Jump to content
Advertise With Us! Or Sign Up To Remove Ads!
Hello, readers! Please consider adding conspiracyoutpost.com to your adblock whitelist. Our ads support the development and upkeep of the site.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 Excellent

About Vechthaan

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Gender
  1. Euhm, nah I think he's correct. (Took some time for me to get it aswell) The spaceship is pushing of the fuel. So the spaceship is the gun, the fuel is the bullet. The fuel gets launched (at high speed) one way, the spaceship recoils the other.
  2. I've concidered this too, but I figured it's the pressure created by the chemical explosion that's causing the force. So in a spacerocket engine, there is a massive force built-up pushing all directions (pressure). When they release it in one direction, even though it has neglible mass, it's got conciderable speed/momentum. (thats the theory, right?) If I was holding another person (of exactly same mass) in space, and if I pushed that person away, we'dd both start moving away from eachother at the same speed, right? The rocket does the same thing, except with fuel. The extreme pressure (momentum/velocity built up) makes up for the neglible mass of the fuel. So the rocket is pushing against the fuel pretty much (as opposed the vacuum). My brain is going into fry mode again because I know I'll be wrong
  3. Could I compare this whole space rockets thing to firing a gun in space? The recoil of a gun, I believe, is the same principle rockets use in space. They eject burned up fuel one way and propel the other. A gun fires a bullet (and chemicals incl oxygen) one way, and the gun itself the other. Thinking of it like this, it seems to make sense that firing a gun in space would also have recoil, so U could keep shooting in one direction to propel yourself in the other. Something still smells fishy, I just can't tell what it is. I think I just don't trust the concept of space, not untill I have other questions anwsered first. (Atmosphere wheel mechanix plox?, Atmosphere vs Vacuum of space, ...) @VonLud Should've taken a picture man. I've seen some amazing light setups at festivals, but nothing quite spanning the horizon...
  4. Concave Earth is frying my brain

    To an extend I agree, our conciousness could be projected into our brain to generate the reality we see, but we still share that reality and it's consistent. My homecountry, Belgium, exists in 3D space, it's a place I wake up in every day, as do all my friends and relatives. It might be projected, but I still live it all day every day, as do other people. Our neighbouring countries exist aswell, in 3D space, same story. If I were to create a computer model of what all countries and oceans next to eachother would look like, it would/should be a static model, because afaik Belgium is still exactly where it was 100 years ago. This model would have a shape, regardless if the reality we experience is projected. But I dig the whole new age mentality. There's good aspects to it!
  5. Concave Earth is frying my brain

    I know "bending light" isn't the correct term, it's more about the principle. That principle being if light is able to change direction (for whatever reason), to create optical illusions, it's only fair we can apply it to every model. Light, somehow, is getting bend/refracted. U can blame it on particle density, temperature, .. whatever proporty, it doesn't really matter. Light is not going straight and tricks are being played to the eye (or telescope, or camera). So applying this same principle on the concave Earth to explain why it doesn't look (visually) like the showed model seems fair. If heliocentrism and science can use atmospheric refraction to explain away a selenelion (which is no small feat), couldn't I make the same arguement for the concave Earth? Sure, it's "next-level" by stretching it even further, but where would our understanding of light and it's proporties be without heliocentrism filling in the numbers? Obviously you can do as you please, but I personally don't see a problem with concave Earth in this regard. There's a couple videos (by different users) explaining how perspective would/could work and after having it thought through a bit, it seems to make sense. (It's plausible to me, this light bending thingy) But thanks for the reply anyways. All I can do is hope you might rethink your "No" to a "Maybe".
  6. Concave Earth is frying my brain

    Yes, we're walking around on the inside of the outer-most sphere. (Ground) So North, East South and West work the same as on the globe model (only east/west inverted I think, cuz it's projected on the inside of the ball). When we look directly up at 90°, would be directly looking at the center of this whole system. The nightsky (firmament: stars) is another concentric sphere closer to the center and is rotating, the Earth (outer shell) is stationairy. The Sun, Moon and planets would be located in a different concentric sphere. etc... I share your sentiment that I don't trust this guy, but he's legit the ONLY person who's giving this cosmology airtime, I've heard it mentioned a couple of times, but he seems to be the only person producing actual content. So that said, it's hard for me to illustrate anything without resorting on his material. At EXACTLY 11:11 you see the system in operation (thumbnail image). Needsless to say, he has much better videos containing overlays (latitude longitude etc), but as a quick example of what this system would look like without the light bending.
  7. Concave Earth is frying my brain

    Right, but if incoming sunlight is parallel, why do we have dusk and dawn? Clearly light is getting dispersed, which in my book counts as light bending. THough more strictly, I guess it's called refraction. In the Flat Earth vs Globe Earth debate, refraction is a pretty big thing when it comes to visually observing curvature. The Flat Earthers say the horizon appears alot flatter than it should, which is why we can see objects way beyond the theoretical "horizon-line", because for some reason not even the official formulas are correct. In come the Globe Earthers claiming: "You idiot, you forgot to acount for refraction", which is essentially light bending around the ball. Here I am saying the exact same thing could be possible, but in a concave Earth and I get shot down for it? Does this mean refraction IS bullshit, and the Earth IS flat? I mean, I hope people understand the conundrum here... Much thanks Walk Softly, same back at ya. (Or if you're already at peace with your knowledge, enjoy it!) @mimas I suppose you could compare it to mirages and the likes. Like the example I gave above, when explaining away the distinct visual lack of curvature, the globe Earth side resorts to refraction. Essentially, a force pushes down the light from the Sun (or any light) which causes the "illusion of the sky" (like a mirage). If this suddenly stopped happening, the horizon would appear to scroll upwards in 360 degrees and you would start to see the actual landmass rising up. I don't know if the "Sky sphere" (the one 100m above is) is a mirror, or see-true or something else, so I don't know if we would be able to see Australia from Europe for example. I do, however, recall the Bible saying something about the "heavens scrolling upwards" or something.
  8. Concave Earth is frying my brain

