Edmonton Canada is having a conference for flat earthers, the ads I've seen are polished and appear well funded. It's already being viewed as a whacky conspiracy theory so I can totally see it being a psyop.

No upvotes required for an onlooker to say ‘look at the conspiracy goofs talking about flat earth again’

It's a Chinese govt psyop, not a US govt psyop. The purpose is to divide the truth seeker community against itself, so using shills doesn't serve the goal. In other words, they don't really want everybody to be convinced, they are seeking something more like the current situation in which the FE dupes believe they are oppressed truth seekers. They also know that some of us will never accept it regardless of popularity, because it's easily disproven by people with math skills and truth seekers aren't swayed by popularity, anyway.

You just have to get enough low-IQ people on board and it becomes an actual movement. This has already happened.

I wouldn't say "organic," I would say, "due to brainwashing," and I mean that literally. The recent upsurge was driven by Eric Dubay's "200 proofs" video on YouTube. Please watch that video with the sound turned off. At 0:09, Dubay is putting forward the lie that a globe earth should appear to have a curved horizon, so-called "proof" #1 of the flat earth. This is totally wrong, the horizon should appear level on a round earth.

But notice, with the sound off, that at 0:09 timestamp, the video shows an image of the horizon spinning. The ground is dark and the sky is light. This spinning image reminds us off the hypnotic jokes "you are getting" sleepy that we see in cartoons. That's because such a spinning dark/light image causes rhythmic firing of neurons in the visual cortex layers at the back of the brain. Having someone watch that spinning image causes a rhythmic electrical brain wave that affects the entire cortex of the brain. When the sound is on, the viewer is hearing speech that is very rapid, and synchronized with the spinning. By the way, this brainwashing technique is called "neural entrainment."

So the movement was literally driven by exposing people to sophisticated brainwashing techniques based on medical science and techniques researched mostly by intelligence agencies.

The entire video is packed with such sophisticated brainwashing techniques.

I believe the laypeople spreading FE are extremely convinced because they are the victims of advanced scientific brainwashing methods. It's not "organic" at all. It's more akin to MKULTRA/Monarch programming.

Haha I'm sorry about your brain.

Flat Earth is not a psyop. I believe any psyop associated with FE is the disinformation spread within the community itself that makes it really easy to discredit. E.G., a large FE proponent states that "gravity" is due to the plane accelerating upwards, when in reality, most FE persons don't believe that.

If the globe model is indeed fake (not saying it is) it shakes the very foundation of our existence and would prove that the government extensively lies to us. I don't see any psyop pushing that sort of mindset.

I am very open minded and watched a couple FE videos as a farce "Ball's out Physics", and it was truly eye opening. In no way would I call myself a flat earther, but what Brain puts forth is at least worth watching for yourself.

Interestingly, Brian Mullen is supposedly missing and there are videos on youtube trying to make sure he is alive. There are also videos popping up of a dude who looks exactly like him (and who's content is no where near as intelligent and pushes a religious angle) which is really troubling to me.

Yeah exactly. That is why I don't believe it is a psyop. I should have mentioned this in my previous post, but I think the act of people claiming FE is a psyop is, in itself, a psyop.

There's an old KGB saying, "Accuse your enemy of that which you are guilty", and it seems to be the case here.

I have no clue if it’s a psyop or not and our different perspectives don’t weigh into this response, but, to be fair, you don’t really need an army of agents to push an information psyop. Just plant the seed and let the people who believe it carry the weight. Again, it talking about FE specifically, but any information based psyop, theoretically.

Why do you assume they would be super upvoted in order for it to be a psyop. It could just be encouraged. Psy ops wouldn't be very effective if you used the same formula over and over again.

Wow

I am going to preface this with I do not think the Earth is flat, but I like to entertain the theory. So calm down before you reply to me.

If the Earth was flat, then it means that much of science we are taught could be a lie. For example, did you know there is a prominent science who suggests gravity might not be real?

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html

So the problem is that flat earthers I always trying to argue scientifically, but they will not win if aspects of science are lies themselves. Not saying they are...just a thought.

So I think the spiritual arguments for flat earth are more profound. This is all just to entertain our thoughts...

Part 1:

1) It is possible the earth is flat. 2) Space may be real but only manifested interdimensionally. 3) Space and space travel is rooted in occultism.

The biggest evidence that space is not what we think it is is the bible itself. You are familiar with the tower of Babel. The original derivation of the name Babel(also the Hebrew name for Babylon) is uncertain, but it may come from bab-ilum, meaning "gate of God." According to the Bible, the city received the name "Babel" from the Hebrew word balal, meaning to jumble or to confuse. Clearly, God stopped people from entering this "gate of God." Is this what is happening today? Nothing is new under the sun.

Today there is a belief that technology or some type of ascension or new age oneness will deliver us into God's territory, essentially by making us Gods.

Did you know Satan is called the prince of air, too?

 http://biblehub.com/ephesians/2-2.htm

He is able to control and deceive us through the air and "space"...the physical world we see.

Further, astral mean stars. Many can access the "astral" realm where the stars are located. Further, one can access these realms (dimensions) through drugs or other mind altering experiences. (Still working on this). It is interesting to note that planet in the bible actually translates as "wandering star."

 https://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/genesis/genesis1_wanderingstars.htm

The idea of going to space and visiting other worlds has created a false God in a sense - other realities people can worship and escape to while denying the real creator.

Further, if the Earth is flat and there is a firmament, then there would be no such thing as outerspace (at least nothing we can access through a space ship). The entire concept of popular occult movies like Interstellar and a Space Odyssey 2001 is space travel interdimensionally.

Eric Verlinde has put forward an eloquent theory that explains the origin of gravity as an anthropic holographic force. When he says that he believes gravity doesn't exist, he means that what we call gravity isn't what we think of as gravity. He does not mean that masses don't behave as if they attract each other. His theory explains why masses behave as if they attract each other in terms of the origin of that behavior being a property of the way the universe manifests matter.

He does not mean that the gravitational field equations are inaccurate descriptions of the way matter behaves. His model produces the same equations as a side effect of the entropic holographic force, and that the gravitational field equations do not define a force, but do describe the real behavior of matter due to a more fundamental force than what we think of as "gravity."

You have to understand his paper on entropic holographic mass in order to understand what he means when he says gravity "doesn't exist."

