What's the reason for the elites to hide the true shape of the earth?

What's the reason for the elites to hide the true shape of the earth?

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    political adverts for the clinically lame and unfun

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What if I told you the world is actually a basket that paradoxically inverts on itself? Would you believe me?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yee the universe is just a bubble if you go to the end you go pacman border

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        We do t even know if there is an end to the universe. It's the predicament of a closed or open system. As of now (to my current knowledge) we have no observed anything that would indicate us being in an open system, but we observe objects leaving visible space faster than the speed of light. It makes one wonder about the true eternity of it all.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'll believe just about anything.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because they dont know, and they spent immense sums of your money trying to find out.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This makes the most sense so far, it's much better for the government to appear to know than to admit they are clueless. How much authority would a teacher have if they knew nothing more than the kids they teach?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Limit exploration. If we know it's an infinite plane, we can go on but if we believe it's a sphere and we'd go round and round there's no reason to

      This is a nice alternative viewpoint but I doubt it.

      Flat earth can't explain Polaris's different altitudes in the sky at different latitudes. This can only be explained by a spherical earth.

      Globe earth spinning and rotating in a solar system that is spinning and zooming in a galaxy that is spinning and rotating can't explain why the stars are consistently in the same place

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >consistently in the same place
        they are slowly moving. polaris is steadily moving away from its current position close to our northern celestial pole. its been noted in navigation books for 100s of years.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Explain why it's so slow in contrast to how fast we're told everything is supposed to be moving.
          Or is it like the size/distance of the sun and moon and we all move at the perfect speed for it to make no noticeable difference

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Seems just as complicated as a spherical earth.

    There's 2 circumpolar coordinates in the north and south hemisphere, moon is covered in craters, and those are spheres. Why is the earth flat and the sun and moon balls?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I like how posts like this are simply ignored in most flat earth threads.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I love to state the obvious too. Like why are bubbles the naturally occuring, why are they not flat instead. Why does rain drop in spheres and not cubes?.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Right, bubbles are seemingly fundamental, even in the quantum foam, and bubbles, water droplets, behave according to what we know about quantum physics. Where do these disks appear in nature? I can only see an argument from ideas like holographic universe, that information is flat etc., but that is metaphysics and not what flat earthers talk about. That leaves only some sort of inner earth plane, where there's an outer spherical earth, imagine the inside of a ball filled with liquid, the surface of that liquid appearing like a "disk" to us. I can't think of anything else that could possibly motivate these people.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Red blood cells are kind of disk like. they even have a raised edge for the ice wall lol

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Why is the earth flat and the sun and moon balls?
      They likely aren't. The thing that a lot of FE models get wrong is they show round sun and moon floating above the Earth, when in reality they're most likely embedded in the firmament along with the stars. They shine through the firmament like a light shines through a glass lens, because that's basically what it is. That's also why the moon looks the same from anywhere, if you have ever seen something through a curved lens, it bends to your personal view. The same goes for the sun and stars of course. Truly incredible and makes way more sense once you realize it.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        why are sunsets orange?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Probably the way it refracts off the dome from that angle. We don't exactly know what it's made of, so it could have the properties of certain minerals that change color based on the type of light exposure and angle. Just my theory though

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >That's also why the moon looks the same from anywhere
        But it doesnt.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Wtf is this fake shit lmao.

          https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/s/yQ0hmyCMwq

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >embedded in the firmament along with the stars
        but they move against the background of stars, as do the planets. are they 'embedded but moving'?

        https://i.imgur.com/GjWl8Kf.gif

        >That's also why the moon looks the same from anywhere
        But it doesnt.

        and over time we can see more then 50% of its surface due to libration. look it up

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If your in the North the moon is tilted one way, if you're on the equator it's turned 90 degrees and in the south its 180 degrees compared to the North so it doesn't look the same.
        Also, I don't really understand how a flat model would work in regards to the polar summer/winter. I live in northern sweden and its daytime 24/7 for two months now.
        If I go visit or talk to a friend in New Zealand they have very short days this time of year, and near the equator it's nearly an equal split of 12h. How does that work? The time zones are also a problem

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Flat earth can't explain Polaris's different altitudes in the sky at different latitudes. This can only be explained by a spherical earth.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not the question I asked.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        But one you need to have answered, since your original question is based on a false premise.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      do the stars determine where in the universe the earth sits? does the earth have no agency and thus can give no agency to those who reside there?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      your model of the world is built on the idea that light from space dose not significantly warp as it passes through the atmosphere but if you've ever seen a heat shimmer you innately know that even a small pressure differential in the atmosphere has a significant visual angular refraction. all light not perpendicular to the surface bends as it passes though the atmosphere proportional to how much said lights angle differs from said perpendicular.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Okay so figure it out scientifically and PROVE IT! Otherwise shut the frick up

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          or youll continue your tantrum?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous
          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            right there you are looking through a mile or three of the densest part of the atmosphere with the greatest temperature gradient.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            pressure is temperature, and no, surface - space is the greatest difference...... not hot place on surface and slightly hotter place on surface.
            remind me, whats the height of the atmosphere.... ?
            your critiques are poor

            its a known and measured effect. what doesn't work is how light would have to behave on a flat earth in order to produce the reality around us.

