10
Comments (30)
sorted by:
4
Arturhawkwing 4 points ago +4 / -0

Kind of interesting that all of his work vanished and his name was stricken from the history books.

3
Afks 3 points ago +5 / -2

Apparently we can see “stars” through the moon sometimes?

I haven’t confirmed for myself

Earth is flat and not spinning, which anyone can go prove for themselves

If anyone needs assistance lmk

1
Skyrison 1 point ago +1 / -0

afks. you high again. pls get off the computer

-2
OccamsRazorbladevax -2 points ago +5 / -7

On the contrary, I'd be more than happy to assist you removing your head from your anus.

0
DZP1 0 points ago +3 / -3

Harbor Freight has a terrific deal this month on Chinese-made Anus/ Head Removers. They have three prong-arms and a tiny corkscrew.

0
Afks 0 points ago +1 / -1

Does handshake live near a large body of water?

You can prove the earth is flat for yourself

You can prove the spin is a lie and don't need even need to leave the house

1
savman 1 point ago +3 / -2

OK, I'm game, pour on the 'evidence' - this should be fun.

1
Afks 1 point ago +2 / -1

So I can pour on a ton of evidence and send you hours of material to consider but I'd rather just start with a couple of points, most importantly that we can see objects that are too far

Do you live near a large body of water? Important to test over water as we know that water will find it's level in whatever container it is contained within

You COULD test over land but you would want to do it in a few different places to help rule out the possibility that you are coincidentally experimenting over a flat parcel of land each time

There are large, confirmed flat parcels of land all over the world that are also used as proof the earth is flat, but let's stick with the water experiment for now

What you want to do is stand on the shoreline and peer out to spot the furthest landmark/object you can observe

Bring binoculars if you have them so that you can see even further and really leave yourself zero room for doubt

Assuming your vision is in good shape and on a clear day, you can easily see over 25kms with your naked eye

We have examples available online significantly further than this, but even at 20 or 25kms you can observe that the earth is not flat

If you have a boat you could go out on the boat and then look back at the shoreline but you might then have to pay attention to your speed and direction to measure your distance from the shoreline

If you can still hit google maps and accurately pin your location out at sea then that works well enough

Assuming you’re standing on the shoreline conducting the experiment then what you want to do is hit Google Maps and right click your location on the shore to "measure distance from here" and then right click your distant landmark and measure distance

Punch that distance and the elevation of your eyes or telescope i.e. appx 5ft8inches into an earth curve calculator available online and it will tell you how much curve or drop there should be

At 25kms and assuming you're about 6ft tall, you should already observe over 100ft of drop due to earths curvature meaning that anything shorter than 100ft tall will be completely obscured from your view due to the earth itself blocking your view due to it's supposed curvature

Instead, we observe the entire distant landmark including the ground/shoreline leading up to it

This is impossible on the globe

I like this one because anyone young old rich or poor could go out and test for themselves and prove without the assistance of anyone's amateur balloon videos or some sort of leaked top secret government documents or testimony

When the video of the Chicago skyline impossibly in view went viral, "they" tried to explain it away as a mirage

We know what a mirage looks like and this isn't it

When you're doing this experiment for yourself, you will know that what you are seeing isn't a mirage

https://www.bitchute.com/video/XvAwLc7FZm2z/

Around the 40 minute mark is example after example of this experiment, but I still encourage you to do this for yourself if you're able to

0
savman 0 points ago +2 / -2

find it's level

No, water, just like your half-baked brain is being pulled towards the center of the earth. Water curves around the planet, just a water drop is rounded. It's called surface tension and gravity. The reason this is true, and how you know it is, is that thousands of ships for hundreds of years have circumnavigated the globe, time after time after time. You, on the other hand, have only ever lived in your mom's basement thinking you know something edgy, but really you don't knowshit, and just demonstrate how utterly stupid you are.

we observe the entire distant landmark including the ground/shoreline leading up to it

Sure you can see it, but if you're looking back at the beach, you will never see the very edge of the shoreline, or very bottom of a landmark. They will always, without fail, disappear over the horizon.

Don't believe? Show a clear photo that proves you right and me wrong.

Chicago skyline impossibly in view

Refraction is a fact no matter how many times you claim it's witchcraft. Why does the skyline only appear once in a blue moon (refraction) if the earth was flat, you would see it every day. But you don't, because you're a fuck wit.

