The lol files

OP, if you have spent time carefully sorting and linking to all of these then I have to applaud you for your effort and what you would say is research.

Call me narrow minded or whatever but the Flat Earth is just not something I can even start to take seriously.

But again, if you have put this together yourself then I commend you on your efforts. Have an upvote for that.

The point is being able to look into an idea and its supporting evidence to see if it works or not. Rejecting anything outright means that your mind is closed. It's a good test.

You have to actually form an argument,

Expecting someone to review 100 citations of possibly complete bullshit is not on the 'other' to learn.

You have to argue the value and variable weight of the topic, and how those sources relate to that argument.

I could post 100 videos about big-foot. But that does not mean anyone who does not waste time watching them is bias, nor is there any argument made, so what is actually being asked of the conscious?

To simply consider flat-earth?

Most have. They consider it, based on the rest of their information available, to know its bullshit.

You have to convince people to invest time into learning what you feel is important to know; as they are regulating their mind by learning what they feel is [more] important.

Further, How many mermaid videos have you studies?

What are you, bias!?!?!

Are you replying to the correct person?

The goal is to have science actually prove their theories before telling us what is true. I think we can all agree that verification should never been demonized. But, here we are every day...

Science has proven the earth is round many times over. We test it every time we launch something into space, use GPS, look at other planets and stars, and make extremely accurate predictions about terrestrial and celestial events. If you can't perform those same feats with a flat earth model then it is not worth considering.

What test specifically proved it's a sphere? You obviously believe it's been proved, but I'm wondering how.

https://www.wired.com/2008/06/dayintech-0619/

He isnt posting neither and idea nor evidance. He is just shooting off every single link he could find towards this topic.

Imagine if scientists worked like that.

Wow you’re being incredibly simple minded

Show me one image from space depicting our flat Earth. Someone must have ONE.

Well the conspiracy is that NASA is faking images of a “round earth” so the only “flat/dome” earth pictures are depicted in ancient societies so they are easily dismissed by most. But an additional area that flat earth is depicted is in the Bible itself. Genesis 1:7 or Job 37:18.

So pretty interesting stuff

Ah the Bible. Definitely not full of made up stories.

There’s plenty of information in the Bible relevant to conspiracies, are you saying there isn’t anything to it?

You’re answer is really simple

Yes, I’m saying the Bible has nothing to do with proving a flat earth.

It's an ancient text among many which describes a flat earth. It doesn't prove the shape of the earth, but it adds to proof that for most of human history, the earth was thought to be flat.

We don’t need proof that humans used to think the earth was flat... no one denies that

that’s common knowledge.

It used to be common knowledge that the earth is flat. Think about it.

What's your argument?

There is nowhere in the Bible that describes a spherical Earth. Some passages directly describe it as flat, immovable, and covered, and others allude to it being flat. Other belief systems in different parts of the world and throughout history have also described a flat, covered earth. It was't until about 500 years ago before the spinning globe theory was pushed in mainstream science by sun-worshiping occultists. That theory has been put into question since flight and video have been invented, and with no evidence to support the theory since.

Every society since the ancient greeks and even before have known the earth is round. All it takes is watching the night sky and paying attention to the patterns of the sun and the moon. Once the greeks invented geometry that confirmed it.

Seriously, basic trig and geometry are enough to prove the earth is round. All of science only works if the earth is round. That's not taking anyone's word for it. That's plugging in the numbers and doing the calculations yourself.

If the world is so obviously flat, then why can't flat earthers come up with a consistent model?

Every society since the ancient greeks and even before have known the earth is round

There are no surviving written records of this (Eratosthenes, et al). This is based entirely on hearsay in books written in the 16th century.

All it takes is watching the night sky and paying attention to the patterns of the sun and the moon.

I do indeed, and their movements are more evidence that we are not on a spinning ball, but that the things we see in the sky are moving, not us. Funny that they move on a flat plane (the ecliptic), does that make ball earthers flattards as well?