The point of my argument is that it is possible science could he misconstrued to lie to the masses. Not saying my specific example was perfect. At the same time though, the layman would never even consider that what we understand about gravity could be wrong.

It is just a theory and not saying I buy into it.

Oh, do buy into it. Verlinde's derivation is mathematically sound, and it's worthwhile to fully understand it. With regard to the layman, what we understand about gravity is practically all a layperson needs to know. Under Verlinde's refinement, everything still behaves the same way we previously understood, just for different reasons than we previously understood.

I see what you are saying. Thanks! And I mean Im not buying into all of science is a huge lie (which is the stance of many flat earthers).

I am saying though is when I see flat earth debates, if the flat earth was actually real, then aspects of science as we know it would have to be a lie or misconstrued to fit a globe earth.

So a flat earther is really screwed in that sense.

If I am not making sense let me know.

However, I think the spiritual arguments that I have heard for flat earth are intriguing if nothing else.

I agree, if Flat Earth were real, a lot of science would be a lie. However, laypeople can perform experiments at home that verify science is not a lie. For example, laypeople can build their own Foucault pendulums, and they can get Ham radio licenses and build Earth-Moon-Earth radar systems in their own backyards.

I do agree with this point. We can all test and try to see for ourselves.

Also in the article he says, "For me gravity doesn't exist."

That's what I mean when I write that you can't understand what that quote really means unless you understand his paper on the entropic holographic force. For all practical purposes, the old understanding of gravity hasn't changed. Matter still attracts other matter in proportion to their combined mass. Verlinde's result explains why this is so, and that the cause isn't a gravitational force intrinsic to matter, but a holographic entropic force that causes matter to behave exactly the same way the old theory predicted.

Prior to Verlinde, nobody could explain why the inertial mass of matter is the same as the gravitational mass. Now, we know why, and the reason is that the motion of matter interacts with the same holographic entropy as the gravity of matter.

I understand what he means when he says that gravity doesn't exist, and it does not mean that matter behaves any differently under his theory than under the previous theory. What he has done is reveal the explanation of why that all happens.

Eventually, someone will explain why the entropic force exists. Because he posits a thermodynamic entropic force, his own model means there are thermodynamic microstates. In his own paper, he makes it clear that he is not explaining what those microstates are.

A thermodynamic model, also called a statistical physics model, always involves microstates. In conventional, heat-explaining thermodynamics, the microstates are the vibrational and rotational degrees of molecules. Water has a higher specific heat than CO2 because H2O is a bent molecule and CO2 is a linear molecule, this gives water an additional degree of rotational freedom than CO2 and we can calculate the difference in specific heat.

I want to make clear here that thermodynamics was invented to explain heat transfer, but it turns out that the same kind of physics, properly now called statistical physics, explains other, non-heat related behaviors of what are called population ensembles. A glass of water is a population ensembles of trillion trillions of water molecules, each of which has around half a dozen degrees of freedom. Physicists routinely call something "thermodynamic" whenever it's a population ensemble of microstates. It would be more proper to always call those models "statistical physics models" when not dealing with heat, but everybody in the intended audience uses those terms interchangeably for non-heat theories.

Verlinde has put forward a statistical physics model of a holographic universe, but his own paper acknowledges that he isn't specifying what the microstates are.

It's possible that Haramein is on the right track when he defines the population as an ensemble of Planck spherical units, but he also has not explained what the degrees of freedom of the PSU microstates are.

I do get what you are saying. It is a different take on gravity.

With that being said, the original point I was making is that if a person truly believes in flat earth, they would have to dismiss some modern day science for it to work.

They could not argue the flat earth model with science as we understand it.

So in a flat earther's view, either the science we are told is right or a flat out lie. Many seem to think it is a lie.

Others try to argue flat earth with science for a globe model. It is not going to work.

Finally, I appreciate your expansion on gravity. : )

Great comment friend.

Thank you.

The biggest evidence that space is not what we think it is is the bible itself.

Claims made in ancient writings are not evidence by any reasonable definition.

Im making a spiritual argument for flat earth. The thesis of my post was that.

The same as it should be for any assertion without evidence: reserve judgment until more data comes in. The Bible in particular is full of outright nonsense and logical contradictions, so the idea that some verses in it are "the best evidence" for the Earth not being a globe is a pretty sad state of affairs for FEers indeed.

My personal view is that the supernatural stories in the Bible were just that: stories, and that people two-thousand-plus years ago were doing their best to figure out how things worked, just like we are. We happen to have the advantage of all those extra centuries of hindsight and experimentation.

And if we're agreeing that there are contradictions and absurdities in the Bible, that it isn't inerrant for whatever reason (you say conspiracy to hide the truth, I say inevitable errors in a large anthology written by many men who didn't know better) it really doesn't make sense to me to hold it up as "evidence" for a claim that goes against modern science.

I find it a prime example of cognitive dissonance to make use of a hundred different amazing technologies we take for granted every day as a result of centuries of gradual scientific progress, while simultaneously claiming that the world's scientists (especially astronomers and physicists) and astronauts and pilots and ship captains and anyone else whose job relies on long distance navigating are all liars and everything we're taught about gravity, tides, the seasons, how the stars appear to rotate at the poles, how some parts of the sky are only visible in one hemisphere or the other, the size and distance of the Sun and Moon from Earth, how stars for and how their nuclear fusion works etc. almost ad infinitum are all a deliberate deception even though the research and mathematics that led to most of these conclusions is out there for anyone to test for themselves.

[Phew, that may be a record for run-on sentences.]

I realize this is r/conspiracy and believing in the plausibility of conspiracies is kind of a prerequisite, but this one in particular just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I think some of the FE proponents are obviously trolls having a laugh at others' expense, but I also think a lot of the true believers are people skeptical of gov't [often rightly so, don't get me wrong... politics is full of crooks] who end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater, dismissing anything they're taught by perceived mainstream authority figures. Then someone like Eric Dubay can bamboozle them with a long list of 'sciencey'-sounding claims that simply aren't true.

Is it your experience that the FEers you know tend to be Christians or Muslims? I have been getting that impression from this subreddit. I can understand choosing to believe the Earth is flat when there are verses in the scriptures that say or imply it, but I also find it fascinating that these same people seem to want to limit the power of their omniscient and omnipotent deity by saying things like "space is fake" and that the only thing there is in all the universe is the flat Earth under a glass dome with the sky projected on it.

