TruthArchive.ai - Related Post Feed
@BillSEsquire_11 - Bill S. Esquire
We DO NOT live on a spinning ball. It’s an OBSERVABLE, REPEATABLE, And DEMONSTRABLE FACT. The Earth is a FLAT, STATIONARY PLANE.
Video Transcript AI Summary
This video explains that the size of a ball doesn't affect its geometric principles. No matter where you stand on a ball, the horizon line will always be below eye level. This is a fundamental fact with no exceptions. The math used to confirm the dimensions of a globe also confirms the expected drop of the horizon on Earth. So, when the math aligns with our common sense and what we observe at ground level, it supports the idea that the Earth is a flat, extended surface. Flatter is not a belief, but an observation. No complex equations are needed to understand this.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is a ball. This is a bigger ball The size of the ball makes no difference. The geometric principles remain the same. No matter where you stand on a ball, your horizon line will always be below light level. This is a fundamental fact with no exception.
On a full on your Verizon with a fixed point through the line level. It cannot rise at the higher you fill the farther you receive. But the higher you go with the lower end where the horizon must be, and it can be demonstrated all day long. The math used to confirm the globe dimensions. Also confirms the expected horizon drop for Earth.
So when the math confirms what our common sense already tells us, and we see this at ground level. The we see this at 127.50 17p. This is a flat, extended surface. So is this and this and this Flatter is not a belief. It's an observation No complex equations
@TheGlobeIsDead - restinpeace globe
The funny thing exposing the #NasaLies isn’t the fact to have them evidenced, no! It’s the fact how those Space Cowboy Clowns will come by to defend the obvious. Don’t believe me? Just wait a little! #SpaceIsFake #StopTheLies https://t.co/tC7rpcj3Bc
Video Transcript AI Summary
Good afternoon, students. I'm Art, and I'm Judge Wang. I'm Commander Ye Guangfu. In a weightless environment, a standard cup like the one we're used to doesn't work. It needs gravity to hold the food.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: To you. Hi. Hi. Good afternoon, all the students. I'm Art.
I'm Judge Wang. I'm the commander. Good afternoon. My name is, Ye Guangfu. You're absolutely correct.
The standard cup will not work in a weightless environment. You know, the cup that we're all used to drinking. Hold the cover here. Oh, just yeah. A standard cup like this does not work in a weightless environment.
It requires gravity to hold the food Uh-oh.
reSee.it AI Summary
The movement of the Earth is often compared to a train or car, but the truth is, we can't even feel it because the motion is constant. However, there are some interesting facts to consider. The Earth supposedly changes speed and direction as it travels through the galaxy at half a million mph, while also revolving around the sun at 66,600 mph and rotating on its axis at 1,000 mph. It's fascinating how we never feel any of this movement. It's like a cool fairy tale!
@No_Curve - Rufus_2688
To those who say the movement of the earth is relatable to a train or a car… Where… when the motion is constant…. You cant even feel when its moving 🛑 This is true that you cant feel it… But I have a question 🤔 At what point is the train rotating 🚞😵💫 Not to mention that the earth allegedly changes speed and direction as it…. Traverses the galaxy Half a Million mph 🪐⚡️ While… Revolving the sun☀️ at 66600 mph 😈 As it also rotates on its axis 1000 mph 🫨 But you never feel it 🥴 Thats a really cool fairy tale my dudes🧚♂️📖
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the concept of motion on Earth and how it relates to the heliocentric theory. They explain that if the Earth is constantly moving, we wouldn't necessarily feel it, just like how we don't feel the motion when we're in a plane. However, the heliocentric theory states that the Earth is not only moving in a straight line but also rotating around the sun, which is rotating around the galaxy, and so on. The speaker mentions that according to this theory, we are moving at a high speed. They also mention the existence of counter-rotating forces and suggest that the universe has a magical quality that cannot be explained by physics. The speaker criticizes the use of math to explain the Earth's motion instead of relying on empirical science.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Entire earth is moving, then we wouldn't necessarily feel emotion. Right? If it it's like, I don't feel like I'm moving when I'm in a plane because the entire plane is moving through the air. You know? Unless that plane goes up, goes down or turns.
You could throw a ball in a plane that's just moving straight and would fall back in your hand. But if that plane starts turning, that ball is going to fly the opposite direction. The heliocentric theory doesn't state that the Earth is just moving in a straight line. It states that it's on a ball rotating like this, as it rotates around the sun, as the sun rotates around the galaxy, as the galaxy rotates around the the universe, and this we're we're literally going millions of miles an hour right now according to the heliocentric model. Not only that, but there's counter rotating forces, So what we should experience is, centrifugal force should be increasing, decreasing, increasing, decreasing.
