Thanks!
I found his re-uploaded copy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu5Z75ji3aU)
I wonder why he deleted the original one.
Does anyone have another link to this video?
Was this something new from seibrel?
Apparently the uploader deleted it...
Getting stuck in the age of sail was a thing. Waiting on the wind while you’re stranded and your supplies dwindling flat out sucks and can spell death if you’re not well supplied or rescued. Sailboats are still a thing albeit not popular anymore due to their drawbacks. Unpowered transoceanic flights are more of a niche than a desire of the average Joe.
All true. Waiting on the wind with a craft that can rise or fall easily shouldn’t be nearly as problematic, but wind power is certainly slower and more unpredictable no matter how you slice it.
Lessening the maintenance of a flying craft is something I won’t budge on and neither will any regulating body
The “regulating bodies” are the ones that prevent such individual autonomy and access to the skies - it’s core to their purpose/existence. This isn’t about maintenance schedules, or adherence to them - and that wasn’t the reason or method the dream of the “average joe’s” access to the skies was crushed. In any case, the maintenance on a neutrally buoyant sailing vessel will unquestionably be much lesser on such vessels - though that is not to say less important! No one wants anybody falling out of the skies - especially not over our heads!
You don’t see hot air balloons playing bumper cars for a reason
No one is saying you should! The chances for such a thing are far lesser is all, and design can play a huge role in that (as it could in cars too if we didn’t live in a malthusian and industrialized nightmare)
I love flying. I wish I could do more of it. I’d own my own small plane if I had the means and the money to build my own landing strip on my ranch. But allowing every Tom Dick and Harry to have an airship and fly however they want is a recipe for disaster.
There would undoubtedly be growing pains, but i am not envisioning giving anyone jet engines. Such needed safety margins and techniques to achieve them will never exist with that attitude, and are the purpose of its popularization. Almost nothing would be as dangerous or suicidal as “ford’s nightmare” we are currently living anyway.
But the world we live in doesn’t make it very easy to pull off now. The road has rules, the ocean has rules and the sky has rules.
But not rules we would or did choose for ourselves. They are certainly to our detriment as result. There is a reason for such authoritarian militarization of the skies, and it is the same reason we can’t just humbly request the stolen airspace back. If we really want to take to the skies safely (and slower, in my view) it is on us to do it and do so with new techniques! Sitting around for our enemy to “do the right thing” and return what they stole is not a good or effective plan. Dirigibles don’t need runways and are vastly more “green”/efficient even when equipped with giant diesel engines.
Once we reach the stars
And what if i told you that such rhetoric was only ever scifi (fiction) pushed by mass media? Would you still be content to “wait for the enemy to return what they stole from us”? Even if such a place existed, does it sound like a good plan in that case?
The downside to airships like these is the wind. Fighting against the wind to get to your destination sucks in a low powered craft, if not outright impossible depending on conditions and power output
It’s also their (potential) upside! You could say the same thing about sailing ships, and for the same reasons.
Maintenance needs to be high since you’re flying and crashing into the ground or ocean can be lethal
They certainly need to be robust, no doubt about that. You are more “floating” than flying though. Maintenance should be far less than an average jet airliner.
And letting everyone just fly as they wish would be brutal
If you are afraid of people having freedom, then you are afraid of yourself :(
I agree that letting people drive as they wish has been brutal, but this is largely to do with the speed they travel and their construction. Neutrally buoyant craft can be a lot more like bumper cars, there is a lot more distance and freedom of motion to avoid and or recover/decelerate from a collision, and speeds will generally be much lesser.
We can’t have nice things because we’re slaves to love and can’t bear to cull the stupid out of our population
Stupidity is an aspect of humanity, not an archetype. It cannot be bred nor murdered out. We are slaves to loveless, callous, ignorant [evil] slavers - not love.
Until you can’t charge it of course.
I agree there is a lot of r&d to do, but that’s exciting! Solar power might be a good way to go, even something as simple as simple as changing the color of the craft skin to absorb or deflect sunlight affecting buoyancy to rise or fall (gently).
Dirigibles are awesome.
In my view, the dream of the dirigible was intentionally destroyed by the (likely staged, i.e. bombed/sabotaged) public/publicized destruction of the hindenburg. It was the 9/11 of its day, and although airships were a largely european phenomenon (though americans had them as well) they were intentionally painted as “nazi” and “unsafe” through mass media after that.
Flying ships grant an autonomy and freedom to individuals that the MIC would not allow :( But the skies belong to us, and i hope to see them return - perhaps more as sail/kite powered vessels than as these diesel monsters.