            your the only one suggesting a model of the earth in this thread goob, these are my words
            >your model of the world is built on the idea that light from space dose not significantly warp as it passes through the atmosphere but if you've ever seen a heat shimmer you innately know that even a small pressure differential in the atmosphere has a significant visual angular refraction.
            >because they dont know, and they spent immense sums of your money trying to find out.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            its to do with the steepest gradient over the shortest distance, thats what causes the heavy refractive conditions. Everyone knows that light refracts more the farther from the zenith it enters the atmosphere.
            >whats the height of the atmosphere.... ?
            it really depends what you mean. 99% of the atmosphere is below 40km, so thats where the path of light will most be altered as it passes through. the effect above that altitude will be hard to detect i should think.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        its a known and measured effect. what doesn't work is how light would have to behave on a flat earth in order to produce the reality around us.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If Polaris' position was determined by atmospheric conditions like you say, then it wouldnt appear in that position during different conditions - and this is not true. In all conditions, Polaris changes relative position so it cannot be explained as atmospheric.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If Polaris is local, it will move relative to position due to perspective, in the same way a stationary helicopter would.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If Polaris is local
            You were just saying the light is being refracted as it moves THROUGH the dome.
            So it isnt local in your model.
            >the same way a stationary helicopter would
            You can bring the helicopter back into view by increasing your height.
            If you are in the Southern Hemisphere, especially belkow 21 degrees lat, there is no height you can reach to gain visibility of Polaris.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You were just saying the light is being refracted as it moves THROUGH the dome.
            >So it isnt local in your model.
            That wasn't me. But it still is local being refracted through the dome.
            >You can bring the helicopter back into view by increasing your height.
            >If you are in the Southern Hemisphere, especially belkow 21 degrees lat, there is no height you can reach to gain visibility of Polaris.
            That's because Polaris is too far away for that, even at a local level, unless you could go millions of miles up somehow maybe (which no one has the ability to and you'd hit the dome if there is one)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >But it still is local being refracted through the dome.
            Define local, because no io9t isnt, and if it was going through the dome then location in the southern hemisphere would affect that because it wouldnt go through the same distortions - and it doesnt have this effect.
            >unless you could go millions of miles up somehow
            Show me the math that gives you this "millions of miles".
            You are saying it too far away, and also local.
            You are contradicting yourself because you have no data.
            You have no data in order to be able to say whatever you need to in the moment.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Define local, because no io9t isnt, and if it was going through the dome then location in the southern hemisphere would affect that because it wouldnt go through the same distortions - and it doesnt have this effect.
            Local would be in and around the dome height
            >You are saying it too far away, and also local.
            >You are contradicting yourself because you have no data.
            >You have no data in order to be able to say whatever you need to in the moment.
            Not true, the same concept exists on a globe. For example, you can view the sunrise earlier from the top of the birj khalifa. I don't know the exact numbers, but on a flat earth you would eventually be able to see Polaris from the Southern Hemisphere if you got high enough and had the resolution to capture its light. Do you even believe that perspective exists?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Local would be in and around the dome height
            So it isnt local, and therefore all your distortion crap is out.
            Or is it?
            What are you using to determine Polaris's height?
            Because so far you have said it is inside the dome, or nearby, and also said you need to go millions of miles to see it.
            >same concept exists on a globe
            Because what blocks your view on a globe is the Earth, not some appeal to distance and atmosphere.
            > on a flat earth you would eventually be able to see Polaris from the Southern Hemisphere if you got high enough
            Not in any explanation for why things go under the horizon. In every case, increasing height would INCREASE your distance from what you are seeing, and yet it would also make it more visible.
            Flat Earthers that have looked at this seriously make up shit about each person having their own personal dome./
            And you havent said anything like that, which means you havent thought about this for very long.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >So it isnt local, and therefore all your distortion crap is out.
            It is local compared to the light years that your universe exists in.
            >What are you using to determine Polaris's height?
            >Because so far you have said it is inside the dome, or nearby, and also said you need to go millions of miles to see it.
            We don't know what the stars are, but they could be embedded in the dome, which is much more local than the light years you believe in. You'd need to go pretty high to see Polaris from the southern "hemisphere" on a flat earth.
            >Because what blocks your view on a globe is the Earth, not some appeal to distance and atmosphere.
            Therefore perspective doesn't exist on a globe? Can you explain what perspective is from a globe position unless you don't believe it exists?
            >Not in any explanation for why things go under the horizon. In every case, increasing height would INCREASE your distance from what you are seeing, and yet it would also make it more visible.
            >Flat Earthers that have looked at this seriously make up shit about each person having their own personal dome./
            >And you havent said anything like that, which means you havent thought about this for very long.
            Things become more visible the higher you go due to increased angular resolution and viewing through less dense atmosphere which blocks less light from travelling

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Completely ignores perspective (image related) plus the refractive index of lights going through the dome and atmosphere

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Earth is a loosh farm aka hell

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      loosh is stored in the ballz

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        someone's jingling the family israeliteels hahaha

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Cute vampire

    • 3 weeks ago
      Garrote

      no.
      proof: the sun gives out all energy

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    israelite homosexual. Your brain is flat

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So christcucks were so annoying they had to create a totally new vision of the world without any christcuckery allowed? Kinda based ngl.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >the universe just started cus space exploded
    >yea we’re just creatures of evolution
    >nothing special about you
    >religion is for dumbies
    >science is for hecking smart people
    >yes we’re floating at 65,000 mph
    >yes the universe is also moving at infinite speeds and expansion
    >no you don’t need to question the science
    >what are you a stupid religious zealot?
    I mean the implications take about 5 seconds to answer your question

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Without even clicking that link I know they are going to cope and say that it doesn't but it does.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You are the unironic picrel
        Nothing in my post mentions politics
        I guess you can’t see past your little 50 iq nigbrain thoughts though

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You went from one extreme to the other, one belief to another, moron.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No I answered OP’s question and you’re atheist contrarian brain exploded because you view everything in the lens of American politics like a homosexual

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            only complete brainlets think that the two party system lacks nuance.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      who says you can't question the science? just because you don't understand the explanation doesn't mean you can't ask for it

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >who says you can’t question the science?
        literally all of academia and the field of science? are you being obtuse intentionally or are you dumb?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          find a topic you're interested in. find a scientist doing research in the field. write your questions to them, most of the time they're happy to answer, I did it loads of times for college and it works 9/10 times

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          academia is a joke and science becomes dogma if you can't question it

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You may be right.
      But how do you go from that to MUH HOLY israelite ON A STICK?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >We're not floating at 65,000mph because I can't comprehend big numbers

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The earth is flat to hide the nasty truth: that we lose a lot of water from it pouring over the edge.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The earth has no shape. The earth is nothing but concepts

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    To keep you brainwashed in a web of lies while they molest your children and sacrifice the. Why? Idk, but that's what they do

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if you know we're living in a dome, you automatically know there's a god. their success is hinged upon atheism and hedonism.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      My god can make a universe full of galaxies, your god sounds pretty pathetic.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This. Denying the reality of God's amazingly complex and huge creation, and claiming all He could do was make a dopey snow globe with a busted physics engine, is denigrating God. Flat Earth is a lie, and you cannot share the Truth of God by wrapping him about in stupid lies.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        god made photoshop

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Your God is not the one in The Bible, that one says the world is flat with a dome.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A three dimensional universe would imply the existence of a creator God. The elites want you to worship them as gods, which is why they push the flat earth everywhere

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      and to boot, three dimensions is just what we started with. most can access the fourth, but very few can handle the fifth.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Flat earth just doesn't seem parsimonious, it is not self-similar to what we observe above and below, which is enough for me to not even consider it worthy of study. I presume my question will be one that you are tired of hearing and have ready answers for: countless expeditions to Antarctica on record, you can check all of the routes that have been traversed, from east to west, north to south, covering much of the land. These days even women do it for sport, with the help of tech that makes a journey pretty easy, to the point where they're doing speed runs for fun. Do you believe all of them are lying?

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Moon [ Lost footage, 1962 laser beam, Nixon phone call, AMERICAN MOON(2007) ]
    >Lost Footage
    there is no lost footage. you can see everything that was filmed and broadcast. Whats lost is the slightly higher resolution version of the Apollo 11 landing which was contained on the backup tapes, because the video stream was contained in the unified signal. We have everything from all other missions in even better quality than that which was lost.
    >1962 laser beam
    nobody denies that the lunar surface reflects a ranging laser pulse. The problem is that its not very good at reflecting photons back where thay came from - they go in every direction. Thats the what the retroreflectors are for, and the signal is about 100x better.
    > Nixon phone call,
    The delay is as it should be
    >American Moon
    >moronic compilation of most moonhoax talking points, all of which are based on simple ignorance.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Moon landings were staged, pic related
      >Thats the what the retroreflectors are for, and the signal is about 100x better.
      Proof? Our lasers have gotten better, but they can still barely receive a signal back. Based on the speed of light, and the supposed speed of the earth/moon motions, we wouldn't be able to hit any retroreflector and recieve a beam back

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >pic related
        a museum piece.
        >Proof?
        read it in a paper on LLR.
        >Barely a signal back
        indeed, its a matter of single digit photons received back per pulse.
        > Based on the speed of light, and the supposed speed of the earth/moon motions, we wouldn't be able to hit any retroreflector and recieve a beam back
        thats false. When you keep in mind the fact that the area of the reflected photons covers an area about 25km in diameter when it gets back to earth, you'll find that it's quite capable of being received.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >a museum piece.
          You believe webm related is real?
          >When you keep in mind the fact that the area of the reflected photons covers an area about 25km in diameter when it gets back to earth, you'll find that it's quite capable of being received.
          Then what's the point of the retroreflector?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >is this real?
            Since it was shot at probably 6fps on the CM 16mm film data acquisition camera, its going to look a bit strange when played at a higher frame rate. Why do you think its fake?
            >Then what's the point of the retroreflector?
            Because they return photons more reliably than the random scattering from the lunar surface itself, which could be coming from all over the approximately 7km diameter area that beam diverges to when it gets there. That gives them a longer and better sample time, all coming from the same spot, to calculate the round trip time from, meaning more accurate distances.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          we know that we only made it 1/6th of the way there glowie

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            why do we know that?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >glowie trying to make me reveal sauce

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            reveal reason at least

            >for you. fact is it looks just like the LM always did.
            And it looks ridiculous, don't you think we should have 4k footage of stuff like this in 2024? We should have decent footage of the solar system in action by now.
            >thats what they say and show in their papers about it. and dont you think it makes at least a bit of sense that you'd get better returns from a device designed to reflect photons back the way they came than from a random surface scattering photons every which way?
            How would tiny retroreflectors produce laser beams 25km across?

            >don't you think we should have 4k footage of stuff like this in 2024?
            Its from film shot in what, 1970? waht do you expect?
            >We should have decent footage of the solar system in action by now.
            There have been many probes in the solar system. look them up.

            >How would tiny retroreflectors produce laser beams 25km across?
            When the beam of many man trillions of photons reaches the lunar surface its about 7km in diameter. The billions of photons which strike the retroreflector go directly back towards their point of origin. Its the atmosphere which accounts for most of the divergence, so those billions of returning photons spread out to cover an even wider area, and some of those strike the collector of the LLR system.

            https://i.imgur.com/QS5PB9Y.gif

            Gif related, how is this possible?

            thats what i was responding to when you first raised the issue, since the only thing most of you flatgays have ever looked at. the whole problem with that gif is that he ignores the beam divergence.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >There have been many probes in the solar system. look them up.
            Show me a filmed year timelapse of the solar system
            >When the beam of many man trillions of photons reaches the lunar surface its about 7km in diameter. The billions of photons which strike the retroreflector go directly back towards their point of origin. Its the atmosphere which accounts for most of the divergence, so those billions of returning photons spread out to cover an even wider area, and some of those strike the collector of the LLR system.
            Problem is, lasers reflect off any surface, including the atmosphere itself, so how do they know it has even hit the retrorelector, rather than the dome?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Show me a filmed year timelapse of the solar system
            why?
            >so how do they know it has even hit the retrorelector, rather than the dome?
            Because no dome has ever been encountered. Do you think the dome is as far away as the moon?
            they know it hits the retroreflector they are aiming at because the return pulses all of a sudden become highly regular when compared with the more random returns which comes from the lunar surface. You can see shots of the software they use to carry out the ranging and the difference between the two couldn't be more clear.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >why?
            Because we deserve such footage, even globalists should be demanding this kind of footage. Whatever you think of flat earthers, they're at least trying to make your model stronger, and globecucks are just accepting bullshit CGI and fake moon landings as evidence
            >Because no dome has ever been encountered. Do you think the dome is as far away as the moon?
            There's footage of amateur rockets hitting the dome, it's also why spacex and NASA switch to CGI when they reach the dome. Show me full footage of a rocket and spacecraft reaching the moon. It doesn't exist and you should be pissed about that.
            >they know it hits the retroreflector they are aiming at because the return pulses all of a sudden become highly regular when compared with the more random returns which comes from the lunar surface. You can see shots of the software they use to carry out the ranging and the difference between the two couldn't be more clear.
            Not true, they get a few photons back, it's pathetic

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >There's footage of amateur rockets hitting the dome
            oh, and the redbull thing was just a yoyo despin, as im sure you know. a rocket going that fast hitting anything even remotely not air would be a pancake in almost no time at all. think about it

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's why rockets don't go straight up, they curve undeneath the dome

            The US tried breaking the dome via operation fishbowl

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >even globalists should be demanding this kind of footage
            we shouldn't because we aren't moronic. what do you mean by "solar system in action?" would you like a timelapse video of a wide view of all the planets moving in their orbits around the sun? how exactly do you think that would work? pic related, the orbits are to scale and planets are to scale with each other but not relative to orbits, because if they were they would be invisible. they're also in different places and take different ammounts of time to orbit so there's that

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I want to know too, give me a hint at least.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You are all stupid and/or trolled. Earth's shape is a fact proven before Christ. These threads are just bait. You can't see the southern cross in the northern hemisphere. If stars are just stickers on the inside of the dome, then there is no max rendering distance to explain where the sun goes. Frick you.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Understand how light works with a local sun and a dome /atmosphere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFKPslSGMH8
      >Why do you think its fake?
      It looks ridiculous, the "spaceship" looks like a silly theater prop, we all deserve better than this, especially in 2024
      >Because they return photons more reliably than the random scattering from the lunar surface itself
      Proof?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >It looks ridiculous,
        for you. fact is it looks just like the LM always did.
        >proof
        thats what they say and show in their papers about it. and dont you think it makes at least a bit of sense that you'd get better returns from a device designed to reflect photons back the way they came than from a random surface scattering photons every which way?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >for you. fact is it looks just like the LM always did.
          And it looks ridiculous, don't you think we should have 4k footage of stuff like this in 2024? We should have decent footage of the solar system in action by now.
          >thats what they say and show in their papers about it. and dont you think it makes at least a bit of sense that you'd get better returns from a device designed to reflect photons back the way they came than from a random surface scattering photons every which way?
          How would tiny retroreflectors produce laser beams 25km across?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How wide of an angle at the tip would you need to make a triangle that is 25km at its base and around 225,000km at its height?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Gif related, how is this possible?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Work out the equation. How wide of an angle?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That doesn't make sense, explain

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Lasers are not one dimensional, despite our attempts at focusing them.
            Send a laser from Earth 225,000 km. What do you think is the size of the area the beam covers?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sounds like retroreflectors are pointless then

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No it doesnt. Why would you think that? Because the beam widens? You still want a nice reflection point to send it back. And that beam will widen as well.
            And here's a thought as well...
            You know that lasers dont have to be single pulses, right? You can just...leave it on, and it will keep sending light.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You know that lasers dont have to be single pulses, right? You can just...leave it on, and it will keep sending light.
            they pulse it so they can count the pulses out and pulses back in, like a clock. a continuous signal would quickly become worthless in terms of timing the round trip.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But they do only send pulses. The fact they could bounce laserd off of the "moon" aka dome prior to retroreflectors proves they're pointless

            >a continuous signal would quickly become worthless in terms of timing the round trip.
            No it wouldnt, but fine - post your source for your information.

            >So it isnt local, and therefore all your distortion crap is out.
            It is local compared to the light years that your universe exists in.
            >What are you using to determine Polaris's height?
            >Because so far you have said it is inside the dome, or nearby, and also said you need to go millions of miles to see it.
            We don't know what the stars are, but they could be embedded in the dome, which is much more local than the light years you believe in. You'd need to go pretty high to see Polaris from the southern "hemisphere" on a flat earth.
            >Because what blocks your view on a globe is the Earth, not some appeal to distance and atmosphere.
            Therefore perspective doesn't exist on a globe? Can you explain what perspective is from a globe position unless you don't believe it exists?
            >Not in any explanation for why things go under the horizon. In every case, increasing height would INCREASE your distance from what you are seeing, and yet it would also make it more visible.
            >Flat Earthers that have looked at this seriously make up shit about each person having their own personal dome./
            >And you havent said anything like that, which means you havent thought about this for very long.
            Things become more visible the higher you go due to increased angular resolution and viewing through less dense atmosphere which blocks less light from travelling

            >It is local compared to the light years that your universe exists in.
            You cant give a clear definition for this word you want to use because you are full of shit.
            I wont respond to any bit of what you wrote until you address how far away Polaris is.
            Everything you plead and weasel about is based on and NEEDS you to not have any exact information.
            As always with flat earthers.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No it wouldnt, but fine - post your source for your information.
            the fact that they always use the pulsed method instead of a constant signal is all the proof you need. Just think about it - how would you establish the timing of a constant signal? Its pulsed so its possible to measure the round trip time.

            im not going to provide links for you but a simple search along the lines of 'lunar laser ranging' should bring up something for you to read about it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But they do only send pulses. The fact they could bounce laserd off of the "moon" aka dome prior to retroreflectors proves they're pointless

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >proves they're pointless
            it doesn't because although a return is possible from the surface alone, its not exactly reliable due to the random nature of the scattering.

            >why?
            Because we deserve such footage, even globalists should be demanding this kind of footage. Whatever you think of flat earthers, they're at least trying to make your model stronger, and globecucks are just accepting bullshit CGI and fake moon landings as evidence
            >Because no dome has ever been encountered. Do you think the dome is as far away as the moon?
            There's footage of amateur rockets hitting the dome, it's also why spacex and NASA switch to CGI when they reach the dome. Show me full footage of a rocket and spacecraft reaching the moon. It doesn't exist and you should be pissed about that.
            >they know it hits the retroreflector they are aiming at because the return pulses all of a sudden become highly regular when compared with the more random returns which comes from the lunar surface. You can see shots of the software they use to carry out the ranging and the difference between the two couldn't be more clear.
            Not true, they get a few photons back, it's pathetic

            >Because we deserve such footage,
            what did you do to deserve this?
            >they're at least trying to make your model stronger,
            they should try knowing it first
            >There's footage of amateur rockets hitting the dome
            no there isn't. there is footage of spacex launches staging.
            >Show me full footage of a rocket and spacecraft reaching the moon.
            thats a big ask to have a constant feed all the way from ground to moon, but it might well happen given the advances in tech. Im sure you will just call it cgi though.
            >Not true, they get a few photons back, it's pathetic
            why is it? what do you expect to get back after a round trip of that many miles? the same micrometer beam sent out? be serious.
            When you're working at that scale the difference is very clear. you should try getting on their level, instead of relying on silly gif files. good night.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it doesn't because although a return is possible from the surface alone, its not exactly reliable due to the random nature of the scattering.
            From what you've said, even retroreflectors are not reliable due to the scattering of the atmosphere
            >what did you do to deserve this?
            Humanity deserves it, if we're supposed to believe the reality we're told about our existance, we should have clear video evidence of it - flat earth wouldn't even be a thing otherwise.
            >they should try knowing it first
            I/flat earthers know more about the globe model than most people
            >no there isn't. there is footage of spacex launches staging.