All of science only works if the earth is round.

Very flimsy then. It all only works if gravity is what they say it is, but even then, they have no idea what it is, only that heavy things fall (the word gravity comes from a word for weight), and everything else about it (that it forms giant balls in a vacuum which then circle each other) is pure conjecture.

why can't flat earthers come up with a consistent model?

This is about proving that the existing scientific model is fatally flawed in numerous ways. Everything else is just theory, and theory we may not even be able to prove for several reasons: they won't let us circumnavigate the earth north/south, they won't let us have an expedition on Antarctica. Different people have different theories on what earth may be, or what shape it is, and offer their own proof. There won't be consensus.

There are no surviving written records of this (Eratosthenes, et al). This is based entirely on hearsay in books written in the 16th century.

At the absolute latest, we know that Plato and Aristotle taught that the earth was a sphere (~350-400 B.C.). Also, Eratosthenes is the father of geography and wrote a series of books with that title and attempted to map the known world

I do indeed, and their movements are more evidence that we are not on a spinning ball, but that the things we see in the sky are moving, not us. Funny that they move on a flat plane (the ecliptic), does that make ball earthers flattards as well?

I see a lot of assertions with absolutely no evidence. What is the evidence that the sky moves around us?

Very flimsy then. It all only works if gravity is what they say it is, but even then, they have no idea what it is, only that heavy things fall (the word gravity comes from a word for weight), and everything else about it (that it forms giant balls in a vacuum which then circle each other) is pure conjecture.

Weight has no meaning without gravity. Even if you wanted to reject the term "gravity", you would still have to come up with an explanation for the force that absolutely, positively exists

This is about proving that the existing scientific model is fatally flawed in numerous ways. Everything else is just theory, and theory we may not even be able to prove for several reasons: they won't let us circumnavigate the earth north/south, they won't let us have an expedition on Antarctica. Different people have different theories on what earth may be, or what shape it is, and offer their own proof. There won't be consensus.

But we have a working model for a round earth that we can use to predict events, send things into space, navigate the world, and relay communication signals. Why can't the flat earth model do the same if the round earth model is so flawed?

You don't have to go to Antarctica to go to the southern hemisphere and see that the night sky is completely different than it is in the north.

Plato and Aristotle taught that the earth was a sphere

Meanwhile the entirety of the intellectual and scientific community disagreed, well into Copernican times, when his theory was at first rejected by most astronomers and scientists. Going back in time to find someone who agrees with your theory today, does not prove your theory. Someone preaching the flying spaghetti monster today may be looked at a thousand years from now in the same way you look at Plato's thoughts on the sky: if everyone believes in the spaghetti monster, they'll say "Look, the spaghetti monster has been taught for a thousand years." You act as if there was scientific consensus when the Sun-worshipers posited their theory.

What is the evidence that the sky moves around us?

It visibly moves. No one would have thought the Earth was a sphere, not in the days of Eratosthenes, Plato, or Copernicus, without inventing wild theories of gravitational forces, which work on paper, but have never been tested (making it pseudoscience). They never thought hot air balloons would be invented which showed that the horizon did not fall from eye-level as expected. They never thought that video from a view from 120,000 feet, would show the same thing. The old theories were pseudo-scientific hypotheses based on the occult, with no proof, no evidence, still today.

explanation for the force that absolutely, positively exists

We're still waiting.

Meanwhile the entirety of the intellectual and scientific community disagreed, well into Copernican times, when his theory was at first rejected by most astronomers and scientists.

It's almost like there was a long period of religious fundamentalism that denied scientific discovery and attempted to purge ancient knowledge. Perhaps some sort of Dark Age.

The ancient greeks knew the earth was round. The Chinese, Aztecs, Mayans, and several others either thought the earth was flat or didn't care enough to ponder on it. I still fail to see how any of this matters to your contention that the earth is flat.

