Holy shit, just saw a PG/Flat Earth video. I wish you guys would just listen for a minute to a victim trying to explain what some satanic sickos have been doing to us.
Please, don't let them win this because we couldn't come together as a truth community. PizzaGate and Flat Earth together could actually have a chance of draining the swamp. It could do wonders for this world.
Ooh so you're diluting PG with flat-earth bogus, for the purpose of discrediting the phenomena that is PG. Just as Flat-Earth psy-op was designed for, to discredit legitimate criminal research. Oh Really? Ya Really.
Seriously, which one sounds more like a psyop? Our flat land where the skies move, or theories about spinning through a vacuum, but the magic gravity makes it so you can't feel it?
It's seriously like a religion the BS you have to imagine is happening.
They keep telling you your God given senses are deceiving you. You think the land you are standing on is spinning 1000 mph, but magically you can't feel it?
Numerous tests prove the land isn't moving.
Where exactly do you think this 1000 mph is? The atmosphere moves with the land?? Okay, so how come we don't have hundreds of cameras showing the shuttle being launched, like all angles, left, right, etc. No, we get facing down at earth, and that's it.
Watch every single launch ever, it's a real rocket going up, then a camera switch to CGI. Every time.
God, there have been pizza clues in movies and shows and commercials and books, but considering the hypnotic spinning globe that is EVERYWHERE in the media is telling us the truth?
Seriously, which one sounds like a freak religion? These satanists came in and fed us a bunch of bullshit, AND they got you to disrespect and disregard the simple measurements we can do for ourselves.
The Bolivian Salt Flats is like 4000 square miles of flat. Kansas is flatter than a pancake. Here in Florida, it's flat AF. So tell me where this ball makes up the curvature to keep the land spherical? Where is the curvature? Cause I've only seen fish eye lens curves.
People have sent weather balloons up 120,000 feet, and the horizon is flat AF. So how far up do we have to be to see curvature?? Shouldn't this be standard knowledge in this day and age?
The 100 mile long bridge in China should have 7000 feet of curvature in it, but it's flat, it was built flat, the blue prints for these kinds of structures assume a flat earth.
Stop letting these bullshit artists tell you that the curve is there, but you have to imagine it in your head, or it's too small you can't notice it. That's not science, it's lies.
Stop being surprised they lied to us about this. As someone below said, it's the biggest lie, and the easiest to prove a lie. But you've seen that damn globe MILLIONS of times. I know your brain thinks it's sure because it's seen many examples of it, ingrained over your whole life, but they are ALL cartoons.
Just google "pictures of earth from space," and if you can't tell they are cartoons right away, then watch a Flat Earth video, and learn how America shouldn't change how big it is that much all the time. The colors shouldn't change that much over time. The amount of curve shouldn't change as much as it does. It shouldn't have photoshopped clouds, which you can see when you zoom in. The clouds shouldn't obviously spell sex, just like the cover of Little Mermaid shouldn't have a dildo on the front.
Look up parallax, and tell me how the stars have been perfectly rotating around Polaris day after day, year after year.
Gosh, just use some common sense and give yourself a chance to ask some questions before you make a decision on whether you really believe the globe.
You can't say someone would have blown the whistle. Cause that someone could have been a Seth Rich.
They treat Flat Earth exactly like they treat PizzaGate, and I'm ashamed you people would rather insult truthers than have a look at the evidence for yourself.
The math is irrelevant. Two timezones spaced is enough to obtain the indicative result. The reference stars are so far away that the curve will be noticeable by the offset of the reference stars in the simultaneously taken pictures.
Reference stars centered in both pics: Earth is flat.
Reference stars in picture offset away from center: Earth is globe.
Reference stars offset the other way away from center: Earth is a bowl.
The instruction sheet shows how to place the cams, i.e. putting the smartphones on a flat surface, the cam pointing straight up to the night sky, for ease of reference have the smartphone tops point to the north (or any sync'ed direction). Then compare simultaneously taken photos.
