Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

bflat's Achievements



  1. I actually feel pretty handcuffed on what I can even say here, but it would be great if this could somehow get to David. @GarethIcke?
  2. I chalk this whole thing up to indoctrination and blind faith. I mean considering there is not one replicable experiment that can be done that shows water curving around a ball or sticking to outside of any spinning shape for that matter, what is left? Logical fallacies? See if this helps: Partnerships Implementing Engineering Education Worcester Polytechnic Institute – Worcester Public Schools Supported by: National Science Found Changing shape of water Grade Level 1 Sessions Session I: Use different containers to show water takes on the shape of it’s container – 15 minute Physical Sciences Identify objects and materials as solid, liquid, or gas. Recognize that solids have a definite shape and that liquids and gases take the shape of their container. Here guys, as always, I beg of you to not take my word or anyone's. Experiment for yourselves. You can try this lesson here: https://web.wpi.edu/Images/CMS/PIEE/1c3.pdf
  3. This is what water actually does in the real world:
  4. They have already moved on to dishonest memes. Take the win, lol.
  5. ***When all they have is purposeful deception, it's time to ask why. Real eyes -----------Realize ------------------- Real Lies
  6. It looks like the balloon blows and that's why we see the apparent free fall.
  7. ...the fool on the hill Sees the sun going down And the eyes in his head See the world spinning 'round...
  8. Look up "replicable." And see the post you literally just quoted. I literally just described the method, as this must be done so those who follow can, in fact, have a chance to either replicate or not replicate the results. Keep in mind, the results will be the raw footage timestamped side-by-side. I hate giving ammo to nasa trolls, but I have issues both with Eric and also his idiot mod who goes by shpankme (or something close). Eric was the guy who gave us the Zetetics and all of their work, but how the hell did he even learn of it? And I love his presentations, but his idea of a research forum is far different than mine. Dude? We in?
  9. Hi, Theo, it's been too long, lol. This is for observational purposes that can then be replicated. That is all.
  10. @ evryone who is scared of facts and physics: --Laser tests over several miles --A 1000 mile horizon taken from a passenger jet --Brian Shul, USAF (retired) seeing Canada from above Tucson, NM at 85,000 feet --Water curving around a ball or any shape has never been proven in any replicable or observable way --Laser experiments show the exact opposite --Multiple emergency landings - pilots, nor ship's captains have ever... they have never used a globe to navigate from - they would be lost which is why they have always used something close to the freemason's UN flag (great circle routes are pure reified idiocy brought to you from disney) Need I go on? Ok, how 'bout nasa's own tech manuals? I'm not talking about the kiddie BS they teach wannabees and 'goy - NOPE - here are their own technical documents. While this makes perfect sense to the loudest handful on here, for those reading along, I would really... really... really...Like you to think about this: NASA Technical Memorandum 104330; Predicted Performance of a Thrust-Enhanced SR-71 Aircraft with an External Payload (Page 8 - Digital Performance Simulation Description) "The DPS equations of motion use four assumptions ... a nonrotating Earth." https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88507main_H-2179.pdf NASA Technical Note: A Method for Reducing The Sensitivity of Optimal Nonlinear Systems to Parameter Uncertainty (Page 12 Problem Statement) ... "(2) A flat, nonrotating Earth" https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710018599.pdf NASA Technical Note; Calculation of Wind Compensation for Launching of Unguided Rockets (Page 8 Trajectory Simulation, 2nd Paragraph) ..."this simulation assumes ... the missile position in space is computed relative to a flat nonrotating Earth" https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20040008097.pdf NASA Technical Paper 2768; User's Manual for LINEAR, a FORTRAN Program to Derive Linear Aircraft Models (Page 12, Program Overview) ... “Within the program, the nonlinear equations of motion include 12 states representing a rigid aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat nonrotating Earth” https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88072main_H-1259.pdf NASA Technical Paper 2835; "User's Manual for LINEAR, a FORTRAN Program to Derive Linear Aircraft Models" (Page 