It visibly moves.

Which can be just as easily (significantly more easily?) explained by the earth rotating on its axis.

No one would have thought the Earth was a sphere, not in the days of Eratosthenes, Plato, or Copernicus, without inventing wild theories of gravitational forces, which work on paper, but have never been tested (making it pseudoscience).

Or they made observations and came up with theories that matched them. They were later confirmed and/or modified once we developed the scientific method and improved our knowledge of the universe.

They never thought hot air balloons would be invented which showed that the horizon did not fall from eye-level as expected. They never thought that video from a view from 120,000 feet, would show the same thing.

They don't show the same thing...at all. Here's a pretty well written article on the subject written specifically to address the claims of flat earthers: https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/08/flat-earth-follies-high-altitude.html

Until you can thoroughly debunk that article your "theory" holds no weight.

The old theories were pseudo-scientific hypotheses based on the occult, with no proof, no evidence, still today.

Except for the fact that we've been to space, the moon, circumnavigated the earth, launched rockets to other planets, precisely calculated gravitational distortion to light waves traveling here from space, and a myriad of other feats of science and technology.

We're still waiting.

Wow....just wow. Those subtitles are incredibly disingenuous and show an ALARMING lack of scientific knowledge. He is absolutely correct in that we don't know what gravity is. That doesn't mean we can't measure it, predict it, and observe it. Even if you deny the thing we call "gravity", you would still have to explain the force of attraction between objects.

That theory is not in question. There is tons of evidence that earth is round. People just choose to pretend that evidence is fake lol

Show me one picture from space of our globe that isnt cgi.

Or even easier, show me a single picture of one of the thousands of satellites orbiting the earth, not the ISS

How about any of the photos from space before 1970ish?

Or how about a flat Earth supporter fly a balloon up and set a camera up take a picture of the Earth? Both ways, the image would appear circular, but if the Earth were flat, the image will show a larger amount of area than an image from a globular Earth from the same height

Skepticism is healthy, but ignoring something that can be shown so easily isn't skepticism

Show me one picture from space of our globe that isnt cgi.

How have you confirmed that every single photo ever taken from space is CGI?

Or even easier, show me a single picture of one of the thousands of satellites orbiting the earth, not the ISS

Why not the ISS? Is it because you can just go outside and look at it?

Yes, I have.

Funny how you answer "not the ISS" with "but the ISS!!"

Yes, I have.

How?

Funny how you answer "not the ISS" with "but the ISS!!"

Funny how you think you can dismiss something that is clearly visible in the sky with the naked eye when your entire worldview relies purely upon personal observations

poor guy.

It must be exhausting clinging to a belief that is so blatantly false

lol

Didn't some guy try to and they won't let him?

Ya what happened to that guy who had the rocket ready...

They said he could not do it...

You could hardly call that a functioning rocket

I also wouldn't let some dude kill himself to be honest. Nobody is stopping him from launching a high altitude balloon to test his theory, which would also go far far higher than any rocket he would make himself.

Part of the flat earth theory is that space as is commonly considered is fake, so that makes doing space stuff hard.

This is like me saying the ultimate reason I know the earth is flat is because no one has ever been able to measure the curvature. I think this is because it's an optical illusion essentially based on your heigh and the weather to determine your viewing distance.

It looks like it could be curved from the naked eye, as boats seem to drop out of your view which is assumed curvature.

With the increase in technology and magnification we can show that the observable phenomenon is just a result of perspective and angular resolution. At no point does the boat go behind any curve, if it did we would not be able to bring it back into view via magnification.

Why would a direct flight from Bali to LA emergency stop in Alaska if the earth were a globe?

This is like me saying the ultimate reason I know the earth is flat is because no one has ever been able to measure the curvature

Eratosthenes measured the curvature of the earth 2000 years ago...

Well he measured shadows, not curvature. Also he assumed too many variable that he could not know.

