This world is not what you think it is

Video Transcript:

Good day! I honestly hope you will take the time to watch this video. I understand it's a little bit long and in today's society we are just so busy. It's very hard to find an hour or so to spare to watch a YouTube video. What with all the Netflix that we've got to catch up with in the video games we have to play and the sporting events we have to watch and all the alcohol we have to drink down at the pub with our mates. You know it's very hard to find an hour or so spare to watch a YouTube video. And we're also open-minded and intellectually honest that we already know everything anyway. So it's probably pointless to even take the time to watch this video because like I said our minds are so open and we're so intellectually honest that we already know everything. But I'll put it up there anyway. My fingers across. I really sincerely hope that you will watch it. I think it's got plenty of really good information in it. In fact I will be so bold as to claim that it is undybunkable. And I'll also be so bold as to claim that some of you will turn this video off very early on in the piece. Swear at the screen. Probably swear at me. Call me all kinds of names. And then get back to your busy life of Netflixing and sport watching and piss drinking and video gaming and all that because you know you already know everything anyway don't you. Okay all I can do is put it up and hope. Hope, hope, hope sincerely that you will watch it and take it in because yeah well I think it's undybunkable. Anyway the first part of the video comes straight from the horse's mouth and the second part of the video is just a really good presentation that like I said I think you'll enjoy unless of course you are one of those really super open-minded intellectually honest people who already know everything. Anyway let's give it a go. Here it is Cheerio. Good luck. The derivation and definition of a linear aircraft model. In the introduction they flat out say right here the report this report documents the derivation which means the origin and the definition of linear aircraft model for a rigid aircraft of constant mass flying over a flat non-rotating earth. Everybody see that? Derevation means the origin. Definition means this is how it's defined this is how it works. So they're talking about the equations and they I mean you want to talk about the calculus and trig this thing gets into the equations are based on these airplanes flying over a non-rotating flat earth question why would this be an in-technical manual of anybody if it doesn't exist? I mean think about it they claim the Coriolis effect that snipers have to to calculate the the spinning of the earth the Coriolis effect when they're shooting it you know a thousand-yard shot or something yet they don't have to for Mach 1 2 3 4 aircraft. You don't have to calculate the spin no no no this is just about we these planes fly over non-rotating fighter so oh well pasting this what I heard oh well that they're just doing that to simplify the equations oh oh really I'm sorry I didn't know that NASA rocket scientist and MIT mathematicians couldn't factor in eight inches per mile squared I'm sorry they have to simplify the math I'm sorry maybe they missed a class at MIT or something I don't know but this is this is great now you can try to dismiss this if you want to but it's also in the conclusion the concluding remarks of the report and all the math in the equations look at that this report derives into fines a set linearized system matrices for origin and aircraft of constant mass flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat non-rotating earth let's keep going here there's your definition of derivation obtaining or developing something from a source of origin why why would you develop the equations for aircraft to fly over something that doesn't exist oh let's factor in the unicorn equation just in case the pagus is the flying horse equation so yeah now they're telling you it exists definition of course the statement of the exact meaning of something think about that central intelligence agency declassified document that we stole from the Russians in from 1948 yes you will you will you notice that sanitize yes why would you sanitize scientific information about look at this this is what this one's about scientific earth measurements why would you redact anything concerning the true scientific facts of the earth i wanted you to see that scientific measurements of the earth June 1948 it was originally in the Russian language this is the translated thing date distributed July 1949 number of pages 19 just so you can see here's getting into it here now notice it says the of the page says outer gravitational field and shape of the physical surface of the earth gives this guy's name some Russian guy center science research institute for geodetics aerial surveying and cartography Moscow everybody see that all right you can go through this entire document if you want to i'm just pulling out something that i found very interesting in 1948 from Russian scientists that was classified they stated here that where where it is not determined to determineable at all of the points of space without the knowledge of the shape of the earth but since the shape of the earth is not known i'm not going to read all this because if i read all this today we'd be here for a long time in fact i cut out stuff i just wanted you to see that a Russian scientific paper that was classified in 1948 states the shape of the earth is not known now let me remind you that we are always told oh we've known the shape of the earth since 300 BC how did Russian scientists and let me just say it Russian scientists are not stupid people in fact reading through their documents they seem to be more honest with themselves than a lot of American science all right so Russian document CIA documents be classified let's look at that we're going to go down through some now here i'm going to try to go pretty fast this is the Army Research Laboratory notice every time when you see dot mill whenever you see dot mill the only in the United States the only people can have dot mill military this is the Army Research Laboratory beacon position and altitude navigation aided by magnetometer i'm not going to try to pronounce those people's names you can see the documents it's prepared by the University of Delaware Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering under contract of the US government this is uh I guess these people are dummies right they're stupid this tells you who they are i'm not going to get into all that but this tells you the PhDs and the people who were assisting this study and here we find something problem formulation coordinate systems the motion of an object usually described by rigid body equations of motion derived from Newton's laws this section summarizes and notates three kinds of coordinate systems the first is the earth fixed coordinate system which is fixed to the earth with a flat earth assumption okay now we're remember we're talking about beacons for aircraft an aircraft flying moving and we're talking about stuff that's moving why would you assume first of all why would you use the term earth fixed i'll deal with that in a and a flat earth assumption an assumption means something that is just known to be tripped it's just assumed because it is no here we go this is a different one everybody see where this uh came from nasa dot gov you could interchange cia dot gov nasa dot gov is all the same okay they work together in fact i believe that all high level nasa people are spooks is what i believe all right um here we have the singular arc time optimal climb trajectory of aircraft in a two-dimensional wind field oh lord these guys all right nasa research smart people our rocket scientists everybody says i'm not a rocket scientist well these are all right so this document goes on to say 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 do you see that does everybody see that and then they've got this nice little equation here thus the pertinent equations