0
Afks 0 points ago +1 / -1

If you want to disprove the spin, I would point out the speeds of the spin of the earth at different latitudes and then some videos of hot air balloons gently taking off and hovering nearby their launch zone

Or a hovering helicopter

Or any bird effortlessly floating and slowly traversing laterally

"At the equator, the circumference of the Earth is 40,070 kilometers, and the day is 24 hours long so the speed is 1670 kilometers/hour ( 1037 miles/hr). This decreases by the cosine of your latitude so that at a latitude of 45 degrees, cos(45) = .707 and the speed is .707 x 1670 = 1180 kilometers/hr. You can use this formula to find the speed of rotation at any latitude. "

https://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a10840.html

1,670km/h is almost a half kilometre per second

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGAMTlI6XxY

^ Hot air balloon timelapse

Does it look like the ground is spinning a half kilometre per second beneath the hot air balloon?

Why don't airplanes, helicopters, hot air balloons or any birds ever have to account for the spin of the earth?

How do any of these things ever arrive at their destination with the earth spinning so fast below them?

Why do flights between Barcelona and Istanbul have the exact same flight duration going in either direction? Shouldn't the spin of the earth alter the flight durations?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDKc6X8TXNE&list=PLm6Vq0bTTCDj8fuDVfqcytiuxbVj_Lyq4&index=19

^ Flat Earth in 5 minutes, by OddTV

https://youtu.be/ARp2j8t3O8Q?list=PLm6Vq0bTTCDj8fuDVfqcytiuxbVj_Lyq4&t=5717

^ OddTV trilogy timestamped at the history of the globe model via Kepler and Copernicus, but feel free to watch the entire trilogy as it should answer most of your 101 questions that are likely coursing through your brain at the moment

-1
savman -1 points ago +2 / -3

balloons gently taking off and hovering nearby their launch zone

If you don't know what inertia is, then I can't argue the rest of your stupid fuck wit logic. The problem with flat earthers is they have no education which makes it exceedingly easy to point out you are a half wit retard.

-2
savman -2 points ago +2 / -4

anyone can go prove for themselves

Your head is flat, so are your balls.

3
factdigger 3 points ago +3 / -0

Recommend this book for a scientific level headed start into the moon anomalies, then after that it gets deeper, but most of the holes are Psyops and diversions, where it's easy to get lost into for years....

Modern Mysteries of the Moon What We Still Don’t Know About Our Lunar Companion

https://sciarium.com/file/191368/

1
SuicideTruthbomber 1 point ago +2 / -1

The moonshot was a success. The most you can prove with any faked videos is that NASA created staged videos. It doesn't mean the projects were unsuccessful.

3
clemaneuverers 3 points ago +3 / -0

The films and videos were NASA's evidence that they went. Since they are fake, what evidence is there?

1
SuicideTruthbomber 1 point ago +1 / -0

I wasn't around at the time, but I'm guessing the spacecraft, things left behind on the moon, radio communications from the moon, large numbers of people participating in the project. They could have gone even without any evidence to show that they did. Proving that a video has been faked doesn't prove it did not happen.

1
Afks 1 point ago +1 / -0

“I’m guessing”

How does radio communication work from the moon, exactly?

How did that phone call take place without delay from the moon to president Nixon?

“They could have gone without any evidence to show they did”

So you’re considering that we would send people to the moon and not bother to record or document it in any way?

https://www.theguardian.com/childrens-books-site/2013/nov/14/sally-gardner-top-1o-fairytales

There’s a link to sally gardners top ten fairy tale books if that’s what you’re into

1
SuicideTruthbomber 1 point ago +1 / -0

How does radio communication work from the moon, exactly?

Antennae? What I'm getting at is that many people on earth should have been in a position to determine the direction the signal was coming from.

How did that phone call take place without delay from the moon to president Nixon?

I just took a look at that. It appears that there was delay on the moon end of the conversation, and it also appeared largely scripted.

So you’re considering that we would send people to the moon and not bother to record or document it in any way?

No, just that what they showed the public and published is not necessarily an accurate reflection of the true mission details.

1
clemaneuverers 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's certainly a major upset to the narrative that would need to be explained, and new evidence would need to be demonstrated for that narrative to retain any credibility.

Aside from the fake images though, there are many other issues with the missions that people have identified over the years. Some researchers don't even spend much time on the images at all, choosing to pick apart the narrative based on all the improbabilities and impossibilities that are part of the official mission technical documentation. Aulis.com is an excellent website that collects much of that work.

