Mega Thread The Flat Earth Mega thread.

[Bumpswithagrin]

I think they have some direct flights now to South America (or did have before NWO final takedown plan). Do you know a good link to see a map of the flat earth?

Here is one.

 

[iBeng]

That makes NZ look huge, Im almost on board with this!

 

[Hawk Dork]

The good news: Add some favourable winds in your direction and you could fly from Australia to South America non-stop in only 12.5 hours, which is quite the astonishing feat.

Flying to South America from Australia? Here’s the lowdown. | Chimu Adventures

Planning to fly from Australia to South America? While South America can feel a world away from the likes of Sydney or Perth, there are actually quite a few flight options that can get you there before you know it! Yes, it's a long way to travel, but with an increased number of direct flights...

www.chimuadventures.com

Syd to London is 30 hours

Pretty amazing as according to my ruler London is about 18cm away from Syd and La Paz is 24 cm away

Must be NWO Big Plane mind control going on

 

[Lebbo73]

Yeah, gotta have a little fun and fantasy sometimes from the scary truth of Flat Earth.

Matrix a bit serendipitous

 

[Exe Gesis]

the splayed angles of the sun rays tells you the sun is much closer (and smaller).

if the sun were huge as they say and 150m miles away, the angle of sun rays would be vertical, indeed there'd be only one huge ray hundreds of thousands of miles in width covering the earth.

10 min video....demonstrating that




if the earth were spinning and turning around the sun, shadows would behave differently to what we see.

when you have a stationary plane, and an object like a sun dial, and geocentricity, shadows behave exactly as we see on earth.....the sun over head means the shadow is skrunken into the object, but as the sun moves away the shadows elongate -- but the shadows are always attached to the object in both cases.

on a spinning turning globe, and heliocentricity, shadows would eventually move off the ground and start rising up the walls and away from the object, detached from the object.


The moon is the same distance as sun (apparently)
If you watched Ewars videos youd see a good demonstration of why eclipses can only work when both objects are the same/similar size.
Both are light sources ... One positively charged, one negatively charged.
Flat doesnt mean thin disk. The earth from a distance would have thickness/roundness to it, all that miles of earth, rock, core to it, and a domed/solid firmament. A snow globe isnt thin like a dinner plate. Sun and moon however might probably be flatter, thinner. Moons only front facing side is an example of why it doesnt spin, a disc-like object with only one side facing, sun probably the same.

 

[ParapMarkets]

Here is one.

View attachment 1302151

Thanks for this, it’s a very clear map to look at. The flight times for direct flights from Sydney to South America (compared to North America) don’t add up on this model. It should take longer to fly to South America but it is shorter.

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

Thanks for this, it’s a very clear map to look at. The flight times for direct flights from Sydney to South America (compared to North America) don’t add up on this model. It should take longer to fly to South America but it is shorter.

I watched a video ages ago where someone took one of the few flights from South America direct to Australia and they were going to track the actual miles/kms as they were going along to see what was really going on and to check their flat earth theory. During the flight however, the flight tracker malfunctioned (deliberately?) and could not be viewed so it was a bust. I think there is some explanation for the time, but can't remember it (something to do with being able to fly a lot faster down that close to Antarctica or something). I'll see if I can find the video again but it was ages ago so I probably won't be able to find it. I think the person on the flight was Max Igan.

 

[ParapMarkets]

the splayed angles of the sun rays tells you the sun is much closer (and smaller).

if the sun were huge as they say and 150m miles away, the angle of sun rays would be vertical, indeed there'd be only one huge ray hundreds of thousands of miles in width covering the earth.

10 min video....demonstrating that




if the earth were spinning and turning around the sun, shadows would behave differently to what we see.

when you have a stationary plane, and an object like a sun dial, and geocentricity, shadows behave exactly as we see on earth.....the sun over head means the shadow is skrunken into the object, but as the sun moves away the shadows elongate -- but the shadows are always attached to the object in both cases.

on a spinning turning globe, and heliocentricity, shadows would eventually move off the ground and start rising up the walls and away from the object, detached from the object.


