Amaterasu! Finally had a chance to read this article and thanks for sharing! As you know, I'm a firm supporter of the FE model and still remain one, but I indeed am open to discussion. My only two questions are:
1) Can you provide any link to NASA creating the psyop? I am familiar with NASA agents infiltrating true FE circles, and then making FE content to further murky the waters, but interested to see if there's anything else out there.
2) When it comes to gravity, have you seen the explanation that there is no gravity, only Density. Gravity is not needed when density is factored into the equation (i.e., Helium balloon float since they are less dense than hydrogen).
1. It was a decade or more since I encountered the data about NASA wanting to get People off the trail of why They were lying and faking things. So... Nope.
2. Absolutely I have heard of the idea that it is mere density. And I always ask... What force is it that defines the DIRECTION things move relative to their density? I call it "gravity."
I mean, if density was the only factor, why move in given directions?
Personally, I give VERY high probability that was a disingenuous argument created to get Ones who want to believe the PPP something to claim. But until We ascertain that there is no force defining that movement AND why We still see it... I will continue with My probabilities as set.
Looking forward to Your explanations of My eight points.
I tried a number of times to discuss matters. He ignored Me completely. Pretty fishy, I'd say. If it was Me and I was certain of My position I would love to take on the Ones who said otherwise.
Thank You for reviewing! Humbly, I was tested as high genius in spatial perception, and can model things in My head, seeing them from all angles. I have tried to explain what I see with convex models, donut models, and, of course, globe and pancake models.
Only one explains what I see simply, elegantly, and perfectly.
The stars in the south being the biggest one. All the convolutions Others have done to explain them in other models do not ever explain why the center of rotation is at the horizon when One is at the equator. The globe has zero issues with this...
Hi...re the southern stars (your #1)...have you considered an analogy with the suns crespecular rays....anti-crespecular in the south? Re #2....going higher to see further would work flat or curved, right? Re #3...Have observed most all conditions of refraction in my repeated measures observations...have never observed globe geometry. Re #4...There's other reasons why things get hidden bottom up in the distance...for example, your photo of the sailing ships sails are clearly (to me) refracted by an Inferior Mirage above the apparent horizon.
I have considered all kinds of things for those stars, but the only model that puts the center of rotation at the horizon when You're at the equator (and Polaris at the horizon as well) is a globe. I have seen vast contortions and convolutions trying to explain the southern stars, and none explain the center of rotation being at the horizon when You're at the equator.
No... On a globe You see more and more. On a pancake, You would see to the furthest distance possible once above things blocking the view.
And I'm sorry. Pulling in special conditions to explain one instance does not explain why EVERY SINGLE CASE has the ships disappearing and about the same distance, hull to crow's nest.
No 1 - Perspective will do that...its how our eyes work. Everything in the sky and background topography will set given enough distance.
No 2 - Pancake? Nah...don't know much beyond it's not a globe in space and the surface measures flat. Are you imagining a flat disc in space...just replacing a the globe planet? And re seeing more with elevation....eyesight is limited by perspective no matter the shape...on flat....go higher still see further. Go play with your eyes against your dining room table.
No 3 - Sorry...not pulling in special conditions....this claim is based on multiple if not copious direct observations and a conclusion based on same. Backed by physics...correlated to atmospheric data for more recent observations. And...not "every single case" based on the evidence....for example when National Geographic and PBS Genius did their boat over the horizon tests / demonstrations in response to a growing FE....they both faked it blatantly. So why fake it? They clearly had the budget and resources. In any case...suggest you do your own scientific observations...lots of them....then decide. Nothing better than first hand evidence. Belief is the enemy of knowing.
Well, given the shape of Our planet is irrelevant, and insignificant to the max, compared to what My work is really about (solving for the psychopaths in control), I will not be pursuing this further, though I see errors... Time I could spend productively.
Well...if you ever need a break from solving I'd be happy to continue our conversation. The preponderance of evidence concludes that globe is illusion....cheers!
Anyone who excludes the globe Earth model because they dismiss NASA as a reliable source, (true), shows they cannot think their way out of a wet paper bag. The two concepts are NOT related.
