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.
1486 replies and 719 files omitted.
As opposed to the ones that showed the opposite and could still be reproduced?
>>165980>the ones that showed the opposite
Glad you brought it. The very definition of science is that it is not fixed or settled, never ever. Independent experiments unraveled the conspiracy wide open and the scam is undeniable.
>>165982>it is not fixed or settled, never ever>the scam is undeniable.
How can you say that it's not fixed or settled, and then immediately say that it's "undeniable"? Are you even listening to yourself?
You are confusing physical phenomena with an agreement among conspirators to lie about the former.
See, that's what I'm talking about. You just dimiss any experiments that disprove your worldview on the basis that they're conspiring against you. Anyone who comes up with a result that indicates curvature of the earth must be lying.
That's the purest form of ad homenim.
Not quite. Given that experiments paid and promoted by masons and their proxies are done with equipment and circumstances only controlled by them, and therefore not suitable for replication, their claims are highly in doubt.
Think about it, people are not able to build an airship, like a zeppelin, and go to Antarctica to explore without mason's soldiers threatening violence and confiscation.
That's just attacking the character of the scientist, and not refuting the substance of the experiment themselves.>done with equipment and circumstances only controlled by them
Have you considered just attacking a camera to a high altitude balloon and letting it fly up into the atmosphere? Even schools can do that; and they do so all the time. Try it yourself.
Or just putting sticks in the sand at different locations and measuring the shadows of their angles. Even the ancient Greeks could do that.
There are so, so, so many sources unaffiliated with NASA or masons or whatever you want to call them that can be independently verified. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you just dismiss all of them because they didn't come to the conclusion that you wanted them to.
>>165989>go to Antarctica to explore without mason's soldiers threatening violence and confiscation
Japanese fishermen go to Antarctica to poach endangered whales all of the time. It's not that hard.
If it cannot be replicated and then when taking a different approach to confirm the mason experiments you find out that it is all rubbish... Then what else you can say?
Do they cross the 60th south parallel? I don't think so.
>>165992>Then what else you can say?
Then you have to look at the substance of the experiments and analyze each step to see if there were mistake, and check to see if the researchers didn't account for variables.
Then you peer review the experiments and over time continue to reevaluate them until a contemporary understanding is reached.>mason experiments
Or teenagers with a weather balloon.
>>165994>Then you have to look at the substance of the experiments and analyze each step to see if there were mistake
This whole bread is about that, and the mounting evidence against the ball hoax is overwhelming.
I disagree, on the basis that of the many experiments presented in this thread, the researchers involved made key mistakes that were not accounted for in their studies.>overwhelming
And at that point you're just exaggerating. It's easy to make odds look like that if you dismiss any opposing viewpoint as a shill.
Tell me, why do cameras mounted on balloons floated by teenagers show visible curvature?>>165993
Yes. Hungry Japs will go anywhere.
>>165996>I disagree, on the basis that of the many experiments presented in this thread, the researchers involved made key mistakes that were not accounted for in their studies.>key mistakes
Would you mind to post the faulty ones? By the way, Sci-Fi Dan's videos don't count as there are tons of them with video answers and counter video answers with no end in sight.>And at that point you're just exaggerating
A fancy way to deny the mounting evidence.>Tell me, why do cameras mounted on balloons floated by teenagers show visible curvature?
I'm not aware of it. But, teenagers don't sound like people with the proper Physics 101 background to be mentioned.
>>165997>Would you mind to post the faulty ones?
Give me an example and we can go through them one at a time.>there are tons of them with video answers and counter video answers with no end in sight
That's a case in point that the answer is "overwhelming".>teenagers don't sound like people with the proper Physics 101 background to be mentioned.
What about college professors then? What about weather balloon engineers? This isn't an uncommon experiment.
>>165996>why do cameras mounted on balloons floated by teenagers show visible curvature?
Did you know about fish lenses?
Just use a different focus then. It's not hard. The curve is visible.
>>166000>The curve is visible
That's hilarious. There are many posts above debunking the curve, from planes and also proper research balloons, and even rockets.
Clip:>weather balloon at 120,000 feet with 360 degree view
In all of this footage, the camera isn't turning at all. It's only showing the earth from one angle.>There are many posts above debunking
There are also many refutations to those posts debunking those.
Also, that's not an experiment or a study. It's a complication of videos with favorable views. It doesn't have any sources to verify how high the cameras were, what kind of cameras were used, who did the experiments or when they were done.
Considering that the cameras aren't turning, it's more likely that these were shit from planes rather than balloons, which makes their supposed altitude dubious.
>>166005>It doesn't have any sources to verify how high the cameras were, what kind of cameras were used, who did the experiments or when they were done.
You kidding, right? Tell me how NASA and the Russian and Chinese space agencies allow to inspect their experiments, leave alone to check into their installations.
I was talking about balloons set up by college students. Not NASA or any space agencies.
Give me an example that can actually be analyzed for it's parameters.
>>166007>I was talking about balloons set up by college students.>college students
C'mon, this is not serious.
Why is it not serious? This is a common experiment that's been replicated many times. It does not require expensive equipment or corporate gatekeeping.
College students are so dumb like a high school ass, they may have more misinformation from their (((teachers))) but they are hardly suitable for science.
People besides college students do it too. I was just using schools as an example to show how simple and affordable it is.
>>166011>simple and affordable
Get a laser, better if you can save a few bits and get an industrial one. The beam doesn't lie, there is no curve.
Laser experiments have also shown there is a curve, but I'm sure you won't acknowledge them because they didn't get the answer you wanted.
Search this thread for "laser", very interesting the results indeed.
Yeah. I already did that. It's the same as usual. Undisclosed degrees of precision, miniscule sample sizes, and not accounting for relevant variables (atmospheric refraction, beam divergence, etc).
>>166016>and not accounting for relevant variables (atmospheric refraction, beam divergence, etc).>deflected beam
Yeah, right. Let's talk about milliradians now. /s
Jeran Campanella's experiment in his documentary where he did it trying to prove the earth was flat, but hit a bump when his laser showed the opposite of what he was trying to prove.>>166017
Are you implying that laser beams cannot be refracted?
>>166018>Are you implying that laser beams cannot be refracted?
Don't play the fool. Milliradians have an intrinsic meaning.
It's in his 2018 documentary. I'm sure you've heard about it.>>166019
So that means you shouldn't account for refraction at all when conducting light experiment?
>>166021>So that means you shouldn't account for refraction at all when conducting light experiment?
All right, you have no concept of deviation units.
I could say the same thing about you. When applied on a scale that large, a slight difference will skew the results, and to not account for it *at all* heavily impacts the accuracy of the measurement, especially when the whole experiment is based on the precision of lasers.
>>166023>When applied on a scale that large,
Not so large, actually is enough local to appreciate the non-existent curvature. And in the case of lasers applied to this scale, the deviation is negligible.
>>166024>lasers applied to this scale, the deviation is negligible.
It is not negligible. This is basically the largest scale experiment.>Not so large, actually is enough local to appreciate the non-existent curvature.
You're measuring an incredibly huge object (which isn't even perfectly round) and you think size doesn't matter?
Experiment that take larger scales into account and require the been to pass by multiple checkpoints with markers at different distances (but the same heights) show that the beam diverges.
We are talking distances on the 30-40Km range. The laser deviation is negligible, but the drop in the curvature should be huge. However it doesn't happen, because the there is no curve.
It is not negligible at that scale, and that becomes apparent when the laser is mounted at an elevated point, and is required to pass by *multiple* markers.
>>166027>to pass by *multiple* markers
Yeah, tell how the laser will bend 66,68 feet on 10 miles just to pass through those markers. /s
If the world were flat, the laser should pass each marker at the exact same height. This can be accounted for by placing multiple markers separate distance apart, but at the same height.
>Southern Stars Quick Take