2
YuuugeAsshoe 2 points ago +2 / -0

How did you see through that much atmosphere at sea level? The air is not totally translucent. Anyone who will not consider flat earth simply has not taken the time to find out the moon landing was fake, the ISS is fake, all footage of astronauts in space is fake, all images of ball earth and planets and nebula etc... are fake. Flat earth is too much of a jump till you figure that out. But the alleged earth curve is far more dramatic than most people realize. Two men 6' tall should no longer be able to see eachother behind earth curve at 6 miles apart for example. These tests are easy to conduct over ocean with a high zoom camera or telescope. Also there are fake flat earthers out there to throw people off with ridiculous explanations. Flat earth makes God our creator undeniable, and destroys lies like evolution that make people atheist

1
YuuugeAsshoe 1 point ago +1 / -0

Lol I linked the earthcurve online calculator I used, there are several of them out there. But if you don't trust them, the get a book called American Practical Navigator by Nathaniel Bowditch, it's basically the Bible of navigation. It has a whole section on how to calculate earth curve and the variables involved. It will lead you to the same numbers I produced, as mariners do this math all the time. I think by now everyone sees you are an aggro retard, good luck!

1
YuuugeAsshoe 1 point ago +1 / -0

If the calculation is so easy a monkey do it, then please answer my previous question in feet. How much of the sears tower will be blocked by earth curve from an observer 60 miles away and 10 ft high? Answer or admit you are full of shit, because I gave you specific answers for 3 different observer heights.

0
YuuugeAsshoe 0 points ago +1 / -1

Ok let me get this clear. If the Observer is 60 miles from the sears tower, and he is 10 ft above lake Michigan, how much of the sears tower will be blocked by earth curvature? Let's assume the sears tower is 1451 ft above lake Michigan even though it's slightly more. What do your calculations come up with?

I'll get my popcorn for your answer

0
YuuugeAsshoe 0 points ago +1 / -1

I've heard they don't pay income or property tax either, if so this needs to happen on a massive scale.

0
YuuugeAsshoe 0 points ago +1 / -1

Here is the amount of curvature that should be blocking Chicago at a few different observing heights, from 60 miles away.

Observing 10 feet above water = 2100 ft of obstruction.

Observing 25 feet above water = 1936 ft of obstruction

Observing 50 ft above water = 1758 ft of obstruction

The sears tower is the tallest building in Chicago at 1451 ft (plus its base is slightly higher than Lake Michigan, but this is not very significant)

So as you could see even the top of the sears tower should be hidden by hundreds of feet of curve obstruction depending on the height of the observer above the lake.

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature

1
YuuugeAsshoe 1 point ago +1 / -0

If refraction is a true phenomenon then it should be imperfect and only occure sometimes. Like the mirage should look very blurred and scattered. It shouldn't be possible for refraction to occure 24/7, would you agree with those two claims? However refraction seems to produce a perfect mirage as if you are on a plane with no curve. And assuming you don't have too much fog/rain/smoke... you can always use binoculars or a telescope to see objects that should be behind the earth curve. How do I know this? It happens to me all the time when I see approaching vessels when I am driving a commercial ship. Don't take my word for it, try it yourself. You just need height of the observer (above the water), and distance to the object. Then you can calculate how many feet of curvature should be blocking the object.

0
YuuugeAsshoe 0 points ago +2 / -2

Heres an example where the photographer appears to be relatively close to the surface of the lake but i cannot say how close for sure. https://youtu.be/SADAiC6DNFg

1
YuuugeAsshoe 1 point ago +4 / -3

Check out this news report, and then the vid afterwards. The cameraman seems to have very high zoom and is able to see chicago on a day thats slightly hazy. I dont know how high above the water he is but he appears to be pretty low.

https://youtu.be/SADAiC6DNFg

3
YuuugeAsshoe 3 points ago +7 / -4

I'm not saying you are wrong, but you may want to view this again with the assistance of binoculars or a telescope because this could simply be the result of the limits of the human eye. As a Mariner I am often able to bring vessels back into full view with binoculars that appear to be sinking into the horizon with the naked eye.

