What globe? Flat Earth and Flat-Earthers

Goemon_

Jedi Council Member
He also shows this video, of a moving sidewalk apparently in Paris at the turn of the century. What's up with this? What technology are they using?
from this article (Link): "But the history of the moving walkway didn’t start in Paris: “In 1871 inventor Alfred Speer patented a system of moving sidewalks that he thought would revolutionize pedestrian travel in New York City,” as Novak notes, and the first one actually built was built for Chicago’s 1893 Columbian Exposition — but it cost a nickel to ride and “was undependable and prone to breaking down,” making Paris’ version the more impressive spectacle."

It seems pretty clear that the video of the Paris moving sidewalk is from the universal exhibition of 1900. The second one of this type in Paris. The first one was held in 1889. For this first one Gustave Eiffel took two years to built the famous Eiffel tower.

IMO, that part falls in the following category: a guy trying to mislead the viewer to believe that this is a wonder of the old times before some disaster.

Same goes for the video of illuminated building that, if I'm not mistaken comes from a luna park in 1912.
 

Brewer

Jedi Master
I find this Starlink website a good way to demonstrate that our planet cannot be flat. Wait till dusk and simply zoom into your location and wait for a satellite to pass over, it doesn't take long. You can demonstrate this repeatedly till sunrise and it's very difficult for a flat earther to explain it using the FE model.

However, I do think a sizeable percentage of what is portrayed by media and government agencies regarding space is a lie. They lie about everything else and have done so for years so why would space be any different?
 

Brewer

Jedi Master
When the Cs say something like "How could you even ask?", you can bet that they mean "That is so dumb a question we cannot believe you took the time or energy to even bring it up!"
Agreed. However, it might be interesting to ask some questions of the Cs regarding space. The past few years have revealed the monstrous dimensions of the Big Lie, a lie that flies over the heads of so many. Massive lies like the 2020 election and the 'pandemic' and of course the historical lies of 911, WMD and so forth so would space be any different?

I've been researching space travel for the past four years, there is a steady trickle of archival videos constantly appearing on YouTube. Most are simply cosplay and laughable when viewed today however some do have some valuable historic and scientific data. I have found 2 videos that fit that description, others and myself made a couple of skeptical comments and this happens.

1643578849127.png1643581234428.png
This was a 60's era scientific film on scaled lunar module jet erosion experiments paid for by taxpayers and should've remained in the public domain but they removed it from every platform I've searched. Apparently, because of a handful of nerds like me began making a couple of awkward comments! We're supposed to trust NASA when it comes to asteroids and climate change!

So maybe a question could be asked. Is 20th century to present space travel part of the big lie? If so, what percentage of it is fake and why?

Thanks
 

MatiaS

Jedi
Also, what about the ISS? Maybe I've watched too many videos about it that present it as a conspiracy and my judgement has been compromised, but there are so many instances of gravity (or lack thereof) behaving inconsistently, bubbles emerging from space suits on space walks, graphical glitches that are clearly the result of CGI gone wrong.

Another aspect is the controversies surrounding polar exploration, and the Masonic fingerprints to be found everywhere concerning both NASA and polar exploration.

What I'm trying to drive at here, is that there could be some avenues of research worth pursuing here, without necessarily having to attach any hypotheses to a flat earth model. There's something we're not being told about the poles of our earth, be the shape a globe, a plane, or a cube. Something very important is to be found there, and the lack of possibility of independent investigation of these areas is something that I don't believe has come about haphazardly.

Even on a globe earth, everything is not as it seems when it comes to the ISS and the poles, is what I'm trying to say.
 

Brewer

Jedi Master
Also, what about the ISS? Maybe I've watched too many videos about it that present it as a conspiracy and my judgement has been compromised, but there are so many instances of gravity (or lack thereof) behaving inconsistently, bubbles emerging from space suits on space walks, graphical glitches that are clearly the result of CGI gone wrong.
I think that the ISS is actually a thing, however a lot of it is probably faked. I think they do have people up there temporarily for show but I doubt they have extended stays due the effects of microgravity and radiation. I've made some comments about the pressure suits and how you never see them being tested or used in a vacuum. I've made a few more comments here and here too.

Some of the design features of the space station seem outright dangerous and I doubt they'd work for long. They have steel spindles sealed with O rings penetrating the pressure hull, the grease and oil would boil off in a vacuum and the rubber would degrade rapidly. I wrote to the designer and manufacturer of the components in this video, asked for the schematics and offered to pay for them but he said he didn't have them to hand. It's a lie, he has them in his workshop. I showed this vid to an engineering friend of mine, he says it wouldn't work for long and is downright dangerous. Then there's the bloke demonstrating the cupola! 'Um, then you have a leak' and 'there's probably a plan' I wouldn't fly into space with him!

