Debunking the flat Earth model.
(media.scored.co)
Comments (112)
sorted by:
The biggest issue with "the flat earth" theory is that it assumes general physics is wrong. and not wrong by a little. like basically totally completely fundamentally incorrect.
that's a really tough sell.
you see... because of this open source body of knowledge known (in english) as "general physics", we can sit on our asses and mash away at the internet.
the same general physics predicts microwaves, F35's, submarines, skyscrapers, oh... and Earth is a globe.
suddenly - because a few retards discover "CGI" - they jump to the most logical conclusion: space is fake!!! ...and general physics is completely wrong - it's the only logical conclusion. :/
hmmm....
i saw the other day that AI is now generating realistic porn. somehow there's an association there - fake news, etc. it's only going to get worse, and retards are gonna start spinning out all over the place.
hey buddy... what is 1 + 1 ?
if you believe 1 + 1 = 2 , then you are a victim of the propaganda, too.
Oh... general physics was used to build the internet - and internet device you are using right now. Tell us again how general physics is invalid?
my observation:
i look south, stars spin one direction.
i look north, stars spin another direction.
earth is a globe ....easily explains this using "your own observation"
earth is flat ...explains this as an "optical illusion" : https://youtu.be/ADNeFSuKnqM?t=180
so... applying your own methods: "just do your own observation" -- is a false cry, if you also believe optical illusions exist.
travel more
/you remind me of a 3 year old girl who believes no one can see her when she covers her own eyes. does a tree make a sound when it falls, if no one is there to hear it ? :o it's another mystery!! the earth must be flat!!
I like how your kike debunking doesn't even try. All you did was say 'science' a few different ways. The Earth is flat and we know it. Go back to reddit nigger.
JIDF forum sliding be like...
lmao fuck off kike
right? it's always the english B isralies... they love using the word "cockroach" too. talk about #brainwashing - what are they on the 6th mRNA injection now? #yikes
lol kike
...said the self-hating jew
Try harder kike shill. Post some cgi soy space pics next.
you're not very convincing.
and you said the N word ?! :o shame on you.
How's the weather in tel Aviv?
obv free mason, kike boot licker
You can't even pretend to do what we do because you don't get it, FEd.
The fuck does that even mean. You faggoty free masons need to stop sucking kike cock
FEd
free mason fed faggot
right? it's always the english B isralies... they love using the word "cockroach" too. talk about #brainwashing - what are they on the 6th mRNA injection now? #yikes
doesnt matter. you can disprove it over and over and over and over. they are mentally ill. they cannot take the pure fact they may have been wrong and put their faith into something that is insane.
Cameras are designed by Big Photo to change how stars work and thus fool people...
whats next? "planets and other things are round because telescope lenses are round, therefore they MAKE THINGS look round"
by THAT logic, because our eyeballs are round, EVERYTHING would be round lmao
False. In the FE model the earth is completely stationary. It does not move not one iota. Only the sun, moon, and starts travel uniformly around the polestar, dead center of FE earth as always since recorded time. It’s the heliocentric model that claims the earth is spinning at 1038 mph while revolving the sun at 66,660 mph , while being dragged by a moving sun traveling at 448,000 mph lololol. On a ball earth the time lapse photo would look like a bunch of unintelligible squiggly lines. Danish Astronomer Tycho Brahe famously argued against the heliocentric theory in his time, positing that if the Earth revolved in an orbit round the Sun, the change in relative position of the stars after 6 months of orbital motion could not fail to be seen. He argued that the stars should seem to separate as we approach and come together as we recede. In actual fact, however, after almost two hundred million miles of supposed orbit around the Sun, not a single inch of parallax can be detected in the stars! Desperate heliocentrists, instead of conceding, doubled-down claiming the stars were all actually trillions upon trillions of miles away from us, so incredibly far away that no appreciable parallax could ever be detected!
Northern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV8PVzPZcBk
Southern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w3n-s9i7WQ
Equator celestial time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPtVG_pVNHI
The existence of 2, and only 2, celestial poles, that are always consistently revolving around the same points regardless of viewing point on Earth, disproves the flat Earth theory.
Anyone with a smartphone or time-lapse camera can test and duplicate the results.
I looked into FE and found a huge flaw. One I haven’t seen a good explanation for. The closest thing to an explanation I was presented is “perspective makes it look that way.” The problem with that explanation is, the southern celestial pole wouldn’t consistently revolve around the same point if that was the case. The southern celestial pole ALWAYS revolves around the same point REGARDLESS of perspective.
