It's 2020 and people still think earth is a spinning ball

submitted by Zizzle from self.AlternativeHistory

The world is a flat stationary plane. the north star, Polaris, is directly above the North Pole and remains in the exactly in the same spot while the other stars rotate around this central point. The curvature formula for a supposed ball the size of the earth is 8 inches per mile squared. After just five miles the curve should have already dropped 26 feet, yet there is absolutely no demonstration of this drop in the real world. In fact you can see much much further than this with certain optics and there is no evidence of such a curve. Why don't engineers and architects ever worry about this exponential drop?

This world was set up as a massive energy grid, with advanced society and structures around the plane before an unknown extinction event essentially melted everything into the mountains, canyons, and ruins we see today. "Ancient" structures, spires, columns, and domes are all survivors of this culture. I believe this secret part of our past is one of the reasons they chose to lie about our Earth.

all 43 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

This post proves only one thing: we have never prevented the left 20% of the IQ bell curve from reproducing.

[–]Zizzle[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Correct! That's how we get people that believe astroNOTs have actually been to space.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Dude. I've looked at the so-called "evidence" and all I see are moronic assertions that require a very low IQ in order to believe.

Go ahead, prove me wrong!

[–]Zizzle[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I'd love to hear your reaction to this

https://youtu.be/-KPcF9-oQB4

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hm... That is truly suspicious. I don't need to believe one way or another, you see. And that is pretty freaky. Both these ahem "dust motes" and the gigantic space station replica UNDERWATER.

Not proof. But it does raise some questions.

But some of those "bubbles in space" have a definite fixed shape to them. Dead skin dust and other debris?

I mean, what are we talking about here? Flat Earth? A dome holding the air in? WTF? Occam's razor says: ball world, gravity.

[–]AbeFroman 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hilarious. Thank you.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (36 children)

All I've ever wanted was proof. The one place I know that's "flat" enough to prove/disprove the Earth's curvature is the Dead Sea.

Go now, and fetch proof. Absent any mirages.

[–]Zizzle[S] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (33 children)

If you expect someone else to fetch proof and convince you then you will never know the truth. Yes, flat earth research has been heavily censored, but it's not impossible to find yourself. Also ever heard of the salt flats?

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, I've tried to look at the so-called proofs with an open mind and have attentively listened to the arguments.

These things usually devolve into low-IQ, "we aren't even able to understand how a ball world could even work" type of assertions.

Explain tides and the coriolis effect to begin with?

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ah, you are gone I see. No explanation huh? I understand: they're pretty hard to explain in your two-dimensional universe.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (30 children)

I don't believe in flat earth. It's the Mandela effect of PSYOPS. It came out at the same time as the Mandela effect and was heavily promoted by YouTube and shills, such as Nathan Cat "Former actor, my dad works for NASA, the earth is flat" Tower.

As for the moon landing, I think that was all about the weaponization of space. I don't believe we ever went to the moon, it was just utilized as a charade for more deviant agendas.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (29 children)

Yeah I can't say for sure we did or didn't go to the moon. Do the pictures look odd? Sure they do! But the point is, until you've been there yourself and taken pictures with the exact same cameras and lenses and compare, can anybody be TRULY SURE that those so-called "moon pics" were not taken there?

Also, even if the pics are demonstrably fake, it proves only one thing: THE PICTURES ARE FAKE.

The next question is obviously: WHY are they fake? What are the possible reasons?

My view is that people did go to the moon. And then they realized it doesn't look at all on there as it does when seen from here, because it's covered in a giant hologram hiding alien cities and bases. And THAT would be why the pics are fake.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

That view sounds outlandish to me.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (27 children)

There is at least one video of a glitch in the hologram, let's see if I can find it.

EDIT: yep, got it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3axPn65MGM

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

Look up paulstal service on archive.org, this video is fake and was created by a shill. Paulstal seevice easily, with photoshop, created the same phenomenon.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (23 children)

I don't see how it could be fake when people have witnessed this effect with their own eyes, and also, look again at the panning camera. Explain that.

Also, I can't find what you are talking about.

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

https://ia800802.us.archive.org/30/items/OrlandoShootingHoaxAngelColonDoctorsFullPressConference/Is%20the%20Moon%20a%20Hologram_%20Crrow777%20and%20%27The%20Lunar%20Wave%27.mp4

Here it is... easily created. The video is fake and hilarious that his video is censored but not Crow777's.

Also, moon rocks were actually petrified wood.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Oh and you've verified the moon rocks yourself. Nice.

Now I'm not saying Crow777 isn't posting some crappy retarded stuff. I'm saying your retard's video above doesn't disprove Crow777's.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

I don't know why you are showing me that retard's video above. He is clearly mentally challenged. Or at very least a super stoner, which is the same.

Also, this guy's "lunar wave" is missing two important elements from the original: the angle of the wave, as well as the panning effect.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Who witnessed it, do you know these people, or are they internet people and liars? Until you've seen it, it is a hoax. It can easily be made in aftereffects and the maker of the video is a known shill.

[–]Zizzle[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Lol, you are using the video of a flat earther

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

So? I don't understand your comment.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My question, how does thurst work in a vacuum such as space? On earth it doesn't work if they create the conditions of space like vacuum in a test tube, so why do they say it works in space? Does this not break the 1st law of thermodynamics?

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It doesn't work THE SAME. Which is why all rockets have stages: one for use within the atmosphere, and one for use outside of it.

It's not so much thermodynamics but the uh was it archimedes who first said, "any force exerted on a body engenders an opposing, equal force on that which pushes?" or somesuch. Basically, it's the exhaust from a rocket which pushes against the rocket nozzle, which creates the momentum. It's not "pushing on air" although obviously that helps a little while moving through the atmosphere, but it also helps brake the forward motion of the rocket. This is only valid for a combustion-based engine, however.

There are new engine technologies being developed for actual interplanetary travel which don't rely on combustion: firing a stream of particles at a VERY high speed provides thrust in the opposite direction. That's the conservation of momentum: by accelerating relatively light particles at very high speeds (near the speed of light) in one direction, the relatively heavy spacecraft gets a tiny amount of thrust in the opposite direction. This is the nuclear thruster technology, which expends very little matter, meaning it can go on thrusting for very long periods (years!) at low accelerations, but in turn, will keep providing thrust even at very high speeds.

Needless to say, such a thruster would only be useful for long trips outside of the intense gravitation of planets' neighborhood.

Think of it this way: you stand in a rowboat with some rocks in it. The water is perfectly still. The boat isn't moving. You throw a rock as hard as you can, horizontally, in the direction of the back of the boat. Does the boat stay still? Nope, it starts moving forward. You can do this with heavy rocks (they won't move very fast or go very far) or with small rocks (they will go much faster and further) and you can find the size rock that suits your physiology best at producing the most momentum for your boat. No need for oars. ;-)