Questions About the Flat Earth

Realearth wrote:

Nf35 wrote:

Realearth wrote:

Nf35 wrote:

Realearth wrote:

Nf35 wrote:

Realearth wrote:

oilcrash1 wrote:hmmm so what were they firing bombs at ?
Rockets seemingly skimming into/over water? firmament? 'dome'?  
Private rocket hitting something, and sitting suspended @ 73 miles or so they say?  
It just fits my minds eye to try and picture a 'dome' that is only 100 miles high, instead of the ones I keep seeing.
 

When you have proof of a Dome or Firmament please share it with us.

Aren’t things like rainbows and sun dogs supposed to prove the existence of a crystalline dome structure above?

NO

Care to explain why? The evidence I’ve seen all points to optical effects like that only being possible if a dome structure exists.

Optical effects can be caused by many things.
Do you have photos of your dome structure?
Do you have a piece of your dome structure we can examine?
Do you have proof that your dome structure exists?

You’re evading the questions I have asked. There are multiple posts in this forum that have given “proof” as you’d like to say of a dome above us. But you seem to have a unique way of determining what is acceptable and what is not. Are you suggesting that the gases that make up our atmosphere remain where they are without a dome above to prevent them from leaking into a vacuum? When is a rainbow created without a dome causing the specific reflection? You have not provided a shred of “proof” for your own argument. Considering this is a research  forum why not display your research?

I am not required as a researcher to prove a dome that does not exists does not exists.

Do you have photos of your dome structure?
Do you have a piece of your dome structure we can examine?
Do you have proof that your dome structure exists?

There are NO postings on this forum proving dome existence, just speculation.

This is like arguing with a child. There are no posts on this site proving anything. Everything is speculation. And please provide proof of any time a rainbow can be made by a prism that is not the shape to of the rainbow itself. Aside from saying “optical effects can be caused by many things” which is nothing but empty words and demonstrates nothing. And you can search for yourself for video links on this forum showing that the dome exists, that meteorites are pieces of the dome, of rockets hitting a dome, etc.

Realearth wrote:

Nf35 wrote:

Realearth wrote:

Nf35 wrote:

Realearth wrote:

Nf35 wrote:

Realearth wrote:

oilcrash1 wrote:hmmm so what were they firing bombs at ?
Rockets seemingly skimming into/over water? firmament? 'dome'?  
Private rocket hitting something, and sitting suspended @ 73 miles or so they say?  
It just fits my minds eye to try and picture a 'dome' that is only 100 miles high, instead of the ones I keep seeing.
 

When you have proof of a Dome or Firmament please share it with us.

Aren’t things like rainbows and sun dogs supposed to prove the existence of a crystalline dome structure above?

NO

Care to explain why? The evidence I’ve seen all points to optical effects like that only being possible if a dome structure exists.

Optical effects can be caused by many things.
Do you have photos of your dome structure?
Do you have a piece of your dome structure we can examine?
Do you have proof that your dome structure exists?

You’re evading the questions I have asked. There are multiple posts in this forum that have given “proof” as you’d like to say of a dome above us. But you seem to have a unique way of determining what is acceptable and what is not. Are you suggesting that the gases that make up our atmosphere remain where they are without a dome above to prevent them from leaking into a vacuum? When is a rainbow created without a dome causing the specific reflection? You have not provided a shred of “proof” for your own argument. Considering this is a research  forum why not display your research?

I am not required as a researcher to prove a dome that does not exists does not exists.

Do you have photos of your dome structure?
Do you have a piece of your dome structure we can examine?
Do you have proof that your dome structure exists?

There are NO postings on this forum proving dome existence, just speculation.

You can't deny something that you yourself are not sure it doesn't exist though, you may BELIEVE it doesn't but since you have no proof either you can't deny it's existance.

[/quote]

Zherot wrote:
"You can't deny something that you yourself are not sure it doesn't exist though, you may BELIEVE it doesn't but since you have no proof either you can't deny it's existance.[/quote]"

Your logic is flawed
Does one have to prove Santa Claus does not exist before one can deny its existence.?

NF35 wrote{
1. "This is like arguing with a child"
2. "There are no posts on this site proving anything"

My Comment
1, Your ad hominem remarks are of no value on this forum.
2. I doubt Eric and many others would agree with you.

I suggest you read the rules of this forum, in particular #5, before you are banned.

