This thread is meant to debunk the deranged idea that our realm is a planet floating in space.
If the so called established science can't be challenged, then it's not science, but religion.
/vx/ - Videogames and Paranormal
File (): EBB8999170B861DACE0B30BD4B4E3775-880166.jpg (859.5 KB, 1200x800, thtfx.jpeg)
File (): 5AFBC2B050DCE12E59A35BCA999CD5AD-6936214.gif (6.6 MB, 900x900, 900px-SunAnimation.gif)
2670 replies and 1390 files omitted.
Anonymous
No.156644
>>156640
>Also, you dont strike me as credible; your bias is toward conviction, whereas my bias is toward skeptical analysis.
My bias is toward MATH. It doesn't add up. Simple trigonometry says there is no curve, and this is the reason why no NASA priest will ever debate a flat earther, again, it is because math doesn't lie.
>Also, you dont strike me as credible; your bias is toward conviction, whereas my bias is toward skeptical analysis.
My bias is toward MATH. It doesn't add up. Simple trigonometry says there is no curve, and this is the reason why no NASA priest will ever debate a flat earther, again, it is because math doesn't lie.
See post >>149142 and end this pointless debate and hollow rhetoric.
Either you grasp math or you don't. If not, then keep silence and learn, faggot.
Either you grasp math or you don't. If not, then keep silence and learn, faggot.
Anonymous
No.156646
File (): 883A2B32EB3595808EF866FF79087876-200812.jpg (196.1 KB, 814x1204, idiocracy-movie.jpg)
Also see post >>149168 for a refresher on the supposedly curvature, which doesn't exist when you look for it.
I don't know about American education, but most middle school students in most countries can understand trigonometry and use a simple calculator to reach this obvious conclusion.
I don't know about American education, but most middle school students in most countries can understand trigonometry and use a simple calculator to reach this obvious conclusion.
>>156645
Thank you for those lovely diagrams. Now be a good little boy and run the numbers, analyze them, and then conduct experiments to validate the hypothesis; Ill be happy to show you where the errors are.
Thank you for those lovely diagrams. Now be a good little boy and run the numbers, analyze them, and then conduct experiments to validate the hypothesis; Ill be happy to show you where the errors are.
File (): 32C7370AD811E3AB57A45F752442344C-139716.png (136.4 KB, 929x1024, 7tt5d70b.png)
>>156647
>Ill be happy to show you where the errors are.
This is great and I'm glad to have you here, please go ahead, begin from the top of this bread and inspect the experiments shown.
Lighten this thread with your expertise.
>Ill be happy to show you where the errors are.
This is great and I'm glad to have you here, please go ahead, begin from the top of this bread and inspect the experiments shown.
Lighten this thread with your expertise.
https://youtu.be/GT7nmvjXC4U
It should be readily apparent that Im not trying to refute flat earth as a whole, thats an exercise in futility for the reasons neatly summarized in this video.
Im challenging you (not for the first time) to validate your own claims, and the certainty you assert.
My hypothesis is that when we get down to the details, I can tear your hypotheses/conclusions to pieces.
It should be readily apparent that Im not trying to refute flat earth as a whole, thats an exercise in futility for the reasons neatly summarized in this video.
Im challenging you (not for the first time) to validate your own claims, and the certainty you assert.
My hypothesis is that when we get down to the details, I can tear your hypotheses/conclusions to pieces.
Anonymous
No.156650
>>156648
Ill reiterate. The burden of proof is on you. So, show your proof. Or, show where you have taken the results of others and applied them.cohesively, Ill settle for that.
Ill reiterate. The burden of proof is on you. So, show your proof. Or, show where you have taken the results of others and applied them.cohesively, Ill settle for that.
>>156649
>according to the Flat-Earth society
It has been established in this thread more than twice that such a "society" is a freemason controlled opposition tasked with to ridiculize flat earth. Obama, Clinton and many more golems used to mention the Flat-Earth Society to scare away the normies from the truth.
And since you mention it, it is clear that you are not arguing in good faith because or you didn't properly read this bread, or if you did, you are throwing libels without care.
>according to the Flat-Earth society
It has been established in this thread more than twice that such a "society" is a freemason controlled opposition tasked with to ridiculize flat earth. Obama, Clinton and many more golems used to mention the Flat-Earth Society to scare away the normies from the truth.
And since you mention it, it is clear that you are not arguing in good faith because or you didn't properly read this bread, or if you did, you are throwing libels without care.
>>156651
You misunderstand, yet again.
Im not presenting that video because I beli3ve the findings, Im presenting them as counter-point.
You seem to think you can simply post videos and that anyone who doesnt get it os in some way predosposed to opposing the idea, as opposed to seeing that there is two sides to an argument, and for every video or article that you claim 'proves' flat earth, ai can produce 3 tbat destory those videos.
Which is why Im challenging you to provide your own findings, self-derived or built off someone else's findings, that I can analyze.
You misunderstand, yet again.
Im not presenting that video because I beli3ve the findings, Im presenting them as counter-point.
You seem to think you can simply post videos and that anyone who doesnt get it os in some way predosposed to opposing the idea, as opposed to seeing that there is two sides to an argument, and for every video or article that you claim 'proves' flat earth, ai can produce 3 tbat destory those videos.
Which is why Im challenging you to provide your own findings, self-derived or built off someone else's findings, that I can analyze.
File (): 5EE8B801D2BA935F13B09E65FD65EADA-155926.jpg (152.3 KB, 768x591, circularreasoning2.jpg)
File (): D541D098C461235A474DD233359BB536-49209.jpg (48.1 KB, 970x824, 12eb40b6822a90dd639f10c635de1138.jpg)
Anonymous
No.156654
>>156653
The only conclusion I began from is, if there was any validity to the flat earth hypothesis, there would be cross-industrial cohesiveness to the findings.
