rattlesnake

It's much more than 19.

There is certainly a group and peer pressure effect which will lead the herd to go along with the doxa, and rationality has actually little do do with it. It reminds me of that CIA experiment where 18 people were shown a picture of a triangle and 17 of them (actually CIA agents) said they saw a square and the last guy (the only guy who wasn't in on the experiment but he didn't know) would also say he saw a square despite clearly seeing a triangle, for fear of being the one standing out. There are plenty more testimonies of pilots and astronauts who, in confidence, will confirm that it is flat and stationary.

I encourage you to watch this whole video attentively.

The heliocentric model is expressed in rotational speed values, this is not a rotational vs. linear dichotomy (though both phenomenons are indeed distinguished). Let's look at this presentation of the model: What is the Rotational Speed of Earth in Miles? The rotational speed of the Earth in miles is approximately 1037 miles per hour at the equator. This means that at the equator, a point on the Earth's surface is moving through space at a speed of about 1037 miles per hour due to the planet's rotation on its axis. As we move towards the poles, the rotational speed gradually decreases, resulting in slower linear speeds at higher latitudes. What Would Happen If Earth Stopped Spinning? The idea of Earth suddenly stopping its rotation is a fascinating thought experiment. If such an event were to occur, the consequences would be catastrophic. The abrupt halt would send everything not attached to Earth hurtling eastward at high speeds, leading to devastating winds and tsunamis. https://testbook.com/geography/earth-rotation-speed#:~:text=The linear speed at the,(1037 miles per hour).

A very interesting interview by Admiral Byrd, after his expedition to the South Pole during which he spoke of an area of land as big as the US below the surface.

Your friends went to the small outlying enclave where tourism is allowed. My uncle went snowmobiling there. I'm talking about the actual mainland, and if you reserach it seriously, you will see it is virtually impossible to obtain the required permit and access it. What permits are needed for Antarctica? All human activities, whether for science or tourism, have to go through an Environmental Impact Assessment by a relevant Competent Authority/government agency. Critically, IAATO Member operators have agreed that their activities must have less than a minor or transitory impact on the environment. They submit permit applications annually to their Competent Authority/government agency and, if their planned activities meet all criteria, they are authorized and a permit granted. https://iaato.org/faqs/# The Antarctic Treaty https://iaato.org/about-iaato/the-antarctic-treaty/

Was Hugo Chavez Right About HAARP & The HAITI Earthquake? Is Weather Even Natural Anymore? The US military has developed advanced capabilities that enable it selectively to alter weather patterns. The technology, which is being perfected under the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), is an appendage of the Strategic Defense Initiative – ‘Star Wars’. From a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction, operating from the outer atmosphere and capable of destabilising agricultural and ecological systems around the world. https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/was-hugo-chavez-right-about-haarp-the-haiti-earthquake-is-weather-even-natural-anymore/

What did they think of the spin? 1,000 km/h, that must be quite a sight.

Interesting.

A treaty signed by all countries of the world prevents ordinary citizens from going there. Whistleblowers such as Erick Hecker, ex contractor for Raytheon, has testified that there are exotic weapons and technology there that are beyond anything humans could ever produce or conceive. Any thoughts? Insights? https://rumble.com/v3aapwb-advanced-weaponry-in-antartica-base.html

It's called respect.

Could be vaccine-induced flare-ups. I know someone who developed persistent eczema just after taking booster shots to come to Thailand back in 2010.

Humans are susceptible to dogma and everything it entails, i.e. overaching principles and mantras edicted by trusted sources of truth, as well as vilification of dissenting opinions. The switch from religion to science (and heliocentrism is possibly the key event in this process) was a switch from one dogma to another. It comes as no surprise that the vast majority of those who defend heliocentrism, in the two currently active threads on the topic, also have an open aversion to religion, to the point where the mere mention of the Bible will cause an immediate shutdown.

The core issue is the refutation of the heliocentric model, which is as absurd as it is impossible. Accepting heliocentrism as unequivocal truth merely because some phenomenons have not been officially explained under another model is fallacious.

And we're not allowed to go to Antartica (but that is potentially for another thread, though the topics are related).

Or everything about nothing?

I knew there was a chance someone who actually knows what they are talking about might turn up You are absolutely correct about the historical and political context surrounding the switch to heliocentrism. It was politically and ideologically motivated, and "science" was subverted in order to achieve that goal. That's all. The pursuit of truth had nothing to do with it I will likely get 10 laughing emojis for this post, and that is absolutely expected and normal. Heliocentrism is a belief. A very deeply rooted one, too. In fact it is one of the first things a human learns after birth. Once a world view has been modelled on a belief, it becomes extremely difficult, I would say virtually impossible even, to break free from it and accept a challenge to it, regardless of how many absurdities and contradictions are presented (shoutout to @Tippaporn for helping me understand how fundamental this issue is). There are several sources one can consult to learn about The Reformation, the Jesuits, Copernicus, paganism, sun-worshipping and the political endeavour to impose heliocentrism, however I will recommend the documentary Heliosorcery, which lays it all out clearly and factually.

Indeed, my dear rumak, and I always appreciate your humility (a few people here would be well-advised to follow that example) and also your openness to alternative views, even if not necessarily convinced by them, always with a sharp wit and humour.

There is only so much time I can devote to interacting with you brilliant minds, Will.

I assume you are asking me to explain what I see. I see several representations of a spherical Earth, some of them with the contraptions colloquially referred to as "satellites" in the foreground.

You claim the curve is visible at 35,000 feet. I have shown you footage of a level plane at 121,000 feet. Please explain.

"Science says…" I think this is the core issue, coming to terms with the fact that "science", and everything it entails, is just one big hoax. I have presented you with a contradiction in your premise by showing you footage at 121,000 feet where the Earth appears flat. The last guy I had this conversation with, on another forum, had the honesty of actually trying to explain the heliocentric model (rather than just laughing and/or dropping insults and leaving the discussion as most people do). After some time on Google, he finally admitted to me that it was "too vast for the human mind to comprehend" and that was why we have the "NASA experts". Delegating our elementary common sense to authorities who decide for us what is or isn't true, such is, I believe, the greatest issue of the modern age.

I think there is no ISS and it is all fake. And it's not very professional work, most of the time. Example glitch: 2FF994D0-D5B8-4482-8180-6498B2431E5C.MP4

I understand. 121,000 feet is 36 km. From what altitude do you posit the Earth would cease to appear flat and become spherical?

Exactly, the curve we see on the second video is caused by a fisheye lens. With a normal lens or to the naked eye, it would appear flat.