Well, since I posted "I Love My Country!" yesterday, I might as well post this silly one on Dtube, too. Thanks to Poxodd for the animation for this video, which was first posted in November of 2012.
Not sure I follow... That works only in a system that allows Some to have power over Others. Maybe You should watch My playlist on YouTube... Then You will grasp that no One has the ability to create a problem, manufacture the reaction, and force a solution on any widespread level - with the structures that promote psychopaths to power removed, and a foundation that promotes the CARING Ones to take care of things. watch on YT to see the complete playlist:
I appreciate your apparent intentions. I have no confidence in zero-point energy. Neither do I reckon it's necessary to freedom. I stopped watching there.
Do understand that I KNOW We can draw energy from the aether. My father worked with T. Townsend Brown on electrogravitics (which Wikipedia tries to pass off as "ion wind") back in the 1950's and beyond. Before it went VERY black, He would come home and tell Us what the experiments were achieving: gravity control and energy from the aether. He would tell Me what the world I would grow up in would look like: cities would float, cars would fly, and We would have all the energy We could use. When it went black, He came home and told Us He could not talk about His work anymore because, and I quote, "They want it secret for now."
Add to this a very large number of patents bought out and buried, inventors set up for blackmail, threatened, ruined (Tesla as one), and killed to keep free energy out of the mix.
The psychopaths in control know the INTIMATE relationship between money and energy, and They will do ANYTHING to try and keep free energy from Us, as money is Their only tool to widespread influence.
"The psychopaths in control know the INTIMATE relationship between money and energy..."
I can agree with all you state that isn't regarding zero-point energy, even regarding more efficient engines. I can't comment as to your personal experiences, but have not shared them, so refrain from confidence in them.
Insofar as you beat that drum, you will find that unless you present proof to me of such technology, my ears will not hear.
I would love to provide proof, but all I can do is recommend reading Dr. Paul A. LaViolette's book, Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion. I was actually creeped out to discover mention of a number of things in the beginning that I remembered... He starts by discussing TT Brown.
I also recommend looking into His subquantum kinetics (SQK), that predict the Biefeld-Brown effect (along with all the other "mysteries" of einsteinian physics...).
My brain is just fine, and if I waste My time on those vids, I do not doubt I can rip them to shreds. But be My guest in beLIEving NASA'a folly. [smile]
Your text does not make any sense. Earth is flat and I have 9 videos that can convince you, if you prefare the lie of the ball, then I will just leave you at that.
Y'know... I came to the FE with a VERY open mind. After 100+ hours of looking into it, not only did I see that NASA conceived of the psyop to distract Us from considering other reasons They lie and fake things (like hiding the secret space program, maybe?) but I made these observations:
First, the north-centric model (Dubay, et al) is flat wrong - it would have the stars in the "south" whipping by at a fair clip in nearly straight lines, with different stars seen from different southern points. But the stars in the south circle around a point (no major star there) mirroring the behavior of those in the north, always due south from wherever One can see it (anywhere in the southern hemisphere). See: watch?v=dsz6yKDrCHM if You think those southern stars are projected into the sky.
Second, on a flat plain, when going upward, once You get above things that block the view, You would see all You can see. Going up further will show no more. But when We go upwards, We see more and more of the planet, exactly like One would going up from the surface of a ball.
Third, the flat earth "movement" is RIFE with disingenuous arguments - ignoring scale, gravity, optics, friction, refraction, AND misstating distances to "prove" flatness. WHY does the truth need even ONE disingenuous argument?
Fourth, though the flat earth proponents have said that if You get a stronger instrument, it will bring ships back into view that sank, hull to crows nest, at the horizon, I have watched ships sink with binoculars and then switched to a fairly powerful telescope - and nope. It does NOT bring them back into view. Once sunk, They cannot be seen, and so... There are People out there LYING to prove the flat earth. WHY would the truth need even ONE lie?