            ?t=222
            >thats a big ask to have a constant feed all the way from ground to moon, but it might well happen given the advances in tech. Im sure you will just call it cgi though.
            It really isn't, we supposedly landed men on the moon in the late 60s
            >why is it? what do you expect to get back after a round trip of that many miles? the same micrometer beam sent out? be serious.
            >When you're working at that scale the difference is very clear. you should try getting on their level, instead of relying on silly gif files. good night.
            It's very weak and seems more like a parlour trick than actual science

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >even retroreflectors are not reliable due to the scattering of the atmosphere
            they are more reliable
            >flat earth wouldn't even be a thing otherwise.
            it would be a thing. If flat earthers are convinced that every single photo taken in orbit is fake without being able to prove they are fake, then one more video/photo will make no difference at all.
            >I/flat earthers know more about the globe model than most people
            perhaps, but they still dont understand it well enough to seriously call it into question.
            >It really isn't, we supposedly landed men on the moon in the late 60s
            and theres lots of photographic and video evidence, not to mention the hundreds of kilos of rock samples, to prove it. One more video, even a video 9 days long, wouldn't matter one bit, and you know it.
            >It's very weak and seems more like a parlour trick than actual science
            then you'll have to go read what they say about it and perhaps talk to them about it. Science is often done on the very small scale of things.

            That's why rockets don't go straight up, they curve undeneath the dome

            The US tried breaking the dome via operation fishbowl

            >That's why rockets don't go straight up, they curve undeneath the dome
            how do you think an orbit around a spherical object is achieved?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            so basically, you can't actually do this experiment, lmao.
            Unless you can shine the laser on a mirror the size of a paperback novel, and then have a station 600 meters away to record the bounce back (how exactly?) then no, you can't actually do this, it's impossible for anyone without a huge budget to actually do this crap lmao.
            https://www.nasa.gov/missions/laser-beams-reflected-between-earth-and-moon-boost-science/
            >First time they recorded a bounce back is in 2020
            shut the frick up

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Even if th4e expansion of the beam make your entire issue moot, why do you think it is hard to aim for this?
            Oh no, the scientists have to lead their shot a little bit, and design the mirror to bounce to where the receptor will be.
            Or put the receptor where it needs to be to get the laser where it will reflect to.
            Or any number of ways to solve an easy "hey, two points are moving and we need to go between them".

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            your article is talking about a reflector on the LRO, not the ones on the lunar surface.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >
            There is no fricking way you can hit a target that small while both bodies are rotating at ridiculous speeds and have the reflection return to you. I've seen them measure this and they get a shit ton of "noise", then use an algorithm to filter it out and say 1 photon out of all that noise was from the laser they sent. It's total pseudoscience nonsense.

            If you believe people went there with 50 year old tech and returned alive and then forgot how, you are mentally handicapped.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >hit a target that small
            the beam is about 7km in diameter when it reaches the moon, and about 25km in diameter when it gets back to earth. They know where the retroreflectors are and the returns are way stronger when they hit them.
            > they get a shit ton of "noise"
            Thats mostly the random photon returns from the lunar surface itself, while the returns from the reflector produces a distinct spike up above that background.
            >forgot how,
            its not so much a matter of that, though there are clearly a lot less people skilled in those older construction methods now, but more about having to go through a complete redesign. Theres little point in resurrecting the apollo stack because it was designed for a very very narrow mission plan. Starship, Orion, and the lander will all be able to do much much more than get 2 guys and a couple hundred pounds of gear to the surface.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The first successful lunar ranging tests were carried out in 1962 when Louis Smullin and Giorgio Fiocco from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing laser pulses reflected from the Moon's surface using a laser with a 50J 0.5 millisecond pulse length. Similar measurements were obtained later the same year by a Soviet team at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory using a Q-switched ruby laser.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiments

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            yes, i know. i even mentioned that returns are possible from the lunar surface itself. But they are weaker and much more random because they can come back from widely separated points on the surface, effecting the accuracy.

            The whole point of the retroreflectors is to have a stronger more reliable return from a single point. Figures of up to 100x stronger returns are mentioned in the literature, and you can see in screenshots of their software the obvious large spikes caused by returns from them.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What makes the sun move like that outside of the dome? how can you predict sun's location on the sky for any given place at any given time using that model?

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Theyre not "elites"
    Theyre not hiding the shape of earth
    Theyre distracting you with the shape of earth because they are hiding the SIZE of earth

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Flat earth is a weak model for the earth and the immediately observable universe. Simple shit like tectonics, long distance navigation and tides are poorly explained by the flat earth model.

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nahh even the image makes no sense, get better distractions glowie

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because the more we talk about earth, the less we talk about space which is supposedly 95% dark matter.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because there is extra land

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >why the lie?
    Just simply stop being a homosexual, increase your testosterone, and youll know why

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    they aren't, as a matter of fact it is neither spherical nor flat, and even more important, the true model of the universe is seleneocentric, everything revolves around the moon

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    PeePee PooPoo

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What is pic supposed to be showing?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I ask myself the same question... I think also the OP doesn't know

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It would crush every single lie that's been told. People will begin to follow God and deny satanic lifestyles

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If they wanted to hide it they would have never invented the Concorde plane

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'd love to have as much faith in the competency of my government as flat earthers do lmao

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    to discredit the bible and keep you from salvation

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    to get more money from the general public to build their "rocket" toys and pretend they explore the cosmos while they deprave on private island/yachts/caves/planes etc

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    2024 and flattoids still can't explain how seasons work on their pancake world

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >BECAUSE THERE ARE NO SEASONS, ITS JUST AN ILLUSION of how the light is reflected from the DOME

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >BECAUSE THERE ARE NO SEASONS, ITS JUST AN ILLUSION of how the light is reflected from the DOME

      >UHM SEASONS ARE A MYTH, MKAY? THE GOVENRMENT INVENTED THEM WITH CGI TO TRICK THE GOYIM FOR... REASONS

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      god made 4 seasons so we can keep time and have different fashion for different times, he made the seasons different around the equator because he hates Black folk and wants them to fry

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You were asked HOW seasons work.
        You said who made them, and why.
        You have no answer for how they work.
        Because your model is wrong, and not based on anything real.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          almost as if all flat earthers are fricking morons kek

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          almost as if all flat earthers are fricking morons kek

          funny how you can write the most moronic shit ever and people will be like "yup, typical flat earther"

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >yet another non-argument
            >calling my posts moronic with no explanation as to why
            fricking have a nice day you absolute moron

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            holy frick how dense are you, let me break this down

            god made 4 seasons so we can keep time and have different fashion for different times, he made the seasons different around the equator because he hates Black folk and wants them to fry

            a moronic troll statement

            You were asked HOW seasons work.
            You said who made them, and why.
            You have no answer for how they work.
            Because your model is wrong, and not based on anything real.

            almost as if all flat earthers are fricking morons kek

            two replies oblivous to the possibility it might have been written in jest, taking it at face value

            [...]
            funny how you can write the most moronic shit ever and people will be like "yup, typical flat earther"

            pointing this out

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >a moronic troll statement
            That is indistinguishable from sincere flat earth posts.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The sun revolves in and out towards the north pole.