    No worries, I'm filled to the brim with love (for life and people). Not exactly, but close enough. I feel more connected to the human race than I ever did believing heliocentrism. For some reason, the implications of a concave Earth seem more profound than the Flat Earth, which is why I want this thing getting off the ground. I'll keep supporting flat earth for the good work it does, but it seems crazy that so many people can be onboard the FE-train without giving the concave Earth a shot. I do concider it a serious contender, perhaps even more so than FE at this moment...
  9. Hello COP, I would love to hear some insights from people on the concave Earth theory. For those not completely aware of the concave Earth theory, Lord Steven Christ (by his own admission) https://www.youtube.com/user/TheFoxStevie does a pretty good of explaining it, and he has fancy 3D models to go along with it. It's essentially the ball Earth (as we know it), but we're in the inside. The sky is inside this ball (as are the heavens/stars/firmament) and the ground is "the edge". The longer I think about this model, the more it's starting to make sense. It's hard for me to write a cohesive piece, but I'll try and list what I concider important information in favor of the concave Earth. Though a quick note: For the concave Earth to be viable, light needs to be able to bend, for this is how the illusion of a flat plane is created. (Those weather balloon cameras 100,000 feet up) If you're not onboard the idea of light being able to bend within the concave Earth, or you're not able to suspend your disbelief, you'll find little value in this thread. 1) Illuminati and opposites. Our overlords like to invert everything. (gender, values, ...) Following this reasoning, it would make sense that they also inverted the shape of the Earth, it's their calling card. 2) Experiments. There's the rectilineator experiment, aswell as the shift mines (with plum bobs) that confirm a concave Earth. I'm aware these experiments have been criticised, but the results still showed a concave Earth. I'm all in favor of redoing these experiments with modern equipment, but we're nowhere near the point of getting something like this off the ground. So untill that point, I'll simply count these experiments in favor of a concave Earth, if only to investigate it further. 3) It has a working model. Now I'm sure people will argue this, but the way I see it: if the Ball Earth (convex) is good enough of a working model, then so should the concave Earth be, because it's merely inverted. This also solves all the problems Flat Earthers are currently wrapping their heads around: Southern hemisphere night sky, Sun rising in the east on equinoxes, etc... Pretty much all those pesky issues we Flat Earthers have regarding the nightsky would get solved in an instant, because again if the mainstream model is working, than so should the inverse. Steven Christ (I'm not ready to call him Lord yet lol) has numerous videos on all kinds of astronomical phenomena (retrograde motion etc) with his 3D model and as far as I'm concerned it seems viable enough. 4) "Dome" over a flat Earth?. Ok, so this is obviously up for debate, but the more I think about the "dome-shaped nature" of the firmament over a flat Earth: Shouldn't this mean that the further we go North, the higher the edge of the firmament would be? The Karman line is a consistent 100km up across our world, I obviously never tested this myself, nor did anyone here on this forum, but how exactly would that work over a flat plane? It's not so much a dome as it is a ceiling. A ceiling REALLY close to the ground, as the theoretical flat disk should have a diameter of well over: 40,000 km (equator length) / Pi = 12,500 km x 2 = 25,000 km. (Times 2 because the equator is somewhat in the middle of the disk on a flat Earth) So we have a disk that's 25,000 km in length, with a 'dome' overhead that's only a fraction of that (100km) high, across the entire plane. What bothers me about this model (and this goes for EVERY Flat Earth model) is that when you imagine such a disk (or infinite plane) with such a small film of atmosphere above it, there's no elegance to it whatsoever. Instead, it makes me wonder what exactly is holding up this firmament, because despite what alot of Flat Earthers will claim, gravity does exist. (Read: a basic, universal force that pulls everything down at 9,81 m/s^2) I'm aware relativity and special relativity are bullshit, but that doesn't mean this force does not exist. Whenever I see those Flat Earth representations with the dome overhead, I'm obviously happy (cuz I love for conspiracies), but I now also realize how decieving that image is aswell. Your brain sees a natural, self-supporting (strong) dome shape and goes like: Ok this makes sense. In reality, this dome would be nothing like this, as previously explained. In a concave Earth, it seems to make a whole-lotta-more sense where the firmament is suspended "above" us (it's a concentric sphere more inwards). Instead of everything getting pulled inwards towards the center (of Earth) at 9,81 m/s^2 for the globe model, everything gets pushed outwards, away from the center. I wouldn't even have to suspend my disbelief on the mechanics of what exactly is holding up the firmament (as I do with Flat Earth theory, still a big fan), because it makes sense mechanically and scientifically. The 'dome' is nothing more than a glass (crystalline, i don't know whatever susbstance) ball that's evenly getting pushed outwards across it's entire surface. There's also the megacryometeor thing LSC talks about, but I wouldn't count that exclusive to concave Earth. Those seem viable on a flat Earth with firmament/dome overhead aswell, though it still makes more sense on concave. 5) Philosophically The Big Bang theory is a pretty shitty explanation of "how everything came to be". Everything out of nothing in a single instance, cuz you know quantum mechanics and stuff. Infinitely expanding space (Hope we dont bump into different universes) with no limit or reason to it. For me, Flat Earth has a similar problem: If God (or whatever) created the Earth: how far does the plane go? How far did "God" make the plane extend? There's obviously various theories (more land beyond Antartica, maybe Antarctica doesn't even exist and we can littereally sail to beyond the border, ...) but all of these ultimately raise the question: And what lies beyond? Now, I realize U can ask this same question for the concave Earth (what lies 'beyond' Earth, what happens when we dig 20 miles, 100 miles, 1000 miles, ...), but you can't deny there's a certain elegance to concave Earth the Flat Earth just doesn't have. (this infinite plane with a film of atmosphere) In the beginning there was... God... I'll never be a fan of this explanation, but if I have to chose between a convex, flat or concave Earth, the most reasonable explanation seems concave. Whatever existed first in our universe is at the center (litterealy). From there on, there's only 1 logical and realistic way forward: outwards. This leads to the various concentric circles created "around" the vault of heaven with Earth being the last (I assume?) sphere on which we walk. I can't help but feel that if I'm going down the religious road (and I've been heading here for a while now, despite my atheistic indoctrination that's constantly pulling me back), the concave Earth takes the cake. Simply because in my opinion it best fits the "Creation"-bill. Long story short: God/Heaven exists at the most center sphere and eventually he got bored and started to create a universe outwards. 6) Scripture I don't know much about scriptures other than the occasional quote I see passed in flat Earth (or other YT) videos, though I was raised catholic/atheistic (as most Westerners are I assume, I learned some stuff bout Jesus and we read parts of the Bible pre high-school, but after that religion gets pushed aside heavily). Some things that have stuck with me, though, is how apparently in old Hebrew, the Bible speaks of the spheres of heaven. This whole concept makes perfect sense on a concave Earth (with Lucifer and his followers being cast OUTwards). There were some other things I read that seemed to make more sense in a concave Earth (over flat or convex), but they currently seem to allude me. I'll probably add more later. I would like to add in this section that i'm very well aware the Bible (according to some) describes a flat and motionless plane. Yet there's other (e.g;: A Freeman) who would take this up for debate, and I admit not knowing nearly as much about scripture as he does. That said, I'll always be sceptical of anything the Bible, or any scripture says (unless it furthers my cause offcourse, don't we all), because I've seen the lengths TPTB go through to decieve us. I dont know what to believe anymore, but I do know the concave Earth makes more sense with each passing day. It bothers me (heavily) that the only venue for decent information is going to this guy's (Lord Steven Christ) channel to look for insights. He tends to blow his own horn (alot), which is fine, but that coupled with his eccentricity aswell as all the illuminati symbolism (I'm more inclined to believe he's the Anti-christ as opposed to Christ, no offence buddy if you're lurking) makes it an extremely hard swallow. I would love to hear people's thoughts on this topic, because I don't think it's getting nearly as much screentime as it should. Small edit: Also this show seems to be pretty big right now: Much thanks!
  10. https://savageplane.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/gyroscope-basics-the-pendulous-vane-fallacy/ Gonna leave this here for your concideration, maybe it's been posted before. Tl; dr: 2 proporties of gyroscopes: rigidity in space and precession raise serious red flags for the globe model. I assume most of us already know gyroscopes and the ball Earth and such, but this article is still well worth the read. EDIT: also props to everyone one the FE-side, and those on the side (VonLud, come on man, zzzz). Your intellectual work and honesty is greatly appreciated. (This thread is one of the few FE bastions left :'( )
  11. It also curves in space... Apparently. Or when it hits a cloud, at which point it disperses outwards... But atleast it doesn't when we're talking about globe Earth proofs, thankfully.
  12. Replace conspiracy with mainstream and you've got Sup pot
  13. I share the sentiment: I know too much to entertain the ball Earth any longer, but I also see flaws with the FE model. I also realize I lack the intelligence to come to the truth on my own. What are your (Anyone really) thoughts on the concave model? (Essentially LSC concave Earth, Steven Christ on youtube) I know it's been around longer than Steven Christ, though he's done an amazing job providing visual material on his youtube channel. What draws me in are a couple of factors: - It's essentially an inversion of the current model, so it's already a working model. - We can still have our dome; the crystal ball in the Sky, with occasional pieces of glass and ice falling down. - Illuminaties/Satan/Baphomet love inverting things, so it makes sense esoterically. - Rectilineator is a pretty goddamn amazing contraption; Though I understand people question the validity (beams sagging and such) What keeps me on the fence is: - It scares the shit out of me.
  14. Haven't spend a penny yet. My sister did ask me to watch a UFO-story documentary (extraordinary story of stan romanek or something :P) recently, sadly it was pay-per-view, Netflix or torrent. Still haven't found that super-duper flat Earth documentary that costs "5,99 to watch now!", though. The problem, the way I see it, is that you claim there is evidence the world is a ball, but we refuse to accept it. At ground level, the Earth appears flat (Billions of people can verify this). At consumer flight altitude, the Earth appears flat (Millions of people can varify this). At weather balloon altitudes -30km-, the Earth appears flat. (Thousands of people could verify this, we're not quite there yet) Visual curvature seems to start somewhere between 30km and 50km (I remember seeing some rocket launch footage that somewhat verifies this), far out of reach for the Average Joe, and that's by Western standards. Yet it's at this point, where we have to trust a select few, we'll find our curvature. Yet millions would have to be in on it... I don't care about belonging to a group, I have an amazing family and circle of friends around me. I have, however, always cared about conspiracies (all kinds), and I see FE as a (the?) way for reasons I've listed before. If it's all just a psy-op (which it ain't), it's easily going to be the psy-op that takes em all down (no kabal would be safe); Think about it, the flat Earth actually going mainstream.
  15. Aight, seems fair, we have the same goal. Ironically, I think every flat Earther (and what their psy-oped mind will believe) will agree, and I'm sure alot of/most flat earthers are willing to re-examine what we know about Universe, instead of just blindly (again) accepting the world is flat. I fail to see why any other secret society would ever risk such something so volatile, as it would most certaintly be the spark for pretty much every other conspiracy to come to light. But we'll have our peace, or I'll do my best atleast.
Jump To Top