Versus you, who is the one literally and figuratively using circular reasoning.
The only conclusion I began from is, if there was any validity to the flat earth hypothesis, there would be cross-industrial cohesiveness to the findings.
Versus you, who is the one literally and figuratively using circular reasoning.
Anonymous
No.156655
Ill give you an example from personal experience.
I used to live 20 miles north of Sacramento, CA. In the roght weather conditions, you can see Sac from there, 20 miles away. This should not be possible if using a spherical globe model.
But its not as cut and dried as >8 miles onjects = flat earth. Upon furtner investigation, you find that the Sac valley has a gradual geological slope, with areas of Sac AT sea level.
The appearance debunking is due to various factors being neglected in the experiment. Now, Im not suggesting that the errors in flat earth videos and articles are making errors as glaring as thoae, but that doesnt mean there werent errors. And untill the experiments have been exhaustively conducted with various individuals producing comparable results, all you have is unverified claims and personal conviction.
In my example, I would literally be looking at a city too far away to perceive, and if I so concluded without asking someone ELSE if these findings are valid, I would be concluding/arguing equally (though obviously more egregious) unvalidated claims and personal conviction.
You're entitled to your theories as theories, but you are not entitled to promote unvalidation and conviction as fact, not without redress. I dont want to argue people or positions or any of that, I want to.see the exhaustove data points and results. A theory is not made true by conviction, it is observed to be true in the face of incontravertable evidence.
>I did a weird experiment that didnt produce the results the 'globe head' model says it should therefore flat earth. No, I cant share all my data, but heres a couple measurements
is anything but incontravertable
I used to live 20 miles north of Sacramento, CA. In the roght weather conditions, you can see Sac from there, 20 miles away. This should not be possible if using a spherical globe model.
But its not as cut and dried as >8 miles onjects = flat earth. Upon furtner investigation, you find that the Sac valley has a gradual geological slope, with areas of Sac AT sea level.
The appearance debunking is due to various factors being neglected in the experiment. Now, Im not suggesting that the errors in flat earth videos and articles are making errors as glaring as thoae, but that doesnt mean there werent errors. And untill the experiments have been exhaustively conducted with various individuals producing comparable results, all you have is unverified claims and personal conviction.
In my example, I would literally be looking at a city too far away to perceive, and if I so concluded without asking someone ELSE if these findings are valid, I would be concluding/arguing equally (though obviously more egregious) unvalidated claims and personal conviction.
You're entitled to your theories as theories, but you are not entitled to promote unvalidation and conviction as fact, not without redress. I dont want to argue people or positions or any of that, I want to.see the exhaustove data points and results. A theory is not made true by conviction, it is observed to be true in the face of incontravertable evidence.
>I did a weird experiment that didnt produce the results the 'globe head' model says it should therefore flat earth. No, I cant share all my data, but heres a couple measurements
is anything but incontravertable
The only explanation I could work out of how the earth could be flat would be if the entire 'planet' was perched on the nose of an alien(or whatever) spacecraft, but oh wait would mean space exists.
I maintain the perception that the shard earth is plausible, but that theres no actionable body of evidence the flat earth is.
Also
>satellites are balloons
You do know they still use weather balloons right? Like, theyre way cheaper for data collection than satellites. Seeing a balloon (maybe) and a guy saying 'what is that', and then make the extraordinary leap to say that all satellites are balloons is technically not deserving to be justified with a response, but I will cuz I like you.
So, Ill take a note from the Rittenhouse defense when I say:
Hocus pocus, out of focus.
I maintain the perception that the shard earth is plausible, but that theres no actionable body of evidence the flat earth is.
Also
>satellites are balloons
You do know they still use weather balloons right? Like, theyre way cheaper for data collection than satellites. Seeing a balloon (maybe) and a guy saying 'what is that', and then make the extraordinary leap to say that all satellites are balloons is technically not deserving to be justified with a response, but I will cuz I like you.
So, Ill take a note from the Rittenhouse defense when I say:
Hocus pocus, out of focus.
>>156657
>Seeing a balloon (maybe) and a guy saying 'what is that', and then make the extraordinary leap to say that all satellites are balloons is technically not deserving to be justified with a response, but I will cuz I like you.
We are told that there are thousands of satellites and assorted space junk orbiting this supposedly planet, it is natural to expect that some of them regularly will pass in front of the moon and be seen, but this is not the case at all. This is a very peculiar detail. Just saying.
>Seeing a balloon (maybe) and a guy saying 'what is that', and then make the extraordinary leap to say that all satellites are balloons is technically not deserving to be justified with a response, but I will cuz I like you.
We are told that there are thousands of satellites and assorted space junk orbiting this supposedly planet, it is natural to expect that some of them regularly will pass in front of the moon and be seen, but this is not the case at all. This is a very peculiar detail. Just saying.
>>156660
Zero doubt. It has been alleged that if one isnt oriented directly at the planet from space and look to the sides, there's a veritable fid of outside-the-atmpsphere depris, in something of a layer.
Which makes it increasingly dubious to attempt to credibly assert that satellites are balloons.
Zero doubt. It has been alleged that if one isnt oriented directly at the planet from space and look to the sides, there's a veritable fid of outside-the-atmpsphere depris, in something of a layer.
Which makes it increasingly dubious to attempt to credibly assert that satellites are balloons.
Anonymous
No.156664
*field
*credibly assert FROM ONE INCONCLUSIVE, OUT-OF-FOCUS VIDEO OF 'SOMETHING', that satellites are balloons.
*credibly assert FROM ONE INCONCLUSIVE, OUT-OF-FOCUS VIDEO OF 'SOMETHING', that satellites are balloons.