Auguste picard, and many others, dreamed that balloon craft like this would unite the world and allow us to utilize the jetstream for peaceful purposes and keep the militaries out. Sadly this dream was murdered by tyrants and warmongers. And now we have to show identification, and submit to arbitrary search and abuse at “airports” instead of the free and unmolested travel that is our right :(
Imagine having a small neutrally buoyant craft moored to your place with a rope ladder...
You are fake as fuck.
As i said, why not have a conversation and/or ask a few questions first - before rushing to judgement and confirmation bias?
Condemnation without evaluation is the height of ignorance.
Trying way too hard.
I try because i care about the subject. It is very important and rewarding when earnestly studied, which is why the heavily advertised (i.e. funded) psyop has convinced you (and many others) that “it’s all fake” and “too stupid to bother” even talking about.
Suck a metal bladed dildo, dumbass.
Your anger is misplaced. Why not get to know me first?
Anyone who engages in or considers “conspiracy theories” are domestic terrorists under “the law”.
We’re all on lists brother, or sister :(
Gee, what a schizo thing to say.
I probably understand your feeling though. Do you just assume that someone who questions the globe model couldn’t possibly be “real”? Because we are heavily encouraged (advertised to) to think that to prevent discussion and evaluation :(
I assure you, i am quite real. Maybe have a discussion / ask some questions before rushing to judgement?
It is all pretty fake, but it is at least as equally misunderstood.
Like many dogmas in the religion of scientism, you are merely supposed to believe and parrot - not research or rationally criticize.
Here’s carlin tellin’ the tale to the kiddos :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H37vGQYJu2M (sorry for the youtube link :()
This is a common misconception. The sextant does not rely on the shape of the world.
(Most) Any person, regardless of what shape they believe the world is, can learn to use a sextant. This whole thing is stupid, and nonsensical. It’s just intended to be condescending/diminutive - but it isn’t cogent enough to make sense or withstand the smallest amount of scrutiny.
If you have any interest in learning about the perspectives of flat earth researchers (on sextants or anything else), and/or wish to exchange our respective perspectives, please join us on flatearthresearch!
Question for Flat Earthers
There aren’t really any of those. That’s a heavily advertised (i.e. heavily funded) psyop and a few useful idiots to it.
do ya'll believe there is an "edge" - and that the "arctic wall" that is blocked by the military, or do they believe that there is no edge - - just billions of miles of ocean into foreverness?
Flat earth researchers such as myself work very hard not to believe anything, and either know and know how we know or acutely recognize that we do not.
There are many speculations, but no one knows for sure because they lack the validated and validateable data to make such a determination. Many believe the universe is infinite and “has no edge”. The world could be the same... Speculations abound, but that is all they are.
Just curious... if you are all in agreement on this one or now... :)
Flat earth researchers are largely independent and have no unified colleges, textbooks, curriculums, or churches/popes. As such, their perspectives, approaches, and conclusions vary wildly. This is the way it ought to be!
If you want to learn more about the views/findings/research of flat earth researchers, and/or exchange our perspectives on the subject, please join us on flatearthresearch to do just that! Chances are you haven’t encountered any earnest flat earth researchers before...
Enjoy your break! Screens are the worst :(
I’ll look forward to seeing you around when/if you return!
And to anyone with an interest in this subject (for, against, neutral) - please join us on flatearthresearch to further explore it and exchange our perspectives on it!
It helps to go back and try to learn why people thought the earth was round in the first place, and how they measured it in ancient times.
Agreed! That’s how many of us who conclude that the earth is not spherical first realize that!
They didn’t measure or prove anything! They just assumed and then disingenuously/erroneously taught it as fact from childhood since ancient greece (at least).
One of the most interesting things i discovered in my research is that no one knows who measured and validated the assumption of the spherical world. Furthermore the people who they are taught are responsible for such validations are plainly incorrect. Common erroneous figures attributed, like eratosthenes and columbus, were taught from childhood that the world was spherical, just like we are today - and never once sought to validate or confirm that ostensible “fact”.
If you are further interested in exploring the subject, and/or exchanging perspectives - please join us on flatearthresearch to do just that!
Pole shift is unscientific fear porn propaganda. Entirely fake and gay, with no evidence to support it.
If you are worried about it, turn off the tv/screens.
The famous moon tilt “illusion”. Classic.
said the flat earther.
Why do you think i am a flat earther?
I am a flat earth researcher, but people who study the subject have many different views on the shape of the earth - including spherical!
Do "flat earthers" believe that 1 + 1 = 2 ?
There aren’t really any flat earthers. That’s a heavily advertised (i.e. funded) psyop, which is why you think they are real and offensively stupid.
There are flat earth researchers (those that study the subject, related topics, and the psyop), however. Many (if not most) of us try very hard to keep belief and knowledge separate and distinct. If you believe that the world is round, flat, or any other shape (just like if you believe that 1 + 1 = 2) then you have faith NOT fact.
None of them are willing to go on the record with this simple question.
Personally, i’m happy to have a conversation about the subject with most anyone who is earnestly interested in it (including those who vehemently and irrationally hate it).
If you agree that what you meant was actually : “Do people who consider that the world may be or is not spherical the way we are taught also know that 1 + 1 = 2?” Then the answer is obviously yes.
If they say "yes", then they believe in the basis of all science; and therefor, "the brainwashing".
Mathematics is in no way the basis of all science. This is a common modern misconception, but historically and scientifically absurd and unsupported.
Science is a branch of philosophy (called natural philosophy), and the language employed for it (be it english, french, mathematics, or ancient greek etc.) is largely irrelevant.
If they say "no", then ... well...lol... i mean.. if they don't believe 1 + 1 = 2 ... then... lol , riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....
Technically, they shouldn’t believe such things! Only a fool believes what they should know. Fundamentally this is why it is so easy to “flip” (i.e. convince/manipulate) many people into believing the world is flat. It’s because they never knew what the shape of the world was to begin with - they merely believed and repeated it. When you know and you know how you know - you are a lot harder to f*** about!
I encourage you to join us on flatearthresearch to further explore the subject and exchange perspectives assuming you are earnestly interested!
That is one wild website.
Seems mighty schizo to me. What reason would “q-boro” have to NOT release his “damning evidence” when the fbi already wants him dead and has made several attempts already?
It’s poorly written, and not well thought out. I give it a 3 out of 10. Would not recommend.
Do you also not believe in algebra?
Algebra is real, and like most all real things - requires no belief!
that are always consistently revolving around the same points regardless of viewing point on Earth, disproves the flat Earth theory.
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!
We can all see and test this.
Agreed.
It does NOT fit into the flat Earth model.
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.
I agree that the world and the sky have shapes, obviously.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's pretty obvious you're talking out of your ass here...
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?
But NOT a flat Earth, right?
A flat earth would hold no more (necessary) sway on the motion of the sky than any other shape.
So, do we BOTH disagree with the flat earth theory?
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)
We should all make predictions based on our hypothesis and test to see if those predictions are correct.
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.
These results are recreatable by anyone with a time-lapse app or camera.
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....
What other shape could have the same results?
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.
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!
True, however we can also both agree that it works just the same and removing engines from flying craft lessens their maintenance overheads, overall costs, and increases their autonomy/self sufficiency.
The dream of august picard (and many others) was to utilize the jetstream for faster and more dependable travel. Kites and other methods could be employed, including entering the jetstream one’s self with pressurized cabins.
Not necessarily. Such things depend on craft design, and obviously hydrogen/helium balloons can easily travel MUCH higher than aircraft. In general, i expect most will have (as they do today and for the same reasons) a lower ceiling, but who is to say what innovations will change that when/if we take to the skies en masse.
Lol. No one will be “given” anything. I am just not advocating for abundant jet powered aircraft as they are extremely dangerous and expensive. We could relearn to take longer voyages again, and it would do us good to exercise such patience.
In the same place as everyone else’s! But running your jet car on the local freeway is more an act of war/terrorism than of personal freedom. The air above is vast, and there is more than enough room for all.
I envision/imagine smaller ones, for the average sort. It is true that there is a lot of work to be done to make it safe and convenient/dependable in any sort of way recognizable to us today.
I largely agree with you, and this too can be done safely. However, the most available/abundant and cheap “free energy” to travel on in the air is the wind- followed by the sun. There’s no reason not to pursue/utilize the low hanging fruit in the meantime!
Also, sadly such small nuclear already exists and is simply not disseminated. I expect it will continue to be this way indefinitely under the “current paradigm”.
Most cubicle dwellers have that need beaten out of them anyway (or so the induced depression, dissatisfaction, and malaise tells them, anyhow). Recognizing that “outer space” is merely modern mythology wouldn’t extinguish the human spirit. More mythology will unquestionably fill the void, and for the earnest - there will be a great spirit of exploration to discover reality once such mythology is exposed.
And what if earth is not a planet (wandering star) at all? I agree that the myth of scarcity is artificial, derives from our enemy, and is silly.
So we are meant to believe, and taught from childhood. One can easily look up at the sky, and the lights within it. Understanding/determining what they are scientifically (or otherwise) is another matter.
True. But let them call names to their hearts content.
Small, dedicated, rich, and through manipulating/influencing/organizing the larger populous.
Our enemy (the slavers) do everything they can to subjugate and make better slaves. However, like that small dedicated group you mentioned - they require the slaves for most everything and are entirely dependent upon them. That’s why step 1 is freeing their workforce from their clutches. Autonomy in travel, such as a small neutrally buoyant craft could help provide, would be a great step towards that - and this is undoubtedly why there has been so much pressure from the slavers against it.