The moon is the same distance as sun (apparently)
If you watched Ewars videos youd see a good demonstration of why eclipses can only work when both objects are the same/similar size.
Both are light sources ... One positively charged, one negatively charged.
Flat doesnt mean thin disk. The earth from a distance would have thickness/roundness to it, all that miles of earth, rock, core to it, and a domed/solid firmament. A snow globe isnt thin like a dinner plate. Sun and moon however might probably be flatter, thinner. Moons only front facing side is an example of why it doesnt spin, a disc-like object with only one side facing, sun probably the same.

I watched both the 8 hour and 5 hour documentaries, there is some fascinating stuff in there. The silicon based life is hard for me to fathom, but after watching and then looking at some other material I am certain that what we have been educated (indoctrinated) with does not add up at all.

There are so many examples, especially over water, where objects like ships etc. should be hidden from view but with the help of lenses can be seen right to the bottom of the ship. The solar eclipse experiment was also very interesting.

The photos of clearly deserted cities are another fascinating aspect of this. I’d like to see some more investigation of this. And there certainly was a lot of orphan literature around the time. A great re-set in the 1800’s?

 

[ParapMarkets]

Also, the phenomenal and massive architecture with very primitive people has always intrigued me. You see these magnificent buildings and are in awe of anybody creating them let alone people riding horse and carriages with no proper building tools. I guess our natural instinct is that we just don’t want to believe we have been lied to and then cognitive dissonance kicks in.

 

[Exe Gesis]

All it was for me was incredibly fascinating and mind blowing, and i just wanted to share with others who might appreciate the mental meal. So i deeply appreciate that you watched all 13 hrs ParapMarkets

 

[Wallaby]

I guess these railway tracks aren't parallel either.

So now V-Line is lying to us!

 

[Shane Heard]

the splayed angles of the sun rays tells you the sun is much closer (and smaller).

if the sun were huge as they say and 150m miles away, the angle of sun rays would be vertical, indeed there'd be only one huge ray hundreds of thousands of miles in width covering the earth.

10 min video....demonstrating that




if the earth were spinning and turning around the sun, shadows would behave differently to what we see.

when you have a stationary plane, and an object like a sun dial, and geocentricity, shadows behave exactly as we see on earth.....the sun over head means the shadow is skrunken into the object, but as the sun moves away the shadows elongate -- but the shadows are always attached to the object in both cases.

on a spinning turning globe, and heliocentricity, shadows would eventually move off the ground and start rising up the walls and away from the object, detached from the object.


The moon is the same distance as sun (apparently)
If you watched Ewars videos youd see a good demonstration of why eclipses can only work when both objects are the same/similar size.
Both are light sources ... One positively charged, one negatively charged.
Flat doesnt mean thin disk. The earth from a distance would have thickness/roundness to it, all that miles of earth, rock, core to it, and a domed/solid firmament. A snow globe isnt thin like a dinner plate. Sun and moon however might probably be flatter, thinner. Moons only front facing side is an example of why it doesnt spin, a disc-like object with only one side facing, sun probably the same.

Your old mate on the video believes the moon is made of plasma embedded in the “ firmament”. A replica map of the old world (with lost lands that sunk into the sea) put out there up in the sky by the ruling class.

It’s not a solid entity according to him.

 

[ParapMarkets]

I have given this theory a fair go and have found two hurdles I don't think I can cross.
1- If you have ever been on holidays near the equator - sunset happens so much quicker than outside the tropical zones. Twilight is so short. Obviously, under the global model the greater circumference along the equator explains this phenomena.

and this next seems to me an irreconcilable problem:

2- Under the Flat Earth Model the path of the sun follows the same circles: tropic of cancer, equator and capricorn. And all this surprisingly works with what we observe and experience. However, under the Flat Earth model the tropic of cancer has by necessity a significantly smaller radius than the tropic of capricorn. For this model to work, the sun would need to slow down its flight path over the tropic of cancer and than speed up around the equator and speed up again around the far larger path around the tropic of capricorn to maintain the same length of days we experience.

I find this intuitively just doesn't work for me. There are other problems but most of them can be explained these two I find difficult to reconcile.

On the other hand, I think there are a number of issues with our official narrative. The footage of the moon landing, the footage of space and the earth, the discrepancies between experts as to even the shape of the earth, the distance of the sun from the earth at 93 million miles, the distances of all these stars. Much of this seems shonky and unconvincing. None of the live satellite feeds of earth show a horizon. So much if not all of the footage of astronauts in space looks fake.

Also, there is something about our neo-classical buildings, those world fairs. Before I ever saw these documentaries - I've always wondered why we once built these great stunning buildings that almost bring you to tears just looking at them and for the last 100 years have progressively been incapable or unwilling to build anything remotely as aesthetically amazing. We build sh*t - look at federation square - it was supposed to be a landmark - we pretend it is but really any idiot could have designed something more appealing and a more functional space.

I have never considered all that neo-classical ornateness of the past had anything to do with an energy systems but Ewar presents a theory that can not be automatically dismissed. The footage of those fairs is compelling and incongrous at the same time. There has been something deliberate going on for 100 years now - to keep us the masses dumb and its progressively getting even worse now with 24/7 media and social media.

So, I think I am back on a globe traversing infinite space at giddy speeds - unless someone can address my two hurdles, but those other issues raised by these video are not dependent on the earth being flat.

In fact, I wonder why mix it up like that? Whether the elite of this world are withholding free energy discoveries is a serious question that does not require anyone to believe that the world is flat. In fact, I can't help but think that commingling this matter with the flat earth theory is deliberately intended discredit the whole question by association.

Your point regarding the proposed movement of the Sun on the FE model is a great one. It seems absolutely fanciful that the Sun would just slow down as it circles over the Tropic of Cancer and then speed up as it circles the Tropic of Capricorn. The difference in speed would need to be significant in order to keep the days at the same time. To me this is a major flaw and I’m glad you pointed it out.

The biggest problem I see with the Globe model is the fact that experiment after experiment after experiment shows absolutely no curvature whatsoever. The longest I have seen thus far is 65Km+. With use of a telescope, lighthouses can be completely seen right down to the base this showing zero curvature, this should be completely impossible. These are the simplest, basic experiments that pretty much anybody can conduct.

 

[Mr Ripper]

The biggest problem I see with the Globe model is the fact that experiment after experiment after experiment shows absolutely no curvature whatsoever. The longest I have seen thus far is 65Km+. With use of a telescope, lighthouses can be completely seen right down to the base this showing zero curvature, this should be completely impossible. These are the simplest, basic experiments that pretty much anybody can conduct.

 

[ParapMarkets]

None of this explains people being able to see things FROM GROUND LEVEL that should be obscured by over 40 metres of of water/land. We can supposedly see 40 metres below us through water/land unobstructed (without any water/land affecting the view).
I’ve seen similar stuff to this supporting the exact opposite.

 

[The Passenger]

Has anyone figured out a logical way for seasons to ever be possible on a flat earth?

Seasons are small fry.

How are they going to explain eclipses? especially the much more common lunar eclipse.

(ooo yeah hang on, the "shadow object")

 

[ParapMarkets]

Seasons are small fry.

How are they going to explain eclipses? especially the much more common lunar eclipse.

(ooo yeah hang on, the "shadow object")

The eclipse (solar and lunar) is better explained via FE than the globe. It definitely makes more sense scientifically.

 

[Mr Ripper]

None of this explains people being able to see things FROM GROUND LEVEL that should be obscured by over 40 metres of of water/land. We can supposedly see 40 metres below us through water/land unobstructed (without any water/land affecting the view).
I’ve seen similar stuff to this supporting the exact opposite.

Refraction does.

 

[iBeng]

The eclipse (solar and lunar) is better explained via FE than the globe. It definitely makes more sense scientifically.