File (): 81EEB86239DC4C4710785F557DD8349C-849080.jpg (829.2 KB, 1396x1047, sunrise-balloon.jpg)
File (): A8C2A96E4697D1343F66EC6E982BEF07-263582.jpg (257.4 KB, 1200x628, Project Loon Crash in Brazil.jpg)
>>156661
>*credibly assert FROM ONE INCONCLUSIVE, OUT-OF-FOCUS VIDEO OF 'SOMETHING', that satellites are balloons.
Since there is not proof of the existence of space beyond CGI and freemason tall tales, but there is hard photographic evidence indeed of artifacts resembling satellites illustrations hanging from balloons, I'm inclined to trust my eyes and not the usual liars.
By the way, notice that Flat-Earthers base their conclusions on direct observations plus experiments, on the other hoof, round-earthers base theirs in just CGI plus faith on "licensed scientists" on a payroll.
>*credibly assert FROM ONE INCONCLUSIVE, OUT-OF-FOCUS VIDEO OF 'SOMETHING', that satellites are balloons.
Since there is not proof of the existence of space beyond CGI and freemason tall tales, but there is hard photographic evidence indeed of artifacts resembling satellites illustrations hanging from balloons, I'm inclined to trust my eyes and not the usual liars.
By the way, notice that Flat-Earthers base their conclusions on direct observations plus experiments, on the other hoof, round-earthers base theirs in just CGI plus faith on "licensed scientists" on a payroll.
>>156668
>literally posts corroboration of balloons
>round-earthers base their positions on cgi n shit
An unsurprisingly ignorant assessment. I think Ive done my due diligence in illustrating that you wont present your own findings for review, but are content to promote an ideology that you cant answer the most basic questions of, and are therefore an idealogue for.
(read: a shill)
>inb4 n n no, you are!
Its not shilling to ask for evidence. Consistent, corroborated evidence, not a one and done. Its not shilling to observe that a claimant who refuses to do so and delegates to other unassociated youtube videos the responsibility to prove his point.
This is YOUR point, after all. You're the one shilling flat earth, and anyone who disagrees is subject to a crazy mind virus by the masons that prevents even the most credible of researchers as 'doing it for the $'.
No, you dont get to produce flimsy evidence and then claim that youve done your part. The standard of evidence is way higher than whay you present, and all you have done is attempt to question various elements based off random people's videos which I again assert are easy refuted. Oh, and meanwhile, those random one off videos are easily refuted by more people conducting the same experiment, but with better controls than those you present.
>pic 2
Hocus pocus, more out of focus.
>literally posts corroboration of balloons
>round-earthers base their positions on cgi n shit
An unsurprisingly ignorant assessment. I think Ive done my due diligence in illustrating that you wont present your own findings for review, but are content to promote an ideology that you cant answer the most basic questions of, and are therefore an idealogue for.
(read: a shill)
>inb4 n n no, you are!
Its not shilling to ask for evidence. Consistent, corroborated evidence, not a one and done. Its not shilling to observe that a claimant who refuses to do so and delegates to other unassociated youtube videos the responsibility to prove his point.
This is YOUR point, after all. You're the one shilling flat earth, and anyone who disagrees is subject to a crazy mind virus by the masons that prevents even the most credible of researchers as 'doing it for the $'.
No, you dont get to produce flimsy evidence and then claim that youve done your part. The standard of evidence is way higher than whay you present, and all you have done is attempt to question various elements based off random people's videos which I again assert are easy refuted. Oh, and meanwhile, those random one off videos are easily refuted by more people conducting the same experiment, but with better controls than those you present.
>pic 2
Hocus pocus, more out of focus.
Anonymous
No.156675
>>156673
>literally posts corroboration of balloons
Yeah, because the are actually balloons. Any doubt?
>literally posts corroboration of balloons
Yeah, because the are actually balloons. Any doubt?
>>156676
>read through all the ridiculous horsehsit I posted and then apologize
No. And if you're unwilling to skip all the bullshit and just post or reference or even link to the posts of allegedly actionable data, why would I waste my time sloughing through? Youve already made it readily apparent where your position is, and your conviction to it. Youve further claimed that the data is 'in there somewhere', but cant be arsed to present it, even though they're your posts and points. Its hilariously and cruelly ironic that you make all sorts of laims like 'circular reasoning' in response to these requests, and your defensiveness and deflection basically tells anyone obaerving what I have suspected but wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt about; you're an NPC.
But if you ever decide to cut the bullshit and focus on just presenting the data, Ill be here
>read through all the ridiculous horsehsit I posted and then apologize
No. And if you're unwilling to skip all the bullshit and just post or reference or even link to the posts of allegedly actionable data, why would I waste my time sloughing through? Youve already made it readily apparent where your position is, and your conviction to it. Youve further claimed that the data is 'in there somewhere', but cant be arsed to present it, even though they're your posts and points. Its hilariously and cruelly ironic that you make all sorts of laims like 'circular reasoning' in response to these requests, and your defensiveness and deflection basically tells anyone obaerving what I have suspected but wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt about; you're an NPC.
But if you ever decide to cut the bullshit and focus on just presenting the data, Ill be here
Anonymous
No.156757
File (): 548691BD86E51541E17C5F09BA78CD77-12925904.mp4 (12.3 MB, Resolution:854x480 Length:00:05:49, o_Awfully Irish Podcast. EXCERPT.- Flat Earth.mp4) [play once] [loop]
>Awfully Irish Podcast. EXCERPT - Flat Earth
Stupidity has no bounds. When an imbecile throw pieces of information to sound smart without understand what she/he is talking about.
Stupidity has no bounds. When an imbecile throw pieces of information to sound smart without understand what she/he is talking about.