Most of the people involved in Apollo were not in on the hoax end of things, their participation is not evidence the missions were successful, nor that it couldn't have been hoaxed. The recent satellite images of the landing sites are strangely far off, pixelated shots despite NASA's (and other space agency's) ability to obtain closer and higher resolution images of those sites. It has also been demonstrated (at aulis.com) that those images do not agree with the official post mission technical documentation that NASA has on record. Distances are incorrect, there are scaling issues, and in one image it's the wrong lander at that particular landing site.

1
SuicideTruthbomber 1 point ago +1 / -0

That is all great and fascinating information.

I think it is plausible that the photography and video documentation were faked to be more "cinematic" as part of propaganda efforts during the Cold War.

I also think it's plausible that technical details were deliberately mucked with to stymie Soviet attempts to use it for their own space ambitions.

1
alltheleavesarebrown 1 point ago +1 / -0

https://crrow777radio.com says plasma

Has video from his telescope.

2
Afks 2 points ago +2 / -0

Content restricted to paid members?

Is there a link to their material that doesn’t require signing up

2
alltheleavesarebrown 2 points ago +2 / -0

First hour free. "Listen free button". Or to.

The internet.

https://www.magnetdl.com/c/crrow777/

This is the doc abt his moon observations.

https://yandex.com/search/touch/?text=shoot+the+moon+crrow777+torrent

If the dome theory is correct then the moon and sun are under the dome.

Plus perhaps layers of (Plasma?) dome upon dome as with russisn fabrige eggs. To account for the infinite(?) land beyond the ice ring.

If theyll lie about the common cold and who killed jfk. Theyll lie about everything.

1
Afks 1 point ago +1 / -0

I knew they lied all the time but until a few years ago I didn’t understand the full scope of the lies

Flat earth was big because it meant nasa, and all of the other space agencies

Elon musk types

Actors like Neil degrasse Tyson and bill nye

All of them lying for a living

Demons

As you say, they will lie about anything and everything

No wonder they keep us distracted with the shows and the sports and the politics and the busy workload

Flat earth shilled harder than any other conspiracy because it’s such an Achilles heel for them

Anyone rich poor young and old can go prove it for themselves without special equipment

Fragile house of cards and it’s already crumbling on them

2
alltheleavesarebrown 2 points ago +2 / -0

A bud whose dad was a pilot turned me on to flat earth a few years ago.

Researched on my own. Bonneville flats. Telescopic zoom lenses. Mark Sargent interviews with mil guys and pilots. Eric Dubay.

So i said to some random stranger waiting for the train..."hey. I just realized the earth was flat!". Her smiling reply, "you just figured that out?!?."

Yes. A lot of people know.

1
clemaneuverers 1 point ago +1 / -0

He had some interesting takes alright. I wonder did he believe the moon landings were real, suspect the fakery? - or maybe went to his grave believing a plasma moon had been disproved by them.

0
savman 0 points ago +1 / -1

Fuck this twat, the moon is made of cheese, I have photographic proof:

https://www.shutterstock.com/search/cheese+moon

0
DavidColeIntrepid 0 points ago +1 / -1

Even if it is artificial it doesn't rule out that we didn't go, just the official story. Could be an exchange program.

Could be manufactured body by our predecessors who artificially induce tides. The relationship of the size is unheard of. It's huge in comparison to all other orbiting bodies we see.

What's really going to bake your noodle is the fact for there to be a complete solar eclipse the relationship between the size has to be the exact same as the relation of the distance between them, otherwise the moon wouldn't completely and precisely obscure the sun.

(Heavy sarcasm) Or maybe all that shit is fake news because you found an eyelash on a Polaroid so it's flat and don't ask questions, only antisemites ask questions

1
Afks 1 point ago +1 / -0

Why does the moon only affect the water of the oceans and not lakes or seas

Why does the water pulled upward toward the moon not continue to pull toward the moon? The water is only now closer to the source of the pull and we are told that the force gets stronger as you approach so why does it let go?

You mentioned eclipses so why do we have dozens of examples of eclipses in recent history of both the sun and moon being visible in the sky during a total eclipse? Impossible on their model

This shit is flat and non rotating

Space isn’t what they claim it to be

Why would our atmosphere remain contained to the earth when there is no barrier separating our atmosphere from the vacuum of space

Why doesn’t our air just suck out into the void of nothingness

This flies in the face of all evidence we observe here on earth

0
DZP1 0 points ago +3 / -3

Of course humans went to the moon. Confirming the Nazi base on the dark side, est. 1943. Now offering bratwurst and excellent beer to space travelers. Slogan: 'Dolf's Brew, Best in the Galaxy. Now with 30% fewer swastikas.