Is Our Earth FLAT and Motionless, Not a Spinning Globe?

[OutWest]

El_caudillo showed me some interesting new images of earth from a Russian satellite.

https://www.google.co.nz/amp/gizmodo.co ... id-samsung

It includes a new time lapse video of earth too.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6twFHqJ03_k[/youtube]

Interesting. Note that:

1. The Russian image of earth is a lot more colorful.
2. The time lapse video shows no rotation or earth whatsoever.
3. The Russian image shows earth having a slight oblate pear shape, in accordance with NASA's new announcement that earth is pear shaped, not a sphere. But in contrast, all of NASA's images of earth, including the 1972 photo, show a PERFECT SPHERE.

I was also gonna ask anyway, since NASA is a proven pathological liar and murderer - and I've given many examples - why do you give them any credibility? All the globe earthers dodge this question and wont touch it. Not even droid or ghost will touch that question.

Winston,

Have you ever heard of a geosynchronous orbit? Most satellites by far function this way. No, you will not see a rotating earth with this. This allows a fixed footprint when desired for stationary observation or to have a fixed zone for communications purposes

A photo of earth taken from an inclined orbit will look considerably different than from a satellite aligned wirh the equator. The "pear shaped earth" is not even sonething that is easily observable. It does not mean the earth is shaped like a bartlet pear.

We do not depend on NASA for confirmation of a global earth. Thousands of navigational calculations per day are based on the known proportions of the globe.There are actual extreme yacht races around Antarctica. Believe in a flat earth all you want, but next time you get on a jet, be thankfull the instrumention and navigational plan is oriented to the globe of the earth.

[Winston]

Outwest,
Sure thats the excuse. But how can a satellite orbit be so perfect as to show no movement at all? Anyone can say it is. But it doesn't make it true.

Furthermore wheres your proof that earth is rotating at all? Even albert einstein admitted it was impossible to prove the Earth's motion. And the michelson morley experiment showed a stationless earth based on ironclad physics. Lasers show this too. I posted tons of info about this before.

Also you didn't explain why the 1972 apollo photo of the whole earth, the one you see in textbooks, showed a perfect sphere?

And why do all earth photos show different sized continents? Including mythical continent sizes that are debunked?

Go look at mountains 30 miles in the distance and tell me if you can make out detail and color very well. If not then how can these photos of earth have so much detail from thousands of miles out in space?

Btw, fyi, ship navigators use a FLAT map to calculate their routes with trigonometry. They do not carry globes on their ships. Its been this way for hundreds of years. You can see it in movies too. Gotcha!

[El_Caudillo]

Go look at mountains 30 miles in the distance and tell me if you can make out detail and color very well. If not then how can these photos of earth have so much detail from thousands of miles out in space?

The point you make about a flat map and trigonometry is an interesting one Winston. I don't understand the point above though! What if I were to look at said mountain with a pair of binoculars?! Satélite video cameras have powerful lenses. Even if your don't believe in satellites or the Hubble telescope, surely you believe in telephoto lenses and the like?

As for Einstein...I think he said the earth was only in motion relative to other bodies, see below. I have to say it seems Outwest knows what he is taking about. You, Winston, I'm not so sure. That is not an attack on your intelligence, merely on your knowledge. For example I would believe and respect your opinion about the social scene in Russia, you know a lot more about it than me. However, as a good student of history and geography and a mediocre one at physics, I believe that holes in your knowledge and experience are leading you to believe this flat earth stuff.

