I have now decided : The Earth is actually FLAT...!

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, it's clear that they did that to exaggerate Earth's curvature because it looks more epic that way. I also have a fake image of Earth that I made as my avatar, but that doesn't prove flat Earth either. I am asking for a video where the camera moves around a lot because that way I can properly account for lens distortion and show you the true curvature.

People all around the globe believe the world is flat.

And wiseguys like you come from all four corners of the Earth!

[just kidding]

Here's one that doesn't use a fisheye lens


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQITXbcz2hg

And one with fisheye that moves a lot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EABQ5psUz70

How do explain mountains, then?

Before I comment on some of the replies of this thread, I just want to tell you guys that I really appreciate the responses you have given so far, for it has been far more respectful than what would typically be encountered elsewhere when engaging and discussing such a topic like this, plus it really does feel like we have some of the brightest minds in the world right here with whom to interact. Anyway, with that having been said, please allow me to see what other great information I can learn from you guys... I now proceed with some of my own responses/questions/commentaries...

Just have to comment that simulations will always check out according to mathematical models when the simultations are based on models of mathematics. I have played racing car games where some of those counter-steering stunts certainly "checked out" and coincided with real-world race-car driving maneuvers, however, I still managed to do things in real-world driving that completely defied what those otherwise very accurate simulators predicted/demonstrated.

I did try to find images that were claimed to be real actually. I most certainly did not put CGI into the search-terms. Perhaps you can find more realistic-looking images than I did ?

Actually, you would not, nobody changes belief solely because of one single anomaly. Lots of skeptics of the para-normal have made the same claims only to end up concocting bizarre reasons as to why some anomaly or even replicable experiments are somehow invalid (all have been refuted if one actually looks critically and objectively enough at all of the available information/evidence of course). Sometimes they even go as far as to say that X or whatever is not evidence (anyway, I assure you, switching to Flat-Earthing is not an on-the-spot process, but a gradual one if at all).

I will look more into this later but I will be returning to examining the things closer to the surface of earth for now.

What makes the moon's surface so reflective ? Usually a flat or mirror-like surface, such as the surface of waters, are required for a full-surface reflection, rather than only one point or wide laser-like-line being reflected ?

Actually, math will always check out if you base your model on the mathematics, therefore your ability to show that mathematical equations check out is not in question. I think we can all trust that your mathematics is accurate.

What I think we really need is to be able to come up with some experimental-designs where we can test things for ourselves. I think we should start first with the tests that can be done on the surface of the planet, then as we get answers that even lay-people can see/do/witness for themselves, expand the experiments further and further away from the earth's surface.

One of the first things would be in relation to the common claim/belief that ships will sink/disappear over the horizon when sailing out to sea. Actually, this has been put to question, mainly because there seem to be time-lapse videos where people zoom in with high-range telescopes of ships that have sailed out to hundreds of miles away, only to still be visible. Therefore, for purposes of testing to see if those videos are legitimate or created via CGI, I think the experiment to set up an infra-red camera, recording on time-lapse, with a high-powered telescope, tracking and measuring the movement/distance of ships would be a good experiment to be able to answer this question more definitively.

Another thing that has been brought up are in regards to the rotations of the stars in the sky. When I look at time-lapse footage of the stars in the sky, and really look at how the stars are moving across the sky, the movements really do look like the sky itself is rotating rather than following the movements of what I would expect if the earth were spinning. I don't really have a good set-up to test this yet and, like I mentioned before, computer software simultations are always going to check out according to mathematical models due to being based on those models.

The "best" experimental-design that I can think of right now in regards to the above paragraph is to create a large room, perhaps something like a sphere-shaped room, then set up a miniature rotating globe in the centre where we can enter into the inside (climbing up the ladder to it of course), with an adjustable window that represents the field-of-view that we would have on a round planet. The sphere-shaped room itself, surrounding the miniature replica-globe, should have pictures or stickers or something like that of the stars in positions that should correlate according to the current available models in astronomy of positions of stars. This could probably also be time-lapsed to see if it matches the time-lapse of the longitude/latitude co-ordinates of setting up our own cameras at whatever location on earth where we reside.


This can be explained from Vortex-Fields created by Orgonite-Generating type structures. I am limited on today's available time so I will just tell you that some people take time-lapse footage of their Orgonite-Pyramids when freezing water into ice or with blocks of ice being put above their Orgonite Pyramids, and if your Orgonite Pyramid is below a body of water when freezing it in a freezer to turn it into Ice, the top portion of the block of ice will actually be elevated into a mountain-shape. I will try to find footage of this then link it later if you are interested unless you can find it yourself (actually, I have Orgonite Pyramids of my own, granted I did not make them myself, but I could probably set up an experiment where I can film and time-lapse it to give a better video-presentation than what might currently be available on You-Tube).

This text with your avatar makes it even better.

Science 1, flat earthers 0

What do mountains have to do with it?

The solar system is supposed to be moving at 45,000 miles per hour but in 6000 years the stars have not changed position by even one degree due to this. The only change in the stars positions are due to precession (earth wobbling)

Steller distances are so great that moving that slowly (only 45 mph) makes little difference in the perspective on the landscape of the stars even after 6k years. The average distance between stars in the galaxy is about six light years. Light takes only an eighth of a second to move as fast at the earth moves in an hour.



Also the stars we can see in the night sky are usually our neighbors in the galaxy, and so are moving abreast of us at roughly the same velocity as we are any way because they are at roughly the same position relative to the galactic hub as we are.

Darn typo!

I meant to write "only 45Kmph". Even 45 thousand mph is slow in interstellar space.

That is true, but then why are you doubting that a basic orbit sync is possible? I assumed that it was because you thought that it conflicted with the currently known and accepted mathematical model of how things work (AKA the standard model of physics), but that appears to not be the case now. If you are not basing your opinion on the mathematical model then what are you basing it off of? What compels you to confidently assert that it's impossible with 1960's technology? I am very confused.


It's not about how realistic-looking they are, you need to check the source of the images. Your first image in the list has the word "screenshots" in the URL indicating that it was in a folder with that name in the web server, you clearly didn't check that. On the real ones I could tell you which probe took each one and when, and I could show evidence of NASA saying that they are real if I wanted to. Google image search has a convenient "Go to page" button next to the image, just use that.


True, but in all seriousness I would start seriously suspecting that NASA is doing something fishy and lying. In that image the lighting is inconsistent, there is no shadow on the rings, apparent exposure time is inconsistent, and countless other things.

It would be like if you were in the market for a house and someone sent you this totally genuine photo of their house for sale that they swear is real:


You would probably start seriously questioning their credibility after that, or at least stop taking them seriously. That image you posted was about as obviously fake as that house image.


Everything is reflective to some extent, although most object diffuse the light and only reflect certain colors. A flat surface is required for a clear image to be reflected, but it doesn't have to be a clear image to be considered reflection. Right now for example I can see my keyboard even though it has no lights on it. Eyes need light to see things so this is only possible if there is light coming from the keyboard, and that is happening because light from the lights in the room is hitting the keyboard are reflecting/diffusing off of it into my eyes. It is possible for diffused light like that to cast shadows and light can bounce off of multiple things (which is why I can still see the parts of my keyboard that are in the shadow of my hands, those parts are illuminated by light diffusing off the walls). As far as reflection goes, the Moon doesn't do anything that an ordinary rock can't do.


I'm confused, are you saying that math is useless because it always agrees with everything? It should be noted that physics equations are experimentally tested a lot before they are accepted and chances are your car was tested in a simulation using mathematical models before it was ever built. Math applies to reality in a lot of ways.


I have some great ideas from my time on the Flat Earth Society forum. One will require both of us and it involves Moon observation from two distant locations at the same time to measure parallax, and the other is aimed at measuring the horizon dropping as you gain altitude (or the lack thereof) which requires a tall structure or a mountain that you can stand on top of. I am equipped to do either of these and I am thinking that we can both do the same one at the same time so we can compare results. Do you have a telescope or access to something tall?


Seems like it would require a lot of expensive equipment. When has anyone ever seen a ship from hundreds of miles away though?


Twice today I have been in my (stationary) car and looked to my side to see another car moving, I thought that that car was stationary and both times I was startled because for a brief moment I thought I was the one moving. My point is that moving past something and having that thing move past you looks (and feels) the same. I mean, how would it look any different? I don't get your logic here.

This video illustrates my point:



Here is another idea. Take a piece of parer and draw stars (or anything else for that matter) on it and then take a video camera and take two videos. In the first video rotate the paper clockwise, and in the second video rotate the camera at the same speed counter-clockwise. Make sure the paper takes up the camera's whole field of view so that the background is not visible. Then watch the videos and try to figure out which one is which by whatever you think would be different in them.


Two things. First of all, it's not like all the other stars are perfectly stationary. They have to orbit the galaxy too. Also, they _do_ slowly change over time although it's not enough to notice within one human lifetime. If you look at the star charts of ancient civilizations then it can be seen that the stars were in a slightly different configuration back then.

I am just going to respond to one part at a time as to not trigger that are-you-a-robot paranoid-check.

Questioning Orbit-Models has more to do with being unsure as to whether Outer-Space is as we are told or better-represented by a different model-of-reality. The standard model of physics also does not cover absolutely all or every different types of phenomenon that people experience (example: results of Double-Slit Experiment). Whilst they may 'accurately' predict a lot, they also do not predict everything, like in the example of the maneuvers of cars in a simulation versus performing stunts in a real-world car (I have personally experienced notable differences). Perhaps I was not clear enough... what I did in the real-world was clearly different than the simulators (even if the rest of the simulation was mostly accurate).

So are you saying that the "evidence" that the Moon landing should be questioned is that space travel doesn't work how we are told therefore orbit syncs are probably impossible therefore space travel doesn't work how we are told? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems an awful lot like circular reasoning.

Driving involves the use of more laws of physics then orbital mechanics. When driving a car you have to model friction, air resistance (which is super hard to simulate), and it must be controlled with a completely different interface then a real car. Orbital mechanics simulation only needs gravity and inertia, you don't have to play with friction coefficients to get it to work. It's easy enough that I myself have created a program to do it and the calculations can even be done by hand. They are hardly comparable.

Wait, wait, I haven't even gotten to responding to the other quotes yet. Anyway, yes, I question Outer-Space Physics, mainly because the existence of the ISS has been put to question with points that I have yet to find convincing answers for. Here is a clip of a former Globe-Earther who even shows his math...

This is only one of several people I have come across who have said that they were former globe-earthers. Anyway, simulators will work to a certain extent, but they do not cover 100% of everything we have known/encountered/tested/experienced in reality, such as has been demonstrated with the Double-Slit Experiment. I should probably just focus on answering/responding to your experiment-related dialogue for now since that is actually more pertinent and easier for us to design and measure results for ourselves...

I can probably find/locate somebody with a telescope to let me borrow and I live in an area with lots of hills and other areas of high-points (cliffs/hills/mountains but I would probably need to travel out-of-town to reach those locations).

What did you have in mind and lol what were you doing on the Flat Earth Society forums ? I had learned that the FES Forums is some form of a "controlled opposition" psy-operation so I chose to dialogue/research about this movement elsewhere.