Oh good, the moron's back.

>>49
the Eye of Sauron is a blessing and a curse. sometimes I wonder if it's a deliberate psyop to encourage crossboarding and eliminate separate board cultures (by showing everyone updates from every board at once)

>>49
Don't you think you guys should switch tactics soon? I think that in a short while people will see that everyone that is negative towards flat earth uses belittling tactics and never address the arguments...

You have the floor. Post away.

On a side note Satellites...? GPS...?

What about the lie down stand up double sun set at the beach? You can use that to estimate the radius of the Earth. I've never actually done that one personally though...

masons, witches and Illuminati stuff belongs in polcon, stuff like flat earth should go in /conspiracy/ but I'm not going to lock any threads. Free speech.

I check overboard daily, I'm sure others do as well. People will see it. If it's good info people will read it.

You have the floor.

Get out an optical telescope, point it at your favorite planet, increase the magnification until visible. Attacha camera, video record. Post on here as an mp4 or webm video. What do you see? A spheroid rotating, or a disc? Now if it is the former explain why this simple model shouldn't apply to our own planet?

>>52
Satellites and GPS were addressed in the thread before. Long story short flat earthers - and this is no all-inclusive term... - believe that gps is LORAN land-based or a derivative — a system that could do positioning as accurate from the land that GPS can now... before gps and "sattelites"... I just checked the wikipedia entry for it and the accuracy and length claims are directly contradicted by an old documentary i saw on the system which claimed it could have accuracy to a couple inch all around the world.

Also satellites doesnt use relativity for it's GPS despite what we have been told, i link to a paper that goes over this in the previous thread! better go check it out! :-)

Never heard about the lie down, stand up, double sun set.

>>53
There's tons of videos of this online. Apparently the consumer telescopes only get a blurry image and then they have to use a technique called "stacking" which takes a collection of all the frames and makes a sharper image... i have no idea how this works but it seems a bit like the CSI "enhance" thing :P

Apparently some dudes with telescopes, judging from yt comments wonder why they don't see the same thing nasa does/shows us...

The moon, which is the closest object appears like either a disc or a round object, i can't decide but it's definitively rounded.

the p900 which is the best zoom camera or roundabouts shows the planets slightly as nasa shows us, but the funny thing is every time they zoom onto a star it looks wildly different... not at all like a sun/star. You have shifting colors even rectangular patterns... this is fun to check out on yt.

I should mention that some people are geocentrists though(about 300 scientists last time i heard), not flat earthers... a relatively few are also concave earthers... but they all agree that things are not as we've been told. Take this image for example. On the image you have the x,y and z dimensions accounted for in one image making it impossible to be anything but proof of a close & small sun.

chew on that.

The same goes for the crepuscular ray footage. It is usually attempted to ((explain)) it away and if you look into it, in the past they used to explain it as haze and scattering of light but then they changed their explanation in the most recent years and now they try to explain it through perspective. None of the explanations make sense though. It also has a bit too much similarity with the masonic pyramid with the sun on top to just ignore.

Wow that thread really got locked. Thanks for proving once again that /pol/ is a dead concept, nazi thought police.

>Hitler warned us
"Occult History of the Third Reich" - should still be on youtube. Enjoy.

Cosmic panorama: RT pioneers 360 video from Intl Space station - Duration: 3 minutes, 40 seconds.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=RrhJh6wh3-s [Embed]

>>56
What is your point? Do you consider this proof?? do you want me to debunk it? Please make some more effort than just posting a link... I went to the address in the video but i'm on a shitty hotel line and have to wait 2 minutes before it manages to load more footage and i can't see the start at all — only see blur. Call me when nasa gives me a live camera i can zoom in on the earth with and control myself from a website.

Ok, so from the rt footage you see the whole earth in one shot. that is not possible with the height the iss has...

From what little i saw of the VR videos, i see the distinct iss blur that is on every footage from the iss which haven't been taken inside a plane travelling up and down for "weightlessness". The iss blur is a result of water particles and therefore you can never have perfect clarity from the camera's... unless you want to claim that nasa can't focus their camera's.

the videos were 3.22(some would say these are the skull and bones numbers) with a couple seconds of the full "earth" and the other was 1.27 m long from inside the international swimming station... but again, can't see much on this line... why don't you debunk it though, or at least ask why this is the best nasa can give us. Also, im getting really tired of fisheye lenses. Why did this ever become a thing?

In other news they are really pushing the VR angle. Everything with space now also has to have VR... Iv'e seen even freeware and open source that suddenly has implemented VR.

ok peace.

>>57
Here's a video of Ok Go that does the same thing nasa often does. they film for whatever time they can in a plane - say 45 seconds - then they cut the frame, position themselves again, morphs over the small discrepancy with video editing software and restarts the shoot.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=LWGJA9i18Co [Embed]

for those who still believe in the iss nonsense:

astronauts can't decide how space looks like - including one contradicting himself at an earlier time - https://youtu.be/E9sblb7GfUs?t=1829

just look at their mimicry, bodylanguage and facial expressions... just as the apollo astronauts...

if you really believe all the official "debunkings" by plants around the net then at least you should be able to believe your own idea of honest speech.. because these people have none.

This is also something that goes around in the fe/geocentric/appollo hoax community. They simply ask that if the sun can light up half the planet at once, why isn't it light as fuck in space? there is no atmosphere to protect you from the sun and you are inbetween the sun and the earth... And as you see in this video the astronots can't decide themselves either. actually the idea that it's light as fuck makes a lot more sense but since theyve already gone with one of the models they have to stick to it...

Keep researching friends!

>>59
>hey simply ask that if the sun can light up half the planet at once, why isn't it light as fuck in space?

>the entirety of space is smaller than a hubble sphere
>the vaccuum of space is highly reflective

makes sense to me.

>>60
Why don't you answer why the astronaut can't decide which it is instead of quoting a theory of the same people we are claiming are bsing us?

"hey guys, here's a theory from a bunch of guys that can't keep their stories straight for why you shouldnt be able to see space filled with sun. btw this also contradicts what our astronauts sometimes say — when theyre not saying something else"

Can't you see that they are just prodding their bs? They used to ((explain)) crepuscular rays by saying it was the result of haze and scattering. Then they suddenly changed and now try to explain it through perspective. None of their explanations made any sense, but it's designed so that people will go - ah - and not look into it further...

>>61
oh and btw since nasa is changing their story all the time, what exactly space is is hard to tell. it used to just be vacuum but now there's a bunch of stuff up there apparently... how light is working with all this.. is anyone's guess. also the astronauts up there hahaha

>>61
>>62
well, I'm a deaffag so your youtube video means nothing to me since the CC's are universally shit, there.

Lacking those descriptions of space your astronaut said in a non-high-scientific context, I choose to pragmatically accept the set of theories that effectively explain the world around us and have proven, for centuries, to be reliable methods of modeling and prediction.

>>63
the quotes were scientific enough. he were simply answering someone listening "down on earth" - even though their feeds are never consistent with how long the wait time is supposed to be, constantly changing and shifting, which of course is another red flag - in the second video he is asked the same question and gives another answer.. but there is no way i can prove it to you i am afraid.

>>64
>scientific enough
Sounds like a National Geographic situation then. That rag is uninformed popsci almost every time, and yet their marketing, along with the fools who bought into it, puts it on the same level as actual journals.

Moon landing debunking and flat earth are two different topics, with two different outcomes. The evidence against moon landing is large and convincing. Flat earth is not so convincing. Post more evidence.

>>63
No. it's no situation at all. its one video of the astronaut saying one thing from a simple question and another of the same astronaut saying the opposite from a simple question. This is one of the million things which shouldnt happen if the apollo missions were real, if the iss were real...

and then of course you have the people who take it even further and claim the world is flat :-)

oh well. so far i know these things with 100% certainty:

we never went to the moon.
there is no iss with astronauts onboard. at most you have something creating an effect in telescopes but no consumer telescopes are good enough to see very closely.
the sun is not 93 million km away. it is small and local but for all i know there could be a bunch of suns and the FE map might be bunkus. but the heatspot example, crepuscular rays and images of sun in clouds can not be accounted for if the sun is that far away and that big. you can see a good explanation of this in the locked thread.

>>67
also all of the other things mentioned in this thread..

>>48
for example this. if this were the case then whenever i would drive towards the spindirection i would be hit with windspeeds in the order of 100 km/h travelling the opposite direction... obviously this doesnt happen.

So i don't believe in the spinning ball either and it looks like the earth isnt even round judging from all the guys measuring to see if it is a curve on youtube but id have to test this for myself or atleast familiarize myself with the math.

>>68
100 km/mph. maybe it wasn't too clear. If you have spin 1000 mph in one direction - on the equator at least - and wind is magically keeping this same velocity without anyone noticing, at the same time no one is noticing the spin because of our velocity, then at least we should notice when we move in the direction of the spin and get 1100 mph of wind in our face, effective - because of our inertia - 100 mph wind in our face...

But of course you don't get twice the airresistance if you drive westwards.. nor do planes get twice the airresistance travelling westward.

You also have counterwinds travelling different directions depending on the height... no winds on this earth give a shit that it's supposedly spinning.

I guess ill post something new because hopefully people are flat-earth addicts now and too busy trying to disprove me in their heads to lazily post in this thread like Dog himself meant it to Be.

A lot of physics dudes like this guy though: https://www.youtube.com/user/MullkyB

there's also other engineer fe'ers and physics fe'ers along with pilots, etc. Oh and of course flat earth has it's shills, Flat Earth Society being the most famous being namedropped by presidents and NASA -- which of course is suspicious enough because if they were just off the cuff remarks - totally not planned -, why would they be so specific? More people need to look into this. This is what will turn the pyramid on it's head.

So i have another argument i came up with.

The earth is moving - according to the latest numbers they keep changing - 30km a second in its course around the sun.

The ISS maintains an orbit with an altitude of between 330 and 435 km.

When the ISS is in front of the path of the earth - with the most conservative numbers - it would take about 435/30 = 14.5 seconds before the ISS should come crashing into earth. How do you defend this?? Magical 30km a second thrusters or what?? Oh and btw there is no mention of this process anywhere.. nasa says nothing about this...

Please work your mind now. How is it that with an earth that is travelling 30 km a second does the ISS not crash into the earth when it is moving infront of the path of the sun? And it does, it is plenty of videos with the iss with the sun clearly visible...

Another just as valid question is how the fuck is gravity strong enough to hold the ISS against the earth in the first place???

>>101
oh and btw that argument is ignoring the effect of gravity upon the iss when it moves in front of the path of the earth which is the same gravity that is supposed to be so strong that the iss is supposed to follow perfectly after the earth's 30 km/s movement...

We need to start talking about this. It's ridiculous that im talking about this on this small forum and not even on endchan/pol.. i also got kicked from 8chan/pol...

this is THE case that will turn the Pyramid on it's head. THE case that will change EVERYTHING...

>>102
>https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-the-ISS-crash-into-the-Earth
>Robert Frost, Instructor and Flight Controller at NASA
>about once a month the ISS fires its thrusters to increase its altitude

Right, so that doesn't really answer our question now does it. The ISS should need to do this AT LEAST every second hour... together with all the satellites...

what a crock of shit. this is pissing me off.

>>103
come on. debunk me.

You might need to revist highschool physics.

The satellite is also moving with a 30km/s velocity in that direction. So it appears stationary reletive to the Earth...

>>105
I don't believe in relativity. Mentioned earlier in this thread(https://my.mixtape.moe/mtjhye.pdf) GPS never used relativity; we were just told it was. If you can point to something else using relativity that aren't dependant on trusting some authority i might start believing.

Do this experiment then. Get a piece of fruit, Orange, Apple etc. Go in your car. Drive at 60 mph. One hand toss the fruit upwards and try to catch it. Did you catch it? Did it hit the back windsheild?

Try it and post back here the results.

>>107
>>106
I think there's some good argument for Special Relativity being a fraud but this has nothing to do with simple mechanics

>>107
what does this have to do with the theory of relativity??

and here i was all this time thinking it just had to do with inertia.

I don't think it's possible to debunk this, but please try. Requirements are knowing how airplanes work.

You are flying an old propeller airplane. It has a speed of 200 mph. Now, when the elevator is set to level the plane will fly level, that is how airplanes work.

Now the curvature of the earth is square of the distance multiplied by 8 inches. So since the airplane is moving 200 mph that is 200/60=3.3 miles per minute.

So in 1 minute the distance to the ground should increase 3.3x3.3x8=88 inches. 88 inches in meter is 2.2 meters. After two minutes the airplane have moved 6.6 miles, that is 6.6x6.6x8=348 inches or 8.8 m. After three minutes it's 784 inches or 19.9 meters.

You can see how it adds up, and this plane does not have magical alternate elevators or something that could change it's pitch, so why is it that the airplane continues to stay level with a supposed curved earth?

>>119
sorry for doublepost. didnt show up the first time.