As far as other problems that may or may not be with any other theories, that is another debate. My infographic demonstrates that 2 celestial poles do not fit into the flat Earth theory.
If you care to present another explanation as to how “2, and only 2, celestial poles, that are always consistently revolving around the same points regardless of viewing point on Earth,” could fit into the flat Earth model, I am VERY interested in hearing it.
A secondary thing to explain to me, why is the Equator the only place on Earth where you can see both spirals?
)))III((( <- like this
In the video you linked, at 2:45, he says the stars “sweep over a great southern arc,” and that is why people in the Southern Hemisphere can all see the same stars, but not at the same time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADNeFSuKnqM
If that was true, there should be lateral movement throughout the night when time-lapsing the southern celestial pole (SNP). It would have to slowly drift through the field of vision as it makes its way around its “great southern arc.” That movement would get picked up in time-lapse photography. So we should see movement in the time-lapses. But we don’t. All night long, the position of the Southern Celestial Pole is fixed.
The Southern Celestial Pole does not drift in any time-lapse. It is always stationary in the sky with all southern stars rotating around it. Just like the North Celestial Pole.
Further, if the SCP was the simple result of perspective, and not a tangible spot in space, then the center point of the spiral should vary (even if just slightly) as our perspective changes. But the center point is always the say, regardless of where it is viewed from, just like the North Pole (NCP).
The video you sent, specifically says the southern stars will travel along a “great southern arc” allowing people from any part south of the Equator to see the same stars… as they move toward them, them move away from them.
But the Southern Celestial Pole (SCP), is unmoving. It is stationary. It is just as stationary as the North Celestial Pole (North Star).
Your videos and sources do not support your current statements. Nor do they explain how the SCP is stationary all night long, but can be viewed from anywhere south of the Equator.
No, I'm super grateful that this post has outed the obvious bad faith actors who try to hold the untenable "flat Earth" hypothesis to the same level of credibility as something like MKUltra or the Great Reset, things we have actual evidence for.
I bet you can't even.
Perceiving flat earth star trails is a matter of perspective, demonstrated here. Many flat earth proponents and defenders of the globe have been recreating star trails in flat earth experiments but it is important to understand that perspective is key to understanding how to perceive what might be happening with the stars above flat earth.
https://youtu.be/WoVVmGEB6vQ
That is an interesting explanation for why we perceive star trails the way we do, but it falls WAY short of explaining away the 2, and ONLY 2, celestial poles we can see from Earth. They DO NOT vary based on our position on Earth, other than only seeing the N. Pole in the N hemisphere & S. Pole in S. Hemisphere.
Northern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV8PVzPZcBk
Southern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w3n-s9i7WQ
Equator celestial time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPtVG_pVNHI
IF the celestial poles are caused by us perceiving the stars getting farther away, THEN we would expect the poles center point to vary based on how far away we are… but we do not see this.
ANYWHERE on the Northern Hemisphere (N. American to Russia) you can see the northern celestial pole and the stars ALWAYS revolve around the same point, the North Star.
ANYWHERE on the Southern Hemisphere (S. America to Australia) you can see the southern celestial pole and the stars ALWAYS revolve around the same point, that just so happens to not have a star.
These results NEVER vary and anyone can recreate the results.
The existence of 2, and only 2, celestial poles, that are always consistent, disproves the flat Earth theory.
You can see all the stars revolve around the north star, as it is fixed in the sky. Throughout the year, year after year, the northstar remains unmovable in the sky, no matter where you look at it from, as it does not circle. You would think that with some of the tilt the Heliocentric model claim that the earth is having, that the north star would change position in the sky throughout the year, but apparently this just gets ignored, best not to think of all the wobbling they claim is going on, with the earth.
If you more of a explanation on how the the southern stars revolves around the same point based on perspective, try listening to p-brane, he got some animation to show how this works:
Anti Crepuscular Sun Rays are KEY to Southern Star Rotation FLAT EARTH perspective
https://youtu.be/t30-YbayyXE
IF his explanation is true, THEN we would expect to see different “celestial poles” (what we would perceive as such anyway) circling different locations as our perspective changes. But regardless of your location in the southern hemisphere, the southern celestial pole is alway in the same location (compared to the stars around it).
