Flat Earth

[grav]

this subject often seems to induce rage. Rage posting, rage quitting, etc.

i think it’s not because the earth is so damned obviously a sphere… but because if it’s not, then the whole reality in which we live unravels. I personally am quite unraveled at this point, but many appear quite content within their tightly knit realities.

When you say 'unraveled' you mean what ? Straightened out, maybe? Enlightened? Awake? in the real sense of the word.
Because word meanings have been so twisted nowadays that up is down, slavery is freedom, all that Orwellian doublespeak.
And when you say that "many appear quite content" with Big Brother's mind control, I'd replace "many" with "almost everyone."
Flat Earth is one of many realities that enrage the sheeple when their groupthink is questioned.
Climate change, fossil fuels, evolution, history, Big Medicine pharmakeia, Big Ag, world events, etc. too many to count.

My guess as to why Homo ignoranus is so easy to control is .-_,= > aliens. in the real sense of that word.
I see no other answer to the mystery of the Naked Ape, the two-legged Neanderthal who came out of Africa and became sapient and hairless during an ice age.
More likely is that mortal Advanced Beings entered this realm through an Antarctic portal and bio-engineered a compliant slave to take up the slack when a third of their own cohort rebelled against physical labor. Zechariah Sitchin says tney called themselves the Anunnaki.
The builders of the Old World. Tartaria.

 

[reverendALC]

Yes. The veil over their eyes “unravels” exposing the uncomfortable truth, and by proxy exposes additional truths, which expose additional truths. Asking somebody to accept (or even contemplate) the earth not being a planet in space means you also have to entertain:

The moon
The space hoax
The jabs
Narrative history
Dinosaurs
And everything else the liars have said. They’re not only lying about one thing, even a believer wouldn’t believe that.

 

[grav]

We don't talk too much about what lies above us or below .. .
because we civilians don't have the technology (or permission) to explore any places outside our prison walls.
Nasa and its Body Scientic apparatchik jealously guard the information we need in order to understand our reality.

They brainwash us from childhood to accept the spinning ball globe and the force of gravity, as well as countless other false ideas about history, medicine, and the cockamamie events that are presented as news.

Gravity is a major lie the fake astronomers use to mystify and bamboozle true physics.
The word really means ' weight' -- of physical matter, which is one of the ways electromagnetism manifests itself.
Spefific gravity is the ratio of densities of adjacent substances. Lighter-than-air clouds float. Heavier-than-air water particles fall as rain. Heavier-than-water objects sink.

Speaking of heavy and water, what do we really know about water density?
This video is not new information, but it presents several topics that make no sense in mainstream science.


View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/BoeXoom964iw/

Mike deGruy finds an underwater lake at the bottom of the ocean while filming for Blue Planet in the Gulf of Mexico. He tries to dive under the lake but bounces off and causes waves as the lake is very dense. He reports it and then mysteriously dies in a helicopter explosion a few days later.

-----------
Water changes density? This is not heavy water as defined by chemists and nuke physicists.
Flat Earth says that gravity is density. The deepest hole ever dug was 7.5 miles at the Kola Superdeep BoreHole. Density was so great at that depth that the drillbits broke.

But what about the lake of water under the ocean?

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia › wiki › Gulf_of_Mexico
The Gulf of Mexico is 41% continental slope, 32% continental shelf, and 24% abyssal plain with the greatest depth of 12,467 feet in the Sigsbee Deep. Seven ...

that's about 2.5 miles

 

[FarewellAngelina]

We don't talk too much about what lies above us or below .. .
because we civilians don't have the technology (or permission) to explore any places outside our prison walls.
Nasa and its Body Scientic apparatchik jealously guard the information we need in order to understand our reality.

I would say we do have the technology available to all , if the price is right in our materialistic world, our senses, intelligence and eyes were given free to us but we also have optical instruments to help.

Telescopes and microscopes are the same instrument so work on the same principles. Put a slide under the microscope and focus on the sample to be examined - alter the magnification and resolve smaller detail.

Look through a telescope ( big microscope) at the celestial dome , focus on the stars , increase magnification and more details (stars) appear. the Celestial dome (firmament or slide) is no further away and the mythical huge distance to the stars is revealed to be nonsense.

Now these are the laws of optics . We cannot see beyond the firmament but we can magnify it's detail.

The waters beneath are interesting too, changing the subject . Continental and oceanic landmass floats on the liquid aesthenosphere layer we are told. Seismic study reveals this. We do not know the composition of this layer . Possibly deGruy guy found it.

