1
YuuugeAsshoe 1 point ago +2 / -1

Well if the earth is Yahweh's 'footstool' perhaps it does have 4 corners, in addition to being a circle. Be careful, you may be speaking evil of the Lord's creation.

https://robschannel.com/still-think-the-bible-isnt-a-flat-earth-book

1
YuuugeAsshoe 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ya the Google earth app will allow you to plot the flight route on a spherical earth. You can compare this to the flight route on a FE gleason map. I don't suggest people use a Mercator projection map because no one claims that to be a true representation of the earth. You will quickly see the flight routes make perfect sense on a FE map. You will also understand why we don't fly over the middle of Antarctica to get from Buenos Aires to Perth (even though that is the shortest path on a sphere.) It's impossible because antartica is is an encircling ice/landmass, not a continent at the bottom of a sphere.

1
YuuugeAsshoe 1 point ago +1 / -0

Try booking a flight between Buenos Aires and Perth Australia and see if the results make more sense on Google earth or the gleason FE map. That's just an example, try it with as many combinations as you like.

by pkvi
3
YuuugeAsshoe 3 points ago +3 / -0

Starlink has enormous gaps in coverage, particularly over remote ocean and land. If it is indeed a web of Orbiting Satellites, your coverage shouldn't change if you are standing in a city or sailing in the middle of the pacific. I wouldn't be surprised if they were using balloon satellites to relay your coverage over greater distances. But anyone who crosses oceans will see the coverage drop (or function sparsely). This is because starlink is primarily serviced by land-based towers.

1
YuuugeAsshoe 1 point ago +1 / -0

Checking it out, thanks!

2
YuuugeAsshoe 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ya I could believe Ben Franklin was early illuminate

1
YuuugeAsshoe 1 point ago +1 / -0

Also was freemasonry ultimate the same during our founding as it is today?

6
YuuugeAsshoe 6 points ago +6 / -0

Although I don't think freemasonry was ever good and was always a violation of God, I think it became subverted by the illuminate around/shortly after the founding of the United States. I don't remember the source off the top of my head but I remember several founding fathers commenting on this subversion. Now it is outright lucifarianism.

1
YuuugeAsshoe 1 point ago +1 / -0

Great argument

1
YuuugeAsshoe 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ok retard, show me your favorite image from voyager or hubble that you think is so real.

2
YuuugeAsshoe 2 points ago +2 / -0

The Antarctic treaty

2
YuuugeAsshoe 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well I offered a mathematical principle and you can look up the alleged distance to the moon. It's possible for any type of media to be evidence. Quit being a fag

2
YuuugeAsshoe 2 points ago +2 / -0

https://youtu.be/z5U5Lpgv8qM

Watch at 30 min for that answer, although I think you will get a kick out of the entire video.

2
YuuugeAsshoe 2 points ago +2 / -0

Let me first debunk any possibility of the moon being a rock 238k miles away that reflects the sun's light. If you look into the inverse-squar law of light this makes the moons distance and brightness impossible. Basically every time you half the distance to the moon the brightness should be 4 times more intense. Considering the moons brightness from our perspective, it would be insanely bright if you were 238k miles closer using this principle.

0
YuuugeAsshoe 0 points ago +3 / -3

The moon does not have a hot spot, or lighting that fades in respect to the light source. It is not lit like a sphere reflecting light. The moon cycle changes according to its proximity to the sun; it is an electromagnetic relationship.

0
YuuugeAsshoe 0 points ago +2 / -2

Well I was mostly trying to get people to realize there are no probes that orbited saturn or jupiter etc... and took real photos. IF we have 1000s of satellites, and dozens of inter-planetery probes there is no excuse. Yes you can take them from earth but they never look like a planet unless you use a process where you compile 100s or 1000s of pictures into one, to make it appear more like the main stream explanation. This is what venus looks like zoomed in from earth.

https://youtu.be/9R897t8GSYQ

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

Yes it is subjective, but you can still sway people's opinions with subjective material. However I've never seen any pictures that come close to looking real and they even admit that are cgi/composites etc... Check out Mr. Blue Marble for an example.

0
YuuugeAsshoe 0 points ago +2 / -2

I have never seen a real picture of the planets (from space), and I have never seen a real picture of the far side of the moon. The moon kinda looks spherical, but we've only ever seen one side. Show me a real picture of those things before you block me lol.

by pkvi
8
YuuugeAsshoe 8 points ago +8 / -0

I'm just assuming that all my comments are documented I'm already on a priority list to be marched off to a concentration camp at some point.

1
YuuugeAsshoe 1 point ago +1 / -0

He made a really good point lmao. Please explain to me how a hovering drone accelerates to match the earth rotating below on a shorter circumference than the drone?

2
YuuugeAsshoe 2 points ago +2 / -0

Hahaha, that's another checkmate argument. How the hell does a drone accelerate at 10k feet to rotate at the same rate as the ground. It makes no fucking sense! He's running on you.

1
YuuugeAsshoe 1 point ago +1 / -0

I dont see how you are objective, from what I can tell you are a globe and artemis believer by default. I am biased for FE, but I had to overcome a lifetime of sci-fi brainwashing to get there.

PS this wasn't a FE proof, I just said artemis is fake like the globe.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›