Jump to content

Flat Earth: the last thread about this subject on this forum


 Share

Recommended Posts

On 8/11/2021 at 7:42 AM, zArk said:

no, 'i dunno' what the firmament is made of.

 

Going to get shot down for this but to me it holds some truth so I will share it. This would get laughed out of court but I have Fu£k aLL respect for the judicial practice anyway so here goes....

 

I have a friend who takes magic mushrooms from time to time. On a clear day he has seen what he believes to be the firmament and he describes it as looking like a thick spiders web.  Before you laugh this off or think I'm taking the utter piss the strange thing is that many of his friends have also seen it and described the same thing on different days. Some are flat Earth believers and some are not. None of them had shared this experience whilst on the mushrooms and this was shared when one of them mentioned it in conversation.

 

Crazy trip heads or are they tuned into seeing or feeling something that the naked eye can't without the help of nature?

 

I lean more to the latter.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few days ago I was sitting in the Coast bar of the Claremont Hotel on Douglas promenade on the Isle of Man.

I was drinking a double measure of Southern Comfort and idly looking out of the window out to sea. I happened to notice there were wind turbines in the distance. The turbines are big.

The bottom third of the turbine blades dropped below the horizon as they turned.

What would cause that?

I was looking East. It was probably the Walney wind turbine farm about 30 miles out to sea from the Isle of Man.

The turbine blades are over a 100 metres long.The tips of the blades are about 180 meters tall at the highest point.

Just in case anyone wants to do a quick calculation on how much of the turbines should be hidden by the curvature of the earth.

Or come up with some other explanation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, gregory-peccary said:

A few days ago I was sitting in the Coast bar of the Claremont Hotel on Douglas promenade on the Isle of Man.

I was drinking a double measure of Southern Comfort and idly looking out of the window out to sea. I happened to notice there were wind turbines in the distance. The turbines are big.

The bottom third of the turbine blades dropped below the horizon as they turned.

What would cause that?

I was looking East. It was probably the Walney wind turbine farm about 30 miles out to sea from the Isle of Man.

The turbine blades are over a 100 metres long.The tips of the blades are about 180 meters tall at the highest point.

Just in case anyone wants to do a quick calculation on how much of the turbines should be hidden by the curvature of the earth.

Or come up with some other explanation.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/6/2021 at 8:44 PM, Xelador said:

According to Eric Dubay (one of the main protagonists of the Flat Earth movement) the 'Flat Earth Society' is controlled opposition.

Here's a link to Eric Dubay's forum if interested - https://ifers.123.st/

If you've not seen it already, here's the first official Flat Earth documentary, Level -
 

 

'First' - NO

'official' - How?

You should read books too, plenty available.

Eric, as much as I appreciate his contribution, is a satanic shill.

He promotes Blavatskis new age just like some others,

Dirty fuckers, die in hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gregory-peccary said:

A few days ago I was sitting in the Coast bar of the Claremont Hotel on Douglas promenade on the Isle of Man.

I was drinking a double measure of Southern Comfort and idly looking out of the window out to sea. I happened to notice there were wind turbines in the distance. The turbines are big.

The bottom third of the turbine blades dropped below the horizon as they turned.

What would cause that?

I was looking East. It was probably the Walney wind turbine farm about 30 miles out to sea from the Isle of Man.

The turbine blades are over a 100 metres long.The tips of the blades are about 180 meters tall at the highest point.

Just in case anyone wants to do a quick calculation on how much of the turbines should be hidden by the curvature of the earth.

Or come up with some other explanation.

 

8 inches per mile squared works perfectly for these distances.

 

If the max height of the blade is 180 meters, that translates to just over 590 feet.

 

30 miles squared = 900

 

900 X 8 = 7200

 

Divide by 12 and we get 600!

 

So, if you were just above sea level at the bar and your figures are accurate, exactly none of that windmill should have been visible.

 

The actual trig proves a drop of just over that or 600.16 feet.

 

C-GW_kPXoAAgaHk.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heres a  couple of posts im stealing from another forum

 

British Physicist Julian Barbour: "It is remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the Earth moves, and if so, in what precise sense...
They all know.

Flat Earth is just a Deep State diversion designed to distract from the biggest conspiracy and lie of all: that the Earth is not the fixed, motionless center of of gravity of the Universe.

"What is the conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment? The implication is that the Earth is not moving." - Richard Wolfson, Benjamin F. Wissler Professor of Physics at Middlebury College

"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth's movement. The results were always negative." - Henri Poincare

"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest." - Hendrick Lorentz

"No physical experiment has ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion." - Lincoln Barnett, Einstein biographer

"I can construct for you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds." - George F.R. Ellis, University of Cambridge
 
Newton insisted, but did not prove, that space was "absolute" - did not move. Mach and Einstein argued that accelerated frames, not just inertial frames, must be accounted for. If the frame accelerates (universe rotates) it produces real forces (centrifugal, coriolis, euler) on objects in the system. Newton believed that there were only two things at work: gravity and inertia. In a Geostatic system, there are three more forces at work. Newton's model still works wonderfully for closed systems like our Solar System, but when you take into consideration the entire system of the Universe, it is entirely possible for the Universe to rotate around a motionless Earth and obey the laws of physics. In fact, the Michelson-Morley experiment actually proved experimentally that the Earth does not rotate or revolve, but the results were misinterpreted due to certain ideological biases.
Edited by Jikwan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The “Nature of Reality” forum was recently hosting a thread where heated discussion was taking place regarding our plane, “a flat, nonrotating Earth” as nasa themselves reference multiple times in multiple documents. Freemason trolls were going crazy over their delusion being exposed, which in itself was fun to watch. The thread was several pages long, I believe over 40, was posted to multiple times each day, and was being viewed 100s of times each day.

So, I’ll lay out the basics for discussion, the freemason trolls will come on here with nearly every logical fallacy known to man; they will even openly lie. For anyone looking for truth, try not to let this distract you from these few, simple, points… and enjoy!

 

T   1) The horizon! I simply cannot stress enough how important it is to understand that with the technology available today for around $500, you can test for yourself whether the horizon is a physical barrier as it MUST BE in the current heliocentric delusion put forth by Jesuit freemasons and accepted today by “modern astronomy,” or if it is simply what any artist knows as a vanishing point/line based on perspective. Here are some examples of what you will find:

 

I am not sure of the cost of the above setup, but it is technology like this that is advancing rapidly and has been destroying the globe lie all over the world. Youtube, facebook, twitter, etc. cannot take these videos down and ban the account owners fast enough. Our ability to use infrared, allowing us to cut through the atmosphere and the ability max out the contrast allows us to see farther than ever before. FTR, the above horizon is around 100 miles or more beyond where it would be if the earth were a globe, 25,000 miles in circumference.

 

 

The above video speaks for itself. Watch it at least until the father shoots a laser directly into his son’s camera lens from 13.7 miles away!

 

And this is an old one of usaf major Brian Shul flying around in his fighter jet and telling us quite bluntly of seeing Canada from New Mexico!

The horizon also always rises to the eye level of the observer and remains perfectly flat, 360 degrees. From the beach:

 

bflat1.jpg.52963d466cd66db0bf7cdc5bdecd90e5.jpg

 

To the highest rides in hot air balloons:

 

If they earth is a ball like the freemasons claim, as we move higher we would need to look down to see the horizon, but this never happens. Since none of us have ever seen this ourselves, check this open sourced 3d model of what we should see from a hot air balloon, yet never do:

 

 

 

 

The truth remains and has been staring us in the for our entire lives.

 

 

     2) The physics governing water is extremely clear! Water finds its level. Spirit levels work on this very principle and have guided us in the building of incredible structures for centuries.

http://fememes.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/8-650x675.jpg

 

Water does not stick to the outside of a ball; water fills its container and lies perfectly flat on top:

oceanf11.jpg

I know, I know… muh grabity, duh. Well:

imp1imsibys31.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&a

 

 

 

3)  Physical laws regarding how gas and why gas moves! Trolls from freemasonry pretend that Newton’s second law only relates to temperature. They are wrong. It is correct to say that energy moves from "more concentrated" to "less concentrated."

In other words:

Energy flows from a higher pressure to a lower pressure (expansion).

main-qimg-ee1fb0a6f4e101d514714cb518daab

https://www.ftexploring.com/energy/2nd_Law.html

The point? We are told that the greatest vacuum known to us is that of the "infinite vacuum  of space." In fact, Interstellar/Deep Space = ~10^-17 Torr. To put that in perspective, nasa’s vacuum chamber with her two feet thick metal wall that is enclosed by six to eight feet thick cement walls, can only achieve 10^-6.

And right next to this infinite vacuum sits our pressurized system. It is actually inside this infinite vacuum, lol.

I know, I know… muh grabity. Hint: it is ridiculous to assume that gravity would stand a chance against this vacuum. I mean even if Newton was right, this is where gravity would be the weakest. It is the point that nasa refuses to even define where the earth’s gravity stops and “infinite vacuum space” begins.

Hell, look how easy it for a basic shop vac to overcome “gravity,” the freemason’s imaginary friend:

 

 

 

 

4)   Airlines use this map or one quite similar to navigate from:

gleasons-map-high-resolution-restored-1-638.jpg

and never use anything like this to navigate from:

3525206-human-fingers-ready-to-push-a-sm

EMERGENCY LANDINGS PROVE THIS BEYOND DOUBT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVP8-mcpook

 

 

         5)   Look at how they explain flight dynamics to pilots and what nasa explains in several of THEIR OWN DOCUMENTS!

We assume that . . .

There is a flat Earth. (The Earth’s curvature is zero.)

 

There is anon-rotating Earth. (No Coriolis accelerations and such are present.)

 

http://www.aerostudents.com/courses/flight-dynamics/flightDynamicsFullVersion.pdf

 

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; General Equations of Motion for a Damaged Asymmetric Aircraft (Page 2, Section II) ... “In this paper, the rigid body equations of motion over a flat non-rotating earth are developed…”

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070030307.pdf

 

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

 

OK, that’s it for now, I could literally go on for days, but let’s start with these five simple points. And folks, at least try to keep the trolling to minimum, focus on the five points and have some fun exploring our physical reality.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2021 David Icke Books LimitedPowered by Invision Community

Edited by Jikwan
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its my observation that if you discuss this FE subject with someone thats 100% globe rotating planet there is one thing guaranteed

 

They will never accept any evidence or proof you offer them.

Not even once

 

Repeat, They will never accept any evidence or proof you offer them.

 

 

Edited by Jikwan
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I.been reading the long FE thread started by bflat.

Got to say im impressed with the way bflat and avoiceinthecrowd conducted the discussion.

They knew the subject extremely well and kept their cool all the time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Longest line of sight photographed

 

325 MILES

 

 

This is a sensation!

I will try and post the photo

This one is much farther than the current guiness world record

 

 

HIDDEN World Record Low Altitude FLAT EARTH Puig Sallfort (Pyrénées-Orientales) - Île et Phare de Giraglia (Corsica) Observer = 2 227 feet / 979 mètres Distance = 325 miles / 523,79 km HO = 69,40 miles / 111,69 km HI = 43 680 feet / 13,31 km 8,27 miles 

Edited by Jikwan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jikwan said:

British Physicist Julian Barbour: "It is remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the Earth moves, and if so, in what precise sense...

I just had a thought. If the earth rotates, if i get a helicopter and stay in one position for 2 hours will i end up in a different country? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Fluke said:

I just had a thought. If the earth rotates, if i get a helicopter and stay in one position for 2 hours will i end up in a different country? 

Hey that a great idea.

Maybe no one has ever thought about this possability

Hire a helicopter as soon as possible

Ask the pilot to just hover in one position for 2hrs

If this works you could make a name for yourself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jikwan said:

Hey that a great idea.

Maybe no one has ever thought about this possability

Hire a helicopter as soon as possible

Ask the pilot to just hover in one position for 2hrs

If this works you could make a name for yourself

I thought it was einstein level genius myself.  I sense some sarcasm in your post. I would if i owned a helicopter. 

 

If the earth rotates why would this not work? For instance if i fire a pellet in the air it usually does not fall in the same position which i fired it from. Why is that?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Fluke said:

I thought it was einstein level genius myself.  I sense some sarcasm in your post. I would if i owned a helicopter. 

 

If the earth rotates why would this not work? For instance if i fire a pellet in the air it usually does not fall in the same position which i fired it from. Why is that?

If you lined the barrel exactly vertical using some sophisticated rifle clamps it would return to same spot give or take 3 feet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Fluke said:

I just had a thought. If the earth rotates, if i get a helicopter and stay in one position for 2 hours will i end up in a different country? 

 

well for the sphere heads thats correct as its all relative. If the planet is spinning 1400mph to travel opposite direction 1400 miles one would need to be stationary for 1 hr. The air resistance, build of the vehicle, power of vehicle would affect the stationary requirement relative to the spin.

 

So i really do not see this argument as showing a flat earth and the sphereheads will eat it up with calculations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quote from avoiceinthecrowd.....

 

NASA has the means, the motives, and the opportunities to create all manner of false facade aimed at discrediting those revealing evidence of grand larceny on a scale never seen before. They have a vested interest in conserving the globe model. The flat earth would land them in jail if it was allowed to go mainstream. Lots of faces with cream pie.

Edited by Jikwan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Jikwan said:

Snip-it_1591906909602.jpg

Why don't you put up the explanation for that so people can see both sides of the argument without bias, I thought this thread was about new information all that is happening now is a re run of the first thread. I'm still waiting for a counter argument concerning lasers across lakes and their validity as evidence of a flat earth, I guess it won't belong before we see the obligatory bubbles rising in water for the umpteenth time.

If you are interested in an explanation on what you perceive as a large problem,  I'll give you a hint, vacuums don't suck.

Try thinking instead of repeating  for a change

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, peter said:

Why don't you put up the explanation for that so people can see both sides of the argument without bias, I thought this thread was about new information all that is happening now is a re run of the first thread. I'm still waiting for a counter argument concerning lasers across lakes and their validity as evidence of a flat earth, I guess it won't belong before we see the obligatory bubbles rising in water for the umpteenth time.

If you are interested in an explanation on what you perceive as a large problem,  I'll give you a hint, vacuums don't suck.

Try thinking instead of repeating  for a change

Its my observation that if you discuss this FE subject with someone thats 100% globe rotating planet there is one thing guaranteed

 

They will never accept any evidence or proof you offer them.

Not even once

 

Repeat, They will never accept any evidence or proof you offer them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...