The floating land masses are subject to cyclical isostatic/eustatic change as air pressure varies with suns position. The cause of tides in the oceans but no effect on landlocked bodies of water. Also explains +/- stellar aberration .

All my own views as I struggle to understand our realm but all based in science. Maybe scientists should get out a bit more , throw of the compartmentalisation and talk to each other.

Never read the bible but I do see the odd quotes that resonate.

God bless.

 

[reverendALC]

I would say we do have the technology available to all , if the price is right in our materialistic world

I agree with this. Those who encounter fantastic wealth would be capable of performing or at least commissioning some real investigative science. But instead, as a society we pursue mansions of decadent sizes, garages full with millions of dollars worth of fancy cars, and other meaningless status symbols.

Why are we not allowed our rigorous skepticism? Why do we (as a society) not only employ, but enforce cognitive assumptions?

I would love to see scientists from both sides of the aisle engage in meaningful experiment to prove/disprove our realm. Instead, it’s “you think we’re not on a spinning ball hurtling through space? Even idiots know that, you’re worse than an idiot”. How did we go from blood-letting to antibiotics? I guess the worse-than-idiots can be right after all.

 

[FarewellAngelina]

I agree with this. Those who encounter fantastic wealth would be capable of performing or at least commissioning some real investigative science. But instead, as a society we pursue mansions of decadent sizes, garages full with millions of dollars worth of fancy cars, and other meaningless status symbols.


Why are we not allowed our rigorous skepticism? Why do we (as a society) not only employ, but enforce cognitive assumptions?

I would love to see scientists from both sides of the aisle engage in meaningful experiment to prove/disprove our realm. Instead, it’s “you think we’re not on a spinning ball hurtling through space? Even idiots know that, you’re worse than an idiot”. How did we go from blood-letting to antibiotics? I guess the worse-than-idiots can be right after all.

Yes , skepticism has been removed from scientific endeavour by the peer review system in tandem with the separation of the scientific disciplines.

This website septemberclues.org | The Central Role of the News Media on 9/11 includes a beautiful demolition of the current solar system model , with outstandingly simple explanations for the many problems that plague the established model.

The author has basically improved the old Tycho Brahe geocentric model and was a good way to start afresh , I found . Get's very technical in places .

I bought and read his book at leisure but it is there on site free as PDF. Well worth a look.

His starting point being that earth does not speed around the sun at 66,600 mph but travels sedately at 1 mph - almost stationary.

He is not a flat earther and still froths at the mention , where as I rule nothing out ,but the demolition of the Copernican solar system is superb.

The Tychos Geoaxial Binary System it is called

 

[grav]

Continental and oceanic landmass floats on the liquid aesthenosphere layer we are told. Seismic study reveals this.

liquid aestheno-sphere layer ?
" we are told?
Yes, we are told lots of Body Scientiic BS.

The freemasons chose an interesting word that begins with an interesting prefix: aestheno- comes from the Greek and refers to perception,
feelings, senses, other meanings more to do with emotion than objective facts.

As has been pointed out earlier, we know nothing about the physical earth deeper than 7.5 miles.
Even seismic equipment could not penetrate the dense material at that point.

As for using magnification to observe the dome, we might be able to see what's up there.
Vibes of Cosmos is sure that we see our world's reflection/projection in the moon.
The gnostics and ancient people said the 7 domes exist above us.
It's all so incredibly complicated. And our BScientists make it even harder to sort truth from fiction.

 

[Referent]

Yes , skepticism has been removed from scientific endeavour by the peer review system in tandem with the separation of the scientific disciplines.

This website septemberclues.org | The Central Role of the News Media on 9/11 includes a beautiful demolition of the current solar system model , with outstandingly simple explanations for the many problems that plague the established model.

The author has basically improved the old Tycho Brahe geocentric model and was a good way to start afresh , I found . Get's very technical in places .

I bought and read his book at leisure but it is there on site free as PDF. Well worth a look.

His starting point being that earth does not speed around the sun at 66,600 mph but travels sedately at 1 mph - almost stationary.

He is not a flat earther and still froths at the mention , where as I rule nothing out ,but the demolition of the Copernican solar system is superb.

The Tychos Geoaxial Binary System it is called

Arguments

Right. That author (Shack) has made some points about FE including something like the following:

1. If you use "fair" (perfect enough, non-fisheye) glass optics and photograph the "horizon" on a clear enough day with still enough waters, with the camera "level" and "centered" on the horizon as one would require, with enough horizon in sight, and put that image on a 4K monitor, you can actually "see" and "measure" the *exact* curvature predicted/measure by conventional means (trigonometry and canonical academic measurements), amounting to something like 2 or 4 pixels going down on each edge compared with the middle of the "horizon".