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't think they actually know themselves, but they want to be the ones to find out and control it.
    Basically, you're taught from grade school that the earth is round and you are never allowed to question it, it's also reinforced several times throughout schooling such as in geography or earth science. The idea of a globe isn't really useful information, I don't really need to know why seasons happen, just that they do, I don't need to know that constellations are supposedly burning balls of gas a ridiculous amount of distance from earth, just that they're more or less reliable for navigation.
    "knowing" that the earth is a globe conveys no real benefit, at all. And yet it seems so important that every kid knows the earth is round, and that it's continually reinforced, despite the fact that you could grow up thinking it's flat and it literally wouldn't matter.

    This along with the fact that if you deny the globe, that ~~*scientists*~~ will actually spend time and money on trying to convince you that is in fact a globe. People who should have much better things to do that argue with supposed morons about the shape of the earth aren't doing those things and instead are arguing with morons.
    Honestly, why would NASA bother with flat earthers AT ALL, why would they bother with moon landing hoax people at all?
    I know when I'm dealing with a moron I just ignore them, ironically when I believed in globe earth and I encountered flat earthers, I ignored them because I wasn't going to debate someone over the shape of the fricking earth.
    But then I saw how much time the science community did, how much NASA did, how much the government did and I became suspicious.
    And when you start looking into it, things don't add up.
    Globe earth is legitimately moronic, it makes 0 sense when you actually begin to think about it, shit like gravity is just basically horseshit, it makes no sense at all. And from there it's just down the rabbit hole.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >my incredulity the post

      so basically, you can't actually do this experiment, lmao.
      Unless you can shine the laser on a mirror the size of a paperback novel, and then have a station 600 meters away to record the bounce back (how exactly?) then no, you can't actually do this, it's impossible for anyone without a huge budget to actually do this crap lmao.
      https://www.nasa.gov/missions/laser-beams-reflected-between-earth-and-moon-boost-science/
      >First time they recorded a bounce back is in 2020
      shut the frick up

      >have a station 600 meters away
      why? the beam diverges to a circle about 25km in diameter by the time it gets back to earth. more than enough to account for the relative movement of earth and moon.

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    most successful derailing tactic glowies posses, ill hand em that

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >11. Meat is good for you

    Also Meat contains glue, all types of gross pink stuff, rat and who knows what.

    >16. Moon

    You can't land on the moon and there is no footage

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Never taken a commercial flight, eh? You can see Earth's curvature at the crusing altitude.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You see a curve through curved glass

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you see a curve through curved eyes

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What sealed the deal for me is seeing the moon daytime for an entire week and it kept its phases with the sun right next to it. Also seeing the sun light up the bottom of black storm clouds. Besides that why has nobody been to the moon exc3pt the fake landing, despite there being russian, and euro space agencies as well. Why is the un logo the flat earth map. Why is nobody allowed to go to antarctica, or even fly over it. Why does the inventor of roxketry have a bible verse talking about the firmament. Why can cameras zoom in on supposedly behind the curve objects and see them fine. Why are there bubbles in space, why does nasa use gre3n screen. I could go on. Why they hide it is because the world is run by satanists. Aka juice. And they have enough money to bribe anyone and everyone. Just look at the covid garbage for an example, and also to keep us divided because if we were all christians we would stand together. But i digress.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >seeing the moon daytime for an entire week and it kept its phases with the sun right next to it.
      maybe you're just stupid and remember things wrong?

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Great thread. Globies seething, always perks me up

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    how will globies cope after The Final Experiment?

  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The shape doesn't matter.
    It's the size, and what makes the earth look and feel flat which the size makes possible.
    The planet is 40x bigger than we're told.
    This realm is flat because it's basically put just a big lid of frozen oxygen on a crater.
    You know the story of the Ark? We never left it.

  40. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why does the sun light stop on a flat plane? If the sun was that high, you should have the entire circle lit up, no?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No, light doesn't travel forever and the earth is bigger than can be conveyed in simple diagrams.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >light doesn't travel forever
        in other words the flat earther has no clue how far light can travel through atmosphere, no idea how high the dome is, no clue about anything and is basically full of shit.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's been years.
        Not one flat earther has ever even attempted this.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          how do you do this experiment as a glober when the sun is 90 million miles away?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Where in that pic does it say anything about the sun?
            The distance of the object DOES NOT MATTER. and the further the better.
            What you are testing is the progression of angles, and the shape of the surface you are standing on.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ....ok I'll go to another continent tomorrow to see if the shadows angles are alright
            I'm broke as frick glober

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You have access to communication with fellow flat Earth's all across the earth. Surely you could find some people to do this with, and you can do it simultaneously - something no one in previous times could.

  41. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I luv the flat earth so much. It's all a big fricking joke to get autistic morons that think science is real to sperg out. kek.

  42. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    What website is that? It kinda reminds me of weboasis.

  43. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When I started talking about the black hole, the quantum level beings started saying "uh oh, forbidden knowledge". See, the Milky Way Galaxy is located within a black hole, and it can speak

  44. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    to make you a souless atheist/satanistic human garbage

  45. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So moronic schizos have a reason to evade filters.

  46. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    this is the new "copypasta" you created because you were found samegaying, don't you?

  47. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Guys why did janitor delete my flat earth thread? Are the elites in control of this website?

  48. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They also added 1000 years of fake history.
    >holy roman empire lasted 1000 years - except it never existed - they made it up
    >rome didnt fall 1300 years ago it fell 300 years ago
    >thats why all the roman style huge buildings and pillars are the main design for everything in the 1800s
    >thats why theres statues of the greek gods all over the world in the 1800s
    >coins that say for example "1687" actually say "i687" where the "i" stands for "in the year of our lord". look at the old 1600s coins yourself on google. it's not a 1 its and 'i'

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Charlemagne never existed btw

  49. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    With modern optics that are becoming increasingly cheaper to produce, any clown can view the moon and see that it is under water.
    Also SNEED

  50. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Annunaki

  51. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    flat earth is a well poisoning psyop.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      your nasa shiling face is a psyop.

  52. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I want to believe what moronic israelites believe, doesn't everyone?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      flat earth is a well poisoning psyop.