IF his explanation is true, THEN the center of the celestial pole would converge on the horizon at the point our field of vision ends, just like the SUN’s rays do in his example. In other words, we wouldn’t see full circles up in the sky, we would see half circles at the horizon. But we don’t see that. What we do see… the farther south you go, the higher the south celestial pole gets in the sky. The farther north you go, the higher the north celestial pole gets in the sky… but they both ALWAYS revolve around the same point regardless.
Northern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV8PVzPZcBk
Southern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w3n-s9i7WQ
Equator celestial time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPtVG_pVNHI
ANYWHERE on the Northern Hemisphere (N. American to Russia) you can see the northern celestial pole and the stars ALWAYS revolve around the same point, the North Star.
ANYWHERE on the Southern Hemisphere (S. America to Australia) you can see the southern celestial pole and the stars ALWAYS revolve around the same point, that just so happens to not have a star.
These results NEVER vary and anyone can recreate the results.
The existence of 2, and only 2, celestial poles, that are always consistent, disproves the flat Earth theory.
It is the same stars, only different are how far away you are from them. The farther away you are, the lower in the sky the most distant stars will appear from you. It is explained at the 1829 mark. He explains exactly why we would see full circles, no matter your geographical location, like you asked. It is a anti rotation, the further away you get, the smaller the circle will appear in the sky. So the further south you get, the higher the circles will get, as you get closer to them, that is how perspective works.
Whether you are in South America, South Africa, or Australia… if you take a time-lapse photo of the stars at night, you will see the Southern Celestial Pole. In ALL THREE locations, EVERY NIGHT. In all three places, the stars will be revolving around the same point. No matter what latitude you are at in the Southern Hemisphere.
His explanation does not come close to explaining that.
Why can’t we see the Southern Celestial Pole in the northern hemisphere? By his explanation, we should be able to see it at any location (or at least some type of southern circular movement).
Why is the Equator (at ANY point) the only latitude we can see both circles? )))II((( as seen in the Equator time lapse.
Equator celestial time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPtVG_pVNHI
South America, South Africa, or Australia, it is all the same latitude. As long as you are on the same latitude, you will see the same stars circles in the sky, just at different time in the night. Same way that the sun rise and sets in two different location on earth.
We can not see the Southern Celestial Pole in the northern hemisphere, as it is to far away, and would be below the horizon. He says that at about 6000 miles, stars appear parallel to the horizon, that is due to how perspective works, explained at this point 1240.
From that point on until about the 15:24 mark, he continues to explain why you can see both circles at the Equators. It is all due to how perspective works, as the north star stands stationary in the sky, always, and as you see stars that are further then 6000 miles away, they would be below the horizon. Once you get to the Equator, you are watching the north star sideways, so your hole view of the circle that the stars are making, is tipped, sideways.
“South America, South Africa, or Australia, it is all the same latitude. As long as you are on the same latitude, you will see the same stars circles in the sky, just at different time in the night.”
At ANY latitude line south of the Equator you will see the Southern Celestial Pole… EVERY night. Look it up. Test it. If you could find ONE instance where the Southern Celestial Pole (SCP) revolves around any other point you will prove me wrong. If you CAN’T find an example of that or demonstrate it, wouldn’t that mean I am right?
“We can not see the Southern Celestial Pole in the northern hemisphere, as it is to far away, and would be below the horizon.”
I thought both of you said the SCP was the result of perspective, not an actual point. IF that was the case, THEN we would see the stars revolving to the south too… at any latitude. By saying the SCP can disappear below the horizon, you are ADMITTING that the SCP is a tangible spot and not just a spot from our perspective.
“as the north star stands stationary in the sky, always”
The North Star is not perfectly centered. It also circles slightly, as seen in the time-lapse video I sent. The North Star also changes every so often.
No, it is not fixed. It is at distance of ~100 pasec, or parallax-seconds that means it moves 1/50 arcseconds on the sky when Earth moves 180° (2 AU) around Sun.
there is no south pole star, you can find time lapses of north verse south and they look nothing like this diagram
Northern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV8PVzPZcBk
Southern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w3n-s9i7WQ
Equator celestial time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPtVG_pVNHI
There are several examples showing the same results. ANYONE can recreate the results themselves. And the results DO NOT fit into the flat Earth theory.
The absence of a southern star does not disprove the southern celestial pole.
NASA might lie about a lot of stuff, but the northern and southern celestial poles are real. Anyone can look for themselves.
nicely illustrated - cheers
a) why would those who lie about a flat-model with a heliocentric-model; not also lie about the center?
b) what if each perceiving one represents the center of everything perceivable?
c) what if the few suggest models to tempt the many to ignore their perspective within?
d) does perceiving of up/down; left/right; front/back imply ones perspective from within a cube?
A)ANYONE with a time lapse camera can find the celestial pole (center).
B)Depending on where you are on the Earth (north, south, or equator), the time-lapse celestial image will consistently reflect your location. These results are recreatable by anyone with a time-lapse app or camera.
Northern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV8PVzPZcBk
Southern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w3n-s9i7WQ
Equator celestial time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPtVG_pVNHI
C)Will you ignore the time-lapse evidence that anyone can recreate?
D)It implies we live in a world of three dimensions.
There are several examples showing the same results. Anyone can recreate the results themselves. And the results DO NOT fit into the flat Earth theory, but works perfectly with the globe model.
NASA might lie about a lot of stuff, but the northern and southern poles are real. Their existence disproves the flat Earth theory.
a) the suggested captured moment (picture) and its mimicry of moving (motion picture) tempts one to ignore being at the center (perceiving choice) of momentum (perceivable balance).
b) back then; now and later one exists within the ever changing moment aka the momentum of ongoing (process of dying) from the perspective of the temporary (living) within.
c) the LAPSE, noun [Latin lapsus, from labor, to slide, to fall.] one perceives represents temporary growth (living) being transmuted back into ongoing loss (process of dying).
a) what if one needs to adapt to being moved; while others tempt one to want to measure everything else being moved? Does one need to measure breathing within perceivable or is one tempted by the suggestions of others to measure breathing (put a mask over your nose and mouth)?
What if celestial spirits are suggested to tempt one to ignore perceivable SPIR'IT, noun [Latin spiritus, from spiro.] - "to breathe, to blow". Sounds like adaptation to me.
b) as for the pole...AX'IS, noun - "the straight line passing through a body"...the "line" which passes through the living body represents the motion from inception towards death.
a) a suggested result tempts one to ignore that life represents adaptation to origin; while resisting the temptation of suggested outcomes.
b) RE (response to) CREATE (bring into being from nothing) represents consenting to suggested nothing; while ignoring perceivable everything.
What if the few suggest creationism (out of nothing) to tempt the many to ignore perceivable transmutation (out of everything)? Hence being ONE (perceiving) within ONEness (perceivable)?
What if as form (life) within flow (inception towards death)...flow to form represents inception, form within flow represents life and form to flow represents death. In other words...ingredient (living) transmuted out of base (process of dying) alchemy.
c) try to create a new thought without shaping it out of everything already perceivable...
Will represents free "will" of choice; hence implying to exist at the center of balance aka need (perceivable) or want (suggested). Ignorance represents ones choice to ignore need (perceivable inspiration) for want (suggested information).
Show me "two" things and I will point out that each ONE of them has to exist at a different place for you to be able to perceive them. It's the whole (perceivable) which differentiates into each partial (perceiving).
"two" represents a suggested inversion of perceivable oneness as perceived by each one within. Furthermore; two; three; four etc. implies counting aka DIMENSION, noun - "to measure" aka the choice of ONE to count other ONEs; while branding them as two; three, four etc.
This represents idolatry, and the parasitic few suggested NUM'BER, noun - "the designation of a unit" to tempt each ONE of the many to ignore U'NITY, noun [Latin unitas.] - "the state of being one; oneness". Why? Because if each of the many ignores being ONE with choice; then the parasitic few become the "chosen ones".
How could life, while being moved from inception towards death, "do nothing"; while being done (living) by everything (process of dying)?
If you add a T to NASA you'll get SATAN. Now about that missing T...minus 3;2;1...
a) plane (perceivable); planet (suggested)
b) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeMFqkcPYcg "Sweet Dreams are made of these...who am I to disagree?" https://pic8.co/sh/J6ho5s.png
"some of them want to abuse you....some of them want to be abused"... https://pic8.co/sh/x01AMt.png aka chosen ones lying on the flat plane; while letting the goyim (cattle) run circles around them.