2. Similar to (1), but more subjective: that author (Shack) claims that he can personally, when gazing at such a horizon under clear enough conditions, "see" the very same "slight" curvature. Also, any similarly "perceptive" person can do the same, so long as they can position themselves at a sufficiently good location with good enough weather.

3. Unrelated to (1) and (2), a PDF from the author (Shack) describes observations from amateurs on "opposite" sides of the planet, at the same time, who compared their photos. Anyone can compare their photos, too. They show *exactly* the differences in the moon shadow and rotation as would be and are predicted by the mathematics and modeling that assume spherical Earth and Moon, along with a Sun (e.g., as in the Author's same modified-Tychos model, which is that Geoaxial Binary System model). Shack has a software simulator running online that confirms the "expected" views based on spherical assumptions.

4. More generally, basically, all the astronomy planet/star observations that people have recorded over the years are consistent with the motions of the modified-Tychos (Geoaxial Binary System) model, which, while not proving "non-flatness" necessarily, is awfully tempting to consider as evidence toward ball-masses that move with some "momentum" of some kind, not unlike the basic physical movements attributed to Newton, et al. (even if that itself is a simplification and may not apply at astronomical scales).

To recap:

If one has a good camera, and a good location to view the horizon, and a 4K monitor, one can reproduce (1), allegedly.

If one has two people willing to participate, and good enough cameras, then two people can reproduce (3), allegedly.

Criticism

Now, argument (1) requires ensuring the camera "does not have fisheye" and is not "biased in the elevation or direction of the ground", etc. I do not know if any such experiment actually documents checking for this. IIRC, Shack used a photo off of the internet, which could have been biased.

And argument (2) is purely subjective.

Meanwhile, argument (3) does not "prove" the "shape" of anything, instead asserting that the way that light appears to scatter and shadow and be positioned is consistent with what would be expected to occur, given roughly spherical shapes.

Therefore

It seems like there is an opportunity for more rigorously proving "beyond a shadow of a doubt" the "actual overall flatness or sphere-like curvature" to a greater degree. I do not know of better arguments put forth by Shack than those overviewed immediately above, but they certainly could exist. I have not read his whole book.

Please LMK if Shack's non-flat position is proven with better evidence not discussed in this comment.

Basically, making physical measurements other than optical observation would be key, I think. Thoughts?

 

[grav]

How?
with what physical tools? to measure a horizon of one mile? 20 miles?
Can we really trust our own eyes? which are balls, after all. with curved lenses.
I think we may be over-thinking this thing. But how to simplify an experiment?

The pdf photos of the moon seem to me to be impossible if observed from opposite sides of the globe.
I tend to visualize such sights in a real small-sized world situation.
In this case, suspend a striped beach ball in a large room. Phograph the ball from the front and rear doors.
Wouldn't different stripes on the ball appear in the photographs?

Why must we prove, or disprove, every cotton-picking detail of the freemason calculus?
Which, by the way, is math based on their "constants" -- such as e=mc^2 -- which is another meaningless formula that, as Tesla said, dazzles the public and blinds them to true science.
??
[edit. when I try to embed a photo of Chicago here, the post is denied access. I'll try in a separate post.]
If a single photo can demonstrate the curve lie, then why must we constantly have to debate every single picky objection to the fact that we live on a plane surface?
Ok, one image can be manipulated. But there are plenty more photos by amateur and professional photographers who have taken pictures that present Chicago from across Lake Michigan. Not to mention all the other impossible photos of targets hidden by the alleged curve.
When these hard proofs are displayed on forums and other media, they are routinely sloughed off as atmospheric refraction or other optical illusions.
And the "public" (if they even bother to look at alternative ideas) accept the gatekeeping alibis.

For proof of that last statement, look at the teevee. If you can stand it. Our reality is really manipulatrd by the elites who manufacture constant wars, massive wildfires and floods, pandemics, politics, and all the other psyops that people buy into.
I personally know two normal beautiful girls who, in the last few years, have become boys. unhappy ones at that.
A perfect metaphor for how easily Homo ignoranus is mind controlled.
George Orwell warned us:
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

 

[grav]

https://img.ifunny.co/images/5c0a671f4f8b69c295af8cbb0a24caded676df1bc2b56ce2e642e46b15bb1062_1.webp

 

[Breizh]

For proof of that last statement, look at the teevee. If you can stand it. Our reality is really manipulatrd by the elites who manufacture constant wars, massive wildfires and floods, pandemics, politics, and all the other psyops that people buy into.

Secret TV Channels and Streaming Services of the Elite

 

[Tomkat]

https://img.ifunny.co/images/5c0a671f4f8b69c295af8cbb0a24caded676df1bc2b56ce2e642e46b15bb1062_1.webp

This is a good verifiable argument. We know the distance from point a to point b. At a minimum, these reproducible photos disprove the claimed circumference of the earth if it is a sphere using spherical trigonometry. It would be vastly larger than claimed. Combine this evidence with topographic survey results and all evidence points to a flat plane.

 

[reverendALC]

It would be vastly larger than claimed.

This has occurred to me, and likely many many others.

Narrative constructs are often a complex tapestry of truths, half truths, and untruths: incredibly difficult to untangle and separate.

What if our realm is a globe/sphere, but 100x larger or more than admitted? Arguably, both camps would be equal parts right/wrong, and neither would conclusively win the argument… but the argument continues nonetheless.

What if traditional geocentrism is wrong and modern heliocentrism is wrong… but Tycho Brahe was right? The sun revolves around the earth, but the rest of the planets revolve around the sun? Why it would be that way isn’t sensible to me, but considering that arrangement of bodies, every single thing is satisfied. Phases of Venus, sunrise and sunset, constant constellations, and more.

Not to digress too far, but look into this:
https://codepen.io/pholmq/pen/XGPrPd

We had a widely accepted, geometrically sound solar model 500 years ago. One that wasn’t defeated or disproven, but still moved on from for whatever reason(s). Were we taught about Tycho in school? Nope. Why?

 

[Just]

This has occurred to me, and likely many many others.

Narrative constructs are often a complex tapestry of truths, half truths, and untruths: incredibly difficult to untangle and separate.

What if our realm is a globe/sphere, but 100x larger or more than admitted? Arguably, both camps would be equal parts right/wrong, and neither would conclusively win the argument… but the argument continues nonetheless.

What if traditional geocentrism is wrong and modern heliocentrism is wrong… but Tycho Brahe was right? The sun revolves around the earth, but the rest of the planets revolve around the sun? Why it would be that way isn’t sensible to me, but considering that arrangement of bodies, every single thing is satisfied. Phases of Venus, sunrise and sunset, constant constellations, and more.

Not to digress too far, but look into this:
https://codepen.io/pholmq/pen/XGPrPd

We had a widely accepted, geometrically sound solar model 500 years ago. One that wasn’t defeated or disproven, but still moved on from for whatever reason(s). Were we taught about Tycho in school? Nope. Why?

Why indeed? Why has so much of our education been misdirection and obfuscation? If we have been lied to for centuries - or at least since the last reset - why would they lie about the ‘small globe’ if it was really a supersized globe? That makes absolutely no sense at all. The reason we have a globe earth model fakery is that the flat earth with firmament means there is a creator and this world is not random. The demonics who think they’re in charge really aren’t but they have spent some time and a great deal of effort trying to make us believe this. Now the game’s up and we get to see the truth and if we keep our eyes and our minds open it won’t destroy us contrary to what tptb believe.

 

[Tetromino]

I've heard of the "Big Earth Theory" or what is sometimes referred to as "Crater Earth Theory", the idea being we are in a crater on a larger Earth. It's complete nonsense and I don't know who came up with the idea but it's just another false trail the same as concave Earth theory. Concave Earth can be destroyed with the same logic that the globe Earth is. That being no curvature can be detected either up or down. Now the idea that we are in a crater on a giant Earth globe makes even less sense than the traditional globe model.

 

[reverendALC]

My senses (right or wrong) tell me these things:

The earth is stationary
The earth is flat

Now it is possible (I’m not saying likely, but just possible) that we cannot perceive any momentum. I’ve sat on an airplane traveling (allegedly) 600mph, while experiencing no different sensations than sitting on my stationary couch outside of liftoff and touchdown. If the earth was in continuous motion from my first to last day on it, then I wouldn’t expect to experience liftoff or touchdown. Just because it’s possible doesn’t make it probable.

It’s also possible that the earth is curved, if we consider the curve to be so very slight due to scale that it evades our perception. Luckily here though, we have easily measurable figures. The claimed diameter and circumference of the earth allow us to calculate the alleged curvature. These calculations simply do not jibe with my senses.

Circling back to Tycho, I think the main problem with his model (problem according to tptb) is that earth is central. If earth is central, then we are special. If earth is central, then earth is a big deal. When the focus of our universe is shifted to the sun, then the sun becomes special and we become meaningless.

I think that we would see a much greater renaissance of humanity if we all knew how special we were, and that we knew we were here for a reason beyond simply existing and experiencing comfort and pleasure.

 

[FarewellAngelina]

liquid aestheno-sphere layer ?
" we are told?
Yes, we are told lots of Body Scientiic BS.

The freemasons chose an interesting word that begins with an interesting prefix: aestheno- comes from the Greek and refers to perception,
feelings, senses, other meanings more to do with emotion than objective facts.

As has been pointed out earlier, we know nothing about the physical earth deeper than 7.5 miles.
Even seismic equipment could not penetrate the dense material at that point.

As for using magnification to observe the dome, we might be able to see what's up there.
Vibes of Cosmos is sure that we see our world's reflection/projection in the moon.
The gnostics and ancient people said the 7 domes exist above us.
It's all so incredibly complicated. And our BScientists make it even harder to sort truth from fiction.

Too true Grav.

Science is very insistent at forcing the globe model upon us all - atmo"sphere" , aestheno"sphere" . The phrase "world wide" has now disappeared from use.

Seismic waves (man made or from quakes) travel down through continental/oceanic crust reflect/refract towards the seismograph on earth's surface but they cannot cross through but reflect/refract from that boundary with the liquid layer that lies below all continental/oceanic crust. The boundary is known as the Moho , named after the scientist Mohorovicic .

Interestingly enough the contours of the Moho mirror the topography of the landmasses above and you are correct in saying science has no idea what lies beneath , only that there is a liquid layer which dampens all wave energy. The thickest crust is beneath , and mirrors ,the highest mountain ranges . "As above so below" springs to mind.

The aesthenosphere was originally known as the waters beneath.

I find the crater earth model quite intriguing since the moon is so enigmatic.

 

[Referent]

How?
with what physical tools? to measure a horizon of one mile? 20 miles?
Can we really trust our own eyes? which are balls, after all. with curved lenses.
I think we may be over-thinking this thing. But how to simplify an experiment?

Experiment proposals

In my opinion, the list of "mechanical-based experiments to do" is not trivial but also theoretically not impossible. Non-exhaustive possibilities are below. These are not original ideas, but they are what come to mind.

Also, even these can be criticized, but they may be informative and I do not think I have seen them both be done.

1. Aircraft approach (fly around the earth)

Using an aircraft with a large fuel supply or capable of being refueled mid-flight, and a standalone magnetic or inertial (e.g., non-GPS) gyroscope, attempt to circumnavigate the "earth" North-South in either direction (all the way around, back to the starting point. Then, do the same thing East-West (all the way around, back to the starting point). Finally, do it a third time, in another orientation, say NW-to-SE. Critically:

• Film this uncut from start to end, including shots of the cockpit forward, back, and side views. A 360 degree video format from under the aircraft would be a nice touch. This should be at least 4K in each direction.
• Have people onboard as observers with a "chain of trust" as to who trusts the observers going back as far as possible (choose observers based on number of connections that "trust" the person that "trusts" them, etc.
• Have the gyroscope, aircraft, photo equipment, etc., inspected by people within the "chain of trust", etc.

On its own, going all the way "around" and ending up at the starting point will not actually "prove" not-flatness. It would certainly be conceivable to live in a hyperplane in which there is an unperceived "jump" forming an infinitely connected but actually (overall) "flat" realm. That is why the next requirement is needed:

• Do the entire, filmed, chain-of-custody full-traversals in multiple directions at an altitude that permits "viewing" the ball shape, using optics that have been shown (again with full documentation of the inspection with chain of custody of the documentation and chain of trust for the inspection) to be "non-fisheye", including at large distances, as best as can be done on land.

2. Linear beam approach (huge flat beam over giant lake)

This approach appears in the FE/nonFE literature. I am not digging up the referenecs, but as I recall a mild version of this was purported to have been done on the shore of an ocean, and involved putting mutliple beams alongside each other end to end. However, the below is what I would ask for:

• Manufacture a rigid beam that is perfectly flat within some specified tolerance (say, 1mm deviation overall per KM or whatever).
• The rigid beam must be able to support its own weight; this is a type of bridge.
• This would require a large facility of some kind to produce and keep and transport.
• Build it near a large lake that is normally fairly undisrupted by water motion. The lake must be chosen as one large enough that it would mathematically be expected to have its water "curved by gravity" to an ostensibly measureable amount (e.g., 1 meter difference in elevation at center versus at the shores).
• Span the lake with the beam on a still day. Check the distance from the water for deviations compared with the beam every 1 meter, using rigid rules.
• Analyze the results to see if the (large) lake was "curved".

This also does not provide "evidence" of the entire Earth geometry. Nonetheless, it might be an interesting experiment to perform. It certainly is an engineering challenge, but I believe it may be within the realm of "possibility" to be done.

Discussion

Neither of the above relies entirely upon optics or vision.

1. In the first experiment, it checked if motion in one direction brings one back to the starting point. This could be split into lower-altitude and very-high-altitude versions.
2. In the second experiment, it is checked if large bodies of still water are flat or curved.

Neither is necessarily sufficient, but could be good data points.

Surely there are many, many other experiments that could be done, some probably far better suited for Earth shape detection than these.

 

[reverendALC]

I can also imagine a number of exercises that would provide conclusive evidence. I think that those are two great examples, but they require appreciable resources and trusted executors. Trust is very very difficult to come by these days, and there is a lot of trust placed in narrative supporters. For globe adherents to trust FE experimenters would be similar to asking FE adherents to trust globe supporters. Otherwise, the results simply harden the beliefs of FE while rolling off the globists like water on a duck’s back.

I think that the very best experiments would be low cost, and easy enough for any individual to perform and perceive. Maybe that doesn’t exist. Maybe they would continue to discount their own senses in favor of the abstract absurdities, even in the face of evidence.

Aphelion–Perihelion Starfield Test​

Why this matters (heliocentric assumption):​

In the heliocentric model, Earth orbits the sun once per year. After six months, it is on the opposite side of the sun — about 186 million miles away. From an equatorial location, this should cause observers to face in completely opposite directions into space at night.

Quick diagram (view is always away from the sun at night):

January (Perihelion): ~> E .......... S .......... Ǝ <~ : July (Aphelion)

If Earth moves from E to Ǝ, observers should be looking out into opposite halves of the universe.

The test:​

From the same equatorial location, observe the night sky during full darkness (e.g., 2–3 a.m. local time) on or around January 1 and July 1.

• Expected (heliocentric model): A completely different set of stars should be visible — no overlap.
• Observed (reality): Despite being on opposite sides of the sun, separated by 186 million miles, the night sky remains strikingly consistent — with no reversal, no dramatic shift, and many of the same stars still visible. The expected 180° change simply does not occur.

Conclusion:​

If Earth truly shifts 186 million miles in six months, the night sky — especially near the equator — should reflect that. Its consistency instead suggests something very different than what the heliocentric model claims.

At least, that’s how it seems to a layman such as myself!

 

[Just]

I can also imagine a number of exercises that would provide conclusive evidence. I think that those are two great examples, but they require appreciable resources and trusted executors. Trust is very very difficult to come by these days, and there is a lot of trust placed in narrative supporters. For globe adherents to trust FE experimenters would be similar to asking FE adherents to trust globe supporters. Otherwise, the results simply harden the beliefs of FE while rolling off the globists like water on a duck’s back.

I think that the very best experiments would be low cost, and easy enough for any individual to perform and perceive. Maybe that doesn’t exist. Maybe they would continue to discount their own senses in favor of the abstract absurdities, even in the face of evidence.

My celestial experiment

Preface: according to the currently accepted model, the earth is a sphere caught in a self-sustaining elliptical orbit around the sun. The perihelion is the point at which the earth is closest to the sun and the aphelion the point at which earth is the furthest. Since high noon on both perihelion and aphelion days shows the sun in the middle of the sky, and both points are in 180° opposition of the sun, then at 12am we can infer our position on the globe is facing the complete opposite direction.

Here’s a quick textual diagram:

perihelion
E……….S

aphelion
…………S………………….Ǝ

If you observe or photograph the night sky on both dates, you’ll observe very similar skies, despite the fact that your view is allegedly 180° opposite. This wouldn’t work so well for polar inhabitants, but anybody within 45° of the equator shouldn’t see even remotely similar skies.

At least, that’s how it seems to a layman such as myself!

In 2020, not long after the first lockdown was imposed, it was planned to hire a cruise ship to circumnavigate Antarctica or as a Flat earther would say ‘to sail along the ice wall’. Of course it didn’t happen. The next plan following that also got ditched I believe. At the time I wondered if that’s why we locked down when we did. Probably, I’d say.