of motion for the problem are to find in its uh in its the state variable form as and then they give you the math wait a minute is this unicorn math is this Thor hammer math wait a minute no it's it's flat whoa what flat non-rotating flat earth math oh then it oh i'm sorry could we just substitute Pegasus unicorns no exactly let's keep going here let's back up a little time everybody see this nasa technical memorandum where to come from nasa dot gov right declassified freedom of information act tells you all about it determination of angles of attack inside slip from radar data and the role stabilized platform hmm Langley research set what thing Langley Virginia yeah CAA headquarters exactly also the national aeronautics and space administration watching DC wait a minute i thought they were in florida and Houston Texas oh oh that's right surely got an office all right let's keep going here here's the abstract nasa Langley research center technical memorandum blah blah blah here is in the abstract basically what they're describing this manual is all about this is summary of here's what they say equations for angels of attack and size slip relative to both rolling and non-rolling body access system or derive for a flight vehicle for which radar and gyroscope attitude data are available the method is limited however to application where a flat non-rotating earth may be assumed the application for this whole thing is has to be based on a flat non-rotating earth I'm going to read that again equations for angels of attack size slip relative to both rolling and non-rolling body access system or derive for a flight vehicle so we're talking stuff at fly and for which radar and gyroscope attitude data are available the method is limited however to application where a flat non-rotating earth may be seen to say that the method is limited to a flat non-rotating earth means it does not work for a spherical earth this is interesting because he talks about it gives you this little frame reference look at north-south east west right and they're telling you that again that represents the earth the earth fixed axis system everybody see that right there the radar provides range asmeth and elevation data from radar side to the vehicle throughout flight so we're talking about stuff happening throughout flight right the data in conjunction with wind data can be easily converted to pitch blah blah blah flight path angles it is assumed herein that the earth is represented as a flat and non-rotating a reference frame what i want to say earth fixed in this supposed to be spinning tilted orbiting flying through the universe yet the stars never change in the sky right the nice guy but yet we're spinning flying orbiting meetings of miles been doing it for thousands of years nothing in the nice sky of changes they know come on they know it is assumed herein that the earth is represented as a flat non-rotating reference frame yet they're going to tell us snipers have to adjust for shooting a thousand-yard shot that takes about two seconds maybe less than that but you don't have to calculate the earth's spin for an aircraft for a helicopter a drone the space shuttle i'll show you that in a minute too let's keep going here it is notice it says also by definition the x and z plane will be vertical perpendicular to the horizontal plane of the earth at all times the horizontal plane of the earth at all times now here's a doctoral dissertation by phd candidate that became part of this european control conference in fact he i guess he graduated but he he he's this doctoral dissertation that he began to speak to i guess the european space agency or whatever a new path planner based on flatness approach application to an atmosphere reentry mission this is designed for for the space shuttle quote reentry and and it's funny they put orbit and reentry and stuff like that into quotations and i'll explain all that next week we'll get into that next week but noticed outline of his doctoral dissertation statement of guidance problem hmm i want to have a guidance problem well if you're basing stuff on a spherical earth and it's really flat and you're going to have a guidance problem all right so this guy comes along goes you know what we got to get back to a flatness approach i'm not making this up right flatness based trajectory plane here we go he's talked about for this little vehicle right here and we'll keep going notice he says model in flat earth coordinates everybody see that again this doesn't exist right flat earth doesn't exist but we're going to have a model for it and all this unicorn map sprinkled with fairy dust so this guy's doing a doctoral dissertation in this present time to help with guidance system of the shuttle and now we have a man shuttle system but he's doing this and saying we've had guidance problems so we got to we got to we got to go to a flatness approach to a flat earth model now i'm going to tell you this guy's way smarter than me i couldn't do this kind of math not even in my dreams okay but he does and he says guys we need a flat earth model and here's the math for it shall we keep going notice this assumptions meaning things we assume are true flat earth coriolis and centrifugal forces neglected here's a doctoral candidate who graduated got his PhD becomes a speaker to the European control council i mean he's telling them it's a flat earth we ignore coriolis meaning the spin of the earth it's completely ignored here's MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology the top technical school in the country or at least one of the top i'm sure they argue among themselves who's the top what's this d space dot MIT dot ed all right proper t base system design method with application to targeting system for small unmanned vehicles so this is a targeting system develop Massachusetts Institute of Technology blah blah blah tells you who it is the author of this and then in the description it says three targeting methods were considered assuming a flat earth whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa why would an MIT professor PhD why well he assumed the earth is flat the evaluation revealed a descending utility order flat earth and range based upon the systems requirements i mean these are these and cute aeronautics and astronaut flat earth assumption mind blowing all right let's get back to our documents government documents this one did you see MIT another doctoral candidates and PhDs saying it's flat and it's not moving calculation wind compensation for launching unguided rockets so we're talking about rocket rockets by Robert L James junior and Ronald j Harris Langley Research Center Langley Virginia Langley Field I would say pretty important stuff right all right but who reads this stuff who stays up all night and all day reading stuff all right technical note here we go summary method for calculating wind compensation for unguided missiles is derived from which has a greater degree of flexibility than previously proposed methods blah blah blah blah and get into so they're telling you summary here's what we're up to trying to figure out how to guide rockets yes linear aerodynamics yes coefficients with respect to flow incidents angles are used launch angles for wind compensation I mean it's pretty serious stuff right thank you probably need to get it right I know if I was their general or their balls I'd say you guys ready to get it right this stuff's expensive so let's get it right better work let's look at this it says trajectory simulation incorporating the above requirements is presented in reference eight in addition to the above requirements this simulation assumes a vehicle with six degrees of freedom and aerodynamic symmetry and roll and the missile position again space will deal with that they don't even it's not what they're talking about what we think what they've told us and what they know space is two different things so when they say it they don't mean what what they've lied about the missile position in space is computed relative to a flat non-rotating earth April 1961 mass-attack technical document