### Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

### Topics - Theorist

Pages: [1]
1
##### Flat Earth Theory / None of the flat Earther's on YouTube are addressing this...
« on: July 03, 2015, 12:33:03 AM »
The four most popular flat Earth supporters making videos on YouTube - Eric Dubay, Mark Sargent, Matt Boylan and Jeranism, all never acknowledge or address this: All of these guys are claiming the "drop" in elevation between two points on the ocean is the curve height, when the curve height is four times less than that figure.

I'm not good enough at maths to know if it is "always four times difference" but it seems to always be around that, from manually drawing and measuring it in millimeters.

I feel like I have been given the runaround by these guys honestly!

You'd never see someone like Tom Bishop overlooking this fact, it is basic math.

For example 8 inches per mile x 10 miles x 10 miles = 800 inches aka 66.7 feet. The flat Earthers will then claim the hump of water is that height, when it isn't! The hump over 10 miles would actually be 25% of that figure, so 16.7 feet.

These guys are all scammers/conmen. Confidence tricksters, doing a long con selling books and getting donations. I think Sargent might even be going on CNN or something, just lol.

I just came running back here once I realized this. Of course I got banned on Dubay's forum lol, who wasn't.

Bottom line:

The drop height is being touted around as though it were the curve height.

To quote Jeranism:

"I'm not that bright, but I'm not that stupid either".

These guys are all tarnishing the credibility of the flat Earth model.

2
##### Flat Earth Theory / Here's my take on what gravity is...
« on: March 31, 2015, 07:10:53 PM »
Gravity... here's my take on it:

We are stuck to an "upside down flat ceiling" that is falling at a rate of 1G.

If gravity is 1D, then a flat plane (that relies on 1D being there) is falling through the first dimension (accelerating because 1D doesn't have wind resistance, wind requires volume aka 3D) and thus it is just one direction, forever.

Add a flat plane to that first dimension and we have another dimension including the flat plane the earth is on (assuming FET) then add one more dimension and we have volume or, 3D.

All higher dimensions absolutely rely on the lower dimensions (or dimension) to exist.

The first dimension cannot be changed, destroyed, or stopped. It accelerates at 1G forever, maybe time doesn't exist there, I don't see how it could.

This explains how we can have a "gravity atmosphere" AND a small pocket of the dome up top (down bottom in reality) where weightlessness is possible, the sun exists there (its a lot hotter up there than down here), moon, stars, planets all swirling around what looks like "above" the earth to us, but we are upside down stuck to it! UPSIDE DOWN FOLKS. Try to get your head around that if you can.

So the first dimension is making everything fall and accelerate falling... you might wonder what is on the "tip" of this falling mass... maybe the firmament, but I don't know. I can only guess extreme heat but in a way that it appears mostly dark. Where this "tip" gets thicker it gets cooler, there inside the tip you have the first recognizable 3D environment - a very hot zero gravity pocket containing the sun that circles around, then the atmosphere, then the sea/land.

I can't find any holes in this theory, that all three dimensions are interlocked, all rely on others except the first.

Now we would be stuck with "Well who put the first dimension there then?" and on it goes.  Its not really a question you can ask as a question. I mean its just there OK, don't ask that question! "God" only comes in when you observe the third dimension anyway or at a push maybe the second.

You also have to have a flat earth for all of this to be possible.  On a round earth... no chance - which is another clue if this all adds up.

So then its as if "life" is contained inside a small pocket of 3D space that is cooled enough. I can't explain how we stick to the "ceiling" and at the same time the zero gravity pocket/tip remains at zero gravity, I can't work out stuff like that.

This would also explain the notion of "hell" because if we're falling down stuck to an upside down ceiling, what we call "below" in reality is what I called "extreme heat". Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

It only leaves the question of what is "above" us? (underground). Well, its hot again I know that. As above, so below? Ludicrous heat above, ludicrous heat below, a small pocket of 3D along it... welcome to flat earth.

Before anyone says "All the blood would rush to your head" nope, you have the same gravity you have now.

We just adapted to think upside down is the right way up is all. Isn't it true we see everything upside down or something anyway, I remember them saying our eyes have to invert everything so we aren't looking at everything upside down. Think about it. Look at all the stuff that becomes explainable due to what I am proposing.

No maths needed either, I hate maths and could never do it.

Why can't this just be a 2D plane falling through a 1D point?

Come on let's brainstorm, a child can see this is how gravity works. :p

3
##### Flat Earth Community / How did NASA fake zero gravity (at length) in 1969?
« on: March 30, 2015, 04:34:40 PM »
Supposing NASA sent guys high up in their rocket in 1969 and they faked how far away they are from Earth (see "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon") OK right I can believe it could happen, but how did they have lengthy footage of them floating around in the spacecraft if they were still in a low orbit?

This destroys flat earth theory unless you can prove how they faked weightlessness, whilst in low orbit.

Then again if they were a lot closer to the earth than they said how are they weightless anyway?!

Earth filled the whole window and they supposedly used a paper cutout to make earth seem further away and of course this enforces the idea earth is a ball, not a disc.

To fake zero gravity in that way means they had some sort of machine in 1969 that could fly above earth as a plane does and yet have zero gravity inside. So, zero gravity inside, normal atmosphere outside. For flat earth to be true, they couldn't really be weightless where they were.

This proves they were indeed miles and miles up. Its just that yeah they weren't anywhere near the moon and never went. Faking the distance from the earth was imperative. I can accept all of that and the Bart Sibrel stuff, but what about them floating around inside the craft?

4
##### Flat Earth Community / Is the "Bilderberg Group" hinting at something? Nice play on words lol
« on: March 30, 2015, 04:03:58 PM »
They are referencing both icebergs (the ice wall) and building something in the one word.

Is the "Bilderberg Group" hinting that they know the Earth was originally a "built" thing?

I only ask because they are using a play on words (most people would assume is coincidental) and it sounds like "build a berg" as if they are trying to signal to people in the know. If they are, its working, it worked on me anyway.

Or the more sinister one is we were all only ever put here to see which genetic code ends up running the show. Now we are there with people like the Bilderberg Group (whose members change but are always the top industrialists and politicians) maybe its a signal to the original builders?

Then they come along and take those "royal" people (the rulers) off somewhere to inflict pain and misery on some other planet. Maybe the Earth we live on is some sort of acceleration device where they don't want to wait one hundred thousand years for the genetics to come around and do it to pluck people like that away to be used in some other project.

Theorist by name theorist by nature.  I'm not saying I think any of this, its a what if... but the topic title, yeah, I'm being serious.

Pages: [1]