Let's also add the official NASA connection.... https://eurythmics-ultimate.com/records/4999-annie-lennox-apollo-13-the-usa-promo-cd-nasa-cd-990013/
c) PROVE, verb [Latin probo.] - "to try to ascertain some unknown". That ignores KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists". Everything is known (perceivable); each one (perceiving) within lacks comprehension thereof; hence allowing growth (compression) within loss (impressing).
This is wrong. It assumes a lot of false assumptions and it also provides no evidence....those pictures need to be geo encoded and mapped to the location on the earth .... The north picture is not from the north pole ....it's from somewhere pretty far down in lat/long
Debunking is exclusively by and for fools. Earnest and capable students/researchers prefer objective (ideally) study instead!
When you assume something to be false (or true!) and then contrive/compile evidence only to support your belief - this is called confirmation bias. It’s what all debunking is.
There are a few problems with your “debunk” beyond that fundamental one above.
First, there is no flat earth model nor map. You can’t refute something which doesn’t exist. The picture shown is, at best, a conceptual aid - and a speculative one to boot.
Second, looking up in the sky to determine the shape of the ground in the opposite direction is unscientific and stupid. The stars can (and) do what they will. The ground is whatever shape it is despite/irrespective of that.
To any with an interest in this subject (for, against, neutral) please join us on flatearthresearch to discuss, explore, and exchange our views on it!
We should all make predictions based on our hypothesis and test to see if those predictions are correct.
Depending on where you are on the Earth (north, south, or equator), the time-lapse celestial image will consistently reflect your location. These results are recreatable by anyone with a time-lapse app or camera.
Northern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV8PVzPZcBk
Southern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w3n-s9i7WQ
Equator celestial time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPtVG_pVNHI
What other shape could have the same results? https://imgur.com/a/kfnyqUN
Not if we want to conduct a scientific investigation, no. Hypotheses can only be tested by experiment, and though they do include prediction they are vastly more rigorous and defined than that. Imagining things (what you call prediction) and then setting out to find observations which support them is mythology - not science. Experiment is never mere observation for this reason.
True, but they have nothing to do with the shape of the earth. They have to do with the repeated patterns in the sky. The earth and its shape is down here! Only a fool looks at the sky, the literal opposite direction, to study the shape of the ground....
Any shape. One shape that could satisfy your many further unvalidated assumptions is a concave sphere. But if you recognize and excise your unscientific bias from astronomy - you will realize the earth and sky are separate and one does not depend on the other.
It's called "topology" and, yes, you can make many predictions about it based on how external objects interact.
For example: if the Earth were a flat disc, and you put a light above the disc, anywhere, it would be visible anywhere on the disc.
If the Earth were a globe, and you have a light at some distance, there will be a point closest to the light, and a circle centered on that point will represent the barrier past which the light is no longer visible due to it being blocked by the curvature of the globe.
It's pretty obvious you're talking out of your ass here...
I agree that the world and the sky have shapes, obviously.
This is a common misunderstanding. Light is not magic, it can’t travel forever for a myriad of reasons, and it is only visible if it reaches you (even when it is, initially, bright enough to do so). One of the primary reasons such light can’t reach you anymore is due to the density gradient in our air which tends to divert light traveling through it convexly towards the ground, but there are many others.
Surely you don’t think you could see a candlelight or small led that was high in the sky - especially not from another country! Like most everything else, this doesn’t vary regardless of the true shape of the world.
Possibly, yes. If the world were a globe that is. If it were not a globe, then this would be a non-real, and incorrect, imagining.
Similarly, those of the “spotlight” view think the same thing happens just without being blocked by any supposed curvature.
I have many alternative and unpopular views, and consider many others. I think i have thought them through and have adequate evidence to support them, the same as you do.
The question is, how can we best determine which of us - (if any!) - is correct?
We all agree there is an atmosphere, right? And how light is effected by it? Are you retarded or ignorant?
“One shape that could satisfy your many further unvalidated assumptions is a concave sphere.”
But NOT a flat Earth, right?
So, do we BOTH disagree with the flat earth theory?
A flat earth would hold no more (necessary) sway on the motion of the sky than any other shape.
Sort of. In my view, there is no flat earth theory - just like there is no round earth theory and for the same reasons. Scientific theories have no purpose in determining the shapes of physical objects.
