Put a flat earthier into space



Nukehasslefan said:
Tell me about it. Tell me about it from your global mindset. What is it I don't understand?
Click to expand...
That a globe 25,000 miles in diameter does not have sufficient curvature over ~50 miles to obscure the entirety of a 1000 foot building standing on the shoreline of a lake. This is not difficult mathematics. Try picking up a calculator.

The burden here is on you, not me. If the earth were flat, you would see the entirety of these buildings from 50 miles away; after all, there's very little in the way. But in fact you see only the tops. Why is that?
 
Last edited:
SYB_DC said:
That a globe 25,000 miles in diameter does not have sufficient curvature over ~50 miles to obscure the entirety of a 1000 foot building standing on the shoreline of a lake. This is not difficult mathematics. Try picking up a calculator.

The burden here is on you, not me. If the earth were flat, you would see the entirety of these buildings from 50 miles away; after all, there's very little in the way. But in fact you see only the tops. Why is that?
Click to expand...

he's the smartest man on the planet. he doesn't need to prove anything to us lesser beings
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Why does what work?
A level water do you mean?

It does act on everything else but everything else is not a moving mass of liquid.
Click to expand...
Yes, your bath experiment that does not work on a curved planet surface like a globe earth, but does work on the curved surface of your lemon squeezer world.
 
payne said:
quality dome images here

www.space.com

These smartphone photos of Earth from space by China's Shenzhou 12 astronauts are just gorgeous

You don't need high-end cameras to snap nice shots of our planet from orbit.
www.space.com www.space.com
Click to expand...
So did they fit fish eye lenses to their mobile phones? That is the most common answer from flattards, but phones don't usually have that, so either the phone was modded to give fake images or it is CGI. I mean there is the possibility that we live on a f***ing globe, but that might be my brain washing showing through again.
 
DaveH said:
So did they fit fish eye lenses to their mobile phones? That is the most common answer from flattards, but phones don't usually have that, so either the phone was modded to give fake images or it is CGI. I mean there is the possibility that we live on a f***ing globe, but that might be my brain washing showing through again.
Click to expand...
i'm just amazed that the reflected lights of the fake stars we see from the ground don't seem appear on the dome from above. there are points of light that appear outside the dome in the cgi image below.


I'm also thinking, after being converted to dome world theory at this point how intelligent and smart the people running the show must be. Their level of scientific and technological understanding must be next level to hide themselves in an unknown part of earth. Maybe they actually reside in the southern hemisphere that doesn't exist
 
Last edited:
payne said:
dome world pal. flat earthers are dense
Click to expand...
Sigh. I am going to have to revise my beliefs now.. All I know is we have no gravity althou majority of buildings was made from a plum line from ancient Egyptian times.

Ok I am dome worlder.. Its just so much cooler then flatearther.
 
Bobthebasted said:
Sigh. I am going to have to revise my beliefs now.. All I know is we have no gravity althou majority of buildings was made from a plum line from ancient Egyptian times.

Ok I am dome worlder.. Its just so much cooler then flatearther.
Click to expand...

surely everyone likes living in a cell
 
payne said:
i'm just amazed that the reflected lights of the fake stars we see from the ground don't seem appear on the dome from above. there are points of light that appear outside the dome in the cgi image below.


I'm also thinking, after being converted to dome world theory at this point how intelligent and smart the people running the show must be. Their level of scientific and technological understanding must be next level to hide themselves in an unknown part of earth. Maybe they actually reside in the southern hemisphere that doesn't exist
Click to expand...
I think the people running the show bit is the most scary part of this whole coverup.

For thousands of years the night sky has been there for all to see and wonder at. Fair enough. As we advanced we found we could also monitor it on other wavelengths, such as radio, microwave and various other types of radiation. But with greater studies we found we could accurately predict things in the night sky and actually alter it ourselves.

Over the last few decades we have been pretending to send satellites, space craft and space stations up into space. People on the ground can see these and easily detect radio emissions from them. Clearly something is up there, indeed many things all moving on completely predictable paths, to the extent you can download apps to plan pass overs or plug into to apps such as stellarium where you really see how many are up there.

These can not be planes as they never land and are clearly very high up. They are always right were they should be, so the only logical assumption is that they are also other projections. Same as the periodic comet projections.

Now this is where it gets worrying. We have many companies who build satellites and a huge amount of effort goes into this. Off they launch on huge rockets. Where do the rockets go, where is the payload junked and then how does the new projection appear in the sky? At some point did we discover the truth about projection central? Bear in mind that nobody can go there. Did we take control and we add the fake dots of light or are we now in league with some other entity that does. Otherwise how would we know a fake dot is about to appear and work back sometimes quite a few years to design a convenient back story?
 
DaveH said:
I think the people running the show bit is the most scary part of this whole coverup.

For thousands of years the night sky has been there for all to see and wonder at. Fair enough. As we advanced we found we could also monitor it on other wavelengths, such as radio, microwave and various other types of radiation. But with greater studies we found we could accurately predict things in the night sky and actually alter it ourselves.

Over the last few decades we have been pretending to send satellites, space craft and space stations up into space. People on the ground can see these and easily detect radio emissions from them. Clearly something is up there, indeed many things all moving on completely predictable paths, to the extent you can download apps to plan pass overs or plug into to apps such as stellarium where you really see how many are up there.

These can not be planes as they never land and are clearly very high up. They are always right were they should be, so the only logical assumption is that they are also other projections. Same as the periodic comet projections.

Now this is where it gets worrying. We have many companies who build satellites and a huge amount of effort goes into this. Off they launch on huge rockets. Where do the rockets go, where is the payload junked and then how does the new projection appear in the sky? At some point did we discover the truth about projection central? Bear in mind that nobody can go there. Did we take control and we add the fake dots of light or are we now in league with some other entity that does. Otherwise how would we know a fake dot is about to appear and work back sometimes quite a few years to design a convenient back story?
Click to expand...
all that just sounds like you've been schooled into narrative thinking. got to think outside the box (or in the bath)
 
Nobby said:
You ask for proof of everything else, your one fact, the central plank of your argument and you can't prove it
Click to expand...
It's proved but not accepted because it doesn't for the narrative of the global nonsensical model.
SYB_DC said:
That a globe 25,000 miles in diameter does not have sufficient curvature over ~50 miles to obscure the entirety of a 1000 foot building standing on the shoreline of a lake. This is not difficult mathematics. Try picking up a calculator.

The burden here is on you, not me. If the earth were flat, you would see the entirety of these buildings from 50 miles away; after all, there's very little in the way. But in fact you see only the tops. Why is that?
Click to expand...
Atmospheric density is in the way.
Your globe would not offer the sight of those buildings at 50 miles. It would mean a drop of 1666 feet based on your Earth.
They're seen because they're not on any globe.
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
It's proved but not accepted because it doesn't for the narrative of the global nonsensical model.
Click to expand...
How is it proved? Show us your method, data and conclusions, so we can replicate your results that's how proof works.

Otherwise your one truth that you build everything else on has no more merit than any of your other "musings"
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
It's proved but not accepted because it doesn't for the narrative of the global nonsensical model.

Atmospheric density is in the way.
Your globe would not offer the sight of those buildings at 50 miles. It would mean a drop of 1666 feet based on your Earth.
They're seen because they're not on any globe.
Click to expand...

No it wouldnt the drop is 6 inches per mile iirc so c.25 feet (took me 3 bastard edits to get that right) anything 1000 feet would be easily visible
 
Last edited:
DaveH said:
Yes, your bath experiment that does not work on a curved planet surface like a globe earth, but does work on the curved surface of your lemon squeezer world.
Click to expand...
My curve is minor. Your curve is a ball and spinning, as we're told. Big difference.
If you wanted to argue that you lived on the top portion of a non spinning globe then you could use the water argument in an indentation. Unfortunately it would screw up all the other gunk we're told about the ball and the magical properties needed to keep it alive in people's heads but never in reality.
DaveH said:
Yes, your bath experiment that does not work on a curved planet surface like a globe earth, but does work on the curved surface of your lemon squeezer world.
Click to expand...
My curve is minor. Your curve is a ball and spinning, as we're told. Big difference.
If you wanted to argue that you lived on the top portion of a non spinning globe then you could use the water argument in an indentation. Unfortunately it would screw up all the other gunk we're told about the ball and the magical properties needed to keep it alive in people's heads but never in reality.
nahwee said:
Sorry if you've already responded to this request, but could you give a link or directions to other experiments that have been carried out that prove the earths flatness?
Click to expand...
Go and do it yourself. Water level.
Go and try it anywhere you like.
Use whatever you like as a container and even unbalance it and watch teh water level up.
You know this but you choose to believe it conforms to a globe because that's the narrative set out in mainstream. Simple as that really.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top