Jump to content
Sign Up To Remove Ads! Or to Access Our Chatroom!


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

61 Excellent

About Vechthaan

  • Rank
    Adv Member

Personal Information

  • Gender
  1. And solar eclipses aren't possible on the ball Earth. How do you coop with such inconsistency?
  2. Here's a possible explanation for the concave Earth. Could you debunk it? At around 4 minutes he notes a simple truth that for the concave Earth, alot of the mechanics are the same as for the ball Earth, except inverted. The fact that a solar eclipse isn't visible from the entire Earth at once (Parallax doesn't apply to eclipses apparently) is another strike against the ball Earth, pro concave/flat earth.
  3. The theoretical science is already available, I think collectively, if you weed out all the trashposts, grav, Anthem, Rothbard, ... even Vonlud have already made the point: There's a good chance they're lying about the globe. The science doesn't check out for the globe in plenty of examples, it fits flat/convex and stationary in most. Not everything has been anwsered (for the flat/concave mechanics), but the same is true for globe science, which is also constantly evolvings and learning things we didn't know before. (E.G: Dark Matter) Being sceptical of space, imo, should be the default position. We're all waiting for the hardcore research. I'm willing to throw in some $$$ and time myself, but I'm very hesitant to send it to some people I don't know. Flat Earth don't exist in Belgium, I think there was a convention in the Netherlands, but the few pieces I saw left me with a similar taste the American convention left me. Having flattie awards and showing the same things we already see on the internet ain't progress. The Balathon lake experiment is the only thing that's really happening atm that I'm aware of. Plenty of invidual people constantly posting low distance measurements from their local area, but those only confirm what we already know. There is no visual curvature, none. The Balathon lake are also looking to confirm there's no visual curvature, aswell as tempting to find how much refraction there is really. Tough I doubt they could, already expressed my thoughts on why I think it's flawed for proving anything conclusively. rectilineator plumbobs If there's an anonymous madmen living in EU (Belgium) area with some engineering skills interested in building a rectilineator, I'm all willing to help. (In both time and money) The plumbobs experiment seems kinda iffy cuz I'm not aware of any accessable mineshafts or deep structures. Skyscrapers in EU lul.
  4. Vegans are a lot like Flat Earthers!

    Well, you're entitled to an opinion, but you have to realize your opinion weighs heavily here. If you say it's no bueno, it's no bueno. Saying you'll allow it is only for as long as you'll allow it. You seem sure the flat Earth is a psy-op, why? You say you can't say it, yet, so we don't have access to this exclusive information. From where I'm standing, it's still obvious as day they're lying about the globe. I still luv you, as I love everyone, I never had a dog in this fight, but the butthurt comes from the overal tone of your OP. You're sneaking in jabs by saying things like: "So please don't think I'm attacking your beliefs." is belittling in terms of the work some people put into it (Rothbard comes to mind). There's also the only 1 vein of truth in FE: NASA fakery, which is again selling it short, by alot. Other than that, I don't really care too much, it just wories me a little. Enough to post about it lol. Edit: but yeah, if you were to ban flat Earth from discussion (I know what you said, no worries), I wouldn't even be butthurt about it. I do hope I get a copy of the FE thread, as I plan on making a presentation for my close friends and relatives in the near future. I haven't bothered saving every individual link that ever crossed the discussion. I probably should have, but I take life as it comes.
  5. Vegans are a lot like Flat Earthers!

    I disagree with there only being a vein of truth in flat Earth, there's alot more. It's easy to point the finger at flat Earth and saying psy-op, it's the general modus operandi dealing with FE. You, aswell as Cinnamon, have browsed the flat Earth threads since the start. Can you legitimately say not a single good point has been brought up that puts the globe into question? And I'm not talking about NASA fakery, that stuff is a given. To say that NASA fakery is the core of truth in Flat Earth, and the rest distraction seems ludicrous. Flat Earth ain't a psy-op to hide the fact NASA is faking stuff. NASA is faking stuff, the rest is debatable. Except, you're feeling like it's not debatable, which is why you're testing the waters with this post. I'm glad you're still allowing it, but I'm saddened you're not willing to have this discussion. You never showed much interest, other than the occasional neutral post. You're clearly not onboard the idea they're lying about the shape of the Earth. Your post kinda feels out of place. Why haven't you taken this up with us in the flat Earth threads? I'm also not following the veganism comparison, they're completely different things. You compare them based upon them both having a vein of truth, but that's your opinion, on both veganism and FE. The comparison serves neither topic any purpose. What is the Earth really were flat? Or concave? Wouldn't that perfectly explain why NASA is faking all their shit?
  6. I stand corrected. Actually, part of me knows Celts aren't specifically Irish, I've read this stuff several times before. (Also videogames, Age of Empires nd stuff)
  7. Was a pretty popular song in Belgium back in the day, not sure if it had any succes outside Belgium/France. It's about the Tribe of Dana/Danu. Why a french rapper makes a song about an Irish myth I don't know, but I've always liked the song lol.
  8. Exactly my point. And owke, you could argue flat Earth makes moar sense, because with a convex or concave Earth, there would need to be quite a bit of light-bending, but we can't rule it out either. Specifically the concave Earth then. Ball earth is a piece of sh%t we all it to be... Hence why I hope rectilineator and plumbob experiments are on the table aswell. They would, for me anyways, give alot more conclusive results. If we find no center of gravity (parallel plumbobs) in let's say 10+ locations around the world, it would seal the deal for a flat Earth. Same if it shows convex or concave.
  9. Flat, like the rest of us. Doesn't really matter though. Vision still relies on light, which may or may not be curving.
  10. Thanks for posting this, though I do wanna note that it doesn't matter if you believe in gravity or not for this to work. Even if gravity is all density , it doesn't matter. We know that when we drop something, it will fall straight down, always. So the plumbobs experiment shows from where we are getting pushed, or to where (the center of gravity), and should have different results for a concave, flat or convex Earth. It's also a really easy experiment. The flat Earth movement (the guys with the lasers) seem to have reach. Doing this in 10 spots around EU and America would give pretty meaningfull results. If they all showed concave Earth, we know smth is up. If they all showed flat (parallel) we know smth is up, if they all show convex we got a problem lol.
  11. We are all learning as we go. I'm not really lamenting about the laser experiment, I love any and all effort people are putting into it. I see it more as constructive criticism. I'm all for doing any testing with whatever experiment, including lasers. The problem with calculating how much the beam is refracting over a large distance is that: A) We don't know how much the beam is refracting (it's what we're trying to find out) and B) We don't know how much the Earth is curving (the point of this whole thread) So if at 40 km, the beam is x meter lower or higher than the source, is it because the beam is curving, or is it because the Earth is curving? What if they're both curving? (As they would in concave Earth) It doesn't matter if they do various measurements at intervals along the way. The point is that we don't know how much the beam is bending and we dont know how much the Earth is curving (no matter at what distance, be it 5, 10, 15, .. km) So the results are open to alot of interpretation... I don't see how concave could be eliminated. If the Earth were concave, light -including laser- is constantly bending up, even though it appears straight to our eyes and cameras. If they detect 0 curvature in their experiment, this doesn't prove the Earth is flat, it proves the beam of light is going parallel with the ground. We still would need to know the actual, physical shape of the laserbeam (not the visual shape, it looking straight therefore it must be straight is not very rigid) to draw a conclusion for the shape of the Earth.
  12. Rectilineator and plumbob shaftmines. (or elevator shafts) Already talked about the rectilineator before, but here's a lay-out: Now I've seen the video where LSC says they faked the results or whatever, Aprils Fool's joke, but I couldn't care less. The principle is genius I think. Roads, railroads, tunnels and bridges don't really count because they are constructed as they go. A flat Earther will say railroads are going straight, a globe earther will say they're curving with the Earth. Same with tunnels and highways again. With the rectilineator, the point is that we know exactly how straight the beam will be, based on the accuracy. We can get ridiculous accuracy these days, again look at 3D printers. We can then further trim the print to make it more precise using whatever technology we have available. Like the precision that laser rig for the balathon lake has. That precision only applies to the actual laser, but not the beam of light. Once the light leaves the laser, it starts refracting and doing all sorts of uncalculable shit. Not so with the rectilineator. Plumbobs experiment is similar. We dangle 2 plumbobs from as much height as possible, the more the better. Gravity is the only thing affected the plumbobs, so atmospheric conditions need to be eliminated. A vacuum would be ideal, but creating a vacuum across this distance is not something we, the plebs, can do. They used shaftmines in the past for practical purposes, but it should work everywhere. I'm thinking elevator shafts and such. If the Earth is convex, the center of gravity is below us, and the bottom end of the plumbob line will be closer to eachother than the top end. If it's flat, they will be perfectly parallel. (There truly is a universal UP and DOWN) If it's concave they will further apart at the bottom, like this: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/rsU-LDHfb-E/mqdefault.jpg I couldn't find pictures for the flat and convex counterpart, but I'm sure you can imagine. Also the longer you can can make the distance at which u suspend the plumbobs, the further they'll move apart and the easier it'll be to detect the result. It's a simple principle, like the rectilineator, but if executed well provide tons more information than any laser experiment ever will. Cuz light bending and stuff.
  13. Right, and these laser tests are always being done over water, close the surface. It doesn't really matter what technical term you give it, the point is we all agree that in practical situations light will not go straight. What are the odds that across 40+km the air remains at the same density/temperature? And again, we don't even know if light really is going straight. If the Earth is concave, and light is bending upwards, every laser-test will still show no curvature. A rectilineator bypasses any variables with light. We just take a straight up ruler and measure the Earth, as opposed to a non-physical ruler (the laserbeam) we don't even know is straight or not. The engineering principles and accuracy can predict/calculate how straight the rectilineator beam will be. I tried to look for Brian Mullins video, but it may have gotten deleted from the tube tube.
  14. Can u tell me how much it will bend? Can anyone? No. Can you say it won't bend? Can you say with certainty: across 44 miles, our line of sight will bend less than 1 inch. No you can't. There's no calculating this stuff, especially not for long distances. There's already plenty of pictures that debunk the globe. I'm on your side here. Why haven't they made a difference? Why isn't the mainstream onboard the FE-train, because we already have plenty of proof there's a lack of curvature? Because it's just light. There's no defence against the refraction excuse. And even if you would, it still wouldn't differentiate between flat or concave. All I'm saying is that there are better experiments that will give more conclusive results. Mostly, the laser experiments will show that it's unlikely the Earth is convex. That still leaves us with 2 other possibilities, not 1.
  15. But we acknowledge mirages? Like you say, refraction does occur when there's different densities, it's part of nature and part of the physics of light. Light does not go straight, in lab conditions it will, but in the real world, in our atmosphere it unarguably refracts, even if ever so slightly. I agree that refraction can't explain the severe lack of curvature, especially for long distance mountain ranges, but that's not my point. When you say: there's "2 many variables involved with refraction" that's exactly my point. It's an un-ending debate, because the solid science isn't there. Noone ever checked these things on light travelling 20+ km, it's all assumptions designed to fit the globe model. (even though it doesn't fit observation) And again, if we're living inside a concave Earth where light is constantly bending upwards, no laser experiment will ever show the difference between a flat or a concave Earth. You're just falling in a new trap by basing any conclusion on experiments with lasers, imo. The plumbob/Rectilineator experiments leave much less room for interpretation.