Win / Conspiracies
Conspiracies
Communities Topics Log In Sign Up
Sign In
Hot
All Posts
Settings
All
Profile
Saved
Upvoted
Hidden
Messages

Your Communities

General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
News
Changelogs

More Communities

frenworld
OhTwitter
MillionDollarExtreme
NoNewNormal
Ladies
Conspiracies
GreatAwakening
IP2Always
GameDev
ParallelSociety
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Content Policy
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES • All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Conspiracies Conspiracy Theories & Facts
hot new rising top

Sign In or Create an Account

22
Private citizen builds his own rocket and takes pictures of Earth's curvature. Why can't flat earthers do this? (www.youtube.com)
posted 3 years ago by SmokeAndMirrors 3 years ago by SmokeAndMirrors +26 / -4
71 comments share
71 comments share save hide report block hide replies
Comments (71)
sorted by:
▲ 6 ▼
– WeedleTLiar 6 points 3 years ago +7 / -1

This is a cool video on rocketry, but you'll never convince these people. They've put years of their life into this stuff and they've been lost to sunk cost fallacy; the idea of that time being wasted is a threat to their sanity and so they don't even entertain it.

All pictures are fake unless they agree with me.

permalink save report block reply
▲ 2 ▼
– deleted 2 points 3 years ago +3 / -1
▲ 1 ▼
– SmokeAndMirrors [S] 1 point 3 years ago +2 / -1

most flat earthers know more about astrophysics than people who believe the earth is a globe.

Let's see some of their calculations and predictions then.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 2 ▼
– deleted 2 points 3 years ago +2 / -0
▲ -1 ▼
– SmokeAndMirrors [S] -1 points 3 years ago +1 / -2

Ok I did a quick calculation. Some flat earther claim assume that the diameter of the flat earth is about 6500km. That means the circumference is about 40000km

How would you blockade a 40000 km long coastline?

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– deleted 1 point 3 years ago +1 / -0
▲ -1 ▼
– SmokeAndMirrors [S] -1 points 3 years ago +1 / -2

You think that the wall is 40km long?

Thank would mean a diameter of 15 km.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– deleted 1 point 3 years ago +1 / -0
▲ -1 ▼
– SmokeAndMirrors [S] -1 points 3 years ago +1 / -2

No, I need you to think for a moment how many people and ships would have to be out there and be supplied to blockade a coastline that surrounds the whole flat earth.

Are you able to do that?

Because you claim that this is what is happening.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 2 ▼
– deleted 2 points 3 years ago +2 / -0
▲ -2 ▼
– SmokeAndMirrors [S] -2 points 3 years ago +1 / -3

So you are just making shit up again

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– deleted 1 point 3 years ago +1 / -0
▲ -1 ▼
– FishyMan420 -1 points 3 years ago +1 / -2

most flat earthers know more about astrophysics than people who believe the earth is a globe.

Actually they don't know anything which is why they're a flat-Earther. It may sound like they do, but almost everything, as it relates to the shape of planets, is wrong.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– deleted 1 point 3 years ago +1 / -0
▲ -1 ▼
– FishyMan420 -1 points 3 years ago +1 / -2

thats not logic.

Correct, it's science.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 2 ▼
– deleted 2 points 3 years ago +2 / -0
▲ -1 ▼
– FishyMan420 -1 points 3 years ago +1 / -2

No i mean things you can test and measure with repeatable and verifiable results.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ -2 ▼
– FishyMan420 -2 points 3 years ago +1 / -3

This is a cool video on rocketry, but you'll never convince these people. They've put years of their life into this stuff and they've been lost to sunk cost fallacy; the idea of that time being wasted is a threat to their sanity and so they don't even entertain it.

This also perfectly describes why people refuse to see all religions and supernatural beliefs are a lie. They can't admit they've been believing and living for a lie almost their whole life.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 4 ▼
– HeagleArt 4 points 3 years ago +4 / -0

why cant flat earthers do this?