Anonymous
No.156758
>cherry-picked strawman
Anonymous
No.157183
File (): ADBD701D8E31A3282158581A558160BD-711718.png (695.0 KB, 1360x767, FE 5.png)
File (): E436DEF2017347AB24F619ADEA1EF18A-498492.png (486.8 KB, 1348x766, FE 4.png)
File (): 5A68BFC93E2A62871EA63891249BD379-597939.png (583.9 KB, 1336x765, FE 3.png)
File (): 0E8216B1AC006FE144C04E08E00D719F-801685.png (782.9 KB, 1314x749, FE 2.png)
File (): 136925FE922672BB94D224D49018916D-4095225.png (3.9 MB, 2500x1435, 6332196.png)
The one true cosmology.
Anonymous
No.157221
File (): A23C723591B7E0BD59B2EDD5EF7C82E9-103080.jpg (100.7 KB, 599x379, my-little-pony-friendship-is-magic-brony-party-reasonably1.gif)
Anonymous
No.157273
File (): 7312E6F6831F7503E0BB6DE31710A4B3-259293.png (253.2 KB, 779x1006, d6swi1n-1fc01bea-f50c-476c-81bb-fbaa3bf9b436.png)
File (): BEFEEEF382D79B27E55F7876B7FCE216-135944.jpg (132.8 KB, 928x522, Hitler_Flat_Earth.jpg)
File (): 381E93D73E24732E2C71453E65135844-143226.jpg (139.9 KB, 887x499, Flat_earth_Hitler.jpg)
Hi. I have been tempted by this theory for a long time, but there is one empirical fact that does not seem to be explainable from the point of view of a flat Earth, and I can't allow myself to consider its plausibility it until this is resolved. I know this is a long thread and I haven't read most of it, but I searched for "midnight" and didn't find anything, so here goes my question.
Why is there a "midnight Sun" in the South Pole? The only justification I have found for this is that anyone who says there is such a phenomenon in the Southern hemisphere is lying. But if the flat Earth model is to be considered, it needs to address the facts, not hide from them.
I really like the idea of flat Earth and everything it entails. It makes the world look more interesting, I'm not going to lie. It's why I want to believe in it.
Why is there a "midnight Sun" in the South Pole? The only justification I have found for this is that anyone who says there is such a phenomenon in the Southern hemisphere is lying. But if the flat Earth model is to be considered, it needs to address the facts, not hide from them.
I really like the idea of flat Earth and everything it entails. It makes the world look more interesting, I'm not going to lie. It's why I want to believe in it.
>>157611
>Why is there a "midnight Sun" in the South Pole? The only justification I have found for this is that anyone who says there is such a phenomenon in the Southern hemisphere is lying
There is a video provided by NASA showing the sun supposedly in the night with a clock on the upper corner of the screen to try to demonstrate that phenomena. The glaring problem for NASA is that that video is obviously edited, as the same clouds repeat themselves over and over again when compared them against the clock on screen. So the midnight sun is busted from the start.
I'm not sure if some of the long videos posted in this thread shows that, but if I find it again I will post it with the appropriate title.
>Why is there a "midnight Sun" in the South Pole? The only justification I have found for this is that anyone who says there is such a phenomenon in the Southern hemisphere is lying
There is a video provided by NASA showing the sun supposedly in the night with a clock on the upper corner of the screen to try to demonstrate that phenomena. The glaring problem for NASA is that that video is obviously edited, as the same clouds repeat themselves over and over again when compared them against the clock on screen. So the midnight sun is busted from the start.
I'm not sure if some of the long videos posted in this thread shows that, but if I find it again I will post it with the appropriate title.
Anonymous
No.157614
File (): 2FA3E6826E1F386953704C60088F5CAB-94443.jpg (92.2 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg)
>The Case for Flat Earth - by ODD TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8udts8Un4m4
Mirrors:
https://odysee.com/@ODDTV:b/the-case-for-flat-earth:2
https://www.bitchute.com/video/GuOVI5uSFu9G/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8udts8Un4m4
Mirrors:
https://odysee.com/@ODDTV:b/the-case-for-flat-earth:2
https://www.bitchute.com/video/GuOVI5uSFu9G/
>>157613
>There is a video provided by NASA
==And, what about the 30 days of night that Canadians, Alaskans, and Russians all experience?
>There is a video provided by NASA
==And, what about the 30 days of night that Canadians, Alaskans, and Russians all experience?
File (): C3DAFCF191F1F52F5BA309CF70C0462A-105485.jpg (103.0 KB, 1055x720, maxresdefault.jpg)
>>157611
>Why is there a "midnight Sun" in the South Pole?
>>157613
>There is a video provided by NASA
I found the video:
>Faking the 24 Hour Sun in Antarctica to debunk flat earth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gsdHCcguqg
Mirror:
https://odysee.com/@DITRH:f/faking-the-24-hour-sun-in-antarctica-to:8
>Why is there a "midnight Sun" in the South Pole?
>>157613
>There is a video provided by NASA
I found the video:
>Faking the 24 Hour Sun in Antarctica to debunk flat earth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gsdHCcguqg
Mirror:
https://odysee.com/@DITRH:f/faking-the-24-hour-sun-in-antarctica-to:8
>>157744
>they used image compression in a sped up video = flat earth
Do you even understand the irony of the song in the soundtrack?
>they used image compression in a sped up video = flat earth
Do you even understand the irony of the song in the soundtrack?
Anonymous
No.157746
>>157615
>==And, what about the 30 days of night that Canadians, Alaskans, and Russians all experience?
I don't know about the north, I didn't research it yet, But perhaps the screenshot is related.
>==And, what about the 30 days of night that Canadians, Alaskans, and Russians all experience?
I don't know about the north, I didn't research it yet, But perhaps the screenshot is related.
File (): FFB55D5F41D27E5F3273811C65412871-12368623.mp4 (11.8 MB, Resolution:640x360 Length:00:03:47, Antarctica 24 hour sun Updated WARNING - The word S#!T is used..mp4) [play once] [loop]
>>157747
Okay. Ill acknowledge the video editing.