You know, my my conclusion was that the universe is sort of magical. There's a magical quality to it because because that's unexplainable by physics. So instead of actually applying empirical science, we're observing, Okay, is the earth moving? Well, we can use an interferometer to determine whether it is, and it doesn't seem to be. So instead of just admitting that, what they did was they said, well, let's think of some math that can kind of explain what's happening here while we still hold on to this assumption that the earth is a spinning ball moving through space.
@JasonBjorn5 - Jason Björn
It’s not Curvature We are stationary ☀️ SUN and Moon 🌖 are LOCAL https://t.co/1KjGeYMtqY
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, the speaker questions the argument that we can't see the curvature of the Earth because it is so large compared to us. They argue that if this is true, then we shouldn't be able to see boats disappear over the curvature of the Earth. The speaker suggests that convergence might explain this phenomenon. They also express skepticism towards the theories of relativity, evolution, pollution, the Big Bang, and gravity, stating that these theories are presented as facts. The speaker encourages critical thinking and questions why people enjoy being lied to.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Somebody tagged me in this video, and it's supposed to explain why we can't see the curvature of Earth. And the premise of the video is that Earth is so gigantic in relation to us. We are so scopic on earth, that we couldn't possibly see any curvature. Now the only problem with this argument is that it negates another argument, which is that We can see boats disappear going over the curvature of Earth standing on a beach. You can't have it both ways.
You can't Say that Earth is so large, you can't see the curvature, and then in the same breath, say that there's enough curvature over 3 miles to An entire ship disappear. It doesn't make sense. We have a person standing here that's witnessing a ship vanish right before their eyes. Now what could make this ship vanish if there is no curvature in between the person and the ship? Convergence maybe?
You guys need to wrap your head around this concept tip, or you forever think you are out of space spinning on a rock where monkeys turned into talking people. The only reason you can see the sun, the stars, and the moon is because because they are not millions of miles away from you. You've been finessed. Why? I have no idea.
I don't have all the answers. I'm just pointing The obvious, you can either take it or leave it. It's up to you. But this is your reality. Your perception of reality will not change the facts.
And to see this, you need only to be a critical thinker. I think that's the issue here. Most Globe enthusiasts don't think critically, And then you call us people who do think critically conspiracy theorists. When you guys are the ones with all the damn theories, the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution, the pollution, the big bang theory, the theory of gravity, everything about this globe that you believe in is dependent upon theories. And all they have to do is put the word scientific before theory, and you're sold on it.
That's wild. Y'all enjoyed being lied to. I can't even understand it.
@TedLogan1010 - Ted Theodore Logan
This is what I’ve been trying to tell you. You can’t have an atmosphere clinging to a ball, spinning over 1,000mph without friction. Friction causes heat. Just one more nail in the heliocentric coffin. https://t.co/qFWOJ76M2E
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the rotation of the Earth and the assumption that the atmosphere moves with it. They explain that different points in the atmosphere have different velocities due to the Earth's rotation. They also mention the theory that the Earth's rotation is a result of the Big Bang and discuss the movement of air at different elevations. The speaker questions how the air speeds up and stays in motion with the Earth, considering factors like friction, heat, and the entry of objects into the atmosphere. They express confusion about how the system can maintain its energy and velocity.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So let's say we're looking down on the North Pole of the globe Earth, and the Earth is rotating, spinning, or I should say rotating. People have given me some criticism for it. I should say rotating instead of spinning because they said it's It's being deceptive to say spinning, but, I mean, spinning, rotating. I really think it's the same thing. So, anyway, Earth is rotating.
Right? And so let's say We're going to freeze the Earth at that moment. Freeze the Earth with the atmosphere around it, assuming that the atmosphere is rotating with the Earth. And and that's what I have drawn on the board here. Okay?
So here's the Earth down here. Alright? And let's say that this line right here is the equator, and you're looking down on it, and the equator is right here. Okay? So we're just gonna say this line is the equator and then this is the edge of the atmosphere up here and then there's space out here.
Now, this is obviously not the scale, this is just conceptual. And so at the equator, the circumference of the Earth is roughly 25,000 miles. And so to figure out the instantaneous velocity of the Earth as it spins around its axis on the hoiter, you divide the circumference by the time it takes to make 1 revolution which is 24 hours. And when you do that, you get roughly 1038 miles per hour. Okay?
