/vx/ - Videogames and Paranormal

>>150413
>I agree those videos are way too long and try to explain too much.
They don't explain shit. What does the length of the coastline have to do with traveling from New Zealand to Chile? Why do none of them attempt to disprove the curvature of the Earth buy doing their test from any of the plains like the Utah Salt Flats like the guy insisted? Why do none of the videos directly say, "This is the reason why, and now I will explain how that works"?

>>150414
>"This is the reason why, and now I will explain how that works"?
No problem.
If you are indeed hungry for knowledge and according to you, you despise to waste time, you should see >>148884
>>148885 and perhaps >>149622

>>150415
>If you are indeed hungry for knowledge
THAT IS NOT WHAT I ASKED FOR.
What I asked for is for you to explain, in simple detail, why it is that the so-called challenges proposed in are "easily" disproven. Videos that are hours on end and documents that hundreds of pages log or make fallacies claims that do explain anything to do not make an argument nor are constituted as "knowledge".

Actually take the time to explain and refute shit. There's more than enough posts in this thread already asking questions that have been outright ignored.

>>150416
Oh, I see.
Basically you are demanding spoon feeding without any research whatsoever on your side.

>>150417
You're the ones making the claims that the Earth is flat. Therefore, it is YOUR responsibility to explain why those claims are false. That includes answering any question people have, despite how stupid they may be.

>>150418
>Therefore, it is YOUR responsibility to explain why those claims are false.
You mean that the claims are true, anon.
I'm posting the claims and I back them up with proof.
If (you) can't or don't want to understand the stream of devastating facts, then I suggest you read and watch them again.
I can't be responsible for your failure.

>>150419
>I refuse to explain jack
Then we have nothing left to discuss.

>>150420
You don't want to discuss, but to trap your opponent. In other words, you are not after the truth, but to prove I'm wrong to make you feel better.
What about if you make the research and demonstrate that Earth is a ball. By the way, the argument that because NASA says so doesn't count.
I would love you could back your religion up with facts.

>>148613
Earth is shaping like potato chip.

>>150422
Good job, be the establishment figureheads by imitating smug SJWs proud of their new gender theory.
Really excellent work.
Would you like a cookie too?
That people would spend the time of day doing time consuming experiments that require a precision, accuracy and dedication to actually get consistent data. And then analyze for the fun of looking at the numbers.
Or they just sort of shrug say who gives a fuck and move on?
Go ahead do what you're doing that's what some of your vocal video members do. They could be right, they could be wrong.
But that didn't matter because if you actually wanted to prove your point it's all a matter of propaganda and information delivery.
You are terrible there.
The very first thing people ask is why should I care.
>Cause governments are lying!
Okay, we know that what else.
>Earth is flat! Mean you been lied to!
Okay, lots of people already do that.
How is it important for me to know this?
>...
When I could use the really big lie, and get good enough. We do that anyway so what's the big deal?
>. . .
>Truth
But does it help me? Can I actually use it to my advantage and have something critical from it for later use?
>. . .
Okay, I'm not going to waste my precious time on this then, good bye.
>
>WHY IS NOBODY SEEKING OUT THE TRUTH!?
>AHHHHHHHHHH?!

>Flat-Earther Destroys Globe in Live Radio Interview
>Re-Mastered version of the ground-breaking interview where President of the International Flat Earth Research Society exposes and explains the globe hoax to Coast 2 Coast AM radio co-host
https://odysee.com/@EricDubay:c/Flat-Earther-Destroys-Globe-in-Live-Radio-Interview:d
Mirror: https://www.bitchute.com/video/4ruLflqsyK7Y/

>>150481
So that's all. No one knows why just believe us.
>If Globe spirituality is ded
>If Flat spiritually is not ded
<Black budget for something else
<Gravity their god
That's fucking retarded.
Because what do you do with that information afterwards.

Well you answered my question so here's a pony. Good job.

>>150482
>So that's all. No one knows why just believe us.
You are gaslighting.
Stick to the facts. There's not any demonstrable curve, therefore there is not ball. So simple, so straight forward.

>>150483
>No one knows why they go about spreading Global propaganda
>It's a fucking mystery
>If Globe spirituality is ded
>If Flat spiritually is not ded
<Black budget for something else
<Gravity their god

That's what your video claimed.

>>150483
Gaslighting does not exist

>The Incredible Sophistry of Albert Einstein! (3:12:35 long)
>Today we take a look at what all mainstream scientism is based on by looking at Albert Einstein's Theories of Relativity.
>His 'theories' are the very definition of sophistry and we are going to show you why.
>We will be joined by our special guest Karen B
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Vybj6E9WE4

Mirror with video divided in 2 parts:
>The Incredible Sophistry of Albert Einstein. P1 (1:32:00 long)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ng5BdyPdMug4/
>The Incredible Sophistry of Albert Einstein. P2 (1:39:53 long)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/QKAwet7lKzNK/

>>150601
Jump to around 1:18:10 for a funny moment.
You can't make this shit up.

Do any Flat Earthers have an explanation as to the following two questions:
>1. Why is it possible to see both the Sun and the Moon, in the same general direction, during the day?
>2. Why does the moon change colors and size?

>>150615
The moon doesn't change colours or size. It just appears to, because of moon clouds.
Sometimes clouds of space dust get in the way of our view of the moon.
Ever seen the moon blocked by a white cloud closer to us and our light source?
Ever seen the moon blocked by a black cloud far out of reach of our light source?

>>150616
>clouds of space dust
...WHAT? Has anyone considered the possibility that Flat Earthers are from the same brand of retards that brought us Otherkins: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=lFRjrLmc_4c
And Breatharians: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=WWRniMqhr00

>>150618
You heard me, faggot. Do you deny the existence of space clouds?

>>151503
>NASA PHOTOSHOPPED THIS IMAGE!
<Literally just searching the text in the image reveals it's from a video tutorial on using photoshop, and has no actual connection to NASA.
In this thread we see the mortal predilection for mimicking the actions of their superiors, without comprehending those actions, nor even attempting to comprehend them.
Mortals have seen people claim that the establishment sometimes lies, and have some vague inkling that the establishment cosmology has foreboding implications. Thus the earth is "obviously" flat (because coming up with their own individual view is harder than just copying someone else's view), and those unsettling possibilities are rendered harmlessly false.
Mortals have also seen people post examples of doctored images to support their claim that someone is lying, so hey, here's a doctored image, it must support my claim!
In addition to searching the text, if one reverse images searches the red version of the picture, the only place it shows up red is in places where they're claiming it's proof of the mars landings being fake, and never shows up anywhere being claimed as a real photo of mars.
Any anon who's worked at a grocery store (or similar) will be familiar with another form of this mimicking behavior, where "people" grab food that's behind the stuff in front without knowing why real people do it. As such, those "people" often get products with the same exact expiration date as the product in front (and waste both their time and the stocker's time), or sometimes even get a worse expiration date if things happen to have been stocked improperly.
This mimicking is also why it is impossible to have a real discussion with a mortal, because they do not comprehend how an exchange of ideas and a resolution of differing opinions works, nor can they comprehend the idea of multiple different views being reasonable interpretations of the limited information and experiences available to the participants. They've just seen the general flow of "debates", and mimic the behavior of the "winning" side.

Remember anons, while it is very tempting to try and dissuade these unfortunate "souls" from their errant path, it is often a waste of time. Many such circumstances are such that anyone who can comprehend why the position is wrong, already won't believe it, and those who do believe it can't comprehend the reasons it's wrong. It's an example of the typical human behavior of assuming that everyone is relatively similar to oneself, which makes anons believe that surely this "person" simply hasn't encountered the alternative viewpoint, and is completely capable of understanding it. This belief is, sadly, often incorrect.

>>151653
>Remember anons, while it is very tempting to try and dissuade these unfortunate "souls" from their errant path
So, may I know where is the curve?
Remember anon, if there is no curve, then there is no planet, then there is no space, then there is no universe.
Where is the curve? Huh?

Flat Earth; Antarctica - Dome Described in 1958 Encyclopedia and Prior Editions!

Nikon P1000 Debunks The Globe.

I stuck my head down the flat-earth rabbit-hole once. Just once. Now I can't unsee the fisheye lenses in space footage.

3/10 fun the first few times but now it's just depressing.

>>151663
Fish eye lenses are used to maximize field of vision rather than focus on one particular spot. They tend to be used in space applications because you want to see as much of your space station or craft as possible.

>>150294
The video is gone.
Well, that was expected.