I don't know, I seem to be the only person on the internet to have pondered about how the astronauts maintain their necks during long stays in microgravity. The human neck is a complicated affair and supports a 5kg head but there is absolutely no information on how they simulate it in microgravity. Yet when an astronaut returns to earth after a hi G re entry they move their heads completely normally on a neck that would've lost 50% of it's muscle mass and bone density. Shortly after returning from a year in space they had the bloke walking around and falling all over the place with no neck support! I wrote to NASA asking how they maintain neck health in space, nothing. Science Q & A fora don't know either but agree that the cervical spine would degrade rapidly.

They love their big hair and bling on the ISS. Check out the reptile hanging around the neck on this bloke, is he giving us a hint on who's behind all this?
1643658714032.png
 

Nang'

A Disturbance in the Force
Earth is not a globe, by no chance. It's not flat either. Anyone who wants to know how it really looks like should check this :
That's the best snap shot of our planet you can ever have : an hypersphere.
 

riccadus

The Force is Strong With This One
Well... I never thought I'd be here writing this, but here I am. I'd never really looked into the flat earth thing before now and was always quite confident taking the majority position. I mean we've got much bigger fish to fry anyway, so who even cares what shape it is. I didn't even realise there was a thread on this topic until I looked the other day. (As an aside, I find it funny that I felt I need to put this disclaimer here - it's kind of like the "well I'm no anti-vaxxer but..." disclaimer you hear a lot of lately.)

Anyway a few weeks ago I somehow came across and decided to watch the 8 hour documentary "What on earth happened?" by Ewaranon (I believe it's the same one that MatiaS has posted above). It was purely a "what the hell" kind of moment and I don't think I was expecting to watch the whole 8 hours, but I decided to at least give it a go and see what those nutters are up to. Well I ended up watching the whole thing and I have to tell you I was pretty shaken up by it, as it was a whole lot more fascinating than I had anticipated. There were topics raised that I couldn't immediately dismiss as I had expected, and some really interesting things that I had never seen before and I thought warranted further investigation (the cymatics stuff for one). It kind of shocked me how much it shocked me and I was put in a kind of fugue state for a couple of days where a war was going on in my head between the two ways of thinking - it's like the black and white optical illusions where you naturally see one image and then need to "switch" your mind to see the other, and then it can be hard to switch back. I couldn't shake it from my mind. It sent me on a path of further research to try and "put out the flames" of this uncomfortable fire and put it to bed once and for all - to find that one proof that would flatten (pun intended?) them all so I can get on with my life. I haven't found it yet though, and I fear I've strayed even further down the path in the process. So now I find myself embroiled in this topic with no clear way out. I'd like to go back to my comfortable globe earth model please if anyone can assist :-D.

Talking about this here is certainly difficult for me (let alone anywhere else), given what the C's have alluded to and the general ridicule of the topic over the course of this thread so far, and even Laura's own statements about the mental sanity of those that dare to ask such questions. Yikes. Well, I don't think I'm an idiot or schizoid, and I have no desire to get on the wrong side of the people on this forum, but it was either suffer in silence as I typically do (I don't post much) or put myself in the frying pan for once. Why did it have to be this topic of all topics to drag me from my lurking slumber? These are desperate times after all and I'm starting to wonder whether I am actually disintegrating / reverting back to a 2D perception of things. That would certainly be non-ideal. Could both models be right? Is the nature of the earth dependant on the consensus belief of the inhabitants at any point in time? Is there a reality-split in progress?

One thing I found quite compelling in the doco was how closely the Gleason map matched the model used by ancient cultures and ties in very elegantly with the biblical viewpoint, mythology, astrology, calendars and clocks (See Part 13 starting at 07:06:45). The discussion about pre-history was also very interesting (See Part 11 starting at 5:25:00), talking about evidence of silicon based life, and that perhaps the move to carbon based life was "the fall". These things aren't necessarily reliant on the earth being flat and are interesting topics in their own right.