And so we assume right here that this is the Earth rotating at 1038 miles per hour. And I said in the video and people have said, in the comments that you can just say that that's 0. Okay? And so what I wanna do is look at this atmosphere and look at 3 points and 3 elevations. Okay?
A, B, and C. And assume that we're looking at just 1 cubic foot of air. Okay? Just to to get our minds around this volume of air that's frozen in time right now. Okay?
So all that's moving, all the air is moving with the earth in such a way that it appears relatively stationary, you know, we go outside, wind blows and moves around, but it's all moving with the Earth and that's what slows the plane down because the the atmosphere moves with the Earth. Okay? So point A, point B, and point C all moving with the Earth. Well, I mean they could be blowing this way, they could be blowing down at this moment, but since we froze them, We know that it's all moving with the Earth and not getting left behind. Right?
That's the assumption. And so, we will we will say at this moment, we expect all of these points of air to to to make one complete revolution and come back to the same in 24 hours. Right? Because the atmosphere moves with the Earth. The atmosphere never gets left behind.
So right off the bat, since we know The velocity is equal to distance divided by time. We can say that VA, the velocity of point A, is greater then the velocity of point B, which is greater than the velocity of point C, because point A has a longer distance to travel in 24 hours than point B, and point B has a longer distance than C because the circumference of their path is greater. Right? So I've got A up here at the edge of the atmosphere, space up here, b, right here around 6 miles where planes fly, and c, near the surface of the Earth. Okay?
And so this rotation here, the theory is that this the Earth is rotating about its axis because of the big bang. When you really think about it, there was this big bang. Everything exploded out into space. Planetary systems formed galaxies. All that stuff formed.
And this rotation is what is left over from that explosion. It's leftover energy from that explosion of the creation which created everything. Right? And so everything has just been moving for 1,000,000,000 of years and there's no friction between space and the atmosphere, right, because there's nothing in space so an object of motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Right?
But that's kinda strange when you think about the air at higher elevations has to be moving faster to keep up with the ground below it because air moves up and down. Right? Hot air rises, as we know, and cool air sinks. Right? So how does the air speed up?
When it's heated, it rises but then it has to start moving faster. Now even if it's only a little bit faster. The difference in these velocities if you calculate them isn't much, but it is they do have to be greater or they will start to get left behind. So, what how that is explained, I don't know. I haven't really found anything to explain to to talk about how the air has to be moving faster.
But Another thing to think about is, you know, air isn't stationary like we're assuming in this problem. Right? It's it it blows. It moves all over the place. And down here at the surface, Air goes up and down over valleys and air actually speeds up as it goes up and over as it goes over the top of a hill it speeds up, slows down, runs into mountains, goes through trees, There's things flying around in the air, different pressures, all kinds of stuff is happening internally as it all moves with the atmosphere.
Now I would think that eventually something is gonna have to to to give it a nudge to keep it moving with the earth, so to say. The the energy would be lost. Okay? But not to mention that, there are things that enter our atmosphere. There's meteors and all kinds of stuff is constantly any is supposed to be entering the atmosphere from outer space.
So that is pushing back on the atmosphere and wanting to slow it down. So the common explanation for how the atmosphere keeps up with the surface of the earth is by friction between the air at the surface. There's let me use a red marker for this. There's friction here pushing back on this cubic foot of air down here that's at the surface and then that's transferred through internal friction for internal shear forces within the fluid, because air is essentially a fluid, okay, it has viscosity and so it's these internal shear forces are transferred all the way up throughout the layers of air. Right?
Just the air pushing against itself, the friction carries that That force all the way up to keep the atmosphere moving with the Earth. Right? Well, the problem I have with that That doesn't make sense to me and this is why this a lot of this is why I ignored it in the 1st episode but I didn't explain it is When you create friction, you create heat. We rub our hands together. It's actually kinda cool here today.
Rub my hands together to warm them up. That creates heat. Heat is essentially kinetic energy. And so When something creates heat on the earth or when the earth is heat heated by the sun, where does that heat go? Well, if you watch Paul's Out Physics episode 4.1, I talked about how the accepted explanation for how the, you know, things don't just get hotter and hotter and hotter, is that it radiates out into space.
Right? So heat from the Earth radiates out into space, into infinite space, and has lost forever. So this process right here, This friction process, this shear force process, creates heat, and that heat is escaping. Therefore, this whole system would be losing energy, wouldn't it? And so we say that heat is really kinetic energy, and kinetic energy is equal to 1 half mass times velocity squared.
