/vx/ - Videogames and Paranormal


If you want to see the latest posts from all boards in a convenient way please check out /overboard/

Name
Email
Subject
By clicking New Reply, I acknowledge the existence of the Israeli nuclear arsenal.
Comment
0
Select File / Oekaki
File(s)
Password (For file and/or post deletion.)

thtfx.jpeg
900px-SunAnimation.gif
748.png
Flat Earth.
Anonymous
No.148613
148618 148626 148828 149171 150423 157834
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.
609 replies and 382 files omitted.
Anonymous
No.161245
1.png
2.png
NEW - Mar 3, 2022
CNN hit piece on Flat Earth
>Why some people STILL believe the Earth is flat
>Flat Earth videos rack up huge views on the Internet — but how could anyone believe such a fundamentally false idea? Daily Beast reporter Kelly Weill joins John Avlon on this week’s Reality Check to discuss her new book and explain how social media has given an old conspiracy theory a huge boost - and the best way to convince someone to leave these cult-like groups.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTSJC9Tmt4E
Anonymous
No.161378
162073
File (hide): 91497C30D7A020AB391C8BC084A98003-8140525.mp4 (7.8 MB, Resolution:640x480 Length:00:02:02, V-2 Rocket Films (FLAT) Earth in (1946).mp4) [play once] [loop]
V-2 Rocket Films (FLAT) Earth in (1946).mp4
>V-2 Rocket Films (FLAT) Earth in (1946).
https://odysee.com/v-2-rocket-films-%28flat%29-earth-in-%281946%29:a

Original video, not edited:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjXwsj8kHT4
Anonymous
No.162069
162070 162426
maxresdefault.jpg
>Nikon P900 Stars- Real Stars and Planets vs NASA images. Stars are not what they tell us! - (4:51 long)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr6g7Pe92C4
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/9mmDFd0q5Lca/
Anonymous
No.162070
>>162069
>in this video people unironically think that a Nikon camera is giving them an undistorted picture
Anonymous
No.162073
>>161378
After watching both videos, I see no evidence for a flat earth. If you would be so kind as to indicate the part that you feel is evidence, that would be great.
Anonymous
No.162383
Okay, after scrolling through all of this, I've gotten some decent ideas for my fantasy setting.
Anonymous
No.162403
162405 162408 162409 162413
Question for flat earthers and round earthers: How can a world larger than Earth have a lower gravity? Preferably 0.9x to 0.8x.
Anonymous
No.162405
>>162403
Maybe if it were a gas planet? Lower mass should mean lower gravity.
Anonymous
No.162408
162425
>>162403
Uranus hos very low gravity, mate.
Anonymous
No.162409
1575337360396.png
>>162403
Cull all the dense mf's, like everyone ITT
Anonymous
No.162413
fmp,x_small,gloss,wall_texture,product,750x1000.u1.jpg
>>162403
>gravity
It doesn't exist. Think in density and buoyancy.
That said, there are 44 instances of gravity in this bread with plenty of information.
Anonymous
No.162417
162422
>>160435
So pic 4 does come up if you follow the link, it's page 35 if you follow the actual number of pages included in the pdf but 30 if you follow the numbers in the down-left corner of the pages.

Don't know what that means in the context of this document yet, though.
Anonymous
No.162418
Maybe someday I'll go through this thread.
Anonymous
No.162422
162598
>>162417
>Don't know what that means in the context of this document yet
It means that the military and NASA make all their calculations assuming Earth is flat, otherwise the math would be so incredible complex and unmanageable that all their projects will be unpractical. Not to mention that making calculations on the assumption that Earth is flat, the math checks perfectly out.
Anonymous
No.162425
162426
>>162408
Uranus doesn't exist, it's a CIA psyop
>refuses to elaborare further
Anonymous
No.162426
>>162425
>Uranus
>a so called planet
See >>162069 as an introduction.
Anonymous
No.162449
ACA2BDB47A357B06B20AECF5C44B39A3-326681.png
Zero doubt, this will be ironically weaponized but thats fine cuz you cant fake authenticity
Anonymous
No.162456
Aeiou Stars aren't real
Anonymous
No.162583
162584
hqdefault.jpg
>Antarctica Is NOT What You Think! [CLIP]
>A video that should end the idea that we live on a globe with a southern continent at the bottom surrounding the south pole.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoX27ItX22M
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/euyI2q1sZQZj/

Full Length Video on Rokfin: https://rokfin.com/post/80542/ARCHIVE
Anonymous
No.162584
>>162583
This is why Im on about flat earth.
I agree
Its curious/suspicious that there is no presented video of a complete 360deg. shadow. That should be readily available, easy to document and produce, and that it isnt being done is worthy of significant consideration.
Which legitimately leaves us with questions about why, and to what purpose. I know what conclusion you lot wanna jump to, because you're an idealogue.
As for the lengths of the shadows,... I dont know if the videographer has ever heard of slopes. Cuz you can very clearly obser e slopes in all the 'elongated/short' shadow videos.

Ive said it before, Ill say it again. There are a number of unanswered question about the globe model.
However, there are vastly more unanswered questions about a flat earth model, and until such a time as a flat earth model can be producex, from which a predictive model can be observed and validated through trial, its lunacy to attempt to throw out the globe, especially withiut being able to explain why calculus doesnt work.