Forgive me if this was a bit long-winded, but I've been reading a lot of FE posts lately and this post is kind of a summary of my feelings on the whole topic, at least as of this writing...

So most conspiracy theorists believe the moon landing was faked.

Well if it was...then why?

The answer could be that we cannot actually get to the moon but they want people to believe that it is possible.

Look at all the posts on the top of Reddit after Stephen Hawking passed. We need to leave Earth is the theme.

But according to the bible, that is not the answer. We will have to face the consequences of what we have done in this world. We cannot escape.

Again, this is all just a theory. I honestly have no idea at the end of the day.

Is there a video showing all of flat earth beliefs? And if it has rebuttals?

I know. I used to love NOVA and Discovery channel. ( in the 90s and early 2000 before they started showing Pawn Stars marathons. ) It really hurts. Also, sci-fi movies are not enjoyable anymore lol. Every time i hear

bending the space time

or

going at speed of light

I roll my eyes.

It’s sad when LOTR and Narina is more realistic then sci-fi.

Lol ya.

Very true.

Satan doesn't exist, and the earth is not flat. If you believe in either item you are not intelligent end of discussion.

I think Satan exists 100% - even if in a metaphorical way.

The question of evil made me realize Satan is real. Evil exists. The new age oneness bs is what has mislead people.

With that being said, not convinced the Earth is flat.

The premise of my post was to play devil's advocate : )

Anyway there is no need to insult me. Ad hominem.

evil is a relative term and to personify evil is also ignorant.

You believe in moral relativism.

I do believe objective evil exists, and then thete is a spectrum of grey between true and pure good (god) and true and pure evil (Satan).

Our society has convinced people that evil is not real in order to draw them from good and God.

god doesn't exist and you are really showing how obtuse you are. In Mongolia people may eat a dog for sustenance or a cat, and you would probably call them evil because its relative to you. To them they are just surviving. Again, just lay off on religion, every intelligent person know it is all made up bullshit that people use as a coping mechanism because they can't handle life's curveballs. There is no god, no satan, and good and evil are completely relative.

So you think no objective evil exists?

Is it right in any capacity to ever willingly rape a child?

NO. That is objectively evil by all standards.

There is wrong and there is right and there are shades of grey, but evil exists.

Now eating cats and dogs? I would say that is not evil...more in the middle?

The devil's greatest trick is convincing us that he doesn't exist.

the best way to control a moronic populace is by introducing a fairy tale and convincing them it is real. Just because you found a quote doesn't make you intelligent. Believing in the devil is however one of the signs that you are in fact ignorant.

Since anyone who believes in them is moronic, I guess this means you have 100% definitive proof then that God and the Devil don't exist?

so you believe in Santa?

That is such a dumb, condescending answer. Of course not as there is definitive proof Santa doesn't exist. We can trace the origins of the Santa myth to Saint Nicholas as well as the Christmas holiday to pagan traditions. There is boundless proof Santa does not exist let alone the fact that we, as parents, supply the toys to our children from "Santa."

Now, where is your proof that God and the Devil do not exist?

do you understand how big of a hypocrite you are. You discount one fictional character who was developed form a story, yet you believe in the other one. I have read your other posts, and it is obvious you are a complete nutjob. Really, all I need to ask is how thick is your tinfoil hat nowadays?

You are mocking me about believing in conspiracies on a conspiracy sub?!?! You are looking like the bigger hypocrite here.

So you are conceding that you have no definitive proof that God and the Devil do not exist, correct? I showed you proof Santa Clause is fictional, yet you cannot show me anything stating God and the Devil are.

And for the record, I don't adhere to any religion yet I am smart enough to know this world was created with an intelligent design and that if there is good (God) in this world, there is also evil (Devil) in it as well.

Maybe you need to find a different sub if your main purpose is to come here and ridicule those who believe differently than you do bud.

there are legit conspiracies like the fact that Hillary Clinton probably removed some potential whistleblowers. It is totally different though when a group of people believes the earth is flat and that they are following god's word despite it being written long after his suspected presence, by multiple people and translated from multiple languages multiple times. your terms for good and evil are relative. Is a person good or evil if they cure cancer and give the drug away for free but molest children at the same time? I think if they had a conspiracy with some evidence and a plausible premise it wouldn't be ridiculed. However, yes plenty of the time I come here to get my laughs from theists and flat earthers.

If God doesn't exist, how do you propose this world and all of the intricate and intelligent systems that keep it running smoothly were created? Was this all some random accident?

Again you offer no proof that the God/Devil do not exist yet you call anyone who believes moronic. Forget the Bible, the evidence for intelligent design is all around us bud.

intelligent design is an oxymoron, there is nothing intelligent about the theory. I believe in the big bang out of a random collision and life evolved form there. Again you can't disprove Santa, but yet you don;t believe in him. You disproving argument is a shitty straw man and you know it. Show me one instance of actual proof of god or satan. Just one, because I have listed plenty of thaws in your bullshit bible and I can do it for any other organized religion in the world.

You are coming across as an oxymoron if you believe this world and all of life was some happy little accident. You also ridicule me and others for believing something without proof yet you believe in the Big Bang and evolution which have even less evidence.

I disproved Santa as the myth is based on Saint Nicholas. You can trace the origins to both Santa and Christmas. The origin of an intelligent creator(s) go back beyond the Bible.

In any case, it's put up or shut up time. Where is your evidence disproving God and the Devil?

and you are an egotistical cunt if you think that you are so important you were designed. get over yourself moron. santa is a myth as much god and the devil are. the bible is a myth cultivated from multiple stories before that. seriously wearing a tin foil hat is one thing, but you are so ignorant i am fairly certain you are eating it. I asked you to prove god and the devil in a single instance because there is plenty of evidence the bible is fictional.

What is your evidence? I don't care about the Bible. How did a cosmic accident create this world and the intricacies of our ecosystem? How did it create intelligence? Something had to create the cosmic energy used to create a big bang, correct? What created those energies? You are a pretty small-minded thinker if you think believing in a supreme intelligence designed and created all of us is akin to Santa Claus and fairy tales. It makes way more sense than a cosmological accident. That is the real fairy tale.