1, Summary) AND (Page 126 , Report Documentation Page, Section 16) "The nonlinear equations of motion used are six-degree-of-freedom equations with stationary atmosphere and flat, nonrotating earth assumptions." https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890007066.pdf NASA Technical Memorandum; Determination of Angles of Attack and Sideslip from Radar Data and a Roll Stabilized Platform (Page 2, Section 16.) “The method is limited, however, to application where a flat, nonrotating earth may be assumed.” NASA Contractor Report 186019; An Aircraft Model for the AIAA Controls Design Challenge (Page 11, Equation of Motion and Atmospheric Model) ... “The nonlinear equations of motion used in this model are general six-degree-of-freedom equations representing the flight dynamics of a rigid aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat nonrotating Earth.” https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88248main_H-1777.pdf NASA Contractor Report 3073; Investigation of Aircraft Landing in Variable Wind Fields (Page 6, Chapter II - Aircraft Landing Model) ... "The Aircraft trajectory model employed in this study was derived based on the following assumptions: a) The Earth is flat and non-rotating. " https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790005472.pdf NASA Technical Memorandum 81238; A Mathematical Model of the CH-53 Helicopter (Page 17, Equations of Motion) .. "The helicopter equations of motion are given in body axes with respect to a flat, nonrotating Earth." https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19810003557.pdf Engineering Experiment Station, Georgia Institute of Technology, Prepared for NASA; Atmospheric Oscillations (Page 10) ... "A model frequently used is that of a flat, nonrotating earth." ... (next paragraph) .. "The most one can profitably simplify the problem is to consider an isothermal atmosphere, plane level surface, and a nonrotating Earth." https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19650015408.pdf NASA Tecnical Paper 2002-210718; Stability and Control Estimation Flight Test Results for the SR-71 Aircraft With Externally Mounted Experiments (Pages 10-11 Equations of Motion) ... "These equations assume a rigid vehicle and a flat, nonrotating Earth." https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88733main_H-2465.pdf NASA Technical Memorandum 100996; Flight Testing a VSTOL Aircraft to Identify a Full-Envelope Aerodynamic Model (Pages 4-5, State Estimation) ... “For aircraft problems, the state and measurement models together represent the kinematics of a rigid body for describing motion over a flat, nonrotating Earth…” https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880014378.pdf NASA Ames Research Center; Singular Arc Time-Optimal Climb Trajectory of Aircraft in a Two-Dimensional Wind Field (Page 2, Section II. Singular Arc Optimal Control) ... “In our minimum time-to-climb problem, the aircraft is modeled as a point mass and the flight trajectory is strictly confined in a vertical plane on a non-rotating, flat Earth." https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060053337.pdf
  11. Sure, no problem and I am not claiming proof, nor do I have time to research the RAS from the middle of the 1800s. As our technology continues to improve, however, the things we will continue to see will leave the globe believers as a gigantic minority. It's the horizon that doesn't lie. It is the fact that water does not bend around anything, let alone a spinning, whirling, wobbling ball. The laser experiments do not lie. Freemasons do.
  12. It is an unproven claim to get past the observations that destroy their model.
  13. Prove that please. Several observations even below 20 degrees south have been recorded multiple times by navigators and some of these observations have been documented by the Royal Astronomical Society. The Zetetics were frequently in contact with the RAS and if you really want to search online, these discussions can be found in their literature and notations. Also, be aware that it is known that Ursa Major (near Polaris) can be seen from 90 degrees North to 30 degrees South.
  14. That video is ridiculous! At 50 seconds a boat crosses in front of the target boat and a second or two later the boat just appears to drop a foot or two. That is impossible on any model that I have ever seen! What follows are just three of six million videos that actually require explanation. I mean honestly now, how many multiples of miles past where the geometric horizon needs to be do we need to go before people open their eyes to see what has been right in front of them for their entire lives? Good luck with that!
  • Create New...