Any day now on that.
Let me rephrase that. Lets assume the earth IS flat.
Why then does calculus apply cohesively to a multitude of naturally occurring phenomena, except the planet?
Am I to assume calculus is part of the masonic nasa conspiracy?
Anonymous
No.162586
162590
Another rephrase: Why does calculus produce cohesive results that indicate a globe model if the earth is flat? If calculus were capable of quantifying and predicting all walks of natural phenomena with accuracy, why does that accuracy dissolve when applied to the globe, especially in that the same multi-genre cohesion can be observed to indicate a globe?
Simply
>Calculus is a perfectly viable, until you apply it to the globe.
Why?
Bonus points if you approach the question from an arbitrary standpoint, as opposed to starting from... your usual.
>>149639
>>149962
>>149974
>>154733
Golly, I wonder why these posts dont warrant an answer/response
Anonymous
No.162590
162592
>>162586
>Calculus
Are you referring to trigonometry?
Anonymous
No.162592
>>162590
Did Newton invent trigonometry to map the circumference of the planet?
Anonymous
No.162598
162599 162600
Wow, a lengthy silence; I assume OP is versing himself with Calculus. This is not to cast aspersions on trig, its more to say that simplified equations on the internet will never give values that will match in-field values. The planet is far more nuanced than a simple equation or ratio of slope over distance.
>>162422
>otherwise the math would be so incredible complex and unmanageable that all their projects will be unpractical.
You said it, not me
Anonymous
No.162599
>>162598
>I assume OP is versing himself with Calculus
No nigger, I'm cooking diner after a long day.
Anonymous
No.162600
162736
>>162598
>This is not to cast aspersions on trig, its more to say that simplified equations on the internet will never give values that will match in-field values.
WTF are you talking about, math is math. Give some example where math won't apply.
Anonymous
No.162732
162733
IMG-20220324-000546-348-1623x2048.jpeg

Anonymous
No.162733
162734 162735
>>162732
Can someone explain to this nigger what relativity is
And whiplash
Anonymous
No.162734
>>162733
>relativity
>whiplash
Movies?
Anonymous
No.162735
>>162733
At least you tried
Anonymous
No.162736
162737
>>162600
Newton's planetary calculations. Go on, explain where he went wrong.
Anonymous
No.162737
162738
>>162736
>calculations
There's nothing wrong with them. The problem is that Newton assumes a heliocentric system, which is a fiction of course.
Anonymous
No.162738
162739
>>162737
Are you of the position that he didnt validate his calculations through testing?
Anonymous
No.162739
162740
>>162738
>validate
>testing
The calculations are fine, the issue is that they are applied to a theoretical model impossible to verify.
NASA and other transnational agencies claiming the existence of space are lying.
Anonymous
No.162740
162741
>>162739
So thats a yes then? You unironically believe that he invented Calculus, but didnt bother to perform a single experiment to test his findings?
Anonymous
No.162741
>>162740
>You unironically believe that he invented Calculus
Your words, not mine.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz would strongly disagree.
>but didnt bother to perform a single experiment to test his findings?
And how would he? Testing the numbers against moving celestial objects may match, but the core of the issue is if those objects in the firmament are really planets as Newton assumed.
Anonymous
No.162789
162790
File (hide): D742178025A27F2C3B2FF42D0AE5B7F7-2978930.mp4 (2.8 MB, Resolution:854x480 Length:00:01:50, GAME OVER GLOBERS.mp4) [play once] [loop]
GAME OVER GLOBERS.mp4
GAME OVER GLOBERS.
Anonymous
No.162790
162791
>>162789
There's even a specific wikipedia on this for Norway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_of_Norway
>A straight line along Norway's sea borders (the coastal perimeter) is 2,650 kilometers (1,650 mi) long.[1][2] Along the coast there are many fjords, islands, and bays, resulting in a low-resolution coastline of over 25,000 kilometers (16,000 mi).[3] At 30-meter (98 ft) linear intercepts, this length increases to 83,281 kilometers (51,748 mi)[4] (see the coastline paradox)