What a self righteous egotistical cunt you are to think that a supreme being crafted you to be a superior species. What makes sense to you is flat earth morons shit. You literally are dumb as fuck, and if you graduated from college, that school should lose its credentials. Small minded? sorry hose beast I operate on a higher level than people who think they exist because of what a fairy tale told them that was written by someone who believed in witches, demons, and that the earth was the center of the galaxy. Seriously you should apply for disability you have a good case for a mental handicap. Also just to enlighten you if you are a women, you were created for a male so shut the fuck up as you are sub par according to your religion.

You really are proving the ASS in assumptions. First of all, I am not a girl. Strike one. Secondly, I never said I believe the Earth is flat. Strike two. Third, I don't adhere to any religion so the Bible and who wrote it have no bearing on my determination of whether God and the Devil exist. Strike three. The evidence is clear if you actually use your brain to discern the truth.

You continuously insult me and anyone else who believe different than you. If anyone is proving mental here, your curse-filled rants are definitive proof you fit that bill.

You have yet to provide any proof or evidence backing your claims and you avoided every question I asked. The fact that you are throwing more insults with each response while repeating yourself prove you have no leg left to stand on in this debate. I'm done talking with you. Try being civil in the future bud.

If people who believed in Santa were responsible for virtually all revolutionary scientific discoveries throughout human history, fuck yeah I’d start believing in Santa. Einstein, Newton, Maxwell, William Thompson, Faraday, Bruno, Darwin, Lemoisre (revolutionary chemist who was executed by atheists, by the way), Planck, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Galileo, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Marie Curie, Ben Franklin, etc etc etc were all devout theists. Atheists throughout human history have been nearly superhumanly uncreative and unintelligent whenever it comes to the standards set by devout theists.

you had to be back then or you would be killed, punished, or discredited for no reason. If someone invented the cure for cancer, but also believed in the great spaghetti monster, would you believe in the spaghetti monster? Your argument is a lousy straw man at best. Common sense doesn't seem so common around you flat earthers and theists.

Barantos, this is a bunch of delusional nonsense you are talking about. There have always been atheists. There have always been people who openly called themselves atheists. There is no grand history-long genocide against atheists, this is one of the atheist delusions. Similar to their other delusions that groups of atheists have never committed genocide. Imperialist Japan slaughtering and raping 200k Chinese and raping 3 year old girls and forcing parents to rape their children at gun point shows otherwise, as does the cultural revolution and gulags.

Some people are not so stupid that they fail to realize that the Bible and the Torah are mathematical texts and that they use collisions of metaphors and symbolic numbering systems and many other sophisticated literary devices, such as symbolic hyperbole, and that this is the way people used to communicate long ago. Not everyone is deluded into thinking that everyone in all of human history until about 2008 was a huge fucking retard with drool coming out of their mouths. There is a reason why many did not want things about God to be written down on paper. It was not because of some superstitious fear, it was a very real and logical fear based on empirical experience and wisdom towards analyzing the future. They knew that the concepts they were talking about were far too sophisticated and that it is dangerous to have it in writing because they knew how easily it is for things to be misinterpreted on paper. Whenever they would communicate these things it was originally all face to face so that if there was any confusion at all that they could fix the misunderstanding right then, and could use charisma and emotion to convey extremely convoluted constructs in a way that could be infused with life rather than bloated with meaning. Obviously the Bible that most people think of, the version in English, is extremely off the mark. Hebrew and Aramaic were both much more complex and mathematically based languages.

This is not comparable to the flying spaghetti monster. Anyone who tries to make that comparison is so fucking brain dead that they are already dead and don't even realize it.

By the way, the Bible is meant to be taken literally. ACTUALLY literally. Most people these days think that literal means corporeal. To read something literally means to painstakingly derive the most true and accurate meaning from a source based on the framework of literature analysis. For example, the word tiramisu literally means "to rise up." The word "circumstances" literally means "outskirts." The term human being literally means "a vital unit that is a soul."

You have no idea what a straw man is, by the way. I never even referred to what your argument was... lol. Throughout human history, virtually all humans who have ever reached the pinnacles of human potential have been Theist.

By the way, you can actually read what these revolutionary scientists and artists and musicians said about God. You can see for yourself that it was something constantly on their mind and wasn't some abstract concept that they said they believed in just for lip service.

Let's look at some quotes from Max Planck, the father of modern physics.

“Religion represents a bond of man to God. It consists in reverent awe before a supernatural Might [Macht], to which human life is subordinated and which has in its power our welfare and misery. To remain in permanent contact with this Might and keep it all the time inclined to oneself, is the unending effort and the highest goal of the believing man. Because only in such a way can one feel himself safe before expected and unexpected dangers, which threaten one in his life, and can take part in the highest happiness – inner psychical peace – which can be attained only by means of strong bond to God and unconditional trust to His omnipotence and willingness to help.” (Max Planck 1958)

“That God existed before there were human beings on Earth, that He holds the entire world, believers and non-believers, in His omnipotent hand for eternity, and that He will remain enthroned on a level inaccessible to human comprehension long after the Earth and everything that is on it has gone to ruins; those who profess this faith and who, inspired by it, in veneration and complete confidence, feel secure from the dangers of life under protection of the Almighty, only those may number themselves among the truly religious.” (Planck, as cited in Staguhn 1992, 152).

“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other. Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance and harmony. And indeed it was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls.” (Planck 1977, 168).

Yeah, this doesn't seem to be some guy who just says lip service to not be slaughtered by some mysterious millennia-long genocide that has no evidence supporting it.

And this is merely one example out of thousands. Science is more aptly called "Theistic Discovery of the Cosmos."

Don't let the idiocy of organized religion keep you from considering that there are intelligent creators, in my opinion both good and bad.

Seriously I'm not on this sub 24/7, but every FE post is not about FE, it's about how it's a psyop, or calling it bullshit. I'll say it again hmmmm

That's because FE is both bullshit and a Chinese government psyop.

How do you know the source is China? Got anything I can read?

See this other comment I've written on another post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/85ke6l/why_is_their_such_a_coordinated_effort_to_push/dvzm4kp

It's kind of a 50/50. I pass by every so often to check out Flat Earth posts since it's my favorite conspiracy theory. There are ACTUAL people posting that think the Earth is flat.

Targets... for or against has no bearing, plus it drowns this place out.

I like your post.

Flat Earth is definitely rife with controlled opposition and shills (both for and against, TBTB are present in every side of every debate).

That said: the globe is a lie.