It's not rocket science!

permalink save report block reply
▲ 4 ▼
– MotivatedCheese 4 points 3 years ago +10 / -6
  1. Flat Earthers have done this

  2. what are fish eye lenses

permalink save report block reply
▲ 8 ▼
– SmokeAndMirrors [S] 8 points 3 years ago +10 / -2

Cool. Let's see the video made by flat earthers.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 3 ▼
– MotivatedCheese 3 points 3 years ago +5 / -2

here’s one

https://youtu.be/ihdZqAoAV9g

And here’s other general information about flat earth, videos are organized in a way to be responses to common questions

https://arete.network/b/FlatEarth/p/3405/flat-earth-resources

Peace!

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 3 ▼
– SmokeAndMirrors [S] 3 points 3 years ago +5 / -2

here’s one

https://youtu.be/ihdZqAoAV9g

Source of the video? There is no mention of who made it and when.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– deleted 1 point 3 years ago +4 / -3
▲ 2 ▼
– SmokeAndMirrors [S] 2 points 3 years ago +2 / -0

The claim was that

Flat Earthers have done this

So far, I have not seen any videos by flat earthers shooting rockets to the edge of the atmosphere.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– deleted 1 point 3 years ago +1 / -0
▲ -1 ▼
– SmokeAndMirrors [S] -1 points 3 years ago +1 / -2

The claim was that a flat earther made a video using a rocket.

None of the videos shows that.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– deleted 1 point 3 years ago +4 / -3
▲ -1 ▼
– FishyMan420 -1 points 3 years ago +1 / -2

Those videos are so obviously faked, just look at the edges as it pans. You people are in the running for being as dumb as theists and germ theory deniers. Goodness help you if you're all 3.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 4 ▼
– TurnToGodNow 4 points 3 years ago +6 / -2

Flat Earthers still can't explain a sun set.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 3 ▼
– Vlad_The_Impaler 3 points 3 years ago +5 / -2

Their explanations for sunrise and sunset are bogus to me.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– deleted 1 point 3 years ago +2 / -1
▲ 2 ▼
– SmokeAndMirrors [S] 2 points 3 years ago +2 / -0

The one where you claim that light somehow cannot penetrate the air beyond a certain range without providing any evidence for it.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– deleted 1 point 3 years ago +1 / -0
▲ -1 ▼
– SmokeAndMirrors [S] -1 points 3 years ago +1 / -2

So, what's the distance that light can shine through the atmosphere and what's your source for it?

Just give me a number, calculations and what experiment was done do support it.

I already know that you won't do it.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– deleted 1 point 3 years ago +1 / -0
▲ 1 ▼
– Vlad_The_Impaler 1 point 3 years ago +2 / -1

The flat earth model suggests the earth is not spinning and is flat. The sun moves around the flat earth. If the sun is moving to go over a distant land, it should get smaller in the air, not set over the horizon. Same with rising. It should appear in the distance and grow larger as it comes closer, not rise above the horizon.

An airplane flying over me doesn't rise from the horizon and the set in the horizon. It appears small and distant overhead, larger as it is above me, then shrinks in size at it goes away. It doesn't disappear over the horizon.

Attempts for flat earth theorists to explain this are simply unconvincing to me.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– deleted 1 point 3 years ago +1 / -0
▲ 1 ▼
– XharlesDucken 1 point 3 years ago +1 / -0

This is nice, easy, and reproducible test. I'll try this on my Canon. I'll have to order a solar lens first. I'll report back in a few weeks.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ -1 ▼
– deleted -1 points 3 years ago +1 / -2
▲ 3 ▼
– TallestSkil 3 points 3 years ago +6 / -3

So no, they haven’t. And no, it isn’t.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 2 ▼
– XharlesDucken 2 points 3 years ago +2 / -0

I wish I had that kind of money. I want to see stars from orbit.

permalink save report block reply
▲ -3 ▼
– deleted -3 points 3 years ago +6 / -9
▲ 5 ▼
– SmokeAndMirrors [S] 5 points 3 years ago +6 / -1

They had cgi in the 1950s?