Right? And so this kinetic energy I assume is going down. The kinetic energy of the atmosphere is going down because it's losing heat. And since I hope we're not losing mass to infinite space, we're not losing our air, that leaves only velocity to go down. So not only does the speed of the air relative to the surface of the earth have to increase as you go up in elevation because the path it has to travel, the length of the path, the circumference, increases.
We also have this problem with losing energy. I don't understand how this could work.
@FlatEarthZone - Flat Earth Zone
Another rocket hits the firmament. No one will ever get through the firmament. The only thing NASA has ever sent to “outer space” is your imagination. Research #flatearth https://t.co/68RhBLgbzt
@FlatEarthZone - Flat Earth Zone
Do solar and lunar eclipses prove the earth is a ball? No, they do not. Research #flatearth https://t.co/aoPYFZdyS9
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, the speaker aims to debunk the idea that solar and lunar eclipses support the heliocentric model. They argue that during a solar eclipse, the moon does not move in a way that aligns with its usual horizontal movement in the sky. They also mention the selenillion eclipse, where both the sun and moon are visible above the horizon, which they claim is impossible on the heliocentric model. The speaker suggests that these anomalies discredit the idea that eclipses prove we are on a spinning ball revolving around the sun. They encourage viewers to share the video to challenge those who believe in this ideology.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It is constantly zealotlessly, religiously repeated by the heliocentric side that solar and lunar eclipses suggest that their model is correct. Today, we're going to expand on that and completely destroy that ideology. So if you've got somebody that you're trying to wake up to the true shape of the Earth and they say that solar and lunar eclipses suggest that we're on a spinning ball revolving around the sun, feel free to share this video with them. 1st, we're gonna talk about solar eclipses. For anybody that watched the October 14th solar eclipse, I will have a video that I'm going to play from NASA of their live stream of it.
I want you to notice when I play this live stream what direction the celestial body that goes in front of the sun is moving. And ask yourself, does the moon ever move like this?
Speaker 1: Starting first in the United States and then following and I mean, What a NASA broadcast. Right? And so thank
Speaker 0: large this area of partial eclipses. This
Speaker 1: Everyone is just excited about this eclipse and away. What I think is super cool, we've even got some cool In addition to that, I mean, we really Oh, I think I heard you say it, Michael. It's about the community and being communal. If you
Speaker 0: were fortunate enough, which I was, and I was actually in the path of totality as well, if you watch the solar eclipse, the node, definitely not the moon, came from top to bottom. When do we ever see the moon move vertically in the sky. Please share 1 video with me on Instagram. I'd love to watch it. Whenever I've watched the moon, and I watch it a lot, it only moves horizontally in the sky for some reason.
But I'm supposed to believe when I watch with my own eyes that solar eclipse, the moon move from top to bottom over the sun? That never happens. Debunking fucking the heliocentric claim that it's the moon in the 1st place. Now when talking about eclipses, you already know we're gonna bring up the selenillion eclipse or rather coined the impossible eclipse because it's impossible on the heliocentric model. This eclipse is a lunar eclipse phenomenon where we see the sun and the moon both above the horizon.
And guess what? It's not rare. It happens frequently with lunar eclipses. Again, the globe side fallaciously assumes that refraction is causing all of this. You just have to believe.
Just believe that the images of the sun and the moon are being refracted thousands of miles into the sky looking completely physical. This is literally what they put out to try to explain a selenilien eclipse. As you can see, there are serious problems with claiming that lunar and solar eclipses suggest we're on a ball revolving around the sun. There are so many anomalies with these eclipses and the heliocentric model claim, none of them line up when you actually critically look at the data given to us. So the next time one of your friends, family, or coworkers tries to bring up the ideology and the insane claim that lunar or solar eclipses suggest we're on a ball, feel free to pull up this video.
Again, feel free to send this to them. If you really want to trigger somebody, this information will do it, And if you wanna see me debate live the heliosexuals on their model and completely destroy the ideology that we're on a ball or that we're moving at all or any of these insane claims, make sure to follow all 3 of these accounts down here that I've tagged. I go live on all 4 and have a wonderful day.
