re: IT'S HERE! 'The Next Level 2022': The REAL "Disclosure" (Trailers #1, 2 & Documentary)

This is a 'hey look over there' type...

quote:

---

Enjoyed the Documentary btw .

---

TY. I'm glad you took the time.

quote:

---

Southern cross can only be seen in the southern hemisphere . Not in the Northern hemisphere . Until this can be explained everything else they say is moot. No matter how good it sounds

---

I've seen several articulate explanations out yonder.

In the FE model, Polaris lies in the middle of the earth circle. We are ensconced under a Dome (The Biblical Firmament.) Within it the stars, moon and sun all rotate around the center point of Polaris. However, in the Northern Hemisphere we can't quite see the the stars in the extremities of the Southern Hemisphere -- like the Southern Cross. Conversely, those way down under also can't see the North Star (Polaris.)



This explanation seemed to make sense:

How high a star is above the horizon depends on how its current position (Latitude) on the globe compares to your own.

If it's at your position, it'll be directly overhead. If it's 90° from your position, it'll be on the horizon. If it's more than 90° from your position, it'll be below the horizon and you won't be able to see it unless you climb a sufficiently-tall ladder.
So what stars you can see (assuming you remain at ground level) will depend on what latitude you're at:

If you're at 52°N latitude (e.g. London or Berlin), then stars below 38°S will never rise and stars above 38°N will never set.
If you're at 40°N latitude (e.g. New York or Beijing), then stars below 50°S will never rise and stars above 50°N will never set.

If you're at 34°S latitude (e.g. Buenos Aires or Sydney), then stars below 56°N will never rise and stars above 56°S will never set.

quote:

---

I watched the whole thing... They did make some general arguments for their side. Some were worth investigating. But they totally shite the bed trying to explain a lunar eclipse...

---

Thanks for checking it out and analyzing the arguments with a critical eye and ear.

With respect to your quibbles on lunar eclipses of "Black Suns", its theories are definitely worth further discussion. But any serious discussion of the dynamics obviously requires far more time and on detailed theories than they spent, wouldn't it? (They only had limited time to at least mention it.)

quote:

---

All it takes is one piece of evidence to destroy the theory of a flat Earth and the rest come tumbling down too.

---

If there is that evidence, I'm open to seeing it.

I can tell you I've spent over a thousand hours on analyzing Globe vs FE. There is absolutely nothing to discredit an earth and realm that is a proven scientific and observational an extended plain.

NASA's own docs concede this to be true.

15 NASA Research Papers admit "FLAT NON-ROTATING EARTH)



15 NASA Research Papers That Admit Flat & Nonrotating!
Updated: Jun 23, 2019

1. NASA's Reference Publication #1207 entitled Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model assumes the Earth is flat and not rotating. Produced in August 1988, the publication details obscure concepts such as "Rotational Acceleration" and "Earth-Relative Velocity. " Or to a layman, how planes lift off, fly over, and land upon the Earth. Immediately following the cover page and index on the very first line under Summary we see this: "This report documents the derivation and definition of a linear aircraft model for a rigid aircraft of constant mass flying over a flat, nonrotating Earth." The very same line appears again in the Introduction (2nd paragraph), and again under Concluding Remarks (Page 30), and finally, on the Report Document Page (Page 102, Section 16). Here is the link to entire report: https://nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88104main_H-1391.pdf


And below are 14 more Aeronautic Papers and Technical Memorandums that say the same:


2. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; General Equations of Motion for a Damaged Asymmetric Aircraft (Page 2, Section II) ... “In this paper, the rigid body equations of motion over a flat non-rotating earth are developed…” https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070030307.pdf

3. NASA Technical Memorandum 104330; Predicted Performance of a Thrust-Enhanced SR-71 Aircraft with an External Payload (Page 8 - Digital Performance Simulation Description) "The DPS equations of motion use four assumptions ... a nonrotating Earth."

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88507main_H-2179.pdf

4. NASA Technical Note: A Method for Reducing The Sensitivity of Optimal Nonlinear Systems to Parameter Uncertainty (Page 12 Problem Statement) ... "(2) A flat, nonrotating Earth"

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710018599.pdf

5. NASA Technical Note; Calculation of Wind Compensation for Launching of Unguided Rockets (Page 8 Trajectory Simulation, 2nd Paragraph) ..."this simulation assumes ... the missile position in space is computed relative to a flat nonrotating Earth"

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20040008097.pdf

6. NASA Technical Paper 2768; User's Manual for LINEAR, a FORTRAN Program to Derive Linear Aircraft Models (Page 12, Program Overview) ... “Within the program, the nonlinear equations of motion include 12 states representing a rigid aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat nonrotating Earth” https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88072main_H-1259.pdf

7. NASA Technical Paper 2835; "User's Manual for LINEAR, a FORTRAN Program to Derive Linear Aircraft Models" (Page 1, Summary) AND (Page 126 , Report Documentation Page, Section 16) "The nonlinear equations of motion used are six-degree-of-freedom equations with stationary atmosphere and flat, nonrotating earth assumptions."

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890007066.pdf

8. NASA Technical Memorandum; Determination of Angles of Attack and Sideslip from Radar Data and a Roll Stabilized Platform (Page 2, Section 16.) “The method is limited, however, to application where a flat, nonrotating earth may be assumed.”

9. NASA Contractor Report 186019; An Aircraft Model for the AIAA Controls Design Challenge (Page 11, Equation of Motion and Atmospheric Model) ... “The nonlinear equations of motion used in this model are general six-degree-of-freedom equations representing the flight dynamics of a rigid aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat nonrotating Earth.”

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88248main_H-1777.pdf

10. NASA Contractor Report 3073; Investigation of Aircraft Landing in Variable Wind Fields (Page 6, Chapter II - Aircraft Landing Model) ... "The Aircraft trajectory model employed in this study was derived based on the following assumptions: a) The Earth is flat and non-rotating. "

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790005472.pdf

11. NASA Technical Memorandum 81238; A Mathematical Model of the CH-53 Helicopter (Page 17, Equations of Motion) .. "The helicopter equations of motion are given in body axes with respect to a flat, nonrotating Earth."

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19810003557.pdf

12. Engineering Experiment Station, Georgia Institute of Technology, Prepared for NASA; Atmospheric Oscillations (Page 10) ... "A model frequently used is that of a flat, nonrotating earth." ... (next paragraph) .. "The most one can profitably simplify the problem is to consider an isothermal atmosphere, plane level surface, and a nonrotating Earth."

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19650015408.pdf

13. NASA Tecnical Paper 2002-210718; Stability and Control Estimation Flight Test Results for the SR-71 Aircraft With Externally Mounted Experiments (Pages 10-11 Equations of Motion) ... "These equations assume a rigid vehicle and a flat, nonrotating Earth."

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88733main_H-2465.pdf

14. NASA Technical Memorandum 100996; Flight Testing a VSTOL Aircraft to Identify a Full-Envelope Aerodynamic Model (Pages 4-5, State Estimation) ... “For aircraft problems, the state and measurement models together represent the kinematics of a rigid body for describing motion over a flat, nonrotating Earth…”

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880014378.pdf

15. NASA Ames Research Center; Singular Arc Time-Optimal Climb Trajectory of Aircraft in a Two-Dimensional Wind Field (Page 2, Section II. Singular Arc Optimal Control) ... “In our minimum time-to-climb problem, the aircraft is modeled as a point mass and the flight trajectory is strictly confined in a vertical plane on a non-rotating, flat Earth."

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060053337.pdf

quote:

---

With a telescope you can see other planets in the solar system and over time, you can see them rotate. We have rotational data on planets that are in other solar systems, so they are balls too.

---

"Data"? Based on whose word? By what means?

THESE are actual photos of planets ...are they "balls"? Or circular luminaries?



What appears to be "rotation" is just the power of suggestion (like most NASA / Astronomical claims.)

quote:

---

Can someone explain to me how all the planets are balls and we got a pizza?

---

Yes. When you searched for "Flat Earth" the algorithms were purposely rigged to mock FE with absurd bogus images and info that those who believe in the Space Ball-Universe / FE model simply do NOT believe (just as the doc explained IF you watched it.)

quote:

---

Flat earth is ani-logic, anti-science, provably wrong, and provably wrong with a simple google search.

---

With a Google search? OF COURSE. By design.

quote:

---

Thanks for sharing, Fren! You know you will get shite, (spelled shite here, for some reason), and you still go for it anyway.

---

The blind squirrel alter is so fricking stupid it can’t figure out how to turn off the profanity filter

Stupid arse bitch

quote:

---

It's not "off limits" to ask whether the earth is flat. It's just that your rationale for the argument is retarded.

---

THE point of this documentary is that it is NOT my opinion.

You may want to try and watch the doc TO actually understand the "rationale" for arguments that weren't mine to begin with. It could be helpful.

quote:

---

... an absolutely shocking preponderance of unbiased evidence and mathematical data that proves the earth isn't fking flat and then still willfully find a way to disbelieve the truth.

---

Say the guy who obviously did NOT watch the two trailers OR the doc.

Even your $.02. is counterfeit.

quote:

---

Now, I KNOW this board isn't going flat earth.. and I appreciate not taking anything at face value, but let's not be idiots. K?

---

That's rich.

Do you really regard this board as a bunch of lemmings who will blindly follow you over a cliff? Good luck with that.

quote:

---

how bricks get transported across water?

---

Bricks that float! That’s the stuff this 13th century Shiva temple is made of!

Rammappa Temple

Grifters R Us

quote:

---

then wouldn’t it cast a flat, horizontal shadow on the moon instead of the rounded shape which results in what we call a “crescent” moon?

---

Geez, the earth’s shadow does not cause moon phases