Many believe the Earth is a globe, but what if that’s just a cover-up? Flat Earth theorists argue that the horizon always appears flat, whether you're at sea or in the sky, which wouldn’t be the case if Earth were a sphere curving away from us. They point out that flights across the world follow straight lines, but if Earth were round, pilots would need to continually adjust for curvature—yet they don’t.

Some claim the government and the CIA are behind the lie, creating this illusion to control the masses. They say the CIA manipulates satellite images and scientific data to hide the truth. Evidence is hidden in plain sight; the "firmament" above us resembles a ceiling, not a sky, and water always finds its level, never curving upward.

According to this theory, the flat Earth is a massive illusion designed to keep the public obedient and distracted from real issues. The CIA and other agencies perpetuate this myth through media, education, and space agencies—all to maintain psychological control over humanity.

The flat Earth theory suggests that all space agencies, including NASA, are part of a grand conspiracy. Photos of Earth from space are fabricated, CGI illusions designed to reinforce the spherical myth. Why would they go to such lengths? Because controlling the narrative means controlling the truth.

Proponents argue that if Earth were truly a spinning globe, we’d see evidence in everyday life—like water curving or the horizon dropping as you climb higher—but these effects are absent or staged. They point out that no one has directly observed the Earth’s curvature with their own eyes, only through manipulated images.

Are you aware of the real truth—that the Earth is flat and that this fact has been hidden from you? Or have you been effectively brainwashed by the powers that be, conditioned to accept the false narrative of a spinning globe? Think carefully—what if everything you've been told is part of the deception?

the earth was flat before the fall changed the very fabric of the universe

>>40793677
yeah actually i think i agree

>>40793626 (OP)
Adjust for curvature? No, gravity assists in that aspect, genius. Get a pilot license and see for yourself.

>>40793752

You don't realize you have read actual AI generated nonsense. Quite funny

I just briefly glanced through it before posting

>>40793752
>>40793772
le em dash —

why people still not learn this. ffs

>>40793626 (OP)
Seriously why the fuck would the government want to hide the earth being flat out of all things
How would that let them, "control the narrative?" They can't even hide that they're a warmongering aristocracy riddled with corruption and black ops shiet

>>40793626 (OP)

>>40794396
And a hello to the angency. How are the psyops going?

>>40794396
>>40793864
jews. if we all knew the bible as fact we wouldnt bother sending millions to jews in the sand to fight GLOBAL terrorism because a true christian has no enemies. it actually makes sense if you shut the fuck up for a brief moment and stop shilling so fucking hard. if you dont believe then what urges you to leave a reply? if its all fake why are millions of people talking about it.

take bible as fact = experience the fucking WORLD

>>40793864
75% of americas gpd is from jewish owned companies. all american media is owned by jewish companies ran out of china. whats another lie gonna do?

>>40793626 (OP)
The original word in Hebrew used in Genesis which was translated into Latin as 'firmamentum" and later into English as "firmament" is the word "Raqia", which actually means "expanse" in context. It doesn't necessarily mean anything solid.

Yes, indeed, water finds its level, as does air. Both are fluids. The difference is the state of matter each is in. Gases tend to expand outward, filling any and all available space and, being less dense than solids and most liquids, it finds a level in a similar manner to liquids, but also tends to want to fill space beyond a level at the bottom of a container to whatever extent that it can. Liquids are more dense and have surface tension. They tend to be heavier, too, so they usually sink to the bottom of a gaseous environment when they condense out of one or never rise above a gaseous environment if it occurred independently.

Liquids fill available space to the extend they can based on liquid properties. Even solids do this, but depending on how that solid occurs, its own shape might prevent it from seamlessly filling all available space. Too, its solidity prevents expansion without extraneous forces applied.

Gravity is the result of the weight of a cohesive mass warper the space around it an it is an inevitability. The heavier the mass, the stronger the warp in space and thus the stronger and wider-reaching its pull. It is the weakest of the four fundamental forces, but has the longest range, oddly. The other three forces (Strong force, weak force, and electromagnetism) all are able to easily overcome gravity under most conventional circumstances, but have a WAY shorter range of effect. There is a relationship between gravity, space, time, and acceleration, too, but they are not interchangeable and, thus, not the same things.

>>40793626 (OP)
Now, for the spherical Earth, the circumference of the planet is 40,075 km. That ain't small from a Human perspective. We can't see that curvature very well from ground level or even at cruising altitude from a plane (although you can sooooorta see it). What we can see are the secondary effects of sphericity.

For one thing, watching ships go over the horizon always has the hull disappearing before the masts, as though it were sinking over of the horizon. When it returns to shore, you see the masts first and then the hull. There's also the stars. The constellations and other celestial features which change depending on where in the world you are.