Nf35 wrote:

Realearth wrote:

Nf35 wrote:

Realearth wrote:

Nf35 wrote:

Realearth wrote:

Nf35 wrote:

Realearth wrote:

oilcrash1 wrote:hmmm so what were they firing bombs at ?
Rockets seemingly skimming into/over water? firmament? 'dome'?  
Private rocket hitting something, and sitting suspended @ 73 miles or so they say?  
It just fits my minds eye to try and picture a 'dome' that is only 100 miles high, instead of the ones I keep seeing.
 

When you have proof of a Dome or Firmament please share it with us.

Aren’t things like rainbows and sun dogs supposed to prove the existence of a crystalline dome structure above?

NO

Care to explain why? The evidence I’ve seen all points to optical effects like that only being possible if a dome structure exists.

Optical effects can be caused by many things.
Do you have photos of your dome structure?
Do you have a piece of your dome structure we can examine?
Do you have proof that your dome structure exists?

You’re evading the questions I have asked. There are multiple posts in this forum that have given “proof” as you’d like to say of a dome above us. But you seem to have a unique way of determining what is acceptable and what is not. Are you suggesting that the gases that make up our atmosphere remain where they are without a dome above to prevent them from leaking into a vacuum? When is a rainbow created without a dome causing the specific reflection? You have not provided a shred of “proof” for your own argument. Considering this is a research  forum why not display your research?

I am not required as a researcher to prove a dome that does not exists does not exists.

Do you have photos of your dome structure?
Do you have a piece of your dome structure we can examine?
Do you have proof that your dome structure exists?

There are NO postings on this forum proving dome existence, just speculation.

This is like arguing with a child. There are no posts on this site proving anything. Everything is speculation. And please provide proof of any time a rainbow can be made by a prism that is not the shape to of the rainbow itself. Aside from saying “optical effects can be caused by many things” which is nothing but empty words and demonstrates nothing. And you can search for yourself for video links on this forum showing that the dome exists, that meteorites are pieces of the dome, of rockets hitting a dome, etc.

Can you tell me where I can touch this dome that you claim exists? Siting video links or images is not a tangible demonstration that proves how you know this to be true.

Alpha wrote:

Nf35 wrote:

Realearth wrote:

Nf35 wrote:

Realearth wrote:

Nf35 wrote:

Realearth wrote:

Nf35 wrote:

Realearth wrote:

oilcrash1 wrote:hmmm so what were they firing bombs at ?
Rockets seemingly skimming into/over water? firmament? 'dome'?  
Private rocket hitting something, and sitting suspended @ 73 miles or so they say?  
It just fits my minds eye to try and picture a 'dome' that is only 100 miles high, instead of the ones I keep seeing.
 

When you have proof of a Dome or Firmament please share it with us.

Aren’t things like rainbows and sun dogs supposed to prove the existence of a crystalline dome structure above?

NO

Care to explain why? The evidence I’ve seen all points to optical effects like that only being possible if a dome structure exists.

Optical effects can be caused by many things.
Do you have photos of your dome structure?
Do you have a piece of your dome structure we can examine?
Do you have proof that your dome structure exists?

You’re evading the questions I have asked. There are multiple posts in this forum that have given “proof” as you’d like to say of a dome above us. But you seem to have a unique way of determining what is acceptable and what is not. Are you suggesting that the gases that make up our atmosphere remain where they are without a dome above to prevent them from leaking into a vacuum? When is a rainbow created without a dome causing the specific reflection? You have not provided a shred of “proof” for your own argument. Considering this is a research  forum why not display your research?

I am not required as a researcher to prove a dome that does not exists does not exists.

Do you have photos of your dome structure?
Do you have a piece of your dome structure we can examine?
Do you have proof that your dome structure exists?

There are NO postings on this forum proving dome existence, just speculation.

This is like arguing with a child. There are no posts on this site proving anything. Everything is speculation. And please provide proof of any time a rainbow can be made by a prism that is not the shape to of the rainbow itself. Aside from saying “optical effects can be caused by many things” which is nothing but empty words and demonstrates nothing. And you can search for yourself for video links on this forum showing that the dome exists, that meteorites are pieces of the dome, of rockets hitting a dome, etc.

Can you tell me where I can touch this dome that you claim exists? Siting video links or images is not a tangible demonstration that proves how you know this to be true.

So something exists only if you can physically touch it. This is a nice moving the goal post fallacy. Do video links not provide evidence that you can weigh for your self using your own cognitive abilities? Or do all video links just cancel themselves out for simply being on video and not actually in front of you physically? Instead of trying to touch a firmament above why not try to tell me how a rainbow can be made by a light reflected off a prism that is not the shape of a dome?