And if you want to get technical, that experiment proves the flat earth too (of course we have to assume the flat earth model with the flat earth test and globe model for globe test).

These are the kinds of claims that I get asked literally every day. Even flat earth debunk videos will admit this fact.

Also he assumed too many variable that he could not know.

Name one

And if you want to get technical, that experiment proves the flat earth too (of course we have to assume the flat earth model with the flat earth test and globe model for globe test).

How so?

These are the kinds of claims that I get asked literally every day. Even flat earth debunk videos will admit this fact.

What fact?

A quick wiki search will confirm that he assumed: 1. Crepuscular rays (when the technology was not yet able to make this assessment, interesting...) 2. The distance of the sun (has changed since his experiment) 3. The size of the sun (has changed since his experiment)

The shadows he found work exactly as they should with a closer smaller local sun rotating around the center point, Polaris, on a flat earth. There is not much else to say here. Maybe watch vsauce's explanation if you remain skeptical.

The fact that the experiment proves both models based on the assumptions.

1. Crepuscular rays (when the technology was not yet able to make this assessment, interesting...)

What? How did you possibly reach that conclusion?

1. The distance of the sun (has changed since his experiment)

Completely irrelevant to the calculation

1. The size of the sun (has changed since his experiment)

Again, completely irrelevant to the calculation

The shadows he found work exactly as they should with a closer smaller local sun rotating around the center point, Polaris, on a flat earth. There is not much else to say here. Maybe watch vsauce's explanation if you remain skeptical.

No, they don't. Even if they did, then that model brings up dozens of other problems. I've watched the video, have you watched any of the MANY debunks?

The fact that the experiment proves both models based on the assumptions.

Everything we have ever observed about the sun proves that light rays enter the atmosphere roughly parallel. That's the only assumption made by Eratosthenes and it is a correct one

Looking at sun rays, no one would ever be able to assume they are parallel. No one had been outside of the earth atmosphere to make the hypothesis of parallel rays yet.

Why is it that globe earth theorists have to disagree about the globe model? How do they not work for a flat earth model?

I've seen a ton of debunks and debunks of the debunks, etc. I have looked into both side equally wih no biases as a globe earth theorist.

Looking at sun rays, no one would ever be able to assume they are parallel. No one had been outside of the earth atmosphere to make the hypothesis of parallel rays yet.

If you track shadows on the ground from hour to hour and day to day you could come to no other conclusion. Also, we absolutely know that sun rays enter the atmosphere virtually parallel

Why is it that globe earth theorists have to disagree about the globe model? How do they not work for a flat earth model?

Huh?

I've seen a ton of debunks and debunks of the debunks, etc. I have looked into both side equally wih no biases as a globe earth theorist.

And you find both sides to be equally valid? You think a few photos and youtube videos are the equal to thousands of years of scientific progress and observation?

How would he know that sun rays enter the atmosphere parallel? How would he confirm that thought even in the slight chance that he would come to that conclusion? He couldn't step outside the atmosphere and verify them could he?

Because if you watch the shadows around you, they all move in the same direction. Yet as you go farther toward the poles, the shadows elongate to the north or south. It seems like a sensible observation to me

Exactly. When the sun is above you the shadow will be minimal compared to the sun being at a lower angle in the sky (longer shadow).

So this is exactly what we would expect on a flat earth.

But like.. I can look up and see that the moon is round with my naked eyes

I am sure there is an unvetted link for that too!

Some theories state that the moon was created to control the months / the sun was created to control the days / and the stars “Polaris” to control the years .

I think he point is that they are all ROUND.

Do pool balls prove the pool table is round?

It would if we had every reason to believe the surface we were on was round.

If it looks like a planet and sounds like a planet and smells like a planet... it's a planet... which we can confirm with our own eyes are round.

We have every reason to believe the surface is not spherical (or pear-shaped). High-alt balloon video shows this. No curvature has every been measured, all water is level, no non-composite photographs of Earth which shows the shape they say it is, and so on.

You're clinging to a belief system because that's what you were taught, but you have yet to realize that what you were taught doesn't make practical sense and doesn't jibe with your own senses. The objects in the sky are round, but they do not prove the shape of the surface of Earth.

Sorry but the “water is flat” bullshit is just ridiculous (and I say this as someone who actually finds the flat earth theories interesting). Do you think that water in a glass on the moon or on mars would have a curve to it? The ground is also flat because the earth is absolutely incomprehensible enormous.

the earth is absolutely incomprehensible enormous

And yet I hear it all the time that ships seen only 3 miles away disappear over the curvature of this apparently tiny ball we are on. Then when video from high altitudes show an apparent flat plane stretching a thousand miles in every direction, the horizon of which rises to eye-level (which would not be possible on a sphere of any size), we are told that the ball is so huge, you will never see evidence of a curvature at all, not one degree of it.

Idk how far in the distance something is supposed to be to disappear over a horizon but I do know the very existence of a horizon is proof of a curvature...

the very existence of a horizon is proof of a curvature

The way we see things when we look out at the horizon is more consistent with an expanding flat plane than a globe. Look into optics and how vision works. Think of a looking out at a long hallway, and the way the floor appears to rise and ceiling appears to fall. Now think about a vanishing point, when your vision simply can't see further. That's the horizon.

Flat Earth Perspective Vs Globe Geometry Explained

It doesn't have anything to do with a vanishing point or the extent of your vision.

Thing disappear over the horizon that you see as your approach the same horizon.

It is a point at which the object is no longer in view because of curvature, not because of a vanishing point.

It's not comparable to a hallway because we're talking about enormous objects (like mountains or skyscrapers or the sun).

You see a pivoting circle that rotates about the North Star. Until you can see any other sides you are just assuming a sphere.

Please explain the south pole

Are you aware of the treaty that prohibits traveling below the 60degree south lattitute? This treaty has had continuous cooperation with Russia among many other countries.

It costs 60-80 per person to take a trip there. While on the trip you can only take mandated paths or trails and must let personnel know.

The South Pole is always the opposite of North on a compass. We know that compasses are attracted to the North Pole. So there is some magnetic force that pulls all compass needles that direction.

For circumnavigation, it works the same on the flat earth. If you hold an east or west bearing you will end up where you started.

The South Pole of course is located in a place that is unversally protected by most nations(might not include those who have yet to succumb to the FED).

Because of the curvature problem, if the earth were a globe it would have to be at least ten times larger and we want to know what's on the other side of Antarctica.

Are you aware of the treaty that prohibits traveling below the 60degree south lattitute? This treaty has had continuous cooperation with Russia among many other countries.

Because it is international territory that nobody wants to be owned or exploited by anyone else. Pretty obvious

It costs 60-80 per person to take a trip there. While on the trip you can only take mandated paths or trails and must let personnel know.

What does that even mean?

The South Pole is always the opposite of North on a compass. We know that compasses are attracted to the North Pole. So there is some magnetic force that pulls all compass needles that direction.

That's almost true. A compass is drawn to the north pole because it aligns itself with the Earth's magnetic field. Where the compass is pointing isn't always going to be directly north because the field bends around the earth's curvature and isn't static.

For circumnavigation, it works the same on the flat earth. If you hold an east or west bearing you will end up where you started.

The only way this makes sense is if the north pole is in the center and the south pole is at the edge. However, if you do that then the distances are thrown off horribly, especially as you go further south. There is no model of the flat earth that can account for GPS or circumnavigation as we know it.

The South Pole of course is located in a place that is unversally protected by most nations(might not include those who have yet to succumb to the FED).

Because, like I said, nobody currently owns it and the countries want to keep it that way for extremely obvious reasons.

Because of the curvature problem, if the earth were a globe it would have to be at least ten times larger and we want to know what's on the other side of Antarctica.

I'm going to need to see a source for this nonsense

I have to do some work today, so I'll just address the last part for now.

Magnification increases angular resolution (in reality). This is how we can test to see if boats falling beyond the horizon actually proves the globe or not.

If it's beyond the curvature, then no amount of magnification can bring it back into your view (you would just get a clearer picture of the water that is in front of the boat.

If the boat is not behind any curvature but disappeared due to angular resolution, magnification will bring it back into view.

So, magnification can test the claims of curvature.

Long range photography (done by ametuers with no dog in this debate) shows that we can see things that should be thousands of ft below and behind the curvature... some cases tens of thousands of ft of missing curvature.

Now, I want to be clear that I would bet anything against the current size of the globe. If it were a globe it would have to be way bigger and the earth as we know it would essentially be a slightly curved disc on the top (arbitratry) of the sphere. And I do think this is a possibility along with the earth being a flat plane.

Now that is only if you think algebra is real and Pythagoras is capable of doing basic algebra. I only say this because, i have just recently had a globe earth theorist denounce math all together saying it was fake... I don't know how to respond to that claim.

I'm happy to have a respectful conversation about this as it is an interesting topic. That much we should be able to agree on, oh and that Pythagoras knew how to math...

Long range photography (done by ametuers with no dog in this debate) shows that we can see things that should be thousands of ft below and behind the curvature... some cases tens of thousands of ft of missing curvature.

Examples? The only ones I've seen are caused by atmospheric refraction and even then you can't see the bottom of the subject.

Now, I want to be clear that I would bet anything against the current size of the globe. If it were a globe it would have to be way bigger and the earth as we know it would essentially be a slightly curved disc on the top (arbitratry location) of the sphere. And I do think this is a possibility along with the earth being a flat plane.

Where is your proof of this? We have lots of science and technology built upon knowing the size of the earth.

Now that is only if you think algebra is real and Pythagoras is capable of doing basic algebra. I only say this because, i have just recently had a globe earth theorist denounce math all together saying it was fake... I don't know how to respond to that claim.

What does algebra have to do with the size and shape of the earth?

I'm happy to have a respectful conversation about this as it is an interesting topic. That much we should be able to agree on, oh and that Pythagoras knew how to math...

Pythagoras thought the Earth was round though

Canigou mountain range. The bridge in china that spans over 100 miles. Anywhere that you would take awesome pictures, you can see evidence of missing curvature.

You can do the math to see how much is hidden or visible and compare that to the curvature (found with Pythagoras's equation for the hypotonuse).

They say he did, but he did give us the mathematical tools to test it (but you have to believe algebra works in order to believe the proofed results). They also say that the universe was created out of an explosion from nothing.... and that you are an ancestor of bacteria.

That's geometry, not algebra but sure. I see a lot of anecdotes but no hard data. Also, there is no reason you should be able to see the curvature of the earth the ground. Why do you think you should?

A² + b² = c² is considered geometry now? I must be getting old.

You should be able to see evidence of curvature. Things being hidden the appropriate amount by the curvature.

A2 + b2 = c2 is considered geometry now? I must be getting old.

.....this is new levels of dumb. Algebra by itself is meaningless, but algebraic expressions are used in virtually every form of mathematics. You can't be that dense

You should be able to see evidence of curvature. Things being hidden the appropriate amount by the curvature.

Like objects being partially obscured by the horizon? Because that happens. It should never happen on a flat earth. On a flat earth, everything should get smaller and smaller until it disappears. There's no reason for things to be partially obscured

You need to do more research on this. I'm not going to argue about it but that is just plain wrong.

Also, since you appear to be capable of doing said math. Can you find how much of a mountain should be hidden behind the curve on a globe model? The distance is 165 miles.

You need to do more research on this. I'm not going to argue about it but that is just plain wrong.