      >consistently in the same place
      they are slowly moving. polaris is steadily moving away from its current position close to our northern celestial pole. its been noted in navigation books for 100s of years.

      samegay. kys.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        nope. only the last one was me,

        https://i.imgur.com/dGT620V.jpeg

        Explain why it's so slow in contrast to how fast we're told everything is supposed to be moving.
        Or is it like the size/distance of the sun and moon and we all move at the perfect speed for it to make no noticeable difference

        its simply the scale of things. its perfectly consistent when the proper distances are accepted.
        >i wont accept it
        ok

  53. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The rabbis of the Talmud believed that the world was flat, and that the sun revolved around the Earth every day. There is a debate about the length of the solar year in the Talmud, and its consequences and the rare israeli ceremony of the Blessing of the Sun (Birkat Hahammah) are discussed. The view of the talmudic rabbis is contrasted with that of the contemporary Greek astronomers. While the rabbis of the Talmud argued about the size of the flat Earth, the Greeks had determined the Earth to be a sphere, had calculated its circumference and had moved on to consider other questions.
    https://academic.oup.com/book/1751/chapter-abstract/141387578?redirectedFrom=fulltext
    Stupid fricking gayreeks, those Rabbis knew the TRUTH

  54. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pythagoras was a freemason.

  55. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why do freemasons defend the globe? (He starts crying at 2:27:00)

    https://www.youtube.com/live/Car1YSEAeow?si=XY5p8Km31RO_YBqx

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why can’t Black folk into flat earth?

      https://www.youtube.com/live/xc12pOcUgwE?si=t9I_ZRjAzfkBoQQn

      Typical of a glober to deny reality.

      ?si=W4ozln3h1mZydZWD

  56. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The bright stars in Crux were known to the Ancient Greeks, where Ptolemy regarded them as part of the constellation Centaurus.[1][2] They were entirely visible as far north as Britain in the fourth millennium BC. However, the precession of the equinoxes gradually lowered the stars below the European horizon, and they were eventually forgotten by the inhabitants of northern latitudes.[3] By 400 AD, the stars in the constellation now called Crux never rose above the horizon throughout most of Europe.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crux
    Talmud respecting flatsisters, our response?

  57. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why can’t Black folk into flat earth?

    https://www.youtube.com/live/xc12pOcUgwE?si=t9I_ZRjAzfkBoQQn

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      only Black folk can into flat earth

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Even the smartest homie is too dumb.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Black folk don't have to be black

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Does a pear shaped earth need proof?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >pear shaped
            a gross exaggeration verging on a lie. typical of a flat earther.
            > proof?
            theres all the proof anyone not a schizo could want

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Typical of a glober to deny reality.

            ?si=W4ozln3h1mZydZWD

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            flat earthers are like children who never got past grade 8 physics. i think thats why they are the only ones who ever invoke science Black because he was in a video they saw in class one time.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That’s some projection considering your whole worldview relies on evidence presented to you in second grade.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            theres obviously evidence of all kinds and levels, its just that flat earthers are not aware of it. if they are ever exposed to it they cannot possibly understand it so they just call it fake.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If that were the case flat earth wouldn't exist. Literal PHD's are getting obliterated in debates.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If that were the case flat earth wouldn't exist.
            it clearly would because flat earthers never have an reason why X is fake other than 'it must be fake because the earth is flat'. They are entirely circular in their cult-like thinking.
            > Literal PHD's are getting obliterated in debates.
            no they aren't. its just that the flat earthers dont even know enough to be wrong and it causes those that do know things to become frustrated or have to pause for more than the 2 seconds people these days can stand to wait for a reply.

  58. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what are they even doing in space all day?

  59. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    To hide the existence of Yahweh and his one begotten son, the savior of all the elect. Also, to allow demons to pretend their aliens in a future fake alien invasion.

    Planet

    Plan-et

    Plan-extra-terrestrial

  60. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >makes homosexual theorists seethe thousands of years after his death
    How can one Greek be so based?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      homies head a globe

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's probably the joke, like how the planet Pluto has an image of Pluto from Disney on it.

        https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article6068894.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200b/pluto-on-pluto.jpg

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Masons and their inside jokes.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/features/cosmic/earth_info.html#:~:text=Its equatorial radius is 6378,the Earth is slightly flattened.

      >Note: The Earth is almost, but not quite, a perfect sphere. Its equatorial radius is 6378 km, but its polar radius is 6357 km - in other words, the Earth is slightly flattened. Eratosthenes was measuring the polar radius, and his value (using the 0.15 km/stadium conversion) lies between the polar and equatorial values.

      >not quite, a perfect sphere.
      >the Earth is slightly flattened.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >>the Earth is slightly flattened
        This just means the Earth is a little squished, still not flat

        homies head a globe

        He's been working out at the library. Picrel is the average flat earther

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That looks like one of those neanderthals they tell us existed a long time ago, is this what you meant? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yq0DDe3RD0&pp=ygUSYnJvY2sgbGVzbmFyIGJlYXJk

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not exactly, this man has a genetic disease that caused deformity and a low IQ similar to that of a flat earther. Didn't watch the link btw

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You won't watch this lne either then i guess https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-zXvei3_B6s&pp=ygUlZmVkb3IgZW1lbGlhbmVua28gaGlnaGxpZ2h0cyByZWFjdGlvbg%3D%3D

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nah it seems silly

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Neanderthals must be pretty stupid i mean Wikipedia says so, so it must be true https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yzGzB-yYKcc&pp=ygUYZWR3YXJkIHNub3dkZW4gaW50ZXJ2aWV3

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            For much of the early 20th century, European researchers depicted Neanderthals as primitive, unintelligent and brutish. Although knowledge and perception of them has markedly changed since then in the scientific community, the image of the unevolved caveman archetype remains prevalent in popular culture.[25][26] In truth, Neanderthal technology was quite sophisticated. It includes the Mousterian stone-tool industry[27][28] as well as the abilities to create fire,[29][30] build cave hearths[31][32] (to cook food, keep warm, defend themselves from animals, placing it at the centre of their homes),[33] make adhesive birch bark tar,[34] craft at least simple clothes similar to blankets and ponchos,[35] weave,[36] go seafaring through the Mediterranean,[37][38] make use of medicinal plants,[39][40][41] treat severe injuries,[42] store food,[43] and use various cooking techniques such as roasting, boiling,[44] and smoking.[45] Neanderthals consumed a wide array of food, mainly hoofed mammals,[46] but also megafauna,[25][47] plants,[48][49][50] small mammals, birds, and aquatic and marine resources.[51] Although they were probably apex predators, they still competed with cave lions, cave hyenas and other large predators.[52] A number of examples of symbolic thought and Palaeolithic art have been inconclusively[53] attributed to Neanderthals, namely possible ornaments made from bird claws and feathers,[54][55] shells,[56] collections of unusual objects including crystals and fossils,[57] engravings,[58] music production (possibly indicated by the Divje Babe flute),[59] and Spanish cave paintings contentiously[60] dated to before 65,000 years ago.[61][62] Some claims of religious beliefs have been made.[63] Neanderthals were likely capable of speech, possibly articulate, although the complexity of their language is not known.[64][65]