Nf35 wrote:

Alpha wrote:

Nf35 wrote:

Realearth wrote:

Nf35 wrote:

Realearth wrote:

Nf35 wrote:

Realearth wrote:

Nf35 wrote:

Realearth wrote:

oilcrash1 wrote:hmmm so what were they firing bombs at ?
Rockets seemingly skimming into/over water? firmament? 'dome'?  
Private rocket hitting something, and sitting suspended @ 73 miles or so they say?  
It just fits my minds eye to try and picture a 'dome' that is only 100 miles high, instead of the ones I keep seeing.
 

When you have proof of a Dome or Firmament please share it with us.

Aren’t things like rainbows and sun dogs supposed to prove the existence of a crystalline dome structure above?

NO

Care to explain why? The evidence I’ve seen all points to optical effects like that only being possible if a dome structure exists.

Optical effects can be caused by many things.
Do you have photos of your dome structure?
Do you have a piece of your dome structure we can examine?
Do you have proof that your dome structure exists?

You’re evading the questions I have asked. There are multiple posts in this forum that have given “proof” as you’d like to say of a dome above us. But you seem to have a unique way of determining what is acceptable and what is not. Are you suggesting that the gases that make up our atmosphere remain where they are without a dome above to prevent them from leaking into a vacuum? When is a rainbow created without a dome causing the specific reflection? You have not provided a shred of “proof” for your own argument. Considering this is a research  forum why not display your research?

I am not required as a researcher to prove a dome that does not exists does not exists.

Do you have photos of your dome structure?
Do you have a piece of your dome structure we can examine?
Do you have proof that your dome structure exists?

There are NO postings on this forum proving dome existence, just speculation.

This is like arguing with a child. There are no posts on this site proving anything. Everything is speculation. And please provide proof of any time a rainbow can be made by a prism that is not the shape to of the rainbow itself. Aside from saying “optical effects can be caused by many things” which is nothing but empty words and demonstrates nothing. And you can search for yourself for video links on this forum showing that the dome exists, that meteorites are pieces of the dome, of rockets hitting a dome, etc.

Can you tell me where I can touch this dome that you claim exists? Siting video links or images is not a tangible demonstration that proves how you know this to be true.

So something exists only if you can physically touch it. This is a nice moving the goal post fallacy. Do video links not provide evidence that you can weigh for your self using your own cognitive abilities? Or do all video links just cancel themselves out for simply being on video and not actually in front of you physically? Instead of trying to touch a firmament above why not try to tell me how a rainbow can be made by a light reflected off a prism that is not the shape of a dome?

You are claiming something exists. The burden of proof is on you to prove it. Video's and images are not scientific proof of anything. Tell me how you know it exists

Your logic is flawed
Does one have to prove Santa Claus does not exist before one can deny its existence.?

That is a false equivalence.

You have to provide evidence or your research to prove that the dome does not exist at least a well done argument to sustain your position, if you categorically deny it's existence without proof well that is something you BELIVE in, it's based on faith, and you can believe all you want, but stop try to pass it up as fact.

I personally can't deny or guarantee it's existence because I know I don't have evidence of neither.

I find really funny that people are claiming that videos are not proof enough when they will use videos themselves to prove the earth is flat... I just don't get this hypocrisy, when it is convinient something is valid and when it isn't then it is invalid... you seem to forget that the whole flath earth theory is faced with a lot of resistance and people mocking others or saying the same thing you are saying to this dude: "videos prooof nothing!!!!" and similar things. Skepticism is fine but this is not skepticism this is putting your personal agenda/beliefs before finding the truth, unless you claim that you are the holders of the ultimate truth and then this whole research thing is pointless then since you already know all the answers.

You don't need video's to practically show the the earth is demonstrably level. If someone claims something is real or "exists" then they need to practically demonstrate that claim using the tangible substances of this reality. Then we will all be able to repeat those steps & get the same results 100% of the time. Then that claim would become a fact & we would all know it to be true, through practical demonstration & reference points & experiment. No one is saying a dome is not a possibility. I just don't make claims I can't prove or know to be true. It just muddies the water & is a reason why people hold so many beliefs today, rather than actually knowing.

nowhereelsetogo wrote:well this looks a little dubious to say the least....

That picture is assuming there is gravity . Gravity is a theory and has never been proven .
Secondly it makes the assumption that directly in the middle of every body of water is the magic gravity spot . More misinformation and a graph that doesn’t represent reality.

Alpha wrote:You don't need video's to practically show the the earth is demonstrably level. If someone claims something is real or "exists" then they need to practically demonstrate that claim using the tangible substances of this reality. Then we will all be able to repeat those steps & get the same results 100% of the time. Then that claim would become a fact & we would all know it to be true, through practical demonstration & reference points & experiment. No one is saying a dome is not a possibility. I just don't make claims I can't prove or know to be true. It just muddies the water & is a reason why people hold so many beliefs today, rather than actually knowing.

