Flat Earth Reasoning

I came to the FE with a very open mind.  After 100+ hours of investigation, not only did I discover the psyop was conceived at NASA (ironic, eh?) to distract Us from looking for other reasons They might lie and fake things (like hiding the secret space program, where the $$$ is really going, perhaps...?) and to divide Us, but I also made these observations:

First, the north-centric model (Dubay, et al) is flat wrong – it would have the stars in the "south" whipping by at a fair clip in nearly straight lines, with different stars seen from different southern points.  But the stars in the south circle around a point (no major star there) mirroring the behavior of those in the north, always due south from wherever One can see it (anywhere in the southern hemisphere).  See:  https://odysee.com/@amaterasusolar:8/conspiracy-or-not-here-we-come-presents:6 if You think those southern stars are projected into the sky.

Second, on a flat plain, when going upward, once You get above things that block the view, You would see all You can see.  Going up further will show no more.  But when We go upwards, We see more and more of the planet, exactly like One would going up from the surface of a ball.

Third, the flat earth "movement" is RIFE with disingenuous arguments – ignoring scale, gravity, optics, friction, refraction, AND misstating distances to "prove" flatness.  WHY does the truth need even ONE disingenuous argument?





Fourth, though the flat earth proponents have said that if You get a stronger instrument, it will bring ships back into view that sank, hull to crows nest, at the horizon, I have watched ships sink with binoculars and then switched to a fairly powerful telescope – and nope. It does NOT bring them back into view.  Once sunk, They cannot be seen, and so...  There are People out there LYING to prove the flat earth.  WHY would the truth need even ONE lie?

Fifth, the fact that, for aeons, sailors have been calculating latitude in the northern hemisphere by the position of Polaris, with a direct correlation between latitude and degrees above the horizon, proves a globe. This ONLY works on a globe.  When Polaris is at the horizon (something that cannot happen on a pancake), One is at the equator (0º); when it is 45º up from the horizon, One is at the 45th parallel…

Sixth, when the sun angles from many places are measured at the same time and mapped to a pancake, they all point in every direction, suggesting that the sun is in widely differing places – like there is a separate sun for every location.  When they are mapped onto a globe, they all point in the same direction, out into space, like there's one sun way out there.

Seventh, all navigation here (planes, boats, etc.) is done presuming a globe at about 25,000 miles in circumference, and this works flawlessly.  The vehicles get to their destination every time.  Challenges have been made (with good money offered) to use the same navigation and succeed on a pancake.  So far, ZERO successful entries have been made.  Thus the probability We are on a globe of that size approaches 100%.





Eighth, on a globe in the heliocentric model, eclipses can be predicted, the movements of the planets can be predicted, the seasons explained, the zodiacal progression described, the phases of the moon illustrated, and other things the flat idea has nothing to offer for.

On top of that...  The FE models keep getting more and more complex, convoluted, and contorted trying (and failing) to explain the southern stars.  The globe model explains them perfectly, simply, and elegantly.  They fail because none explain why the center of rotation is at the horizon when One is at the equator – the globe has no problem with this.

As for some of the disingenuous arguments for the pancake...  I'll give You four.  I have seen People pouring water on a ball to "prove" water doesn't "stick to a ball," ignoring the planet-sized gravity well immediately adjacent pulling the water OFF the ball.  I have seen People spinning balls on the floor to "prove" a ball will not keep spinning, ignoring the friction of the ball on the floor.  I have seen People point to a glass of water saying, "Look! It's FLAT!"  As if, at that small a fraction of a single degree of arc (4" is 0.00009% of 1° of arc), We would see the hump in the middle a few MOLECULES high by eyeballing the glass.  And They use curvature calculations to determine "how far below the horizon" something should be, when line-of-sight calculations are what should be used.

And before You go on about no such thing as gravity, until We can explain what force it is that defines the direction things buoy in (they don't buoy in zero G – in zero G You can squirt water on a piece of wood and it will spread around the surface, and with enough water, You will have a bubble of water with a piece of wood in the middle), I will call it "gravity."