I will not make assumptions about anyOne. I know several People who initially went hardcore PP (pancake planet), but then started to see the issues and grasped it was, indeed, a psyop (PPP).
So I do have hope.
Also, We do not know how Many are OPM (Online Persona Management), paid to push BS. If They're paid to, They will NEVER "see the light" publicly.
Anyone can go up to the Chicago area in northern Illinois or Indiana and with a high powered lens watch the tall buildings downtown recede into Lake Michigan from the bottom up as you get further away. Case closed.
Really? I like and respect your Occultic / Freemasonic content but implore you to research and consider this topic further. There is a lot of information out there on horizons, atmosphere and perspective/perception. The consensus science accepted definition or theory of the horizon has actually changed a lot in the recent years also as pressure has mounted on the concept/phenomena. This is just one piece of information I could easily recall but I could dig up more when I have time:
Level/flat earth and the globe deception is something I've cautiously entertained for many years now. Most of my apprehensions and points I could not reconcile have now been answered or are progressing in understanding so I wouldn't be so fast to dismiss. Especially when you of all people understand the level of deception we live under.
Your dismissive closer belies your own ignorance unfortunately.
I think I can debunk most of your 8 points here. I hope to get the time to do so.
Case closed for you huh?
This isn't a personal attack and I enjoy much of your content/perspective. I just don't think you've reached the right information and understanding to speak on it though I commend your passion for sharing.
I look forward to the explanation for each point. Just know - and I rarely bring this up - I tested as high genius in spatial perception. I can model things easily in My head, rotate and view from all angles. Despite bashing and trying very hard, the only model that explains why the center of rotation of the southern stars is on the horizon (as is Polaris in the north) when One is at the equator is the standard model.
And it explains it all simply, elegantly, and perfectly. I ponder why People fell for NASA's PPP (pancake planet psyop) to begin with...
Yes, cosmology and star locations are the critical clue as the only ever constant.... would you agree or consider we live in an electromagentic existence?
Polaris in the North and Polaris Australis in the south... only they renamed P Australis to Sigma Octantis... I wonder why... perhaps it was intentional if you wanted to distance the concept of a southern pole star as a parabolic reflection due to the concavity of the magnetic field?
I have a question. As NASA is a Freemasonic and deceptive entity formed by ex-nazis's, what do think they have to gain sowing a PSYOP that lifts the veil on their own deception?
Actually, star maps from millennia ago prove the stars have moved. When We grasp scale and the fact that most stars We can see are in the same galactic arm as We are, moving more or less along with Us, We can grasp why it takes many lifetimes to see the change.
That stuff about Polaris (center of rotation north), and the center of rotation south (no major star there, so NOT any "reflection") is nonsensical...
And the reason NASA came up with the PPP was because, as the web was blossoming and People could actually look at data for Themselves, and were seeing the issues and fakery, They needed some explanation as to why, and to distract People from looking for the real reason (and to create another divide to keep Us conquered), They conceived on the PPP and had the Pentagon implement it.
Ok, yes I concede the star movement is commonly accepted but well in excess of "lifetimes".
Ok, so regarding NASA - I agree it creates a divide and especially at a time when ethical sovereigns need come together. You said "to distract People from looking for the real reason" - so what is that reason? Something more than the fakery is what you're suggesting?
Did we land on the moon? Or can we in your opinion? (I don't generally ask such cursory questions but I'm also curious)
Amaterasu! Finally had a chance to read this article and thanks for sharing! As you know, I'm a firm supporter of the FE model and still remain one, but I indeed am open to discussion. My only two questions are:
1) Can you provide any link to NASA creating the psyop? I am familiar with NASA agents infiltrating true FE circles, and then making FE content to further murky the waters, but interested to see if there's anything else out there.
2) When it comes to gravity, have you seen the explanation that there is no gravity, only Density. Gravity is not needed when density is factored into the equation (i.e., Helium balloon float since they are less dense than hydrogen).
1. It was a decade or more since I encountered the data about NASA wanting to get People off the trail of why They were lying and faking things. So... Nope.
