close

Please help support us! https://worldtruthvideos.org/support

Up next


Flat Earth Debunked in 3 Minutes 22 Seconds - Flat Earth Visualization

676 Views
Messenger Charles
146
Published on 23 Feb 2021 / In Flat Earth

A brilliant video making a complete mockery of the flat earth CIA psy-op - a CGI fantasy
.

Show more
9 Comments sort Sort By

Zetetic Flat Earth
Zetetic Flat Earth 10 days ago

How creative. lol Globetards using CGI and trying to debunk the REALITY. You're pathetic! Go outside you retard and ask yourself a question if you can feel the speed of 1,000mph on alleged Earth's axis and the speed o 67,000mph of the alleged speed of Earth around the Sun and the speed of 500,000mph of alleged Earths speed with the Milky Way imaginary galaxy? You people cannot think straight, you just hold on to your imaginary ball Earth like to some kind of relic, an object of worship, that's why I call you religious fanatics because only fanatics act this way. And you're a disgrace to human nautre because our nature is to search for the truth, don't blindly believe in something what others told us, others who have hidden agendas and motives. Globe Earth model exist only in your imagination because water always finds its level, there is no curvature and we don't spin and we don't hurtle thru imaginary space. And if you are unable to comprehand that, that means that you've been successfully brainwashed.

   1    0
Messenger Charles
Messenger Charles 8 days ago

Now I will say to you what I say to all flat earth retards. Show me the sun in the night sky of your flat earth paradigm. When you have failed to do that you can fuck off.

   0    0
Sheeppeople1985
Sheeppeople1985 7 days ago

@Messenger Charles:it's my first time on this site and it's full of meaning less globetart videos.. I'm happy to say you are a fucking troll.. Go take your vax shoot covid idoit🖕💉🤑💉🤑💉🤑

   0    0
Beyond Infinity
Beyond Infinity 7 days ago

@Messenger Charles: Oh to new once 👏👏These Morons are exposing demselves way to easy.

   1    0
Messenger Charles
Messenger Charles 7 days ago

@Beyond Infinity: Not to worry, I have just blocked the sock account bastard. LOL

   0    0
SanctusDivine
SanctusDivine 6 days ago

@Messenger Charles: Don't waste your time responding to these fucking morons mate. They are too stupid to understand basic science. The fact that some people actually believe the earth is flat just shows how backwards society has become. It's astonishingly ignorant and it baffles my mind that it's actually a real movement.

   1    0
Messenger Charles
Messenger Charles 6 days ago

@SanctusDivine: It's prevalent in the alternative movement because they see the spinning ball earth as a Jewish conspiracy and it's that, that gives flat earth credence in their one dimensional blinkered minds.

   1    0
Beyond Infinity
Beyond Infinity 11 days ago

Well thanks, someone finally made a Illustration of the Simple things we try to explain these Morons. Also Thanks so now i can Block all these Idiots. They are Ether Trolls or completely Retarded and i do not want to wast my time with them.

   1    0
Beyond Infinity
Beyond Infinity 11 days ago

Also help full that you talked to these Trolls. Could delete 5 of them at once.👍 They are attracted to Truth Like Moths, to Bubble a Bunch of BS. Always no Subs, no Vids 100% Trolls. Don´t wast my time any more. One word from someone about Flat Fuck Shit and they are Blocked.

   1    0
Cracksmoker
Cracksmoker 2 months ago

The picture of Lake Pontchartrain contradicts itself. If the line of towers curved due to the shape of the Earth and was visible over 15 miles then the horizon would be curved as that distance is greater than 15 miles. It is very easy to gain a perspective that allows you to see 15 miles of "flatness" like simply being 45 feet above sea level.

The deal with the boat hull and your pictures of Chicago are pretty easy to understand. First thing is that, yes, refraction plays a huge role at distance. The water in the air acts like a magnifying glass. So you say that it is what is allowing us to see buildings that are supposed to be under the curve anyways. But how do you know?

You can test this at home with a postcard of a city and a magnifying lens sheet. If you look just above the table with the picture at the end and move the magnifying glass between you and the picture, the same effect occurs. The bottom of the buildings disappear, when they should be visible, no curve needed.

This experiment does not work on a slightly curved table. But let's pretend it did. How could one test to know if it was refraction or curvature hiding objects? A good method would be to use distant objects, mountains work well. If you have mountains in front of you at great distance, some much farther than others, you simply take their known height and look at the distance between them. The farther ones would be lower in comparison to the closer ones than if they were on a flat plane. Yet, when this is done, the ratios are always maintained of height to distance. There is no exaggeration of height for the closer objects.

When you look at this evidence, as well the fact that there are many, many "impossible" photos of objects hundreds of miles beyond what should be visible, it seems the refraction is playing out just like on the table and it is refraction occluding the bottoms of these distant objects. If it were curvature, then we would be able to measure it with objects in the distance but we do not.

This is why the sun and moon appear larger on the horizon, they are being magnified by the denser air at low altitude and there is much more air between you and the sun/moon because it is at its farthest point. This test can be done on a table with a magnifying lens and it actually shows objects slightly increasing in size as they move farther away, just like is observed with the sun and moon. That's why they always appear the smallest when they are directly overhead.

The simulation above does not take into account all the optical parameters and thus fails to accurately model what we see. There is no refraction, nor is there any firmament or dome, which we know reflects light, back to the surface of the Earth. How can you make an incomplete model that can by definition not portray what we see and then call the model a "debunk?"

   1    1
Messenger Charles
Messenger Charles 2 months ago

What are you trying to say and failing? Show me the sun in your flat earth night sky.

   0    1
Cracksmoker
Cracksmoker 2 months ago

There's been demonstrations of this. It's not my job to address your lack of knowledge or your unwillingness to acknowledge all of the information. An argument from incredulity is not an argument.

Your whole attitude is biased and illogical. No other cosmological model needs to be known to invalidate any other particular model. We know the Earth isn't shaped like many different things based on the evidence we have. With the overwhelming amount of evidence we have, we know that it can not be an oblate sphere.

https://youtu.be/s-PhStb6mTQ?t=260 The demonstration.

   1    0
Cracksmoker
Cracksmoker 2 months ago

Yes, the information in that video is invalidated by measuring the ratios of distant objects. The farther away an object is the lower it's apparent height will be in relation to objects that are closer but also at a distance. Yet this is not seen.

   0    0
Messenger Charles
Messenger Charles 2 months ago

Yadda yadda yadda as those lying kikes would say. Now I am still waiting for you to point out the sun in your flat earth night sky.

   0    0
Cracksmoker
Cracksmoker 2 months ago

Can you point me to an example of light refracting through a medium revealing an object that is occluded by solid matter? Obviously the globe example does not count, anything else.

I know that light refraction can occlude, distort and even the change apparent position of an object but I can't say I've ever seen an example of light bending around a corner or some other solid object.

https://youtu.be/2wRyYLZECm8

This experiment right here would be the control for whether refraction is revealing hidden objects that are around a curve or if it is simply magnifying distant objects that are already in line of sight.

I'm not sensing any genuine interest to actually engage with what I'm saying. If you can prove what I'm saying is wrong then please do so. I don't get the feeling that you really care what the shape of the Earth is.

What does "point out the sun" mean? Does your model have refraction or even reflection in this video?

   0    0
Messenger Charles
Messenger Charles 2 months ago

Look I am waiting for you to to show me the sun in the night sky - where does it go after it has set in the flat earth paradigm. I see it disappear below the horizon, but you freaks must have another place for where it goes. It must be simple enough.

   0    0
Sheeppeople1985
Sheeppeople1985 7 days ago

@Messenger Charles: show the sun at night lol what a moron.. Ain't that hard to figure out

   0    0
Messenger Charles
Messenger Charles 7 days ago

@Sheeppeople1985: The sun MUST always remain visible in the flat earth model, that is, 24/7 - you stupid jerk dick head.

   0    0
vict
vict 4 months ago

Did you get that, Nick?

   2    0
Beyond Infinity
Beyond Infinity 11 days ago

🤣Probably not. These People are eather Paid Trolls or just Mentally retarded.

   0    0
melesa
melesa 5 months ago

How retarded. Do ballers ASSUME a flat earth MUST be a disk flying through space? I suggest you just follow the EVIDENCE & disregard EVERYTHING from the lying NASHOLES who get nearly 60 MILLION PER DAY FOR ELABORATE HOAXES!

   4    1
Messenger Charles
Messenger Charles 5 months ago

Proof of curvature. This is not a NASA image and the camera did not have a fish eye lens.

   0    5
JamesRay
JamesRay 5 months ago

@MessengerCharles:That actually is a fish eye lens. You can tell because the closer up object, the airplane, has no curve but the distant "horizon" does.

   0    0
Messenger Charles
Messenger Charles 5 months ago

@JamesRay: Fish eye lenses distort everything at a distance and I delete all CGI flat earther images.

   0    0
Messenger Charles
Messenger Charles 5 months ago

High altitude image using a non-fish eye lens.

   0    0
Messenger Charles
Messenger Charles 5 months ago

@JamesRay: What you should be doing is showing us how the sun rises and sets on your mickey mouse flat earth leaving the whole earth either ablaze with light or in total darkness. LOL

   1    0
JamesRay
JamesRay 5 months ago

@MessengerCharles: It doesn't set, it likely just gets further away. And I've rarely seen a night in "total" darkness, there's always some light, even at night, I live in central canada, not exactly a southern region, and I'm in a small town thats a few hour drive away from the any large city. So when is the whole either ever "a blaze with light"? When its light in canada its dark in Australia

   0    0
JamesRay
JamesRay 5 months ago

@MessengerCharles: The reason I mentioned the area I live in is so you cant claim light pollution from a major city

   0    0
Messenger Charles
Messenger Charles 5 months ago

@JamesRay: So show us this imaginary night sky with a small sun shining. LOL You're a fucking idiot. LOL

   0    0
Messenger Charles
Messenger Charles 5 months ago

@JamesRay: Or show a sun set with the sun shrinking in size ROTFLMAO!

   0    0
Show more

Up next