> It's all based on straight lines and geometry, retard.
And a vanishing point which merges at the horizon. Humans can not see forever, retard. We have a vanishing point. Retard.
> It's not magic.
No shit sherlock, it's called lines of convergence and a vanishing point, retard.
> Yet you made a false claim about what is plainly visible.
Provide a timestamp to the moment in the video you are claiming the horizon drops below the center of frame.
> The horizon is clearly below it after it climbs:
A single frame taken from a shaky drone as it raised in altitude compared to the rest of the video footage in which showcases the horizon, dead center in the reticle. The next few frames as the drone levels out, will showcase the horizon in the center of the reticle but you have to rely on a still frame in which showcased your narrative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFJcQsPHvTQ
Horizon always rises and stays at eye level
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gS6yZwUWjs
At no point does anyone ever have to look down to see the horizon, as you would expect to on a ball. Instead the horizon spans out, seemingly infinitely on our flat plane.
Retard.
> As predicted, flattard uses video with glare.
Oh look, excuse after excuse.
> Why doesn't it shrink in the video I linked
The video you linked doesn't showcase the sun directly overhead, moving towards the horizon. It already begins with the sun at its smallest size, at the horizon. Retard.
> for some reason, as you travel south the stars are shown to rotate about a southern pole
Again, there is no south pole. Just a magnetic north pole with a stationary star above it referred to as Polaris. There is no such thing as a South "polaris" or stars rotating around a "south pole"
> If you're standing at the North Pole, Polaris will be 90 degrees directly overhead. As you start traveling southwards, the law of perspective will cause Polaris to gradually decline in the sky. The further south you travel, the lower Polaris appears in the sky, until you reach approximately 20 degrees south latitude by which point Polaris descends beyond the horizon so people from that vantage point can no longer see it.
> Some heliocentrists have even tried to suggest that the Pole Star’s gradual declination overhead as an observer travels southwards is proof of a globular Earth. Far from it, the declination of the Pole Star or any other object is simply a result of the Law of Perspective. The Law of Perspective dictates that the angle and height at which an object is seen diminishes the farther one recedes from the object, until at a certain point the line of sight and the seemingly uprising surface of the Earth converges to a vanishing point (i.e. the horizon line) beyond which the object is invisible.
> You can't even see when a horizon is below a yellow reticle, flattard.
You're trying to use a still frame of a shaky object moving vertically to make some sort of strawman point. Retard. Look at the actual video footage instead of a 1/2 second split in which the drone was angling downwards instead of stable.
> It's just straight lines (line of sight) and geometry, retard
No it isn't, retard.
> The Law of Perspective dictates that the angle and height at which an object is seen diminishes the farther one recedes from the object, until at a certain point the line of sight and the seemingly uprising surface of the Earth converges to a vanishing point (i.e. the horizon line) beyond which the object is invisible.
> You can't even see when a reticle is in the center of a screen and the horizon drops below it. Truly brain dead.
No I can't at all. I skipped through the entire thing using the 10 second interval and didn't see anything except sped up, shaky drone footage showcasing the horizon dead center no matter how much it raises its altitude.
> You can't explain why the sun doesn't shrink when it's supposedly receding out of view.
The sun does shrink as it recedes out of view. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05WMRyPEmBA
> You can't explain why there's a southern pole
There is no south pole. Compasses work of the magnetic north pole. When you head in any direction with the north pole to the left of you, you are circumnavigating eastwards and vice versa. When you head in any direction away from the north pole, you are heading south. There is no physical south pole.
> You're just a rube that fell for the dumbest conspiracy theory on the planet.
I didn't fall for anything. I've actively gone out and performed "curvature" experiments to personally determine that there is zero amount of curvature. I used to call flat earthers retards at one point in my life too.
> You have line of sight to infinity on the horizon on a flat plane. Anything above the plane is visible.
You don't even understand the basic fundamental principals of limited perspective. You think humans are able to physically see for millions of miles because you have been indoctrinated to believe this way.
> How do Flights Like Sydney-Santiago Work on Flat Earth?
They only work on a flat earth model. Globe believers fail to leave out the supposed rotation of earth at 1000mph. How would an airplane even land at a northward facing landing strip if the object it is trying to land on is rotating at 1000mph?
Absolutely nothing about the ball earth model makes any sense at all.
I did answer his question, indoctrinated globetard.
> Flight paths make more sense on a flat earth model then a globe model, especially when you take into account earths mythical spin of 1000mph eastwards. Meaning that planes flying west would have to compete with this nonsensical rotation but they don't because earth isn't a tilted, wobbling, spinning ball.
Space is fake and promoted through jewish mediums and institutions.
If you deny this simple fact you will never break free of the kike brainwashing.
The moon landings were faked by the same government institutions that wiped out the NSDAP/Germany and blamed Hitler with a fake holocaust.
If you fail to understand how much power and control is necessary to pull this of on an international scale, then of course there is no way you would ever be able to comprehend how they are able to shape the literal worldview into the minds of the masses. You might as well be just another sheep, too ignorant to understand how the power dynamics of the people who control and rule over you truly works.
> Directly refuted in the video I linked. The drone gains altitude and the horizon drops. Flattards ignore evidence as usual.
Incorrect. The horizon always remains in the center of the frame of the camera. At no point does the visible horizon drop below the center of frame/eye level.
> The drone gains altitude and the horizon drops.
The drone gains altitude and the horizon stays in the center of frame. It doesn't drop at all.
> Furthermore, as the video I linked shows, you can bring the sun back into view by gaining altitude with a drone.
Which is a property of limited perspective on a flat, horizontal plane. When you rise in altitude you can see further. You can also zoom in to the sun the bring the sunset back into view, until a certain distance in which the sun can no longer throw its light through the density of the atmosphere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtttUIElngI
> exactly as you would expect on a spherical Earth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Gx1vD1CRE
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvFM9JwMDaM
> and can be seen to make star trails:
Perfectly demonstrates how the stars are circling our flat plane with Polaris fixed to the north pole. Nice proof
https://files.catbox.moe/0g5970.jpg
This is physically impossible under the heliocentric model of the Earth orbiting the sun at 66,600 mph while rotating at 1000mph. How do you explain the stars orbits staying in tandem from "billions of lightyears" away?
> And, of course, there's also the southern stars that rotate around the south pole
What part of this are you struggling to understand?
> Horizons are flat. Not curved.
Fact. Horizons are flat, level, straight, zero degree's of measurable curvature to it. No matter if you are a few feet of the ground of 121,000 ft of the ground. Flat, level, straight horizon.
> "How many flat horizons does it take to shape a ball with the circumference of 25,000 miles?"
25,000 miles in circumference is the accepted claim of the size of ball earth. This figure will never and can never change.
Now, in case you missed grade 1 basic geometry about shapes, edges and faces. You should be familiar with the fact that a sphere/ball has no edges, no faces and no vertices.
> On the surface of a sphere, however, there are no straight lines.
Balls are curved and have ZERO straight lines to them. The curvature of the ball earth is 8 inches per mile squared. This is formulated using basic spherical trigonometry and the claimed circumference of 25,000 miles.
So, how many flat, level, straight horizons does it take to shape a ball?
> You really do not have the slightest idea wtf you're talking about.
This is the same response that leftists espouse when they are shown facts that question the narratives in their head.
Every single person ever born was a flat earther before being indoctrinated into the belief of living on a ball. This indoctrination takes place through various mediums, mainly mainstream media and school institutions. These same institutions are responsible for peddling the holohoax, climate hoax, gender hoax, black lives matter hoax e.t.c.
You faggots are no different to the modern leftist. You think you aren't an NPC like them but your just at a different level within the kike matrix. You broke free of one part but remain stuck in the next part.
Horizons are flat. Not curved. Have to really hammer this point into the head of globetards that genuinely believe that spheres can have straight lines on them. No matter what the size of the sphere is, you wouldn't have a flat horizon at eye level. It would be displaying the slightest convexity as well as never reaching eye level. Especially if you elevated yourself up on the ball, say on a mountain. The horizon should be well below eye level and be curving away at 8 inches per mile squared.
We fundamentally understand that water always finds it's level and requires a container.
People are indoctrinated to believe that water magically curves due to a supernatural force called "gravity" in which the scale to perform any experiment on is to be considered "too big for the human mind to comprehend" and the scientists behind such dogmatic scientism are to be considered infallible.
> I want you to explain it. I want you to type it out.
Flight paths make more sense on a flat earth model then a globe model, especially when you take into account earths mythical spin of 1000mph eastwards. Meaning that planes flying west would have to compete with this nonsensical rotation but they don't because earth isn't a tilted, wobbling, spinning ball.
> Your reliance on videos shows you do not understand the basic principles.
From now on, nobody here is allowed to use videos. Everyone has to type out the answers in long winded paragraphs because we know how sane those posts appear to look.
But carry on, what other excuses have you got? The video answered your question sufficiently. Now how about you answer a simple ball question?
How many flat horizons does it take to shape a ball with the circumference of 25,000 miles?
DiggernicksIsAlsoRetarded 0 points 2.6 years ago
Do you just claim anything you see on television as fact? Ok normie.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63256b2558c8f
DiggernicksIsAlsoRetarded 0 points 2.6 years ago
> It's all based on straight lines and geometry, retard.
And a vanishing point which merges at the horizon. Humans can not see forever, retard. We have a vanishing point. Retard.
> It's not magic.
No shit sherlock, it's called lines of convergence and a vanishing point, retard.
> Yet you made a false claim about what is plainly visible.
Provide a timestamp to the moment in the video you are claiming the horizon drops below the center of frame.
> The horizon is clearly below it after it climbs:
A single frame taken from a shaky drone as it raised in altitude compared to the rest of the video footage in which showcases the horizon, dead center in the reticle. The next few frames as the drone levels out, will showcase the horizon in the center of the reticle but you have to rely on a still frame in which showcased your narrative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFJcQsPHvTQ
Horizon always rises and stays at eye level
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gS6yZwUWjs
At no point does anyone ever have to look down to see the horizon, as you would expect to on a ball. Instead the horizon spans out, seemingly infinitely on our flat plane.
Retard.
> As predicted, flattard uses video with glare.
Oh look, excuse after excuse.
> Why doesn't it shrink in the video I linked
The video you linked doesn't showcase the sun directly overhead, moving towards the horizon. It already begins with the sun at its smallest size, at the horizon. Retard.
> for some reason, as you travel south the stars are shown to rotate about a southern pole
Again, there is no south pole. Just a magnetic north pole with a stationary star above it referred to as Polaris. There is no such thing as a South "polaris" or stars rotating around a "south pole"
> If you're standing at the North Pole, Polaris will be 90 degrees directly overhead. As you start traveling southwards, the law of perspective will cause Polaris to gradually decline in the sky. The further south you travel, the lower Polaris appears in the sky, until you reach approximately 20 degrees south latitude by which point Polaris descends beyond the horizon so people from that vantage point can no longer see it.
> Some heliocentrists have even tried to suggest that the Pole Star’s gradual declination overhead as an observer travels southwards is proof of a globular Earth. Far from it, the declination of the Pole Star or any other object is simply a result of the Law of Perspective. The Law of Perspective dictates that the angle and height at which an object is seen diminishes the farther one recedes from the object, until at a certain point the line of sight and the seemingly uprising surface of the Earth converges to a vanishing point (i.e. the horizon line) beyond which the object is invisible.
https://ifers.forumotion.com/t148-polaris-seen-from-the-southern-hemi-sphere
> You can't even see when a horizon is below a yellow reticle, flattard.
You're trying to use a still frame of a shaky object moving vertically to make some sort of strawman point. Retard. Look at the actual video footage instead of a 1/2 second split in which the drone was angling downwards instead of stable.
Retard.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63254c0d0a662
DiggernicksIsAlsoRetarded 1 point 2.6 years ago
> reason that toilets and water going down a drain spin in opposite directions depending on the hemisphere you are observing from?
They don't.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63256b2558c8f
DiggernicksIsAlsoRetarded -1 points 2.6 years ago
> It's just straight lines (line of sight) and geometry, retard
No it isn't, retard.
> The Law of Perspective dictates that the angle and height at which an object is seen diminishes the farther one recedes from the object, until at a certain point the line of sight and the seemingly uprising surface of the Earth converges to a vanishing point (i.e. the horizon line) beyond which the object is invisible.
> You can't even see when a reticle is in the center of a screen and the horizon drops below it. Truly brain dead.
No I can't at all. I skipped through the entire thing using the 10 second interval and didn't see anything except sped up, shaky drone footage showcasing the horizon dead center no matter how much it raises its altitude.
> You can't explain why the sun doesn't shrink when it's supposedly receding out of view.
The sun does shrink as it recedes out of view. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05WMRyPEmBA
> You can't explain why there's a southern pole
There is no south pole. Compasses work of the magnetic north pole. When you head in any direction with the north pole to the left of you, you are circumnavigating eastwards and vice versa. When you head in any direction away from the north pole, you are heading south. There is no physical south pole.
> You're just a rube that fell for the dumbest conspiracy theory on the planet.
I didn't fall for anything. I've actively gone out and performed "curvature" experiments to personally determine that there is zero amount of curvature. I used to call flat earthers retards at one point in my life too.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63254c0d0a662
DiggernicksIsAlsoRetarded -1 points 2.6 years ago
You all trust in the experts. Like sheep, or as the kikes would call you. "goyim" a.k.a cattle.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63254c0d0a662
DiggernicksIsAlsoRetarded 1 point 2.6 years ago
> You have line of sight to infinity on the horizon on a flat plane. Anything above the plane is visible.
You don't even understand the basic fundamental principals of limited perspective. You think humans are able to physically see for millions of miles because you have been indoctrinated to believe this way.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63254c0d0a662
DiggernicksIsAlsoRetarded -1 points 2.6 years ago
> How do Flights Like Sydney-Santiago Work on Flat Earth?
They only work on a flat earth model. Globe believers fail to leave out the supposed rotation of earth at 1000mph. How would an airplane even land at a northward facing landing strip if the object it is trying to land on is rotating at 1000mph?
Absolutely nothing about the ball earth model makes any sense at all.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63250042d036c
DiggernicksIsAlsoRetarded -2 points 2.6 years ago
I did answer his question, indoctrinated globetard.
> Flight paths make more sense on a flat earth model then a globe model, especially when you take into account earths mythical spin of 1000mph eastwards. Meaning that planes flying west would have to compete with this nonsensical rotation but they don't because earth isn't a tilted, wobbling, spinning ball.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63250042d036c
DiggernicksIsAlsoRetarded -1 points 2.6 years ago
https://files.catbox.moe/3n1ars.jpg
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63254c0d0a662
DiggernicksIsAlsoRetarded -2 points 2.6 years ago
Space is fake and promoted through jewish mediums and institutions.
If you deny this simple fact you will never break free of the kike brainwashing.
The moon landings were faked by the same government institutions that wiped out the NSDAP/Germany and blamed Hitler with a fake holocaust.
If you fail to understand how much power and control is necessary to pull this of on an international scale, then of course there is no way you would ever be able to comprehend how they are able to shape the literal worldview into the minds of the masses. You might as well be just another sheep, too ignorant to understand how the power dynamics of the people who control and rule over you truly works.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63250042d036c
DiggernicksIsAlsoRetarded -1 points 2.6 years ago
> Directly refuted in the video I linked. The drone gains altitude and the horizon drops. Flattards ignore evidence as usual.
Incorrect. The horizon always remains in the center of the frame of the camera. At no point does the visible horizon drop below the center of frame/eye level.
> The drone gains altitude and the horizon drops.
The drone gains altitude and the horizon stays in the center of frame. It doesn't drop at all.
> Furthermore, as the video I linked shows, you can bring the sun back into view by gaining altitude with a drone.
Which is a property of limited perspective on a flat, horizontal plane. When you rise in altitude you can see further. You can also zoom in to the sun the bring the sunset back into view, until a certain distance in which the sun can no longer throw its light through the density of the atmosphere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtttUIElngI
> exactly as you would expect on a spherical Earth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Gx1vD1CRE
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvFM9JwMDaM
> and can be seen to make star trails:
Perfectly demonstrates how the stars are circling our flat plane with Polaris fixed to the north pole. Nice proof
https://files.catbox.moe/0g5970.jpg
This is physically impossible under the heliocentric model of the Earth orbiting the sun at 66,600 mph while rotating at 1000mph. How do you explain the stars orbits staying in tandem from "billions of lightyears" away?
> And, of course, there's also the southern stars that rotate around the south pole
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADNeFSuKnqM
Absolutely nothing makes sense on a ball earth.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63250042d036c
DiggernicksIsAlsoRetarded -3 points 2.6 years ago
No it doesn't, globetard: https://files.catbox.moe/dvl3he.mp4
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63250042d036c
DiggernicksIsAlsoRetarded -1 points 2.6 years ago
Except the same bunch of kikes who constantly engage in pilpul in every one of my posts.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63250042d036c
DiggernicksIsAlsoRetarded 0 points 2.6 years ago
Globetards become outraged when we point out the errors in their dogmatic theoretical heliocentric model.
The only reason you believe in a globe is because you were programmed to.
Just like the holocaust.
Go around telling normies that the holocaust wasnt real and kikes should have been genocided will make you look retarded to them too.
Normie v2 is what Ill start calling you lot.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63250042d036c
DiggernicksIsAlsoRetarded -1 points 2.6 years ago
Actual proper science is never a closed book. Religious dogma is and those that question the infallbility of such dogma are to be considered heretics.
Religion in a nutshell
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63250042d036c
DiggernicksIsAlsoRetarded 1 point 2.6 years ago
He will be out of prison, murdering more Whites within a year.
/v/Niggers viewpost?postid=63247ad4d6f56
DiggernicksIsAlsoRetarded -2 points 2.6 years ago
What part of this are you struggling to understand?
> Horizons are flat. Not curved.
Fact. Horizons are flat, level, straight, zero degree's of measurable curvature to it. No matter if you are a few feet of the ground of 121,000 ft of the ground. Flat, level, straight horizon.
> "How many flat horizons does it take to shape a ball with the circumference of 25,000 miles?"
25,000 miles in circumference is the accepted claim of the size of ball earth. This figure will never and can never change.
Now, in case you missed grade 1 basic geometry about shapes, edges and faces. You should be familiar with the fact that a sphere/ball has no edges, no faces and no vertices.
http://slittlefair.staff.shef.ac.uk/teaching/phy115/session1/geom/geom.html#:~:text=On%20the%20surface%20of%20a%20sphere%2C%20however%2C%20there%20are%20no,passing%20through%20the%20two%20points.
> On the surface of a sphere, however, there are no straight lines.
Balls are curved and have ZERO straight lines to them. The curvature of the ball earth is 8 inches per mile squared. This is formulated using basic spherical trigonometry and the claimed circumference of 25,000 miles.
So, how many flat, level, straight horizons does it take to shape a ball?
Zero because it is impossible.
Retard.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63250042d036c
DiggernicksIsAlsoRetarded -3 points 2.6 years ago
> You really do not have the slightest idea wtf you're talking about.
This is the same response that leftists espouse when they are shown facts that question the narratives in their head.
Every single person ever born was a flat earther before being indoctrinated into the belief of living on a ball. This indoctrination takes place through various mediums, mainly mainstream media and school institutions. These same institutions are responsible for peddling the holohoax, climate hoax, gender hoax, black lives matter hoax e.t.c.
You faggots are no different to the modern leftist. You think you aren't an NPC like them but your just at a different level within the kike matrix. You broke free of one part but remain stuck in the next part.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63250042d036c
DiggernicksIsAlsoRetarded -1 points 2.6 years ago
> "flat horizons"
Horizons are flat. Not curved. Have to really hammer this point into the head of globetards that genuinely believe that spheres can have straight lines on them. No matter what the size of the sphere is, you wouldn't have a flat horizon at eye level. It would be displaying the slightest convexity as well as never reaching eye level. Especially if you elevated yourself up on the ball, say on a mountain. The horizon should be well below eye level and be curving away at 8 inches per mile squared.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63250042d036c
DiggernicksIsAlsoRetarded -4 points 2.6 years ago
We fundamentally understand that water always finds it's level and requires a container.
People are indoctrinated to believe that water magically curves due to a supernatural force called "gravity" in which the scale to perform any experiment on is to be considered "too big for the human mind to comprehend" and the scientists behind such dogmatic scientism are to be considered infallible.
Sound familiar?
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63250042d036c
DiggernicksIsAlsoRetarded -3 points 2.6 years ago
> I want you to explain it. I want you to type it out.
Flight paths make more sense on a flat earth model then a globe model, especially when you take into account earths mythical spin of 1000mph eastwards. Meaning that planes flying west would have to compete with this nonsensical rotation but they don't because earth isn't a tilted, wobbling, spinning ball.
> Your reliance on videos shows you do not understand the basic principles.
From now on, nobody here is allowed to use videos. Everyone has to type out the answers in long winded paragraphs because we know how sane those posts appear to look.
But carry on, what other excuses have you got? The video answered your question sufficiently. Now how about you answer a simple ball question?
How many flat horizons does it take to shape a ball with the circumference of 25,000 miles?
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63250042d036c
DiggernicksIsAlsoRetarded 2 points 2.6 years ago
I don't hate diggernicks, I just think he is a little retarded is all.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63250042d036c
DiggernicksIsAlsoRetarded -3 points 2.6 years ago
https://youtu.be/kajiKy06bu0 - How do Flights Like Sydney-Santiago Work on Flat Earth?
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63250042d036c
DiggernicksIsAlsoRetarded 1 point 2.6 years ago
This will become memory holed within 2 months time.
/v/Health viewpost?postid=6324f1d9e0159
DiggernicksIsAlsoRetarded -4 points 2.6 years ago
For the same reasons they lie about the holocaust, climate change, covid 19, gender theory e.t.c.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63250042d036c