2. Absolutely I have heard of the idea that it is mere density. And I always ask... What force is it that defines the DIRECTION things move relative to their density? I call it "gravity."
I mean, if density was the only factor, why move in given directions?
Personally, I give VERY high probability that was a disingenuous argument created to get Ones who want to believe the PPP something to claim. But until We ascertain that there is no force defining that movement AND why We still see it... I will continue with My probabilities as set.
Looking forward to Your explanations of My eight points.
Love always!
Did you go over and challenge Dubay with your examination?
I tried a number of times to discuss matters. He ignored Me completely. Pretty fishy, I'd say. If it was Me and I was certain of My position I would love to take on the Ones who said otherwise.
Really?
How about this guy?
https://globeterminator.com/the-black-swan/
Perhaps it's neither, flat or a globe, which is how they usually work.
It's the spacecraft design and travel propulsion physics that interest myself ( as a hobby) .
No worries , love debate 😉
Keep on keeping on!
Cheers.
Thank You for reviewing! Humbly, I was tested as high genius in spatial perception, and can model things in My head, seeing them from all angles. I have tried to explain what I see with convex models, donut models, and, of course, globe and pancake models.
Only one explains what I see simply, elegantly, and perfectly.
The stars in the south being the biggest one. All the convolutions Others have done to explain them in other models do not ever explain why the center of rotation is at the horizon when One is at the equator. The globe has zero issues with this...
Anyway, yeah! Keep on keeping on!
Love always!
Hi...re the southern stars (your #1)...have you considered an analogy with the suns crespecular rays....anti-crespecular in the south? Re #2....going higher to see further would work flat or curved, right? Re #3...Have observed most all conditions of refraction in my repeated measures observations...have never observed globe geometry. Re #4...There's other reasons why things get hidden bottom up in the distance...for example, your photo of the sailing ships sails are clearly (to me) refracted by an Inferior Mirage above the apparent horizon.
Well...that's a start...cheers.
I have considered all kinds of things for those stars, but the only model that puts the center of rotation at the horizon when You're at the equator (and Polaris at the horizon as well) is a globe. I have seen vast contortions and convolutions trying to explain the southern stars, and none explain the center of rotation being at the horizon when You're at the equator.
No... On a globe You see more and more. On a pancake, You would see to the furthest distance possible once above things blocking the view.
And I'm sorry. Pulling in special conditions to explain one instance does not explain why EVERY SINGLE CASE has the ships disappearing and about the same distance, hull to crow's nest.
No 1 - Perspective will do that...its how our eyes work. Everything in the sky and background topography will set given enough distance.
No 2 - Pancake? Nah...don't know much beyond it's not a globe in space and the surface measures flat. Are you imagining a flat disc in space...just replacing a the globe planet? And re seeing more with elevation....eyesight is limited by perspective no matter the shape...on flat....go higher still see further. Go play with your eyes against your dining room table.
No 3 - Sorry...not pulling in special conditions....this claim is based on multiple if not copious direct observations and a conclusion based on same. Backed by physics...correlated to atmospheric data for more recent observations. And...not "every single case" based on the evidence....for example when National Geographic and PBS Genius did their boat over the horizon tests / demonstrations in response to a growing FE....they both faked it blatantly. So why fake it? They clearly had the budget and resources. In any case...suggest you do your own scientific observations...lots of them....then decide. Nothing better than first hand evidence. Belief is the enemy of knowing.
Well, given the shape of Our planet is irrelevant, and insignificant to the max, compared to what My work is really about (solving for the psychopaths in control), I will not be pursuing this further, though I see errors... Time I could spend productively.
Do enjoy the day.
How can truth be irrelevant?
And I see that you upvote people that agree with you regardless of their reasoning.
''FE'ers are too low on the critical thinking scale to even understand a fraction of what you showed them.''
Well...if you ever need a break from solving I'd be happy to continue our conversation. The preponderance of evidence concludes that globe is illusion....cheers!
Nice article. It has one major problem. FE'ers are too low on the critical thinking scale to even understand a fraction of what you showed them.
Whatever you say Greg. Must be so nice to be so smart or blind.
Anyone who excludes the globe Earth model because they dismiss NASA as a reliable source, (true), shows they cannot think their way out of a wet paper bag. The two concepts are NOT related.
I didn't bring up NASA, Amaterasu did in her reply. I wanted her take on the benefit/reasoning for the "PPP". I didnt say it excluded anything.
I will not make assumptions about anyOne. I know several People who initially went hardcore PP (pancake planet), but then started to see the issues and grasped it was, indeed, a psyop (PPP).
So I do have hope.
Also, We do not know how Many are OPM (Online Persona Management), paid to push BS. If They're paid to, They will NEVER "see the light" publicly.
Anyone can go up to the Chicago area in northern Illinois or Indiana and with a high powered lens watch the tall buildings downtown recede into Lake Michigan from the bottom up as you get further away. Case closed.
Really? I like and respect your Occultic / Freemasonic content but implore you to research and consider this topic further. There is a lot of information out there on horizons, atmosphere and perspective/perception. The consensus science accepted definition or theory of the horizon has actually changed a lot in the recent years also as pressure has mounted on the concept/phenomena. This is just one piece of information I could easily recall but I could dig up more when I have time:
https://globeterminator.com/the-black-swan/
Level/flat earth and the globe deception is something I've cautiously entertained for many years now. Most of my apprehensions and points I could not reconcile have now been answered or are progressing in understanding so I wouldn't be so fast to dismiss. Especially when you of all people understand the level of deception we live under.
Your dismissive closer belies your own ignorance unfortunately.
Indeed!
Indee.... nope!
I think I can debunk most of your 8 points here. I hope to get the time to do so.
Case closed for you huh?
This isn't a personal attack and I enjoy much of your content/perspective. I just don't think you've reached the right information and understanding to speak on it though I commend your passion for sharing.
Did you post the 8 points debunking?
I look forward to the explanation for each point. Just know - and I rarely bring this up - I tested as high genius in spatial perception. I can model things easily in My head, rotate and view from all angles. Despite bashing and trying very hard, the only model that explains why the center of rotation of the southern stars is on the horizon (as is Polaris in the north) when One is at the equator is the standard model.
And it explains it all simply, elegantly, and perfectly. I ponder why People fell for NASA's PPP (pancake planet psyop) to begin with...
Sounds good.
Yes, cosmology and star locations are the critical clue as the only ever constant.... would you agree or consider we live in an electromagentic existence?
Polaris in the North and Polaris Australis in the south... only they renamed P Australis to Sigma Octantis... I wonder why... perhaps it was intentional if you wanted to distance the concept of a southern pole star as a parabolic reflection due to the concavity of the magnetic field?
I have a question. As NASA is a Freemasonic and deceptive entity formed by ex-nazis's, what do think they have to gain sowing a PSYOP that lifts the veil on their own deception?
Actually, star maps from millennia ago prove the stars have moved. When We grasp scale and the fact that most stars We can see are in the same galactic arm as We are, moving more or less along with Us, We can grasp why it takes many lifetimes to see the change.
That stuff about Polaris (center of rotation north), and the center of rotation south (no major star there, so NOT any "reflection") is nonsensical...
And the reason NASA came up with the PPP was because, as the web was blossoming and People could actually look at data for Themselves, and were seeing the issues and fakery, They needed some explanation as to why, and to distract People from looking for the real reason (and to create another divide to keep Us conquered), They conceived on the PPP and had the Pentagon implement it.
That's why.
Ok, yes I concede the star movement is commonly accepted but well in excess of "lifetimes".
Ok, so regarding NASA - I agree it creates a divide and especially at a time when ethical sovereigns need come together. You said "to distract People from looking for the real reason" - so what is that reason? Something more than the fakery is what you're suggesting?
Did we land on the moon? Or can we in your opinion? (I don't generally ask such cursory questions but I'm also curious)
That's pretty much what I said - but You offered it in far more compact a form. LOL! Thanks for reading!