Coordinated disinfo campaign?

That's my guess. Muddy the waters. Throw truth-seekers off the track. And associate 9/11 truthers with flat-earthers to the sleepwalkers. Not a bad way to poison the whole /r/conspiracy forum -- imagine a first time visitor checking it out for the first time..

edit:

There's a good discussion about cointel going on in /r/C_S_T (Conspiracy Shower Thoughts) now:

• There are a class of alternate theories, like 'Flat Earth', 'Holographic Moon', 'Reptillians' that are not good faith theories, but rather dangerously distracting recreational fantasies. They are themselves part of the spectacle, and they distract open minds from our reality's real problems.

[deleted]

I've figured it out!

Flat-earthers are going to piss off so many rational people that Elon Musk is going to eventually, in exasperation, offer to take the king of the Flat-Erthers up to space to see the round earth with his own eyes, in return for a full retraction and shutting the hell up about the flat earth forever.

Then after the trip, said traveller is going to say "You may think I've been stupid for years but which ones of you actually got to go into space??"

tl;dr Flat-earthers are trolling for a free trip to space.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

I know it is hard to believe. But it is not fair to class flat earth with holographic moon and reptilians. A urge you to actually consider the evidence for flat earth.

The reason there are so many posts and videos about it is because it is actually true. Set aside the how and why of the coverup required in order to examine the physical evidence. It is first order evidence, you can do experiments yourself. Watch videos and read to understand the model. Then go outside and see it for yourself.

I have no agenda other than to inform. If you don't want to look, that's fine, but it's worth a look.

Here is a video: https://youtu.be/f5aB6oThGK8

Lots more here: http://ifers.boards.net/thread/418/flat-earth-audio-video-compilation

An old book on the topic: https://archive.org/details/zeteticcosmogon00recgoog

Also consider how quickly flat earth posts are downvoted. There is a concerted effort to suppress the topic.

How do you explain this, posted by an amateur astronomer in /r/space? Or is only the Earth flat?

http://i.imgur.com/dyK6slm.gif

Credit to /u/Armand9x

Welp, this place is fucking crazy.

Yeah. Nice gif, though.

I'm not sure what there is to comment on there. That just looks like a movie to me.

To me, the first step is to show that the earth cannot be a globe, and must be flat. Of course I would like to know the nature of everything in our universe. We all still have more to learn. But I don't see how that clip, legitimate or not, disproves the flatness of the earth.

It proves that Jupiter is an oblate rotating spheroid orbited by several smaller moons.

An amateur astronomer took several pictures with his telescope over a period of time and created this, a time-lapse. Is it your position that the other planets are spheres but only the Earth is flat?

I can't say I know the nature of everything. What I can say is that showing the earth to be flat is a separate matter from what you see in that image.

Also, one single film cannot really prove anything. The evidence for flat earth is repeatable experiments that you can do yourself. A clip that is a couple seconds long (which can easily be faked), of something that isn't the earth, well that is pretty indirect. If you reject all of the evidence for flat earth based on that, I have to say you haven't given it fair consideration.

Dude, not to be mean but just fuck off. Earth is a sphere, no conspiracy there. You are either dumb or are posting disinfo on purpose.

It's ok, I expect to have insults hurled at me. It is very uncomfortable to have your beliefs confronted and anger is not an uncommon reaction. I don't think I am dumb, and I don't want to spread disinfo. Have you looked at the links I have given?

Yes. Both of my grandfathers travelled to Antarctica, one of them was one of the engineers who built the Polish Antarctic Base, the other was a chief meteorologist during that time. If there was anything "fishy" going on there, they would have known.

You are free to believe in what you want, I can only offer you compassion.

I've been to Antarctica, too. Didn't see any military vessels blocking our passage and I wasn't made to sign any papers saying I wouldn't spill the beans if I found out the Earth was flat. Change is one of the biggest trolls on this sub at the moment.

LOL. Not only do you come in every flat earth thread to "debunk". You have also been to Antartica and were allowed to freely explore where ever you wanted, how convenient!

It's almost like I enjoy talking about things I have knowledge or experience in!

Except you have no knowledge on the subject and give no proof that you've "explored Antartica", You only desperately troll this subject constantly.

And how would I prove that I've been to Antarctica?

Just down votes and no response, wish I could say I was surprised.

If I went to Antartica I'm sure I'd have some pictures or video. Also what would it prove if you went to Antarctica? Anyone can go and take photos at the designated area if you have the money. You are not allowed to explore any area you want though. Why did you go to the Arctic?

If I went to Antartica I'm sure I'd have some pictures or video.

That's why I took lots of video. But you don't know who I am, so you have nothing to reference it off of.

Why did you go to the Arctic?

Antarctic. Went on a scientific cruise.

Went on a scientific cruise.

Ok, sounds legit.

Certainly both official trips and guided tours to the edge occur. Perhaps your grandfathers did know that something was up, but they were smart enough not to talk about it.

If that's all it takes to dissuade you from examining the evidence, then I'm sure the wool is over your eyes on many topics that aren't the shape of the earth.

Haha of course it is

[deleted]

Cats are black, I have a picture to prove it.

Therefore all cats are black.

I'm not down with the ole flat earth, but I'm also not down with using terribly bad logic to disprove it.

[deleted]

That assumes that we're living on a planet.

What? I can't agree with that logic. Why should our earth be the same as some other object seen in the sky?

If I'm trying to show the earth is flat, and not a globe, and flatness is demonstrable over long distances of water, that seems a little more direct than the angle you are coming from.

[deleted]

You are making a lot of assumptions here. I encourage you to follow the links I have provided. If you don't want to look, there is nothing I can do, but it is worth looking.

[deleted]

You are spreading dis-info if you say the Earth goes up at 9.8 m/s. Shows that you don't know what you are talking about as far as the Flat Earth model. There is no such thing as "gravity" it's a made up term.

[deleted]

If you want to argue against Flat Earth and for spherical Earth that is fine, just don't through out the 9.8 m/s BS from the controlled opposition Flat Earth Society. It shows that you have not researched into the subject very far.

[deleted]

Simply put if something is more dense than the surrounding medium it falls. If something is less dense it rises (like a helium balloon). The term "gravity" was invented by Freemason Issac Newton to try to explain all the craziness associated the Copernicus heliocentric theory.

http://aplanetruth.info/2015/04/02/25-is-sir-isaac-newtons-law-of-gravity-just-one-great-big-lie/

http://ifers.boards.net/thread/205/gravity-related-question

[deleted]

But how do satellites orbit earth?

Satellites do not exist. Everything satellites do can be done more efficiently through ground based technology. Funny enough satellites were actually "invented" by Freemason Sci-Fi writer Aurther C Clark in 1945. Just search for "skywave propagation" and you will see how it's possible to do it from the ground. I've already been through all this many times with other people and I don't feel like going through it all again (since I doubt that you are even open to the idea). If you look at the ifers.boards.net all the info is there.
So you admit that Newtons theory was inaccurate, when did it get thrown out and why?

[deleted]

I watched 'documentaries' on the subject with an open mind and came to the conclusion that flat earth is an insane theory.

It doesn't sound like you've researched it very thoroughly. Which 'documentaries' did you watch? Sounds like you were watching some bull shit "documentaries" since you thought that the Earth had to move up at 9.8 m/s to account for gravity. So obviously you've only research "The Flat Earth Society" controlled opposition garbage.

Keep your head in the sand. The truth about the Earth is not going away and you will keep seeing a "surge" in the Flat Earth truth everywhere you look.

Ah yes, the classic tactic of "if you don't agree with me, your information is bad."

[deleted]

Why does it require a round earth to work?

[deleted]

That doesn't answer anything. Why would you not be able to bounce a signal at an angle off of a flat surface? Have you never played air hockey for example? There is no reason why you would need a curved atmosphere. http://www.atombus.biz/2012/06/sky-wave-propagation-basic-and.html

That's fine if you think that Flat Earth is retarded, but please don't act like you understand any of the arguments because you clearly have not looked into it for yourself.

Saying Gravity is "a made up term" is uninformative (all terms are made up) and doesn't address the fact that some force pulls objects towards the center of the earth (in a round earth model) or towards the plane of the earth along a path perpendicular to the surface (in a flat earth model). That effect isn't made up.

What you are describing is simply the natural law of how things are. If something is more dense than the medium that it surrounds then it falls. If something is less dense than the surrounding air it will rise (like helium). You only need the term gravity if you have to explain all of the crazy implications associated with the heliocentric ball Earth theory, otherwise There is no need for the term "gravity".

What you described has a term and it's "buoyancy". Just because something is "the way things are" doesn't mean you don't define it and explain it.

Now, explain to me how buoyancy works without gravity? In a system with gravity buoyancy is explained by the fact that all of the particles are being pulled toward the same location. Because the heavier particles create a greater downward force, they displace lighter particles and end up closer. This of course only works assuming the substances are liquids or gases.

Do you have alternative explanation? How does your explanation deal with heavenly bodies that don't seem to be falling?

What you described has a term and it's "buoyancy".

Correct

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

As far as heavenly bodies they are all luminaries or lights. The moon is semi-transparent and stars have been seen through it during the day, it also produces it's own light that has very different properties than sunlight. The Planets are known as "wandering stars" and are also just lights not Terra firma planets like we've been told.

NO! Anyone who makes the claim that earth is moving upwards at 9.8m/s² is a disinfo agent. There is a huge disinfo campaign on this issue. You have clearly not investigated it.

[deleted]

No, you have watched disinfo videos from what you are saying. They are intended to make it seem silly so you say "ah. of course I was right."

There is no gravity. The history of how gravity came to be accepted is quite telling. The effect can be explained through buoyancy and density. This video discusses it: https://youtu.be/D_j_SUAwafU

[deleted]

The argument is that there is no gravity. It is a made up force that has never been proven. Newton puts assumption upon assumption in order to build a theoretical system that all fits together. He did a good job in that, but it is not a system that reflects reality.

The moon does not appear to be a solid sphere either. Have you ever looked at the moon against a blue sky? It appears to be translucent. Did you know that at night, when the moon is not full, stars can be seen through the missing part of the moon?

This is from here: http://ifers.boards.net/post/5465/thread

On March 7th, 1794, four astronomers (3 in Norwich, 1 in London) wrote in “The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Astronomical Society” that they “saw a star in the dark part of the moon, which had not then attained the first quadrature; and from the representations which are given the star must have appeared very far advanced upon the disc.” Sir James South of the Royal Observatory in Kensington wrote in a letter to the Times newspaper April 7, 1848, that, "On the 15th of March, 1848, when the moon was seven and a half days old, I never saw her unillumined disc so beautifully. On my first looking into the telescope a star of about the 7th magnitude was some minutes of a degree distant from the moon's dark limb. I saw that its occultation by the moon was inevitable … The star, instead of disappearing the moment the moon's edge came in contact with it, apparently glided on the moon's dark face, as if it had been seen through a transparent moon; or, as if a star were between me and the moon … I have seen a similar apparent projection several times … The cause of this phenomenon is involved in impenetrable mystery." In the monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society for June 8, 1860, Thomas Gaunt stated that the "Occultation of Jupiter by the moon, on the 24th of May, 1860, was seen with an achromatic of 3.3 inches aperture, 50 inches focus; the immersion with a power of 50, and the emersion with a power of 70. At the immersion I could not see the dark limb of the moon until the planet appeared to touch it, and then only to the extent of the diameter of the planet; but what I was most struck with was the appearance on the moon as it passed over the planet. It appeared as though the planet was a dark object, and glided on to the moon instead of behind it; and the appearance continued until the planet was hid, when I suddenly lost the dark limb of the moon altogether.” I have personally also seen stars through the edge of the waxing/waning Moon. It actually happens fairly often; if you are diligent and specifically observing for the phenomenon on starry nights you can occasionally see it even with the naked eye.

“During a partial solar eclipse the sun's outline has many times been seen through the body of the moon. But those who have been taught to believe that the moon is a solid opaque sphere, are ever ready with ‘explanations,’ often of the most inconsistent character, rather than acknowledge the simple fact of semi-transparency. Not only has this been proved by the visibility of the sun's outline through segments, and sometimes the very centre of the moon, but often, at new moon, the outline of the whole, and even the several shades of light on the opposite and illuminated part have been distinctly seen. In other words we are often able to see through the dark side of the moon's body to light on the other side.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (337)

“That the moon is not a perfectly opaque body, but a crystallized substance, is shown from the fact that when a few hours old or even at quarter we can through the unilluminated portion see the light shining on the other side. Stars have also been observed through her surface!” -J. Atkinson, “Earth Review Magazine”

Can you explain how the tidal waves are caused by buoyancy?

I never claimed that tidal waves are caused by buoyancy. I simply said that they are not caused by the gravitational force of the moon. I don't know how tidal waves work, but I don't need to know everything in the universe to show that the world is flat, I just have to show that it is flat.

On gravity. This is from here: http://ifers.boards.net/thread/205/gravity-related-question

If you fill a balloon with helium, a substance lighter than the nitrogen, oxygen and other elements which compose the air around it, the balloon will immediately fly upwards. If you fill a balloon with hydrogen, a substance even lighter than helium, the balloon will fly upwards even faster. If you blow a dandelion seed out of your hands, a substance just barely heavier than the air, it will float away and slowly but eventually fall to the ground. And if you drop an anvil from your hands, something much heavier than the air, it will quickly and directly fall straight to the ground. Now, this has absolutely nothing to do with “gravity.” The fact that light things rise up and heavy things fall down is simply a natural property of weight. That is very different from “gravity.” Gravity is a hypothetical magnetic-like force possessed by large masses which Isaac Newton needed to help explain the heliocentric theory of the universe.

“Most people in England have either read, or heard, that Sir Isaac Newton’s theory of gravitation was originated by his seeing an apple fall to the earth from a tree in his garden. Persons gifted with ordinary common-sense would say that the apple fell down to the earth because, bulk for bulk, it was heavier than the surrounding air; but if, instead of the apple, a fluffy feather had been detached from the tree, a breeze would probably have sent the feather floating away, and the feather would not reach the earth until the surrounding air became so still that, by virtue of its own density, the feather would fall to the ground.” -Lady Blount, “Clarion’s Science Versus God’s Truth” (40)

Wilbur Voliva, a famous flat-Earther in the early 20th century, gave lectures all over America against Newtonian astronomy. He would begin by walking on stage with a book, a balloon, a feather and a brick, and ask the audience: “How is it that a law of gravitation can pull up a toy balloon and cannot put up a brick? I throw up this book. Why doesn’t it go on up? That book went up as far as the force behind it forced it and it fell because it was heavier than the air and that is the only reason. I cut the string of a toy balloon. It rises, gets to a certain height and then it begins to settle. I take this brick and a feather. I blow the feather. Yonder it goes. Finally, it begins to settle and comes down. This brick goes up as far as the force forces it and then it comes down because it is heavier than the air. That is all.”

“Any object which is heavier than the air, and which is unsupported, has a natural tendency to fall by its own weight. Newton's famous apple at Woolsthorpe, or any other apple when ripe, loses hold of its stalk, and, being heavier than the air, drops as a matter of necessity, to the ground, totally irrespective of any attraction of the Earth. For, if such attraction existed, why does not the Earth attract the rising smoke which is not nearly so heavy as the apple? The answer is simple - because the smoke is lighter than the air, and, therefore, does not fall but ascends. Gravitation is only a subterfuge, employed by Newton in his attempt to prove that the Earth revolves round the Sun, and the quicker it is relegated to the tomb of all the Capulets, the better will it be for all classes of society.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (8)

“The ‘law of gravitation’ is said by the advocates of the Newtonian system of astronomy, to be the greatest discovery of science, and the foundation of the whole of modern astronomy. If, therefore, it can be shown that gravitation is a pure assumption, and an imagination of the mind only, that it has no existence outside of the brains of its expounders and advocates, the whole of the hypotheses of this modern so-called science fall to the ground as flat as the surface of the ocean, and this ‘most exact of all sciences,’ this wonderful ‘feat of the intellect’ becomes at once the most ridiculous superstition and the most gigantic imposture to which ignorance and credulity could ever be exposed.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (36)

Einstein’s theory of relativity and the entire heliocentric model of the universe hinges upon Newton’s “law of gravitation.” Heliocentrists claim that the Sun is the most massive object in the heavens, more massive even than the Earth, and therefore the Earth and other planets by “law” are caught up in the Sun’s “gravity” and forced to orbit perpetual circles/ellipses around it. They claim that gravity also somehow allows people, buildings, the oceans, and all of nature to exist on the under-side of their “ball-Earth” without falling off.

Now, even if gravity did exist, why would it cause both planets to orbit the Sun and people to stick to the Earth? Gravity should either cause people to float in suspended circular orbits around the Earth, or it should cause the Earth to be pulled and crash into the Sun! What sort of magic is “gravity” that it can glue people’s feet to the ball-Earth, while causing Earth itself to revolve ellipses round the Sun? The two effects are very different yet the same cause is attributed to both.

“Take the case of a shot propelled from a cannon. By the force of the explosion and the influence of the reputed action of gravitation, the shot forms a parabolic curve, and finally falls to the earth. Here we may ask, why - if the forces are the same, viz., direct impulse and gravitation - does not the shot form an orbit like that of a planet, and revolve round the earth? The Newtonian may reply, because the impulse which propelled the shot is temporary; and the impulse which propelled the planet is permanent. Precisely so; but why is the impulse permanent in the case of the planet revolving round the sun? What is the cause of this permanence?” -N. Crossland, “New Principia”

“If the sun is pulling with such power at the earth and all her sister planets, why do they not fall down upon him?” -A. Giberne, “Sun, Moon, and Stars” (27)

Furthermore, this magnetic-like attraction of massive objects gravity is purported to have can be found nowhere in the natural world. There is no example in nature of a massive sphere or any other shaped-object which by virtue of its mass alone causes smaller objects to stick to or orbit around it! There is nothing on Earth massive enough that it can be shown to cause even a dust-bunny to stick to or orbit around it! Try spinning a wet tennis ball or any other spherical object with smaller things placed on its surface and you will find that everything falls or flies off, and nothing sticks to or orbits it. To claim the existence of a physical “law” without a single practical evidential example is hearsay, not science.

“That bodies in some instances are seen to approach each other is a fact; but that their mutual approach is due to an ‘ attraction,’ or pulling process, on the part of these bodies, is, after all, a mere theory. Hypotheses may be sometimes admissible, but when they are invented to support other hypotheses, they are not only to be doubted but discredited and discarded. The hypothesis of a universal force called Gravitation is based upon, and was indeed invented with a view to support another hypothesis, namely, that the earth and sea together make up a vast globe, whirling away through space, and therefore needing some force or forces to guide it in its mad career, and so control it as to make it conform to what is called its annual orbit round the sun! The theory first of all makes the earth to be a globe; then not a perfect globe, but an oblate spheroid, flattened at the ‘poles’; then more oblate, until it was in danger of becoming so flattened that it would be like a cheese; and, passing over minor variations of form, we are finally told that the earth is pear-shaped, and that the ‘elipsoid has been replaced by an apoid!’ What shape it may assume next we cannot tell; it will depend upon the whim or fancy of some astute and speculating ‘scientist.’” -Lady Blount and Albert Smith, “Zetetic Astronomy” (14)

How is it that “gravity” is so strong that it can hold all the oceans, buildings and people stuck to the under-side of the ball-Earth, but so weak that it allows birds, bugs, smoke, and balloons to casually evade its grips completely!? How is it that “gravity” holds our bodies clung to the under-side of the ball-Earth, but yet we can easily raise our legs and arms, walk or jump and feel no such constant downward pulling force? How is it that “gravity” can cause planets to revolve elliptical orbits around a single center of attraction? Ellipses by nature require two foci, and the force of gravitation would have to regularly increase and decrease to keep planets in constant orbit and prevent pulling them into direct collision courses!

“That the sun’s path is an exact circle for only about four periods in a year, and then of only a few hours - at the equinoxes and solstices - completely disproves the ‘might have been’ of circular gravitation, and by consequence, of all gravitation … If the sun were of sufficient power to retain the earth in its orbit when nearest the sun, when the earth arrived at that part of its elliptical path farthest from the sun, the attractive force (unless very greatly increased) would be utterly incapable of preventing the earth rushing away into space ‘in a right line forever,’ as astronomers say. On the other hand, it is equally clear that if the sun’s attraction were just sufficient to keep the earth in its proper path when farthest from the sun, and thus to prevent it rushing off into space; the same power of attraction when the earth was nearest the sun would be so much greater, that (unless the attraction were very greatly diminished) nothing would prevent the earth rushing towards and being absorbed by the sun, there being no counterbalancing focus to prevent such a catastrophe! As astronomy makes no reference to the increase and diminution of the attractive force of the sun, called gravitation, for the above necessary purposes, we are again forced to the conclusion that the great ‘discovery’ of which astronomers are so proud is absolutely non-existent.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (44-45)

“We are asked by the Newtonian to believe that the action of gravitation, which we can easily overcome by the slightest exercise of volition in raising an hand or a foot, is so overwhelmingly violent when we lose our balance and fall a distance of a few feet, that this force, which is imperceptible under usual conditions, may, under extraordinary circumstances, cause the fracture of every limb we possess? Common-sense must reject this interpretation. Gravitation does not furnish a satisfactory explanation of the phenomena here described, whereas the definition of weight already given does, for a body seeking in the readiest manner its level of stability would produce precisely the result experienced. If the influence which kept us securely attached to this earth were identical with that which is powerful enough to disturb a distant planet in its orbit, we should be more immediately conscious of its masterful presence and potency; whereas this influence is so impotent in the very spot where it is supposed to be most dominant that we find an insurmountable difficulty in accepting the idea of its existence.” -N. Crossland, “New Principia”

This is obviously copy-paste. It is from here: http://ifers.boards.net/thread/450/causes-oceans-tides

Newton theorized and it is now commonly taught that the Earth’s ocean tides are caused by gravitational lunar attraction. If the Moon is only 2,160 miles in diameter and the Earth 8,000 miles, however, using their own math and “law,” it follows that the Earth is 87 times more massive and therefore the larger object should attract the smaller to it, and not the other way around. If the Earth’s greater gravity is what keeps the Moon in orbit, it is impossible for the Moon’s lesser gravity to supersede the Earth’s gravity at Earth’s sea-level, where its gravitational attraction would even further out-trump the Moon’s. Not to mention, the velocity and path of the Moon are uniform and should therefore exert a uniform influence on the Earth’s tides, when in actuality the Earth’s tides vary greatly. Furthermore, if ocean tides are caused by the Moon’s gravitation, how is it that lakes, ponds, and other smaller bodies of standing water remain outside the Moon’s grasp, while the gigantic oceans are so effected!?

“If the moon lifted up the water, it is evident that near the land, the water would be drawn away and low instead of high tide caused. Again, the velocity and path of the moon are uniform, and it follows that if she exerted any influence on the earth, that influence could only be a uniform influence. But the tides are not uniform. At Port Natal the rise and fall is about 6 feet, while at Beira, about 600 miles up the coast, the rise and fall is 26 feet. This effectually settles the matter that the moon has no influence on the tides. Tides are caused by the gentle and gradual rise and fall of the earth on the bosom of the mighty deep. In inland lakes, there are no tides; which also proves that the moon cannot attract either the earth or water to cause tides. But the fact that the basin of the lake is on the earth which rests on the waters of the deep shows that no tides are possible, as the waters of the lakes together with the earth rise and fall, and thus the tides at the coast are caused; while there are no tides on waters unconnected with the sea.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (130-131)

“It is affirmed that the intensity of attraction increases with proximity, and vice versâ. How, then, when the waters are drawn up by the moon from their bed, and away from the earth's attraction,--which at that greater distance from the centre is considerably diminished, while that of the moon is proportionately increased--is it possible that all the waters acted on should be prevented leaving the earth and flying away to the moon? If the moon has power of attraction sufficient to lift the waters of the earth at all, even a single inch from their deepest receptacles, where the earth's attraction is much the greater, there is nothing in the theory of attraction of gravitation to prevent her taking to herself all the waters which come within her influence. Let the smaller body once overcome the power of the larger, and the power of the smaller becomes greater than when it first operated, because the matter acted on is nearer to it. Proximity is greater, and therefore power is greater … How then can the waters of the ocean immediately underneath the moon flow towards the shores, and so cause a flood tide? Water flows, it is said, through the law of gravity, or attraction of the earth's centre; is it possible then for the moon, having once overcome the power of the earth, to let go her hold upon the waters, through the influence of a power which she has conquered, and which therefore, is less than her own? … The above and other difficulties which exist in connection with the explanation of the tides afforded by the Newtonian system, have led many, including Sir Isaac Newton himself, to admit that such explanation is the least satisfactory portion of the ‘theory of gravitation.’ Thus we have been carried forward by the sheer force of evidence to the conclusion that the tides of the sea do not arise from the attraction of the moon, but simply from the rising and falling of the floating earth in the waters of the ‘great deep.’ That calmness which is found to exist at the bottom of the great seas could not be possible if the waters were alternately raised by the moon and pulled down by the earth.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (159-175)

“Even Sir Isaac Newton himself confessed that the explanation of the Moon's action on the Tides was the least satisfactory part of his theory of Gravitation. This theory asserts that the larger object attracts the smaller, and the mass of the Moon being reckoned as only one-eighth of that of the Earth, it follows that, if, by the presumed force of Gravitation, the Earth revolves round the Sun, much more, for the same reason, should the Moon do so likewise, instead of which that willful orb still continues to go round our world. Tides vary greatly in height, owing chiefly to the different configurations of the adjoining lands. At Chepstow it rises to 60 feet, at Portishead to 50, while at Dublin Bay it is but 1 2, and at Wexford only 5 feet … That the Earth itself has a slight tremulous motion may be seen in the movement of the spirit-level, even when fixed as steadily as possible, and that the sea has a fluctuation may be witnessed by the oscillation of an anchored ship in the calmest day of summer. By what means the tides are so regularly affected is at present only conjectured; possibly it may be by atmospheric pressure on the waters of the Great Deep, and perhaps even the Moon itself, as suggested by the late Dr. Rowbotham, may influence the atmosphere, increasing or diminishing its barometric pressure, and indirectly the rise and fall of the Earth in the waters.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (259-260)

“Bearing this fact in mind, that there exists a continual pressure of the atmosphere upon the Earth, and associating it with the fact that the Earth is a vast plane ‘stretched out upon the waters,’ and it will be seen that it must of necessity slightly fluctuate, or slowly rise and fall in the water. As by the action of the atmosphere the Earth is slowly depressed, the water moves towards the receding shore and produces the flood tide; and when by the reaction of the resisting oceanic medium the Earth gradually ascends the waters recede, and the ebb tide is produced. This is the general cause of tides. Whatever peculiarities are observable they may be traced to the reaction of channels, bays, headlands, and other local causes … That the Earth has a vibratory or tremulous motion, such as must necessarily belong to a floating and fluctuating structure, is abundantly proved by the experience of astronomers and surveyors. If a delicate spirit-level be firmly placed upon a rock or upon the most solid foundation which it is possible to construct, the very curious phenomenon will be observed of constant change in the position of the air-bubble. However carefully the ‘level’ may be adjusted, and the instrument protected from the atmosphere, the ‘bubble’ will not maintain its position many seconds together. A somewhat similar influence has been noticed in astronomical observatories, where instruments of the best construction and placed in the most approved positions cannot always be relied upon without occasional re-adjustment.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (108-110)

If the Moon pulled the tides due to its "gravity" (which I've proven doesn't exist) then why does it only "pull" the ocean's water and not all the world's lakes, marshes, ponds and other inland waters!? The tides are clearly a product of the inter-connected ocean waters (and NOT the other waters of Earth) and therefore caused either by "the gentle rocking of the Earth on the great deep" as stated by the above 19th century authors OR if more ancient explorers can be trusted, the ocean tides very well may be caused by a huge whirlpool vortex surrounding Mount Meru at the North Pole which reverses direction every 6 hours alternately sucking in and pushing out the great seas of Earth, like the breath of Gaia at the naval center-point of Earth breathing in and out twice per day.

The 14th century writings Inventio Fortunata by Nicholas de Linna and The Itinerium of Jacobus Cnoyen mention the magnetic mountain being so powerful that it pulled the nails right out of explorer’s boats! The encircling whirlpool and four directional rivers surrounding the mountain were said to change every 6 hours causing the tides, comparing them to the “breath of God” at the “naval of the Earth,” inhaling and exhaling the great seas. The cartographer Gerardus Mercator's 16th century map below informs us that the waters of the oceans are carried northward to the Pole through these rivers with great force, such that no wind could make a ship sail against the current. The waters then disappear into an enormous whirlpool beneath the mountain at the Pole, and are absorbed into the bowels of the earth.

“A monstrous gulf in the sea towards which from all sides the billows of the sea coming from remote parts converge and run together as though brought there by a conduit, pouring into these mysterious abysses of nature, they are as though devoured thereby and, should it happen that a vessel pass there, it is seized and drawn away with such powerful violence of the waves that this hungry force immediately swallows it up never to appear again.” -Gerardus Mercator

Fridtjof Nansen has found mentions of a great northern whirlpool in Norse legends of the world's well, "Hvergelmer," which causes the tides by pushing and pulling water through its subterranean channels, Isidore of Seville (c.560-636), the Gesta hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum of Adam Bremensis (11th century), the Topographia hibernica of Giraldus Cambrensis (1146-1220; his description of the northern whirlpool is cited by Mercator), the Historia norvegiae (c.1180), the Speculum regale (c. 1250) of Einer Gunnarson, and a particularly interesting quote from the Langobard author Paulus Warnefridi (c.720-790), also called Diaconus: "And not far from the shore which we before spoke of, on the west, where the ocean extends without bounds, is that very deep abyss of waters which we commonly call the ocean's navel. It is said twice a day to suck the waves into itself, and to spew them out again; as is proved to happen along all these coasts, where the waves rush in and go back again with fearful rapidity.... By the whirlpool of which we have spoken it is asserted that ships are often drawn in with such rapidity that they seem to resemble the flight of arrows through the air; and sometimes they are lost in the gulf with a very frightful destruction. Often just as they are about to go under, they are brought back again by a sudden shockofthe waves, and they are sent out again thence with the same rapidity with which they were drawn in."

In “Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum” states that Archbishop Adalbert told of a team of noble men of Frisia around 1035-1043 set sail to explore the north polar region. As they headed north beyond Greenland, “of a sudden they fell into that numbing ocean’s dark mist which could hardly be penetrated with the eyes. And behold, the current of the fluctuating ocean whirled back to its mysterious fountainhead and with most furious impetuosity drew the unhappy sailors, who in their despair now thought only of death, on to chaos; this they say is the ‘abysmal chasm’ - that deep in which report has it that all the back flow of the sea, which appears to decrease, is absorbed and in turn revomited, as the mounting fluctuation is usually described. As the partners were imploring the mercy of God to receive their souls, the backward thrust of the sea carried away some of their ships, but its forward ejection threw the rest far behind the others. Freed thus by the timely help of God from the instant peril they had had before their eyes, they seconded the flood by rowing with all their might.

[deleted]

anti-science

That word is troubling to me. Do you know how much bs comes out of official science? Funding comes from large corporations, scientists who pursue certain lines of inquiry have their careers destroyed. Have you not been paying attention to the topics of GMOs, glyphosate, vaccines, the medical system in general? Do you feel that the research that has been released in those areas has been representative?

I am all for science in terms of the scientific method. Give me a hypothesis, an experiment with steps to prove it, an expected result, and a discussion of why the expected result demonstrates the hypothesis. What is problematic is setting up authorities who get to dictate what is true without being able to question their methods or their motives. So often that is what is called science.

Ignorance is believing what you are told without questioning it.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/mind-man-who-made-50-studies

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/28/how-and-why-a-journalist-tricked-news-outlets-into-thinking-chocolate-makes-you-thin/

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/11/one-of-the-most-important-scientists-in-the-world-most-cancer-research-is-largely-a-fraud/

[deleted]

anyone can go there now.

I would dispute that.

But that isn't the point. To be quite honest, I am not 100% certain of the map of the flat earth. What I am 100% sure of, is that the earth is flat. The proofs for flatness over long distances of water are a separate matter from coming up with a complete model of everything. I am as interested as everyone else in getting an accurate map of the world.

You really should take another look. Also consider that there is huge disinfo regarding this topic. The entire point of the Flat Earth Society is to act as a honey pot where you get dead ended on the subject.

There are a lot more problems with the globular earth model than the flat earth model.

Please explain the problems with the globe earth fact.

Note that giving a full discussion of the issue here would require hours of typing. So I will give a couple brief points, then links if you are interested. Although the way you posed the question suggests that you are not.

1. There is no curvature of water over long distances as evidenced the distance which you can see things over water which should be a long way below the horizon.

2. The horizon always rises to the level of your eyes no matter how high up you go. This is a property of a flat plane. If the earth were a globe, the horizon should drop as you rise. You should have to look down at it.

3. If the earth is a spinning globe, then how do planes work flying against the direction? Either the atmosphere moves with this spinning globe, or it does not. Since there isn't constant wind blowing, I guess it must be moving. So, that means, due to radius, at the equator it must be moving very quickly and at the poles, not at all. Also, the higher you go up in the atmosphere it must spin faster due to radius. That's a lot to swallow.

Here is a video: https://youtu.be/kFjG4jpUhQI

Tons of resources here: http://ifers.boards.net/board/9/reference-materials-ebooks-articles-videos

If you aren't willing to look, well "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

Man if you are serious you should buy a weather balloon and take a picture

You're right. Experiments that you can perform yourself are the ultimate proof. You only get so far debating on the internet and watching videos.

Here is a pretty good video of a cam on a balloon: https://youtu.be/pnzUgKZ8m2k

Great song, but the field of view and curvature of the lens distorts the horizon. Look at the edges of the frame. Its curving up at 2:12, then clearly convex at 3min. This is really unconvincing.

the sun spot on the cloud at the 3:30 mark seems somewhat suspicious for something 93 million miles away

I disagree. That's all I can say while being civil.

So why can't you see the entire planet from the top of a building? Why can you see the curve of the earth from high up? Why do ships get shorter and disappear? How can you fly around the earth in a straight line?

So why can't you see the entire planet from the top of a building? Why do ships get shorter and disappear?

For this you need to understand how eyesight works. Our vision is not infinite. If you consider your viewable area in 2d, the objects that are closer to you take up a lot more of this 2d space. You can trace the perspective lines to a vanishing point at the horizon. What you see as ships going down over the horizon is just how objects appear as the approach this vanishing point. Try this the next time you are at a place where you can see a ship sail away from you: 1. watch with the naked eye until you see the ship 'go down over the horizon'. 2. Use a telescope or binoculars, you will be able to see it again. A magnifying device has the effect of advancing your 2d 'viewport' forward. You can't see things right beside you, but you get more of your 2d viewing area for the objects further away. This video shows how perspective lines and the vanishing point work: https://youtu.be/2mSPdNLotiI

Another point, although not as important, is that air has water vapor and other particles suspended in it so the more of it you are looking through, the more blue tinge things tend to have. You can see this by standing at a lookout point and observing the blue tinge on landscape. Hills further away have more of it.

Why can you see the curve of the earth from high up?

You can't, because it isn't curved. If you have a flat lens, and not a fisheye one on a camera, you can send it up very far and not see the earth curve. Airplane windows are not flat, check it out next time before you take off, they make straight objects appear bent. This isn't done to deceive necessarily, its just a better design for the aircraft.

How can you fly around the earth in a straight line?

You can't. Here is a map of the flat earth: http://www.relativelyinteresting.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/modern+flat+earth+map.png (note that I don't think continent sizes or placements are exactly correct, but it gives an idea). You can fly in the compass direction east or west continuously which ends up being a circle around the North pole, but you cannot fly in a straight line forever without coming to the edge of Antarctica (where you would most likely be shot down if you weren't supposed to be there).

If you would like more information, there is a wealth of it available here: ifers.boards.net

What would it mean if the earth is flat? God? Aliens? A simulation?

The implications certainly are large. It gives more importance to our existence if we are not simply the result of a random organization of matter.

On the topic of aliens my opinion is that they are one massive psy-op. If you look at who is the money behind promoting aliens the answer is too often Rockefeller (http://redefininggod.com/2014/10/why-are-the-rockefellers-and-the-jesuits-guiding-the-ufo-disclosure-movement/ lots of other sources available). We are currently working through the manufactured conflict between the West and Islam. But this is wearing thin. At some point they need a new artificial conflict to keep us in fear and begging them to give us 'security'. What better way to do that than a threat that unites the whole planet where we beg them to keep us safe, such as a faked alien invasion? This is of course just speculation, but the money pushing the alien theme is very telling. Hollywood pumps out all kinds of stuff on this topic, and we know who owns Hollywood.

Very interesting! So another question (notice I am not down voting you for your opinion so I would love to keep talking) if we can see objects in space are spherical why is the Earth flat and not those? You have said they are different so we can't know but why are they spherical when the earth is flat? How and for what purpose?

'Why' is a very hard question to answer, especially in this case. The motivations of humans, even those who don't think like us, we can study and understand. If an intelligent force created the universe, rather than it just being a random happenstance of matter, the creator's motivations we could only get some understanding of through looking at what has been created. Possibly this is just a playground for souls?

I should say that I have never been involved in organized religion(having seen it as just a system of control, even before I got into conspiracy theories), but I have always marveled at my own consciousness. Can our consciousness really just be the result of the organization of matter in our heads? That seems like a stretch to me.

Back to the planets. What reliable data do we really have about them to go on? We can observe them through amateur telescopes, but everything else comes to us by way of an authority (This video has been blocked where I am, maybe it still works for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8tIm-fxE_s it is about the material NASA produces on planets). This is an area in which I would certainly like to know more.

Would this mean all cellular, flight, shipping, and space/Antarctic research teams are in on it? And why doesn't it take that long to travel around antarctica in a circle if it rings the entire outside of the earth?

Not all of those I would think. Cellular just uses ground based towers. Flight and shipping go along prescribed routes. I would think there would be some pilots who are aware of discrepancies. But I think most people would look past those discrepancies rather than follow them to their conclusions since a flat earth is crazy talk.

As for traveling around the Antarctic ring, there is information available on attempts to do that. I'm at work right now and have some things I need to get done before the end of the day, so I won't be able to put much more time into this right now. I'll find some links later and I encourage you to check out the site I linked earlier.

Well thank you, this has all been very interesting and I'll be sure to look further into it once I'm off.

Well thank you, this has all been very interesting and I'll be sure to look further into it once I'm off.

You're welcome. I appreciate that you asked thoughtful questions rather than just deriding and downvoting.

You shouldn't be downvoted because I think you truly believe in what you say and you aren't just trying to spread disinformation. Voting shouldn't be bases on agreeing or disagreeing with someone.

Here is some information regarding the length of time it takes to sail around Antarctica. These are not my words, but are taken from here: http://ifers.boards.net/post/7685/thread

As for the Southern latitudes being larger than the North, they most certainly are and have shown to be so time and again. In 1773 Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier. During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall! Captain Cook wrote: “The ice extended east and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.”

On October 5th, 1839 another explorer, James Clark Ross began a series of Antarctic voyages lasting a total of 4 years and 5 months. Ross and his crew sailed two heavily armored warships thousands of miles, losing many men from hurricanes and icebergs, looking for an entry point beyond the southern glacial wall. Upon first confronting the massive barrier Captain Ross wrote of the wall, “extending from its eastern extreme point as far as the eye could discern to the eastward. It presented an extraordinary appearance, gradually increasing in height, as we got nearer to it, and proving at length to be a perpendicular cliff of ice, between one hundred and fifty feet and two hundred feet above the level of the sea, perfectly flat and level at the top, and without any fissures or promontories on its even seaward face. We might with equal chance of success try to sail through the cliffs of Dover, as to penetrate such a mass.”

“Yes, but we can circumnavigate the South easily enough,’ is often said by those who don't know, The British Ship Challenger recently completed the circuit of the Southern region - indirectly, to be sure - but she was three years about it, and traversed nearly 69,000 miles - a stretch long enough to have taken her six times round on the globular hypothesis.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (78)

“If we now consider the fact that when we travel by land or sea, and from any part of the known world, in a direction towards the North polar star, we shall arrive at one and the same point, we are forced to the conclusion that what has hitherto been called the North Polar region, is really the center of the Earth. That from this northern center the land diverges and stretches out, of necessity, towards a circumference, which must now be called the Southern region: which is a vast circle, and not a pole or center … In this and other ways all the great navigators have been frustrated in their efforts, and have been more or less confounded in their attempts to sail round the Earth upon or beyond the Antarctic circle. But if the southern region is a pole or center, like the north, there would be little difficulty in circumnavigating it, for the distance round would be comparatively small. When it is seen that the Earth is not a sphere, but a plane, having only one center, the north; and that the south is the vast icy boundary of the world, the difficulties experienced by circumnavigators can be easily understood.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (21-23)

(Continued)

If the Earth were truly a globe, then every line of latitude South of the equator would have to measure a gradually smaller and smaller circumference the farther South travelled. In other words, the circumference at10 degrees South latitude would comprise a smaller circle than at the equator, 20 degrees South latitude would comprise a circle smaller than 10, and so on. If, however, the Earth is an extended plane, then every line of latitude South of the equator should measure a gradually larger and larger circumference the farther South travelled. 10 degrees South latitude will comprise a larger circle than the equator, 20 degrees South latitude will comprise a circle larger than 10, and so on. Likewise, if the Earth were a globe, lines of longitude would bubble out at the equator while converging at both poles. Whereas if the Earth is an extended plane, lines of longitude should simply expand straight outwards from the North Pole. So which is actually the case?

“Upon the principle, as taught by Scripture and common observation, that the world is not a Planet, but consists of vast masses of land stretched out upon level seas, the North being the centre of the system, it is evident that the degrees of longitude will gradually increase in width the whole way from the North centre to the icy boundary of the great Southern Circumference. In consequence of the difference between the actual extent of longitudes and that allowed for them by the Nautical Authorities, which difference, at the latitude of the Cape of Good Hope, has been estimated to amount to a great number of miles, many Ship-masters have lost their reckoning, and many vessels have been wrecked. Ship-captains, who have been educated in the globular theory, know not how to account for their getting so much out of their course in Southern latitudes, and generally put it down to currents; but this reason is futile, for although currents may exist, they do not usually run in opposite directions, and vessels are frequently wrecked, whether sailing East or West.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (102)

During Captain James Clark Ross’s voyages around the Antarctic circumference, he often wrote in his journal perplexed at how they routinely found themselves out of accordance with their charts, stating that they found themselves an average of 12-16 miles outside their reckoning every day, some days as much as 29 miles. Lieutenant Charles Wilkes commanded a United States Navy exploration expedition to the Antarctic from August 18th, 1838 to June 10th, 1842, almost four years spent “exploring and surveying the Southern ocean.” In his journals Lieutenant Wilkes also mentioned being consistently east of his reckoning, sometimes over 20 miles in less than 18 hours.

“The commanders of these various expeditions were, of course, with their education and belief in the earth's rotundity, unable to conceive of any other cause for the differences between log and chronometer results than the existence of currents. But one simple fact is entirely fatal to such an explanation, viz., that when the route taken is east or west the same results are experienced. The water of the southern region cannot be running in two opposite directions at the same time; and hence, although various local and variable currents have been noticed, they cannot be shown to be the cause of the discrepancies so generally observed in high southern latitudes between time and log results. The conclusion is one of necessity, forced upon us by the sum of the evidence collected that the degrees of longitude in any given southern latitude are larger than the degrees in any latitude nearer to the northern center; thus proving the already more than sufficiently demonstrated fact that the earth is a plane, having a northern center, in relation to which degrees of latitude are concentric, and from which degrees of longitude are diverging lines, continually increasing in their distance from each other as they are prolonged towards the great glacial southern circumference.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe!” (261)

“February 11th, 1822, at noon, in latitude 65.53. S. our chronometers gave 44 miles more westing than the log in three days. On 22nd of April (1822), in latitude 54.16. S. our longitude by chronometers was 46.49, and by D.R. (dead reckoning) 47° 11´: On 2nd May (1822), at noon, in latitude 53.46. S., our longitude by chronometers was 59° 27´, and by D.R. 61° 6´. October 14th, in latitude 58.6, longitude by chronometers 62° 46´, by account 65° 24´. In latitude 59.7. S., longitude by chronometers was 63° 28´, by account 66° 42´. In latitude 61.49. S., longitude by chronometers was 61° 53´, by account 66° 38´.” -Captain James Weddell, “Voyages Towards the South Pole”

“In the southern hemisphere, navigators to India have often fancied themselves east of the Cape when still west, and have been driven ashore on the African coast, which, according to their reckoning, lay behind them. This misfortune happened to a fine frigate, the Challenger, in 1845. How came Her Majesty’s Ship ‘Conqueror,’ to be lost? How have so many other noble vessels, perfectly sound, perfectly manned, perfectly navigated, been wrecked in calm weather, not only in dark night, or in a fog, but in broad daylight and sunshine - in the former case upon the coasts, in the latter, upon sunken rocks - from being ‘out of reckoning,’ under circumstances which until now, have baffled every satisfactory explanation.” -Rev. Thomas Milner, “Tour Through Creation”

“The above calculations are, as already stated, only proximate; but as liberal allowances have been made for irregularities of route, etc., they are sufficiently accurate to prove that the degrees of longitude, as we proceed south-wards, do not diminish, as they would upon a globe, but expand or increase, as they must if the earth is a plane; or, in other words, the farthest point, or greatest latitude south, must have the greatest circumference and degrees of longitude.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe!” (258)

“Parallels of latitude only - of all imaginary lines on the surface of the Earth - are circles, which increase, progressively, from the northern centre to the southern circumference. The mariner's course in the direction of any one of these concentric circles is his longitude, the degrees of which INCREASE to such an extent beyond the equator (going southwards) that hundreds of vessels have been wrecked because of the false idea created by the untruthfulness of the charts and the globular theory together, causing the sailor to be continually getting out of his reckoning. With a map of the Earth in its true form all difficulty is done away with, and ships may be conducted anywhere with perfect safety. This, then, is a very important practical proof that the Earth is not a globe.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (14)

(Continued)

The equatorial circumference of the supposed ball-Earth is said to be 24,900 statute or 21,600 nautical miles. A nautical mile is the distance, following the supposed curvature of the Earth, from one minute of latitude to the next. A statue mile is the straight line distance between the two, not taking into account Earth’s alleged curvature.

The “Australian Handbook, Almanack, Shippers’ and Importers’ Directory” states that the distance between Sydney and Nelson is 1400 nautical or 1633 statute miles. Allowing a more than sufficient 83 miles as the distance for rounding Cape Farewell and sailing up Tasman Bay to Nelson leaves 1550 statute miles as the straight-line distance from the meridian of Sydney to the meridian of Nelson. Their given difference in longitude is 22 degrees 2’14”. Therefore if 22 degrees 2’14” out of 360 is 1550 miles, the entirety measures 25,182 miles. This is larger than the Earth is said to be at the equator, and 4262 miles greater than it would be at Sydney’s southern latitude on a globe of said proportions! One 360th part of 25,182 gives 70 miles as the distance between each degree of longitude at Sydney’s 34 degree Southern latitude. On a globe 25,000 miles in equatorial circumference, however, degrees of longitude at 34 degrees latitude would be only 58 miles, a full 12 miles per degree less than reality. This perfectly explains why Ross and other navigators in the deep South experienced 12+ mile daily discrepancies between their reckoning and reality, the farther South travelled the farther the divide.

“From near Cape Horn, Chile to Port Philip in Melbourne, Australia the distance is 9,000 miles. These two places are 143 degrees of longitude from each other. Therefore the whole extent of the Earth’s circumference is a mere arithmetical question. If 143 degrees make 9,000 miles, what will be the distance made by the whole 360 degrees into which the surface is divided? The answer is, 22,657 miles; or, 8357 miles more than the theory of rotundity would permit. It must be borne in mind, however, that the above distances are nautical measure, which, reduced to statute miles, gives the actual distance round the Southern region at a given latitude as 26,433 statute miles; or nearly 1,500 miles more than the largest circumference ever assigned to the Earth at the equator.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (52)

Similar calculations made from the Cape of Good Hope, South Africa to Melbourne, Australia at an average latitude of 35.5 degrees South, have given an approximate figure of over 25,000 miles, which is again equal to or greater than the Earth’s supposed greatest circumference at the equator. Calculations from Sydney, Australia to Wellington, New Zealand at an average of 37.5 degrees South have given an approximate circumference of 25,500 miles, greater still! According to the ball-Earth theory, the circumference of the Earth at 37.5 degrees Southern latitude should be only 19,757 statute miles, almost six thousand miles less than such practical measurements.

The trick is to use old, outdated methods of measurement with a lot of error and then dismiss all corrections used with modern instruments.

Is there something on the other side of earth or is the universe a geocentric dome with flat earth flat in the center on the bottom and the spherical objects floating above us?

A great resource if you are interested in more on this topic: http://ifers.boards.net

Please read through the information there before starting a new thread, there is a lot there.

We don't know about 'the other side' or if there even is one. If you look into the topic of deep earth drilling we are unable to get past a depth of about 12km, apparently it gets too hot (you can find documentaries on this subject). What is past the near edge of Antarctica is not public knowledge. I have read speculation that possibly there is an infinite flat plane, and there are other 'ponds' like earth. That is certainly in intriguing idea, but I don't think there is any proof for it. Some people speculate that there is some kind of dome above us. That stars are the result of an electromagnetic field generated from the North pole that produces points of light on the firmament above us. I personally have an issue with the concept of a vacuum of space being alongside our atmosphere. The force of that vacuum attempting to equalize the pressure would be tremendous. That gives some credence to the theory of some kind of division, if there even is a vacuum up there.

Again, this is mostly just speculation. I really want to know more, but I can only accept as 100% true what I can see and prove myself.

Funny those are blocked on the government owned WiFi I tried to use. Ill check it out later.

If "stars" are points of light caused by the electromagnetic field (where do you think that comes from?) Then what are the "planets"? They act differently and you can look at them with amateur telescopes as spherical and rotating. (I'm not trying to sound combative if I do)

The person who presented that theory suggested that the North pole was the source of that field. I haven't adopted this theory myself, I just thought it was interesting. The north pole would seem to be the strongest magnet on earth because of how compasses function.

As for planets, far back in history they were referred to as "wandering stars" because their paths did not follow the same patterns as stars. I really don't know what their nature is though.

They move and loop across the sky.

Okay and one personal question. How long have you believed in this theory?

Two months. Which I know isn't very long. But the evidence is extremely compelling.

Did you know that you can fly from Sydney, Australia to Los Angeles, USA nonstop flying only over the Pacific Ocean? Shouldn't that take way longer with your view of Earth than on globe?

And how does Flat Earth deal with earthquake P- and S-waves?

Please consult this users post history to see why I don't reply to him.

This user is mad I destroyed his view in this comment using math. He said I'd made errors and that he'd fix it "after work". He then never responded and tells people to check my history instead of keeping discussions relevant.

It's easy to see what you are, ChangeThroughTruth (as if the username isn't a huge tip-off).

if anyone else if reading this i encourage them to read that entire conversation and make up their own minds about each of us.

How come you never corrected my math? Couldn't find an issue with it after all?

You didn't even answer the question I asked, your math was irrelevant. Again, if anyone is interested, please read the full post that he referenced.

You: "Do you know how far the horizon line would need to be below your eye level in order for the earth to be a sphere of circumference 25000 miles?"

Me: Math that gives the distance from Earth where you can take a picture of the entire round Earth.

You were saying?

I was saying that people should read through your posting history, and all of the thread that you referenced so that they can see what you are.

They will see that answering that question is pointless as you are just a mindless debunk machine. There will always be more questions, so engaging you is pointless. For all the time I spent answering your questions it was quite clear that you never consulted the resources I presented.

mindless debunk machine.

Who uses math, logic and reason. So you're just giving up? You find someone that is capable of processing numbers to either prove or disprove your claims and you're just going to quit?

Explain to me how Russian MIGs flying north will eventually end up crossing the arctic circle and will then be flying south into Canadian airspace with your crazy flat earth theory. Do they somehow pop over some sort of space gap or something? How can an airliner go from New York to Tokyo, refuel and proceed to Bangkok, and then on to London before returning to New York. You're distracting from real issues with your insane idea. Have you ever been in an airplane? Do you not see the curvature of the earth itself from up there?!

Explain to me how Russian MIGs flying north will eventually end up crossing the arctic circle and will then be flying south into Canadian airspace with your crazy flat earth theory.

The generally accepted model of the flat earth has the North pole at the middle, so there is no problem with this scenario.

How can an airliner go from New York to Tokyo, refuel and proceed to Bangkok, and then on to London before returning to New York.

Again, this seems like you just haven't looked at the model of the flat earth. There is no reason why this is a problem.

You're distracting from real issues with your insane idea. Have you ever been in an airplane? Do you not see the curvature of the earth itself from up there?!

This is a real issue. I have been in planes. Next time you sit down in your seat, look out the window before you take off. Do straight objects outside appear to be bent due to the curvature of the window? If you are certain that the window isn't warping objects, then take a look at the horizon when you are in the air. Are you sure it is curved?

So explain how Chilean planes could travel across the south pole and reach South African airspace then. I've seen your theories before, they're bunk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQw_C5KLhFM

These guys have footage from multiple cameras that show your poorly constructed counter argument of the window warping the imagery is just bunk too. You can see how as the height increases the curvature of our planet becomes absolutely apparent. In a word, no, straight objects do not appear to be bent through aircraft windows. Any amateur photo of a takeoff or landing can show you the straight, unbent edges of local buildings.

That is a nice video, are you sure you are actually seeing a curve there? Try pausing and using a straight edge.

Its called "Forum Sliding". You bury facts and government corruption by down voting them and flooding with "The joooos did it" and flat earth posts.

Upvote speculation, downvote facts, whistleblowers and journalists.

I was going to upvote you till I saw the classic "the joooos did it" mindset so you get an automatic downvote for being a dumbass.

Those in power behind THE international conspiracy of our age are without a doubt zionists. To make those that are aware of this look foolish by typing such things it just goes to show your ignorance, or intentional disinformation.

Yes. There is a high concentration of jews. However saying "Jooos did 9/11" is a distraction, when people in the administration were responsible for planning and executing it. It was very specific people, who had specific roles and took specific actions.

People need to stop blaming racial groups and scapegoating. Attacking jews as a group does not bring us any closer to a solution. If you got rid of all of the jews, it would just be another group doing the same thing.

There are more Jews who disapprove of this bullshit, than Jews who were involved in the conspiracy.

However saying "Jooos did 9/11" is a distraction

Nah, how is it a distraction when the evidence is VERY clear it was a mossad OP (with help from other sources obviously).

It was very specific people, who had specific roles and took specific actions.

Yep, dancing israelis, there to "document the event". And their friends of course.

People need to stop blaming racial groups and scapegoating.

Judaism is not a racial group. It is a religion. Scapegoating is a poor choice of words considering SOMEONE is to blame for the event, and the evidence is quite clear on who.

Attacking jews as a group does not bring us any closer to a solution.

I agree, no one is attacking jews "as a group". A select number of zionists and their friends are who are to blame. They just all happen to be jews.

If you got rid of all of the jews, it would just be another group doing the same thing.

What a statement, I don't even...

There are more Jews who disapprove of this bullshit, than Jews who were involved in the conspiracy.

That is quite possibly true, but irrelevant regardless. THE JEWS as in all jews were of course not responsible for 9/11 just like THE CHRISTIANS were responsible for the crusades. It's specific groups that are to blame.

In this case, that specific group is zionist jews. Plain and simple.

The Coriolis effect and Hadley's cells effectively debunk any FE theory. Low pressure systems spin clockwise in the Southern hemisphere and counter-clockwise in the Northern hemisphere.

This is directly observable and only explainable by the earth being a sphere. I've posted this before in response to FE people, and the response was less than adequate to convince me otherwise.

[deleted]

Along that same line we have this: The Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition completed a crossing of Antarctica via the South Pole in 1958.

Unfortunately this is not the trip you would like it to be, the expedition went from a ross sea base to a weddell sea base. From the map you can see that the trip is not what would be needed to be held as the crossing of the antartic through the south pole that it is advertised to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weddell_Sea

The New Zealand party included scientists participating in International Geophysical Year (IGY) research while the UK IGY team were separately based at Halley Bay..

So, including support teams, it covered the distance from Halley and went through the South Pole to Scott Base, very near McMurdo Base. While it didn't cross the longest dimension of Antarctica, it still proves that the flat earth model is impossible. 1500 miles is a far, far cry from the 30,000 or so miles required by the flat earth model.

Idk but its a very interesting subject...I've recently jump down that rabbit hole and there's some pretty compelling evidence for it as freaking crazy as it sounds.

There is no evidence for it.

Just no

there's some pretty compelling evidence for it

For example?

just look into it instead of asking people on reddit! google it!

I have and didn't find anything compelling. Videos of balloon cameras looking at the horizon entering space didn't really do anything for me

Find me a cross-ocean flight in the southern hemisphere. http://planefinder.net/

Oh Oh...we have one RIGHT NOW!! SA223 it's going from Sao Paulo to Johannesburg. Lets see how far into the Atlantic it gets!

What is going to happen to it?

fucking disappear, like it just did! This is so fucked up! where did it go?!?! FIND IT!! WHERE THE FUCK DID IT GO? it happens EVERY FUCKING TIME! they turn off the GPS !!!

SA223

still there : )

print screen. I don't see it

That's because there aren't any ADS-B receivers within the range of that aircraft. Before you use a website to support your claims understand the technology it's using to display its data.

why can't they just use GPS?

You clearly have no idea how GPS or ADS-B work, at all. Take some time and research it, just like you're telling others to do with the flat earth theory you're pimping. If you're as good as you claim at research and proving your own theories then figuring out how such a simple concept works should be a piece of cake.

GPS isn't a 2 way communication, how is using GPS alone supposed to relay the position of the plane to the website without using some other form of communication? The planes GPS receiver (which relies on some geosynchronous orbital satellites whose existence themselves disprove your flat earth claim) does the complex math based on the time signal received from these satellites (more info here: http://www.aholme.co.uk/GPS/Main.htm) and triangulates its own position based upon that. That data is then used by the flight computers and communicated over a long distance (but with a finite range) to ground control stations and ADS-B receivers within reception range. This location data is sent along with airspeed, call sign and other pertinent details of the aircraft as per the ADS-B spec. Go educate yourself on some real science, particularly the math required to triangulate your position using a geosynchronous satellites time signals and why that math also proves the earth is spherical.

I'm a CCNP, I know how data communication works! I didn't know much about ADS-B until today, i had to look it up. Stop being a cunt.

again, I'm not saying earth is flat! Im just 80% sure it's round! there are some other issues! it's not JUST THIS! and i don't trust NASA! it's a money sink hole with rockets! sorry if i don't believe these secretive mother fuckers

Explain flight paths now please, you seem to know you're shit. Why do almost all flights from southern hemisphere to southern hemisphere have to make a stop in the northern hemisphere?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yNVgzk3tbl0#t=330

start at 5:30

It's all economics, no airline is going to fly a route that has a low passenger load because it's not as profitable, or perhaps not profitable at all. I watched this video yesterday, that was the first thing that came to mind when the subject turned to direct flights between these areas. No one in Johannesburg wants to go to Perth so there is very few options for a direct flight, the best option (for the airlines, not for the convenience of the individual) is to slap you on a profitable flight to another location and let you skip and hop your way to your destination on routes that earn the airlines more money. I sometimes run into the same problems simply trying to get a same day flight between YEG and YVR, google suggests I layover in YLW for 12 hours before finishing the last 45 minutes of flight because that's the only way I'm going to make it happen in my schedule requirements; of course at that point I would simply drive instead since that 12 hour layover is longer than the entire trip by car. The reason it's so much more prevalent in the southern hemisphere is once again due to the significant population of poorer people, they don't travel because they can't afford to so the airlines don't bother opening more routes for convenience sake as they'll never turn a profit from them.

No one in Johannesburg wants to go to Perth

give me data! I love how you pull shit out of your ass as fact. no one lol.. some top kek.

Sorry, i don't buy it.

Argle Bargle. Foofahrah.

English mother fucker

Like this one you mean?

Disinfo.

Everyone should watch this interview, this Conspiracy seems to be the mother of them all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHxKK-HkEzY

• Google "pictures of earth from Space" Hmm....very few for the amount of satellites we supposedly have.

• Spherical Trigonometry, You can see lighthouses further away than you should, boats DO NOT disappear on the horizon, You can see them with telescopes/binocs.

-What's up with all these "Composites" from NASA? The only Earth images they push are ones from the Apollo missions over 40 years ago. Anyone who has done 10 mins of research into Apollo knows that's a scam/hoax. So these pics can't be trusted.

• Why is Antarctica blocked off by the Armed Forces of the World? Any third party explorers are turned away at GUN POINT.

• All Ancient Cultures of our world believed/knew our Earth was a disc. Mayans, Inca, Native Americans, etc. etc.

Try to debunk FE yourself. Try to do it without using NASA(Not A Space Agency) CGI/Painting photos. Hmmmmmm

[deleted]

Oh man, you are doing your best but it's pointless...

These characters (which are probably all one real person) cannot be told anything.

Every bit of YOUR evidence needs to be experienced first hand, but they can claim "lack of proof otherwise" as evidence of flatness... You get all kinds of comments like "Well, you obviously haven't looked into it much" and bad logic...

I think it's completely fake. I dunno who's "running" it and I'm not sure why they are doing it, but I doubt any of the recent promoters of this flat-earth BS actually believe it.

AND YET... Like watching a car crash, I seem to be unable to take my eyes away, and have already watched 45 minutes of simply awful video by that jeranism guy. I seethe and hate it and hate him but I still continue... Weird.

As to your main question :

Antarctica is a separate continent and not the "edge". Please prefer to Willmore's more preferred map.

Eric Dubay and other FE researchers discuss this in detail. Their videos are all on youtube.

I am certain that the world is flat after having been engrossed in it for over a month. The evidence for no curvature over large distances of water, among other proofs is just too strong. However, I'm not sure that we have an accurate map. Even continent sizes and distribution are difficult to know.

Do you have a link to Willmore's map?

Fractal earth theory. Look into it.

[deleted]

Not when I just made it up. meep meepb:P:P:P:P:P:P:Pvroooshh

Because the Earth is flat and this is the mother of all conspiracies, the one you've been brainwashed with from the beginning.

You won't believe it until you try to disprove it.

If the Earth was a sphere, you could observe it, and reproduce proof of that. If it was flat, you could observe it, and reproduce proof of that. Look into the reproducible proof.

If the Earth was a sphere, you could observe it, and reproduce proof of that. If it was flat, you could observe it, and reproduce proof of that. Look into the reproducible proof.

OK... so prove the earth is flat.

prove its round! those pictures are composites. There is no picture of a full round earth!

OK, there's this one shot from orbit around the moon.

There's this one from the GOES East Satellite

And any number of other photos from satellites and spacecraft that have been taken for the past 50 years. Do you really think that EVERY one of those photos is faked?

Your turn:

How do you explain gravity?

If the Earth were not round, whole hemispheres would have different atmospheric pressure and significantly different sea levels. What causes them to all have the same gravitational readings?

How do you explain the fact that ships sink below the horizon?

When its noon in Hawaii, its midnight in the middle East. How is this possible if the earth were flat?

You clearly haven't done your research. All of those are answered. I'll give you one! Gravity as you know is not real. Tesla did not believe in it and called Einstein a fraud.

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

enjoy this as well https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dnIfYx6NXK4

OK, this is amazing.

So what is gravity?

google tesla gravity

Why dont you just explain it to me?

I don't belive any images from the "moon landings"! as far as the NOAA GOES images ... sorry to break it to ya.. but they are a composite! it's not a single image taken! http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/composites.html

plus, isn't earth supposed to be pear-shaped? or a spheroid, per sir Isac Newton! I see a perfect circle !

so.. yea.. that is NOT a single snap shot image! One might ask.. why is every image we have of earth (beside the moon one!) is a composite? Look into it.. they are all composites!

[deleted]

debunk this! Find me a flight in the southern hemisphere that goes across the ocean! say, from Sao Paulo to Johannesburg. http://planefinder.net/ You can't! and if you do, its right off the coast and it will say, contacted X minutes ago, and all of a sudden POOF. they disappear! all of them.

prove me wrong !

derp derp debunked! ... dwerp... gawd you people! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzWHqooAJtM

[deleted]

does it? Have you been there? Have you measured it yourself? or assemble a team to go on an expedition? UN controls it: o

Antarctica does not belong to any nation, but is governed under an international treaty that bars countries from owning or exploiting its land. The 1959 Antarctic Treaty, signed by 45 nations, suspended the claims of seven countries for territory in the region.

Access to Antarctica is restricted by the Antarctic Treaty. If you want to organize your own trip or expedition there, you will have to request permission from the government of your own country. You will have to show that you will be completely self sufficient and have a very good reason for wanting to go which will have little or no environmental impact, again you will have to show how you will do this. If you can't do this, you will be denied permission and will be breaking the law if you just go anyway, you will also be breaking the law if you stay longer than you said you would.

Now, explain to me why there are no flights in the southern hemisphere and if there are, they FUCKING DISAPPEAR from the map after like 20 minutes. and why every flight between Australia, South America, and South Africa, need to stop in the northern hemisphere first?!

oh, and just to fuck with you, the body that owns it, has a flag of the flat earth where Antarctica is missing!HAHAHA you can't make this shit up man!

wake up! i know, it's hard.

[deleted]

but you CAN go the grand canyon! you can NOT go to Antarctica unless you get permission!!!

the Flights matter! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNVgzk3tbl0

and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VpWYpAWxrM

[deleted]

per usgs ya? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VpWYpAWxrM

[deleted]

what he means is that al-bruni lived around 1000 a.d but you're right. Im not sure why he said it's al-bruni's map. again. Can you explain the flight paths to me? why do they have to stop in northern hemisphere?

[deleted]

that video was fucking stupid! instead of making points it had a fucking beny hill sound track just calling people crazy and dumb, cutting videos in and out, and it didn't explain my questions. Thanks for nothing. If you think that video explained anything, then i don't think you fully understand the plane routes.

[deleted]

never called them dumb! IF this is true, the people who are involved are by no means dumb, and actually brilliant.

Don't believe it! it's okay man! i'm not selling it. This is what I believe personally. Unless you and I hold hands, and sale down to Antarctica and go around the diameter ourselves, we will never know for sure.

The diameter of the Earth is about 30km larger through the equator than the poles. This is too small to be noticed by the human eye on a body the size of the Earth.

Also you can look at the ISS live stream anytime you want for proof of a spherical Earth.

you mean this? http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/HDEV/ The effect of which can be achieved by simply installing a fish eye lens? lol

Since you're arguing in good faith can I assume that you will never, ever use the "pear-shaped" argument again, since you now know the reasons why the Earth appears spherical in photos? Do you acknowledge that the Earth should appear round (in pictures) to the unaided eye?

yes! but only if you agree that Neal Tyson shouldn't call earth pear-shaped then! when someone said it's fucking pear shaped you think of a pear! lol

Do you agree that he so called "blue marble" is not a real picture of earth, taken at once, but instead a composite image?

He is technically correct...the Earth has a small equatorial bulge.

To answer your question: I don't know. Probably.

When its noon in Hawaii, its midnight in the middle East. How is this possible if the earth were flat?

This would be answered if you had once looked into any of the claims Flat Earthers are making. You have proven that you have not spent a single moment investigating this.

To anyone reading this, the answer is simple if you look at the model that Flat Earthers use. Hint: it doesn't have an "edge" that you can fall off.

OK, that explains why no one falls off the earth.

I now have a ton of questions for you that I hope you can answer.

What's on the other side?

How deep is this disc? The deepest known point on the earth is the Challenger Deep, part of the Mariana Trench. Its 35,000 feet below sea level. How much deeper is the earth? If we dig deep enough, do we fall through the planet?

With this particular model, how can it be daytime in one section of the disc and night time in another?

After returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that “there are stars seen in Egypt and Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” How is this possible?

How about this: Sundials - If you stick a stick in the ground, it will produce a shadow. The shadow moves as time passes. If the world is flat, two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow. But they dont. How is this possible?

Why do ships sink into the horizon as they travel further away from the observer?

What about phases of the moon? What causes those?

In 1966 Astronaut Eugene Cernan took this picture of Gemini 9 with the Earth behind it during his EVA (Extravehicular Activity). Why is the Earth curved?

How do you explain satellites that run on a polar orbit?

Here's a video showing the orbit pattern of Europe's EUMETSAT weather satellite:

https://youtu.be/y_jM_BxQGvE

How is that possible?

What about the Coriolis effect? Why do hurricanes that are above the equator always turn to the right, but when you are South of the equator, they turn to the left?

Here's a good one:

If you walk 10,000 kilometers in a straight line, then turn 90 degrees to your right, walk another 10,000 kilometers, then make another 90 degree right turn and walk another 10,000 kilometers, you will be back to where you started. How is this possible if the surface of the Earth is flat?

Thanks for answering all these questions. I look forward to reading your replies.

if you look at the model that Flat Earthers use. Hint: it doesn't have an "edge" that you can fall off.

Ive looked at your model that you posted:

If i was continued to walk and walk in the direction past antarctica, what would happen, unless its infinite, i would eventually reach and end

also: how high is the sun?

If i was continued to walk and walk in the direction past antarctica, what would happen

Why do you think I have the authority to answer that question? Would you just accept any answer that sounds legitimate? I don't know the answer as none of us have experienced it.

how high is the sun?

About as high as the moon.

If i was continued to walk and walk in the direction past antarctica, what would happen

Why do you think I have the authority to answer that question? Would you just accept any answer that sounds legitimate? I don't know the answer as none of us have experienced it.

Ok so you don't know but are so sure we wouldn't fall off

how high is the sun?

About as high as the moon.

That doesn't answer the question at all? How high in km or miles?

Also how do we get eclipses?

What verifiable, reproducible observable evidence do you have that the sun is about as high as the moon?

You can start with Eratosthenes' experiment. The same results help approximate the distance to the sun, if you assume a flat plane instead of assuming a sphere.

There is also the observation that the sun and the moon are the same size in the sky.

You can also find many photographed examples of the sun creating a "spotlight" on clouds or on open water, all signs that it is much closer than millions and millions of miles away.

The extremes in climate that we experience from the poles to the equator is rightfully attributed to the sun. However, the alleged difference between the equator and the poles is on the scale of thousands of miles while the distance from the sun is allegedly on the scale of some 90 million miles - it doesn't make sense for a few thousand miles out of 90 million miles to be responsible for that much extreme variation.

If you want to look at climates, the completely different climates and flora and fauna of the Arctic and Antarctica should help clue you in that the heliocentric model is not sufficient explanatory.

Does the second slide imply the sun and moon are always opposite each other, or have I misunderstood what it's trying to demonstrate?

I've been trying, but most people will not even listen to what the Flat Earthers are saying long enough to hear the basic ideas that would answer their questions.

For the record, I'm also /u/qthagun and /u/slack-magician-boy. I made the alt account /u/slack-magician-boy when I stumbled upon Flat Earth, and didn't want to taint any of the efforts I had done on vaccines with possible disinformation. Both of those accounts have since been shadowbanned once I started discussing Flat Earth.

Fuck protecting my identity or ego. The Holocaust was a hoax as well, even though it's an extremely unpopular idea here.

Here are some recent flat Earth posts where I have put forward some proof. You can see from the comments that most don't even read or comprehend the proof before raging out with all of their unanswered questions.

Where should I start with a proof? We can see distances that would be impossible if the Earth was curved, and a copy of the book "Lighthouses of the World" and a calculator are all that you need to prove that there is no curvature to the Earth.

Eratosthenes of Cyrene proved the Earth was spherical over 2,000 years ago and it's been proven hundreds of times since.

How can you really entertain this utter bullshit?

Eratosthenes experiment only proves that the Sun is a lot closer than millions of miles away, consistent with the Flat Earth observation that it is the same size as the moon in the sky.

And the fact that we have airplanes flying around the earth every day? You don't think we'd have figured out that you can fly off the edge by now? Or that you would be able to see the edges from 50,000 feet in the air? What about all those satellites that are in orbit? How the hell do you think GPS or your TV stations work?

Anyone talking about an "edge" is proving that they have never spent even a minute looking into the Flat Earth claims. There is no edge to the Flat Earth Model.

If you have real questions, you should try looking for the answers before trying to argue over them.

Yeah so I'm looking at your flat earth model and there is clearly an edge. What happens if you fly all the way to antarctica? Do you magically appear on the other side like you're in a video game?

Right now the only thing that the combined militaries of Earth can agree on is that no civilians are allowed to explore Antarctica. I would love to contribute to humanity's continued exploration and search for knowledge, but I'm just one person and can't stand up to the combined militaries of the Earth by myself.

I have to admit, this is some grade A trolling you've got going on here.

I'm not trolling and you're clearly unwilling to actually look into this.

Don't think I'm not aware of what you're trying to do here. Nobody is this fucking stupid.

So afraid to be marginalized in your controversial opinions, you are quick to marginalize others.

How much time have you honestly spent researching the ideas of Flat Earth, that you are so vehemently denouncing a stranger over your assumed higher knowledge?

Because it's moot. You're here to troll and spread disinformation.

Why would there be a conspiracy to cover up the shape of the planet? What exactly would be the reason to lie to everyone?

So far they've created an atheistic materialistic one world religion, but there's likely much more to it than that, and the answer is bound up in what lies beyond the ring of Antarctica.

So this would be the definite long game. You have church scientists from a thousand years ago that determine the earth is round, and the conspiracy has been intact since then, as part of the churchs push to create...an atheistic society? And remember how back in those days there were no ways to communicate like today, so how on earth would such a vast conspiracy be coordinated? I mean, science aside, the theory is completely logistically nigh impossible.

What's more likely..this conspiracy, or the fact that maybe you don't understand some of the science in play, so you misinterpret things and come to a conclusion that is, well, out there. People hate to think that maybe they don't know the truth, and sometimes the truth is not exciting enough so we seek more.

No, that's not it at all, but it doesn't sound like you're interested in learning more.

I was gently implying that the answer to your question requires knowledge that none of us (plebs) posesses, but it seems like you're more interested in finding base speculation you can mock.

No, im not mocking, but I refuse to.spend an inordinate amount of time.exploring a far out theory unless someone can make a prima facie case that such a thing exists. The larger the claim, the larger the proof required. See, you do what you do whenever someone finds issue with your claim. You say im too close minded. Im simply asking for a brief answer as to why such a conspiracy would exist. And you left an incredibly vague answer.

Hell, I may be a potential strong advocate for this theory. I happen to have a very open mind. But if you are going to propose that everything we know about our planet is not just wrong, but a purposeful lie, then id like some reasoning for such a sham to have been perpetrated.

I have an open mind but am only willing to respond to blind speculation, I am completely unwilling to look at any of the evidence presented or even research this independently. The amount of time I have spent in my response I could have used to research this but I find it more important to justify my ego than to expand it.

Cheerio. What makes you think I haven't been examining the links you presented? So far I have nor read a good reason "why", but since you apparently cannot provide a reasonable reason, im left to conclude there must not be one. Good luck in your endeavors. Not sure how successful you'll be if you cant present a valid reason behind the why of your theory. Instead you can continue to blame the person on the other side. It apparently works as a defense mechanism for you.

The Holocaust was a hoax as well[4] , even though it's an extremely unpopular idea here.

Not on r/conspiracy, most people are aware of that, that I know of.

You're right. I tried to debunk flat earth a few weeks ago. I couldn't do it. I'm still trying to digest.

A good Interview with one of the most Prominent FE researchers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHxKK-HkEzY

Go up anything tall on a clear day. Look out the window of a plane. Dumbass.

You though 911 was a conspiracy. You've only scratched the surface buddy

So there's a conspiracy to hide the fact that the earth is flat?

All those other observable planets in the solar system that look round are what...just holograms or something?

The fact that you can squirt water in zero gravity and it forms a ball is just a strange coincidence?

This whole idea that the earth is flat comes from ignorance. Sorry, but there's just no nice way to put it.

Thats what I used to think as well! One day it will be more clear for you. All I can tell you is that i no longer believe 100% that the earth is flat! I'm like 60% sure it's round, but there are some serious, serious problems with it.

here is a raging clue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNVgzk3tbl0

see if you can find cross ocean flights in the southern hemisphere http://planefinder.net/

go ahead.. find one.

Seems not a single person using flight tracking to prove flat earth theory has considered the economics of air travel. You know why there are fuck all for direct options for Joho to Perth? Because passenger demand is minimal and if you need to fly there outside the availability of the direct route options you have to use more economically viable (read: profitable to the airlines based on costs per passenger) route, which means going out of your way.

why do they disappear on gps ? but only in the southern hemisphere?

Learn about how those sites work. ADS-B is not GPS. Those sites usually rely upon hobbyists sharing ADS-B data that said hobbyists receive using things like SDR radios and homemade antennas, range is definitely an issue there and such a vast chunk of ocean is going to put planes beyond the range of that kind of set up. You too can test this for yourself, hit up /r/rtlsdr for more information on the interesting things you can do with a ten dollar usb receiver.

But it works in the northern hemisphere ?

Yeah, because the distance between land masses is less in the northern hemisphere, and the number of ADS-B receivers (both commercial and amateur) throughout North American and Europe is far, far greater along with the fact amateur receivers also need an active internet connection to share data, something the third world (Africa, large parts of South America) are lacking along with basic needs like water, and food.

Interesting! Thank you! TIL

It's just one guy with several alt accounts that are about that old or younger. He runs away anytime anyone debunks one of his claims.

The irony.

An examination of HaltNWO's post history is very informative.

Yeah, he's sitting at -100 comment karma which is what it's capped at site wide. He's probably around -30k by now.

Still scared to continue our discussion?

2D Hologram There's a theory that our reality is a 2D hologram and we only perceive it as 3D. Therefore, in 2D, the Earth is flat. Flat earth. Done.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I actually considered flat earth theory, going against my rational mind, and for once considering the possibility that conventional physics and thousands of scientists are either misled or in on a conspiracy.

It isn't flat.

People aren't suppressing flat earth comments because they're "on to something".

It is flat out ignorance to science. There are many theories I hold to be true, but this one is seriously bogus. People downvote these posts because it is just downright wrong. Not every convincing person on YouTube is right.

The guy who proposes the moon has a hologram covering it is a proven looney, and extremely egotistical and most likely a paranoid schizophrenic. You wouldn't know that unless you research the contrary.

I'm all about people prying into things for the truth, but this is not it. Simple observation disproves this.

The entire scientific county laughs, or rather spites it, because it is incredibly ignorant. This is one of the drawbacks of the internet. You can get sucked into crazy town and never leave based on lack of knowledge and research.

Why such surge ? because a purge is coming caused by a partial soon to be complete release of the truth, starting with slow manipulated pieces of it for disinfo but people have yet to really wake up in their critical thinking process, we are starting to believe that things on earth are not what they seems to be, the bigger picture will eventually light the room, thinking earth is flat is actually irrelevant and not that important.

AMA : Small Solar System Binary Star of the Sun Inbound ! http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/37rryk/ama_small_solar_system_binary_star_of_the_sun/

You can take some and leave so but I believe this thread contain a lot of new informations to digest that can help in your research's.

Thanks for being concerned and posting your thoughts (upvoted) !

I disagree that it is unimportant. It is physically provable through experiments you can do yourself. Once you show it to someone they are instantly opened up. They must know more. It is the ultimate wakeup, a powerful tool for raising the level of consciousness.

I agree with you, powerful tool indeed to wake humanity in some way, only good intentions in doing that but if you want to give pieces of the truth give it in a manner to avoid confusion concerning the questions of why does it look like we are living in a flat earth or inside a physicality dome matrix prison planet, where light and time is different from the rest of the universe and can be easily bended (no other planet like EARTH)

I just opened this Sparrow account 2 weeks ago, check out my last replies if you are interested in the subject !

To expand your mind, never deny anything :)

PS:

I do take back my words(without editing) when I said it was irrelevant and not important, it wasn't very appropriate and sounded more rude, pointless to say, my apologies :)

I've been trying, but most people will not even listen to what the Flat Earthers are saying long enough to hear the basic ideas that would answer their questions.

For the record, I'm also /u/qthagun and /u/slack-magician-boy. I made the alt account /u/slack-magician-boy when I stumbled upon Flat Earth, and didn't want to taint any of the efforts I had done on vaccines with possible disinformation. Both of those accounts have since been shadowbanned once I started discussing Flat Earth.

Fuck protecting my identity or ego. The Holocaust was a hoax as well, even though it's an extremely unpopular idea here.

Here are some recent flat Earth posts where I have put forward some proof. You can see from the comments that most don't even read or comprehend the proof before raging out with all of their unanswered questions.

Where should I start with a proof? We can see distances that would be impossible if the Earth was curved, and a copy of the book "Lighthouses of the World" and a calculator are all that you need to prove that there is no curvature to the Earth.

prove its round! those pictures are composites. There is no picture of a full round earth!

Anyone talking about an "edge" is proving that they have never spent even a minute looking into the Flat Earth claims. There is no edge to the Flat Earth Model.

If you have real questions, you should try looking for the answers before trying to argue over them.

So explain how Chilean planes could travel across the south pole and reach South African airspace then. I've seen your theories before, they're bunk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQw_C5KLhFM

These guys have footage from multiple cameras that show your poorly constructed counter argument of the window warping the imagery is just bunk too. You can see how as the height increases the curvature of our planet becomes absolutely apparent. In a word, no, straight objects do not appear to be bent through aircraft windows. Any amateur photo of a takeoff or landing can show you the straight, unbent edges of local buildings.

Unfortunately this is not the trip you would like it to be, the expedition went from a ross sea base to a weddell sea base. From the map you can see that the trip is not what would be needed to be held as the crossing of the antartic through the south pole that it is advertised to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weddell_Sea

The implications certainly are large. It gives more importance to our existence if we are not simply the result of a random organization of matter.

On the topic of aliens my opinion is that they are one massive psy-op. If you look at who is the money behind promoting aliens the answer is too often Rockefeller (http://redefininggod.com/2014/10/why-are-the-rockefellers-and-the-jesuits-guiding-the-ufo-disclosure-movement/ lots of other sources available). We are currently working through the manufactured conflict between the West and Islam. But this is wearing thin. At some point they need a new artificial conflict to keep us in fear and begging them to give us 'security'. What better way to do that than a threat that unites the whole planet where we beg them to keep us safe, such as a faked alien invasion? This is of course just speculation, but the money pushing the alien theme is very telling. Hollywood pumps out all kinds of stuff on this topic, and we know who owns Hollywood.