From Einstein - about how motion is relative

THE BASAL principle, which was the pivot of all our previous considerations, was the special principle of relativity, i.e. the principle of the physical relativity of all uniform motion. Let us once more analyse its meaning carefully. 1
It was at all times clear that, from the point of view of the idea it conveys to us, every motion must only be considered as a relative motion. Returning to the illustration we have frequently used of the embankment and the railway carriage, we can express the fact of the motion here taking place in the following two forms, both of which are equally justifiable:
The carriage is in motion relative to the embankment.
The embankment is in motion relative to the carriage.
2
In (a) the embankment, in (b) the carriage, serves as the body of reference in our statement of the motion taking place. If it is simply a question of detecting or of describing the motion involved, it is in principle immaterial to what reference-body we refer the motion. As already mentioned, this is self-evident, but it must not be confused with the much more comprehensive statement called “the principle of relativity,” which we have taken as the basis of our investigations. 3
The principle we have made use of not only maintains that we may equally well choose the carriage or the embankment as our reference-body for the description of any event (for this, too, is self-evident). Our principle rather asserts what follows: If we formulate the general laws of nature as they are obtained from experience, by making use of
the embankment as reference-body,
the railway carriage as reference-body,
then these general laws of nature (e.g. the laws of mechanics or the law of the propagation of light in vacuo) have exactly the same form in both cases. This can also be expressed as follows: For the physical description of natural processes, neither of the reference-bodies K, K' is unique (lit. “specially marked out”) as compared with the other. Unlike the first, this latter statement need not of necessity hold a priori; it is not contained in the conceptions of “motion” and “referencebody” and derivable from them; only experience can decide as to its correctness or incorrectness. 4
Up to the present, however, we have by no means maintained the equivalence of all bodies of reference K in connection with the formulation of natural laws. Our course was more on the following lines. In the first place, we started out from the assumption that there exists a reference-body K, whose condition of motion is such that the Galileian law holds with respect to it: A particle left to itself and sufficiently far removed from all other particles moves uniformly in a straight line. With reference to K (Galileian reference-body) the laws of nature were to be as simple as possible. But in addition to K, all bodies of reference K' should be given preference in this sense, and they should be exactly equivalent to K for the formulation of natural laws, provided that they are in a state of uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion with respect to K; all these bodies of reference are to be regarded as Galileian reference-bodies. The validity of the principle of relativity was assumed only for these reference-bodies, but not for others (e.g. those possessing motion of a different kind). In this sense we speak of the special principle of relativity, or special theory of relativity. 5
In contrast to this we wish to understand by the “general principle of relativity” the following statement: All bodies of reference K, K', etc., are equivalent for the description of natural phenomena (formulation of the general laws of nature), whatever may be their state of motion. But before proceeding farther, it ought to be pointed out that this formulation must be replaced later by a more abstract one, for reasons which will become evident at a later stage. 6
Since the introduction of the special principle of relativity has been justified, every intellect which strives after generalisation must feel the temptation to venture the step towards the general principle of relativity. But a simple and apparently quite reliable consideration seems to suggest that, for the present at any rate, there is little hope of success in such an attempt. Let us imagine ourselves transferred to our old friend the railway carriage, which is travelling at a uniform rate. As long as it is moving uniformly, the occupant of the carriage is not sensible of its motion, and it is for this reason that he can un-reluctantly interpret the facts of the case as indicating that the carriage is at rest, but the embankment in motion. Moreover, according to the special principle of relativity, this interpretation is quite justified also from a physical point of view. 7
If the motion of the carriage is now changed into a non-uniform motion, as for instance by a powerful application of the brakes, then the occupant of the carriage experiences a correspondingly powerful jerk forwards. The retarded motion is manifested in the mechanical behaviour of bodies relative to the person in the railway carriage. The mechanical behaviour is different from that of the case previously considered, and for this reason it would appear to be impossible that the same mechanical laws hold relatively to the non-uniformly moving carriage, as hold with reference to the carriage when at rest or in uniform motion. At all events it is clear that the Galileian law does not hold with respect to the non-uniformly moving carriage. Because of this, we feel compelled at the present juncture to grant a kind of absolute physical reality to non-uniform motion, in opposition to the general principle of relativity. But in what follows we shall soon see that this conclusion cannot be maintained. 8

[OutWest]

Go look at mountains 30 miles in the distance and tell me if you can make out detail and color very well. If not then how can these photos of earth have so much detail from thousands of miles out in space?

The point you make about a flat map and trigonometry is an interesting one Winston. I don't understand the point above though! What if I were to look at said mountain with a pair of binoculars?! Satélite video cameras have powerful lenses. Even if your don't believe in satellites or the Hubble telescope, surely you believe in telephoto lenses and the like?