How do you jump from 'dodgy editing' to 'flat earth'?
Okay. Ill acknowledge the video editing.
How do you jump from 'dodgy editing' to 'flat earth'?
>>157748
Sorry but if you cannot connect the most obvious dots, I'm not sure to be able to do it for you.
Sorry but if you cannot connect the most obvious dots, I'm not sure to be able to do it for you.
>>157749
>being this excited over shitty 'proofs' to act amug
I dont think you understand the standard of evidence. Probably why you're a flat earthrr.
>being this excited over shitty 'proofs' to act amug
I dont think you understand the standard of evidence. Probably why you're a flat earthrr.
Anonymous
No.157753
File (): D147C3AA8FB4DDDF7CC20329B79FEA0B-45853.jpg (44.8 KB, 402x402, 864rws28.jpg)
>>157747
The video (5:02) of pastor Anderson shilling the globe is:
https://odysee.com/@BibleWayToHeaven:4/flat-earth-debunked-by:a
The video (5:02) of pastor Anderson shilling the globe is:
https://odysee.com/@BibleWayToHeaven:4/flat-earth-debunked-by:a
File (): A50AC897DE372EE0D52578A69E818209-37239.jpg (36.4 KB, 960x540, PVNRH0jbz7UV_640x360.jpg)
>Fresh from today; Jan 6, 2022
>Lunar Eclipses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuKsMlANPxk
Mirrors:
https://odysee.com/@GLOBEBUSTERS:c/lunar-eclipses:a
https://www.bitchute.com/video/PVNRH0jbz7UV/
RIP Global eclipse model - This video has fully debunked it.
>Lunar Eclipses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuKsMlANPxk
Mirrors:
https://odysee.com/@GLOBEBUSTERS:c/lunar-eclipses:a
https://www.bitchute.com/video/PVNRH0jbz7UV/
RIP Global eclipse model - This video has fully debunked it.
File (): FB698757E9B73A4BE1C2E984DA54DB2A-318409.png (310.9 KB, 1280x720, pinkie pie - ptffff.png)
>>157809
It is exactly the same evidence presented by NASA and freemasons but tested against real experimentation.
NASA failed, your baseless shilling also failed. Watcha gonna do now?
It is exactly the same evidence presented by NASA and freemasons but tested against real experimentation.
NASA failed, your baseless shilling also failed. Watcha gonna do now?
>>157811
No one is shilling except for you.
You do realize that the size and location of the light source plays a role in how the eclipse is projected right? So, sticking a ball in front pf a light bulb is about the least credible of an experiment imaginable.
No one is shilling except for you.
You do realize that the size and location of the light source plays a role in how the eclipse is projected right? So, sticking a ball in front pf a light bulb is about the least credible of an experiment imaginable.
>>157814
>cant tell that proportionate sizes has everything to do with the appearance of curvature over a vast and specific distance
Dunning Kreuger, ladies and gentlemen
>cant tell that proportionate sizes has everything to do with the appearance of curvature over a vast and specific distance
Dunning Kreuger, ladies and gentlemen
File (): A18104CD17E6F9AFD41102D6D892D820-1652780.gif (1.6 MB, 550x515, popcorn.gif)
>>157816
My kitchen is not arranged precisely enough to conduct a credible experiment, and Im not so foolish as to think otherwise. I hope you're the same anon who claimed an engineering background, cuz then you would know what precise ratios and calculations are required to recreate a suitably detailrd model for which such an experiment would be credible. When milling, I deal with precise measurements in the microns. You know what happens if a person is off by just 2 microns? The whole thing falls apart. You're suggesting that an experiment that is off by inches will fly just fine though. Thats not how this works
My kitchen is not arranged precisely enough to conduct a credible experiment, and Im not so foolish as to think otherwise. I hope you're the same anon who claimed an engineering background, cuz then you would know what precise ratios and calculations are required to recreate a suitably detailrd model for which such an experiment would be credible. When milling, I deal with precise measurements in the microns. You know what happens if a person is off by just 2 microns? The whole thing falls apart. You're suggesting that an experiment that is off by inches will fly just fine though. Thats not how this works
>>157817
Do not misdirect attention to "precision" because in this case is irrelevant. It is about plain optics, or light propagation in other words.
Do not misdirect attention to "precision" because in this case is irrelevant. It is about plain optics, or light propagation in other words.
>>157818
The earth is an alleged 150mil kilometers from the sun, and an alleged 405k km from the moon. Thats a ratio of 370 to 1. There needs to be 370x more distance betwern the light and the earth stand-in AND its size needs to be proportionate to the modeled moon size.
That you neglect to account for that makes your claims utterly ludicrous.
The earth is an alleged 150mil kilometers from the sun, and an alleged 405k km from the moon. Thats a ratio of 370 to 1. There needs to be 370x more distance betwern the light and the earth stand-in AND its size needs to be proportionate to the modeled moon size.
That you neglect to account for that makes your claims utterly ludicrous.
>>157819
The experiment is not about distances and proportions, but the shape of a shadow. Try it yourself lazy nigger, it is free.
Otherwise watch again the video as many times as necessary until you grasp the concept.
The experiment is not about distances and proportions, but the shape of a shadow. Try it yourself lazy nigger, it is free.
Otherwise watch again the video as many times as necessary until you grasp the concept.
>>157820
Lets put this into perspective.
A properly ratio'd model would have say, 370' between the 'sun' and the 'earth', and ONE foot between the earth and the moon.
The SUN with a calculated diameter of 1.39mil km would need to have the diameter of about 6.5". The earth, with a calculated equatorial dimeter of ~12.75k would proportionately need to be about the size of a pea, and the moon would be about the size of a peppercorn, just 1' away.
That would A. be vastly more credible experiment.
Lets put this into perspective.
A properly ratio'd model would have say, 370' between the 'sun' and the 'earth', and ONE foot between the earth and the moon.
The SUN with a calculated diameter of 1.39mil km would need to have the diameter of about 6.5". The earth, with a calculated equatorial dimeter of ~12.75k would proportionately need to be about the size of a pea, and the moon would be about the size of a peppercorn, just 1' away.
That would A. be vastly more credible experiment.
Anonymous
No.157822
File (): C7AD023F4EFD49EB78A8B626AF9D4DC1-202174.jpg (197.4 KB, 728x546, light-energy-7-728.jpeg)
File (): 5D83FF061980760EDA0CF58AE2475CB3-141597.png (138.3 KB, 1148x696, facehoof.png)
File (): BDCCC4E37EE7071890C075DF8AF2F540-83159.jpg (81.2 KB, 1600x1131, Lunar+Eclipse+Graphic.jpg)
Heres that pic from the video.
Please note, the proportions are 6.5" diameter sun, then 370 feet, then a pea, then 1 foot, then a peppercorn.
A football field is 360' long. There is more than a football field between the sun and the earth, in this model.
Please note, the proportions are 6.5" diameter sun, then 370 feet, then a pea, then 1 foot, then a peppercorn.
A football field is 360' long. There is more than a football field between the sun and the earth, in this model.
>>157824
Playing shadow puppets with arbitrary sizes and distances will give you dodgy results, but the results are based on the infanti-level precision of the experiment. What Im saying is, that example doesnt in any way disprove the viability of eclipses, it only makes the videographer - and you - look foolish for presenting invalid findings as 'evidence'
Playing shadow puppets with arbitrary sizes and distances will give you dodgy results, but the results are based on the infanti-level precision of the experiment. What Im saying is, that example doesnt in any way disprove the viability of eclipses, it only makes the videographer - and you - look foolish for presenting invalid findings as 'evidence'
Anonymous
No.157826
Again, Dunning Kreuger
>>157825
On the contrary, it makes you look retarded. The quality of the experiment is exactly the same than the NASA one.
It looks like the problem it is in your mindset which only accept input from "authoritative" sources regardless of its validity. The brainwashing is strong in you.
On the contrary, it makes you look retarded. The quality of the experiment is exactly the same than the NASA one.
It looks like the problem it is in your mindset which only accept input from "authoritative" sources regardless of its validity. The brainwashing is strong in you.
>>157827
Thanks for confirming the 'legitimacy' of your 'engineering background'. You obviously dont actually work in engineering, because you would appreciate how inane you come across to someone who deals with extreme precision and calculation versus anything but, and how a layman can look at a thing and assume to comprehend it right before getting themselves and people around them killed.
Obviously thats not an argument, its an inference made by taking your entirely ass-backward method of approaching the experiment and applying it to someone in an industrial context.
Thanks for confirming the 'legitimacy' of your 'engineering background'. You obviously dont actually work in engineering, because you would appreciate how inane you come across to someone who deals with extreme precision and calculation versus anything but, and how a layman can look at a thing and assume to comprehend it right before getting themselves and people around them killed.
Obviously thats not an argument, its an inference made by taking your entirely ass-backward method of approaching the experiment and applying it to someone in an industrial context.
>>157828
Your statement is based in faith, not science.
If you would have a engineering background, then you would recognize at once that NASA lies don't meet the scientific method and therefore they are null and void.
Your statement is based in faith, not science.
If you would have a engineering background, then you would recognize at once that NASA lies don't meet the scientific method and therefore they are null and void.
Anonymous
No.157832
Let me be clear, NASA is full of shit. Im not talking about that.
Im talking about Copernicus and Galileo and so forth. Debunk THEM.
Im talking about Copernicus and Galileo and so forth. Debunk THEM.
Anonymous
No.157835
>>157834
I get it now. Your tactic is to deflect and persist until the other person gives up, concedes under duress, or their head explodes from trying to comprehend how someone could be so oblivious to their own folly.
I already said, Im not pouring through hours and pages of the most irrational caricatures of intelligence, just to try and locate the bit that 'you feel' debunks them. Ive seen plenty of the videos youve posted, along with all the strawmans, to know what constitutes evidence in your eyes, and I havent seen anything that does as you describe; it is reasonable to conclude therefore that you are full of shit because the evidence - in spite of your conviction to it and refusal to critically analyze it - says the same.
Speaking of strawmen
https://youtu.be/x59uV541sLI
I get it now. Your tactic is to deflect and persist until the other person gives up, concedes under duress, or their head explodes from trying to comprehend how someone could be so oblivious to their own folly.
I already said, Im not pouring through hours and pages of the most irrational caricatures of intelligence, just to try and locate the bit that 'you feel' debunks them. Ive seen plenty of the videos youve posted, along with all the strawmans, to know what constitutes evidence in your eyes, and I havent seen anything that does as you describe; it is reasonable to conclude therefore that you are full of shit because the evidence - in spite of your conviction to it and refusal to critically analyze it - says the same.
Speaking of strawmen
https://youtu.be/x59uV541sLI
>>157836
>Debunk Calculus
Calculus is good, what it is not good is the theory about gravitational forces which cannot be backed by the scientific method. Remember, there is a bunch of scientistspriests, all paid by the same establishment, who tow the line of planets and the "Theory of Gravity" which cannot be proven to exist.
>Debunk Calculus
Calculus is good, what it is not good is the theory about gravitational forces which cannot be backed by the scientific method. Remember, there is a bunch of scientists
>>157837
>calculus is good
Then you might as well give up now, because calculus was invented to determine the sphereoid shape of the planet. That is its purpose.
It just so happens to correlate to vast swaths of other scientific constants, meaning that if they're wrong (including gravity) then calculus would not work.
Calculus disproves flat earth
>calculus is good
Then you might as well give up now, because calculus was invented to determine the sphereoid shape of the planet. That is its purpose.
It just so happens to correlate to vast swaths of other scientific constants, meaning that if they're wrong (including gravity) then calculus would not work.
Calculus disproves flat earth
File (): 21A29C5383798264D480AA1B7ECD118B-193054.jpg (188.5 KB, 517x1427, eeeeeee.jpg)
>>157838
>because calculus was invented to determine the sphereoid shape of the planet
>Calculus disproves flat earth
Preposterous.
According to history, Newton developed calculus at the same time than Leibniz, and the later was having none of the Newton's nonsense.
https://williameamon.com/?p=382
>because calculus was invented to determine the sphereoid shape of the planet
>Calculus disproves flat earth
Preposterous.
According to history, Newton developed calculus at the same time than Leibniz, and the later was having none of the Newton's nonsense.
https://williameamon.com/?p=382
File (): C6674C461402BBFE34C4129E382CE18D-53096.jpg (51.9 KB, 960x546, hqdefault.jpg)
>The Greatest Laser Experiment In History - FECORE
>The greatest and most sophisticated laser experiment. In this video FECORE will show how this historic laser experiment was performed. Thank you for your consideration.
>FECORE is growing fast, our member base has doubled in the last 9 months and our staff of engineers has grown with very well qualified and educated individuals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsSanuUNygI
Spoiler alert: CURVATURE NOT FOUND
>The greatest and most sophisticated laser experiment. In this video FECORE will show how this historic laser experiment was performed. Thank you for your consideration.
>FECORE is growing fast, our member base has doubled in the last 9 months and our staff of engineers has grown with very well qualified and educated individuals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsSanuUNygI
Spoiler alert: CURVATURE NOT FOUND
Anonymous
No.157849
File (): 94FDFF752DF9AD1AA3E0F6D3BC6DD187-191703.jpg (187.2 KB, 625x1093, 98645132.jpg)
>>157848
Thats the one!
I agree that one raises further questions. In fact, I seem to recall having this conversation ITT previously. Anyway, if the earth were non-spherical, the experimental distances would be far greater and far more readily provable. For one I would have to look at the specific mandlebrot section for the planet in those areas (hungary and budapest, iirc). For two, even without calculating extreme ratios, you're suggesting that 'if the earth is flat' you could see any part of the planet if you went far enough away. Like, assuming the illumination is sufficient with the revolving sun and moon disk, if you traveled far enough perpendicular to the ground, you could see all continents?
Thats the one!
I agree that one raises further questions. In fact, I seem to recall having this conversation ITT previously. Anyway, if the earth were non-spherical, the experimental distances would be far greater and far more readily provable. For one I would have to look at the specific mandlebrot section for the planet in those areas (hungary and budapest, iirc). For two, even without calculating extreme ratios, you're suggesting that 'if the earth is flat' you could see any part of the planet if you went far enough away. Like, assuming the illumination is sufficient with the revolving sun and moon disk, if you traveled far enough perpendicular to the ground, you could see all continents?
Why didnt they have a length receiver? You know, so they could adjust the angle of the laser and derive corroborative angles and heights? You know, trigonometry?
Anonymous
No.157852
Like literally, that would be unassailable
>>157854
Uhm, no, instead I will objectively conclude that the experiment has an insufficient sampling of data to corroborate and scale its results from, from which a hypothesis yhat WOULD lead one to proof of flat earth SCIENTIFICALLY. Like literally, just adjust/measure the angle of the laser, and record it. Thats all it would have taken.
Uhm, no, instead I will objectively conclude that the experiment has an insufficient sampling of data to corroborate and scale its results from, from which a hypothesis yhat WOULD lead one to proof of flat earth SCIENTIFICALLY. Like literally, just adjust/measure the angle of the laser, and record it. Thats all it would have taken.
Anonymous
No.157857
File (): 4D148D8A4BC4044AA39795C2C35051BC-214006.png (209.0 KB, 595x549, 84651-filly.png)
>>157615
I was asking about the South.
>>157613
>>157744
While I appreciate how NASA tells more lies than truths (as any official organism would), this is not enough of an argument for me. This is exactly the same as "debunking" psychic phenomena by demonstrating you can fake it with stage magic. It doesn't debunk anything. I'm afraid that's just a fallacy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jF349mX2lw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32YO4ku0xFQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUiw576aM00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eABjyxKDXE
Numerous people have been there and experienced what according to the flat Earth model should be impossible. Instead of calling everyone a liar, I'd like to see a flat Earth model that accounts for this phenomenon. That is the real scientific mindset. Adjust your hypotheses to your experience.
I was asking about the South.
>>157613
>>157744
While I appreciate how NASA tells more lies than truths (as any official organism would), this is not enough of an argument for me. This is exactly the same as "debunking" psychic phenomena by demonstrating you can fake it with stage magic. It doesn't debunk anything. I'm afraid that's just a fallacy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jF349mX2lw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32YO4ku0xFQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUiw576aM00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eABjyxKDXE
Numerous people have been there and experienced what according to the flat Earth model should be impossible. Instead of calling everyone a liar, I'd like to see a flat Earth model that accounts for this phenomenon. That is the real scientific mindset. Adjust your hypotheses to your experience.
>>149965
That's how boomers were taught to "learn". It's the same mechanism at work behind the Q anon phenomenon. Herd mentality, heavy emotional investment, groupthink and above all projection so that faults in one's reasoning (or lack thereof) are perceived to belong to the other.
Honestly, at this point, after having given it the benefit of the doubt for 5 years (and I would still be willing to believe the Earth was a thoroid, if it stood up to scrutiny), I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing was some kind of experiment on manipulation of the masses.
Now that I think about it, the parallels between Q anon and flat Earth are unsettling.
That's how boomers were taught to "learn". It's the same mechanism at work behind the Q anon phenomenon. Herd mentality, heavy emotional investment, groupthink and above all projection so that faults in one's reasoning (or lack thereof) are perceived to belong to the other.
Honestly, at this point, after having given it the benefit of the doubt for 5 years (and I would still be willing to believe the Earth was a thoroid, if it stood up to scrutiny), I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing was some kind of experiment on manipulation of the masses.
Now that I think about it, the parallels between Q anon and flat Earth are unsettling.
>>157892
Glad its not just me. There ARE interesting elements to the flat earth theory and SOME (minimally) of their findings are compelling. However, they are compelling in the sense of 'why did the readings come out that way', and the evidence does NOT point toward a flat earth, rather it suggests phenomenon locally occuring in thenexperiment that skews the results. That we're not allowed to "peer" review the experiments beyond being 'told' what they entail is likewise telling.
Glad its not just me. There ARE interesting elements to the flat earth theory and SOME (minimally) of their findings are compelling. However, they are compelling in the sense of 'why did the readings come out that way', and the evidence does NOT point toward a flat earth, rather it suggests phenomenon locally occuring in thenexperiment that skews the results. That we're not allowed to "peer" review the experiments beyond being 'told' what they entail is likewise telling.
>>157892
>Now that I think about it, the parallels between Q anon and flat Earth are unsettling.
There is not comparison, Qanon relies on Mossad bullshit, on the other hand, the Flat Earth movement on direct observation and experimentation.
>Now that I think about it, the parallels between Q anon and flat Earth are unsettling.
There is not comparison, Qanon relies on Mossad bullshit, on the other hand, the Flat Earth movement on direct observation and experimentation.
>>157898
>the Flat Earth movement on direct observation and experimentation
Do you have any peer reviewed sources?
Galileo was imprisonned, not because how argued that the Earth revolved around the sun but, because he didn't allow his scientific studies to be peer reviewed and slandered anyone who dared to question or criticize his theories (Because, you know, THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS TO CONTINUOUSLY PERFORM THE EXPERIMENT UNTIL A FACT IS UNDENIABLY REACHED).
>the Flat Earth movement on direct observation and experimentation
Do you have any peer reviewed sources?
Galileo was imprisonned, not because how argued that the Earth revolved around the sun but, because he didn't allow his scientific studies to be peer reviewed and slandered anyone who dared to question or criticize his theories (Because, you know, THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS TO CONTINUOUSLY PERFORM THE EXPERIMENT UNTIL A FACT IS UNDENIABLY REACHED).
File (): 11DC76FA8C66F9D54CE19F2B04773B02-18980888.mp4 (18.1 MB, Resolution:1280x720 Length:00:02:50, FLAT EARTH is not peer reviewed(1).mp4) [play once] [loop]
>>157920
>Do you have any peer reviewed sources?
Flat Earth is not peer reviewed. There's a reason to it.
>Do you have any peer reviewed sources?
Flat Earth is not peer reviewed. There's a reason to it.
>>157897
Not really. I want to know why there is a midnight Sun in the Southern hemisphere. I'm alright with "debunking" whatever model, including the "globe model" and all its cosmology. I really can stretch my suspension of disbelief as far as logical consistency allows.
But give me an alternative that explains the empirical observations. How does a midnight Sun in the Sourthern hemisphere happen?
Not really. I want to know why there is a midnight Sun in the Southern hemisphere. I'm alright with "debunking" whatever model, including the "globe model" and all its cosmology. I really can stretch my suspension of disbelief as far as logical consistency allows.
But give me an alternative that explains the empirical observations. How does a midnight Sun in the Sourthern hemisphere happen?
File (): 0EC441BEF34B7C20E343B43ACC66C492-185467.jpg (181.1 KB, 1080x1350, boomer-with-a-computer.jpg)
>>157898
I was talking specifically about the memes. You can't deny they have the same flavor to them.
>very crude humor based in middle school finger-pointing and ridiculing
>appeals to emotion and peer pressure
>boomer-tier meme crafting skills
>>157930
I don't. Everything I "know" about almost anything (even most of the time I experience it directly) is based in conjecture and logic. Are all these videos fake and their posters liars? Can you prove it? >>157891
There are many, many such videos by civilian researchers who have been there and recorded it. Hell, I might go there myself and in many a flat Earther's mind I would become a Mason, a liar and a conspirator.
How many videos disproving the midnight Sun in Antartica in-situ are there?
I was talking specifically about the memes. You can't deny they have the same flavor to them.
>very crude humor based in middle school finger-pointing and ridiculing
>appeals to emotion and peer pressure
>boomer-tier meme crafting skills
>>157930
I don't. Everything I "know" about almost anything (even most of the time I experience it directly) is based in conjecture and logic. Are all these videos fake and their posters liars? Can you prove it? >>157891
There are many, many such videos by civilian researchers who have been there and recorded it. Hell, I might go there myself and in many a flat Earther's mind I would become a Mason, a liar and a conspirator.
How many videos disproving the midnight Sun in Antartica in-situ are there?
[Reply] [Last 50 Posts] [Last 100 Posts] [Last 200 Posts]
You are viewing older replies. Click [View All] or [Last n Posts] to vew latest posts.
Clicking update will load all posts posted after last post on this page.
Post pagination: [Prev] [1-100] [101-200] [201-300] [301-400] [401-500] [501-600] [601-700] [701-800] [801-900] [901-1000] [1001-1100] [1101-1200] [1201-1300] [1301-1400] [1401-1500] [1501-1600] [1601-1700] [1701-1800] [1801-1900] [1901-2000] [2001-2100] [2101-2200] [2201-2300] [2301-2400] [2401-2500] [2501-2600] [2601-2700] [2701-2770] [Next] [Live (last 100 replies)]
2770 replies | 1431 files | 277 UUIDs | Page 5