Fifth, the fact that, for aeons, sailors have been calculating latitude in the northern hemisphere by the position of Polaris, with a direct correlation between latitude and degrees above the horizon, proves a globe. This ONLY works on a globe. When Polaris is at the horizon (something that cannot happen on a pancake), One is at the equator (0º), when it is 45º up from the horizon, One is at the 45th parallel...
Sixth, on a globe, eclipses can be predicted, the movements of the planets can be predicted, the seasons explained, the zodiacal progression, the phases of the moon, and other things the flat idea has nothing to offer for.
As for some of the disingenuous arguments for the pancake... I'll give You four. I have seen People pouring water on a ball to "prove" water doesn't "stick to a ball," ignoring the planet-sized gravity well immediately adjacent pulling the water OFF the ball. I have seen People spinning balls on the floor to "prove" a ball will not keep spinning, ignoring the friction of the ball on the floor. I have seen People point to a glass of water saying, "Look! It's FLAT!" As if, at that small a fraction of a single degree of arc (4" is 0.00009% of 1º of arc), We would see the hump in the middle a few MOLECULES high by eyeballing the glass. And They use curvature calculations to determine "how far below the horizon" something should be, when line-of-sight calculations are what should be used.
So. The FE needs disingenuous arguments and lies - and has NO model that explains what We see. The globe needs NONE of those arguments - and has a model that explains what We see perfectly, simply, and elegantly. Which model has the highest probability of being correct?
That was a lot of word vomit, now lets get to the real stuff:
I have made it easy for people to look at the BEST flatearth #notaglobe videos to wake you up.
there is a lot of trash in the tag flatearth, and I have like you been watching that before finally finding the real deal. Watch these 9 videos under the tag #notaglobe (press the tag) and you have a bigger chance of finally seeing where we live:
Good job of evading My points. Typical of the weak with nothing behind Their words. Other tools the weak use are rudeness, insult, false accusations, and ad hominem. I do recommend avoiding such behavior lest You be seen as weak with nothing to say...
You're just proving his points Lasse. 1. Your video proves that the FE guy who made it is disingenuous, as he said, and 2. Your video actually proves that the Earth is round.
1
The guy who made that video must have watched the original source material (he even gives it up as a source in the title and description). There, everyone can see that they use a fish-eye lens and that the Earth appears round whenever the horizon is at the centre like below. (The full playlist of the original material can be found here)
So why would he, on purpose, cheery pick the part of the video where the horizon is below the centre of the frame and thus distorted the way he wants it to be? (PS, if you use a ruler at different points in the video you linked, you can even spot a slight upwards curve, proving its distortion). This just goes to show what @amaterasusolar said, that the people who make these videos are disingenuous and dishonest. Or just desperate to believe what they want to believe.
2
Now that we know the video is shot with a fish-eye lens (which is normaI for high altitude footage) we can take that into account when looking at the image. If you really care about the truth, then you'll do some research into how fish-eye lenses work. Long story short: The centre of a picture taken with such a lens remains mostly the same. The lower parts at the centre concave more down, while the upper centre parts concave more up. If the Earth was indeed round, we would therefore expect it to appear flat when the horizon is slightly below the centre. Oh wait, it is EXACTLY that in your video! Your video displays the Earth just how we would expect it to be if curvature did exist.
So let's take a screen shot of when the horizon actually is at the centre:
There you go!
Please find me ONE video where the ENTIRE flight is captured where it shows no curvature also when the horizon is at the CENTRE of the image. Only then will you have any form of evidence to back your claim.
It long ago became clear to me that seemingly intelligent people (able to spell 'cat', 'dog', and 'run') that propound FE are either trolls, or disinfo agents.
The mendacity and disingenuity is so glaringly obvious that such folks cannot be incapable of knowing they are doing it.
It is so easy to prove that the Earth is a globe that FE cannot be other than an amusing diversion for trolls. All you need is a stick and a sunny day.
hmmm, I just get:
"The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported."
dont know whats wrong:-/
ok now it playes
Very Well Said.
Kinda reminds me of South Park...
I loathe demo(n)crasy. I promote a solutocracy, solving problems Ethically as they arise, rather than passing "laws" and then enFORCING them!
Problem-Reaction-Solution FTW!
Literally.
Not sure I follow... That works only in a system that allows Some to have power over Others. Maybe You should watch My playlist on YouTube... Then You will grasp that no One has the ability to create a problem, manufacture the reaction, and force a solution on any widespread level - with the structures that promote psychopaths to power removed, and a foundation that promotes the CARING Ones to take care of things. watch on YT to see the complete playlist:
Seriously.
I appreciate your apparent intentions. I have no confidence in zero-point energy. Neither do I reckon it's necessary to freedom. I stopped watching there.
Do understand that I KNOW We can draw energy from the aether. My father worked with T. Townsend Brown on electrogravitics (which Wikipedia tries to pass off as "ion wind") back in the 1950's and beyond. Before it went VERY black, He would come home and tell Us what the experiments were achieving: gravity control and energy from the aether. He would tell Me what the world I would grow up in would look like: cities would float, cars would fly, and We would have all the energy We could use. When it went black, He came home and told Us He could not talk about His work anymore because, and I quote, "They want it secret for now."
Add to this a very large number of patents bought out and buried, inventors set up for blackmail, threatened, ruined (Tesla as one), and killed to keep free energy out of the mix.
The psychopaths in control know the INTIMATE relationship between money and energy, and They will do ANYTHING to try and keep free energy from Us, as money is Their only tool to widespread influence.
I can agree with all you state that isn't regarding zero-point energy, even regarding more efficient engines. I can't comment as to your personal experiences, but have not shared them, so refrain from confidence in them.
Insofar as you beat that drum, you will find that unless you present proof to me of such technology, my ears will not hear.
As to the rest, it seems we agree on much.
I would love to provide proof, but all I can do is recommend reading Dr. Paul A. LaViolette's book, Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion. I was actually creeped out to discover mention of a number of things in the beginning that I remembered... He starts by discussing TT Brown.
I also recommend looking into His subquantum kinetics (SQK), that predict the Biefeld-Brown effect (along with all the other "mysteries" of einsteinian physics...).
There's a cogent analysis, lassee. I see You have bought NASA's flat earth psyop... Whatever.
Your brain is hacked... but you are on your way.. press this tag: #notaglobe and watch the 9 videos and you might wake up today!
You can contact me in facebook if you finally are convinced, that the earth is flat.
My brain is just fine, and if I waste My time on those vids, I do not doubt I can rip them to shreds. But be My guest in beLIEving NASA'a folly. [smile]
Your text does not make any sense. Earth is flat and I have 9 videos that can convince you, if you prefare the lie of the ball, then I will just leave you at that.
We should jail them, not vote for them.
Its not that I disagree with this, its just that we live on a flat motionless plane not a spinning ball:
Y'know... I came to the FE with a VERY open mind. After 100+ hours of looking into it, not only did I see that NASA conceived of the psyop to distract Us from considering other reasons They lie and fake things (like hiding the secret space program, maybe?) but I made these observations:
First, the north-centric model (Dubay, et al) is flat wrong - it would have the stars in the "south" whipping by at a fair clip in nearly straight lines, with different stars seen from different southern points. But the stars in the south circle around a point (no major star there) mirroring the behavior of those in the north, always due south from wherever One can see it (anywhere in the southern hemisphere). See: watch?v=dsz6yKDrCHM if You think those southern stars are projected into the sky.
Second, on a flat plain, when going upward, once You get above things that block the view, You would see all You can see. Going up further will show no more. But when We go upwards, We see more and more of the planet, exactly like One would going up from the surface of a ball.
Third, the flat earth "movement" is RIFE with disingenuous arguments - ignoring scale, gravity, optics, friction, refraction, AND misstating distances to "prove" flatness. WHY does the truth need even ONE disingenuous argument?
Fourth, though the flat earth proponents have said that if You get a stronger instrument, it will bring ships back into view that sank, hull to crows nest, at the horizon, I have watched ships sink with binoculars and then switched to a fairly powerful telescope - and nope. It does NOT bring them back into view. Once sunk, They cannot be seen, and so... There are People out there LYING to prove the flat earth. WHY would the truth need even ONE lie?
Fifth, the fact that, for aeons, sailors have been calculating latitude in the northern hemisphere by the position of Polaris, with a direct correlation between latitude and degrees above the horizon, proves a globe. This ONLY works on a globe. When Polaris is at the horizon (something that cannot happen on a pancake), One is at the equator (0º), when it is 45º up from the horizon, One is at the 45th parallel...
Sixth, on a globe, eclipses can be predicted, the movements of the planets can be predicted, the seasons explained, the zodiacal progression, the phases of the moon, and other things the flat idea has nothing to offer for.
As for some of the disingenuous arguments for the pancake... I'll give You four. I have seen People pouring water on a ball to "prove" water doesn't "stick to a ball," ignoring the planet-sized gravity well immediately adjacent pulling the water OFF the ball. I have seen People spinning balls on the floor to "prove" a ball will not keep spinning, ignoring the friction of the ball on the floor. I have seen People point to a glass of water saying, "Look! It's FLAT!" As if, at that small a fraction of a single degree of arc (4" is 0.00009% of 1º of arc), We would see the hump in the middle a few MOLECULES high by eyeballing the glass. And They use curvature calculations to determine "how far below the horizon" something should be, when line-of-sight calculations are what should be used.
So. The FE needs disingenuous arguments and lies - and has NO model that explains what We see. The globe needs NONE of those arguments - and has a model that explains what We see perfectly, simply, and elegantly. Which model has the highest probability of being correct?
That was a lot of word vomit, now lets get to the real stuff:
I have made it easy for people to look at the BEST flatearth #notaglobe videos to wake you up.
there is a lot of trash in the tag flatearth, and I have like you been watching that before finally finding the real deal. Watch these 9 videos under the tag #notaglobe (press the tag) and you have a bigger chance of finally seeing where we live:
Good job of evading My points. Typical of the weak with nothing behind Their words. Other tools the weak use are rudeness, insult, false accusations, and ad hominem. I do recommend avoiding such behavior lest You be seen as weak with nothing to say...
Less is more:
You're just proving his points Lasse. 1. Your video proves that the FE guy who made it is disingenuous, as he said, and 2. Your video actually proves that the Earth is round.
1
The guy who made that video must have watched the original source material (he even gives it up as a source in the title and description). There, everyone can see that they use a fish-eye lens and that the Earth appears round whenever the horizon is at the centre like below. (The full playlist of the original material can be found here)
So why would he, on purpose, cheery pick the part of the video where the horizon is below the centre of the frame and thus distorted the way he wants it to be? (PS, if you use a ruler at different points in the video you linked, you can even spot a slight upwards curve, proving its distortion). This just goes to show what @amaterasusolar said, that the people who make these videos are disingenuous and dishonest. Or just desperate to believe what they want to believe.
2
Now that we know the video is shot with a fish-eye lens (which is normaI for high altitude footage) we can take that into account when looking at the image. If you really care about the truth, then you'll do some research into how fish-eye lenses work. Long story short: The centre of a picture taken with such a lens remains mostly the same. The lower parts at the centre concave more down, while the upper centre parts concave more up. If the Earth was indeed round, we would therefore expect it to appear flat when the horizon is slightly below the centre. Oh wait, it is EXACTLY that in your video! Your video displays the Earth just how we would expect it to be if curvature did exist.
So let's take a screen shot of when the horizon actually is at the centre:
There you go!
Please find me ONE video where the ENTIRE flight is captured where it shows no curvature also when the horizon is at the CENTRE of the image. Only then will you have any form of evidence to back your claim.
It long ago became clear to me that seemingly intelligent people (able to spell 'cat', 'dog', and 'run') that propound FE are either trolls, or disinfo agents.
The mendacity and disingenuity is so glaringly obvious that such folks cannot be incapable of knowing they are doing it.
It is so easy to prove that the Earth is a globe that FE cannot be other than an amusing diversion for trolls. All you need is a stick and a sunny day.
Love it! 💯🐒