As for Einstein...I think he said the earth was only in motion relative to other bodies, see below. I have to say it seems Outwest knows what he is taking about. You, Winston, I'm not so sure. That is not an attack on your intelligence, merely on your knowledge. For example I would believe and respect your opinion about the social scene in Russia, you know a lot more about it than me. However, as a good student of history and geography and a mediocre one at physics, I believe that holes in your knowledge and experience are leading you to believe this flat earth stuff.

From Einstein - about how motion is relative

THE BASAL principle, which was the pivot of all our previous considerations, was the special principle of relativity, i.e. the principle of the physical relativity of all uniform motion. Let us once more analyse its meaning carefully. 1
It was at all times clear that, from the point of view of the idea it conveys to us, every motion must only be considered as a relative motion. Returning to the illustration we have frequently used of the embankment and the railway carriage, we can express the fact of the motion here taking place in the following two forms, both of which are equally justifiable:
The carriage is in motion relative to the embankment.
The embankment is in motion relative to the carriage.
2
In (a) the embankment, in (b) the carriage, serves as the body of reference in our statement of the motion taking place. If it is simply a question of detecting or of describing the motion involved, it is in principle immaterial to what reference-body we refer the motion. As already mentioned, this is self-evident, but it must not be confused with the much more comprehensive statement called “the principle of relativity,” which we have taken as the basis of our investigations. 3
The principle we have made use of not only maintains that we may equally well choose the carriage or the embankment as our reference-body for the description of any event (for this, too, is self-evident). Our principle rather asserts what follows: If we formulate the general laws of nature as they are obtained from experience, by making use of
the embankment as reference-body,
the railway carriage as reference-body,
then these general laws of nature (e.g. the laws of mechanics or the law of the propagation of light in vacuo) have exactly the same form in both cases. This can also be expressed as follows: For the physical description of natural processes, neither of the reference-bodies K, K' is unique (lit. “specially marked out”) as compared with the other. Unlike the first, this latter statement need not of necessity hold a priori; it is not contained in the conceptions of “motion” and “referencebody” and derivable from them; only experience can decide as to its correctness or incorrectness. 4
Up to the present, however, we have by no means maintained the equivalence of all bodies of reference K in connection with the formulation of natural laws. Our course was more on the following lines. In the first place, we started out from the assumption that there exists a reference-body K, whose condition of motion is such that the Galileian law holds with respect to it: A particle left to itself and sufficiently far removed from all other particles moves uniformly in a straight line. With reference to K (Galileian reference-body) the laws of nature were to be as simple as possible. But in addition to K, all bodies of reference K' should be given preference in this sense, and they should be exactly equivalent to K for the formulation of natural laws, provided that they are in a state of uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion with respect to K; all these bodies of reference are to be regarded as Galileian reference-bodies. The validity of the principle of relativity was assumed only for these reference-bodies, but not for others (e.g. those possessing motion of a different kind). In this sense we speak of the special principle of relativity, or special theory of relativity. 5
In contrast to this we wish to understand by the “general principle of relativity” the following statement: All bodies of reference K, K', etc., are equivalent for the description of natural phenomena (formulation of the general laws of nature), whatever may be their state of motion. But before proceeding farther, it ought to be pointed out that this formulation must be replaced later by a more abstract one, for reasons which will become evident at a later stage. 6
Since the introduction of the special principle of relativity has been justified, every intellect which strives after generalisation must feel the temptation to venture the step towards the general principle of relativity. But a simple and apparently quite reliable consideration seems to suggest that, for the present at any rate, there is little hope of success in such an attempt. Let us imagine ourselves transferred to our old friend the railway carriage, which is travelling at a uniform rate. As long as it is moving uniformly, the occupant of the carriage is not sensible of its motion, and it is for this reason that he can un-reluctantly interpret the facts of the case as indicating that the carriage is at rest, but the embankment in motion. Moreover, according to the special principle of relativity, this interpretation is quite justified also from a physical point of view. 7
If the motion of the carriage is now changed into a non-uniform motion, as for instance by a powerful application of the brakes, then the occupant of the carriage experiences a correspondingly powerful jerk forwards. The retarded motion is manifested in the mechanical behaviour of bodies relative to the person in the railway carriage. The mechanical behaviour is different from that of the case previously considered, and for this reason it would appear to be impossible that the same mechanical laws hold relatively to the non-uniformly moving carriage, as hold with reference to the carriage when at rest or in uniform motion. At all events it is clear that the Galileian law does not hold with respect to the non-uniformly moving carriage. Because of this, we feel compelled at the present juncture to grant a kind of absolute physical reality to non-uniform motion, in opposition to the general principle of relativity. But in what follows we shall soon see that this conclusion cannot be maintained. 8

