This thread is meant to debunk the deranged idea that our realm is a planet floating in space.
If the so called established science can't be challenged, then it's not science, but religion.
/vx/ - Videogames and Paranormal
File (): EBB8999170B861DACE0B30BD4B4E3775-880166.jpg (859.5 KB, 1200x800, thtfx.jpeg)
File (): 5AFBC2B050DCE12E59A35BCA999CD5AD-6936214.gif (6.6 MB, 900x900, 900px-SunAnimation.gif)
2689 replies and 1391 files omitted.
Anonymous
No.164417
File (): 211B64E9547107085F9016F245D897CA-406211.png (396.7 KB, 815x768, flat earth society.png)
>Flat Earth Society
>controlled opposition
In plain sight.
>controlled opposition
In plain sight.
>>164415
>I can totally feel it when a car accelerates from 50mph to 50.05mph over the course of several hours
Thats effectively what you're claiming in ignorance.
>I can totally feel it when a car accelerates from 50mph to 50.05mph over the course of several hours
Thats effectively what you're claiming in ignorance.
Anonymous
No.164423
Water boils at different temperatures, the further from sea level one travels.
The globe model asserts that this is due to a decreasing atmospheric pressure, the higher one's altitude.
How does a Flat Earth explain this phenomenon?
The globe model asserts that this is due to a decreasing atmospheric pressure, the higher one's altitude.
How does a Flat Earth explain this phenomenon?
>>164415
>>164418
>>150031
You feel when a plane or car changes course because your own body has it's own momentum that tries to stay it's own course
The Earth being in an orbit isn't changing any momentum, the momentum is in a non-circular orbit, you have the same momentum as the Earth so you feel nothing
This isn't hard
>>164418
>>150031
You feel when a plane or car changes course because your own body has it's own momentum that tries to stay it's own course
The Earth being in an orbit isn't changing any momentum, the momentum is in a non-circular orbit, you have the same momentum as the Earth so you feel nothing
This isn't hard
>>164434
So what you're saying is, claims that one 'would feel a/the change' are spurious and invalid?
So what you're saying is, claims that one 'would feel a/the change' are spurious and invalid?
>>164456
You'd feel it if it actually changed, like if the earth suddenly veered off it's orbit due to impact with a similarly-sized object.
The earth has been spinning/revolving the same way it has been for millions of years, along with everything on the surface of the earth, so nobody feels it.
You'd feel it if it actually changed, like if the earth suddenly veered off it's orbit due to impact with a similarly-sized object.
The earth has been spinning/revolving the same way it has been for millions of years, along with everything on the surface of the earth, so nobody feels it.
>>164354
Take tide elevation into account, the elevation of the boat and camera, and the fact that the earth isn't a perfect sphere.
Take tide elevation into account, the elevation of the boat and camera, and the fact that the earth isn't a perfect sphere.
Anonymous
No.164470
>>164465
Or the fact that the model (perspective aside) depicts a right triangle from which simple pythagorus will show that the model is uselessly imprecise and capable of producing values in the four figure percentage range of error
Or the fact that the model (perspective aside) depicts a right triangle from which simple pythagorus will show that the model is uselessly imprecise and capable of producing values in the four figure percentage range of error
Anonymous
No.164471
File (): D7896DFF16F400CA542AF68DB02C20F3-1488742.gif (1.4 MB, 405x270, main-qimg-c16d5c0a07fe15cdb5605940b8e8bb1d.gif)
Anonymous
No.164536
>>164531
The takeaway is that according to the ex flat earth youtuber, flat earth youtubers are not 'true' flat earthers because they (Bob in particular, but with call-outs to DITRH and others) make regular-interval attempts to 'prove' that the earth is flat (and universally fail) whereas a 'true' flat earther wouldnt even entertain the notion, conduct a test, etc because they are too busy 'knowing with absolute conviction' that the 'earth is flat'. This is an important distinction because, in a startling twist of events the 'no true scotsman' fallacy is NOT a fallacy when dealing with flatties.
What this means is, whatever the individual's cause (mental/psychological/developmental/learning/etc disability), there is an absolute refusal/inability to accept or acknowledge ANY evidence excepting what is assumed to support the premise, as has been thoroughly illustrated by/through this thread. Note how OP doesnt indicate specifically how claims "prove" a flat earth, he instead points at the "mountain of evidence"; he doesnt understand the material - even that which purports to indicate a flat earth - sufficient to argue the point and instead relies on his conviction to the idea and assumes that it should be aufficient to bring the viewer to a/the realization 'he had'.
Its authoritarianism 101 when broken down this way, but it is nice to hear it from an "ex flat earther", which doesn't exist according to OP and he's actually right because a "true" flat earther maintains their willful ignorance and would be unwilling to admit to it.
>>164530
Case in point, and thank you for reaffirming the point.
The takeaway is that according to the ex flat earth youtuber, flat earth youtubers are not 'true' flat earthers because they (Bob in particular, but with call-outs to DITRH and others) make regular-interval attempts to 'prove' that the earth is flat (and universally fail) whereas a 'true' flat earther wouldnt even entertain the notion, conduct a test, etc because they are too busy 'knowing with absolute conviction' that the 'earth is flat'. This is an important distinction because, in a startling twist of events the 'no true scotsman' fallacy is NOT a fallacy when dealing with flatties.
What this means is, whatever the individual's cause (mental/psychological/developmental/learning/etc disability), there is an absolute refusal/inability to accept or acknowledge ANY evidence excepting what is assumed to support the premise, as has been thoroughly illustrated by/through this thread. Note how OP doesnt indicate specifically how claims "prove" a flat earth, he instead points at the "mountain of evidence"; he doesnt understand the material - even that which purports to indicate a flat earth - sufficient to argue the point and instead relies on his conviction to the idea and assumes that it should be aufficient to bring the viewer to a/the realization 'he had'.
Its authoritarianism 101 when broken down this way, but it is nice to hear it from an "ex flat earther", which doesn't exist according to OP and he's actually right because a "true" flat earther maintains their willful ignorance and would be unwilling to admit to it.
>>164530
Case in point, and thank you for reaffirming the point.
Anonymous
No.164543
Let's take OP's favorite ideologue - Eric Dubay - to further illustrate this phenomenon. It's only 5.5min (unless you tire of his droning, monotinous, 'totally not neuro-linguistic programming, why would you suggest that?' oration and speed it up).
https://www.bitchute.com/video/mkrgeqFDQVpq/
As (you) watch this video, you'll want to set aside your critical capacity; the point is not to determine the (in)validity of his premise, instead the intent should be to experience the awe/impression that this video has on flat earthers (keep the brain-bleach close tho). His conviction, the simplicity of his ideas, it's impressive, right? He must be right, it's so simple, isnt it?
A true flatty will experience all of these phenomena, except that some element of the formula eliminates the possibility that legitimate refutation can be viewed as valid. The authoritarianism is sufficient that the POSSIBILITY of refutation has been (to the flatty) PROVEN to not exist.
I have addressed why this video (and OP) is lunacy from my basic recollection of astronomy, aided by citations from google. Its that simple. But my refutations - and the following more comprehensive ones - have (again, to the flatty) are defacto invalid, because they refute "what is true", a 'flat earth'.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/mkrgeqFDQVpq/
And of course, he comes pre-loaded with observably false and/or spurious excuses why the facts issued are irrelevant/invalid; shill, NASA, Freemason, etc.
Whether individuals are any of the above or not doesnt diminish the content of their argument, alluding to the extreme predisposition/conviction I refer to. Also, dont ask OP to cite any of these NASA/Mason shills, as once again his belief is sufficient to dismiss both the person entirely and anything they might say (unless they happen to say something that could loosely be interpreted as relating to a flat earth, in which case it will be proclaimed as "NASA/mason shill slips and proves flat earth").
https://www.bitchute.com/video/mkrgeqFDQVpq/
As (you) watch this video, you'll want to set aside your critical capacity; the point is not to determine the (in)validity of his premise, instead the intent should be to experience the awe/impression that this video has on flat earthers (keep the brain-bleach close tho). His conviction, the simplicity of his ideas, it's impressive, right? He must be right, it's so simple, isnt it?
A true flatty will experience all of these phenomena, except that some element of the formula eliminates the possibility that legitimate refutation can be viewed as valid. The authoritarianism is sufficient that the POSSIBILITY of refutation has been (to the flatty) PROVEN to not exist.
I have addressed why this video (and OP) is lunacy from my basic recollection of astronomy, aided by citations from google. Its that simple. But my refutations - and the following more comprehensive ones - have (again, to the flatty) are defacto invalid, because they refute "what is true", a 'flat earth'.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/mkrgeqFDQVpq/
And of course, he comes pre-loaded with observably false and/or spurious excuses why the facts issued are irrelevant/invalid; shill, NASA, Freemason, etc.
Whether individuals are any of the above or not doesnt diminish the content of their argument, alluding to the extreme predisposition/conviction I refer to. Also, dont ask OP to cite any of these NASA/Mason shills, as once again his belief is sufficient to dismiss both the person entirely and anything they might say (unless they happen to say something that could loosely be interpreted as relating to a flat earth, in which case it will be proclaimed as "NASA/mason shill slips and proves flat earth").
Anonymous
No.164545
>>164406
Here's an unironic flatty summarizing the God/Bible/Flat Earth 'significance'. There are other examples, I HIGHLY recommend the Dubay comment section
Here's an unironic flatty summarizing the God/Bible/Flat Earth 'significance'. There are other examples, I HIGHLY recommend the Dubay comment section
>>164544
Sci-Fi Dan pretends to debuk Dubay with mimics and derision, but Dubay's logic is flawless. The heliocentric model doesn't hold water.
Sci-Fi Dan pretends to debuk Dubay with mimics and derision, but Dubay's logic is flawless. The heliocentric model doesn't hold water.
File (): D65E6DB830E042AED0737DA4A96BBA35-12077.jpg (11.8 KB, 574x325, IMG_20220703_193115.jpg)
File (): 9426D734F64B6786F2F6633033149496-18736.jpg (18.3 KB, 576x335, IMG_20220703_193203.jpg)
File (): 93C5D63193BAFFCA34496515AA52DF57-14630.jpg (14.3 KB, 574x330, IMG_20220703_193243.jpg)
File (): 52276F0761EB3E707C1A625BF5D370D9-427822.jpg (417.8 KB, 904x1463, china.jpeg)
>China may be plotting moon takeover – NASA
>Chinese astronauts are busy learning how to destroy other nations’ satellites, agency chief Bill Nelson claimed
https://www.rt.com/russia/558264-space-china-us-nasa/
Reminder that the ball hoax conspiracy is not restricted to the anglo sector.
>Chinese astronauts are busy learning how to destroy other nations’ satellites, agency chief Bill Nelson claimed
https://www.rt.com/russia/558264-space-china-us-nasa/
Reminder that the ball hoax conspiracy is not restricted to the anglo sector.
Anonymous
No.164586
>>164584
So, your "refutation" of a video of a ship disappearing over the planet's curvature is to claim without citation that it's been debunked?
And you think "do a keyword search" passes as an argument?
I know you'll never admit the truth, it's been thoroughly documented and illustrated, as well as why.
But come on dude. For the sake of those around you.
You may not like it, you may absolutely refuse to acknowledge it, you can throw out all the classic diversions and FB memes, but the reality is THAT is the curve.
You have seen the curve. Good luck spending your life trying to hide from the fact.
So, your "refutation" of a video of a ship disappearing over the planet's curvature is to claim without citation that it's been debunked?
And you think "do a keyword search" passes as an argument?
I know you'll never admit the truth, it's been thoroughly documented and illustrated, as well as why.
But come on dude. For the sake of those around you.
You may not like it, you may absolutely refuse to acknowledge it, you can throw out all the classic diversions and FB memes, but the reality is THAT is the curve.
You have seen the curve. Good luck spending your life trying to hide from the fact.
Anonymous
No.164588
>>164584
>ignored because you won't do any research
What would you say if the research led him to a different conclusion?
>ignored because you won't do any research
What would you say if the research led him to a different conclusion?
Anonymous
No.164590
>>164584
>over and over
>Look for the keyword "perspective".
Only 3 instances of that word appear in this thread, only one of which is remotely related to the ships disappearing below the horizon.
And when another user asked the poster to elaborate, they received no reply.
>over and over
>Look for the keyword "perspective".
Only 3 instances of that word appear in this thread, only one of which is remotely related to the ships disappearing below the horizon.
And when another user asked the poster to elaborate, they received no reply.
Anonymous
No.164591
>>164585
>Reminder that the ball hoax conspiracy is not restricted to the anglo sector.
>Implying Chinese weapons systems are just fireworks to make western scientists look good, and not attempts to develop long-range, hypersonic, intercontinental weapons to stay competent in the changing military environment
That's a very strong accusation. Do you have any evidence to back that up?
>Reminder that the ball hoax conspiracy is not restricted to the anglo sector.
>Implying Chinese weapons systems are just fireworks to make western scientists look good, and not attempts to develop long-range, hypersonic, intercontinental weapons to stay competent in the changing military environment
That's a very strong accusation. Do you have any evidence to back that up?
