/vx/ - Videogames and Paranormal

>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