As you pointed out, its not a productive discussion. I loved the "Gotcha" at the end...lol A certain level of knowledge is required in any subject to discuss it intelligently. The lack of distinction between flat maps and flat earth was especially telling. In general, science education in schools is pretty bad. and even basic reasoning skills are very poorly taught. Meanwhile, I think I should sell tickets to the adventure of a lifetime, like adventure tourism to the Great Ice Wall! The great 120,000 mile voyage! What I want to know is...on this giant spinning pizza dsic, who stole all the pepperoni?

[droid]

Go look at mountains 30 miles in the distance and tell me if you can make out detail and color very well. If not then how can these photos of earth have so much detail from thousands of miles out in space?

Obviously the atmosphere is only ten miles in thickness. It follows that actually seeing mountains 30 or 100 miles away horizontaly on earth won't be as clear as seeing them from space.

As for Einstein...I think he said the earth was only in motion relative to other bodies, see below. I have to say it seems Outwest knows what he is taking about. You, Winston, I'm not so sure. That is not an attack on your intelligence, merely on your knowledge. For example I would believe and respect your opinion about the social scene in Russia, you know a lot more about it than me. However, as a good student of history and geography and a mediocre one at physics, I believe that holes in your knowledge and experience are leading you to believe this flat earth stuff.

He's good at social issues but absolutely atrocious when it comes to physics and even the most basic geometry.
Now, thinking that a pear-shaped earth 'should' really look like a pear to the naked eye, i don't know.... I only take comfort in that he may be trolling for traffic.

I loved the "Gotcha" at the end...lol

[Moretorque]

Radar easily proves the earth is round but I just observed something today at this moment.

I AM VERTICAL straight down from D.C just a little over 800 miles south but it gets dark here in Fl at 6:30 vs 6 for Virginia. I was watching the inauguration of the Donald and it was dark at 6 there in D.C while it was clearly light here where I am in Fl on the same vertical line.

The tilt of the earth makes it get darker earlier up north in the winter compared to the equator which I am closer too....

[El_Caudillo]

If you look at Magellan's voyage on the flat earth map it could be possible. But if you think about Columbus' journey it makes no sense at all (to me at least). Remember he was trying to find a faster way to the indies from the Iberian peninsula than sailing around Africa.

By the way the mistake that the Spanish and Portuguese navigators made in the age of discovery was not that they thought that the world was round but they thought that the world was smaller (in circumference) than it really was.

[starchild5]

The freemasons...deliberately left holes in the globe model to be exploited by another set of freemasons who would push the flat earth model which are also full of holes in present times for us to fight.

The holes are deliberate for snakes aka rulers of our reality to come and go and manipulate us..

People who defend the Globe Model are not been smart because...That model came from Satan Worshipping, Goat f**cking freemasons

People who defend the Flat Earth Model are not been smart because...That model came from Satan Worshipping, Goat f**cking freemasons

This is really the time to KEEP AN OPEN MIND...as people love to say time and again when they are in Asia but do the exact opposite when they are Jewmerica.

I don't understand why people are obsessed by Globe ....WTF guys....Why should you even defend it with science when we do not even have a clear spinning video of globe....Why people need to put long a** mathematical equation to just show a spinning sh*t called Earth....

PROVING BEYOND DOUBT as big as Earth should be like seeing your own d*ck everyday...There is no f*cking need for inclination, declination, equator, angle, degrees to prove as obvious thing as EARTH.

-------------------

They are releasing controlled information on both sides. HONESTLY. I'm not convinced on both sides as whenever I tilt towards Flat Earth...They give very convincing evidence on earth being a globe and then when I believe in Globe..They give convincing evidence on earth been flat.

It will take just five minutes to debunk both if they give us freaking anti-matter technology so that I can go on a space ship myself to Antarctica or rise above 10 miles on earth and see it....Why are all Astronauts FREEMASONS....

NASA is a proven Shill, Liar, PR agency....They are all f**King Goats...literally...

Why SPACE is off limits to Humanity....?? is the real question that needs to be questioned.

----------------

Why is this not as simple as....

Me: Hey man..I'm going to Philippines....You coming...

You: No man...I got a ride to Mars....

Me: Cool...lemme me know the shape of the earth....because last time when I went to Mars..I slept all the way....

You: Sure...will do...I will text you and send you a snapshot...

Me: Bon Voyage...

----------------------

Its should be this simple...but of course...You don't believe in Aliens, nor planets and stars like flat Earthers....Eric Dubay will say 10 right things and then say....other planets do not exist....because from earth...all planets look round to us

[El_Caudillo]

OK after reading up on Einstein on the theory of relativity...I came up with the question, does time pass more slowly on fast flying commercial flights?

Here is the answer, excellent article published by Free Mason Press.

http://scienceline.org/2010/10/do-frequ ... re-slowly/

[El_Caudillo]

And here we go, another Asian freethinker, but this guys presentation style didn't keep me interested...I like this guys attitude though saying that nobody pointed out Einstein's mistakes because he was too well respected.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_tig3NaTjI[/youtube]

[Winston]

El_caudillo,
You said that the flights from NZ to South america debunk the flat earth model. Yes maybe. But how do you explain why the north star polaris is always ALWAYS in the same position above north pole. It hasnt moved even one centimeter for thousands of years. The stars appear fixed and rotating in the dome above. Its still possible that outer space is a complete hoax. Right?

Also if you take a powerful telescope and look at the stars they become transparent and u see water waving behind them. I saw it demonstrated on YouTube using high powered camera. This suggests they are not suns after all. And our own sun does look only a few thousand miles away if you look at it directly and think about it. Not 90 million miles away. So i am still in doubt about all that.

About the polaris north star, u gotta understand that astronomy claims that our solar system is moving very fast through space. Like at 500,000 mph. And the earth is moving at 67,000 mph in its orbit. So theres no way that stars can be fixed like that, even if they are far away. Yet polaris hasnt moved even an inch for all of human history. Impossible according to the modern model of the solar system.

Btw the top astronomers and cosmologists of the world said that geocentrism and heliocentrism are EQUALLY valid. Whichever one adopts is a matter of philosophy, not science. I posted quotes from top astronomers saying this in the forum in the geocentrism thread. Remember? It includes edwin hubble, stephen hawking, einstein, and others. How u explain that?

Btw u asked me earlier what 90 million miles away looks like. Well for one thing, if light was coming from that far away, it would be all straight parallel lines of light, with no angles. If you see angles of light then the source cannot be that far away. This is basic GEOMETRY. You can draw angular lines on a piece of paper and see. Try it.

Look at the light bulb in your room. Or a street lamp outside at night. Notice that you will see light rays going in different directions and angles. Thats because the light bulb and lamp is nearby, close to you. Not too far away. Definitely not 90 million miles. Lol

Again, go look at the sun outside. Dont make excuses. Just look at it for a few seconds, preferably at dawn. And ask yourself if the sun really looks 90 million miles away. Ask yourself HONESTLY with an inquiring mind. You will admit that indeed it does NOT look anywhere near that far away. It looks much much CLOSER. Instinct will tell you this too, because you will see angular rays of light from the sun, so you instinctively know that the source of the angles cannot be that far away. A few thousand miles at most.

Btw mainstream science claims that the suns rays of light are straight and parallel, and that the angles of sunlight you see are only an optical illusion. It has no choice but to LIE because basic geometry requires a sun at 90 million miles away to have only straight parallel rays of light. So science has no choice but to tell you a bald faced LIE. However just look at the sun and you will see that its rays are definitely NOT parallel. You can even see this through the clouds, the rays are angular for sure. There are plenty of photos as proof. Ive shown you some before. Ill send it to you again below. Or look at the sun directly and see for yourself.

Please be more experimental and less theoretical, and try all the above for yourself.

Just be open to the possibility that all that we've been told may be a lie and hoax. Remember that truth is an ongoing perpetual search, not a fixed final point that you arrive at.

[Winston]

Starchild,
I heard on woodward TV that flat earth believers dont really believe in flat earth 100 percent. They are just desperately looking for something to latch onto to unplug from the matrix and become a rebel because they hate the establishment and control system so much. Its sort of an identity thing to detach from a society that these rebels and freethinkers hate. Do you think that's true?

Also it's ridiculous that some of my critics claim that this flat earth topic is polluting the forum or taking it over. This is just one topic thread out of 23,000. Thats like saying one black person among 23,000 white people indicates that blacks are taking over. Crazy. Makes no sense.

What el_caudillo told me is that the forum critics are saying that to rub it in my face and insinuate that im a kook for keeping the flat earth thread going. So its more of a personal insult and attempt to ridicule me than anything else. They ought to know that one topic cannot take over the forum. Seems to make sense.

[Winston]

Btw besides el_caudillos proof that the earth cant be flat because flights from NZ to south america along the southern hemisphere are almost the same duration as flights from america to asia, which would be impossible on a flat earth map, my italian friend alex has another proof that makes the flat earth impossible as well. Here it is:

If the earth were a flat disc and the sun only a few thousand miles away, then when the sun sets and night falls, you should still be able to see the sun while its on the other side of the flat earth disc. The reason is simple. The sun is very bright and lights up the whole sky. Its much brighter than the stars. Its rays are blindingly bright in fact so that you cannot even stare directly at it.

So given that, if it were on the other side of a flat surface you should still be able to see it. At the very least it should appear as a bright star in the distance. And even if you could not see it with the naked eye, then you should at least be able to see it with a powerful telescope at night. And the daylight side of the world should be viewable as well.

However you cannot see the sun at all at night. Not even with the best telescope. Its totally gone. This means its on the other side of the worls and hence the world must be spherical and not flat.

Make sense? I wonder how eric dubay would explain that, plus the NZ flights to south america proof as well, which i explained earlier in the thread.

[starchild5]

Starchild,
I heard on woodward TV that flat earth believers dont really believe in flat earth 100 percent. They are just desperately looking for something to latch onto to unplug from the matrix and become a rebel because they hate the establishment and control system so much. Its sort of an identity thing to detach from a society that these rebels and freethinkers hate. Do you think that's true?

Also it's ridiculous that some of my critics claim that this flat earth topic is polluting the forum or taking it over. This is just one topic thread out of 23,000. Thats like saying one black person among 23,000 white people indicates that blacks are taking over. Crazy. Makes no sense.

What el_caudillo told me is that the forum critics are saying that to rub it in my face and insinuate that im a kook for keeping the flat earth thread going. So its more of a personal insult and attempt to ridicule me than anything else. They ought to know that one topic cannot take over the forum. Seems to make sense.

People here are Simpleton's.

90% of members here have not evolved. If you take out there dress, condo, electricity, vehicle..They are empty shell..devoid of any critical thinking. They cannot think for themselves.

They are this...







South America to Australia, NZ Flight which the Globers hanged around was debunked last year itself with an accuracy to the T.

Please watch the below Video...He debunks to the hours how that flight is possible on flat earth.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCWz5na8d1k[/youtube]

As i mentioned. The Key to everything is Open Mindedness...That's how a society is tagged as Evolved or Tribal.

May be after a decade we will come to know that...We are not on flat or globe earth but on a Realm...Who Knows...

I'm a flat earth and globe earth researcher not a believer.

Flat Earth too have holes and people like Eric Dubay who promotes flat earth are clear CIA guys...

The greater problem with Flat Earth is denying the presence of Aliens. Eric Dubay Vehemently denies Aliens, planets, solar system, galaxies..do not exists and make fun of David Icke, Michael Tsarion ...He believes in the Bible story of creation. How convenient.

You can watch this latest video from him, where he mocks everyone except who believe in Flat Earth.



So there is clearly an agenda to divide humanity as well.

The problem with Glober's is one of Mental Retardation and nothing else..If one does research and not sleep on their a**ses everyday...It takes just one hour to figure out...All Globe pushers were Freemason Goat F**ckers who worshipped Satan.

They NEVER EVER CARED FOR HUMANITY.

I don't know why people defend Globe Model than be open minded about it.

Even today with 100s of space flight. NASA has not provided a clear picture of Globe earth and it keeps changing.



If you are not retarded. You should be able to think about the image above.

Then this..Multiple Similar Cloud Formation on NASA provided Globe Image



More, NASA LIES.

Since, now we have Photoshop Software. People adjusted the color gradient of the Original Nasa Provided Picture of Earth from Moon and Its clearly pasted in.



There are more than 10000+ lies of NASA all around and yet people believe them blindly.

of course they do..because they belong to one of these groups...



No Sane human being will believe in either flat earth or globe earth right away...

An Evolved person will keep his options open to everything and research. As important and hot topic as Shape of Earth cannot be just debunked either way and the rulers of this earth know this very well and I know very well..How incredibly smart these folks are...

Keep an Open Mind is what I would say to everyone here.

[HouseMD]

Starchild,
I heard on woodward TV that flat earth believers dont really believe in flat earth 100 percent. They are just desperately looking for something to latch onto to unplug from the matrix and become a rebel because they hate the establishment and control system so much. Its sort of an identity thing to detach from a society that these rebels and freethinkers hate. Do you think that's true?

Also it's ridiculous that some of my critics claim that this flat earth topic is polluting the forum or taking it over. This is just one topic thread out of 23,000. Thats like saying one black person among 23,000 white people indicates that blacks are taking over. Crazy. Makes no sense.

What el_caudillo told me is that the forum critics are saying that to rub it in my face and insinuate that im a kook for keeping the flat earth thread going. So its more of a personal insult and attempt to ridicule me than anything else. They ought to know that one topic cannot take over the forum. Seems to make sense.

People here are Simpleton's.

90% of members here have not evolved. If you take out there dress, condo, electricity, vehicle..They are empty shell..devoid of any critical thinking. They cannot think for themselves.

They are this...







South America to Australia, NZ Flight which the Globers hanged around was debunked last year itself with an accuracy to the T.

Please watch the below Video...He debunks to the hours how that flight is possible on flat earth.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCWz5na8d1k[/youtube]

As i mentioned. The Key to everything is Open Mindedness...That's how a society is tagged as Evolved or Tribal.

May be after a decade we will come to know that...We are not on flat or globe earth but on a Realm...Who Knows...

I'm a flat earth and globe earth researcher not a believer.

Flat Earth too have holes and people like Eric Dubay who promotes flat earth are clear CIA guys...

The greater problem with Flat Earth is denying the presence of Aliens. Eric Dubay Vehemently denies Aliens, planets, solar system, galaxies..do not exists and make fun of David Icke, Michael Tsarion ...He believes in the Bible story of creation. How convenient.

You can watch this latest video from him, where he mocks everyone except who believe in Flat Earth.



So there is clearly an agenda to divide humanity as well.

The problem with Glober's is one of Mental Retardation and nothing else..If one does research and not sleep on their a**ses everyday...It takes just one hour to figure out...All Globe pushers were Freemason Goat F**ckers who worshipped Satan.

They NEVER EVER CARED FOR HUMANITY.

I don't know why people defend Globe Model than be open minded about it.

Even today with 100s of space flight. NASA has not provided a clear picture of Globe earth and it keeps changing.



If you are not retarded. You should be able to think about the image above.

Then this..Multiple Similar Cloud Formation on NASA provided Globe Image



More, NASA LIES.

Since, now we have Photoshop Software. People adjusted the color gradient of the Original Nasa Provided Picture of Earth from Moon and Its clearly pasted in.



There are more than 10000+ lies of NASA all around and yet people believe them blindly.

of course they do..because they belong to one of these groups...



No Sane human being will believe in either flat earth or globe earth right away...

An Evolved person will keep his options open to everything and research. As important and hot topic as Shape of Earth cannot be just debunked either way and the rulers of this earth know this very well and I know very well..How incredibly smart these folks are...

Keep an Open Mind is what I would say to everyone here.

Just buy a trip aboard a Russian fighter jet, it's easy enough to see the curvature of space yourself. I know a couple of docs that have done it and they say it's life-changing.