/vx/ - Videogames and Paranormal

>>167458
You know, Genchink chinkpact's story might be putrid garbage (it is), but the lore is actually pretty neat.
Your post sound like something directly taken from the game, for example.

>>167462
Huh? Intresting ^^

>>167504
That's not the Earth's shadow at all. What you're looking at is the normal appearance of the moon: a bit over half of the moon is illuminated by the sun, while the dark side is dark because it's opposite to the side facing the sun. This is how moon phases work; they have nothing to do with the earth's shadow.

The Earth's shadow only moves in front of the moon during a lunar eclipse, which happens during full moons when the sun is on the opposite side of the earth, relative to the observer's position.
I strongly encourage you to go out at night and watch a lunar eclipse next time one happens in your area: they're not that uncommon. You can watch the Earth's rounded shadow steadily move over the moon in real time (it happens over the course of an hour, unlike moon phases, which take a month). It looks a lot more like the right pic you posted.

>>167509
>while the dark side is dark because it's opposite to the side facing the sun. This is how moon phases work; they have nothing to do with the earth's shadow.
According to the astronomers, the moon phases have everything to do with the Earth' shadow.

>>167513
>According to the astronomers, the moon phases have everything to do with the Earth' shadow.
No, they absolutely do not. If you're going to say "according to astronomers", at least cite which ones.
They teach this in middle school, ffs.

>>167513
>>167504
You are talking out your ass, there are no astronomers who say moon phases have anything to do with the Earth's shadow. Shadows only come into play during lunar eclipses, which are NOT the same as moon phases. Astronomers all say says it's based on the moon's relative position to the sun from ground perspective.
(These graphics are not to scale, but they sum up the concept)

Have you never seen a lunar eclipse before? It's possible that at least one has happened in your lifetime wherever you live.

Globers' profound dishonesty.
>Have you ever noticed when explaining a deep subject, no matter how much evidence you provide to some people they will still fight you on it? Not because it's wrong, but because it contradicts everything they've been taught... This is called Cognitive Dissonance.

>>167631
Tell us how lunar eclipses work.

Some more Flat Earth common sense truth that will make you say hummm 🤔

>>167636
Didn't we discuss weeks ago that the technology is still existant in theory but the hardware dismantled and unmaintained due to lack of interest/funding?
We could go back if people actually wanted to, although I assume that the people claiming space isn't real aren't interested in that.

>>167639
>We could go back if people actually wanted to
That's a good one.

>>167639
>Didn't we discuss weeks ago that the technology is still existant
It is not if all blueprints were banished. Then no one can push fraud charges.

>WHO WENT TO ANTARCTICA ON ELECTION DAY 2016 - POPE, PUTIN, JOHN KERRY.
What's going on there?

>>167646
>all blueprints were banished
They weren't though. The only tech that's sealed is the technology related to our intercontinental ballistic missile system.

>>167645
Maybe "if people actually devoted the right time, resources and investment into" is the right term.
But no, the government just keeps sending money to niggers and Israel instead.

The photo that NASA doesn't want you to see

>>167655
>The photo that NASA doesn't want you to see
Aha!
Let's find out what is about NASA's fake pics.

>>167917
Twilight knows the truth.

>>168059
Excellent picture, but what's this have to do with flat earth?

>>168060
Perhaps to show appreciation for the plasma disk?

>>168061
For a disk of plasma, it sure seems to have an interesting 2D map. Almost like the object is 3D and has craters which are visible at different times. Unless plasma takes forms that have the appearance of craters which don't shift while observed, yet repeats the same patterns.

>>168062
>Almost like the object is 3D and has craters which are visible at different times
>3D
Interesting theory, but there is a problem. If the moon is a ball in space, how so all the craters are perpendicular and not even one shows an angular impact?

>>168061
The sun is plasma (among other things). The moon is quite visibly a solid body of material, as those exact craters haven't observably changed since time immemorable. Plasma is fluid, and wouldn't have distinctive craters and ridges for any considerable period (although it could still have them briefly, such as with sun spots).
But overall, this still isn't super relevant to flat earth, aside from vague implied criticism of conventional astrology, which is I guess is barely relevant to the narrative.
This is my first time hearing a proposition that the moon is flat though, although imo that's even less believable than flat earth, because the curve of the moon is unironically, literally, easily visible, as per >>168062 explains

>>168063
>not even one shows an angular impact?
They literally do. You can see the minute elliptical ovals and rides to indicate impact angle. Some of them are shaped like long streaks. There are entire teams of people dedicated to mapping the geological (lunarlogical?)history of the moons craters to determine what caused them and approximately how long ago. The craters have names and measurements and very detailed mapping. You just need to look closer to them (as with a telescope).