@TheFlatEartherr - THE FLAT EARTHER
We live on a flat earth, the evidence is all around you LOOK! https://t.co/3clJrzBNmR
@TheGlobeIsDead - restinpeace globe
“We know since over 2000 years earth is a globe.” That’s a lie. Deal with it. https://t.co/yMBJlYYbX1
@TedLogan1010 - Ted Theodore Logan
GM The Earth is Flat. The sun and the moon are local luminaries. And as always, be excellent to each other. Have an amazing day! https://t.co/2ufDZXPXnk
@TheFlatEartherr - THE FLAT EARTHER
Rocket goes up and hits the firamenet, proof we live on a flat earth 👌 https://t.co/RFQ8v6mhh4
Video Transcript AI Summary
This is the go fast rocket launch, costing $100,000. It reached 73 miles high before being stopped by a density change. The Moon was visible nearby, appearing concave, flat, and convex due to motion distortion, not curvature. By paying the same company $100,000, we could create a splash in the waters above that would be visible to more than half the world.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is the go fast rocket launch. It could cost $100,000. This proves we live in a contained environment. Unlike NASA and SpaceX rockets, this one went straight up. You can see ice crystals forming on the rocket.
This reached 73 miles high before it was stopped by a density change in environment. The Moon was supposed to be over Australia during this launch, but you can see it close by. This is not curvature. It's motion distortion. That's why you can see it go concave, flat and convex.
If we pay the same company to $100,000, we could cause a splash in the waters above big enough for more than half the world to see.
@TheGlobeIsDead - restinpeace globe
Honestly, the Coriolis effect is ridiculous. But much more less than those spintards believing that proofs earth rotation. https://t.co/9GivqQQm2X
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, the speaker demonstrates the Coriolis effect using two sinks. They sprinkle oregano leaves in the water to show the flow direction. The first sink goes in the left direction, anticlockwise. Then they pull it out and the water goes straight down. Next, they try the other sink, which goes clockwise. They pour more water to make the cyclone more visible. The speaker emphasizes that one sink goes anticlockwise while the other goes clockwise. The video ends without further explanation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Okay. So this is for all of those who still believes in the Coriolis effect. Here, we got a double sync. Right? I'm living in Canada.
So technically, both sink is supposed to, Go down in, the same direction. Right. I'm gonna sprinkle some, Some oregano leaves in the water so you can see the direction of the flow. So we'll start off with, this Okay. So So the leads are clearly going, in the left direction anticlockwise.
Okay. So now we'll pull this 1 out. Oh, what do you know? It went straight down. Now let's try this again with the other sink popped up.
Right? So now this sink is blocked up. We'll see which way they Oh my God. It's going clockwise. That was very quick.
I put a lot more water in there
Speaker 1: just so you can see it again.
Speaker 0: That might be a little bit hard
Speaker 1: to see for you guys, but,
Speaker 0: I wanted to do it one more time. I pour
Speaker 2: a lot more water so that the the cyclone is a little bit more prominent.
Speaker 1: That should be enough.
Speaker 0: Oh, look at that. It's going clockwise. That's right. Clockwise. See that?
And remember this sink, it went anticlockwise. And this line is not the
@No_Curve - Rufus_2688
Cant move freely through a spinning fluid atmos…. Hope you stretched out real good this morning globies… You are going to need some major mental gymnastics to excuse this one away 😓 https://t.co/5kWDCAokhP
Video Transcript AI Summary
Some people believe that living on a spinning ball with a spinning atmosphere, moving both east and west with equal energy, is insane. They argue that if you try floating downstream in a river, it's easier to move with the current than swimming against it. They find it ridiculous that when they state these facts, they are insulted and called stupid without any counterarguments.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You people believe that you can live on a spinning ball with a supposed spinning atmosphere and move both east and west with the same amounts of energy, you're insane. You have never been in a river. Try get in a river. Float downstream. In other words, move with the atmosphere, then try swimming downstream, then turn around and try swimming upstream and tell me it takes the same amount of energy in both directions.
It's asinine. When you say these obvious facts, All they can do is insult you and tell you how stupid you are but cannot provide any
@Zherkatrix - zherkatrix
@TheFlatEartherr Space X just posted lol 🤡🤡 Gods Firmament is impenetrable 💪🏻💪🏻 https://t.co/lu1guR9cBX
@FlatEarthZone - Flat Earth Zone
More NASA fakery. Once you realize they are dangling from wires and faking literally everything they do, please ask yourself why. If they were really in "outer space," why the need for all the trickery? Research #flatearth https://t.co/5rlyHQPR5p
Video Transcript AI Summary
He has a sleeping bag and his personal items for daily use, making it cozy and quiet.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And, he'll he has a sleeping bag and all of his personal items that he needs on a daily basis, and so it's, it can be quite cozy, and it's quite, it's nice and quiet as well.
@No_Curve - Rufus_2688
Trust your senses… you arent spinning… There is no coriolis… No expiriment ever has been able to verify any movement Planes never adjust for curvature… ask any pilot Pilots are taught to assume flat and non rotating Doesnt happen my dudes🚫 Its over for the globe 🌎 💦 https://t.co/oNYPbFzfES
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker challenges pilots to take a night flight from the North Pole to the equator, using stars as a guide. They claim that if the Earth is rotating, the ground should appear to rotate out from under the airplane at increasing speeds, up to 1,000 miles per hour at the equator. They also argue that the atmosphere should create a crosswind of up to 1,000 miles per hour. The speaker believes this experiment would prove that the Earth is not spinning and that it is a fraud. They assert that the Earth is flat and motionless.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Pilots. Ball earth pilots, I have a challenge for you. I want you to go, and it's gonna be a night flight because you're gonna fix your air airplane on the stars. You can plot your course, the stars that you're gonna pick that keep you on a straight line. Okay?
So you're gonna stay fixed in inertial space. And the non inertial rotating Earth will rotate out from under you. Okay? So you're gonna fly the North Pole to the equator. So what you're gonna have to show is the ground rotating out from under the airplane at ever increasing speeds as you head for the equator and you're locked in on that background star, you would see the ground rotating out from under you and It would rotate up to a 1,000 miles per hour at the equator.
You gotta show that. And you gotta show that you are hit with ever increasing rotating atmosphere, which, of course, is gonna manifest itself as wind. It's gonna racing up to from 0 up to a 1,000 mile per hour crosswind at the equator by the time you get to the equator. Of course, this is fantasy. This is gonna prove right here that your spinning ball is a fake.
It's fraud. We're not spinning. There are other things that prove this, but this will definitely I challenge you, Wolfie, pee, Bob the science guy, and any other, practitioner of this spinning ball earth religion. To get your airplane, go to the North Pole, fix your path on the stars, take off, fly as low as you can so that you are in the maximum densest atmosphere and fly. And what you're gonna find is that this is a complete fraud.
You boat. I know it. We all know it. There you are not going to hit any increasing wind shear side wind going up to a 1000 mile per hour, rotating atmosphere. Not gonna happen.
It's a fraud. The Earth is flat and motionless, and we're done.
@vegastarr - vegastar
TOP 5 PROOFS EARTH IS NOT A GLOBE🌍❌ https://t.co/5BGovDwPFx
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker argues that the idea of a spinning ball Earth is ridiculous and unscientific. They claim that common sense and personal experience contradict the notion of a rotating Earth. They also argue that water always remains horizontal and cannot conform to the shape of a globe. The speaker criticizes NASA and other space agencies for providing manipulated images and videos of a globular Earth. They point out that long-distance photography and the horizon's flatness contradict the idea of a curved Earth. The speaker concludes by encouraging listeners to research and discern the truth for themselves.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Our level Earth plane has long been ridiculed as being a crazy conspiracy theory and an ignorant, unscientific worldview. But the facts of the matter are far from what you have been told. When thoroughly examined and diligently researched with an open mind. Any skeptical critical thinker will find it is actually the spinning space ball Earth presented by government space agencies and taught in schools that is truly ridiculous and unscientific. Proof number 1, common sense.
It cannot be overstated or overemphasized. The most important thing to realize and the most obvious way to know we are not spinning on A ball is our own common sense and lived experience. We have always and will We experience ourselves as living right side up on a non rotating level earth with the sun, moon, and ours revolving over and around us. This is common sense and what everyone in the world personally experiences every day of their lives. We are taught to believe otherwise, however, many things completely contrary to our own common sense and experience from a very early age.
We are told that we live on a sphere where people on the other side live with their feet above their heads, where rain falls upwards, Trees grow upside down and the sky is lower than the ground. Truly, the idea that people are standing, ships are sailing, and planes are Lying upside down on certain parts of the Earth while others are tilted at 90 degrees and all other impossible angles is an utter absurdity, and an insult to common sense. In fact, common sense is the first casualty of globe belief. Proof number 2: water. The natural physics of water is that once contained and undisturbed, The surface will always remain horizontal.
This fundamental physical property of water is why it has been used as a levelling tool by builders and engineers for millennia. Whether in a pond, lake, or ocean, the surface of the water at best way to think about it. I think that's the best way to think about it. I think that's the best way to think about it. The fundamental fact of reality is easily demonstrable and empirically verifiable, but completely at odds with what we are told about the globe.
For Earth to be globular and over 70% covered in water, the oceans must somehow be curving around and sticking to all sides of a rapidly spinning ball suspended in a vacuum. It is simply impossible to make water behave this way as anyone can experiment for themselves. Bodies of water will not stick to the underside of a wall and cannot display or hold convexity or any other shape upon their surface. Proof number 3, fake photographs. One of the main reasons the average person believes the world is a globe is because of the globular Earth images and video footage provided by NASA and other space agencies.
Hundreds of such pictures and thousands of videos featuring a globe Earth are freely available on the Internet. Yet most people never critically examine them with a skeptical eye. From the earliest photographs to the latest live NASA and the world's other space agencies continue to be exposed for their Hollywood style trickery. When conscientiously compared, contrasted and investigated for inconsistencies, it turns out of every single image and video showing a globular Earth has been manipulated in some way. All GLOBE videos, for example, are achieved using either a fisheye lens to curve the horizon or created completely through CGI technology.
As for the hundreds of supposed photographs available of the globe, NASA readily admits that these are computer generated composite images and not actual photographs. If NASA and the world's space agencies could provide real legitimate photographs and videos of a globe, they most certainly would. So the fact that they continue producing and pumping out nothing but fisheye fakery and CGI cartoons is strong evidence that Earth is not what they claim. Proof 4. Long distance photography.
We are consistently able to observe objects at incredibly long distances far beyond what would be possible if Earth was actually a globe of given proportions. By inputting the observer height and distance viewed into an Earth curvature calculator. It is easy to check how much a target should be obstructed on a globe Earth. In Genoa, Italy, clear days reveal the distant island of Elba, 125 miles away. If Earth were a ball with a 25,000 mile circumference, Elba should be concealed behind over a mile of curvature, making it forever invisible.
In recent times, People have been filming using infrared zoom cameras at high altitudes to capture lakes, mountains and other landmarks up to an incredible 1000 miles away. If Earth was really a globe the size we are told many of the landmarks photographed would be hidden behind upwards of 70 miles of curved Earth. Proof 5, the horizon. The horizon is always perfectly horizontal, 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur footage captured from Looms, rockets, planes, and drones at maximum altitudes of over 20 miles without using fisheye lenses consistently shows a completely flat horizon that remains at eye level.
Only in NASA and other space agency footage does the horizon ever curve or appear below the observer's eye level. In the heliocentric model, the horizon is claimed to be the physical curvature of their globe, and the reason votes receding This was originally presented as one of the alleged proofs for a globe Earth by Aristotle and is still echoed by believers today. However, with the use of modern Zoom technology, we now know that The horizon isn't a result of the physical curvature of a globe and those boats can be zoomed back into full view. This is because the horizon is not an objective physical phenomenon at all, but rather a subjective optical phenomenon based on an individual observer's perspective. If the horizon was actually the objective physical curvature of a globe, then objects receding beyond it could not be zoomed back into view, and it would remain fixed as an observer ascended.
This proves the horizon line is not some objective point of curvature on a convex Earth, but rather the subjective vanishing line of perspective from a given observer's point of view. Suffice to say, these 5 points are just scratching the surface And there are many, many more proofs available, both in William Carpenter's book 100 Proofs Earth is Not a Globe and Eric Dube's 200 Proofs Earth is not a spinning ball. To gain a deeper understanding of this crucial and heavily censored topic, Take the time to research and discern for yourself.
@realstewpeters - Stew Peters
This guy claims the International Space Station in FAKE. https://t.co/727ZAKGSsg
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker suggests that there is evidence indicating that the International Space Station (ISS) is not in outer space but is being filmed in a pool on Earth. They mention the presence of bubbles in spacewalk videos, which are falsely presented as live feeds. It is known that astronauts train in underwater tanks, and there are also indications of harnesses and green screens being used. If these claims are true, it would be significant.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Imagine if the federal government gave $19,500,000,000 to Hollywood. I think we'd all be pretty upset by it. There is a growing body of evidence that the International Space Station is not in outer space, but it's being filmed in a desalinated pool down here on Earth, and it's being falsely misrepresented. It started with this phenomenon known as bubbles in space. If you search for it, you'll see many of these so called space walks, which have been falsely misrepresented as live, as has been exposed many times on Facebook when they do their live ISS feeds, bubbles, out in space.
Well, there's not supposed to be water up there, and it is known that the astronauts do train in these big underwater tanks. And so this body of evidence, and it's not just bubbles in space, there are harnesses or green screens, evidence of flights that are actually, on parabolic flights, not in space. And if this is true, it's a big deal.
@No_Curve - Rufus_2688
“There can only be one explaination for how there can be clouds behind the sun ⛅️ That is that we are neither on a spinning ball nor a pressurized pizza dome… We are in a virtual reality 😳” What are your thoughts on this most righteous theory my dudes👇👇👇 https://t.co/sthszuzPku
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker suggests that the presence of clouds behind the sun can only be explained by the idea that we are in a virtual reality, rather than on a spinning ball or inside a pressurized dome.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There is only one explanation for how there can be clouds behind the sun. And that is that we are neither on a spinning ball Or are we in a pressurized pizza dome? We are actually in a virtual reality.
@Niki_pz17 - Niki D.
High altitude footage of our local sun shining down on the flat earth that Jesus made proves the sun isn't literally nestled in the clouds despite how it appears from lower elevations https://t.co/cTcDNLParC
@plain_see - PLAIN To SEE
@jtfollowsjc The Earth is motionless. There are no experiments to prove the Earth rotates vs. the heavens rotating around the Earth! https://t.co/egwN7l58PZ
Video Transcript AI Summary
We cannot determine if we are moving just by conducting experiments in this room. No experiment—whether it's observing radioactive decay, electricity, magnetism, or even bouncing a ball—can reveal our motion. This fundamental observation led Einstein to develop the theory of relativity, which is our best understanding of motion and gravity. The essence of general relativity is that motion cannot be measured in isolation; it relies on the relative position of objects.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Observation is that we can't tell here in this room whether we are moving or not. That is not possible to conduct any experiment to tell you whether you are moving or not. No experiment you can do. We could look at the decay of a radioactive nucleus or some electricity, magnetism or bounce a ball, have a pendulum, whatever it is, and there's no experiment you can do to tell you whether you're moving or not. I'm not giving you the rest of your lives.
And there's no experiment you can do to tell you whether you're moving or not. And that that's led Einstein to relativity. So that's the basis of general relativity which is our best theory of Which is our best theory of Because you can't measure it.
reSee.it AI Summary
Using Facebook can be disheartening, especially when my work is met with skepticism and claims that my photos are CGI. I want to clarify that my image of the ISS in front of the moon is authentic. For those interested in observing the ISS, I recommend getting a telescope, and I've created a guide to help with that. I appreciate the supportive comments and discussions about capturing these moments, but I often encounter misunderstandings about space exploration, like the evidence of moon landings.
@AJamesMcCarthy - Andrew McCarthy
Using FB is depressing. My posts often have "laughing" as a top reaction, and comments loudly claiming my work is cgi (and citing strange misunderstandings of science as evidence). Earth is round, we went to the moon, and my photo of the ISS in front of the moon is real 😎
@AJamesMcCarthy - Andrew McCarthy
If you want to see the solar panels and radiators on the ISS with your own eyeballs, consider getting a telescope! An 8” dobsonian or larger is fun for satellite spotting. I wrote up a telescope guide to explain further: https://cosmicbackground.io/pages/newsletter
Newsletter
Cosmic background photography. Astrophotography by Andrew McCarthy. Space images of the Sun, the moon, and Deep Space. Celestial Art inspired by the cosmos and the universe.
cosmicbackground.io
@AJamesMcCarthy - Andrew McCarthy
@ZenLightningBug Late afternoon. If you’re curious I actually wrote a guide for how to capture these https://cosmicbackground.io/blogs/learn-about-how-these-are-captured/capturing-the-international-space-station
Capturing the International Space Station
ENTER YOUR EMAIL HERE FOR MY TELESCOPE BUYING GUIDE My ISS transit shots tend to get the most questions, so I put together a write-up of exactly how I get them. See the uncropped version of my latest ISS Transit shot here (you can order print there as well, get some cool space art while supporting my projects) First-
cosmicbackground.io
@AJamesMcCarthy - Andrew McCarthy
@transit_jam Nice find!
@AJamesMcCarthy - Andrew McCarthy
@Nstig8tor62 How the heck did you catch it behind the moon
@AJamesMcCarthy - Andrew McCarthy
@JoJo_Photo Accurate
@AJamesMcCarthy - Andrew McCarthy
@James8_8008 Yes, but you have to be in lunar orbit to take it https://t.co/fPoQs0EU6h
@AJamesMcCarthy - Andrew McCarthy
@muahneno No and it’s not intended to. There’s plenty of other proofs we went to the moon, like 700lbs of verifiable moon rock
@AJamesMcCarthy - Andrew McCarthy
@n_illumined Never posted him there! Gregory is just for X
@AJamesMcCarthy - Andrew McCarthy
@talkradio89 Fairly straightforward to patch a phone line to a radio, never understood why people bring this up as such a “gotcha”