In my view, the earth is whatever shape it is :) Determining what that shape is with certainty does not involve astronomy. In fact, there is only one way to certainly determine the shape of any physical object - rigorous and repeated measurement of it! (NOT of things that are NOT it, and/or are in the opposite direction of it - like the sky)
“(NOT of things that are NOT it, and/or are in the opposite direction of it - like the sky)”
Do you also not believe in algebra? Algebra is the process of determining the value of “X” by comparing “X” to the known values of things around it.
The existence of 2, and only 2, celestial poles, that are always consistently revolving around the same points regardless of viewing point on Earth, disproves the flat Earth theory.
We can all see and test this. It does NOT fit into the flat Earth model.
Algebra is real, and like most all real things - requires no belief!
Assuming this were true, and “the flat earth theory” were a real thing (it isn’t for the same reasons the “globe earth theory” is not a real thing), it would not disprove or prove anything about the shape of the world. It would establish (“proove”) the patterns in the sky! If you want to know the shape of something, you have to measure it!
Agreed.
I prefer the word “conception” - because there is no flat earth model (certainly in a scientific understanding of that word).
The only reason you feel this way is due to MANY other biases. Putting them aside, and just establishing that the shape and the motion of the sky are as you describe “proves” things about the sky! The inferences you make beyond that are simply that - unsound “leaps of logic”. Looking at the sky to determine the shape of the world is incredibly silly, and is only believed reasonable thanks to bias/influence from (the pseudoscience/religion/mythology of) astronomy.
Typical libtard thinks drawings are proof. 2 random pictures don't mean anything. Anyone can do the laser test over a frozen lake and see the Earth is flat. Fuck off kike.
They actually cannot. You see when they were making the metro system. Making the Euro tunnel. The machines, are they called molemakers, hell just gave it that, need to align, or the tunnel doesn't. So they actually need too add curvature and the amount of dip. Or those machines are miles out. Literally. The tunnels are boring one side and the other. Much quicker. Need precision. Find out those calculations. Go on. Surveyors hell there are videos, show this too, big bridges, etc.
On the sea you have bigger loss waves.
But what every single one of the dumbass Flat Eather's hasn't done is the math right. The drop is there but it's subtle. In a flat line nose level laser level is over a much bigger distant.
https://www.mathscinotes.com/2017/01/effect-of-earths-curvature-on-suspension-bridge-dimensions/
https://www.mezzacotta.net/100proofs/archives/287
Link for bridges and some math. It's not hard proving this.
Tunnels are very complex. The Euro tunnel is because it winds, it goes down, run along, then back up. Yea it had to be real precise. The two machines on each side had to meet. I can link but you can find it.
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/facts
Curvature stated accounted for when making CERN etc. But on these LIGO lasers doing the grav waves. They have to be exact.
So sick of Flat Earthers. They call everybody else liars. A little bit of study proves otherwise.
Oh you're retarded, that's why youre a globetard.
All you shills have is equations and stories. Actual measurements show its flat. fuck off kike.
You're dumb that's why you got a flathead. Everybody else has a round head. It's probably a birth defect. Or the result of being dropped on your head. Falling out of the stupid tree.
Nobody knows what the hell you're ranting about.
You said lasers. Look I gave you lasers. The Planet's best lasers. CERN, LIGO. Nobel prizes for lasery. Grav waves and particle physics. Both account for curvature. You said over water. I provided bridges. I provided surveyors accounting for it. Digging tunnels as an example.
You have plenty of homework on the topic. Simply use the Internet.
But it's far easier having a flathead. It's a birth defect or an injury. Yes there are conspiracies. But in your ignorance you are detracting from them by being so utterly dumb and not finding the proof. Look at the links. God damn it.
lmao kike cock sucking free mason
You're dumber than a sack of regurgitated feltched butt juice. Because you went and gobbled it all up right out of a big dumb flat ass, and it squashed your face, mashing your flatten head. Until the only thing you spew is feltched up shit, and it's called the theory of a flat ass.
On your way. Dumbass
lmao free masons get mad fr fr no cap
And anyone can track the stars with time-lapse photography.
Northern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV8PVzPZcBk
Southern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w3n-s9i7WQ
Equator celestial time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPtVG_pVNHI
The existence of 2, and only 2, celestial poles, that are always consistent, disproves the flat Earth theory.
There is 1 pole, with 1 star always at the center despite the supposed spinning upon spinning in 'space'.
lol kike
nigger
this is you
fuck off with this reddit-tier shit.