>>168064
>They literally do. You can see the minute elliptical ovals and rides to indicate impact angle. Some of them are shaped like long streaks.
Show me those shapep like long streaks please.
Also, if the fake Newtonian law is applied, there is a discrepancy with Earth, supposedly both, Earth and Moon are celestial bodies under the same gravitational laws, but on Earth no meteorite has never ever fell perpendicularly. Strange, isn't it?

>>168065
>no meteorite has never ever fell perpendicularly.
Is this a typo?

>>168066
yup

>>168064
>But overall, this still isn't super relevant to flat earth
Astronomy is indeed, those firmament lights are very relevant as they are components of this realm.

>>168065
I don't know why its so important that they come in perpendicular, because there's a lot of angles that they could approach from, especially if they fell from an elliptical orbit around the earth. Meteors typically come at a an elliptical angle, which is why you can see those long trails of smoke stretching across the sky after they land.
They would only come in at a semi-perpendicular angle if they hit the earth at a particular angle, and more importantly at incredibly high speed and mass to have not orbited the earth or slingshotted around it for any period, but instead just hit it directly. Those kind of huge heavy objects barreling towards the earth are rather rare, even among meteor impacts (thank God). I think the most iconic example would be the one would be the one that smashed into the gulf of Mexico during the late Cretaceous period, which seemed to have just barreled right towards the planet and hit it directly and bringing it's destruction with it.
>>168069
Well, maybe next time post some context/argument with the picture if you have an actual point to make, instead of just image-dumping.
Thing is, the earth and moon being flat are actually two separate cosmological debates. If I proved to you the moon was round, it wouldn't necessarily prove the earth was, and vise versa. You could hypothetically have a flat earth and round moon, or a round earth and flat moon.
If you want to continue this, go ahead and post more arguments/evidence for flat moon, but it feels like a red herring for the flat earth discussion.

>>168070
Forgot pic. This was the trail of one that landed on a sorry guy's house last may. It did indeed come at an elliptical angle.
Gosh I'm tired.

>>168070
>Well, maybe next time post some context/argument with the picture if you have an actual point to make, instead of just image-dumping.
Come on, loosen up anon. The pic is breathtaking and cool.

>>168072
I said it was good, but posting it in this thread implies an argument about flat earth, which wasn't posted until inquired.

>>168071
>It did indeed come at an elliptical angle.
>Gosh I'm tired.
No doubt. The mental gymnastics to explain the discrepancy must take most of your energy.

2023-04-04.
>Floridian Justin Harvey exposing NASA's International Fake Station

Sirius never moves, it is fixed in the sky.

>>168074
Do you have an actual rebuttal?

>>168161
>Sirius
Five days have passed and not one single baller caught the mistake.
Pathetic.

Gravity, not even the science priests actually know what it is.

>>168221
They don't know because it's not exactly easy to understand. It's one of those great mysteries of the cosmos
They could always just make stuff up if they were just bullshitting the whole thing *cough* dark matter *cough* but it's not that simple. There are many different theories for how it works, and questions for what holds things together at the outer reaches of the universe.

>>168222
>gravity
>They don't know because it's not exactly easy to understand. It's one of those great mysteries of the cosmos
It is called DENSITY and explains everything darling.

>>168224
It's no mystery that gravity is based on density. Even the guy in the meme could've told you that.

>>168224
>Observable
>Repeatable
>Measureable
It's funny how you think that those alone is how things are "proven".

>>168224
Gravity is observable, repeatable and measurable. We know the rate of acceleration of gravity, and can observe it's effects on tides, terrestrial life and interstellar objects.
What we don't know is precisely why and how gravity works, only that it does. I don't see a sophisticated explanation on the metaphysical mechanics of relative density either.

>>168224
No idea what relative density even has to do with concave brained earth. It's not like density doesn't exist under Neutonian gravity, or even relativistic gravity.

>>168230
And even if it were something separate entirely, it's not like there's any more of a metaphysical explanation for it than gravity has. May as well be the wojak in the other pic on a fool's errand to explain precisely how and why lighter materials float.

Also worth noting that objects weigh the same in vacuum chambers, so relative density can't be the only force at play.

>>168225
>It's no mystery that gravity is based on density
Careful anon, Density is not the same than mass.

>>168226
>Observable
>Repeatable
>Measureable
>It's funny how you think that those alone is how things are "proven".
The 3 items mentioned above are cornerstones of the Scientific Method. Gravity doesn't meet any of those 3 parameters and therefore is just pitiful pseudoscience.

>>168236
>Observable
Every observable quality of gravity lines up with predictions made before the model was formed.
>Repeatable
I think the fact we can fly across the breadth of the earth at a stable velocity in what we feel as a straight line showcases that our models for gravity and how best to work around and within it have been repeated pretty thoroughly.
>Measurable
Not one flat earth model to scale can even be produced, let alone without conflicting with itself. Meanwhile we have both Newton's and Einstein's models of gravity which match our experience about as closely as is possible

The reason I'm not even bothering to bust out the math and graphs is because, as has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt through this thread, any physical evidence produced in favor of a round earth or gravity working as we understand it will simply be dismissed as part of the cover-up. If I sit here and argue flight paths you're gonna tell me that pilots simply choose the least effective flightpaths to maintain the illusion of sphericity. That any and all mathematic models related to large celestial bodies are inventions of the masons. This song and dance is tiresome.

>>168237
FYI. When this bread reaches 2,000 posts I'll make a fresh one.

>>168238
And you spamming faggots call me a bad actor with ill intent.

>>168239
B-but you want this thread to keep going forever?

>>168235
You're right. I stand corrected.

>>168236
How does it not meet those?

Can any flat earthers tell me more about what glory lies beyond the great ice wall? What civilizations and explorers might've journeyed past it?

Fresh memes just baked. HiRes.
Flight Route Memes.

>>168397
Sagging will give you the attention you wanted and deserve. None.

>Are Globe Believers Really That Smart? - (3:06 long)
https://odysee.com/@EddieAlencar:a/are-globe-believers-really-that-smart:3
Mirror:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WwyOU50Q_8

>>168410
>why do commercial flights sometimes take detours or stop in other places
I have one very simple explanation, and it doesn't involve the entire world being topsy turvy: there is not enough financial incentive for a commercial flight which often requires a certain number of seats filled to be profitable to go to your specific destination from your specific departure region. Example, Mexico is a developing country which is decently populated but generally quite poor; Los Angeles is in the country closest to Mexico in a state right against its border. More people in California are either beaners or have the affluence to vacation in a poor place to get their cheap hookers and margaritas.

This is one of the reasons that flights to Christchurch are somewhat sparse depending on where you're departing from; New Zealand isn't that big of a country and Christchurch is not very populous or mainstream of a place (unless you're the PM of NZ touring to apologize to the poor Muslims for evil white people)

>>168413
>profitability
I heard that many times and for the unaware to the heliocentric model lie makes totally sense, however taking a closer look, the cost for extra fuel makes no sense and the detours are way, way, way too long.

>>168414
You do know that map of yours is a warped, not-to-scale interpretation of a globe earth using the north pole as its center, and the lines spaced out as a means of illustrating the distortion as the southern hemisphere is warped beyond all recognition, right?

>>168415
>You do know that map of yours is a warped, not-to-scale interpretation of a globe earth using the north pole as its center
It is as it is according to cartography scientifically drawn. See >>149243

>>168416
Alexander Gleason patented his work in the US patent numbered 497,917, stating the following:
>"The extorsion of the map from that of a globe consists, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich, the equator to the two poles."
In the queen's English, what he's saying is that he knowingly used a globe shaped map of Earth, shifted perspective to the north pole, and extrapolated with even lines with reference to the meridian in order to come up with simplified time zones. Funny how your purpose is cartography for ease of navigation, instead of the establishment of simplified time zones. Why would he have to adapt his map from the globe model if this were a flat-earth researcher?

As a little side note to showcase why I'm not taking your argument that "it's just so far!" to heart: Greyhound buses have long distance detours all the time. The trip from Fayetteville NC to Columbia MO went as far south as Atlanta GA, both ways. This is because Fayetteville really isn't a super major city aside from the military base within it, and outside of the military which will happily pay their recruits' flight bills to go anywhere within the US, average Joes aren't vacationing to a college city in good ol' Misery where life is expensive and very unattractive for tourism.

>>168417
>In the queen's English, what he's saying is that he knowingly used a globe shaped map of Earth, shifted perspective to the north pole, and extrapolated with even lines with reference to the meridian in order to come up with simplified time zones.
I believe your are flipping the meaning. He calls the ball map out.

>>168417
And the map issue is not restricted to that map in particular because the German High Command and the USAF also used that Flat Earth map to conduct the war. See >>157419

>>168418
I can forgive you for thinking that he's calling the globe some kind of extortion in the legal sense of the word, but in the context of the sentence he seems quite clear in saying "the difficult obtaining/crafting of this map from the other map" -- otherwise, he would be calling himself an extortionist twisting the arms of globe-earth cartographers to get them to confess to the reeeaaal map, which I highly doubt.
>>168419
I could name a dozen armies who used any vaguely representative maps for their planning, whether highly accurate or not, so long as they had some kind of handle on the topography of the region he is acting upon, which I can easily assume is on his other, more local maps. The map distorts the northern hemisphere the least. Now if Hitler decided he'd fly bombers over Australia or Argentina and he used that map, he'd be bombing water with how off-base he'd be.

>>168420
>I could name a dozen armies who used any vaguely representative maps for their planning
It is up to you if choose to believe the teachings for nomies or go straight for the maps used by professionals.

>>168421
I literally couldn't even see a map in the first clip until the arrow pointed at it. The lines aside from the rings around what seem to be the center point don't even seem to have a pattern to them. The video of the phoneposter waving at a paper map is so low resolution and unfocused that I genuinely can't figure scale or even differentiation of countries' shapes. It looks like a high-fantasy map png you see hung up on an orc's fucking wall at a comically low resolution, or some kind of meme with a fisheye lens with its focal point somewhere that was totally arbitrary. I can't see the mileage markings, I can't see the flight lines themselves even with his finger going over them.

The line about curved/arced flights also showcases that you have never thrown a ball straight up while on a moving object. When something is moving or rotating, and you are going with its motion, you are essentially swimming along with the tide as opposed to upstream, which consumes less fuel and takes less time. Some flat earth proponents say this is just because of wind, but no wind speeds even remotely high enough to make a major difference have ever been recorded even amid hurricanes. And some of these inter-continental flights go in opposite directions simultaneously, are the wind currents localized to the planes, like a state-spanning tornado surrounding each individual plane that flies one way so they both make it to their destination quickly?

>>168422
As I said, it is your choice which framework of knowledge you use.

>>168423
Let's see, the framework which seems to purport to all the evidence and doesn't require believing the entirety of humanity has been duped into some mostly-inconsequential model of reality which only affects physicists and physicists seem just dandy doing experiments with.......or the one where gravity is actually electromagnetism but magnetic materials and forces are unaffected by its pull toward the Earth, the moon is a hologram or a flat object which everyone at every place in the world sees exactly the same way, eclipses require an anti-moon to explain, and plane travel is conducted entirely by conspirators of the NWO.

Oh yeah, you're right. Flat earth sure is an entertaining model. For science fiction novels.

>>168411
Why would you sage if you want attention?

>>168424
>and plane travel is conducted entirely by conspirators of the NWO.
The plane model isn't even correct. It's just using "popular travel" routes, which are designed around providing airplanes with the most financially profitable routes, as in where civilization actually exists, as an example of said "conspiracy". This is despite the fact that you can personally charter a direct flight from one of those locations to another for a bit more money, but that's also further "solidifying" the conspiracy angle because you have to pay real money to do it.

>>168423
Horsie knows what's right. Listen to horsie.

>How a Pilot Ended the Globe - (7:54 long)
https://odysee.com/@TabooConspiracy:c/how-a-pilot-ended-the-globe:4
Mirror:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFz4ZZd1zj4
Another nail on the globe coffin and this one is really big.
-----

Original night flight video: https://www.beyondclouds.ch/2017/04/05/vuelo-nocturno-the-magic-of-flying-at-night/

>Jesuits Erasing our Flat Earth - Documentary - (25:38 long)
>How the biggest deception started and who promoted it, narrated by Johnny Cirucci. From the Holy Roman Empire, to modern times, while explaining the Jesuit connection with Pythagoras, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, Einstein, etc.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/u2N9xKJZA5zP/
Mirror:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olbyJDou4qQ
It is a solid, informative documentary.

>>168460
>How a Pilot Ended the Globe
Here's the 3rd part watching the stars moving in a totally different fashion than expected by the ballers.

>4,656 Miles and Zero Curvature - Part 3 (How a Pilot Ended the Globe) - (2:36 long)
https://odysee.com/@TabooConspiracy:c/4,656-miles-and-zero-curvature-part-3:2
Mirror:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RagVOOW-sa8

>>168572
>more "wer do i go down doe" arguments
Allow me to put this in terms that even you might understand. Imagine, if you will, that there is a rubber band of a very specific distance connecting you and a plane to the very center of a ball earth. Elevation from the center would be exactly the same on a round trip no matter where you go. The "band" pulls in a manner that you could pull it further by tilting up, loosen it by tilting down, or stay at the same length with a moderate amount of downward force which is resisted by your craft on account of being aerodynamic.

You don't need to actively try to point down because the angle changing is imperceptibly small and elevation is not changing relative to the center of the earth on a cruise route.

>>168573
>The "band" pulls in a manner that you could pull it further by tilting up, loosen it by tilting down, or stay at the same length with a moderate amount of downward force which is resisted by your craft on account of being aerodynamic.
That's a fine explanation if you want to stick to the delusion; however the stars don't lie, if this realm would be a ball, stars would move upwards and they don't.

>>168574
>the stars don't lie
You mean the stars that look different from places on different areas instead of looking the same across the flat earth? The stars that proponents of flat earth have to come up with shit like "personalized stars" to explain?

>>168575
>the stars that look different from places on different areas
>personalized stars
Well, I don't want to gloat but you might need a bit of training on using the starts to navigate.

>>168576
From the north hemisphere, the "starts" rotate in one direction, and from the south hemisphere, the "starts" rotate the other way. How is this? Imagine how that would look from a flat earth model. Imagine someone looking south from the south ends of South America, Africa, or Australia. On a round earth, aside from potential timezone differences, these people can all look south and see the Southern Cross. On a flat earth, these people are literally on opposite ends of the realm. How the fuck is that explicable with a flat earth?

>>168576
>>168577
Actually, to add to that, what the fuck is """south""" on a flat earth? These people would be looking in entirely different directions on the flat earth map, looking directly to the closest direction of the outer ring of Antarctica.

>>168578
What???

>>168577
The planed crossed the Ecuator tropic. Did you notice that happening?

>>168580
Why did you delete your post if you're not even going to spellcheck what you said? How does this make it so these three countries' southernmost points are literally looking in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS?

>>168581
Back to the topic. See >>168580

>>168583
???????????
Firstly you literally changed the topic of the stars and then told me to get "back to the topic." Secondly, how the fuck does the planet cross a tropic? Tropic literally means a region of the planet.

>>168580
Back to topic see >>168577 >>168579

>>168584
>how the fuck does the planet cross a tropic?
This is elementary school geography class. In my region I learnt about tropics perhaps when I was 10. I assume you are the product of the Rockefeller curriculum, so, it is not your fault.
Seriously, would you like to talk about Hollywood movies instead?

>>168587
Rockefeller curriculum indeed. The jews did a very good job retarding the population.

>>168588
This doesn't clear anything up.

>>168588
And U are the biggest example.

>>168589
It was you who said the stars rotate in opposite directions in every hemisphere, then, if you know the very basics of geography...
I'm not saying that's incorrect, I'm saying where in the video happened? And because you have no clue and speaks only because of the movies and what the school taught you, you are more than confused.
Stick to Flat Earth fren, even if you insist you live on a ball, you will learn A LOT about STEM subjects and many other useful themes.

>>168591
>I'm not saying that's incorrect, I'm saying where in the video happened?
Motherfucker, go to the southern hemisphere. Set up a telescope and watch the change over the night. Fucking drive to South America through Mexico. It's not some super obscure thing that nobody is allowed to see because the EU will stop you by any means necessary.

And since you've completely ignored this point because you think naming tropics invalidates it: how do these three locations see the same Southern Cross?

>>168592
>Motherfucker, go to the southern hemisphere.
Ahem.