3
YuuugeAsshoe 3 points ago +5 / -2

It depends on your height of eye and the height of the object you are observing. But let's assume your height of eye is 6' and Chicago is 60 miles away. All Chicago structures should be blocked by approximately 2,166ft of earth curvature. So those building would have to be more than 2166ft tall to be observed, but in this picture they seem to be seen completely.

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature

*tallest building is the sears tower at 1451 ft

2
YuuugeAsshoe 2 points ago +2 / -0

So how was building 7 destroyed? No plane hit it, and its a block or two from the twin towers. I saw a video recently that compiled all the predictive programming indicating the twin towers would be destroyed. It was amazing to see decades of movies, music, cartoons, video games etc. that predicted this event.

2
YuuugeAsshoe 2 points ago +2 / -0

I think you are right, I've tried asking him if he's a freemason or apart of any secret societies on his live stream but he never answered. Although I think he did show genuine cognitive dissonance over the effectiveness of masks and covid shots. Saw him constantly going the the stages of grief over it.

2
YuuugeAsshoe 2 points ago +2 / -0

For context I am a professional mariner. It is very odd that several militaries would guard Antarctica as there is supposedly nothing but penguins to guard. Certain countries or regions such as Iran, Somalia, or N Korea have strict traffic lanes that are guarded due to global politics, but who cares if I take a civilian vessel to Antarctica they several militaries won't let you even get close (60° S). However Antarctica is not the main reason I am pretty sure we live on a plane. Discovering the moon landing is fake as hell lead me to finding out all footage of astronauts in space is fake, and eventually concluding that our understanding of space and earth is fake. Furthermore working on the ocean I have the opportunity to view objects that should be obscured by earth's curvature. For instance if my height of eye is 6' above sea level, an object 20 miles away needs to be about 200 feet tall before I can begin to see it above the curve. However, I have viewed objects that defy this math many times, assuming it's a clear enough day and you have binoculars that are powerful enough. https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature

2
YuuugeAsshoe 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'm claiming combustion and thrust is not possible in the vacuum of space, and the rocket would spin out of control as earths atmosphere became thinner and thinner. How does newton's 3rd law dismiss my claims?

2
YuuugeAsshoe 2 points ago +2 / -0

If you and I raised money for an expedition to Antarctica to go to the south pole (with a vessel and land transportation) we would be intercepted by a military vessel from one of many countries and they would turn us back at gunpoint at 60 degrees south latitude. Or we would be killed or imprisoned while trying to plan the expedition. Why do I say this? Because that's what happens to every civilian expedition that tries. Sure we can fly to 'Antarctica' and see penguins with a few dozen tourist companies, but they only take you to 2 locations on what I think is the ice wall. If you go with a research organization (the publicly known ones) you are restricted to a base and have no ability to explore on your own.

1
YuuugeAsshoe 1 point ago +1 / -0

I am aware space has sparce molecules and atoms, what makes you think this is enough to maintain aerodynamics? This makes zero sense to me. Even simulated vacuums on earth, which are much less void than space, you can drop a feather as fast as a rock because there is just not enough air resistance on the feather. How does a rocket stay in control in space which is even more of a void?

5
YuuugeAsshoe 5 points ago +5 / -0

Reptilians are simply demonic manifestations that you can sometimes see in people who are possessed

1
YuuugeAsshoe 1 point ago +1 / -0

Space is a vacuum, hence no atmosphere. Combustion can't occure without oxygen. Even if the fuel has an oxidizer included (it doesnt) experiments show that combustion is still impossible.

Also rockets have flukes on them so they can fly straight or steer in an atmosphere. How do you control a rocket if there is no atmosphere/aerodynamics? Keep saying this until it sinks in.

view more: Next ›