Claiming I need to do more research without refuting any of my points? Yeah, you're really inspiring me here.

Can you find how much of a mountain should be hidden behind the curve on a globe model? The distance is 165 miles.

Why?

Why? Because if your answer doesn't match reality, then you just discovered evidence for a flat earth... are you really this thick?

Why? Because if your answer doesn't match reality, then you just discovered evidence for a flat earth.

What evidence? I have no idea what you're talking about

You also have no idea what you're talking about. And people wonder why the flat earth is a litmus test for corral thinking.

I have close friends and colleagues that travel to Antarctica annually. We are a private company and in no way, shape or form are guarded by any sort of government entities. We take multiple helicopters to the ice so scientists can survey.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmkbAql5_jU

Oops, just disproved it all. Shame. All those hours and hours of work.

Great compilation, the programming in the “Dinosaurs” show was creepy as hell.

How recent is the “globe” theory as opposed to the “flat/dome” theory ?

I was curious to see what the people over in r/fe would have as far as evidence and what they had to say. I visited that place once and asked two respectful questions. Promptly got banned. So fe people can have their little safe space where outsiders with an open mind are not welcome at all.

Yea that is a controlled sub, they just bash the topic. It's kind of telling honestly...

Why the need to control the argument if it weren't true? If it's false then no one would give a shit after a glance.

Thanks, keep up the good fight, earth is flat!

My dead brother would have loved this post :(

Chemtrails are cool

Fuck Geoengineering.

What's it like being so stupid?

This is a really unhelpful comment

It's a good question

Someone's insecure

Holy exceptionally long list Batman!!

P.S. you’re not a’post to drink the bong water.

Just Listen

Did you read it?

I understand your anger, and accept it. You are suffering from the Back Fire effect because your core beliefs and values are being questioned. The same part of your brain that responds to a physical threat, also response to an intellectual one as well. Thus you act out in anger. Give your self time to be angry, let it scream until it runs out of steam, then take a deep breath and just listen. I am not here to tell you what to believe.

If you need someone to direct that anger at, feel free to respond to me with the most angriest, post you can imagine, and I will listen to you. I will listen because regardless of what I believe, we are in this stupid beautiful world, together all of us as humans, and I will be damned if I am accomplice to hatred. So, I love you and I will listen.

The constellations stay the same? I'm sold!

33 Is a Number Commonly Connected To Freemasonry. In Gematria The Words NASA, Blackhole, Bigbang, Kennedy, Rover, Eclipse & Orange (Tang) Equal 33.

I had to check out this because it didn't seem correct. I used this to help me. So you are correct that all these words make 33 in some gematria.

So let me sum up :

• NASA is 33 only in "Jewish ordinal" gematria
• Blackhole, Bigbang and orange are 33 only in "Full reduction" and "single reduction" gematria
• Rover is 33 only in "Jewish reduced", "full reduction" and "single reduction".
  
• Eclipse is 33 in "Full reduction".
  

There is absolutely no consistency. If you can use different ciphers to obtain 33, then I announce that :

• Flat Earth is 33 in "Jewish reduced" and "Chaldean"
  
• Bible is 33 in "reversed reduced".

So ... is flat earth also related to freemasonry ?

There is no end to this stupidity.

This is like me saying the ultimate reason I know the earth is flat is because no one has ever been able to measure the curvature

Eratosthenes measured the curvature of the earth 2000 years ago...

https://www.wired.com/2008/06/dayintech-0619/

Canigou mountain range. The bridge in china that spans over 100 miles. Anywhere that you would take awesome pictures, you can see evidence of missing curvature.

You can do the math to see how much is hidden or visible and compare that to the curvature (found with Pythagoras's equation for the hypotonuse).

They say he did, but he did give us the mathematical tools to test it (but you have to believe algebra works in order to believe the proofed results). They also say that the universe was created out of an explosion from nothing.... and that you are an ancestor of bacteria.

It's a good question