But it works both ways, no one should say something is true without proof I agree but someone should not say something is not true with no proof either which is what It was happening.

As far as I am concerned no one knows really without a doubt that there is a dome or that there isn't.

Also you guys are ignoring the argument of the person that says it exist, he brought up the rainbow shape being the same of the dome because that is how prisms work, no one actually counter argument that one and instead cherry picked his whole argument or outright denied any possibility like you guys are without a doubt sure there is no dome which I doubt.

AnonymousJirrafe wrote:Hi, just to make it clear I'm not invested in any particular model of the earth, but am simply looking for the truth. Are there rebuttals to this website?

In particular this experiment seems like very good evidence of curvature:



Thanks.

Isn't this "dip" happening because of the altitude and not because the earth is round?

Isn't this the old argument that if you go higher you "see more" thus the earth is round?

I'm asking genuinely because I really don't understand what he is trying to say if it is not that.

zherot wrote:

Alpha wrote:You don't need video's to practically show the the earth is demonstrably level. If someone claims something is real or "exists" then they need to practically demonstrate that claim using the tangible substances of this reality. Then we will all be able to repeat those steps & get the same results 100% of the time. Then that claim would become a fact & we would all know it to be true, through practical demonstration & reference points & experiment. No one is saying a dome is not a possibility. I just don't make claims I can't prove or know to be true. It just muddies the water & is a reason why people hold so many beliefs today, rather than actually knowing.

But it works both ways, no one should say something is true without proof I agree but someone should not say something is not true with no proof either which is what It was happening.

As far as I am concerned no one knows really without a doubt that there is a dome or that there isn't.

Also you guys are ignoring the argument of the person that says it exist, he brought up the rainbow shape being the same of the dome because that is how prisms work, no one actually counter argument that one and instead cherry picked his whole argument or outright denied any possibility like you guys are without a doubt sure there is no dome which I doubt.

If someone is claiming something exists in my reality, the onus is on them to prove that claim. Until they can prove that claim to be true, it is only a belief.

Apparently, the duration of a second is the span of time required to enunciate the words, "One Mississippi" ... but That Don't PROVE Nothin'!!

Globe-people love balls and do whatever they can to PROVE that everything is made of a bunch of tiny balls which cling to other tiny balls and make big balls that orbit around other big balls and it all started with the teeny-tiniest ball that exploded and created it all.

Many Flat Earthers seem to relish the idea of a tidy dome. A physical dome conflicts with properties of Atmosphere, where the air, smoke, volcanic gas and water vapor that would have long-since filled a dome's inner space to capacity, with a uniformity achieved.

>One Mississippi<
>Two Mississippi<
>Three Mississippi<

Breathe. Relax.

Consider the continuous flat plane of existence, with its as yet unknown dimensions, and understand that there exists an incomplete model of a firmament above.

The question, from oilcrash1, was pondering the vertical dimensions of a dome and if the amateur rocket hit the dome at 73 miles. To address this question, I concur with Realearth, such that this evidence is unreliable at best. It Don't Prove Nothin'!

An amateur rocket could have run out of fuel, popped the parachute or dozens of other explanations for a sudden halt in the flight. There was no forward-looking nose camera, just the rear-facing camera pointing toward the ground.

These videos of GoFast rockets and others could just be big fakes.

If they floated a camera, tethered to something that resembled a rocket tail, up and up and then dropped this camera, spinning and plunging straight down -- add a little bit of reverse-playback video editing -- and the result is about the same. The sudden halt and sudden stable vertical location at the "flight peak" seem to reveal that this was not the end of the flight, but instead, the Beginning of a downward plunge.

Nf35 makes good points such that viewing videos and assessing evidence is about all we have right now. But we need to exercise caution.

Would the Military-Industrial Complex, as it has been described, allow a bunch of amateur rocket enthusiasts to go out to the desert, in the middle of the "Global War on Terror" and blast ballistic missiles into the sky?

>One Mississippi<
>Two Mississippi<
>Three Mississippi<

View the "Burn" time on the GoFast rocket videos. View the spray of sand and debris upon the ground. Are these accurate? Or are they a little too clean, concise and contained for a Missile Launch in the middle of the dusty desert?

>One Mississippi<
>Two Mississippi<
>Three Mississippi<

In conclusion, you ain't got to prove nothin' to nobody. Take a second -- breathe and relax.

I love y'all so much. But remember, this ain't about a damn dome!

We are here to expose the "Global" conspiracy from Atlantis to Zion.