for calculating unguided missiles not anything we're sending in the space just unguided missiles like the V2 was an unguided missile let's keep going here here's another one okay completely different document where did it come from that's a dot gov right unpublished preliminary data atmospheric oscillations tells you the people Georgia Tech project Georgia Tech here we go all right my wife's brother is a professor at Georgia Tech he would be losing his mind if he heard this but his own university has been part of this under contract Georgia Tech project contract prepared national aeronautics and space administration so this was in conjunction with their engineers engineering experiment station Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta Georgia department of defense contractors must be established for DDC services or have their inteno certified by the Cognizant Military Agency so this was not to be passed around this was need to know all right Georgia Tech project just so you see it boom boom April 1965 tells you the abstract develop present theories of atmospheric oscillations blah blah blah I don't have to all right a model frequently used is that of everybody say it glad unrotating earth the most one can profitably simplify the problem is to consider the isothermal atmosphere playing level surfaces and a non-rotating earth NASA dot gov now this is general equations of motion for a damaged asymmetric aircraft so what they're trying to do is fix equations if a plane lose part of its wing or tail fin or whatever how to compensate and all that stuff right so so that's what this is about and the technical manual gives you this stuff the introduction here's the introduction right just so you know it says in order to analyze the dynamics of damaged aircraft the dynamic equations of motion must properly reflect the underlying physics now I want to say that I want everybody to pay close attention they're telling you right here in the introduction of this and they're showing you a damaged aircraft they're saying in order to analyze the dynamics of damaged aircraft and dynamic equations of motion must properly reflect the underlying physics it must what we're going to do here must reflect the true physics physics here's a you don't understand physics okay well these people do all right who are we talking about here the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and here's what they say rigid body equations of motion reference to an arbitrary fixed point on the body there are several approaches that can be used to develop the general equations of motion the one selected here starts with Newton's laws applied to the collection of particles defining the rigid body any number of dynamics or physics books can serve as references so they're saying the physics books can serve as references I said in this paper the rigid body equations of motion over a flat non-rotating earth are developed why why so you're telling me that the physics of a non-rotating flat earth are the proper physics in a NASA document here we go you can tell when they're older documented ref atmospheric refraction errors for optical instrumentation fun reading folks I'm telling you fun reading there you have it tells you technical memorandum on a blossom thing preliminary report October what do we got see we'll go away back it up 1953 white sand's proving ground like like Rousse's new Mexico where is where's area 15 now it's in New Mexico I know but so anyway here we go look at this here just just wanted you to see the signatures real signatures Dr Fred Hanson Dr. J.W. Mowler or whatever James C. McNaught Lieutenant Colonel United States Air Force Thomas W Morgan Major United States Air Force systems and engineering branch flight determination laboratory white sands proving ground all here right Dr. So-and-so Dr. So-and-so General So-and-so I guess they're stupid this one this document was not to be seen this document contains information affecting the national defense of the United States within the meeting of the SBU Nodge Laws Title 18 USC sections 793-794 it is transmits transmission or the revelation of its context in any manner to an unauthorized person is prohibited by law so this was classified in the 1950s talking about basic equations for atmospheric refraction and all this stuff it says here now I want to point this out present equations hold for any altitude everybody see that I don't have time to read all the present equations hold for any altitude all right let's see what they're talking about table of context introduction validity of flat earth assumption for atmospheric calculations validity you know what validity means something that is a solid fact let me let me back up remember present equations hold for any altitude so some of this this this study of basic atmospheric equations this is for any altitude this is the introduction this this is the table of context introduction to validity of flat earth assumption for atmospheric calculations if it wasn't flat if the earth was not flat why would you start off a classified under threat of law in the SBNodge Act why would you classify that it's all here folks introduction here says a comprehensive study of atmospheric refraction errors for optical instrumentation what is it based on based on a flat earth assumption will be published subsequently the relative mass of the atmosphere at any elevation angle is given approximately by the coast of the evolution angle I may be pronouncing some of this wrong but is it this relationship is correct for a flat earth and a flat atmosphere this relationship is correct for a flat earth or and a flat atmosphere and they're going to publish these results so we just saw one document say this is the correct underlying physics flat non-rotating earth we see this document right here say this is correct for any altitude I should do it validity a flat earth assumption validity they're not saying okay see what some of them this is what some of say that the flatter of assumption is just to simplify that but what this is saying is this so-called flatter of assumption is valid it's valid do you say it threw it on a little bit just like you see it validity and flatter of assumption just so you know the definition of validity the quality of being logically or factually sound let's keep going assumption and anywhere anyway let's just say that they didn't put in the validity they just use the word flatter of assumption you hear that a lot well the assumption a thing that is accepted is true or is certain to happen without proof me we don't even need proof of this anymore this is the what is assumed to be true by the scientific community by the governments of the world oh what's this one this is a nassical technical memorandum nasa dot gov mathematical model of a CH 53 helicopter you guys know a helicopter pilot all right so here's the nasa manual on that aims research center moth at field california equations of motion the helicopter equations of motion are given in body accesses with respect to a flat non-rotating earth meaning the helicopter takes off it doesn't have to worry about the earth spinning below it here's another one vision based mobile target geo localization and target discrimination using base detection theory oh this is a mouthful right this is a more modern i can't remember the year on this one but anyway you see this is the academy center for the united states air force um us air force academy u a u a s research and this is for targeting for unmanned vehicles unmanned vehicle aerial vehicles targeting manual it says the objective of geo localization problem is to estimate range to target which can be estimated using the flat earth model shown in figure two what should be this little thing right here no curve do you notice the flat earth model and your little aerial a craft locating a target now if this line was curved here as it does eight inches per mile square that line is going to intersect at a different point i'm not a geometry teacher but that i know maybe it's just from golf right flat earth model range estimation using flat earth assumption unmanned vehicle targeting manual from um research gate but of course we showed you united states air force academy is there anybody see that look at this a key element in determining point to point acoustic transmission is modeling the variation of effective speed and sound through the lower atmosphere oh did i did i forget this oh yeah army research laboratory this is another one calculating low atmosphere profiles sound speed at night so calculating sound speed all right pretty important stuff uh says to briefly examine short range acoustic continuation at night we use low atmosphere profiles of wind speed temperature relatively humidity shown before as input to a flat earth non turbulent acoustic propagation model called the windows version scanning fast field program propagation of electromagnetic fields over flat earth army manual February 2001 you can say oh the bushy the 1950s stuff and the 1960s stuff all they just didn't know they've learned stuff since right nope they tell you right here and you go into the manual here's the table of context it says comparison of principal fields from an ideal dipole oriented perpendicular to a horizontal and homogenous flat earth army manual they tell you right here to assume that the transmitting antenna and target are received are located above but near the surface of a flat idealized earth over and over again i mean i could do this guys i could look here's another i even forgot i thought we had to in here's another closed form solution for ballistic vehicle motion ballistic vehicle motion a closed form solution is developed for the motion of a ballistic vehicle entering the atmosphere over a flat non rotating earth frank j barbera came in sciences corporation Colorado Springs Colorado closed form solution for ballistic vehicle motion meaning we have to know where this thing is going to come down payloads for spinning project army think you need to know where our killer is going to land look here projectile flight dynamics a six dof rigid projectile models employed to predict the dynamics of our projectile in flight the assumption of these equations assume a flat earth these equations all bunch of math we're going to do the g carpov experimental observations of dynamic behavior of liquid field shells us army ballistics research laboratory Aberdeen preening ground Maryland all this 1961 is a reference to this but he says and again a projectile you want to know where that artillery round is going to land and what this study is the one that has a solid explosive versus one that has a liquid payload like chemical weapons or biological weapons so they want to know figure out the equations so a six dof rigid projectile model is employed to predict the dynamics of a projectile in flight these equations assume a flat earth again why would you do unicorn math why would you do Thor hammer math if you don't exist why would you try to calculate ballistic missiles unguided rockets shuttle landings why would you base all your equations all of your science on a flat earth non rotating non moving stationary atmosphere if it doesn't exist no more than a unicorn or Thor's hand hello everyone as pointed out by Owen Benjamin I'm a bit dry and technical and I will repeat myself often but I hope that you can nevertheless enjoy this discussion I can't promise that I'll be entertaining but I can at least say that it will be sincere I only have 40 minutes and so I will speak fast flat earth is the catalyst to break the chains that mentally spiritually physically and scientifically bind humanity we flat earthers aren't anti science we flat earthers are unashamed truth addicts trying to free science from lies faith-based globe religious zealotry and the heliocentric nonsense that has bound it for generations scholastically speaking I'm a fairly educated person I graduated from college Magnum Cum Laude and I took astronomy in college I have a master's and a jurist doctorate up until just a few years ago I genuinely believed in the globe and considered space and astronomy essential for the well educated man I would say that I underwent a paradigm shift around 2008 when I came across architects and engineers for 9-11 truth these symmetrical and free fall claps of world trade center building 7 which was not hit by an airplane is 100% proof that our government lied to us and that none of our institutions are there to expose or protect us from this vile conspiracy that stretches across and controls many nations steel constructed skyscrapers cannot collapse from small office fires symmetrically and at free fall speeds it's impossible 9-11 proves that our government and its owners control the narrative the media the military the police forces and all other major institutions yes the 9-11 conspiracy is indeed a frightening truth moreover and he supposedly social contract we once had with our government ended on 9-11 the United States government was in the very least an accessory in this heinous crime which was not only used as a pretext to murder millions but also to deprive all Americans and future generations of liberty under the threat of a manufactured boogie man despite my vehement distrust of the US government I somehow still considered NASA exempt from the corruption that all changed when I read David McGowan's wagging the moon doggy which thoroughly debunked the Apollo moon missions I loved space 2 I really wanted to believe in NASA but the evidence that NASA lied is indisputable NASA is a criminal organization that steals 59 million dollars per day under false pretense seriously how can any intelligent person think that this is genuine footage of a spaceship in lunar orbit NASA is a scam in addition any reverence I had for academia ended with wagging the moon doggy as no major institution has ever pointed out the blatant lie the lunar lander is a piece of junk made from curtain rods aluminum foil tar paper scotch tape some useless space looking abstract art sculptures in some very poor construction does that really look like a spaceship to you look at the astronauts suspended by wires the wires are visible throughout the Apollo missions look at the telltale signs of 1960s movie backdrops used throughout all of the Apollo missions research how the inverse square law of light and how that proves the moon landings were fake then around april 2015 I had a larger paradigm shift a friend of mine and a fellow NASA moon landings debunker who many of you know as jibby Jedi sent me an email to check out a video by marks sergeant I was highly skeptical but I soon realized that there was enough substance to the flatter that we needed a secretive debate on the subject accordingly I opened a debate on an internet forum where I invited flat earthers and globe earthers to present their best cases at that time I thought the flat earth was a government controlled siop to discredit moon landing debunkers and I wanted to save my fellow true seekers from the government siop wow was I wrong the flat earth arguments were well-reasoned and substantial globe earth arguments were circular species and vacuous I thought the globe advocates whose numbers far outweighed the flat earthers would destroy the flat earthers but instead presenting a strong case in favor of the official globe narrative globe supporters relied on name calling fraudulent videos feeble presuppositions strongman arguments conformity and incessant appeals to authority from the beginning I heard the best case the globe had and it was shockingly pathetic and it still is we already know that the evil cabal can get away with huge slice 9-11 Gulf of Tonkin and the phony moon landings prove that but I want to talk to you about when I have termed institutionalized conformity it is the top down systematic institutional conditioning of humanity from cradle to grave and it created the globe institutional conformity is founded on a blend of three elements the knee jerk Pavlovian response group conformity and the expert these three elements have worked in tandem to force society into a unwitting love affair with the globe and space many of you are already familiar with the Pavlov's dogs experiment essentially at the end of the 1800s Ivan Pavlov was able to condition dogs to salivate every time a metronome was played Pavlov did this by bringing out food while simultaneously playing a metronome only after a few repetitions Pavlov removed the food but the dogs would still salivate in response to just the sound stimulus this is referred to as classic conditioning of course we are not dogs but to an extent people can also be conditioned humanity has been conditioned to love space and the globe that's a fact you have seen the globe images thousands of times in your life in addition to loving space and the globe you have been programmed to scoff at even the mere mention of the flatter through unrelenting repeated conditioning since childhood in schooling media and entertainment although the narrative is changing from Columbus to ancient Greece I was taught in elementary school that everyone knew Columbus was going to fall off the edge but the smart Columbus knew better than the stupid flatter authors and Columbus proved it was a globe even MTV's rebellious channel always started with the US government's Apollo mission to the moon how rebellious is that the programming has been unrelenting and everywhere public schooling and the grading system are instrumental in creating your inflated globe ego and that conditioned response but here's a question for you how do you know when you're having a conditioned plavlovi in response a pavlovi in response isn't based on reason or intellect instead it triggers a knee jerk emotional response it makes you upset or happy in some inexplicable manner hopefully by recognizing that you are having a pavlovi in response you can set aside the conditioning and instead use your intellect and reason to investigate the flat earth here's a hilarious television experiment that took place in a medical office all of these people are actors except for the lady whenever the office buzzer rings all the actors stand up yes I added the cartoon ball it's like Pavlov's dogs but here the group is establishing the norm understandably the unaware lady quickly follows the group that's expected and I doubt any of us would have acted differently as we often look to the group for information it's called informational conformity but what's so fascinating about this is that this lady after all the actors leave then teaches others who are also unaware to do the same and creates an entirely new group of conforming unwitting people none of the people standing up right now are actors and yet they are all engaging in the same nonsense based solely on group and informational conformity comparably relatively few people need to be in on the globe lie once the narrative has been initiated which is then reinforced every day in school in media and entertainment for generations nearly everyone will unquestioningly follow the group they control nearly all of the inputs and the system then becomes self-policing it doesn't matter that no one in the groups knows why they believe or act in a certain way the narrative has already been set and is followed religiously by the group in lockstep conformists are rewarded and promoted and non-conformists are ridiculed and demoted that's why calling flatter thers names is so important to this control mechanism but the globe needed one more key ingredient and that's the expert the milgram experiment isn't fascinating example the power of institutionalized conformity in this case the oblivious person at the electric shock generator called the teacher remember this teacher is the only person who isn't an actor a learner is placed in a different room each time the learner makes a mistake in his responses the so-called teacher is instructed to give an increasing electric shock to the learner in a way it reminds me of the grading system via a microphone the teacher can hear the fake screams when the supposed electric shock is administered to the learner what you're watching is a modern version that obtained the same results as the original milgram experiment there were 30 switches on the shock generator marked from 15 volts slight shock to 450 volts danger severe shock 450 volts is at a fatal level on purpose the learner gave mainly wrong answers and for each wrong response the oblivious teacher gave the learner an electric shock and the teacher could hear the screaming through the microphone if the teacher refused to administer a shock the expert in the lab coat next to the teacher would say something like please continue or you have no other choice but to continue after 15 shocks or so the learner in the other room would go silent so as to create the illusion that the learner was unconscious or worse but the shocks continued what's so damn disturbing is the fact that 65% of the teachers continued to the highest level of 450 volts identified as danger severe shock all of the teachers continued to 300 volts despite their morals ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure the expert milgram summed up the experiment as follows the legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous import but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations i set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain in ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered by an experimental scientist stark authority was pitted against his subjects strongest moral imperatives against hurting others and with the subjects ears ringing with the screams of the victims authority one more often than not the extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation authority one more often than not remember that 65% of the participants thought they severely injured or killed the other person based only on the simple orders of the scientists with white coat that's the power of the expert and that's why the kubbal has created so many celebrity experts like Einstein, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye the science guy Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk and others George Orwell spoke about the expert this way it will be seen that my reasons for thinking that the earth is round are rather precarious ones it does not rest on reasoning or on experiment but on authority most people if asked to prove that the earth is round would not even bother to produce the rather weak arguments i have outlined above they would start off by saying that everyone knows the earth to be round and if pressed further would become angry this is a credulous age and the burden of knowledge which we now have to carry is partly responsible the power of institutionalized conformity is evident in the following example in this video you can hear the child proclaim that the so-called space rocket is actually falling down as it truly is just listen that's bad is that what always happens does it always go on? yeah it looks bad to me it's in space is that it? yeah i think that's it rockets don't go to space they arc and fall into the water as you can see in numerous examples the child gets it because he hasn't been programmed extensively enough to unquestioningly except NASA instead the adult won't allow himself to question his many years of space indoctrination even though his eyes tell him otherwise here's from another video with a different child the child keeps stating that the space shuttle rocket is going down but the parent tries to explain it away as though the earth is turning oh I'm sorry. Oh my god. No, no. That was so bad right there. I don't know. I did it. Peter, are you a parent or a zelphs parent? A brain vow. Sammy? If not, turn zelphs parent. Sammy, are you ready? That's what I'm trying to do. She's going to turn the world you've been waiting for. Sammy, the children were wiser than their parents who refused to see the obvious. The children could easily recognize that the rocket is not going into space, but the parents would not allow themselves to question it. What do your eyes tell you? Just look at this space shuttle launch. Does any person here really think that this space shuttle is in space? It's laughable. Do you understand what I mean by institutionalized conformity? And how powerful it is? And how we need to be wary of it? I need you to set aside your Pavlovine response, your conditioning, your group conformity, your NASA and other proclaimed expert authority figures, and just use your intellect here today, as an objective, reasonable person should. Flat Earth is founded on observable, testable, and repeatable experiments that you can do yourself. Flat Earthers don't want group or informational conformity. We don't want you to appoint anyone as your expert. We want you to think for yourself, and to test the flat earth yourself, and then share your findings with the rest of us. The hat is the beauty of the flat earth. Flat Earth usually begins with the globe curvature formula, at least that's where it started for me. According to the globe math, 8 inches per mile squared, represents how much a distant object should be hidden below the horizon from a ground level view, based on the official mathematical dimensions of the earth. I.e. a ball earth with a circumference of 24,901 miles. Under the globe, this is mathematically accurate for all observable distances. So, once the alleged curvature drop at 6 miles under the globe, I hope everyone can do this now. Square the miles, 6 x 6, multiplied by 8 inches, which equals 288 inches, divided by 12 to convert from inches to feet. In 6 miles, there should be a curvature drop of 24 feet. It gets exponentially worse for the globe. 8 miles distance, 43 feet should be hidden below the horizon. 10 miles, 67 feet, 20 miles, 266 feet, 50 miles, 1666 feet, 100 miles distance, 6667 feet should be hidden below the horizon. This massive curvature drop should be seen, and experienced every day, but it isn't. And I will show you many examples unquestionably proving this curvature does not exist. But let's first talk about the horizon. If you know my channel, then you probably already know that the horizon test is my favorite proof of the flat earth. It is so easy and so overlooked. Globe supporters and flat earthers have very different views of what the horizon is. Under the globe model, the horizon is a concrete and tangible physical barrier demarcating the point when distant objects are obscured by the curvature. Under the globe, the horizon could theoretically appear closer due to haze, miraging waves and swells, but the horizon could never extend further than that mathematical physical Earth curve edge. On the other hand, flat earthers correctly recognize that the horizon is not tangible, but a matter of perspective, and thus the horizon rises with the observer and impossibility under the globe. The fact that railroad tracks meet at the horizon proves the horizon is a matter of perspective. Of course, haze and poor viewing conditions reduce the distance to the apparent horizon, but so long as we have a nice clear day without miraging, we can test the globe horizon and determine its veracity. The globe fails miserably. The distance to the globe physical horizon is roughly 1.225 times the square root of the height of the observer. But you can also use a calculator. This globe curvature calculator calculates both the distance to the horizon and the amount that should be hidden behind the alleged globe curvature. Both of these calculations can prove the flat earth. You've probably seen the 8 inches per mile squared curvature drop many times, but here's a quick distance to the horizon chart to help you get familiar with the numbers. For example, a person standing on a shore at 6 feet above the water should not see a horizon beyond a mere 3 miles under the globe model. That's definitely measurable if there was such a globe horizon. All the observer needs to prove the flat earth is a pair of binoculars. But here's a clip where National Geographic was less than honest with its viewers. In this clip, National Geographic stated that because of the curvature of the earth, that 1.5 stripes are hidden behind the curvature. If you're intelligent, you already caught the problem. The horizon is beyond the flag. Therefore, absolutely none of the flag can be hidden behind an alleged curvature that's impossible. I hope you understand that. National Geographic went to that lake to prove the curvature, but instead proved that National Geographic is a purveyor of disinformation and there are so many more like them. But let's begin with a positive, easy proof of the flat earth using the horizon. This was my wife's video. We're looking at some footage filmed by White Wake at an observation height of 2.3 feet. At an observation height of 2.3 feet, the distance to the horizon of the globe model would be a maximum distance of 1.86 miles. That is very short. We are looking at the Bayport Channel entrance light. It was 3.49 miles away from the observer. According to the curvature calculator, only 1.8 feet should be hidden. Not a big deal, right? But remember that the horizon was supposed to be only 1.86 miles away, and that rack is 3.49 miles away. Does the globe model work here? Of course it doesn't. And here's the reason why I love these horizon distance experiments. The presupposing globe propagandist will tell you that the image of the horizon has jumped the curvature and you're staring at a mirage. Why is that explanation ridiculous? Because the entire rack is still there, refraction cannot remove the bulge of water in front of the rack and then move the bulge many miles further away without affecting the rack. The entire rack cannot be a mirage since only 1.8 feet should have been hidden. So the globe propagandist wants you to think that the rack stayed in place, unaffected, while the water bulge selectively disappeared and then reappeared miles further away. They not only want you to believe in bending water, they want you to believe that this bending water is magic. I know it's a strong delusion, but please open your eyes. But it gets worse. Here's footage of another rack called Cutter Rock that was 11.24 miles away from my friend. According to the curvature calculator, 59 feet should have been hidden behind the globe. The top light on Cutter Rock is only 16 feet high. You shouldn't see the light whatsoever. Already the globe model fails, but let's look at the horizon distance. You can't see the horizon in this footage, but then wide awake was clever and took a time lapse photo of Cutter Rock with a higher exposure. Here's the photo. What is that? The horizon is beyond Cutter Rock. Remember, the horizon was supposed to only be a maximum distance of 1.86 miles, and this photograph shows a horizon beyond 11.24 miles. Ouch! Now that hurts the globe. Here's another example. For this observation, BMLSB69 was at an elevation of 105 feet above the water. At an observation height of 105 feet, the globe horizon would have to be closer than 12.6 miles. There are three oil platforms. The first one was 11 miles away, the second was 22 miles away, and the third was 26.4 miles away. Based on the official dimensions of the globe, their horizon line should be in front of the second platform. In fact, the second platform should be hidden by 59 feet. The third platform should be almost entirely hidden by 129 feet. As you can see with your own eyes, the horizon, which was supposed to be under 12.6 miles, is not only beyond the second platform, the horizon is beyond the third platform, further than 26.4 miles. We know that none of the third platform is obstructed by the curvature as the horizon is beyond the platform. I read a believe that the bulge of water selectively disappeared from in front of the second platform, where it was supposed to be hiding 59 feet, and then the bulge of water reappeared well beyond the third platform, and this disappearing and reappearing magic effect happened all without affecting the two platforms themselves. For this next test, BMLSB69 brought his camera down to just one foot off of the water. At one foot, the distance to the horizon of the globe must be closer than 1.2 miles. There were two platforms visible. The closer one on the right is platform Hill House at 6.2 miles away. The further one on the left was platform Habitat. It was 9.41 miles away. Please raise your hand if you see the problem. Where is the horizon line? Remember the horizon was only supposed to be 1.2 miles away, and the horizon is not only past the first platform at 6.2 miles, it is well beyond the second platform, beyond 9.41 miles. Using this example, I want to teach you how the apparent horizon distance can be used to determine the minimum size of the globe if we did indeed live on a globe. Let's assume that the horizon in this example is at least 10 miles away. Obviously it's further, but 10 miles is fine. But is it possible that no one ever thought to measure the size of the earth by measuring the distance to the horizon? It seems so basic. You believe in a ball? Well, go ahead and measure it. Where is my Nobel Prize for what should be elementary knowledge? Here's the theoretical radius of the earth formula using the Pythagorean theorem and it can be used for any horizon observation. I don't want to bore you with all the calculations, but at an observation height of one foot and a horizon at least 10 miles away, the globe would have to have a radius of 264,000 miles. That's a radius 67 times larger than the alleged size of the globe earth. I think this disposes of the big earth theory. I asked Nathan Oakley from the Flatters debate channel to share his understanding of the horizon issue and this was his response. Hello Dallas! The horizon would be most accurately described as an arbitrary position where the sky appears to meet the ground. However, if you are a fundamentalist religious zealot with a globe belief, well then that's not an arbitrary position where the sky appears to meet the ground. It is in fact the reified edge of a sphere world based on the radius value. An hour value that is reified into existence by way of abacking the question, proof of nothing perspective hijacking earth curve calculator that takes an arbitrary position where the sky appears to meet the ground and turns it into the reified edge of a sphere world. I've been Nathan Oakley and I'll see you in flat earth debate. For this first test of mine, my wife was carrying a mirror at the opposite end of a reservoir reflecting the sunlight. From 6.3 miles away I watched my wife place the mirror into the water. However, under the globe model my wife should have been entirely obstructed by the curvature with a target hit and hide over 12 feet. Obviously the globe fails. Do you see any visible signs that my wife is a mirage or that a 12 foot section hopped over the curvature to present a false flat earth? There is no distortion accounting for this selective imaginary curvature hopping. These clips are from two separate experiments from opposite ends of Utah Lake. The first test was in May and the second was in freezing conditions in December. In both cases the spotlight was 7.53 miles away from me and the camera height was only 2.54 feet above the water. In both cases my wife spotlight should have been hidden 21 feet below the horizon. Instead you can see the spotlight placed at the water or ice edge. There is absolutely no curvature in these tests and the symmetry of the reflection of whites belies the nonsense curvature hopping refraction claim. I don't show this video much but this was a test I conducted with my family at the Bonneville Salt Flats. I placed my camera at 2.7 feet and filmed my wife drive way on the salt flats. Even with a mirage I filmed my wife drive 6.6 miles away. The van I should have been entirely hidden with a target hit and hide at 14 feet. Unfortunately this test ended in disaster. My wife got stuck in the middle of nowhere and I was 6.6 miles away from her and also in the middle of nowhere. The tow bill was $800 and it wasn't covered by roadside assistance. Flatters testing does not pay very well and I learned a valuable lesson about the Bonneville Salt Flats. It can swallow your car. Observable reality has obtained some amazing footage of our flat earth and is known for getting this camera very low. In this case this camera was only 0.6 feet off of the water and he filmed a damn 7.7 miles away. The damn is only 14 feet high. Under the globe burst dimensions 30 feet should be hidden. Obviously the damn is visible and the globe fails again to simple and repeatable experimentation that you can do yourself. Notice also that the bridge peninsula on the right was only 3.3 miles away from the camera but the globe horizon was supposed to be 0.95 miles away. The horizon is well beyond 3.3 miles again proving the globe faults. The next two experiments were conducted by flatter 3-ality explorers in California. The mirror was 13.8 miles away from the camera which was at a high to 5 feet. Under the globe model 82 feet should have been hidden below the horizon. Obviously nothing is missing behind a purported curvature. Sunlight reflection off a mirror at 13.8 miles should not wrap around a ball. But this is my all-time favorite test conducted by flat earth reality explorers. This mirror flash experiment was conducted at the salt and sea at opposite sides at a whopping distance of 18 miles. As you can see here they were able to see and film the reflection of the mirror that was 18 miles away from the camera. 155 feet should have been hidden. Under the globe model it had to be standing on this 150 foot minaret to see a mirror flash at a distance of 18 miles. That experiment absolutely destroys the globe myth and should cause any thinking independent person to conduct their own investigation. This next laser test was conducted in Italy by Romanians. The distance was 9.4 miles. The laser height was 6.6 feet and the camera height was 2 feet off of the water. 39 feet should be hidden behind the curvature but the camera filmed the source of the laser at 6.6 feet above the water in defiance of the globe. This next test is from D-Marble. In this case the person holding the laser was at 7 feet shooting laser at a distance of 10 miles. At 10 miles under the globe model the observer would have to be at a height of 30 feet in order to see the laser source. Instead you can see the source of the laser at just inches above the water. For this test Dr. John D who has a PhD confirmed with the laser that over a distance of 9.5 miles there's absolutely no curvature. 39 feet should have been hidden under the globe model. Nothing was hidden. One of the common objections I hear is that all these tests were conducted over water. Well, duh! Water is flat and you don't have ground obstructions. But the next two tests by Grotto-1 were conducted over ice. In this first test Grotto-1 drove a snowmobile 7.5 miles while he maintained a visual with the distant laser. Here's the laser from 7.5 miles away. This is over frozen solid ice. Based on an adjusted laser height of 2.4 feet over 21 feet should have been hidden. Instead Grotto-1 filmed the laser hitting his hand and on the ice at his feet. Here he is filming the source of the laser with his camera only 10 inches off of the ice. In this next test Grotto-1 sets a camera on the frozen lake at a height of 8 inches and then drove 7.4 miles away where he placed a mirror down on the frozen lake at a height of 14 inches. He didn't zoom in so that he could maintain the clock in view and synchronize the mirror. Based on the 8 inch observation height of the camera 25 feet should have been hidden below the horizon and you can see the tiny mirror flash at only a height of 14 inches. Regardless of the conditions the globe math fails repeatedly. There are dozens of globe-defying photographs on the Beyond Horizons website. Here's the record photograph of Pic Gaspard at a distance of 275 miles or 443 kilometers. According to the globe model with an observation height of 9,272 feet, the very top of Pic Gaspard at 12,730 feet should have been hidden 3772 feet below the horizon. That's the top. Here's another one. This photograph was taken at a distance of 254 miles at an elevation of 9,354 feet on top of Newfans. He photographed Titt D'Elle Estrop at sunrise. The Pic has an elevation of 9,715 feet under the globe math 12,160 feet should have been hidden. Therefore the top of the distant Pic should have been 2,445 feet below the horizon. There are hundreds of more observations and experiments. Just look at the distance of this ship and this clip from Finland by Vailel 42. If you look closely there's a huge ship that's further away and barely visible. The entire boat in the front should be hidden and yet you can see the horizon beyond the boat. A huge impossibility for the globe. Look at this photograph of this lighthouse also in Finland. 76 feet should be hidden and none of it is. Without question we see too far. The globe math doesn't hold up at all. Probably the main objection to the flat earth is that NASA and other so-called space agencies have supposedly taken photos of Earth from space. If you have enough sense to realize that this was not a spaceship, that these actors did indeed hang from wires and that this was not filmed on the moon, but on a Hollywood set in front of 1960's movie backdrops, then you already know that the Apollo pictures of the Earth from space are phony. Regardless, this is supposedly the last photograph from the Apollo missions taken in December 1972. When you look closely, you can tell it's a painting. I do want to thank Math Powerland for exposing NASA's use of hyper-realist space art. In this NASA article, NASA admitted that no photographs were taken of the Earth from space from 1972 until 2015 and that this 2002 blue marble image that you're looking at was created by NASA employee Robert Simmons. Yes, this image is an emitted phony creation from Robert Simmons. We got a love of Robert Simmons who brought us this gem. It is Photoshopped, but it has to be. As Simmons stated in this NASA article, then we wrapped the flat map around a ball. My part was integrating the surface clouds and oceans to match people's expectations of how Earth looks from space. That ball became the famous blue marble. So, a NASA employee created a propaganda image of a fake globe to match what you think it looks like using a flat map and computer graphics that looks just as real as any other images from NASA. Be sure to note that a flat map is accurate enough for NASA. By here is the first alleged photograph of the Earth from space in 43 years taken supposedly in July 2015 when you look closely, you can see what appears to be the word sex spelled in the clouds. At least that's what I thought just a month ago. But now I think it's more sinister. In Revelation 13 verse 18, we're introduced to the Mark of the Beast and its number is 666. Here are various Greek translations of 666. It looks like the word sex upside down. Now compare the Greek 666 to the alleged July 2015 NASA photographs. The first photograph in 43 years has either the word sex or a Greek 666 in the clouds. Evil St. worshipers or perverts at NASA. You decide, but either way, it's damning to NASA. What about satellites? Why are space satellites even necessary when NASA and its subsidiaries have hundreds and possibly thousands of these so-called space balloons? Look at this crash one from Samsung. They called it a space selfie even though it was attached to a balloon. Here's a list from NASA of hundreds of satellite balloons launched by NASA. Notice that a handful of them were identified as mere components. There's your Russian mirror space station. Until a few years ago when Flodrath exploded, no one spoke of these satellite balloons. This balloon supposedly went into orbit. Most people I talked to even now about this have never seen these satellite balloons. Now we know what Roswell was. For decades, there has been a deliberate whitewash of these balloon satellites, evencing that they are lying about space satellites. Space satellites aren't necessary when you can accomplish the same with these much cheaper balloon satellites. These high altitude balloons can carry 8,000 pounds and include telescopes, radar equipment, communications equipment, internet, etc. There's a GoFundMe project. Start the first space hotel held up by weather balloons. This two-ton balloon satellite, yes they did call it a satellite, almost killed onlookers. It had cutting edge NASA telescopes on board. Have you ever heard of a telescope mounted on a high altitude balloon? I hadn't. Where are the images from these balloon telescopes? Moreover, it is hardly ever mentioned that almost all of our alleged communications come from undersea cables and cell towers. Not supposed satellites in space and the rest of those are held by balloons. Finally, look at these actual NASA videos of space satellites. They are manifestly fake. Look at this one that was launched during a space shuttle mission. It's dangling from a wire. Don't be a moron. That video alone proves they are faking space. The Antarctic Treaty is one of the biggest proofs that they are hiding something huge about our plane from we the people. This is a fact that you can look up yourself. Independent travel is not allowed below the 60th South parallel. The Antarctic Treaty, its handbook and its enforcement protocols which have remained in violet for 60 years and include signatories like the United States, North Korea, China and the former Soviet Union and now Russia essentially ban any reasonable attempt to explore below the 60th South parallel. They may allow limited excursions to a few tourist points but independent travel is not allowed and that's shocking. Think of what has happened in the last 60 years. The Antarctic Treaty survived Vietnam and all of the Cold War despite the claim that Antarctica is rich in minerals including coal, oil and uranium. Where the Soviets really had interest in protecting penguins in the environment, it's ludicrous. Antarctica is the one place that would prove the flat earth and it just so happens that independent travel isn't allowed below the 60th South parallel. And all major nations agreed to this one principle of keeping you out. Are you now starting to see that international relations aren't what we were told. This video by Flat Earth LT shows some unbelievable infrared footage taken over Eastern Europe. At that altitude the horizon should have been only 220 miles away. It appears that though Flat Earth LT was able to film across the black sea over a distance of 887 miles with a curvature hump that would be so substantial as to hide an object 56 miles tall. More importantly there's absolutely no curvature present and the horizon is at least 668 miles further than it should be. Watch the video though because it looks like they even filmed the other side of the Caspian Sea that would have been roughly 1500 miles away. Amazing. We already understand that the curvature of the earth should drop away at 8 inches per mile squared and the same should roughly apply to airplanes. At 500 miles per hour in 15 minutes a pilot would have to make a curvature correction in the amount of roughly 10,400 feet. Pilots don't have to dip the nose of the airplane to correct for the curvature regardless of the speed or altitude of the airplane. Globes supporters will claim that it's gravity that is pulling the nose of the airplane down. The airplane is defined the alleged force of gravity and yet gravity selectively grabs the nose of the airplane not the whole airplane but just the nose to keep the plane level with the ground regardless of the speed or altitude of the airplane. Just like magical refraction that some wizard selective gravity you have there critics of Gullio Mommarconi said that it was impossible for Marconi to send a transatlantic transmission due to the curvature of the earth. Here's an article pointing out that fact. Proving them wrong, Marconi received a radio transmission across the Atlantic Ocean at a distance of 2,135 miles. Under the globe model there would be a curvature drop of 527 miles over that distance. The Nikobine targeting system was a VHF that's very high frequency radio targeting system used by German bombers in World War II. Nikobine was an accurate line of sight targeting system and was able to pinpoint ground targets up to 443 miles away in England. The leading government science advisor for Churchill, Frederick Lindeman refused to b