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 0 ▼
– deleted 0 points 3 years ago +2 / -2
▲ 1 ▼
– SmokeAndMirrors [S] 1 point 3 years ago +2 / -1

You claim they are cgi. Show it.

Why do you only post youtube videos? Is that all there is?

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– Vlad_The_Impaler 1 point 3 years ago +2 / -1

I don't get why people get angry over this. It's good to question conventional wisdoms.

You claim there is an invisible dome / firmament

At what aproximate altitude is this firmament dome at?

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– deleted 1 point 3 years ago +1 / -0
▲ 0 ▼
– SmokeAndMirrors [S] 0 points 3 years ago +1 / -1

So we can NOT go and see if a dome connects with the land.

Yes, you can. If the Artic is really a wall that surrounds the rest of the world, the coastline would be tens of thousands of km long. How could anyone prevent you from visiting?

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– deleted 1 point 3 years ago +1 / -0
▲ -1 ▼
– SmokeAndMirrors [S] -1 points 3 years ago +1 / -2

How many millions of military and how many thousands of ships do you think are required to patrol an ice wall that surrounds the whole world?

The whole fucking world. How long do you think that wall is?

That would be a naval blockade bigger than anything else. The logistics for that would use up unimaginable resources.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– deleted 1 point 3 years ago +1 / -0
▲ 1 ▼
– deleted 1 point 3 years ago +1 / -0
▲ 1 ▼
– brahbruh 1 point 3 years ago +1 / -0

I was thinking "wait, how could have a view of the curvature this sharp from only 56 miles up? That's what the curvature would look like from about +800 miles up...", and then I noticed that the curvature appeared sharper when the horizon was near the bottom of the frame and flatter, even concave, when it was nearer to the top of the frame. I thought "well maybe this is some kind of wide-angled fish eye camera like a GoPro". And then I realized it was.

So then I was going to take a screenshot of the wide versus flat and ask the people here if they could help explain it, but right when I went to do that the camera malfunction and stopped recording. I thought "how could they spend tens of thousands of dollars building and launching a rocket like this and not even spend more than a few hundred dollars on making sure they had a camera that could record the whole thing?"

I wonder if maybe the project was run by NASA. They always have the same kind of camera problems.

Any thoughts on these anomalies? Or no thoughts?

permalink save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– TheDigger3 1 point 3 years ago +1 / -0

Well there was that one flat earther dude, wish I could remember his name, that built a shitty homemade rocket and killed himself with it. So there's that.

permalink save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– jack445566778899 1 point 3 years ago +1 / -0

The horizon doesn’t curve at any attainable altitude. This image is due to distortion (typically barrel distortion from the lens).

Though it is certainly impressive for a private rocket to get 56 miles up. How many people worked on it and how much did it cost to build?

The answers to those questions may explain why most people make observations like this with balloons available for a couple hundred bucks.

permalink save report block reply
▲ 0 ▼
– deleted 0 points 3 years ago +1 / -1
▲ 2 ▼
– SmokeAndMirrors [S] 2 points 3 years ago +2 / -0

How far up is the firmament? how can you observe it?

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ -1 ▼
– deleted -1 points 3 years ago +1 / -2
▲ 2 ▼
– SmokeAndMirrors [S] 2 points 3 years ago +2 / -0

If you cannot observe it how do you know that it's there?

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– deleted 1 point 3 years ago +1 / -0
▲ -1 ▼
– SmokeAndMirrors [S] -1 points 3 years ago +1 / -2

i know

No, you don't. You chose to believe it.

You cannot even coherently explain your flat earth model.

i see rockets stop and bounce off something hard.

No you don't.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ -1 ▼
– FishyMan420 -1 points 3 years ago +1 / -2

You're saying some good logic, you an atheist?