Astronomy would be quite different through the ages if the Earth were flat, as would celestial navigation (which was the way it was done before GPS). The stars people see will vary from point to point on the planet. If you're in the northern hemisphere, you'll use Polaris as your circumpolar star while in the southern hemisphere, you'll use Sigma Octantus as your circumpolar star. The two stars are never seen in the sky together, which would be impossible on a flat earth because if the Earth were flat, you'd see all of the stars from anywhere on the disc.

Flat earth also doesn't have a consistent system for explaining eclipses, let alone their predictability. We predict eclipses via modern methods using mathematics which take into account the currently accepted distances of the earth from the moon and from the Sun. Thus, because we know the sun is 150 million km away and the moon is 384,400 km away, and because we know how fast earth revolves around the sun (107,000 km/h) and the moon's revolution around the earth (3,683 km/h), we can actually predict eclipses better than the ancients could (and they weren't bad at predicting them, despite not knowing the precise measurements I provided). You simply couldn't make a mathematical model to predict them on a flat earth and would be reliant, instead, on estimating.

>>40793626 (OP)
Earth's gravity is the result of its mass (5,972 trillion teratons) mitigated by its radius (6,378 km from center of the core to the median equatorial surface elevation). It's density is 5.41 g/c^3, giving you an idea of how much 'stuff' is packed into the circumference and radius I have now provided. Obviously, gravity is greater the closer you are to the centre of mass and weaker the further from it you are, hence why radius mitigates mass and is essential in predictive models for determining the surface gravity of other objects. To work out the gravity of an object you need its mass, radius, and density.

So, gravity wouldn't work on a flat earth, which is probably why people who believe the Earth is flat deny gravity exists. Thing is, density doesn't work as a substitute for gravity. Yes, density separates matter between atomic masses, states of matter, and even temperature, but it isn't a substitute for gravity in any model.

The mere fact something can have a measurable weight in the first place necessitates gravity's existence, else, you're only measuring buoyancy, which isn't measured the same way. In fact, the equation to measure buoyancy takes weight into account, so gravity is actually essential to measuring density and bouyancy.

Density is calculated by dividing an object's mass by its volume, which means weight is involved, because in a system where gravity has a measurable influence, mass is treated as the same as weight and generally is used interchangeably with weight in any measurement using metric units. Grams and kilos are a measure of mass, after all.

>>40793626 (OP)
So, why doesn't the air escape away and the water slosh off of a ball rotating at 1,670 km/h? Gravity is not to be underestimated. Furthermore, it is important to note that you can toss a ball up and down in a moving vehicle without the ball flying around simply because it's moving with the vehicle at the same speed. However, if you slam on the brakes, you and everything that isn't secured will fly around if it can because there was a sudden change in acceleration.

Thus, the seas and atmosphere don't whoosh around because they are moving with the planet at its constant rotation rate. It's also the same reason why don't feel the rotation fo the planet. We are moving with it as the same speed. We'd only feel it if there was a sudden and significant change in the Earth's rotational speed (i.e. the hand of God stopping the planet's rotation abruptly)

>>40793626 (OP)
>many believe
>some claim
>according to this theory
>proponents argue

>>40795207
Why is the bible true over all the other myriad of holy books?

>>40793626 (OP)
>According to this theory, the flat Earth is a massive illusion designed to keep the public obedient and distracted from real issues. The CIA and other agencies perpetuate this myth through media, education, and space agencies—all to maintain psychological control over humanity.
I mean never ever has the earth being flat or a globe mattered in my life. Why do I need to be taught to believe that the earth is a globe or flat? would I have super powers if I accepted that the earth is flat?

>>40795981
>ancient astronaut theorists say yes
>aliens

>>40796409
>ayo nigga but i didn't have breakfast
yes, your super power would be knowing you are of immense cosmic importance compared to being a dumb nigger on a ball

>>40793626 (OP)
You're a fucking idiot if you believe the Earth is flat. Not only did the ancients prove that it's been a sphere since before, forever. Also proving it's a round shape with stick and simple mathematics that all grade and middle school children can do.

You can view other planets and how they rotate on their axis through telescope you can build yourself in your backyard.

Everyone has access to the same sky and anyone can make the measurements they want from their backyards and MANY people do this.

It's only dumb hillbilly assholes or psyop assholes that spread this lame ass information to the point now that I see it as a audit on the first amendment to see if we still have freedom of speech.

Fuck you

>>40796652
Fellow flatheads, our response?

>>40793626 (OP)

We live inside a giant dog bowl. Soon the dog will return.