Anonymous
No.164597
File (): 4E5AFFA9A494C3E6875A09035D93CA72-381163.png (372.2 KB, 498x1088, SPOILER_unknown.png)
Anonymous
No.164600
File (): 08EA67C7500B74D15B03E9E2C941B930-448149.png (437.6 KB, 1335x761, questioning science is how you do science.png)
File (): 2632969A9655CD18D9CE485388ACEB80-67644.jpg (66.1 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg)
>Is there an ice wall surrounding Antarctica? -- GLOBEHOAX - (8:10 long)
>Premiered Feb 16, 2021
>This video shows some great HD capture of the Antarctic ice wall!
>Included some short clips of Jarle Andhøy (The "Illegal" Antarctic Explorer)
>There will be a longer and more complete video of Jarle Andhøy later this year!
https://odysee.com/@ChadPrestonOfficial:9/is-there-an-ice-wall-surrounding:8
Mirror:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch9POQ-Mu_M
>Premiered Feb 16, 2021
>This video shows some great HD capture of the Antarctic ice wall!
>Included some short clips of Jarle Andhøy (The "Illegal" Antarctic Explorer)
>There will be a longer and more complete video of Jarle Andhøy later this year!
https://odysee.com/@ChadPrestonOfficial:9/is-there-an-ice-wall-surrounding:8
Mirror:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch9POQ-Mu_M
File (): 4F53B69D768A3AD5816FD81A90FE9EE6-94384.png (92.2 KB, 399x479, 249533248-rarity_implied_facepalm.png)
>>164606
Huh. One wonders how they got to Antarctica if govt agencies are viciously attacking everyone who goes there. Unless,....
One also wonders what they expected to find OTHER than an ice shelf.
One ESPECIALLY wonders how they can credibly claim that because they landed on the edge of Antarctica that somehow magically means that the entire ice wall theory is somehow evidenced and validated.
I mean, again, what were they expecting to find? If their criteria of evidence for 'proving/showing' the 'ice wall' was to find ice... in Antarctica,....
I mean, by that thinking, are active volcanoes evidence of Tartarus/Hell/etc?
Huh. One wonders how they got to Antarctica if govt agencies are viciously attacking everyone who goes there. Unless,....
One also wonders what they expected to find OTHER than an ice shelf.
One ESPECIALLY wonders how they can credibly claim that because they landed on the edge of Antarctica that somehow magically means that the entire ice wall theory is somehow evidenced and validated.
I mean, again, what were they expecting to find? If their criteria of evidence for 'proving/showing' the 'ice wall' was to find ice... in Antarctica,....
I mean, by that thinking, are active volcanoes evidence of Tartarus/Hell/etc?
Anonymous
No.164612
>>164607
>I mean, again, what were they expecting to find?
Putting a foot on Antarctica is the first step for larger expeditions. The lack of active defense measures to neutralize zog forces still is an issue sadly.
>I mean, again, what were they expecting to find?
Putting a foot on Antarctica is the first step for larger expeditions. The lack of active defense measures to neutralize zog forces still is an issue sadly.
File (): 1202925A2BAAFE5728890F36817A71FC-2535541.mp4 (2.4 MB, Resolution:854x480 Length:00:01:43, two sunsets.mp4) [play once] [loop]
I wish some ball believer could explain this.
>>164708
Likely rift caused by different air temperatures colliding.
You can see it in rivers and oceans too.
Likely rift caused by different air temperatures colliding.
You can see it in rivers and oceans too.
>>164713
>Do you mean to say that this sorts of atmospheric phenomena implies that the world is flat?
Nope, but considering that globers have unlimited imagination to speculate on an explanation, I think was worth of a shot.
>Do you mean to say that this sorts of atmospheric phenomena implies that the world is flat?
Nope, but considering that globers have unlimited imagination to speculate on an explanation, I think was worth of a shot.
>>164715
Well, I'm not meteorologist, but I gave you what I think it is. I'd probably say the same thing if the world were flat or round.
Different air temperatures have different density and humidity, so they appear different from earth. This looks like it was in Colorado(?), so it's possibly a shelf of fridgid mountain air colliding with sea level air.
Well, I'm not meteorologist, but I gave you what I think it is. I'd probably say the same thing if the world were flat or round.
Different air temperatures have different density and humidity, so they appear different from earth. This looks like it was in Colorado(?), so it's possibly a shelf of fridgid mountain air colliding with sea level air.