Research. Review. Share your findings.

Please Consider.

Alpha wrote:

zherot wrote:

Alpha wrote:You don't need video's to practically show the the earth is demonstrably level. If someone claims something is real or "exists" then they need to practically demonstrate that claim using the tangible substances of this reality. Then we will all be able to repeat those steps & get the same results 100% of the time. Then that claim would become a fact & we would all know it to be true, through practical demonstration & reference points & experiment. No one is saying a dome is not a possibility. I just don't make claims I can't prove or know to be true. It just muddies the water & is a reason why people hold so many beliefs today, rather than actually knowing.

But it works both ways, no one should say something is true without proof I agree but someone should not say something is not true with no proof either which is what It was happening.

As far as I am concerned no one knows really without a doubt that there is a dome or that there isn't.

Also you guys are ignoring the argument of the person that says it exist, he brought up the rainbow shape being the same of the dome because that is how prisms work, no one actually counter argument that one and instead cherry picked his whole argument or outright denied any possibility like you guys are without a doubt sure there is no dome which I doubt.

If someone is claiming something exists in my reality, the onus is on them to prove that claim. Until they can prove that claim to be true, it is only a belief.

Indeed but you could also firmly believe the opposite and it would still be a belief.

He did brought the rainbow shape and prism argument and no one os refuting that or trying to, it is being completely ignored and that is interesting to say the least.

Oliver_Bestfall wrote:
Apparently, the duration of a second is the span of time required to enunciate the words, "One Mississippi" ... but That Don't PROVE Nothin'!!

Globe-people love balls and do whatever they can to PROVE that everything is made of a bunch of tiny balls which cling to other tiny balls and make big balls that orbit around  other big balls and it all started with the teeny-tiniest ball that exploded and created it all.

Many Flat Earthers seem to relish the idea of a tidy dome.  A physical dome conflicts with properties of Atmosphere, where the air, smoke, volcanic gas and water vapor that would have long-since filled a dome's inner space to capacity, with a uniformity achieved.  

>One Mississippi<
>Two Mississippi<
>Three Mississippi<

Breathe.  Relax.

Consider the continuous flat plane of existence, with its as yet unknown dimensions, and understand that there exists an incomplete model of a firmament above.

The question, from oilcrash1, was pondering the vertical dimensions of a dome and if the amateur rocket hit the dome at 73 miles.  To address this question, I concur with Realearth, such that this evidence is unreliable at best.  It Don't Prove Nothin'!

An amateur rocket could have run out of fuel, popped the parachute or dozens of other explanations for a sudden halt in the flight.  There was no forward-looking nose camera, just the rear-facing camera pointing toward the ground.

These videos of GoFast rockets and others could just be big fakes.  

If they floated a camera, tethered to something that resembled a rocket tail, up and up and then dropped this camera, spinning and plunging straight down -- add a little bit of reverse-playback video editing -- and the result is about the same.  The sudden halt and sudden stable vertical location at the "flight peak" seem to reveal that this was not the end of the flight, but instead, the Beginning of a downward plunge.

Nf35 makes good points such that viewing videos and assessing evidence is about all we have right now.  But we need to exercise caution.

Would the Military-Industrial Complex, as it has been described, allow a bunch of amateur rocket enthusiasts to go out to the desert, in the middle of the "Global War on Terror" and blast ballistic missiles into the sky?

>One Mississippi<
>Two Mississippi<
>Three Mississippi<

View the "Burn" time on the GoFast rocket videos.  View the spray of sand and debris upon the ground.  Are these accurate?  Or are they a little too clean, concise and contained for a Missile Launch in the middle of the dusty desert?

>One Mississippi<
>Two Mississippi<
>Three Mississippi<

In conclusion, you ain't got to prove nothin' to nobody.  Take a second -- breathe and relax.

I love y'all so much.  But remember, this ain't about a damn dome!

We are here to expose the "Global" conspiracy from Atlantis to Zion.

Research.  Review.  Share your findings.

Please Consider.

Yeah, I know it's not a bout the dome and that everything at this point could be a lie, I don't even know who to trust anymore, I feel like I can't believe anything anymore and lost.

zherot: "Yeah, I know it's not a bout the dome and that everything at this point could be a lie, I don't even know who to trust anymore, I feel like I can't believe anything anymore ... "

Now, you're ready!  

If you can't believe anything, then you are ready to make some sensible assessments.

zherot wrote:Hi, first of all I would say that at first I was pretty skeptical about this flat earth theory, have known the topic for years but never really "believed" in it BUT I have always distrusted NASA, no way people went to the moon, no one will ever convince me of that and most things NASA produces always look fake, I just can't trust them.

