Any conspiracy theorists (planet x cern chemtrails)

[spytactics]

Take it to the thunderdome you pieces of shlt. Keep the thread going...i swear, these threads get derailed on purpose like "someone" doesn't want info to be passed along. Hell, i bet there are agents trolling and misinforming posters online when conversations start to get juicy

[*TonyMontana*]

Take it to the thunderdome you pieces of shlt. Keep the thread going...i swear, these threads get derailed on purpose like "someone" doesn't want info to be passed along. Hell, i bet there are agents trolling and misinforming posters online when conversations start to get juicy

Let's do it then
Which conspiracy are you interested in

[North Star]

Antarctica has research bases all over it. I think there are 11 or 12 nations with permanent research facilities there. In fact, there is a Nat Geo series called Continent 7: Antarctica going on right now. Pretty cool stuff. The reason why they don't want people to go down there is because the environment is hostile to humans and it's about the purest natural habitat left on Earth.

There is a pretty good old Russian documentary on missing Nazi submarines and potential proof of the hollow earth theory. In the doc it researches accounts of a diary from a Nazi sailor that was on one of the missing submarines. Basically, the entrance to the other world is under ice and through a cavern on the south side of the continent. It was a really interesting old doc.

[North Star]

I do like conspiracy theories and I believe what we find on the internet is actually bits and pieces that may distort the truth, but if you can start to put some facts together they begin to make sense.

One interesting theory I enjoyed was about ancient cosmic wars that occurred. The notion of a destroyed 5th planet (that is now the asteroid belt) between Mars and Jupiter is supposed to be our planet of origin, but due to great war, it got destroyed Deathstar style. Mars was a colony we established, but due to it's close proximity to the 5th planet it was also destroyed as the atmosphere was blown off the planet. Apparently, Earth is where we found survival and have been existing on for millions of years. The theory of previous advanced civilizations is a part of that as well.

[The Noose]

Of course it would make perfect sense to you.....

Anyhow, according to the (facts) concerning the globe earth, by the heliocentric model, it is slightly under 25000 miles at the equator, making it curved right at 8 inches a mile. But that's squared after the 1st mile. Meaning by the 3rd mile you're looking at a 72 inch curve.

How in heavens name can you see the curve at 3 miles at sea level but not a mile up in an airplane looking at hundreds of miles of horizon? How does THAT make sense to you??

Furthermore, if you take a telescope at sea level and point it at said disappeared ship, which traveled supposedly over the horizon, it comes back into view. So does the line of sight of the telescope curve with the curve of the earth too??

It made sense to me that the horizon looks flat because the Earth curves the same in every direction we look. Whereas to see the curvature by gaining height we need to be extremely high to do so.
Im terrible at math so i cant argue numbers.
Like i asked before if you had researched why the clouds didnt appear to be moving in the timelapse, you could ask on a science forum about curvature.

The ships that seem to come back into view through a telescope arent over the horizon yet. There are many videos showing ships gradually disappear.

The flat earth explanations for the sun, eclipses, etc dont seem to make much sense. How can the sun stay the same size while moving so far away it cant be seen?
The video by Dubay listing 200 flat earth proofs was quite bad. I watched the first few before stopping. Bridge makers for example do actually have to calculate the curvature. He states things as facts, and im not sure why anyone doesnt question any of them.

[*TonyMontana*]

I do like conspiracy theories and I believe what we find on the internet is actually bits and pieces that may distort the truth, but if you can start to put some facts together they begin to make sense.

One interesting theory I enjoyed was about ancient cosmic wars that occurred. The notion of a destroyed 5th planet (that is now the asteroid belt) between Mars and Jupiter is supposed to be our planet of origin, but due to great war, it got destroyed Deathstar style. Mars was a colony we established, but due to it's close proximity to the 5th planet it was also destroyed as the atmosphere was blown off the planet. Apparently, Earth is where we found survival and have been existing on for millions of years. The theory of previous advanced civilizations is a part of that as well.

Now that's a theory
Anymore?

[Bushbaby]

It made sense to me that the horizon looks flat because the Earth curves the same in every direction we look. Whereas to see the curvature by gaining height we need to be extremely high to do so.
Im terrible at math so i cant argue numbers.
Like i asked before if you had researched why the clouds didnt appear to be moving in the timelapse, you could ask on a science forum about curvature.

The ships that seem to come back into view through a telescope arent over the horizon yet. There are many videos showing ships gradually disappear.