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        in terms of the ratio between those two numbers the earth is probably more perfectly spherical than a billiard ball.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >but its polar radius is 6357 km - in other words, the Earth is slightly flatt

        Busted

  61. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Test

  62. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/23736631/#23737864

    >Flat Earth theory began as a joke, but then Cambridge Analytical and Friends began to try to strengthen and spread it to figure out ways to convince idiots to believe in the most absurd thing possible. The knowledge from this stupid science was then used along with other data to elect Donald Trump.

    >Basically the most stupid people in America (and the world at large) have been led by their own gullibility to become EVEN MORE stupid to the point of complete delusion in order to make their minds immune to skepticism and easily led by tardomancers to support the useful morons they want in power.

    >This process has gotten so bad that cultural conservativism has literally summoned a Doomsday machine comprised of mutually reinforcing delusions. We're in the middle of a memetic apocalypse, but fortunately there have been leftist memetic engineers at work for a long time, and they are much better at it than any right-wing idiot could even imagine.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's literally flat in every religious text, all globers have is lying and deception.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        During a lunar eclipse anywhere on Earth the shadow of the Earth is circular. If it were flat the shadow would be elliptical depending on location.
        You can buy a telescope and see that the moon, Saturn, and Jupiter are spherical with your own eyes.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This happened on the last solar eclipse https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LQYpJe9kiDs&pp=ygUgVHdvIG1vb25zIGR1cmluZyBlY2xpcHNlIHRpayB0b2s%3D

          Explain it please.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's obviously two videos spliced together, as the differences in sky brightness shows.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are you dumb? He's using eclipse sunglasses as a filter.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What is your explanation? Another moon magically appeared despite the fact that millions of people keep track of moon phases?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I simply acknowledge it. I don't deny or make excuses. You can't simply dismiss things because they don't fit your worldview. Keep acknowledging what is and you'll find the truth.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It isn't a "world view."
            Moon phases are not a psyop, moron.
            If you went outside you would observe them.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Imagine a giant fricking microscope so fricking big that the entire flat earth fit on the the slide. The illuminator of the microscope is the sun, the earth is the stage of course, but also the reflector. The atmosphere is the light tube. It is filtered by a layer of the atmosphere to leave only light close to the xray spectrum through to whatever the medium is that the light gets projected onto for what we see as the moon.

            The xray element is interesting because it doesn't function off of depth transparency like our doctors xrays. Each layer is expressed simulatenously as one layer.

            Also, remember, we are on the other side of this whole natural phenomena, so it's like looking through the binoculars in reverse. The manifestion of the moon (earth's xray reflection) is projected at a distance.

            So, we use telescopes to bring something 'closer' to use that has already been demagnified. I just find that interesting.

            And...finally: The moon phases are the result of the field of view of the natural microscope. Have you ever looked at a pair of binoculars and your eyes were slightly off center? The field of view changes. When it is perfectly centered, it is a perfect circle. When your eyes are off center, the field of view is obstructed in a way that resembles the moon phases. You can actually replicate all moon phases by moving your eyes around a pair of binoculars to where the 'black' area (resultant pocket with no light) obscures the lit area.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So make up more shit with zero evidence to explain to shit with no evidence all to ignore and deny the simpler explanation that has evidence.
            No.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I simply acknowledge it.
            Do you acknowledge this? Or do you immediately think it fake? Why do you acknowledge some video on youtube that has THE WORST transition that only makes sense to do if you are trying to hide a very poorly edited cut between films, and not the thousands of hours of film of space and the moon?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I trust Hollywood movies because they are the most polished, well edited and have the best transitions and soundtrack. Raw unedited footage looks garbage.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And Bollywood?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Gradualism is ScienceTM's gay devil trick.

            SNEED. Obviously.

            Space is fake.
            Nukes aren't real.
            Evolution is a lie.
            Earth is flat.
            Dinosaurs never existed.

            Each one of your precious ScienceTM ideas requires a conceit beyond testable human measurement and the devil of Gradualism rears its head. Just take a moronic fricking idea, spread it over a long enough timespan or large enough space...or break the idea down into enough parts...and suddenly it becomes magically possible simply because it's incomprehensible.

            And you talk about fricking proof. You're moronic.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i live right in the center of the totality for the recent eclipse. watched the whole thing from when the moon first began to touch the disk of the sun to when it was more than half way off the other side. there was nothing out of the ordinary whatsoever. it was beautiful though.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        gām āviśya ca bhūtāni
        dhārayāmy aham ojasā
        >Gita 15.13: I enter into each planet, and by My energy they stay in orbit.

  63. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fu0t7fy05l6031.jpg

    https://www.quora.com/Do-snipers-actually-have-to-calculate-the-Earth-s-curvature-to-perform-long-shots

    >Q: Do snipers actually have to calculate the Earth’s curvature to perform long shots?

    >A:No.

    >The average curvature of the earth is about 13cm per 1km. This means that the horizon for ground level is approximately 4.5–5km away- i.e. on an open field, you would not be able to see soneone 5km away due to the curvature if the earth. This of course, increases as your elevation rises. If snipers took into account the curvature of the earth, this would mean they could theoretically shoot someone they can’t see.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >https://www.quora.com/Do-snipers-actually-have-to-calculate-the-Earth-s-curvature-to-perform-long-shots
      >What you may have heard of that snipers take into account is the Eotvos and the Coriolis effect, which takes into account the spin of the earth, not the curvature. Even so, these effects are highly situational (they are negligible near the equator for the coriolis effect, and negligible near the poles for the eotvos effect. They also only start to become important for shots further than 700m odd.
      so you believe it's flat but rotates?

  64. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you are here behind an 8 dimensional savety glass bubble believe what you want.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      and outside of your box i will bild 8 dimensional butterflys

  65. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *