Flat Earth

https://flatearthintel.com

That is some outstanding field research.
It also make us realize that scientists and the military know the flat truth.

I can't imagine how so many people are willing to participate in the heliocentric lie. Do science teachers not know that the globe model breaks all the laws of physics?

And when I see how news reporters spout Covid lies, and politicians force mandates, and people happily take nasal swabs and experimental drugs in their arms -- it's all so vastly disappointing.

Liars, con artists, chemtrail pilots, Big Pharms sales reps, police enforcing illegal rules. And the sheeple eat it up??
 
Just because simplified models like the flat earth or a spherical earth work well in practice, they do not have to represent the true shape of the earth. I still believe that Flat Earth is a psyop.
 
Akanah said:
Just because simplified models like the flat earth or a spherical earth work well in practice, they do not have to represent the true shape of the earth. I still believe that Flat Earth is a psyop.
Click to expand...
In what way does a spherical earth work well . Heliocentric model is the psyop .
 
FarewellAngelina said:
In what way does a spherical earth work well . Heliocentric model is the psyop .
Click to expand...
The helio model can predict sun angles and a few other things. But only because freemasone know how to take advantage of irrelevant picky details. Mostly, they falsify the data. The force of gravity, the speed of light, dark matter, etc. ad infinitum.

The technical word for their methodology is BS.
Which term, by the way, disparages a real and useful material. Cattle manure is a good fertilizer, whereas modern science has rotted into hocus pocus flimflammery.

To say that FE is a psyop? despite all the evidence we have collected?
Water is level, air pressure requires a volume, targets like Chicago being visible on the other side of the curve?

It is true that we can't nail down the sky and the layers of earth below 7.5 miles. because..........
The freemasons do not play fair.
They have information they do not share.
Antarctica is their hidden lair.
 
We can believe anything and as children we believed almost anything we were told without critical analysis. The geometry of the earth is a fact of life, not subject to belief or mainstream psychological operations like ridicule and censorship. We can readily apply mathematics and geometry and measure things. Either the water on the oceans are curved or they are not. If they are curved, then we have evidence of curvature. If they are not curved, the Earth is not a ball. The results must stand on their merit, not on belief.

A great resource -- lacking belief but having empirical tests and logical experiments -- is entitled, Zetetic Astronomy.
https://www.globalgreyebooks.com/eb...onomy/zetetic-astronomy-earth-not-a-globe.pdf

The Bedford Experiments (page 15)

The Bedford Canal is over 20 miles long.

If we set 6 flags over water, 1 mile apart from each other, we arrive at a total of 6 miles. See previous posts for the table of expected drop in elevation after 6 miles on a globe earth of 24 feet. Given the stated circumference of the Earth in the hypothesis, we must realize this drop of 24 feet after 6 miles on water. Otherwise, the premise is false.

This image shows us what the hypothesis of a ball earth of stated circumference must yield for the hypothesis to be true. 24 feet drop after 6 miles!
1-19-2022 8-29-15 AM.png
RESULT: the measurements of the experiment show no such drop of 24 feet. The result of the experiment invalidates the globe earth hypothesis.

This experiment has been repeated countless times even by naive observers who are able to see distant cities at great distances over water bodies -- cities that are 30 miles away and should be 600 feet below the horizon on a curved ball. Likewise, we are able to bring ships back into view with telescopes that were said to have disappeared over the horizon to the naked eye and are several miles away. Figure 4 shows the result of the experiment. The result confirms the premise : namely, the earth is flat and not curved like a sphere.

1-19-2022 8-28-17 AM.png
 
Last edited:
FarewellAngelina said:
In what way does a spherical earth work well . Heliocentric model is the psyop .
Click to expand...
For everyday things, the model of a spherical earth and the model of a flat earth work quite well. I just find it amusing that we are in the same forum and you flat-earthers apparently only cavort in the flat-earth thread instead of thinking outside the box. I have already occupied myself with other earth form theories like e.g. moon crater earth, concave earth, plasma-electric earth and naturally a living earth. I wonder why you insist so on a flat earth form. If the earth should be flat then... who has created it or how she has originated and how she moves in the space?
 
There is no space or movment of our realm. The stars and (wandering stars) planets rotate around the north star.
Akanah said:
For everyday things, the model of a spherical earth and the model of a flat earth work quite well. I just find it amusing that we are in the same forum and you flat-earthers apparently only cavort in the flat-earth thread instead of thinking outside the box. I have already occupied myself with other earth form theories like e.g. moon crater earth, concave earth, plasma-electric earth and naturally a living earth. I wonder why you insist so on a flat earth form. If the earth should be flat then... who has created it or how she has originated and how she moves in the space?
Click to expand...
 
Akanah said:
For everyday things, the model of a spherical earth and the model of a flat earth work quite well. I just find it amusing that we are in the same forum and you flat-earthers apparently only cavort in the flat-earth thread instead of thinking outside the box. I have already occupied myself with other earth form theories like e.g. moon crater earth, concave earth, plasma-electric earth and naturally a living earth. I wonder why you insist so on a flat earth form. If the earth should be flat then... who has created it or how she has originated and how she moves in the space?
Click to expand...
Flat earth does not exclude moon crater earth , plasma earth or a living earth .

The fact that buildings are erected perpendicular to the horizontal plane and parallel to each other rules out for me concave or fkn globe model . I could be wrong since our plane could be just a small part of a gigantic globe . Perhaps you can provide some FE shattering evidence that will change my views , claiming psyop makes you sound like a gatekeeper .

So which everyday things fit the globe model ? I don't find the "psyop" thing amusing - it's a fkn annoying lazy accusation that may upset people a tad and it's most used by folk who are unable to provide contrary evidence.
 
Akanah said:
And where should the earth be fixed or lying around ? And who or what created them ?
Click to expand...
But the exact same questions apply no matter what shape you believe the Earth to be. Filling up the area around the Earth with trillions of stars doesn't change the fact that there always has to be something "beyond thd edge".
Likewise, in my opinion, "the Big Bang" may be the single silliest explanation there is for anything.
So, we are left with the same questions either way.
 
The Big Bang Theory is also almost word for word lifted from the Kaballah. They just changed some words. Matter coming from nothing. Imagine that.

We don't need to know who created the earth to be able to take measurements and uncover falsehoods. None of these results support concavity, convexity, or sphere-ism.

However, if someone has evidence of concavity, please provide it. We are seeking the Truth. This is the place to share.

The level of detail from the Old World (which was advanced technologically) differs from the primitive tool-less stories we are told. In addition to modern tests, ancient texts and uncanny ancient maps may offer more truth than our modern day NASA CGI and maps. Several old world cosmologies describe a flat stationary earth with trees, animals and humans orders of magnitude larger than we are today.
 
Akanah said:
only cavort in the flat-earth thread instead of thinking outside the box. I have already occupied myself with other earth form theories like e.g. moon crater earth, concave earth, plasma-electric earth and naturally a living earth. I wonder why you insist so on a flat earth form.
Click to expand...
I will continue to cavort inside the box which has a flat x-axis bottom and which is stationary.
Is the box sitting inside a plasma torus with curved sides?
Is the box a reflection off a dome in the sky?
Is the box . . . da da, daaah......alive?

Maybe, probably, whatever.
All posters on this thread have likely explored all these ideas, and more. Like the sim world, a take-off of gnosticism in which we are aeons of the Pleroma who take avatar flesh suits to role play in a computer game.

That's my guess. But the computer code has set parameters that are immutable. Water is flat, the horizon rises to eye level, and all the many physical proofs offered by Eric Dubay and Samuel Rowbotham and many others.
So excuuuuse us cavorters if we think flat earth suits our purposes.
 
Viewing Mercury and Venus at night would be impossible if the Earth revolved around the Sun.

1_N_I7T4I3ZZTiuekzW89zWg.jpeg

As shown above, Night Time occurs when we are facing away from the Sun. Viewers on the other side of the ball earth would be seeing the Sun in the sky. We would be in darkness because of our direction.

In the Heliocentric model, there are some objects that are permanently between us and the Sun. Mercury and Venus have orbits that put them between us and the Sun whether it is day or night. They are the Inner Planets. We don't see them during the day because the light of the Sun drowns out most objects in the day time sky, we are told.

When we look in the night Sky, we should see only those planets that are NOT between the Earth and the Sun. We would see those planets that are farther away from the Sun than Earth is supposed to be in the heliocentric model.


solar-system-wallpapers-group-76.jpg


However, this is not the case. At night, when you are facing away from the Sun (that should be shining on the other side of the ball earth), we can still see the inner planets. Amateur and "expert" astronomers alike see the inner planets in the night sky and post images of their sightings.

This would be impossible if those inner planets were really between us and the Sun. (See previous posts I made about angles of observation on a ball earth.)




MicroWave Transmission networks

Private networks and commercial networks (including some hedge funds) make use of point-to-point transmission of microwaves. These devices are aimed at each other as shown in the diagram below and do not bounce things off the ionosphere (i.e. firmament).

Here is a device that transmits to a second device 25km away in a horizontal line.

That would be impossible on a ball earth : after 25 km, you would realize over 77 feet of drop in elevation below the horizon.

(The same principle is demonstrated by LightHouses which can often be seen at ridiculous distances over water. No curvature)

1-21-2022 3-51-43 AM.png
 
Last edited:
Referent said:
The laser experiments are very interesting and pretty convincing. One thing I wonder if any people have done as part of their laser experiments, would be to calculate an estimate of the beam "dispersion/spread" at the measured distance, then measure the amount of laser light at different locations within the "beam", to show that yes the beam is spreading, but that no the beam's spread (diameter at that distance) is not the reason for "seeing/recording" the laser source from the opposite end of the lake still.

I ask about this because, putting aside the sheer magnitude of Earth "height/curvature" to be overcome, the experiments might be misinterpreted by some as assuming that laser beams begin and end as focused dots. However, all amateur lasers I've ever read about or purchased do indeed have a "spread"; something like 10 inches at 100 yards, to make up an example.

Would it even be possible to sprinkle fine powder in the air at night, and use sensitive photography to show where the beam's "dot/diameter" ends at such great distances (miles across a lake)? If the shape and center of the beam at the "target" could be measured, that would be very interesting, too. The center ought to be slightly above the surface of the lake (or, rather, the height the laser is off the lake).

The point would be, again, putting aside visual observations with zoom lenses and just focusing on the laser experiments, to show that indeed the laser is traveling parallel to the lake. (People may attempt to explain even this away, but I don't buy an air or gravity based diffraction theory just yet.)

I've seen a lot of the laser experiment videos. Wondering if anyone can point to the most rigorously documented ones, which might account for the beam "spread" (other than simply saying that the sheer height of globe that the beam should be hidden below exceeds the beam spread at the distance).
Click to expand...
Is your job to poo poo everything that doesn’t fit your narrative, ( FE is a pysop ) to cast doubt. Or in general what would convince you? I’m not being sarcastic, I’m not smart enough, college drop out, totally embarrassed to admit this, but, math is a foreign language to me. I’m just fully awake and red pilled. Like everyone I’m here searching for the truth. ( my first time here)
 
chessquaker said:
Geometry and Angles of Observation -
Flat Earth
Click to expand...
Further to my post above, the ancients tried to tell us in many of their writings about the local sun, triangulation, corpuscular rays and geometrical evidence of the same. Take a fresh look at this. It is showing us local sun triangulation with corpuscular rays !!

FDBH7qWWEAA6ey2.jpg
1-26-2022 9-18-46 AM.png
 
Last edited:
Tips
Tips
Please respect our Posting Rules.

Similar threads

F
The Nature of the Beast (Part 5) The Gnostics, Archons & Devas
Replies
9
Views
16K
Belialith
Belialith
F
The Nature of the Beast (Part 2): Denizens of the Invisible Realm
Replies
10
Views
10K
Belialith
Belialith
Back
Top