Anonymous
No.164721
>>164716
Yes, but you're missing the subtext.
The phenomenon you describe is one resulting from atmospheric conditions.
Atmospheric conditions are a result of gravity and atmosphere.
According to OP/flatties, gravity and space (atmoshere) doesnt exist.
So no, your description - speculative that it is - manages to refute flat earth
Yes, but you're missing the subtext.
The phenomenon you describe is one resulting from atmospheric conditions.
Atmospheric conditions are a result of gravity and atmosphere.
According to OP/flatties, gravity and space (atmoshere) doesnt exist.
So no, your description - speculative that it is - manages to refute flat earth
Anonymous
No.164730
File (): FF8AC6D0DC5B6A1A3909691A39142132-58216.jpg (56.9 KB, 851x1149, round earther npc.jpeg)
Anonymous
No.164731
>epic-facebook-maymay.pwn
>The Satellite Hoax - (6 minutes long)
https://odysee.com/@TabooConspiracy:c/old-taboo-the-satellite-hoax:5
Mirror:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFNVEyH9lpQ
https://odysee.com/@TabooConspiracy:c/old-taboo-the-satellite-hoax:5
Mirror:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFNVEyH9lpQ
>The Farce of Gravity - A Closer Look at Cavendish's Balls - (3 minutes long)
https://odysee.com/@TabooConspiracy:c/old-taboo-the-farce-of-gravity-a-closer:0
Mirror:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWJ5UcoqBN0
https://odysee.com/@TabooConspiracy:c/old-taboo-the-farce-of-gravity-a-closer:0
Mirror:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWJ5UcoqBN0
>>164749
>I know, Ill wrap my lack of comprehension into a SONG! That'll distract people from the Dunning-Kreuger!
Balloon satellites? Again? Is it that difficult to grasp that gasses are vastly less expensive than rockets, more efficient, less catastrophic when they come down, etc?
>>164751
Okay, now Im just confused. What does an eclipse - an optical effect - have to do with he force of gravity?
I mean, I can conceive of someone suggesting that he moon's gravity would stack with he sun's gravity, but thats retarded. If you dont know why, you're retarded, and are probably posting vids like this on a flat earth thread somewhere.
>I know, Ill wrap my lack of comprehension into a SONG! That'll distract people from the Dunning-Kreuger!
Balloon satellites? Again? Is it that difficult to grasp that gasses are vastly less expensive than rockets, more efficient, less catastrophic when they come down, etc?
>>164751
Okay, now Im just confused. What does an eclipse - an optical effect - have to do with he force of gravity?
I mean, I can conceive of someone suggesting that he moon's gravity would stack with he sun's gravity, but thats retarded. If you dont know why, you're retarded, and are probably posting vids like this on a flat earth thread somewhere.
>>164752
>I mean, I can conceive of someone suggesting that he moon's gravity would stack with he sun's gravity, but thats retarded.
I agree, the establishment propped Cavendish experiment is retarded and a scientific fraud.
>I mean, I can conceive of someone suggesting that he moon's gravity would stack with he sun's gravity, but thats retarded.
I agree, the establishment propped Cavendish experiment is retarded and a scientific fraud.
[Reply] [Last 50 Posts] [Last 100 Posts] [Last 200 Posts]
You are viewing older replies. Click [View All] or [Last n Posts] to vew latest posts.
Clicking update will load all posts posted after last post on this page.
Post pagination: [Prev] [1-50] [51-100] [101-150] [151-200] [201-250] [251-300] [301-350] [351-400] [401-450] [451-500] [501-550] [551-600] [601-650] [651-700] [701-750] [751-800] [801-850] [851-900] [901-950] [951-1000] [1001-1050] [1051-1100] [1101-1150] [1151-1200] [1201-1250] [1251-1300] [1301-1350] [1351-1400] [1401-1450] [1451-1500] [1501-1550] [1551-1600] [1601-1650] [1651-1700] [1701-1750] [1751-1800] [1801-1850] [1851-1900] [1901-1950] [1951-2000] [2001-2050] [2051-2100] [2101-2150] [2151-2200] [2201-2250] [2251-2300] [2301-2350] [2351-2400] [2401-2450] [2451-2500] [2501-2550] [2551-2600] [2601-2650] [2651-2700] [2701-2739] [Next] [Live (last 50 replies)]
2739 replies | 1409 files | 269 UUIDs | Page 2