Sorry, I still don't get it. Are they pointing the camera straight up? Straight at the stars? A slight change of the camera angle is going to change everything, right? I don't get how this proves flat vs round.
Plus "time zones" should work like the clock dome in Hunger Games Catching Fire. But they aren't. We use arbitrary lines for these time zones, when we should be making a pie cut into pieces with the center being the North Star.
You don't wonder at all how the stars do absolutely perfect circles around Polaris, but somehow we are on a tilt rotating, while rotating around the sun. The stars should be changing and moving all over the place. We should be seeing stars depending on where we are around the sun.
I've had enough of the optical illusion arguments. That's not science. Those stars are close to us and close together. They are lights, and they move in a uniform pattern day after day, year after year. That shouldn't happen in the heliocentric theory.
A kindergarten dropout already. The image is more than clear enough. It shows you the line-of-sights of each of the cameras and show you how the Pythagoras theorem forms the basis for creating the offset of the picked reference stars of the A and B cams. If you can't even understand the picture then you have no legitimacy trying to tell otherwise either.
The 3 pictures below the test-rig setup show the outcomes for the cam for a globe earth. The lines in the test-rig setup show WHY the pictures will look like shown. Now GTFO.
The Pythagorean theory is based on triangles, right? And triangles have straight sides, right? So how are you basing your measurements off this when you supposedly have curved lines below you? How are you taking into account curvature? How are you measuring anything based off this curve.
There really is no reason for insults. I'm not insulting you, I'm challenging your experiment. I don't understand how you are determining that the land below you is curved based on what the stars look like. Moving away from each other on a flat plane would also change the angle of the stars.
Wouldn't the stars look "offset" from 3 people on a flat plane too? How are you measuring curvature with this? Wouldn't the angles be similar on a flat plane? It's like you have to prove your friend is further away from the star because he is down a curve.
How much "curve" is this experiment proving there is on the globe?
The distance to the nearest star is several light-years away. The distance between two timezones is ~ 3300KM. 3300KM is virtually nothing compared to the nearest star (4.1 Light years) = 4.013337e+13km = 40,130,000,000,000km. That is why they won't look offset on a flat plane and all look centered.
The dashed straight lines form the triangles, drawn for each cam. The curve causes an angle between the line-of-sights of the cams. See picture. Then a perpendular line across each line-of-sight shows how the reference stars will show up on the picture. Each cam has its own colored triangular dashed lines.
If you have two cams/phones, you can even do the experiment in miniature:
Place bottle of beer at farthest end of your livingroom/kitchen.
Go to opposite farthest end. Place phones on side, side-by side as if they were on a flat plane.
Bottle appears near centered on both.
Turn phones slightly away from each other, forming an arrow head. Watch bottle of beer offset.
Sorry, I still don't get it. Honestly you sound like CIA cause you're trying to sound all super authority and smart while spitting out numbers none of us can test or repeat.
Give me a break with that light year stuff. Whatever fancy equation you used to get that ridiculous number has never been verified. You are guessing.
I still don't understand your picture. The 3 examples look the same, except where they are on the picture. The way the stars look is he same in all 3. You just changed which was the camera was facing. So if I'm directly under and take a picture straight up, the stars will be in the middle of the frame. If I walk left and take a picture straight up, then the stars will be in the right side of the frame. I can stand anywhere that can see the group of stars and point my camera my camera in different directions, but no matter how many I take, it doesn't prove what the land below me is doing.
If you're not CIA, then try using common sense before spouting pretend numbers about light years.
You know what proves a close sun? The rays, coming through the clouds at angles. The sun is close enough to the clouds to shine down through it at angles. That is not how the light of the sun would work if it's 93 million miles away. However, it's exactly how it would look if it was 3000 miles away. It's a local spot light. There is no denying this, and I don't want to hear ridiculous theories about light magically bending through the atmosphere to cause this. We know how light works. We can test and repeat it. And there's no way the sun works in a heliocentric theory.
In fact, if stars were what they say they are, then the sky should be lit all over given the combination of all the lights supposedly out there.
Do you really think the stars just happen to make these patterns, when really they are supposedly millions of miles away?
I told you to look up parallax. The stars should not be uniformly rotating around in perfect patterns. The angles between them should change as we spin, we should see changes all the time in how the star patterns appear.
But we don't. Because they are electromagnetic type lights in the dome. Check out Nikon P900 footage of the stars. Our skies are much more amazing than they led us to believe.
Just go do the experiment. Whether I am CIA or not or whether those distance numbers can be verified by you and me (without equipment) does not matter to the experiment. Just go do the experiment instead of trying to convince everyone of stuff with Yet Another Video.
I don't understand this experiment or how it proves anything. Take pictures of the sky, then make an assumption about the land I'm standing on based off of them? Give me a break. Just watching those stars rotate is enough to convince me that the heliocentric model is BS.
Go research the moon landings. Educate yourself about payloads and weight and rockets and craters and video editing. Tell me you would let them take you off the ground in one of those homeless shelters they call a lunar lander.
The lies are right in your face. Go spend some time at NASA.gov and come back and tell if you saw real science or a bunch of cartoon representations.
Seriously, go to NASA.gov, and let me know how many real pictures you see vs cartoons.
view the rest of the comments →
FE_Rebekah ago
Holy shit, just saw a PG/Flat Earth video. I wish you guys would just listen for a minute to a victim trying to explain what some satanic sickos have been doing to us.
[https://youtu.be/66LvdZup8OE]
Please, don't let them win this because we couldn't come together as a truth community. PizzaGate and Flat Earth together could actually have a chance of draining the swamp. It could do wonders for this world.
ArtificalDuality ago
Ooh so you're diluting PG with flat-earth bogus, for the purpose of discrediting the phenomena that is PG. Just as Flat-Earth psy-op was designed for, to discredit legitimate criminal research. Oh Really? Ya Really.
FE_Rebekah ago
Seriously, which one sounds more like a psyop? Our flat land where the skies move, or theories about spinning through a vacuum, but the magic gravity makes it so you can't feel it?
It's seriously like a religion the BS you have to imagine is happening.
They keep telling you your God given senses are deceiving you. You think the land you are standing on is spinning 1000 mph, but magically you can't feel it?
Numerous tests prove the land isn't moving.
Where exactly do you think this 1000 mph is? The atmosphere moves with the land?? Okay, so how come we don't have hundreds of cameras showing the shuttle being launched, like all angles, left, right, etc. No, we get facing down at earth, and that's it.
Watch every single launch ever, it's a real rocket going up, then a camera switch to CGI. Every time.
God, there have been pizza clues in movies and shows and commercials and books, but considering the hypnotic spinning globe that is EVERYWHERE in the media is telling us the truth?
Seriously, which one sounds like a freak religion? These satanists came in and fed us a bunch of bullshit, AND they got you to disrespect and disregard the simple measurements we can do for ourselves.
The Bolivian Salt Flats is like 4000 square miles of flat. Kansas is flatter than a pancake. Here in Florida, it's flat AF. So tell me where this ball makes up the curvature to keep the land spherical? Where is the curvature? Cause I've only seen fish eye lens curves.
People have sent weather balloons up 120,000 feet, and the horizon is flat AF. So how far up do we have to be to see curvature?? Shouldn't this be standard knowledge in this day and age?
The 100 mile long bridge in China should have 7000 feet of curvature in it, but it's flat, it was built flat, the blue prints for these kinds of structures assume a flat earth.
Stop letting these bullshit artists tell you that the curve is there, but you have to imagine it in your head, or it's too small you can't notice it. That's not science, it's lies.
Stop being surprised they lied to us about this. As someone below said, it's the biggest lie, and the easiest to prove a lie. But you've seen that damn globe MILLIONS of times. I know your brain thinks it's sure because it's seen many examples of it, ingrained over your whole life, but they are ALL cartoons.
Just google "pictures of earth from space," and if you can't tell they are cartoons right away, then watch a Flat Earth video, and learn how America shouldn't change how big it is that much all the time. The colors shouldn't change that much over time. The amount of curve shouldn't change as much as it does. It shouldn't have photoshopped clouds, which you can see when you zoom in. The clouds shouldn't obviously spell sex, just like the cover of Little Mermaid shouldn't have a dildo on the front.
Look up parallax, and tell me how the stars have been perfectly rotating around Polaris day after day, year after year.
Gosh, just use some common sense and give yourself a chance to ask some questions before you make a decision on whether you really believe the globe.
You can't say someone would have blown the whistle. Cause that someone could have been a Seth Rich.
They treat Flat Earth exactly like they treat PizzaGate, and I'm ashamed you people would rather insult truthers than have a look at the evidence for yourself.
ArtificalDuality ago
You must be a dis-info troll on his first work day. Looking forward to Soros' pay-check? Oh the drive and effort in this post!
Thruthers use science where possible to debunk your and other's false flag bullshit:
https://imgur.com/gallery/LP6pPqY
http://www.ae911truth.org/
FE_Rebekah ago
Um, you showed me the same picture again without any actual math.
What numbers am I supposed to get if me and my friends are on a ball, and how are those numbers different than if I was on a flat plane?
ArtificalDuality ago
The math is irrelevant. Two timezones spaced is enough to obtain the indicative result. The reference stars are so far away that the curve will be noticeable by the offset of the reference stars in the simultaneously taken pictures.
Reference stars centered in both pics: Earth is flat.
Reference stars in picture offset away from center: Earth is globe.
Reference stars offset the other way away from center: Earth is a bowl.
The instruction sheet shows how to place the cams, i.e. putting the smartphones on a flat surface, the cam pointing straight up to the night sky, for ease of reference have the smartphone tops point to the north (or any sync'ed direction). Then compare simultaneously taken photos.
FE_Rebekah ago
Sorry, I still don't get it. Are they pointing the camera straight up? Straight at the stars? A slight change of the camera angle is going to change everything, right? I don't get how this proves flat vs round.
Plus "time zones" should work like the clock dome in Hunger Games Catching Fire. But they aren't. We use arbitrary lines for these time zones, when we should be making a pie cut into pieces with the center being the North Star.
You don't wonder at all how the stars do absolutely perfect circles around Polaris, but somehow we are on a tilt rotating, while rotating around the sun. The stars should be changing and moving all over the place. We should be seeing stars depending on where we are around the sun.
I've had enough of the optical illusion arguments. That's not science. Those stars are close to us and close together. They are lights, and they move in a uniform pattern day after day, year after year. That shouldn't happen in the heliocentric theory.
ArtificalDuality ago
A kindergarten dropout already. The image is more than clear enough. It shows you the line-of-sights of each of the cameras and show you how the Pythagoras theorem forms the basis for creating the offset of the picked reference stars of the A and B cams. If you can't even understand the picture then you have no legitimacy trying to tell otherwise either.
The 3 pictures below the test-rig setup show the outcomes for the cam for a globe earth. The lines in the test-rig setup show WHY the pictures will look like shown. Now GTFO.
FE_Rebekah ago
The Pythagorean theory is based on triangles, right? And triangles have straight sides, right? So how are you basing your measurements off this when you supposedly have curved lines below you? How are you taking into account curvature? How are you measuring anything based off this curve.
There really is no reason for insults. I'm not insulting you, I'm challenging your experiment. I don't understand how you are determining that the land below you is curved based on what the stars look like. Moving away from each other on a flat plane would also change the angle of the stars.
Wouldn't the stars look "offset" from 3 people on a flat plane too? How are you measuring curvature with this? Wouldn't the angles be similar on a flat plane? It's like you have to prove your friend is further away from the star because he is down a curve.