The flat earth explanations for the sun, eclipses, etc dont seem to make much sense. How can the sun stay the same size while moving so far away it cant be seen?
The video by Dubay listing 200 flat earth proofs was quite bad. I watched the first few before stopping. Bridge makers for example do actually have to calculate the curvature. He states things as facts, and im not sure why anyone doesnt question any of them.

Yeah, I'm not good at math either. But who needs to be to argue this? According to the video you've endorsed, the horizon is 3 miles away. So I'm not sure how much further than 3 miles away you assume you'd be for the ship to be completely over the horizon. But the ship moved out of view because of human depth perception. Then it can be brought into view with a telescope. Pretty clear cut and dry. Had to come back though, cause you said, (and I quote), "The ships aren't over the horizon yet". Even if they were not fully over the horizon, the bottom would still be, so it would still be impossible for the entire ship to come back into view, bro.

It disappears then re appears with a tool meant for looking at long distances. Proven rather emphatically it did not go over a curve.

As far as eclipses go, it has been recorded many times of eclipses happening with both the sun and moon in the sky at the same time. Making it rather obvious that the earth did not cast a shadow on any of the to cause said eclipse. In point of fact, both moon and sun have been in the sky at daytime recently on the west coast when the moon wasn't full. Proving that the earth had nothing to do with causing shadows on it's waning cycle.

So you got past the Mississippi river having to climb how high in elevation over it's length to reach the Atlantic?? It would very literally be a river flowing uphill to do so on a ball earth. Think about that.

The clouds remain the same in nasa time lapse photos because the graphic designers are too lazy and know people are so conditioned that it's unnecessary to make them move. And nasa have admitted already that their earth photo's are in fact photo shopped.

[The Noose]

Yeah, I'm not good at math either. But who needs to be to argue this? According to the video you've endorsed, the horizon is 3 miles away. So I'm not sure how much further than 3 miles away you assume you'd be for the ship to be completely over the horizon. But the ship moved out of view because of human depth perception. Then it can be brought into view with a telescope. Pretty clear cut and dry. Had to come back though, cause you said, (and I quote), "The ships aren't over the horizon yet". Even if they were not fully over the horizon, the bottom would still be, so it would still be impossible for the entire ship to come back into view, bro.

It disappears then re appears with a tool meant for looking at long distances. Proven rather emphatically it did not go over a curve.

That video only showed ships slightly over the horizon so we could not see the bottom with a telescope or a boat not far enough away for the bottom to disappear.
It doesnt show a ship over 3 miles away with all of it visible.
Is there a video showing a ship get so far away it becomes almost too small to see, yet all of it is still visible?

As far as eclipses go, it has been recorded many times of eclipses happening with both the sun and moon in the sky at the same time. Making it rather obvious that the earth did not cast a shadow on any of the to cause said eclipse. In point of fact, both moon and sun have been in the sky at daytime recently on the west coast when the moon wasn't full. Proving that the earth had nothing to do with causing shadows on it's waning cycle.

Recorded where? How often does this happen? I would of thought there would be literally thousands of photos documenting this that have not been photoshopped.
I dont believe the lunar cycles and eclipses match up so accurately due to just a coincidence.
What is the explanation for lunar and solar eclipses according to the flat earth model?
What are the moon and sun? Why do they move? What are they made of?

So you got past the Mississippi river having to climb how high in elevation over it's length to reach the Atlantic?? It would very literally be a river flowing uphill to do so on a ball earth. Think about that.

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-ri...-uphill.t7783/

The clouds remain the same in nasa time lapse photos because the graphic designers are too lazy and know people are so conditioned that it's unnecessary to make them move. And nasa have admitted already that their earth photo's are in fact photo shopped.

Is that just your opinion or can you prove that somehow?
Did you not manage to find any other explanation? I found videos showing the clouds move and simple explanations for why they appear stationary.

[Bushbaby]

That video only showed ships slightly over the horizon so we could not see the bottom with a telescope or a boat not far enough away for the bottom to disappear.
It doesnt show a ship over 3 miles away with all of it visible.
Is there a video showing a ship get so far away it becomes almost too small to see, yet all of it is still visible?]


Recorded where? How often does this happen? I would of thought there would be literally thousands of photos documenting this that have not been photoshopped.
I dont believe the lunar cycles and eclipses match up so accurately due to just a coincidence.
What is the explanation for lunar and solar eclipses according to the flat earth model?
What are the moon and sun? Why do they move? What are they made of?




https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-ri...-uphill.t7783/



Is that just your opinion or can you prove that somehow?
Did you not manage to find any other explanation? I found videos showing the clouds move and simple explanations for why they appear stationary.

There are literally hundreds of videos showing ships, and pretty much anything you're looking at coming back into view after supposedly being gone over the curve.

Not with video camera. On record, as in written down from ancient times up to an including video footage. it's important to understand that the globe earth had no footing until very recently in human history, Galileo and Capernicous came under the same scrutiny that the Geocentric community are under now.

You don't have to believe the lunar cycles match up coincidentally. What I am telling you, is that the earth does not cause the waning affect of the moon due to causing a shadow, like the globe earthers want you to believe. That's impossible if you can see both above you at the same time, period. They are bodies of light and have been linked to deities. I don't believe anyone is qualified to say exactly what, especially the sun, actually is.

The Mississippi river?? Is that an opinion of it having to flow uphill to get to the Atlantic?? You're asking me that because you refuse what is. In point of fact it does flow to the Atlantic, which is just north of the equator. On the globe, it would matter of fact, be flowing uphill to do so. That's not an opinion, on a globe earth, that is exactly what would be happening.

People have seen across the great lakes cities that you should not be able to from the sheer distance alone. They've been called mirages by the media. There is actually no physical proof that the earth is round. None. Anywhere. You have nasa photo shopped and a theory called gravity and another called relativity. Here's a fact, through the science of (density), anything heavier than air sinks to earth, anything lighter than air rises. That can be manipulated, (think how the wings on a plane and hollow bird bones work). The fact of density was added to the theory of gravity so that the theory of gravity holds weight. In point of fact, it's never been proven. Every experiment ever conducted had unfrozen water always leveling out, never being held into a ball by magnetism.

[The Noose]

There are literally hundreds of videos showing ships, and pretty much anything you're looking at coming back into view after supposedly being gone over the curve.

I dont think ive seen one where a ship clearly sinks below the horizon, but is raised up again because the camera zooms in.
Ive only sen ships become too small to see, then through the zoom lens be brought back into sight.

Not with video camera. On record, as in written down from ancient times up to an including video footage. it's important to understand that the globe earth had no footing until very recently in human history, Galileo and Capernicous came under the same scrutiny that the Geocentric community are under now.

So hundreds or thousands of years ago people wrote down they could see both the sun and moon in the sky during a solar eclipse? I dont find that very convincing. I mean, i think we need more proof. Especially considering the model for the moons orbit is incredibly accurate and eclipses line up perfectly with this model.
If the an eclipse isnt the shadow of the Earth on the moon, what is it?

You don't have to believe the lunar cycles match up coincidentally. What I am telling you, is that the earth does not cause the waning affect of the moon due to causing a shadow, like the globe earthers want you to believe. That's impossible if you can see both above you at the same time, period.

What is the better explanation?

If...and thats a very big if, you can see both above you. Id love to see evidence of that. There should be thousands of photos proving the moon doesnt cause solar eclipses. With millions of people watching when it happens, huge numbers would photograph the moon in the wrong place for hours before and after the eclipse.

I don't believe anyone is qualified to say exactly what, especially the sun, actually is.

Scientists? Astronomers? Or do you believe them to be lying?

The Mississippi river?? Is that an opinion of it having to flow uphill to get to the Atlantic?? You're asking me that because you refuse what is. In point of fact it does flow to the Atlantic, which is just north of the equator. On the globe, it would matter of fact, be flowing uphill to do so. That's not an opinion, on a globe earth, that is exactly what would be happening.

I dont understand your English. Did you read the link i gave you?

People have seen across the great lakes cities that you should not be able to from the sheer distance alone. They've been called mirages by the media.

By the media? Or by scientists? If the are not mirages then how do you explain why the images are sometimes upside down? Or why most of the time we cannot see across the lake?
Do you dismiss all experiments to do with mirages and how light bends?

There is actually no physical proof that the earth is round. None. Anywhere. You have nasa photo shopped and a theory called gravity and another called relativity.

There are many photos of the whole Earth from a distance. Not all by NASA. You believe all photos and videos are fake? There must be hundreds of thousands of them. All faked? Based on what?
Do you believe the theory of gravity and relativity?

Here's a fact, through the science of (density), anything heavier than air sinks to earth, anything lighter than air rises. That can be manipulated, (think how the wings on a plane and hollow bird bones work). The fact of density was added to the theory of gravity so that the theory of gravity holds weight. In point of fact, it's never been proven. Every experiment ever conducted had unfrozen water always leveling out, never being held into a ball by magnetism.

Wait...gravity has never been proven?

Water always levels out? What about water droplets?