So I saw some videos because my cousin was mocking "flat earthers" and I saw a video on Bitchute on the page I was browsing, I wasn't looking for flat earth videos or anything and I didn't even knew the video was about flat earth either, so I started watching and... can you believe that after many years of knowing flat earth theories I never actually knew you guys were never talking about an "edge"? I mean, I didn't really understood fully what you guys were saying this whole years because all the crap that mainstream media and other sources put in you guys mouths, the amount of strawmans really prevent people from even understanding your positions and arguments....

Anyways, I have 2 questions that still don't make sense to me:

1. When I was younger I remember I did an experiment that was about letting 2 objects fall (a feather and an iron ball) in a vaccum environment, menaing no air etc and the purpose was to proove that both objects reach the bottom at the same time without any resistance. The old explanation was gravity of course but in a vacuum on a flat earth that has no gravity, what makes this objects fall at the same time?
   
   
2. The images we get from the sun that guys like Ben Davidson (Suspicious Observers Jewtube channel) use to "predict" possible quake activities on earth etc. Are also fake?, so, sunspots, solar flares etc it's all fake?
   

Another thing that gave more credibility to Eric IMO is that he is denouncing the Jews, honestly that is one HUGE point in your favor and why? because everyone that has done a bit of research into conspiracies and never stops in any of the "honeypots" will eventually reach the conclusion that is the fucking Jews... that was some HUGE red pill I swallowed a few years ago and I became an admirer of Hitler and the NS party, yet this days I am even aware of saying that, maybe I have the wrong idea about that too, who knows, but what I know is the Jews are a big problem.

Anyway I hope someone can answer my two questions and explain to me those.

Thanks for accepting my membership petition.

So to give my perspective on the iron ball thing. Gravity is really just how dense an object is. If an object is more dense than the air or the medium around that object, it falls. It’s that simple.

If you take away the air I.e, a vacuum, the object has no resistance as it falls. so the feather will fall at the same rate as an iron ball.

It doesn’t have anything to do with weight because weight is a measurement of how dense something is.

We walk around on the ground because we are more dense than the air around us.

No magic gravity.

zherot wrote:

Alpha wrote:

zherot wrote:

Alpha wrote:You don't need video's to practically show the the earth is demonstrably level. If someone claims something is real or "exists" then they need to practically demonstrate that claim using the tangible substances of this reality. Then we will all be able to repeat those steps & get the same results 100% of the time. Then that claim would become a fact & we would all know it to be true, through practical demonstration & reference points & experiment. No one is saying a dome is not a possibility. I just don't make claims I can't prove or know to be true. It just muddies the water & is a reason why people hold so many beliefs today, rather than actually knowing.

But it works both ways, no one should say something is true without proof I agree but someone should not say something is not true with no proof either which is what It was happening.

As far as I am concerned no one knows really without a doubt that there is a dome or that there isn't.

Also you guys are ignoring the argument of the person that says it exist, he brought up the rainbow shape being the same of the dome because that is how prisms work, no one actually counter argument that one and instead cherry picked his whole argument or outright denied any possibility like you guys are without a doubt sure there is no dome which I doubt.

If someone is claiming something exists in my reality, the onus is on them to prove that claim. Until they can prove that claim to be true, it is only a belief.

Indeed but you could also firmly believe the opposite and it would still be a belief.

He did brought the rainbow shape and prism argument and no one os refuting that or trying to, it is being completely ignored and that is interesting to say the least.

Your reasoning is flawed. I don't believe covid is a virus, the onus is not on me to prove it is real, that responsibility lies with those making the claim. I've said that a dome or some sort of containment is a possibility. Until his claim that a dome exists is proven to be true it is just an idea (belief), hypothesis. Only when he has practically demonstrated this claim to be true and we can all experience and test it to know for ourselves does it become real.

Alpha wrote:

zherot wrote:

Alpha wrote:

zherot wrote:

Alpha wrote:You don't need video's to practically show the the earth is demonstrably level. If someone claims something is real or "exists" then they need to practically demonstrate that claim using the tangible substances of this reality. Then we will all be able to repeat those steps & get the same results 100% of the time. Then that claim would become a fact & we would all know it to be true, through practical demonstration & reference points & experiment. No one is saying a dome is not a possibility. I just don't make claims I can't prove or know to be true. It just muddies the water & is a reason why people hold so many beliefs today, rather than actually knowing.

But it works both ways, no one should say something is true without proof I agree but someone should not say something is not true with no proof either which is what It was happening.

As far as I am concerned no one knows really without a doubt that there is a dome or that there isn't.

Also you guys are ignoring the argument of the person that says it exist, he brought up the rainbow shape being the same of the dome because that is how prisms work, no one actually counter argument that one and instead cherry picked his whole argument or outright denied any possibility like you guys are without a doubt sure there is no dome which I doubt.

If someone is claiming something exists in my reality, the onus is on them to prove that claim. Until they can prove that claim to be true, it is only a belief.

Indeed but you could also firmly believe the opposite and it would still be a belief.

He did brought the rainbow shape and prism argument and no one os refuting that or trying to, it is being completely ignored and that is interesting to say the least.

Your reasoning is flawed. I don't believe covid is a virus, the onus is not on me to prove it is real, that responsibility lies with those making the claim. I've said that a dome or some sort of containment is a possibility. Until his claim that a dome exists is proven to be true it is just an idea (belief), hypothesis. Only when he has practically demonstrated this claim to be true and we can all experience and test it to know for ourselves does it become real.

Well I for one have NOT said that there is a dome 100% the post you quoted is pretty clear that you may want to BELIEVE there is not a dome same as they BELIVE there is, at this point no one is right and both are BELIEVERS.

You now admit there is a possibility of being one but before you guys were 100% dennying even the possibility of it which is entirely antiscientific because you guys have no proof either of a "there is no dome" claim.

You keep ignoring the rainbow argument of that person and that tells a lot.

Tsaltsrif wrote:

zherot wrote:Hi, first of all I would say that at first I was pretty skeptical about this flat earth theory, have known the topic for years but never really "believed" in it BUT I have always distrusted NASA, no way people went to the moon, no one will ever convince me of that and most things NASA produces always look fake, I just can't trust them.

So I saw some videos because my cousin was mocking "flat earthers" and I saw a video on Bitchute on the page I was browsing, I wasn't looking for flat earth videos or anything and I didn't even knew the video was about flat earth either, so I started watching and... can you believe that after many years of knowing flat earth theories I never actually knew you guys were never talking about an "edge"? I mean, I didn't really understood fully what you guys were saying this whole years because all the crap that mainstream media and other sources put in you guys mouths, the amount of strawmans really prevent people from even understanding your positions and arguments....

Anyways, I have 2 questions that still don't make sense to me:

1. When I was younger I remember I did an experiment that was about letting 2 objects fall (a feather and an iron ball) in a vaccum environment, menaing no air etc and the purpose was to proove that both objects reach the bottom at the same time without any resistance. The old explanation was gravity of course but in a vacuum on a flat earth that has no gravity, what makes this objects fall at the same time?
   
   
2. The images we get from the sun that guys like Ben Davidson (Suspicious Observers Jewtube channel) use to "predict" possible quake activities on earth etc. Are also fake?, so, sunspots, solar flares etc it's all fake?
   

Another thing that gave more credibility to Eric IMO is that he is denouncing the Jews, honestly that is one HUGE point in your favor and why? because everyone that has done a bit of research into conspiracies and never stops in any of the "honeypots" will eventually reach the conclusion that is the fucking Jews... that was some HUGE red pill I swallowed a few years ago and I became an admirer of Hitler and the NS party, yet this days I am even aware of saying that, maybe I have the wrong idea about that too, who knows, but what I know is the Jews are a big problem.

Anyway I hope someone can answer my two questions and explain to me those.

Thanks for accepting my membership petition.

So to give my perspective on the iron ball thing. Gravity is really just how dense an object is. If an object is more dense than the air or the medium around that object, it falls. It’s that simple.

If you take away the air I.e, a vacuum, the object has no resistance as it falls. so the feather will fall at the same rate as an iron ball.

It doesn’t have anything to do with weight because weight is a measurement of how dense something is.

We walk around on the ground because we are more dense than the air around us.

No magic gravity.

So objects falling faster than others is just the resistance of the air I see... so just how planes and other objects that are used to fly or plane that are factually more dense than air but find a way to use the air as a medium to resist a fall.

zherot wrote:

Alpha wrote:

zherot wrote:

Alpha wrote:

zherot wrote:

Alpha wrote:You don't need video's to practically show the the earth is demonstrably level. If someone claims something is real or "exists" then they need to practically demonstrate that claim using the tangible substances of this reality. Then we will all be able to repeat those steps & get the same results 100% of the time. Then that claim would become a fact & we would all know it to be true, through practical demonstration & reference points & experiment. No one is saying a dome is not a possibility. I just don't make claims I can't prove or know to be true. It just muddies the water & is a reason why people hold so many beliefs today, rather than actually knowing.

But it works both ways, no one should say something is true without proof I agree but someone should not say something is not true with no proof either which is what It was happening.

As far as I am concerned no one knows really without a doubt that there is a dome or that there isn't.

Also you guys are ignoring the argument of the person that says it exist, he brought up the rainbow shape being the same of the dome because that is how prisms work, no one actually counter argument that one and instead cherry picked his whole argument or outright denied any possibility like you guys are without a doubt sure there is no dome which I doubt.

If someone is claiming something exists in my reality, the onus is on them to prove that claim. Until they can prove that claim to be true, it is only a belief.

Indeed but you could also firmly believe the opposite and it would still be a belief.

He did brought the rainbow shape and prism argument and no one os refuting that or trying to, it is being completely ignored and that is interesting to say the least.

Your reasoning is flawed. I don't believe covid is a virus, the onus is not on me to prove it is real, that responsibility lies with those making the claim. I've said that a dome or some sort of containment is a possibility. Until his claim that a dome exists is proven to be true it is just an idea (belief), hypothesis. Only when he has practically demonstrated this claim to be true and we can all experience and test it to know for ourselves does it become real.

Well I for one have NOT said that there is a dome 100% the post you quoted is pretty clear that you may want to BELIEVE there is not a dome same as they BELIVE there is, at this point no one is right and both are BELIEVERS.

You now admit there is a possibility of being one but before you guys were 100% dennying even the possibility of it which is entirely antiscientific because you guys have no proof either of a "there is no dome" claim.

You keep ignoring the rainbow argument of that person and that tells a lot.

If someone makes a claim that something is real the onus is on them to prove it. It's pretty simple. I'm not saying you made this calm. I mentioned in a previous post that a dome was a possibility, so please don't misrepresent me. I am only asking for proof of the dome that was claimed. Can you please tell me how you have used a rainbow to practically demonstrate a physical dome of some sort that I can also interact with and experience and test for myself?

.



I’m discussing how gravity can be explained through buoyancy and density with my brother (who is not a flat earther). He sent me this video and asked if buoyancy and density can explain and predict how the marbles will move. He says Newtonian physics can, so if buoyancy and density cannot, then why should he accept it as a more useful theory for explaining motions? For example, can it “model the motions of objects moving on earth using a computer model better than Newtonian physics?”. I’m not a programmer so I don’t know what sort of calculations are done to model gravity in computer simulations, are there examples of this using buoyancy and density as the equations?

His specific request is
sure, just make sure to ask if the explanation is one of "sounds reasonable" or one of "can make accurate predictions about the future of the system given the current state"

He also said they need to use Newtonian physics to design f-22 and jets. Could these be built with just using boyancy and density models?
Thanks for any explainations!

Can you’ll help me explain how (and if) buoyancy and density can explain this? Note: Eric Dubay just a few hours ago released a great new video explaining this but it’s rather technical and I’m not that good at math. Here’s his video:

Tree wrote:.



I’m discussing how gravity can be explained through buoyancy and density with my brother (who is not a flat earther). He sent me this video and asked if buoyancy and density can explain and predict how the marbles will move. He says Newtonian physics can, so if buoyancy and density cannot, then why should he accept it as a more useful theory for explaining motions? For example, can it “model the motions of objects moving on earth using a computer model better than Newtonian physics?”. I’m not a programmer so I don’t know what sort of calculations are done to model gravity in computer simulations, are there examples of this using buoyancy and density as the equations?

His specific request is
sure, just make sure to ask if the explanation is one of "sounds reasonable" or one of "can make accurate predictions about the future of the system given the current state"

He also said they need to use Newtonian physics to design f-22 and jets. Could these be built with just using boyancy and density models?
Thanks for any explainations!

Can you’ll help me explain how (and if) buoyancy and density can explain this? Note: Eric Dubay just a few hours ago released a great new video explaining this but it’s rather technical and I’m not that good at math. Here’s his video:

“ His specific request is
sure, just make sure to ask if the explanation is one of "sounds reasonable" or one of "can make accurate predictions about the future of the system given the current state"”

People have been predicting with high accuracy the movement of celestial bodies long before Newton. Predicting exact time and date of eclipses and even comets. Edmond Halley is credited for predicting Halley’s Comet using Newtonian Mechanics (Gravity) however there’s evidence of first-century astronomers describing a star moving periodically returning every 70 years.


“He also said they need to use Newtonian physics to design f-22 and jets. Could these be built with just using boyancy and density models?“

We have no dispute with Newton’s Laws of Motion or Thermodynamics. Those laws plus other engineering laws work well with buoyancy and help in the design of a jets. We have a problem with his Law of Gravitation.