And then like that says
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox
Anonymous
No.162791
162792
>>162790
>Benoit Mandelbrot
Yes, his observations on the dynamics of planes will very neatly put the final nail in the flat earth coffin, assuming we get to it
Anonymous
No.162792
162793
>>162791
>his observations on the dynamics of planes will very neatly put the final nail in the flat earth coffin
Interesting. Would you deliver?
Anonymous
No.162793
>>162792
(you) of all anons ought appreciate the irony when I say
>Spoonfeeding Request: DENIED
Anonymous
No.162794
162795 162796
How are either of you retards supposed to convince each other if neither of you ever want to put in the minimum effort to "spoon-feed" the over party?
It's the same shit every week with you fucks. Ffs, just explain your viewpoints.
Anonymous
No.162795
162797
2367315.jpg
>>162794
They enjoy the attention that they get from each other more than the arguments themselves.
Anonymous
No.162796
162797
>>162794
Either side would claim that the minimal-to-moderate effort has since been applied, and in their specific mentalities they would be right.
Both parties feel justified in disregarding any/all of the opposition arguments, and point tontheir opponent's inabikity to see what they see as evidence of the other's folly.
Anonymous
No.162797
162798
>>162795
>>162796
It's all so tiresome.
Anonymous
No.162798
162799 162822 162824
th.jpg
>>162797
Tired no longer friend. The horizon will always be flat.
Anonymous
No.162799
162800 162801
>>162798
>Pic
This is facebook tier retardation
Anonymous
No.162800
434-4349649_transparent-smug-anime-face-png-mlp-flash-sentry.png
>>162799
>deflection
Anonymous
No.162801
162802
>>162799
Welcome to the flat earth thread
Anonymous
No.162802
162803 162805
>>162801
And yet, globers cannot prove the curve, unless NASA told me so.
Anonymous
No.162803
162804
>>162802
So how autistic are you?
Anonymous
No.162804
162809
>>162803
>personal matters
Stick to the topic.
Anonymous
No.162805
162806
>>162802
Its been countless times, in countless ways, by countless methods.
A bit hyperbolic, the point being that (you) and your lot have JUST enough technical knowledge to THINK youve unassailable proof, when all you have is a bunch of experiments that need to be reevaluated.
Cuz thats how science works. When an experiment gives results outside the well-established expectation, you first vet the experiment, not the well-established finding. Becaude at the end of the day, theres more money in refuting a well established finding than the theory that comes of it.
I would love to be presented with the same experiment conducted by numerous people using different equipment and achieving the same/correlating results. But I dont, all I have is a bunch of niche attempts to conduct an experiment that dont pass the most basic threshold for anything more than data sampling.
And thats what (you) have presented as evidence, which when asked for specifics, BEGAN the infamous 'spoonfeed denied' campaign.
TL;DR OP cant put up but wont shut up
Anonymous
No.162806
162808 162809
th3.jpg
>>162805
Allow me to synthesize the curve issue here: "Fake Science" fed by the freemasons.

>And thats what (you) have presented as evidence, which when asked for specifics, BEGAN the infamous 'spoonfeed denied' campaign.
I disagree, you and your cohorts can not ask for specifics when the bread has plenty of it. And the very reason is because you are unwilling to research more, let alone to read this whole thread.
Anonymous
No.162808
162812
>>162806
>this thread has lots of specifics, go now and find them
Anonymous
No.162809
162810
>>162804
How can the earth be flat when its hollow? It can be only one, and its not flat.
>>162806
How are the jews involved?
Anonymous
No.162810
162811
>>162809
>How are the jews involved?
Not the jews per se, but the masons.
Read the bread for details.
Anonymous
No.162811
162813
>>162810
>Not the jews
Opinion discarded
Anonymous
No.162812
>>162808
That's why you need to lurk moar.
Anonymous
No.162813
162814
>>162811
Oh its not just that its not the Jews, but:
the moon is fake (not a planetoid)
the planets are fake (cuz a nikon camera yo)
the stars are fake (theyre not stars, theyre... did I mention the nikon camera?)
and much more!
Go on, sift through thenpages of that shit. Or else you're a shill, or braindead. Thats OPs position.
Anonymous
No.162814
>>162813
>Thats OPs position.
Actually is not only OP's position, but hard evidence posted here.
(You) have plenty of time to debunk it, and yet (you) squandered it with strawmans and character assassination attempts.
Go figures.
Anonymous
No.162815
162816
Screenshot_20220228-080616_DuckDuckGo.jpg
We pointed at two boats with lasers
we cant do simple math
our homemade rockets ran into atmopheric conditions, er, the firmament dome
ANTARCTICA
we cant comprehend scale, dimension, or circular/spherical-obloid geometry
... all for the low low price of hours+ of your time!
Anonymous
No.162816
d1e.png
>>162815
>we cant do simple math
Now you are being maliciously deceptive, aka dishonest.
The math is already set by the freemasons stating that the supposed globe has a radius of 3,959 miles, experiments debunk that in an unequivocal way.
See >>149071 pic 3.
Stop lying.
Anonymous
No.162817
162818
1646305855901.png
Flat Earth is a Jewish psyop to make right wingers look like retards.
Anonymous
No.162818
162819
>>162817
Sure, if (you) can debunk it, but you cannot.
Anonymous
No.162819
1437262.jpg
>>162818
I could, but you'd pretend that it's bullshit, like a good shabbos goy.
Anonymous
No.162822
162823 162824
>>162798
It does cut through the Earth. It's a magnetic field. What did you think?
Anonymous
No.162823
162824
>>162822
Wait until he gets to the part about gravity 'not being real'
Anonymous
No.162824
download (3).png
>>162822
>>162798
Оh, you mean compasses don't point into the ground? Compasses can't even point down so they'd just rotate on the axis they can point to anyway. But it's a field. It's going along the axis not pointing straight at the North. We see the same thing on smaller observable scales too

>>162823
GRAVITY holds no WATER
*deflated beach ball*
Anonymous
No.162825
162826
Screenshot_20220410-192150_Brave.jpg
lol wut
Anonymous
No.162826
162828
b3c.gif
>>162825
>Flat Earth Society
Controlled opposition. If you actually read this thread you would already know it.
Anonymous
No.162828
1521064278013.gif
>>162826
>Controlled opposition
Anonymous
No.162829
File (hide): 9EFF799D383166197732C71F7A60DF60-4404388.mp4 (4.2 MB, Resolution:854x480 Length:00:02:56, Hitting The Dome.mp4) [play once] [loop]
Hitting The Dome.mp4
Some rocket surfing the dome.
Anonymous
No.162838
31854.png
32110.png
2356.jpg
>Chris UK - Globe Lie Gamechanger
>The following video portrays a scientifically proven analysis that not only questions the preconditioned narrative that we live on a spinning ball but also how that information has been packaged into a format that pertains to alleviate any doubt regarding the shape, structure, and multifaceted dynamics of how our world and the universe can exist. We can choose to follow the status quo and never question the world we live in, or, we can choose to disseminate the evidence, open our eyes, and realise that truth can only be obtained when science and our senses are coaligned.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Awq4-ETSTbw/
The video has some math and might not be suitable for most ballers.
Anonymous
No.162861
162862 162863
Screenshot_20220410-192018_Brave.jpg
Flat eartherism is a psyop to distract whites from jews because there are no jews to talk about when it comes to radio waves or centrifugal force
Anonymous
No.162862
>>162861
There are freemasons and that is close enough as freemasonry is judaism for the goyim.
Anonymous
No.162863
162865
>>162861
I feel like either way it's mostly just schizos, but this makes more sense than the other conspiracy. I still don't know what they gain from saying the Earth is round if it's flat. Best answer I've gotten is something vague about defying god because bible says it's flat
Anonymous
No.162865
sunset.jpg
>>162863
>I still don't know what they gain
The truth.
Anonymous
No.162875
162877
https://youtu.be/4Qpzl8bWMnI
While not appearing to be a strict flatty in a literal sense, analysis of this guy can offer insight into the dynamic in which a flat earther conceptualizes and formulates their worldview and argues their case.
Note, he is at no point making an argument. His points have the appearance of arguments, but all he is arguing is his personal disbelief, based on a lack of comprehension of what he is seeing. This is the trap flat earthers beckon reasonable skeptics into, and why 'debates' and discussions with flat earthers never go anywhere.
Its not about arguing facts and evidence, because if facts and evidence were comprehended there'd be no argument.
Flat earthers insist on arguing their diabelief, which is as subjective as what one thinks 'the best flavor of ice cream is'. Additionally, flatties positions (from their perspective) is actually insulated by a lack of comprehension.
Now, a skeptical person wouldnt conclude either a flat or a round earth, they would keep asking questions to determine which viewpoints, data sets, figures, and values are corroborrated by other experiments and data sets. Eventually, those values will coalesce into an aggregated spectrum of concurrence and consistency.
Flat earthers however have already jumped the shark and have wilfully vested their interest in proving/promoting flat earth rather than asking the questions that would lead them to a viable and predictive model that can withstand scrutiny.
In short, being a flat earther is about promoting a 'flat earth' - as in, an ideologue - rather than pursuing a framework that explains all the observable phenomena, while accounting for a flat earth.
You cant educate a person on how ignorant they are of the existing science when their worldview depends on that ignorance, and they will resent you for trying. Protip: thats what the Psalm(?) about pearls before wolves/dogs is about.
Anonymous
No.162877
162887
>>162875
>but all he is arguing is his personal disbelief, based on a lack of comprehension of what he is seeing
Projecting much?
By the way, that man is using his brain and bases his belief on a very real phenomena: entropy.
On the other hoof, globers base their faith on establishment's fairy tales.
Anonymous
No.162887
>>162877
If the earth is flat, why do Radio Towers work best when they are tall?
The earth is not flat, and Radio Towers are tall so their signal can travel around the globe better.
Anonymous
No.162935
IMn2izUymi90_960.jpg
>Witness the Flat Earth Awakening of Owen Benjamin
https://www.bitchute.com/video/IMn2izUymi90/
Anonymous
No.162936
162937
>tides
https://youtube.com/shorts/dreHvsvXR9c?feature=share
Anonymous
No.162937
162938
>>162936
>African charlatan
Try again.
Anonymous
No.162938
162941
>>162937
Not an argument.
The point is: if gravity isnt real, the moon isnt real, the earth is flat etc.,
Explain the tides
Anonymous
No.162941
162943
>>162938
>Not an argument.
Pretty much it is. Taking seriously an African in art, philosophy, science, or logic, is preposterous.
Anonymous
No.162943
>>162941
Tides, wh3n3ver you're ready
Anonymous
No.162945
163139
>thinks an ad hominem is an argument
This thread, in a nutshell
Anonymous
No.162946
163010
Unscientific nonsense like Terrain Theory and Flat Earth are PsyOps to make any site that welcomes talk of it look unappealing.

Where do discussions about these things go?

Do the Flat Earthers have answers for why trebuchet calculations must account for the curvature of the earth to hit their targets, and why they miss their targets if they assume the earth is flatter or more curved than it actually is?

Can Terrain Theorists explain Antibiotics?
Anonymous
No.163010
163011 163012
>>162946
>psyop
Concurred
https://youtu.be/he-7vs0BkLE
One should draw their own conclusions
Anonymous
No.163011
163013 163014
bust_pfft_by_xsparklingstarlight-d9v0g25.png
>>163010
>One should draw their own conclusions
I did.
DITRH allowed the glober to win. Why? I don't know.
Going straight to the basic facts: If there is not curve, then there is not planet, then there is not space, then there is not universe, and the whole fake science comes down in a spectacular fashion.
Anonymous
No.163012
yjm827.png
>>163010
This is a summary of the debate. Very poor indeed.
Anonymous
No.163013
163033
>>163011
Tides
Anonymous
No.163014
163015
>>163011
>DITRH allowed the glober to win
You have evidence of this?
>curve
I already showed you, ITT, with evidence from one of your fancy Nikon P1000's.
Anonymous
No.163015
163016 163019
>>163014
So are you the same guy that spergs about the KGB?
Anonymous
No.163016
>>163015
Flail harder flatty.
Tide
Go on, explain it. Cuz the tide has been a thing since during EVERY-centric, every curve-or-not-curve culture.

Be a good lad, tell me how the tides work.
It should be easy, I could map it quite simply using many flat earth pizzas. The why or how though....
Anonymous
No.163017
163482
6efda847d2e53315fd735cc4c3bd4eea.jpeg
God dammit
Anonymous
No.163019
163020
>>163015
Yeah, it is he same kike.
Anonymous
No.163020
>>163019
Deflect harder flaggit.
The Tide. Any day now.
Anonymous
No.163023
163033
Oekaki.png
I call it the roving titty model. This accurately displays the phenomenon of tidal forces, on the flat earth. Cuz its totally flat y'all
Anonymous
No.163024
163033
Oekaki.png
Overhead view.
See how the nipple represents the peak of the tide on the respective half of the pizza, the titty expanding ourward in an ovoid titty shape. Dont question it, boobies
Anonymous
No.163025
163033
Oekaki.png
sideways view, line pointing toward north pole
Anonymous
No.163033
163034 163077
maxresdefault.jpg
Scre040.png
>>163013
>>163023
>>163024
>>163025
>tides
I don't know much about tides, but you look obsessed by then.
So I investigated a bit and I found the usual sources claiming the existence of the moon's gravitational force as responsible. Of course that's pure non-sense based on faith. Then I went to a reputable source to find out about and perhaps to please your curiosity.

>Eric Dubay: Cause of the Tides (13:53 long)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEP3zhso8jE
Mirror:
https://odysee.com/@TheFlatEarthAwakening:0/eric-dubay-cause-of-the-tides-on-flat:b
https://www.bitchute.com/video/3kYRA7SE8We6/
Anonymous
No.163034
Screenshot_20220420-070037_DuckDuckGo.jpg
Screenshot_20220420-070414_DuckDuckGo.jpg
>>163033
>I dont know
Holy shit! Shocking. Thats the first scientific position youve taken all thread. Are you feeling okay?
Meanwhile, Dubay
>It doesnt make sense to me so its bullshit
Yeah, he says that alot. I did get a laugh out of pic 1 tho
>pic 2
Is that a hollow earth diagram?
>Mount Meru at the north pole
Citations Needed
Seriously, Im curious about this, and anecdotes dont cut it. If these e plorers found it, it should be repeatable.
Again, this seems to support hollow earth because meanwhile....
Anonymous
No.163035
Screenshot_20220419-160927_DuckDuckGo.jpg
Screenshot_20220419-160941_DuckDuckGo.jpg
Gonna get spec ific now, because the debate had a designated time structure.
How is this phenomenon possible?, where the stars can be observed to rotate in opposite directions, if its a flat earth?
Anonymous
No.163036
163037
https://youtu.be/bvi9jjyVuGo
Not sure what current events look like, but was very interested to see that Dubay has been somewhat uninvoted from FE conferences and panels? Ngl, I find his position on the Holocaust, Jews, and international finance to be quite CREDIBLE. Ngl, this is the first time he has said anything that make me want to have sterilized his parents
Anonymous
No.163037
>>163036
*makes me not want to have
Anonymous
No.163060
900.png
>Clouds behind the sun
https://www.bitchute.com/video/tBUui1UTPtM4/
Just a curiosity. /s
Anonymous
No.163076
unknown (18) (4).png

Anonymous
No.163077
163079 163082
>>163033
>a reputable source
Are you being serious?
Anonymous
No.163079
>>163077
Unironically, he is serious
Anonymous
No.163082
>>163077
Absolutely. Dead serious.
Anonymous
No.163085
163090
garbage science.jpg
0920.png
>Cosmology Has Some Big Problems
>The field relies on a conceptual framework that has trouble accounting for new observations
>What do we really know about our universe?
>Born out of a cosmic explosion 13.8 billion years ago, the universe rapidly inflated and then cooled, it is still expanding at an increasing rate and mostly made up of unknown dark matter and dark energy ... right?
>This well-known story is usually taken as a self-evident scientific fact, despite the relative lack of empirical evidence—and despite a steady crop of discrepancies arising with observations of the distant universe.
>In recent months, new measurements of the Hubble constant, the rate of universal expansion, suggested major differences between two independent methods of calculation. Discrepancies on the expansion rate have huge implications not simply for calculation but for the validity of cosmology's current standard model at the extreme scales of the cosmos.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/cosmology-has-some-big-problems/
Take a comfy seat and enjoy an admission of scientific baloney when claims that are stated as fact are just deliriant theories. Hypothesis are not facts, but just speculation.
Anonymous
No.163090
163091
>>163085
But you said that outer space was fake
Anonymous
No.163091
163093
>>163090
Correct. Cosmologists base their theories on a false paradigm.
Anonymous
No.163093
163094
>>163091
But the guy in the article mentions the space telescopes. Is he in on the con?
Anonymous
No.163094
163095
>>163093
I have to guess that it is the same case like the normies. They believe that the "data" and "CGI" is real.
Anonymous
No.163095
163096
>>163094
But this is the same guy you're presenting as refuting the con. So which is it?
Anonymous
No.163096
163109
>>163095
>So which is it?
It is that you have comprehension difficulties.
The guy is not refuting the con, but admits that establishment' scientific theories are shaky at best and driven by ideology, not facts.
Anonymous
No.163109
163110
>>163096
But its Scientific American, arent they like the head of the Freemasonic Jewish round-earth psyop? Shouldnt we be distrusting them?
Anonymous
No.163110
163111
>>163109
>playing riddles
Try harder.
Anonymous
No.163111
163112
>>163110
Im just clarifying that unless they say something that you think supports your argument you present them as relevance, but the 99.99% of the time they go against your argument that theyre Nasa-masonic shills in on the psyop.
Anonymous
No.163112
163113
>>163111
So?
Anonymous
No.163113
163114
>>163112
So 99.99% of the time theyre actively involved in the psyop, which is something you can arbitrarily determine just by who they are, EXCEPT for 0.01% of the time when they are saying something that still supports the other 99.99% of their content (which you have already 'refuted'as 'disinfo'), but tangentially gives a nod to the need for more expansive models.
Nothing about his paper says anything that refutes a spherocal earth model, in fact the entirety of the content is based around such models.
In what way was posting that article credible to a flat earth position?
Anonymous
No.163114
163115
>>163113
I believe you are projecting and what you describe applies to (you).
You consider the information valid if only comes from oligarch funded sources, but independent ones are dismissed. But when some of the first bring doubt, you resort to a futile attempt to discredit OP's deluge of facts.
Anonymous
No.163115
163116
e7e26ffa8e26441587f19e3cb25f6918--so-funny-hilarious.jpg
>>163114
>literally claims that round earth science is a psyop
>literally posts a mainstream publication that institutionally supports the round earth
>Gets called out for it
>Nuh uh, its (you) who does that
Anonymous
No.163116
Long-Tongue-Closeup-Face.jpg
>>163115
Suit yourself.
Anonymous
No.163117
Heres a quick way to observe that the flat earth model is BS.
How come, if the sun is actually a disk some thousand miles away, why does it never distort in perspective?
If the earth were flat, the disk that is the sun would appear increasingly oval over distance due to perspective.
Anonymous
No.163118
163121 163122 163130
Clarifying for posterity
If the sun (and the moon) were disks, the only way they could appear as round is if they were perfectly perpendicular to the observer's position. As such, a person on the east coast viewing the evening sun could not see a round sun at the same time someone on the west coast viewing the afternoon sun perfectly round.
Unless.
A. The sun was actually impossibly far away
and/or
B. The sun is a sphere
Anonymous
No.163121
163124
latest.jpeg
>>163118
>Clarifying for posterity
Eww, no.
You are obfuscating for posterity.
From where did you get the idea that the sun and moon are disks?
Anonymous
No.163122
163125
addressing_Cadance_M.jpeg
>>163118
I give you a hint.
Anonymous
No.163123
@163121
This, sun's literally just a giant lamp from the heavens
Anonymous
No.163124
163128
>>163121
>where did you get the idea
Its been proclaimed by many of the 'sources' ITT, including you implicitly, in your attempts to claim that the planets/space phenomenon in general is a psyop.
Anonymous
No.163125
163126
>>163122
Imagine thinking this is an intelligent post
Anonymous
No.163126
>>163125
Actually a wise post.
Anonymous
No.163128
163129
star-in-moon.jpg
>>163124
The idea that the moon might be a disk has some ground, but it has not been proven, the same goes for the sun.
See the translucent moon and through it, a star.
Anonymous
No.163129
163132 163133
svdsa.png
>>163128
Anonymous
No.163130
163134 163311
1111.jpg
1112.jpg
1113.jpg
>>163118
>Clarifying for posterity
>If the sun (and the moon) were disks, the only way they could appear as round is if they were perfectly perpendicular to the observer's position. As such, a person on the east coast viewing the evening sun could not see a round sun at the same time someone on the west coast viewing the afternoon sun perfectly round.
Ahem.
Anonymous
No.163131
images-o.png

Anonymous
No.163132
163135 163136 163138
>>163129
>Deboonked
https://www.quora.com/If-the-moon-is-238-900-miles-away-from-earth-out-in-deep-black-space-then-how-come-we-can-see-the-clear-blue-sky-behind-it
Anonymous
No.163133
>>163129
You're not seeing the blue sky behind it, you're seeing the sky in front of it.
The sky is milky blue because of the color of the atmosphere. The moon is beyond the edge of the atmosphere, so part of it that isn't illuminated looks like the sky.
Anonymous
No.163134
163135
1575498059078.png
>>163130
<Deeeeeeeeboonk'd
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-moon-reflect-sun-rays-more-like-a-disc-than-a-sphere-as-it-appears-to-the-naked-eye-from-earth
Anonymous
No.163135
163137 163139
>>163132
>>163134
>Source: some random faggot
The only thing gayer than deboonking with snopes is deboonking with quora.
Anonymous
No.163136
163139
84014.png
>>163132
>Taking a pedophile as a source
Anonymous
No.163137
>>163135
Do these pedos draw their power from glober souls?!
Anonymous
No.163138
163140
>>163132
>Blue fog
It is speculation and I didn't find any research about it.
Still, why a supposedly solid object in the sky let us see stars through it remains a mystery.
Anonymous
No.163139
163141
>>163135
>>163136
Remember these? >>162945 >>162938
Anonymous
No.163140
163142
1575600514271.png
>>163138
>"Triple kill!"
https://www.quora.com/If-the-moon-truly-is-a-large-spherical-rock-why-can-we-see-stars-through-it
Anonymous
No.163141
>>163139
tks for the yous
Anonymous
No.163142
163146
index.jpeg
>>163140
>https://www.quora.com/If-the-moon-truly-is-a-large-spherical-rock-why-can-we-see-stars-through-it
>Don't fall for stupid meme
Like NASA's?
Anonymous
No.163143
1572324899637.jpg
>whataboutism
Don't worry anon, we all know it's just those pesky G5 towers dumbing you down.
Anonymous
No.163144
163145
Would you consider the possibility that the moon is actually self-luminescent?
Anonymous
No.163145
>>163144
It's reflective. It reflects the flight of the sun from the illuminated side.
Anonymous
No.163146
>>163142
Make an actual counter-argument.
Anonymous
No.163147
163308 163331
When this thread inevitably gets re-made, make sure it has IDs so that we can have real arguments with consistency.
Anonymous
No.163308
163310
>>163147
But anon, the flatty doesnt WANT arguments with consistency, he cant even be bothered to make arguments other than to point at videos and say 'its in there somewhere'.
Meanwhile if you post something incontravertable - and dobthe labor of providing screenshots, he'll ignore it entirely or (worse) will refuse to acknowledge the evidence.
Like here:
>>159481
Speaking of horseshit, remember this time?
Fuck IT, lets make it a double-feature! LITERALLY!
https://youtu.be/3OfbwhU5PQk
Anonymous
No.163310
163312
>>163308
I just think there'd be better discussions if it were more obvious when posters made arguments that directly contradicted each other.
Anonymous
No.163311
f3bd6995ed80c6e9c65ecdb16942777c.webp.png
b0351c65bb9fb7b23efadabea43700ba.webp.png
637d5044c8033a9e99636cb53e553da8.webp.png
>>163130
You don't see specular highlights on the moon because it's a very rough object with a high brightness. Here's it in blender
Anonymous
No.163312
pcqrkpXKi.png
>>163310
I admire your optimism
Anonymous
No.163314
>Globe shills.
Damn.
Anonymous
No.163328
85917553.jpg

Anonymous
No.163331
163332 163334
>>163147
Seriously though, why would it get remade? You do know that there's no bump-limit on /vx/ right?
Anonymous
No.163332
163333
you can't stop me.gif
>>163331
Yeah. The thread is fine how it is.
Globers' bullying can't stop the truth.
Anonymous
No.163333
163335
>>163332
Yeah, this is the flatty, who doesnt want ids.
I didnt say there wasnt anything wrong with this thread, only an idiot would think that (proven right again), and lo along comes the idiot to proclaim such.
I was just alluding to the fact that there is no need to repost a thread cuz golly gee, I wonder WHY threads on /vx/ dont have a bump limit.
Thats disingenuous, I know exactly why, I just wonder if anyone ELSE thinks it was a bad idea
Anonymous
No.163334
163339
>>163331
Threads have bump limits, they just don't slide.
Anonymous
No.163335
163341
>>163333
I think all boards could benefit to have shorter bump limits, tbh. It's unhealthy for threads to go on this long.
Anonymous
No.163336
unknown (23) (8).png
I might make a thread about the ideas that come with flat-realm cosmologies in fantasy settings.
A lot of conventional fantasy settings assume a standard planetary model for their material planes, but have infinite/expanding flat realms for their extraplanar space. The concept of an infinite flat realm surrounded by concentric ice rings where the borders of reality grow thin is a world-building cosmology I want to experiment with; it could be good for pony-themed games.
Anonymous
No.163337
DfCw7mKUYAE5iTF (1).jpg
The ice rings could be something like the Dark Continent in the Magi setting. Perhaps also a shadowy spot in the center of creation where new suns are born.
Anonymous
No.163339
>>163334
Incorrect, /vx/ bump limits were removed
Anonymous
No.163341
163343
i came.png
>>163335
>It's unhealthy for threads to go on this long.
What happen? Is truth too hard for ya?
Anonymous
No.163342
163344
Imagine being so ignorant that you insulate yourself from your own incompetence and then smugly shove it in everyone's face, under the pretemse that everyone ELSE is stupid.
Anonymous
No.163343
>>163341
No, it's that threads dragging on for a long time without being remade causes decline in discussion quality within those threads.
I was referring more to the main board though.
Anonymous
No.163344
>>163342
Better you should prove Earth is round. Can ya?
Anonymous
No.163346
>163344

>>159481
Waiting on you sweet-cheeks
Anonymous
No.163348
163350
https://youtu.be/MYnjzsjeMK8
Anonymous
No.163349
163350
https://youtu.be/313icHT2XF8
Anonymous
No.163350
163351 163357
rgzdgrd.png
>>163348
>>163349
Do you realize the huge effort NASA and its followers are putting to shut up just a tiny minority who disagree? Quite remarkable. Isn't it?
Anonymous
No.163351
163353
>>163350
>You do realize theres alot of people telling me Im an idiot
Maybe, just maybe, you ARE an idiot
Anonymous
No.163353
163356
80c1.png
>>163351
Name calling doesn't make Earth a ball.
Try again with facts next time.
Anonymous
No.163354
163355
833357.png
BB46398162E4FD4E912CF64A7E03EC8E-106791.png
Behold, spacetime.
Anonymous
No.163355
>>163354
The Ponker Po
Anonymous
No.163356
>>163353
Well every time I do you either cant comprehend them, call the authors/videographers names, or outright ignore incontravertable evidence. So no, you get what you fucking deserve
Anonymous
No.163357
>>163350
>huge effort
Not really.
Anonymous
No.163361
163362 163363
https://youtu.be/Lw4JMl1sErY
Anonymous
No.163362
>>163361
>Flat Earth Society
>controlled opposition
Take a hike, shill.
Anonymous
No.163363
163364
maxresdefault.jpg
>>163361
>low effort shilling
You have to come with something more creative. For example explain why there is not curve at all.
Anonymous
No.163364
>>163363
Why would I lie though?
Anonymous
No.163365
163366 163482
File (hide): D329AF7AF4CAE71FA5615D91217EA489-2327297.mp4 (2.2 MB, Resolution:632x480 Length:00:02:00, Transoceanic flights prove a flat earth.mp4) [play once] [loop]
Transoceanic flights prove a flat earth.mp4
Transoceanic flights prove a flat earth.
Anonymous
No.163366
163367
>>163365
>trans-atlantic flights dont go direct from the bottom of africa to australia
>flat earth is the ONLY explanation
Literally lmao rn, ty
Anonymous
No.163367
163368
>>163366
>unable to connect the dots
(You) must be college educated.
Anonymous
No.163368
163369
>>163367
>music and psychology
Guilty
So, in your 'dot connecting', where does profit motive apply?
Anonymous
No.163369
163370
>>163368
>music and psycholog
You don't qualify to evaluate even physics 101. That said, read a book nigger.
Anonymous
No.163370
163372
>>163369
Oh, thays just college. That is what you said, college.
I got my engineering creds - which people actually pay me money for, enough to have employees, no less - from a trade school. But, accredation is an appeal to authority argument, and has no bearing on the discussion.
And speaking of no bearing on the discussion, in an ironic parallel to ITT, here's the latest Flat Earth Fridays!
Credit, I was oblivious to Sci Man Dan until this thread showed up
https://youtu.be/2huZYKlAdVQ
Anonymous
No.163372
>>163370
>Sci Dan
That paid shill together with all NASA spoke persons won't debate Eric Dubay. There has to be a reason for them not to take that golden opportunity to shame and discredit the Flat Earth poster boy.
Interestingly, the same scenario applies to holohoax propagandists who always decline to debate holohoax debunkers.
Anonymous
No.163376
163377 163379
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDy95_eNPzM
Flatty's cannot dispute this.
Anonymous
No.163377
>>163376
>Flatty's cannot dispute this.
Interesting details. And yet heliocentrism is not holding water, the announced curve cannot be found, then the globe is a fantasy.
Anonymous
No.163379
163383
>>163376
As usual, surely Globebuster made an answer video to the glober. Videos of answer and counter-answers (polemic) populate jew-tube. By posting that Sci-fi Dan video, you are posting a partial view on the subject.
Take in count that OP refrains from posting this kind of crap and sticks to the facts.
Anonymous
No.163383
136925FE922672BB94D224D49018916D-4095225.jpg
>>163379
>sci fi dan
Ngl, thats hilarious, cuz its not wrong. Still, this is the flat earth thread so this is where such content applies, whether in support or in contest of flat earth ahem theory. Gives an idea, actually; youll see.
>based nasaponr
Anonymous
No.163405
https://youtu.be/zixc8eojZdg
Heres a 25 minute video showing the very slow process of a distant supertanker deacending over the horizon.
Pay specific attention to how OP reacts to yet more incontravertable visual evidence of curvature
Recommended at 2x speed
Anonymous
No.163482
Flight_Map_High_Res.jpg
>>163017
Because the sensors are square. But the lens does add barrel distortion, it's just slight enough in most cases that you don't notice it. In 3D renders people add in fake distortion to make it look more realistic

Actual photo of a straight building
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SpyTP7rdwv6N-cA9VToYfBIS8yj6lg5Py2XfOeo488Q/edit#slide=id.g141444f9b3_1_251

>>163365
The reasoning for this could be as simple as the winds being strong or them not wanting to risk having a problem while being in the middle of nowhere to land. But I'm guessing there's also some economy to it, since flights aren't always simple A to B but can have people going to multiple different destinations and if you go a path that's close to many others you can make dropoffs for all of those places, and load on new passengers, places probably more worthwhile than Africa

How do you explain flight paths being curved most of the time? Including, yes, when they do actually go from Africa to South America or Australia