So. The FE needs disingenuous arguments and lies – and has NO model that explains what We see.  The globe needs NONE of those arguments – and has a model that explains what We see perfectly, simply, and elegantly.  Which model has the highest probability of being correct?

---

Shall We solve for the psychopaths who push the pancake planet on Us, degrading Our knowledge and grasp of Our universe?

You Have a Choice – Will You Choose Wisely?  (article):

https://blurtlatam.intinte.org/blurt/@amaterasusolar/you-have-a-choice-will-you-choose-wisely

---

Signature:

Endia – A Short Story by Amaterasu Solar
http://tapyoureit.boards.net/thread/260/endia

Quite the Opposite – A Short Story for Change – by Amaterasu Solar
http://tapyoureit.boards.net/thread/72/quite-opposite-short-story-change

The Abundance Paradigm – A Novella by Amaterasu Solar
http://tapyoureit.boards.net/thread/242/abundance-paradigm-novella

My father taught Me never to believe anything.  He told Me to place probabilities and adjust them as new data come along, asking the question, "Does that explain what I see?," when evaluating data.  He was an aerospace engineer, and worked with T Townsend Brown (see My featured vid on Odysee or YouToilet).  From a very early age I was concerned that the way I was told things worked, in terms of government and social affairs, did not explain what I saw.  So the first few decades I worked to determine WHY this was.

I wound up in banking, seeing the flow of things in the headquarters of a major bank in Los Angeles.  I became intimately familiar with the flow of money, and economics.  I asked the question, "Why do We use money?"

When the web arrived, My research capabilities flourished, and I learned much that explained what I saw, but the only explanations I found for why We use money started with trade and barter, which are still money in a direct form, and did not answer the WHY.  Then, I came upon the explanation that these were used because, with a finite amount of stuff, it was to ensure that We got Our "fair share" in a scarcity environment, in exchange for the work We added.

From this I realized the WHY.  We were accounting for Our energy input into things.  And that We needed to do this because the Human energy was scarce compared to what We needed to be produced (back then).

I also discovered that over half Our planet's wealth was "owned" by fewer than 100 Humans...

I was very interested in psychology, too.  And studied it deeply, being fascinated by psychopathy, focusing on that aberration, learning that They had discovered a gene that manifested Individuals who were incapable of love, compassion, caring, and empathy for Others – primary psychopaths.  Seeing that the wealth was so disproportionate, and that the families who "owned" it inbred, what would explain what I saw would be that They wanted to retain that psychopathic gene.  Given that the wealth could feed, clothe, house ALL of Us (and give Us freedom) abundantly and many times over, and yet None set forth to care for Humanity, I had to give probability approaching 100% that They are psychopaths, as that explains perfectly what I see, and answers My quest for why the way I was told things worked did not explain what I saw.

And I asked...  If I was a psychopath, with enough wealth to buy anything and anyOne I wanted to, and given that money = power (power over Others is something psychopaths seek), would I be motivated to create a false "reality" for the masses and thereby manipulate Them?  I think You can figure out what answer I came up with.  And would that explain what I see?  Absolutely.

Now, given that money is merely the accounting token used to account for Our Human energy, it would follow that free energy would threaten fully the accounting for Our energy.  If I was a psychopath, with enough money to buy sites like Wikipedia, the media, the education system, etc., would I do all I could to suppress and hide free energy? 

And given I personally know that electrogravitics offers both gravity control and energy from the aether (the electromagnetic field that pervades the universe), and that it went into black projects, such efforts to hide and suppress would explain what I see completely.

So I am neither a "conspiracy theorist," nor am I a "conspiritard," but rather...  I am a conspiracy analyst.  And given this analysis, knowing that conspiracies are the NORM in history and that they didn't just stop some years back, I conclude that conspiracies abound.  That explains perfectly what I see.

Love always.

---

_{Posted from https://blurtlatam.intinte.org}