Science backs this up. But shouting "Psy-Op!" makes for a much easier (and comforting) rebuttal than admitting humanity has been decieved on this scale.

Screaming Psy-op is just like the only other argument which is YOU RETARD.

Water don't curve.

How does science back up the globe is a lie? Are you a flat earther? Curious because I always wanted to shill one that believes in such a farce. Been waiting for my opportunity.

Because globe science falls apart fairly quickly.

And I'm not talking "shadow of 2 sticks in the ground prove the globe earth".

There's a severe lack of proof for both curvature and motion (of Earth). Combine that with the proof we do have: Space agencies and governments, and it's a pretty settled case. They're lying about the globe.

I'm not a flat Earther. I'm somewhere in between, doubting wether it's flat or concave (inverted).

Not believing in the globe doesn't make you a believer of the flat Earth, although it's the first stop in most cases.

Hey! Thanks for the response! I have been looking forward to a chat with one such as you! Let me start by saying that I would never aim to demean a person who has a differing world view, and in fact I appreciate the discourse.

Perhaps you are a concaver, in fact maybe we invented that term right now in human history!

Some points that I have;

As a surveyor we have to take into account the curvature of the earth, grid versus ground, utm blah blah.

Flat earth peeps would have to have every single amateur rocket enthusiast in their grasps, as well as every single human being who has ever taken a round the world airline trip.

And if flat earthers are a real deal, why has none had the ambition to see what’s on the edge? Where’s the sense of exploration!

If a man can walk around the earth, and many have, does that not disprove this theory?

That’s not to say that we have to believe every single thing that nasa and other space agency’s says, we are in a conspiracy sub after all, but really?

There’s way better conspiracies than flat earth, this really does seem like it’s a way to discredit anyone who believes anything else than the official norms. Prove me wrong.

If I thought there was an edge of the earth, I'd definitely want to go and explore it too. I hope you get a real response.

it's called the Antarctic treaty. You can NOT go exploring in the south pole. sorry chap. Only government scientists can be there, oh and tourists of course.

The South Pole is the basis to there being a flat earth? I don’t understand your reference.... it wouldn’t surprise me if there was evidence of ancient civilizations under the ice there, I think at least it is plausible, but that has nothing to do with a a flat earth as far as I know. Please explain.

do your own research.

Into what?

there is no hope for you.

No hope that I will believe the world is flat is what you must mean by our limited conversation. It must be said though, I still hold out hope for you should you be a real person capable of reasonable conversation and not a reddit character with an agenda.

Let me guess. You are one of those who think when ships go out far, you can see them disappearing around the curve. Say it aint so.

Op, I’m one of those who have travelled around the world, never had to stop on one end of the earth and travel back to the other side to continue my journey. I’m still not sure if your trolling me or if it is your honest belief that the world is flat and no one yet in your movement has had the energy to find out for sure.

In regards to watching a ship go out far, I can’t honestly say I’ve watched them disappear around the curve, but I think that’s far more plausible for international trade than falling off the edge of a flat earth.

Seriously though, are you an honest believer that we live on a flat earth or are you trolling? I try to be respectful, and by no means do I wish to portray a better than thou persona.

To be frank, I am not sure. I have problems with globe and I have problems with flat.

Is there a middle ground in your belief then? From my perspective, it is non conceivable that we live on a flat earth, unless there is some magical force field that every human who has ever explored or travelled goes through at the edge of the earth, and where is that edge anyways?

What’s your problems with globe? Have explained my problems with flat. I see how it’s astounding to think about stars and planets and orbiting, but is this not proven by astronomy and capable to be observed by anyone with a telescope?

Appreciate the conversation, I’m not after converting but seeing where people stand and where they come from:

Is there a middle ground in your belief then?

I simply don't know.

From my perspective, it is non conceivable that we live on a flat earth, unless there is some magical force field that every human who has ever explored or travelled goes through at the edge of the earth, and where is that edge anyways?

Antarctica. google AE map.

What’s your problems with globe?

gravity! 9.8 meters per meter squared aka acceleration due to gravity im fine with. Gravitational constant, aka the big G, 6.67408 x 10 ^-11 m ^ 3 / kg s ^ 2 is my issue. it's long story bud. i don't even know where to start. Cavendish? Michelson Morly? Oliver Heaviside? gravity doesn't make any sense to me anymore. General and special relativity is wrong. paradoxes. it's a rabbit hole. Do your own research.

Thats not true.

A British explorer died 2 years ago trying to recreate a famous expedition.

I can book a sight seeing plane trip over Antarctica.

What happened when you applied for a permit to go?

Lol. Oh yea?

Great response.

So how did your application process go? What part did you get to? How much effort have you put forth to going to antarctica?

I bet you havent and youre just taking other peoples words for it.

You can only take tours of Antarctica. All the tour companies are owned by the same group. They will take your money and drop you at the peninsula. Take pics of animals and exit you through the gift shop. You can not go exploring without UN approval. Do you understand?

So how did your application process go?

Since you are so knowledgable about this Im just wondering how it went.

It would be retarded of you to parrot other people without testing this yourself.

You did right? How did it go? Why was it rejected? At what part did you get rejected?

You can not go exploring without UN approval. Do you understand?

application

For

appoval

By who? Come on. I'm sure you can rub those last couple of brain cells together.

So you haven't even tried to go yet know so much about how to get there lol

Another lazy FEer can't even be bothered to see if what he's told is true

can't even be bothered to see if what he's told is true

You said that with a straight face? 😂

Its not wrong.

You dont know how the process works, youve never even tried.

K. Go watch star wars

Watching star wars would probably be more research than youve actually done.

Next time dont just parrot what other people tell you.

That's what you do all day. Parrot. And you have the gull to write that. Lol. You're a silly little man.

You even parroted my criticism. Interesting...

Just so we are clear here you dont know how this process works and youve never tried to do it yourself?

You just take other peoples word for it then repeat it as if its true even though you dont actually know?

Lets see if you can respond with an independent thought or if youll just reuse my criticism of your inability to perform basic research

Just so we are clear here you dont know how this process works and youve never tried to do it yourself?

No. I've never had millions of dollars to setup an expedition to antarctic. you're correct.

You just take other peoples word for it then repeat it as if its true even though you dont actually know?

well, I know there is a UN treaty. I don't have to take peoples words for it. The UN, tells you about it. They run it. You need permission to itch your ass over there. Unless UN is ashton kutcher and they are punking people about going to the antarctic, then I'm going to take their word for it. Article XII section 5, subsection (a)

Lets see if you can respond with an independent thought or if youll just reuse my criticism of your inability to perform basic research

whats hilarious is that everything you think you know, you took someone's word for. Did you experiment and figure out big G gravitational constant? or did you just took their word for it? how about relativity? did you take their word for it? or did you actually test the speeding clock theory. everything you think you know is wrong! Period.

No. I've never had millions of dollars to setup an expedition to antarctic. you're correct.

What did the final bill come to during your process to go to Antarctica?

I don't have to take peoples words for it. The UN, tells you about it. They run it. You need permission to itch your ass over there. Unless UN is ashton kutcher and they are punking people about going to the antarctic, then I'm going to take their word for it. Article XII section 5, subsection (a)

So... Looking at the UN treaty right now and I dont even see a subsection under article XII section 5... I think you goofed.

I also looked up the US treaty and I still dont think you made the right reference.

So Ill ask again at what part of this process did you get denied? Where did the UN stop you?

What parts of this cost millions?

I had a few older coworkers go to antarctica a few years back, I guarantee you they were millionaires.

whats hilarious is that everything you think you know, you took someone's word for. Did you experiment and figure out big G gravitational constant? or did you just took their word for it? how about relativity? did you take their word for it? or did you actually test the speeding clock theory. everything you think you know is wrong! Period.

Way to change the argument...

I guess if you cant defend your point start putting up strawmen...

Hypocrite

What did the final bill come to during your process to go to Antarctica?

Read what I wrote again. I think you have a comprehension problem!

So... Looking at the UN treaty right now and I dont even see a subsection under article XII section 5... I think you goofed.

Because you're looking at the fucking wiki page. You said something about doing research? yet all you do is read wiki! Thats how children do book reports!

https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/antarct/anttrty.jsp

5. Each Contracting Party shall, at the time when the present Treaty enters into force for it, inform the other Contracting Parties, and thereafter shall give them notice in advance, of (a) all expeditions to and within Antarctica, on the part of its ships of nationals, and all expeditions to Antarctica organized in or proceeding from its territory;

That means you can't just willy nilly buy an ice breaker and head south! You have to tell them what you're doing, how long, why, where, with whom?, etc etc and get approval.

So Ill ask again at what part of this process did you get denied? Where did the UN stop you?

again, I DO NOT HAVE THAT MUCH MONEY, WHERE I CAN JUST GO BUY A FUCKING ICE BREAKER, AND HEAD SOUTH FOR AN EXPEDITION! DO YOU UNDERSTAND? DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND?

I had a few older coworkers go to Antarctica a few years back, I guarantee you they were millionaires.

Your retarded co-workers went to a hand full of touring companies who take people to antarctic. All are owned by the same company. they will drop you off at the peninsula. You take pictures of penguins. take your money and take you home. That way you can tell people you went to Antarctica so you can impress your shitty friends because you're so empty inside. That is NOT equal to going on an expedition w/o permission. sorry chief.

Read what I wrote again. I think you have a comprehension problem!

I read it, you havent and youre just making assumptions or getting info from youtube videos.

Because you're looking at the fucking wiki page. You said something about doing research? yet all you do is read wiki! Thats how children do book reports!

Uhh... No I pulled the original treaty to look at.

So lets look at what you cited in your above comment

Article XII section 5, subsection (a)

Oh... There is no section 5 under article XII which is "[review of Treaty possible after 30 years]"

So Ill take a look at Article VII since thats probably what you meant.

So whats the issue with having to tell the UN youre going to Antarctica? How is that an obstacle?

Is that the point at which you were denied?

That means you can't just willy nilly buy an ice breaker and head south! You have to tell them what you're doing, how long, why, where, with whom?, etc etc and get approval.

Okay... You cant just buy a car and drive into Canada, do you think Canada is fake too?

again, I DO NOT HAVE THAT MUCH MONEY, WHERE I CAN JUST GO BUY A FUCKING ICE BREAKER, AND HEAD SOUTH FOR AN EXPEDITION! DO YOU UNDERSTAND? DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND?

No because your argument is retarded.

What the fuck do you need an icebreaker for? Do... do you think thats the only way to get there lol?

Thats whats holding you back? An icebreaker lol?

IS that the point where you got rejected?

Hey sorry guy you cant go antarctica unless you have an icebreaker lol

This is funny as fuck. Youre so deluded and lazy.

That is NOT equal to going on an expedition w/o permission. sorry chief.

Ohhh so when you say you cant go to antarctica you were lying?

So Ill ask one more time since youre so fucking dense you cant put two and two together.

SINCE YOU KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT THE APPLICATION PROCESS WHY DONT YOU TELL ME HOW YOURS WENT??

Since we are doing caps lock now. I Can tell youre serious because you clicked a button.

Seriously though its clear you havent dont anything to verify this and instead just parrot other people.

Good luck with the ignorance and laziness level of a fucking rock.

:)

I think you're retarded. And I mean that. Or a poorly programmed bot.

You know its funny because I almost accused you of the same.

Glad to know you dont know what youre talking about and parroting information you havent bothered to verify.

K. enjoy your ball

I Will, enjoy the disinfo paychecks!

Ditto

Why would exploring Antarctica be bad for flat earth? I understand that there are certain restrictions, but do people really believe that there’s some secret limit there where people will see the edge of the earth? Why only Antarctica? What about the other places where it’s the edge of the earth?

oh look. it's frank again.

Thanks buddy you too! Had to sleep and work and stuff. Anything positive or discourse worthy or just a hello?

oh not much. Just dealing with globers and their obtuse questions

Just a hello then. Take care, perhaps we can communicate another time fellow Reddit peruser.

I know plenty about land surveying.

I know that for areas under 100x100 miles (or whatever parameter, it may depend on region), it gets treated as completely flat because "curvature is negliable". Curvature has never been found: look at salt flats, frozen lakes, abyssal planes, etc. numerous examples.

For anything on a larger scale, land surveyors will ditch their total stations and other equipment and solely rely on satellites/GPS to give coordinates. They're essentially using Google Earth, which we all know is presented as a globe.

None of this proves the globe Earth, but it does prove how easily people can be fooled into accepting false proof.

Thanks for the reply! I must say, that it is false to say that areas under 100 x 100 miles curvature is negligible in regards to surveying. In fact, grid coordinates (gps derived) always have a scale factor attached to it. For example, I can use my utm (gps) coordinates to give myself a starting point, but then I must create a localized site with a scale factor of 1 in order to lay out any survey coordinates, such as bolts, foundations, etcetera. We have to otherwise it won’t match a steel tape over distances where we try to make things fit with mm precision. Even over 100 metres there is a noticeable difference between grid and ground coordinates.

I'll quickly adress those points, because you seem genuine:

• I've already anwsered the surveying thing. I personally know some surveyors (first hand knowledge), and the previous reply I wrote is factually correct. Curvature never gets taken into acount, nor is it ever measured. The few times it is (on scale larger than 100 miles or whatever the benchmark is), it's solely because satellites feed you the information, based on the globe model.

• I've watched numerous rocket launches, dare I say just about every rocket launch that's publically available. They don't prove anything, we can shoot rockets up, rockets exist, I'm not disputing that. Look at the recent Falcon launch with the Tesla Roadster. We have Elon Musk himself saying it's real because it looks so fake. There is some merit to the arguement the lack of an atmosphere creates a different color palette than we're used to, but that's still a really shitty excuse.

• Antarctica is at the edge. You can't freely go there, Antarctic Treaty and all that. You can either: Fork up 10,000+ dollars to go on a cruiseships which takes you to some peninsula with pinguins. You get to walk around for some hours and then go back to your cruiseship. (10,000 dollars well spend if u ask me...) OR u can contact your government to ask for permission to have an expedition, which will have to be approved by the UN. Unless you're working for a university (which are tools of propaganda because they've built this house of science), you're not going to be allowed to go to Antarctica.

• We can run in circles arund the Earth. Look at a flat Earth map (I guess you're familiar with the AE map, it'll do): you can easily circumnavigate the Earth using the oceans.

• Yes, not everything space agencies say has to be a lie, per se. But they have lied in the past, beyond a shadow of a doubt. They've lied numerous times, on record, the astronauts, the scientists, etc. So the point to take away is that we can't trust our space agencies, especially not when we're going to hinge our entire cosmology based on their claims.

• There is deeper conspiracies than Flat Earth, I agree. But the globe deception is very real, it's on of their (TPTB) biggest deceptions.

Appreciate this response as well!

Having watched numerous rocket launches going up, have you seen evidence of a flat earth? I’m not sure if there have been any cameras behind tempered glass to show start to finish of a launch that shows a round earth, but I would assume someone did it at some point?

Why would Antarctica be the only landmass evidence of a flat earth? Should there not be multitudes of places on the edge of a flat earth? That said, haven’t looked at flat earth maps, maybe I will after posting this comment. Seems strange though to just say Antarctica. Not saying that there’s likely some weird shit down there, just that potentially it’s lazy to say Antarctica alone is evidence. What flat earth map do you recommend? I feel that if I just google it there won’t be one consensus.

And I think space agencies have definitely had the potential to lie about certain things, such a restricted atmosphere, that’s why Elon musk probably excites so many people in different ways, private enterprise. So I’m not saying space agencies are totally honest, but I think it’s way harder to fake a round earth than say the earth is flat. I just don’t see the purpose in it.

I'm where you are. I see problems with both models

You are 100% correct in your observation my friend. People often forget that this is a conspiracy THEORY sub. Not a conspiracy 100% formulated double blind scientist approved sub.

Everything is a psyop according to people lately.

I'd like to hear how we have day and night creeping around from one area to the next.

I was asking about the mechanism for day and night in a flat earth model.

The sun shines light on a specific area and we call it "day" and where it doesn't shine we call that "night."

I lived in Alaska for a while, how was I able to experience 24 hours of light?

How does antarctica experience 24 hours of sunlight?

So a process entirely different from how day and night happen on any of the other planets?

I can see through a telescope.

Personally I've viewed the evolution of the crescent of Venus over several weeks/months, it's one of the easiest to spot and the only one where you can see a crescent with relatively minimal equipment.

Except that whole pesky 24 hours of sunlight at the poles

Yeah! I’m not sure if flat earth believers are real people, just seems so fake that it makes me think that’s a way to discredit real people.

Yes, you may be in to something. Perhaps the purpose is to periodically measure the Public’s spoofability. When the estimated acceptance rate of a deception campaign reaches a threshold they consider going into action.

Friendly ET space aliens who are actually demonic inter-dimensional entities is the campaign I eventually expect.

We basically agree.

Can anyone here offer pictures of the flat earth?

Can you offer any non computer generated pictures of a round earth?

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/may-18-1969-apollo-10-view-of-the-earth

You know the earth is very large right? I just don’t see the point in hiding the “fact” that the earth is flat. I’m not attacking you, I’m just curious. Hollow earth or something like that is more intriguing to me. If it’s simply to try to deny that god made the earth 6000 years ago and what not then why do churches still hold so much power and sway?

Except for when it doesnt.

There are examples of non wide angle lenses on high altitude craft showing a curved horizon.

which I reviewed and was unconvinced by.

Fair enough, just pointing out there are examples of curvature with non wide angle lenses.

Here is an interesting link on how to de-fisheye images and you can still observe curvature when applying it to high altitude images.

https://www.metabunk.org/de-fisheye-techniques-for-high-altitude-photography-of-earth-show-earth-still-curved.t8681/

Heres another example of a standard lens on a GoPro, you can verify its not fisheye because the video starts on the ground and there is no distortion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RATP53l9MA&feature=youtu.be

What?

How does that even make sense to you? I gave you evidence of a non wide angle lens displaying curvature which invalidates your original point.

So you agree with me now that there are examples of high altitude curvature from non fish eye sources, right?

Doesnt that invalidate your entire argument?

Do you think the horizon moves depending on who views it? Like it snaps into different shapes?

The whole argument you are making rests upon the link you shared.

And your whole argument rests on the idea that if it looks straight once it must be straight under every condition.

The link you shared asserts the notion that correcting for a wide angle lens reveals that there still remains curvature, even after the lens correction technique. That just tells me that the technique being used isn't accomplishing the goal of lens correction. Not to mention, the author even asserts that you can't know for sure without knowing more specific information about the precise location in space in which the picture was taken.

Fair enough but this is at the very least part of the process to test this. One application in particular this is useful is footage from space or the ISS, or any video with another object in it that has a straight line.

So for example if we are looking at an image of the Earth from the ISS and we can see wide angle distortion but there is a solar panel in frame we can correct the image by using the solar panel, right?

That being said, you can show all the corrected footage you want, but if one video shows a straight horizon bisecting the field of view of the camera above 50k feet and it's straight all the way across, then that is something you have to explain away, or else it completely shuts your theory down.

Oh, is that what the hang up is?

Here, field of view is important (Again humans have wide angle vision)

https://imgur.com/OspaPIR

Observe the above image, or the images I presented the other day from the 40's.

Another variable to keep in mind is how is the cloud cover? How can you tell the horizon is flat if its obscured?

So how do you account for cameras that don't use a fish eye lens and don't show any curvature?

For some reason you keep ignoring the video I linked that used a non wide angle lens and there was curvature visible.

Why do you not address that and why do you refuse to accept that it shows curvature?

The image you just linked supports your argument that a flat horizon can be manipulated by changing the field of view.

Which is exactly what FEers do.

I also like how now you are curious about elevation and what expected curvature should be when at the beginning of this conversation you were adamant that there were zero images of curvature

Woo boy! look at that curve! . looks like mother teresa's

Field of View.

You should check it out.

Since you are just going to stalk me and troll I assume you havent read the interaction above?

Take a look at this

https://imgur.com/OspaPIR

cool fishy eye bro! toats!

Its not but you dont really care about the facts do you?

Toasts. I'll believe you. 😂

I know you seem to believe people with no additional research or verification of your own.

sarcasm. went right over your head. you are poorly programed bot.

You're a bot. You even recycle the same few bits. Pretty obvious

Go suck on a ball

You used that one already, you need to program more responses

Go pound a worm hole

Well... Are you hitting on me? Suck balls pound holes. Weird shit bro

thats what you like to do.

Also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Curvature_of_the_horizon

At an altitude of 10 km (33,000 ft, the typical cruising altitude of an airliner) the mathematical curvature of the horizon is about 0.056, the same curvature of the rim of circle with a radius of 10 m that is viewed from 56 cm directly above the center of the circle.

So how would you notice that curvature? Also you do realize human eyes are wide angle right?

So the evidence you are asking for isnt even representative of what humans would expect to see.

Thats not an argument Im making, stay on topic.

Also worth noting that some planes fly higher or lower, the Concorde went much higher than current airliners.

So you dont have any response other than bring up an argument I didnt make?

Its called a strawman.

Since you couldnt defend your original point you prop up a strawman to debate.

If you want to stray from the topic I could also generalize and hold you accountable for the words of others.

I made no such implication so I fail to see why its relevant.

I cited a source that said the visible curvature is extremely small.

I never made a claim about what others say they can see.

Flat earth stuff absolutely belongs on this sub. I think it's dumb, and don't believe a word of it, but I never downvote it, I just leave it be. The only stuff I downvote here is T_D crossposts and the posts begging for people to stop posting "political stuff".

All to make conspiracy theorists who actually have credible facts on questionable events, look crazier in the public’s eyes. I still entertain the possibility of a FE, even though I don’t have that stance. What’s the harm in opening up your mind a bit to the possibilities, even if you’re wrong?

This is at least the third "flat Earth is a psy-op" thread in the past week. GOOD. Because it is a blatant psy-op, and we need to get smarter about this shit.

It's a theory used to establish where there are pockets of under-educated people. For what purpose, I'm not sure, but I'm wondering if maybe to potentially determine where to push more military recruitment propaganda.

you are absolutely right,every scientist is a JEW working for the illuminati to push GLOBE COMMUNISM

Flat Earth is absolutely a Psyop !!

The point of my argument is that it is possible science could he misconstrued to lie to the masses. Not saying my specific example was perfect. At the same time though, the layman would never even consider that what we understand about gravity could be wrong.

It is just a theory and not saying I buy into it.

Also in the article he says, "For me gravity doesn't exist."

Op, I’m one of those who have travelled around the world, never had to stop on one end of the earth and travel back to the other side to continue my journey. I’m still not sure if your trolling me or if it is your honest belief that the world is flat and no one yet in your movement has had the energy to find out for sure.

In regards to watching a ship go out far, I can’t honestly say I’ve watched them disappear around the curve, but I think that’s far more plausible for international trade than falling off the edge of a flat earth.

Seriously though, are you an honest believer that we live on a flat earth or are you trolling? I try to be respectful, and by no means do I wish to portray a better than thou persona.

So you haven't even tried to go yet know so much about how to get there lol

Another lazy FEer can't even be bothered to see if what he's told is true

can't even be bothered to see if what he's told is true

You said that with a straight face? 😂

What?

How does that even make sense to you? I gave you evidence of a non wide angle lens displaying curvature which invalidates your original point.

So you agree with me now that there are examples of high altitude curvature from non fish eye sources, right?

Doesnt that invalidate your entire argument?

Do you think the horizon moves depending on who views it? Like it snaps into different shapes?

Also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Curvature_of_the_horizon

At an altitude of 10 km (33,000 ft, the typical cruising altitude of an airliner) the mathematical curvature of the horizon is about 0.056, the same curvature of the rim of circle with a radius of 10 m that is viewed from 56 cm directly above the center of the circle.

So how would you notice that curvature? Also you do realize human eyes are wide angle right?

So the evidence you are asking for isnt even representative of what humans would expect to see.

cool fishy eye bro! toats!

Appreciate this response as well!

Having watched numerous rocket launches going up, have you seen evidence of a flat earth? I’m not sure if there have been any cameras behind tempered glass to show start to finish of a launch that shows a round earth, but I would assume someone did it at some point?

Why would Antarctica be the only landmass evidence of a flat earth? Should there not be multitudes of places on the edge of a flat earth? That said, haven’t looked at flat earth maps, maybe I will after posting this comment. Seems strange though to just say Antarctica. Not saying that there’s likely some weird shit down there, just that potentially it’s lazy to say Antarctica alone is evidence. What flat earth map do you recommend? I feel that if I just google it there won’t be one consensus.

And I think space agencies have definitely had the potential to lie about certain things, such a restricted atmosphere, that’s why Elon musk probably excites so many people in different ways, private enterprise. So I’m not saying space agencies are totally honest, but I think it’s way harder to fake a round earth than say the earth is flat. I just don’t see the purpose in it.