on his conviction to the idea and assumes that it should be aufficient to bring the viewer to a/the realization 'he had'.
Its authoritarianism 101 when broken down this way, but it is nice to hear it from an "ex flat earther", which doesn't exist according to OP and he's actually right because a "true" flat earther maintains their willful ignorance and would be unwilling to admit to it.
>>164530
Case in point, and thank you for reaffirming the point.

Let's take OP's favorite ideologue - Eric Dubay - to further illustrate this phenomenon. It's only 5.5min (unless you tire of his droning, monotinous, 'totally not neuro-linguistic programming, why would you suggest that?' oration and speed it up).
https://www.bitchute.com/video/mkrgeqFDQVpq/
As (you) watch this video, you'll want to set aside your critical capacity; the point is not to determine the (in)validity of his premise, instead the intent should be to experience the awe/impression that this video has on flat earthers (keep the brain-bleach close tho). His conviction, the simplicity of his ideas, it's impressive, right? He must be right, it's so simple, isnt it?
A true flatty will experience all of these phenomena, except that some element of the formula eliminates the possibility that legitimate refutation can be viewed as valid. The authoritarianism is sufficient that the POSSIBILITY of refutation has been (to the flatty) PROVEN to not exist.
I have addressed why this video (and OP) is lunacy from my basic recollection of astronomy, aided by citations from google. Its that simple. But my refutations - and the following more comprehensive ones - have (again, to the flatty) are defacto invalid, because they refute "what is true", a 'flat earth'.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/mkrgeqFDQVpq/
And of course, he comes pre-loaded with observably false and/or spurious excuses why the facts issued are irrelevant/invalid; shill, NASA, Freemason, etc.
Whether individuals are any of the above or not doesnt diminish the content of their argument, alluding to the extreme predisposition/conviction I refer to. Also, dont ask OP to cite any of these NASA/Mason shills, as once again his belief is sufficient to dismiss both the person entirely and anything they might say (unless they happen to say something that could loosely be interpreted as relating to a flat earth, in which case it will be proclaimed as "NASA/mason shill slips and proves flat earth").

My bad, the second link should be this one:
https://youtu.be/33AMn8OD81s

>>164406
Here's an unironic flatty summarizing the God/Bible/Flat Earth 'significance'. There are other examples, I HIGHLY recommend the Dubay comment section

>>164544
Sci-Fi Dan pretends to debuk Dubay with mimics and derision, but Dubay's logic is flawless. The heliocentric model doesn't hold water.

>>164559
>Bidet's logic is flawless
Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Heard

>>163405
Hey, remember when you ignored this one cuz its irrefutable?

>>164571
Heres some stills, with the timeframe semi indicated

>>164571
>>164572
>you ignored this one cuz its irrefutable
Nope. That post is ignored because you won't do any research faggot. What you are showing has been debunked over and over again in this bread.
Look for the keyword "perspective".

>China may be plotting moon takeover – NASA
>Chinese astronauts are busy learning how to destroy other nations’ satellites, agency chief Bill Nelson claimed
https://www.rt.com/russia/558264-space-china-us-nasa/
Reminder that the ball hoax conspiracy is not restricted to the anglo sector.

>>164584
So, your "refutation" of a video of a ship disappearing over the planet's curvature is to claim without citation that it's been debunked?
And you think "do a keyword search" passes as an argument?
I know you'll never admit the truth, it's been thoroughly documented and illustrated, as well as why.
But come on dude. For the sake of those around you.
You may not like it, you may absolutely refuse to acknowledge it, you can throw out all the classic diversions and FB memes, but the reality is THAT is the curve.
You have seen the curve. Good luck spending your life trying to hide from the fact.

>>164585
This just makes you look even more retarded, redditor.

>>164584
>ignored because you won't do any research
What would you say if the research led him to a different conclusion?

>>164559
>Dubay's logic is flawless
Elaborate.

>>164584
>over and over
>Look for the keyword "perspective".
Only 3 instances of that word appear in this thread, only one of which is remotely related to the ships disappearing below the horizon.
And when another user asked the poster to elaborate, they received no reply.

>>164585
>Reminder that the ball hoax conspiracy is not restricted to the anglo sector.
>Implying Chinese weapons systems are just fireworks to make western scientists look good, and not attempts to develop long-range, hypersonic, intercontinental weapons to stay competent in the changing military environment
That's a very strong accusation. Do you have any evidence to back that up?

>Is there an ice wall surrounding Antarctica? -- GLOBEHOAX - (8:10 long)
>Premiered Feb 16, 2021
>This video shows some great HD capture of the Antarctic ice wall!
>Included some short clips of Jarle Andhøy (The "Illegal" Antarctic Explorer)
>There will be a longer and more complete video of Jarle Andhøy later this year!
https://odysee.com/@ChadPrestonOfficial:9/is-there-an-ice-wall-surrounding:8
Mirror:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch9POQ-Mu_M

>>164606
Huh. One wonders how they got to Antarctica if govt agencies are viciously attacking everyone who goes there. Unless,....
One also wonders what they expected to find OTHER than an ice shelf.
One ESPECIALLY wonders how they can credibly claim that because they landed on the edge of Antarctica that somehow magically means that the entire ice wall theory is somehow evidenced and validated.
I mean, again, what were they expecting to find? If their criteria of evidence for 'proving/showing' the 'ice wall' was to find ice... in Antarctica,....
I mean, by that thinking, are active volcanoes evidence of Tartarus/Hell/etc?

>>164607
>I mean, again, what were they expecting to find?
Putting a foot on Antarctica is the first step for larger expeditions. The lack of active defense measures to neutralize zog forces still is an issue sadly.

I wish some ball believer could explain this.

>>164708
Cuz you've done so well with all the previous explanations?

>>164708
Likely rift caused by different air temperatures colliding.
You can see it in rivers and oceans too.

>>164712
>>164708
That being said, I'm not quite sure how that relevant to the flat vs round argument? Do you mean to say that this sorts of atmospheric phenomena implies that the world is flat? If so, please explain why.

>>164713
>Do you mean to say that this sorts of atmospheric phenomena implies that the world is flat?
Nope, but considering that globers have unlimited imagination to speculate on an explanation, I think was worth of a shot.

>>164715
Well, I'm not meteorologist, but I gave you what I think it is. I'd probably say the same thing if the world were flat or round.
Different air temperatures have different density and humidity, so they appear different from earth. This looks like it was in Colorado(?), so it's possibly a shelf of fridgid mountain air colliding with sea level air.

>>164716
Yes, but you're missing the subtext.
The phenomenon you describe is one resulting from atmospheric conditions.
Atmospheric conditions are a result of gravity and atmosphere.
According to OP/flatties, gravity and space (atmoshere) doesnt exist.
So no, your description - speculative that it is - manages to refute flat earth

>The Satellite Hoax - (6 minutes long)
https://odysee.com/@TabooConspiracy:c/old-taboo-the-satellite-hoax:5
Mirror:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFNVEyH9lpQ

>The Farce of Gravity - A Closer Look at Cavendish's Balls - (3 minutes long)
https://odysee.com/@TabooConspiracy:c/old-taboo-the-farce-of-gravity-a-closer:0
Mirror:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWJ5UcoqBN0

>>164749
>I know, Ill wrap my lack of comprehension into a SONG! That'll distract people from the Dunning-Kreuger!
Balloon satellites? Again? Is it that difficult to grasp that gasses are vastly less expensive than rockets, more efficient, less catastrophic when they come down, etc?
>>164751
Okay, now Im just confused. What does an eclipse - an optical effect - have to do with he force of gravity?
I mean, I can conceive of someone suggesting that he moon's gravity would stack with he sun's gravity, but thats retarded. If you dont know why, you're retarded, and are probably posting vids like this on a flat earth thread somewhere.

>>164752
>I mean, I can conceive of someone suggesting that he moon's gravity would stack with he sun's gravity, but thats retarded.
I agree, the establishment propped Cavendish experiment is retarded and a scientific fraud.

>>164753
Who's talking about Cavendish? Did he propose that you can jump higher during an eclipse? No, that was definitely (you)