How much "curve" is this experiment proving there is on the globe?
ArtificalDuality ago
The distance to the nearest star is several light-years away. The distance between two timezones is ~ 3300KM. 3300KM is virtually nothing compared to the nearest star (4.1 Light years) = 4.013337e+13km = 40,130,000,000,000km. That is why they won't look offset on a flat plane and all look centered.
The dashed straight lines form the triangles, drawn for each cam. The curve causes an angle between the line-of-sights of the cams. See picture. Then a perpendular line across each line-of-sight shows how the reference stars will show up on the picture. Each cam has its own colored triangular dashed lines.
If you have two cams/phones, you can even do the experiment in miniature:
Place bottle of beer at farthest end of your livingroom/kitchen.
Go to opposite farthest end. Place phones on side, side-by side as if they were on a flat plane.
Bottle appears near centered on both.
Turn phones slightly away from each other, forming an arrow head. Watch bottle of beer offset.
FE_Rebekah ago
Sorry, I still don't get it. Honestly you sound like CIA cause you're trying to sound all super authority and smart while spitting out numbers none of us can test or repeat.
Give me a break with that light year stuff. Whatever fancy equation you used to get that ridiculous number has never been verified. You are guessing.
I still don't understand your picture. The 3 examples look the same, except where they are on the picture. The way the stars look is he same in all 3. You just changed which was the camera was facing. So if I'm directly under and take a picture straight up, the stars will be in the middle of the frame. If I walk left and take a picture straight up, then the stars will be in the right side of the frame. I can stand anywhere that can see the group of stars and point my camera my camera in different directions, but no matter how many I take, it doesn't prove what the land below me is doing.
If you're not CIA, then try using common sense before spouting pretend numbers about light years.
You know what proves a close sun? The rays, coming through the clouds at angles. The sun is close enough to the clouds to shine down through it at angles. That is not how the light of the sun would work if it's 93 million miles away. However, it's exactly how it would look if it was 3000 miles away. It's a local spot light. There is no denying this, and I don't want to hear ridiculous theories about light magically bending through the atmosphere to cause this. We know how light works. We can test and repeat it. And there's no way the sun works in a heliocentric theory.
In fact, if stars were what they say they are, then the sky should be lit all over given the combination of all the lights supposedly out there.
Do you really think the stars just happen to make these patterns, when really they are supposedly millions of miles away?
I told you to look up parallax. The stars should not be uniformly rotating around in perfect patterns. The angles between them should change as we spin, we should see changes all the time in how the star patterns appear.
But we don't. Because they are electromagnetic type lights in the dome. Check out Nikon P900 footage of the stars. Our skies are much more amazing than they led us to believe.
ArtificalDuality ago
Just go do the experiment. Whether I am CIA or not or whether those distance numbers can be verified by you and me (without equipment) does not matter to the experiment. Just go do the experiment instead of trying to convince everyone of stuff with Yet Another Video.
FE_Rebekah ago
I don't understand this experiment or how it proves anything. Take pictures of the sky, then make an assumption about the land I'm standing on based off of them? Give me a break. Just watching those stars rotate is enough to convince me that the heliocentric model is BS.
Go research the moon landings. Educate yourself about payloads and weight and rockets and craters and video editing. Tell me you would let them take you off the ground in one of those homeless shelters they call a lunar lander.
The lies are right in your face. Go spend some time at NASA.gov and come back and tell if you saw real science or a bunch of cartoon representations.
Seriously, go to NASA.gov, and let me know how many real pictures you see vs cartoons.
ArtificalDuality ago
And with that the discussion ends with you on the losing end of it.
FE_Rebekah ago
Hey. Sorry if I was rude. I want to be proven wrong and it's a globe, but no one has convinced me.
I found this video where the guy does this experiment with models. Will you watch it and tell me what you think? Can you point out any mistakes?
[https://youtu.be/EzIaoiD3oS4]
I'm curious what you think the atmosphere is doing to the light.