Back to the flat earth argument though - it seems that every supposed proof for one side has a counter-argument from the other. Yes, there is footage of curved horizons from balloons/rockets, and there is also footage showing flat horizons (depends on the shape of your lens) - who is right? Once I went on a cruise and I could have sworn the horizon was curved, but was it really, or was it just my brain creating the effect to appease my belief system? Zooming in with a telescopic lens on the sunset makes the sun rise again (apparently - I don't have the means to test this personally as yet). Flight paths seem to be being used by both sides of the argument to prove/disprove - stale-mate there it seems too. But wait, Space X and Virgin Galactic are flying people into space now right? False alarm, they're just high up in the atmosphere flying in a zero-G parabolic arc, and of course they're using curved windows too so everything looks curvy. Nothing from NASA is reliable either - too much obvious manipulation and fakery.

What else... we have the classic Eratosthenes shadow-clocks proof that relies on the assumption that the rays from the sun are parallel - which by observation does not seem to be so (covered in
at about 51 minutes in. This video also covers a few other interesting things such as atmospheric occlusion and flight paths - worth a watch).

Not to mention the stars don't seem to move regardless of supposed earth movement or "wobble". Polaris always seems to be in the same place (see https://greatmountainpublishing.com...the-north-star-prove-the-earth-is-stationary/). Can any astronomers take a stab at this one?

It seems completely maddening to me that our proofs of something so fundamental are so brittle and open to counter-argument. So given this state of affairs, and regardless of the force of ridicule, it seems to me that taking a hard position on one side of the other is not logical and I'm now somewhere "in between". I'm on the spectrum as it were.

Now, I don't think that the flat earthers have given up on gravity...

Well, the Eric Debay camp from what I've seen don't consider gravity at all, only density.

One more recent thing I've noticed is the "fact checker" phenomenon. Just like our beloved virus, the fact checkers are all over this topic too. Everything involving the flat/globe earth argument on Youtube (at least) seems to now be graced with the infamous blue "context" box stating that

The flat Earth model is an archaic and scientifically disproven conception of Earth's shape as a plane or disk.

The fact that they do this is interesting in itself. Like the "correct" shape of the earth needs to be drilled into people just in case they stray from the narrative. The PTB are telling you not to look behind that door, so that just makes you want to go over and open it right? And they really need to come up with a better front-man for the globe model than Neil deGrasse Tyson as the guy just comes across as a shuckster.

So for those that have been through this process and have come out the other side with renewed faith in their chosen model - please feel free to share the killing blow with me.
 

Nang'

A Disturbance in the Force
Earth is not a globe, by no chance. It's not flat either. Anyone who wants to know how it really looks like should check this :
That's the best snap shot of our planet you can ever have : an hypersphere.
I must add this to my own post : if you visit the Vatican's museum, you will come across a long and large gallery illustrated with charts and maps. Right in the middle of the richest place on earth, the very gold safe of Europe, charts. What does this mean ? That the competitive knowledge of geography is a WEALTH by itself, something you do not share with your folks nor your enemies. Something to keep for yourself.
It has become obvious that there's a serious problem with our earth geography, mapping, geological time. Some do not want to share they knowledge, they don't want us to access it.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
From the July 22 2012 session:

A: It is just as dangerous and just as useless to "see" conspiracy in everything as it is to "see" conspiracy in nothing. We tire of conspiracy "buffs." They are nutty, and serve as perfect false sponsors to those who really DO seek to conduct widespread mental/psychic manipulations and control.
 

MatiaS

Jedi
Talking about this here is certainly difficult for me (let alone anywhere else), given what the C's have alluded to and the general ridicule of the topic over the course of this thread so far, and even Laura's own statements about the mental sanity of those that dare to ask such questions. Yikes. Well, I don't think I'm an idiot or schizoid, and I have no desire to get on the wrong side of the people on this forum, but it was either suffer in silence as I typically do (I don't post much) or put myself in the frying pan for once.
This is very much how I felt before "taking the leap", as it were, in posting these videos. As you also say, I've found myself in this very uncomfortable "inbetween" space in regards to this. Both sides seemingly having counterarguments for every counterargument.

I also find it to be quite a divisive topic right now in the so called "truth-movement". YouTubers I've followed throughout the years have taken stances one way or the other, I remember there even being a kind of feud between LIFTINGTHEVEIL and Santos Bonacci at some point (where Edward (LIFTINGTHEVEIL) and Santos would post content slandering the other party over the flat earth discussion).

It's akin to the divide of vaxx vs. anti-vaxx, and it's funny that mainstream consciousness seems to like to clump these two together. "Ah, your're a flat earther, probably you're anti-vaxx as well." Or alternatively "Ah you're anti-vaxx, probably you're a flat earther too."

Also as you say, the ridiculing kind of statements made all over the internet towards 'flat earthers' seems to be prevalent on this forum also, and that to me is a bit weird, seeing as the topics discussed openly and critically on this forum are at least as "kooky" as the flat earth theory. I mean hyperdimensional reptilian beings controlling our reality is met, in mainstream consciousness, with immense ridicule and denial, but here we're openly talking about it.

As with the vaxx issue, it seems to me a lot of people are taking absolutist stances on both sides of the coin. Either it's for sure flat, 100%, or it's for sure sphere/globe/oblate spheroid 100%. Admittedly the "inbetween" space is uncomfortable and I see how it's more safe to take an actual stance on something as fundamental as the shape of the world you live in, but then again, if 4D is where we're moving into, where physicality plays a less significant role, aren't we heading into a space where the earth could be just about any shape?

A thing that did nudge me back in the direction of the globe, was a video I believe posted in this thread, talking about the stars that are seen in the southern skies. Everything rotating around Polaris in the north for me strongly suggests a stationary earth with revolving skies around a central point. However I don't find the flat earth model satisfactorily can explain how the stars in the southern skies rotate also around a seemingly fixed central point. On this point the heliocentric model seems to provide a more plausible explanation.

This still doesn't detract from the many other talking points, of which you've mentioned a few in your post, and their seeming validity.
One thing I found quite compelling in the doco was how closely the Gleason map matched the model used by ancient cultures and ties in very elegantly with the biblical viewpoint, mythology, astrology, calendars and clocks (See Part 13 starting at 07:06:45). The discussion about pre-history was also very interesting (See Part 11 starting at 5:25:00), talking about evidence of silicon based life, and that perhaps the move to carbon based life was "the fall". These things aren't necessarily reliant on the earth being flat and are interesting topics in their own right.
This is also my sentiment, that some babies are going out with the bathwater because when people see that the presentation includes allusions to the flat earth, they refuse the whole presentation alltogether. As I said in my previous post, maybe he's wrong about the shape of the earth, but that shouldn't take away any value of the separate puzzle pieces presented.

I found another documentary series yesterday and I'm thoroughly enjoying it, I only watched part 1 and part 2 yesterday, will watch part 3 later today. There has been no mention of flat earth yet but footage of Neil deGrasse Tyson was shown with narrative remarks being made about physics and astronomy introduced in the "modern" era could be part of the deception.

You can watch part 1 which introduces the material that is delved into and choose if you wish to continue with the presentation. The videos are made well and are quite easily digested, and the theory being presented, aside from a few hyperbolic claims, does seem plausible to me. One potential "red flag" if you could call it that, is that YouTubes algorithm itself recommended this video to me, and if we are to believe that the algorithm is to steer us away from truth, then this might be a nudge in the wrong direction. Who knows. Take a look for yourself and share your observations.

 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
So for those that have been through this process and have come out the other side with renewed faith in their chosen model - please feel free to share the killing blow with me.

I don't think you're gonna get one of those here because no one has the time or energy to go through every single claim made and debunk it, or to provide one piece of evidence that debunks all claims. I think you'd be much better advised to actively attempt to debunk each of the claims in those videos yourself, and see what you're left with.

Also as you say, the ridiculing kind of statements made all over the internet towards 'flat earthers' seems to be prevalent on this forum also, and that to me is a bit weird, seeing as the topics discussed openly and critically on this forum are at least as "kooky" as the flat earth theory. I mean hyperdimensional reptilian beings controlling our reality is met, in mainstream consciousness, with immense ridicule and denial, but here we're openly talking about it.

There's a difference: we are not pointing to or entertaining any evidence of "reptilian beings" walking down the street or hiding under the British Royal family's skin. Our theories in that regard are just that, theories, and rather abstract ones. They inhabit, and for now belong, in the realm of spirituality and spiritual belief. This forum is a research forum based essentially on a pragmatist philosophy that seeks to investigate any and all likely phenomena in order to extract from them the methodology to maximize positive and minimize negative consequences that are in line with our value system. It is through this process that we progressively refine that value system and in doing so define what is the truth. In short, the same thing everyone else is doing, in their own way and based on their essential nature(s).
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Okay, thanks, so one mystery solved.

And you couldn't have done that yourself? What about the other mysteries? If you're gonna stick around here, you should know that we expect members to have the drive, and be willing to put in the effort, to make meaningful contributions here. The extent of the meaning in any contribution is directly proportional, it seems, to a person's willingness to question their own assumptions, which in itself is a function of the 'purity' of their desire to know what *actually* IS rather than what they would whimsically like to believe.

Like I said, this isn't primarily a 'discussion' forum, it's a research forum.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom