Flat earth, a conspiracy to discredit conspiracies?

a reply to: Alorenzo

I looked up both and that's BS.

Look it up, it was Admiral Byrd.

a reply to: Alorenzo

www.reuters.com...

Here is another forum, kids.
godlikelunatics64.createaforum.com...

but same same,

rigid thought

a reply to: guidedbyblake

"Godlikelunatics"?!!!!

a reply to: Alorenzo

The number one reason they tell us we are on a globe is to take God out of the equation.

Why would it do that?
Couldn't your omnipotent, omniscient God create a 'globe'?

Look up general Byrd.....

You'd get more sense out of Dickie Bird.

.... and look up I think Magellan who tried sailing around Antarctica, but could never get around the ice wall.

Well he wouldn't would he if he was trying to circumnavigating Antarctica.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2
Problem is you’re looking at Reuters which is horrible. They will tell you the vaccine works.

a reply to: Freeborn
He could of, but he tell’s us in the 6th line in the first book how and what he created. I take it a lot of you guy’s do not believe in God.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

I believe, was started to discredit the Hollow Earth. And therefore both can be considered whacked out conspiracy theories.

how do you conclude that both can be considered whacked out if one is made to discredit the other? That would imply that one holds credit...

Even a hollow earth would look round, seen from outside...

I guess I wasn't clear on that point. Whacked out conspiracy theories, perceived by the general public. The general public would also not know, there is evidence for one but not for the other, and that is why the other was fabricated to discredit it.

I believe I know the organization that started the Flat Earth Theory but no way to prove it. Because I believe they were charged with the concealment of our true geology. For if you research "Them" you will find they are the genesis of our present institution of "science", and are the only ones to say what is and inst science.

They are also the ones who pushed the defunct theory of subduction to cover up the expansion of the planet. Because sooner or later someone would realize, a solid planet could not expand. Only hollow planets, can. By the way, the theory of subduction was plagiarized from the originator. And even he later on rejected it as impossible.

So in that respect you can see why the HE theory can be considered a whacked theory. Too much information has been hidden and or converted into disinformation, since the great flood.

And, even a flat earth, could have a basement

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Speaking of whacked out conspiracy theories...

a reply to: Alorenzo

Thr number one reason 'they' tell us it's a globe is because it's a globe. The number one reason they do that is because of the overwhelming evidence that it is. Blamng 'them' is just playing the victim as an excuse for not having to think too hard, just like thinking flat Earth is some sort of psyop is a lazy cop out for not having to look at theories challenging your world view.

I do hope hope you're confusing the Magellan Explorer with the actual Magellan. The former is a cruise ship that takes people to Antarctica. The latter is an explorer famous for circumnavigating the globe. You're probably thinking of James Cook, who also circumnavigated a globe.

Citing explorers who sailed round the world as proof no-one has doesn't really work. Telling people to look something up without, you know, looking something up also doesn't work. Don't assume people haven't already looked into something and decided it's garbage just because they don't agree with you.

Lots of people circumnavigate Antarctica as part of a yacht race.

originally posted by: futurehobo... Why do you think there is such a focus on flat earth theory? Is flat earth theory a false flag?

This false flag theory was an attempt to stop the Moon hoax theory.

a reply to: Alorenzo

So he was a General and not an Admiral because.....Reuters?

a reply to: Ove38

A flat earth theory is not needed to discredit moon hoaxers. They are quite capable of discrediting themselves without anyone else's help.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Well actually I'm of the impression the effort to discredit these theories work like clock-work, which doesn't feel organic at all...

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Ove38

A flat earth theory is not needed to discredit moon hoaxers. They are quite capable of discrediting themselves without anyone else's help.

July 2022 Professional hasselblad photographer doesn't believe the story

a reply to: Ove38

So we believe one of the few photographic experts who think it was all a hoax or the thousands who don't?

I have a mate who is some sort of photography enhancer or something for a 'Celebratory' magazine called TITS or NUTS or something like that. He subtly draws attention to breasts, crotches, irons out a few wrinkles and a bit of cellulite etc.
He looked at all those moon landing photos thoroughly hoping to find they were faked. His conclusion: barring one or two doubts he's convinced they're genuine.

Believe what you believe.

I think most of the flat earth conspiracies are rooted in biblical references to the firmament, etc. Much of what is written in the bible is philosophically true but was explained in terminology meant for the people of past eras.

Modern conspiracy theorists take these as literal and thus assume the sky is an ocean. I do not think the universe is actually how pop science explains it, but I'm not sure if we're inside a dome either. Mysteries surrounding Antartica are interesting though.

a reply to: ColourMica

Modern conspiracy theorists take these as literal and thus assume the sky is an ocean.

Some Conspiracy Theorists, lets make that perfectly clear.
The vast majority of conspiracy theorists think Flat Earth is absolute bollocks.

FelixBaumgardner left the earth for , guessing 1hour plus , with a spinning ball at 100mph how did he land 2 iles from where he left the earth ?a reply to: Oldcarpy2

a reply to: joeblow123

Blimey. Science is not your strongest subject.