"A wizard did it" Is your only real logical explanation for how the moon...goes between the Earth...and the Sun...When the moon in FE models is...very very small and separate to the supposed orbiting sky-box, direct spotlighting Sun.

 

[ParapMarkets]

"A wizard did it" Is your only real logical explanation for how the moon...goes between the Earth...and the Sun...When the moon in FE models is...very very small and separate to the supposed orbiting sky-box, direct spotlighting Sun.

A wizard did it?
Let the adults talk

 

[yebiga]

Your point regarding the proposed movement of the Sun on the FE model is a great one. It seems absolutely fanciful that the Sun would just slow down as it circles over the Tropic of Cancer and then speed up as it circles the Tropic of Capricorn. The difference in speed would need to be significant in order to keep the days at the same time. To me this is a major flaw and I’m glad you pointed it out.

The biggest problem I see with the Globe model is the fact that experiment after experiment after experiment shows absolutely no curvature whatsoever. The longest I have seen thus far is 65Km+. With use of a telescope, lighthouses can be completely seen right down to the base this showing zero curvature, this should be completely impossible. These are the simplest, basic experiments that pretty much anybody can conduct.

Thank you

Consider this:
The earth has a circumference of 40,000km, therefore a radius of roughly 6,600km
Draw a circle to scale where 1cm = 1,000km which has a circumference of roughly 40cm representing the 40,000km
Now, on the circle place a ruler and measure any single 1cm =1,000km - you will not detect a curve.
We simply can't see far enough.

However, it may surprise you and others to know that whilst every astronomer believes its proven the world is a globe, they concede that there is nothing to prove that the sun doesn't orbit the earth. This point has been conceded even by Einstein and Texmark. Had the ptolemaic system included elliptical orbits, instead of insisting on circular orbits it is highly unlikely our hello-centric model would have been adopted centuries ago and maybe never as there is nothing to disprove it to this day.

There are several serious inconsistencies and problems with the whole infinite stars and galaxies in an expanding universe following the big bang model - that are almost laughable.

Two are worth mentioning here:

They can't get the big bang model to work. The galaxies are just not expanding anywhere fast enough. So to explain this the astro-physicists need some invisible and undetectable mass to exist - so they made up something they call dark matter. To make the math work, the necessary volume of this invisible dark matter needs to occupy 97% of all the mass in the universe! Think about this: we insist on a model where 97% of the subject we are studying is undetectable in anyway but because to make our current models work we just invent dark matter. Then we insist that we perfectly understand the 100% by looking at the 3% we kind of detect from millions and trillions of kms. I suggest there is not much more science here then there is in your average tarot card reading.

Secondly, using telescopes and radiation, we have detected that the scattering of galaxies is very flat - really flat. So flat that in fact the known universe appears to closely align with the earth's equinox lines!! This is really bizarre but it has been repeatedly measured. The big bang narrative is that this is infinite expanding universe where not only the earth but our entire solar system is as significant as a single grain of sand on a beach. But, then the entire universe is arranged around the equinox lines of this insignificant sub-grain of sand!!

Astronomy is locked into a model of the universe it can't sustain without twisting itself into knots, and adding ever more fantastic ad hoc unprovable theorems of multi-verses, exotic strings, undetectable matter... It seem that the Astro-Physicent will accommodate any nonsense into it's modelling as long as the earth and our solar system remains random and irrelevant.

It is quite possible that the entire FE movement is a desperate diversion to avoid any discussion of the evidence supporting a geo-centric universe.

 

[ParapMarkets]

Refraction does.

Refraction is real, but how magical is it really?

 

[iBeng]

A wizard did it?
Let the adults talk

Refraction is real, but how magical is it really?

NO WIZARDS !

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

I guess these railway tracks aren't parallel either.

So now V-Line is lying to us!

This adds weight to the flat earth theory rather than debunking it.

 

[iBeng]

This adds weight to the flat earth theory rather than debunking it.

Add to my weight and the earth will start rotating! Get it? Because like a coin it'd start spinning if you flick one side while holding it with your fingers and then we'd be like spinning non stop and it'd be crazy!