>>149108
These memes reek of manipulation. Especially the last one. It should read “my face when”, not “your face when”. I don’t know if these are especially made by agencies paid to optimally stupidize the US population and accelerate their decline (to facilitate the Chinese taking over the Empire, for example), or whether it’s just how the egregore works, but this is suspicious.

>>149113
We do feel the centrifugal force of the Earth’s rotation. Its pull upwards is what makes your measured weight on the equator be about 300g less than your actual mass.

Eric Dubay: Daylight Debunks The Globe.
https://t.me/FE_Nederland/550

>>151811
Do a Ctrl+F and search this thread for Nikon P900 and P1000, then THOSE ARE what round earthers really fear.

>>151810
I found mirrors and transcript.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlNhPXCH5cA
https://odysee.com/@EricDubay:c/Daylight-Debunks-the-Globe:0
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cAXhB26Bx1ls/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/mkrgeqFDQVpq/

>>151703
>Earth’s rotation
I would love to hear from where you are taking your info.

Flat Earth in 60 Seconds!

>Outer Space isn't a Place - It's a Lie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqzlQPlCv44
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/lVWexiQzU43l/

>Flat Earth: Spacex credibility disappears lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvRMQx6GQ_0
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/H931aEbu1Cq8/
CGI fails.

The Earth can't possibly be flat because if it were all the cats in the world would have pushed everything and everyone over the edge by now!

>>152451
Cats can't, the edge is 150 feet high.

>Is Theoretical Physics Actually Pseudo-Science? - (9:01 long)
>Michio Kaku and the pseudo-science that is modern-day 'theoretical physics.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhaegEh6Cg8
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/BoIhdNLpzFMN/
Spoiler: It's a pile of crap that can't pass the scientific method test.

NASA lies.

>Is Antarctica The Key To Flat Earth?
https://www.banned.video/watch?id=5db8b0422616150016b26a2d
Mirrors:
https://odysee.com/@True_World:f/Flat-Earth-NASA-Op-Fish-Bowl-Perfectly-by-Greg-Reese-Plocha-Zeme-NASA-Op-Fish-Bowl-opet-Perfektne-od-Grega-Reese:b
https://www.bitchute.com/video/PhsioRlRJrQE/
Short, straight to the point, and well done.

Stanley Kubrick's Deathbed Confession.
Moon landings are a fraud.

Cartoon Truth about the fake moon landing.

>>153839
Already posted. See >>150392

>>153847
>CIA & international spying gossip
This has nothing to do with Flat Earth.

>>153844
My apologies. Pleade allow timr for me to review the 'completion' vids.
While Im doing that, since youre familiar with the youtube channel, would you care to address the numerous additional videos that refute flat earth theory?
For clarification, the challenge is NOT to 'watch this guys whole videos and respond to everything', the challenge is to address the additional concerns, starting here:
https://youtu.be/KyD8VIK032o
And yes, this will be a sequence of inquiries. Im trying to skeptically weigh arguments from both sides. (You) are welcome to decline.

>>153850
If you can proof you live on a ball I will be satisfied.

>>153851
You've rejected all of the proof given.
What would it actually take to prove it to you? What's your standard of evidence?

>>153851
Well, lets be specific about what you feel constitutes proof.
Lets start with the moon.
Please explain the moon.

>>153853
The parameters are set, according to Freemasons our realm is round, however real experiments (not CGI, photoshop and tall tales) debunk that.
So, applying real science, (((governments))) and their bought scientists' accounts don't hold water.
Interesting, isn't it?

>>153854
Okay, then what would hold water to you? What would it take?

>>153855
>what would hold water to you?
To pass the Scientific Method.
Please, research moar fren; your question denotes that you are ill prepared to understand how science works.

>>153856
What sort of research are you looking for?

>>153858
Not me, but you.
It is (you) who doesn't see the BS before your eyes because you are relying on faith in perceived "scientist priests" and government propaganda instead scientific analytical thinking.

>>153862
>>153854
Very Arrogant, Very Cringe

>>153854
I saaaaaaaid, explain the Moon

>>153853
This is getting tiresome. The whole thread is filled with proof.

>>153903
Youve got two statements about the moon landing, and what? Idgaf about the landings, I want you to explain what the fuck the moon is using flat earth and or dome theory.
Heres the rub. Your cutesy rhetorical 'proofs' dont measure up to a flat earth. I could conceive of the 'shard of a larger planet' theory, but the curvature of the planet is so easily proven through a variety of basic and complicated tests (and the results are repeatable and correspond to one another while operating individually), that to claim it is flat you would have to be quite ignorant, taking the piss, or you cant think rationally.
Since (you) are seemingly the only anon who gives this theory any weight Im addressing you.
Now then. You are aware that constellations are a thing, yes? Do you honestly think its some kind of projected or artifical aspect of a dome? If so, show me a astronomic chart by which you can track the movement of the constellations. If the flat earth were true, the constellations would be visible going NOT in a straight line, but would meander in order to be visible over the various areas it is claimed based on the flat earth map, and would diverge from the directional positions they are observed from.
Or, for simplicity's sake, explain the moon.
For extra credit, please use these charts to indicate when the next lunar eclipse is going to happen.
Because the funny thing about astronomical charts is you CAN accuratrly predict down to the minute (Im sure more sophisticated anons can be even more precise) when historical and future eclipses (not exclusively) will occurr.
Additionally theres this thing called tides, magnetic fields, as well as seasons, and all the rest. The thing about science is its based on findings rather than an individual's agreement with the theory for whatever reason. A scientist is tasked with trying to DISPROVE their pet theory and only after they exhaustively fail to do so do they present their findings to the critical analysis of other scientists, who then take it upon themselves to rigorously vet the experiments, the findings, and the validity of the theory.
The few videos of what has been posted that I HAVE watched are easily refuted and debunked (like the horizon laser experiment), so no Im not going to bother reading/watching everything. Back to the challenge:
Tl;dr Explain anything about the moon using flat earth models, and Ill be happy to show you how absurd those explanations are

>>153903
>"Proofs"
Sure Buddy, BTW whats your IQ? Asking for a Friend.

Heliocentrism Modern Day Sun Worship Masquerading as a Science.

>>153856
>>153904
I don't really know if the earth is flat or not (as in I cannot prove either way), but I have to say that I don't really like your science, well maybe not woreship, but naive and idealistic view of the scientific world.

The reality is that we live in a world were egalitarinism is preached, which includes scientists that improve their careers to find "poofs" of this. Of course, there are those scientist that speak out about this but they are either shunned by the rest of the "scientific community" I'm sorry but I can't help but to think how community and objectivity seems, to me, naturally at odds with each other. Woman are liars and they are that way to fit in into communities. It seems clear that a society based around objectivity and truth would suffer from being mesh into one. or, it it's possible, removed from their former post.

Point is that I would put no faith in their integrity at all. They have lied before, so I shouldn't be suprized if they do so again.

This also doubles down in the favour of the flat earthers' camp. I haven't picked a side yet since it would only be for show anyway since I don't feel confident that I know enough about the issue to prove whatever conclusion I might reach but my point is that just like how flat earthers point to the idea that the earth is round; which, when you look at the horizon, is the most intuitive thought, the same can be said about bio essentialism. When we look at a nigger and compare him to a white man, the unbiased mind automatically assumes that just how their outside appearence is different so must their insides be. Obviously, ranging in degrees but that's the intuitive thought. But people have been made into liars because of the fear of being called racist. This forces them to claim that the emperor is nude.

I'm not saying that they are obviously the same but I'd liked to point out the similarity.

>>154391
Just because the earth revolves around the sun doesn't mean that you have to worship the sun. That's nonsense.

After looking into OP claim the world is flat, I now believe the earth is definitely flat

>>155626
Welcome.

How far is Arcturus?

>>149600
>What about satellites?
Satellites are actually balloons.

>>156620
Be a good lad and calculate when the next solar or lunar eclipse will be, using a flat earth model

>>156622
No idea, but it is sufficient to know that there is no curve, then there is no planet, then there is no space, then... the whole astronomy building falls catastrophically. It is all a big hoax.

>>156624
And how do (you) know there is no curve? Are you any pf thes3 vodeographers who have condicted an experiment and can reproduce the results such that a knowledgeable person could observe the experiment without finding fault in it?

>>156625
>And how do (you) know there is no curve?
I definitely can ask exactly the same question and with the same argument about "authority".
And how do (you) know there is a curve?

Im throwing you a bone here.
Flat earth proponents LOVE to push the 'conduct your own experiments' meme, and when (you) are ready to present your own findings, Ill be happy to give them the consoderation they deserve.
Bit you're not, you're presenting (very flawed) videos and articles from other people, and effectivrly acknowledging 'well, none of the flat earth models actually WORK with the solar system, but its enough to 'know' the earth is flat.
I mean, look at this guy here.
https://youtu.be/YaPa4esJJx4
I wont say his experiment is flawless, and I acknowledge that allows for the shard-earth theory which I further acknowledge the possibikity of given certain pieces of information that I have recently come into possession of.
But, while I acknowledge that the shard theory is not impossible, Im not promoting it.
(You) however are promoting Flat Earth, which from the rhetorical and problematic (from a logical standpoint) 'sources' doesnt have any legs to stand on.
Oh, speaking of standing, apparently gravity isnt a thing to flat earthers? Apparently we're being held against the earth by inertia of effectively a giant elevator?
>How is this possible
<Idk but that doesnt mean its wrong
Thats 'God of the Gaps'tier
>inb4 gaytheist talking points
Not an Atheist, bit there is an easy correlation to be drawn between the inability to rationally conceptualize an alternative that fits somehow excuses an otherwise laughable stance on the subject.
If any of the flat earth material were viable, you would be able to take that 3vidence and then apply it to another observable phenomenon, and tbey would be interconnected and play off each other; there isnt one set of observable physical phenomena one minute and a totally other set a few miles away. You should be able to say 'if this part of flat earth is true, then that would translate to this area, where we can see if the same observable phenomena occurs in a different context.'
Lather, rinse, repeat.

>>156628
>I mean, look at this guy here.
>misdirection
In this bread there is plenty of information and proof to put the heliocentrism cult to rest for eternity.

>>156620
>First off, (you)'re the one promoting the theory, the burden of proof is on you. But since I have a handle on things and can argue a point without logical fallacies and defensive deflection,....
Because sundials are a thing, amd they produce the same results no matter where on the planet you are. Additionally, round is a fundamental property of matter, as it is at a point of equilibrium when operating in a pressurized system. This is why tiny droplets of water bead, among many other observable phenomenon.
>but water gets flat on a plate
Yes, because it has reached a resting state, being acted on only by gravity and minimal air pressure.
The sphere is observable in all structures beginning with cells and microbes (Id suggest atoms too, but I havent seen it with my own eyes) and is a fundamental form of matter, plasma, and electromagnetism. Ever studied a magnetic field? They're easily observable with metal filings (unless,... the metal filings are in on the deception)

>>156628
>You) however are promoting Flat Earth, which from the rhetorical and problematic (from a logical standpoint) 'sources' doesnt have any legs to stand on.
You lie like a kike.
The breads speaks for itself. Laser experiments on water demonstrate without any doubts that there's no curve.
Read the whole bread of GTFO.

>>156632
Those laser experiments are flawed AND not reproduced. Try again.

>>156632
Wait a second

>>156632
>You lie like a kike.

I REALLY hope you have some evid3nce for that claim. Please put it forward. Where and how have I lied.

>>156633
>Those laser experiments are flawed AND not reproduced.
How so? I'm interested, HOW they are flawed.

>>156635
>Where and how have I lied.
You said, quote:
>You) however are promoting Flat Earth, which from the rhetorical and problematic (from a logical standpoint) 'sources' doesnt have any legs to stand on.
From a logical standpoint no source need any approval from the heliocentric "priest" funded by (((governments))). You call "problematic sources" to anyone not licensed by the priests to investigate on the established pseudo science. Therefore it is (you) who resort to fallacies to support the round earth.

>>156636
>flaws
Fo one, theyre being conducted on a boat, on the water.
Now I dont know if you know about natural bodies of water, but Ill clue you in.
There is no such thing as a resting state. Ergo, you will never be operating from a level and stable platform. With the distances involved the most miniscule change in angle will produce results where the error threshold renders the results inconclusive AT BEST.
>priests
>licenses
So not what I said, thanks for proving who the liar.
When I say authority, I dont mean (((authority))) I mean a person who has an experiential wealth of knowledge about the subject and its experiments, who is credible in determining errors. I am not an authority, and yet I can already refute most of the assertions presented.
If a layman can do that to most of the evidence, how can you claim to have a leg to stand on?
Pick a video or article, and I will walk you through it and point out the errors. When I cant, Ill admit it. Deal? Pick your favorite.

>>156637
>I dont mean (((authority))) I mean a person who has an experiential wealth of knowledge about the subject and its experiments, who is credible in determining errors.
I qualify to determine that.
I have a background in mechanical engineering.

>>156638
So do I

>>156639
Great. Would you like to demolish the trigonometry associated with a boat balancing on a lake while projecting a laser beam over the horizon? Huh?

>>156638
Also, you dont strike me as credible; your bias is toward conviction, whereas my bias is toward skeptical analysis. Again, I point to the planetary shard theory (which still has flaws, but one mustnt throw the baby out with the bath water,... you know, like you lot do).
And even if you didnt have such a boas, you would need to be present at the experiment in order to effectively error-correct.
The best a person with any understanding could conclude from the laser experiment is that it is inconclusive and needing further experimentation.
Its not a one and done anon. Youre not pushing a theory, because you dont have the evidence to justify the theory. You're pushing an ideology
>but, so are you!
Yes. I promotr by my skepticism the idea that if tjis were true, it would be overwhelmingly apparent by way of simple experiments; the inverse is true.

>>156640
Knock yourself out, Ill get my popcorn

>>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.

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.

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.

>>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.

>>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.

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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>156652
Okay.

>>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.

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

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.

>>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.

>>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.

*field
*credibly assert FROM ONE INCONCLUSIVE, OUT-OF-FOCUS VIDEO OF 'SOMETHING', that satellites are balloons.

>>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.

>>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.

>>156673
>literally posts corroboration of balloons
Yeah, because the are actually balloons. Any doubt?

>>156673
>Its not shilling to ask for evidence.
Read this damn thread, then come back to apologize.

>>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

>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.

The one true cosmology.

>>157196
I can't argue against that.

>>157196
You win this round

>>157196
Mother Earth Pony.

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.

>>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.

>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/

>>157613
>There is a video provided by NASA
==And, what about the 30 days of night that Canadians, Alaskans, and Russians all experience?

>>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

>>157744
>they used image compression in a sped up video = flat earth
Do you even understand the irony of the song in the soundtrack?

>>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.

>>157745
My bad.
The second link of >>157744 is the right video.

>>157747
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.

>>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.

>>157750
See >>148984

>>157747
The video (5:02) of pastor Anderson shilling the globe is:
https://odysee.com/@BibleWayToHeaven:4/flat-earth-debunked-by:a

Why Flat Earth Matters.

>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.

>>157808
If that video passes as evidence for you, then you're more retarded than I thought

>>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?

>>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.

>>157812
Dear 57 IQ ape, it is not the distance, but the shape of the shadow.

>>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

>>157815
Try it yourself in your kitchen and let us see how it goes.

>>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

>>157817
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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>157821
>distances and proportions again
What part of your brain is not working properly?

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.

>>157823
Okay.

>>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'

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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>157829
Who's going off NASA? I tend to favor centuries of mathematicians who did the work.

>>157830
>I tend to favor centuries of mathematicians
Already dis-proven theoretical science.

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.

>>157831
>disproven
Citation needed

>>157833
You can begin with >>148613 and then the rest.

>>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

https://youtu.be/danYFxGnFxQ
Or heres another one
Debunk Calculus

>>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 scientists priests, all paid by the same establishment, who tow the line of planets and the "Theory of Gravity" which cannot be proven to exist.

>>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

>>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

>>157839
The principle Newton was unable to describe was electromagnetism. C'mon now, this is basic.

>>157840
>electromagnetism
>basic
Want to dive into Aether?

>>157843
Dependa on how you define aether

>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

>>157754
Some comments.

>>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?

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?

>>157850
See posts about perspective.

>>157851
You should email them and ask.

>>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.

>>157856
Suit yourself.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>157891
>>157892
>>157893
Anons, if there is not a curvature then any further argument about Earth being a planet is useless.

>>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.

>>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).

>>157920
>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?

>>157929
>midnight Sun
And how you know that?

>>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?

>>157931
>There are many, many such videos by civilian researchers who have been there and recorded it
Ahem.
You kidding, right? Anyone going there is on a payroll and bounded by legal coercion. No independent access is allowed.