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 0 ▼
– SmokeAndMirrors [S] 0 points 3 years ago +1 / -1

I don't like such labels

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ -1 ▼
– FishyMan420 -1 points 3 years ago +1 / -2

It's not a label (unless you want it to be, but why would you?) but a descriptor, one that honestly doesn't need to exist. Is there a descriptor for people who lack belief in leprechauns? Lack belief in flying pink unicorns? Nope. However the vast majority of the world believes in some kind of deity, so a word was invented to describe those who lack belief in a god.

So do you lack belief in a god?

Edit: Shit you're a covidian.

I'm triple vaccinated so is almost everyone I know.

None have suffered from any lasting side effects.

When will we die? Any predictions?

Dammit why are most atheists liberal retards? https://scored.co/c/Atheist/p/141rjThFxK/atheism-is-at-war-with-psychopat/c

Use the logic and reasoning you've demonstrated here and apply it to the covid vaccines. c/nonewnormal

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ -1 ▼
– free-will-of-choice -1 points 3 years ago +3 / -4

private citizen

a) being partial (living) within whole (process of dying) represents being private within public.

b) a citizen implies being incorporated and governed by suggestions of others; hence in ignorance of perceivable apartheid.

his own

A vessel (living) within motion (process of dying) cannot own (hold onto) without ignoring to resist being moved by, and therewith sustaining self. Holding onto burdens self; which others can exploit by suggesting debt as to drown resistance.

curvature

  • CURVE, adjective - "bending; crooked; inflected in a regular form" + INFLECT', verb transitive [Latin inflecto; in and flecto] - "to bend; to turn from a direct line or course".

Inception towards death represents the direct line of course for everyone living within, while turning from this direct line represents EMO'TION, noun [Latin emotio; emoveo, to move from.] aka the temptation to ignore being moved by. Others utilize suggestion to tempt emotion.

permalink save report block reply
▲ 0 ▼
– SmokeAndMirrors [S] 0 points 3 years ago +2 / -2

Is that some sovereign citizen bullshit?

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 4 ▼
– MO-Carpenter 4 points 3 years ago +4 / -0

Severe autism.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ -1 ▼
– free-will-of-choice -1 points 3 years ago +5 / -6

a) citizen (incorporated by others) contradicts sovereign (superior to all others)...a suggested litmus-test for free will of choice.

b) "some" (a portion greater or less) implies the choice of partial (living) within whole (process of dying) aka the choice to grow within loss.

c) bullshit represents excellent fertilizer.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 2 ▼
– cablez 2 points 3 years ago +3 / -1

fertilizer represents the on going process from inception towards creation. The shit feeds the soil to the many (ones) then plants grow which get grazed upon by the cattle. And becomes shit once more. <3

Also this was meant as a joke-ish....I love your posts :D

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ -1 ▼
– deleted -1 points 3 years ago +4 / -5

GIFs

Conspiracies Wiki & Links

Conspiracies Book List

External Digital Book Libraries

Mod Logs

Honor Roll

Conspiracies.win: This is a forum for free thinking and for discussing issues which have captured your imagination. Please respect other views and opinions, and keep an open mind. Our goal is to create a fairer and more transparent world for a better future.

Community Rules: <click this link for a detailed explanation of the rules

Rule 1: Be respectful. Attack the argument, not the person.

Rule 2: Don't abuse the report function.

Rule 3: No excessive, unnecessary and/or bullying "meta" posts.

To prevent SPAM, posts from accounts younger than 4 days old, and/or with <50 points, wont appear in the feed until approved by a mod.

Disclaimer: Submissions/comments of exceptionally low quality, trolling, stalking, spam, and those submissions/comments determined to be intentionally misleading, calls to violence and/or abuse of other users here, may all be removed at moderator's discretion.

Moderators

  • Doggos
  • axolotl_peyotl
  • trinadin
  • PutinLovesCats
  • clemaneuverers
  • C
Message the Moderators

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

2025.03.01 - 9slbq (status)

Copyright © 2024.

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy