Sorry for the previous blunder, and I do apologize. I totally tricked myself. Hey, it happens. The tinfoil hat WILL play tricks on you. However, the show must go on. I've gathered some information about weather modification. Not the kind developed on the moon with secret black ops technology. The kind developed here on earth and admitted to by the government.
Be careful about some of the messages in the video above. I'll admit that it's a bit wonky, but you will see the government admitting fully to using HARP to mess with the ionosphere.
Not sure about HAARP controlling recent hurricanes, but the video above explains ELF waves ability to steer hurricanes.
Feel free to learn more by researching HAARP, weather engineering, and ionosphere manipulation by searching YouTube.
We're going to take a look at the pros and cons of the police's initial boat ramp theory, and see if it can logically work out. This is also the theory her parents seemed to have accepted the most, considering their media appearances. I crunched some numbers, and checked out the weather. It can work, in the purest scientific sense, but by the end of this article it will seem a lot less likely.
The following are stats from the time frame and according to needed science. Time Frame Stats
Current: 7mph or 3 meters per second.
Average sink time: 30 seconds to 2 minutes
Possible sink time travel: 90 meters to 360 meters.
Car window: Down
Seat belt: Off.
The river was flowing 7 miles per hour, or 3 meters per second. The average car sinks in 20 seconds to 2 minutes. A car can travel about 90 meters to 360 meters in this amount of time on 3 meter per second currents. Ms Anderson had 30 seconds to 40 seconds to escape her car according to pure science. However, for the record, pure science is not how life works, ever.
The following is an image of Platte. There are two yellow pins. The first is where the the car allegedly entered at the boat ramp and the second is where the car was retrieved from the water. The yellow line is the full possible 2 minute travel distance of about 360-380 meters. We see that a car moving without resistance could travel quite a distance. This is of course, scientifically speaking only.
Lets take a look at a raft in the water.
The first thing to note is how shallow the water is. There is a small boat with young people in it, just off the ramp. Their paddles are still reaching bottom a couple meters meters out. Time Stamp: 1:57 https://youtu.be/jG3NrhfhXhc?t=117
The second boat is notable. It's at 2:12. This boat can be seen until 2:47 where the screen transitions. In this amount of time the boat travels about 10-12 meters, verifiable by Google Earth ruler. Time Stamp: 2:12 https://youtu.be/jG3NrhfhXhc?t=131
This is the minimum sink time of a car. 30 seconds. It did not travel 140 meters. 10 meters max. In the full sink time, of 2 minutes, the boat would have traveled only 40 meters. It would have taken the boat 8 minutes to get to the retrieval point.
A car with window down, seat belt off? Either her car was moving break neck speeds with no resistance, or it has the longest float time of any vehicle, without filling with water.
Now that this is cleared, lets be honest. What are the chances Toni's car broke records, and nestled up against a black SUV? Or is it more likely that she ended up in someone's dump site, be that a law enforcement officer, or not?
I've decided to create a second blog about the Toni Anderson case, because I simply can't believe the amount of injustice perpetrated by the North Kansas City Police Department. It's important the world hear about their absolute lack of integrity, and how this poor girl's case was treated. There's too much ignorance to ignore.
Toni Anderson went missing on January 15th, 2017. Her car was recovered 140 meters east of Platte Park Boat Landing in the Missouri River. Team Watters Sonar, reached out to the Anderson family, and ended up locating her car, along with a black SUV in The Missouri River. Police say the SUV is unrelated, but we'll never know.
The Injustice The following is an outline of all the injustices we could find. It seems that each media installment came with a lie. We'll cover them below.
Initial Stop
Police had initially denied Toni Anderson was pulled over, but have admitted
she was stopped by a North Kansas City officer that night.
In the following video the examiner mentions the officer pulling up behind Ms Anderson during the police stop over her “improper lane change.” She is issued a warning.
The most important statement in the video, at the following link, is that she pulls
away from the gas station alone.
“Kansas City police say the GPS
tracking device installed in Toni's car has not helped in the search.
Officers say the device tracks the car's speed, not its location. ”
- KWCH12
Interesting, so it's a Global Positioning System that doesn't know how to do it's job. Sure.
This lie from police is contradicted in the same Crime Watch Daily video. The officer states the GPS pinged its last ping at the gas station, where the officer watched Toni get gas. We catch them in another lie.
The North Kansas City Police officer is found to have been moving in an opposite direction in "unreleased surveillance video."
Call To Action
The Kansas City Police have been caught in lie after lie. The officer in question has been placed in the location of her last GPS transmission, and was seen following her up the road. She was never seen, or heard from, again. After so many lies no officer deserves to get off the hook on hearsay evidence alone. There is too much room for corruption.
Was he a rogue cop?
Did a corrupt group of cops get put in charge of this case?
Is the current chief of the precinct trustworthy?
Message the North Kansas City Police and demand they release body cam, dash cam, and all surveillance videos pertaining to the Toni Anderson case. Also ask that they re-investigate the officer in question.
Feel free to comment, and reply. Also sharing this would be a great help. Please spread it on your FaceBook, Twitter, or Google Plus. We seek true justice for Toni Anderson, even if it means the officer can be cleared and it was an accident. If not, we need criminal charges on all officers involved in a coverup.
First I have to say this sleuthing was inspired by John Lordan, who does some pretty good work when it comes to covering stories. He has a series known as BrainScratch. John covered Ms. Anderson's case in good detail, sparking my interest. Thank you John, for your amazing work. We may not always see eye to eye on theories, but I appreciate what he puts into his series.
I also came across a blog that implemented cops in this case, and thought the writer was being awful at times. He did a lot of conspiracy, with what seemed like no verifiable facts. He was put off from the shunning of the Anderson family, but I urgently want to say, as a conspiracy person myself, that sometimes, some of these people's hearts are in the right place. Please consider the following information, as a more, humane, and suitable source. This was not written without care for the case, and for justice.
Ms. Anderson, a 20 year old hostess at Chrome, had finished work in Kansas City, Missouri, Around 4am on January 15th. She was driving to meet friends, possibly a man, as sources say. During the short trip she was stopped by highway patrol, which seemed to be somewhat of a frequent occurrence for Ms Anderson.
Roxanne Townsend, one of her good friends received an SMS text, from her phone, at 4:42am.
“Omg just just pulled over again”
Oddly, Kansas City Police Department (KCPD) denied Ms. Anderson had been stopped by one of its officers.
Some speculate she had been kidnapped and murdered by police, or somebody impersonating an officer. Personally, I'm wondering if she wasn't murdered by a police officer myself.
Eventually a highway patrol officer came forward from North City Kansas Police, saying he had pulled over Ms. Anderson in a black 2014 Ford Focus, on the 9-Highway, after an "improper lane change."
Ms Anderson's text:
From there, one story states, she ended up at a boat launch at Platte Landing Park, on the Missouri River. Her mother thinks she was in a tizzy after being pulled over. This seems a bit of an over reaction for a simple stop with a warning, especially for someone who had been stopped before. Police think she somehow accidentally slid down the ramp. This seems harmless enough, and completely possible. Accidents happen, we all know this to be true, but was it an accident? The story seems much darker.
The image above shows how long the boat launch is. A car would roll down this very slowly. A quick thinker would be able to put their car in the reverse gear and floor it. Was the grip visible that night, was there ice? The car could have been going so slow when it hit the water that it could have hung on the lip of the bank.This is just speculation.
Not only is Platte not in the direction she told the officer she was
going, she was completely out of the way. Nowhere near where she should
have been to get to any known destination, according to currently
released information. There is no explanation given for Ms. Anderson
traveling down this side road. Why was she even there?
When the car was retrieved, it was not near the ramp. Rather, 140 meters down river. This can be verified with Google Earth, including the direction of flow, considering sea level.
The map above shows the boat launch to the left. The retrieval point to the east, south of the circular area to the north. The circular area is only marked as a reference. Many were confused about the retrieval area, but I was able to pinpoint the exact location through source referencing. Lets dig a little deeper, to show you I know what I'm talking about.
As you can tell, my reference can't be off by more than a few meters.
A black SUV was pulled out of the same location by police on the same day, before Ms. Anderson's car was located by a privately hired sonar team. There is total silence on the SUV. They have not said if a body was found in it, who it belonged to, or released any other media coverage on it. All they said was they believed it was unrelated. It's really hard to say if this is a dumping site for someone, but it's very odd. I'd also like to note that dumping and empty SUV near a crime scene is a very, very, clever way of confusing an investigation.
"Dennis Watters of Watters Sonar & Recovery said divers were looking in the area where they found Anderson's car because it was near where her phone last pinged. They had to bring professional divers out to the site because of how strong the current is. Watters also said Anderson's car was found upright underwater."
The car is badly damaged for being found upright. If the car was upright in the water, and entered from the boat launch, that means it likely drifted, and landed on its wheels. I'm not sure how the car could receive so much damage from such a light entrance. It had to be caused from retrieval, or during her trip into the water. Only one of these can be true, and someone should find out. A trip down the embankment, rather than the boat launch, can only result a few ways. She had an accident, and rolled down the embankment, she was ran off the road, her car was pushed in some way, or she drove off.
Her boyfriend has expressed skepticism of some kind.
"It's just too easy for someone to get rid of a car, it's 24/7 all access and there's no gate covering it," Sanchez said, describing a boat landing dock not far from where Anderson's car was found."
The video below gives circumstantial evidence that the officer did not point her towards a gas station, but followed her there, and was there when she pumped gas.
The surveillance video shows the police officer waiting there while she fills up. The officer didn't tell her she could go get gas, according to Crime Watch, the cop was THERE when the GPS was turned off.
"I know that when she started the car the GPS was no longer transmitting."
Someone needs to find out if he knows for a fact the GPS stopped working before, or after she came back.This is information they have such simple access to. I'm going to tell you right now, they know for a fact, and possibly to the millisecond, when that GPS shut off.
"GPS tracking: The device fits into the vehicle and captures the GPS location information apart from other vehicle information at regular intervals to a central server. Other vehicle information can include fuel amount, engine temperature, altitude, reverse geocoding, door open/close, tire pressure, cut off fuel, turn off ignition, turn on headlight, turn on taillight, battery status, GSM area code/cell code decoded, number of GPS satellites in view, glass open/close, fuel amount, emergency button status, cumulative idling, computed odometer, engine RPM, throttle position, GPRS status and a lot more. Capability of these devices actually decide the final capability of the whole tracking system; most vehicle tracking systems, in addition to providing the vehicle's location data, feature a wide range of communication ports that can be used to integrate other on board systems, allowing to check their status and control or automate their operation."
"Ford's global vice president of marketing and sales, Jim Farley, said that the No. 2 U.S. automaker knows "everyone who breaks the law, we know when you're doing it. We have GPS in your car, so we know what you're doing," according to the report. "By the way, we don't supply that data to anyone."
Note - how can they know if you're breaking the law? Unless he's over bragging the product, that sounds like audio and video included. Someone should find out.
Even Deeper
A glimpse into ready buyable GPS trackers. "Super Trackstick is designed to be concealed inside of the vehicle, allowing you to record the complete travel activities of your vehicle... anywhere... anytime. Automatically keep track of your vehicle including it's location, stops, length of stop, miles driven, speed, and more."
Ford has installed a sophisticated devices into Toni Anderson's car. Police are not being honest. I'm not sure if media would help cover up a crime or not. In this world, it really depends on who, and why. The police know everything, including times. They could match the times from the GPS, check the times with the ATM clock, and they know to the second when this GPS stopped. They could EASILY find out if it was while she was in the store or not. And more importantly, while he was watching her fill up.
If they are hiding something for the officer that pulled her over, someone should dig a little deeper. This family, if this case goes this empty, needs to open a law suit. They deserve the truth, the full truth, as does all that seek justice in this case. Toni Anderson deserves to have the truth brought to light.
Many people have been trying to prove that rockets will not work in space. The argument is back and forth, on the premise of whether or not rocket engines need atmosphere to create the needed thrust.
The video above shows us that helicopters will most certainly not work in space. Since there is no air, there can be no lift.
Although rocket engines are said to work differently, the video above suggests atmosphere is still needed.
Argument: The engine combustion pushes on the inside of the engine, pushing the rocket forward, no atmosphere needed.
The problem is. When you put a vacuum cleaner at the end of the straw, and take away the air, and out flowing energy, there is little to no movement. Also the paper taped on back causes problems.
If space sucks up the energy and out flowing thrust in all directions, and acts like a massive paper taped to the end of the rocket, will rockets fail in space?
The video above is being posted as alleged proof for a fake moon landing. An easily spotted discrepancy will come just after an astronaut jogs by the flag from the left side of the screen. The flag will wave back and forth, slightly. This may seem normal at first, but you have to realize for the flag to react to someone moving passed it, there has to be air to displace. The moon has no atmosphere, and no wind. Also the vacuum of space has no air.
Proof that wind will not cause reaction in a vacuum can be found in the video below.
The video above shows wind from a computer fan. Once the jar reaches vacuum the ribbon will stop blowing. Also proof that no fan will ever cool a computer on a probe, lander, or any other vehicle.
Edit - Previous version of this blog article did not account for gravity. Please disregard comment about laws of motion. The rest remains as possible evidence.
The astronauts above are getting ready to eat something. They actually eat and drink often, as they need to for survival. Obviously this seems normal at first, but one really has to wonder, how is this done in a zero gravity environment? Food, water, and every other substance floats, until force is applied.
The packaged answer: muscles constrict the food, pushing it down to the stomach.
This process must be awfully slow. What are the chances a given bite of food will actually make it to the stomach? Now imagine a drink of water. The risk of water not stopping in the throat, back of the mouth, or at a lung opening would be very high.
Last, but not least, we consider the laws of motion. A body in motion, stays in motion, unless acted upon with an equal, or opposite force.
If anyone sneezed, burped, jolted, jarred, got bumped, raised upward, or got caught in any motion when the food started down their throat, they would be doomed to die. Food slowly passing down the chest cavity would start back up again, and a simple bump as strong as the force at which the spasms were working the food down, would nullify the muscle spasm starting it, and the food, into a reverse motion.
Note: This thread has been debunked. The same illusion is caused by the camera following the earth during its rotation and orbit.
This post will be reconstructed. I noticed that moving the time-of-day scrub seemed to rotate the universe. This provided evidence that Google Earth operated on a geocentric modal. Others suggested this same effect will happen when the camera follows the earth in orbit at the same speed. This is true to some extent, but only nullifies the evidence if it is the case. For that reason, I'll leave this info here.
Above we see Africa Jan 9th, 5:28pm, 2017.
Africa Jan 10th, 5:28am, 2017.
We see from night to day in Africa the sun seeming rotated to the other side.
The documentary above makes the claim that Mercury and Venus would never be visible in the Heliocentric modal. It may, or may not be, the voice of Eric Dubay. I've done a little research and found this claim invalid. I did come across something interesting, and that's what I'd like to share.
We'll use Pretoria Africa as our starting point. I love Africa, because it's near the center of the globe face, and if any place could break a modal, it's Africa. It's great for this kind of scientific assessment.
Venus Set Time: 9:46PM
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/night/south-africa/pretoria
We'll use the time 8:20PM-8:40PM. This is just after sunset, and about an hour before Venus sets.
The following image is a diagram of Africa, containing a red line for field of view, and a red line to the planet. It's all crude estimates, but we're pretty close for the time.
As we can see the claim has been totally debunked, but an interesting question arises. Are they seeing the full planet, or a half lit planet? Considering the angle, only a small portion of the planet should be lit. Pretoria South Africa should pretty well be looking near the dark side of Venus on January 9th, 2017.
Note: Venus and other planets have phases, so the claim may be totally debunked.
This video makes it into the conspiracy section of the blog, as there is a lot that needs to be verified. I would never suggest Hiroshima and Nagasaki were carpet bombed without hard evidence. I will share this, though, for entertainment value, and to clarify some possible dissinfo coming out of the establishments.
The above image from NASA is very interesting. Take a look at the bottom left corner. Wait, there is no bottom left corner. Interestingly enough the entire image has been removed from the archive. We'll never know what the caption said, although I thought that was the point of an archive. What does NASA have to hide?
Stonehenge is said to be an ancient monolithic structure built anywhere from 3000 to 30,000 years ago. Is it a site of ancient rituals, worship of the druids, or an elaborate hoax to kickstart an economy? Okay, so that last bit is a joke, but the idea was certainly spawned by real research.
That's Jeranism: a flat earther. He sets off my dissinfo alarm for having been on Chris Geo show, and slandering the word of God. He claims Jesus is not the messiah. If you're wondering what my beef is with Geo, we personally argued. He openly supported H.P Blavatsky, and slandered Christians by showing a crime site of Christian molesters. I made him look foolish, stating math showed those crimes are committed by 5-10% of the Christian community. He deleted comments, and heavily censored the conversation, making himself look victor. Geo is on Genesis Broadcasting, with Alex Jones. Both shills in my books.
Jeranism made a video, but he swears a lot, so I'll show a similar video.
Jeranism's video is very similar, except he goes as far as to say Stonehenge was built in the 50's, during the "restoration." He claims something similar about the pyramids, ignoring all ancient texts, including the old testament. Right, there's no mummies, and no literature. Fair warning.
This video shows old photos, allegedly proving it's not fake.
As you can see, there's some pretty good information predating the 56 restoration.
Wikipedia
Above, Merlin crafts the monument with his own hands. This is explained in our earliest known writing of Stonehenge, by Geoffrey of Monmouth, in his book ‘History of the Kings of Britain’ from 1136.
We really have to wonder: Why was Stonehenge not mentioned until after the collapse of a major economy? It remains a tourist attraction to this day. Was that always its purpose?
That is what they claim happens when a fish eye lens is placed on the Cupola. Fish eye pulls the outside towards the center. Apparently, their magic fish eye, has the ability to pull the entire land mass into a uniform globe.
The above documentary is one of the best I've seen this year. It explores the topic of geocentrism, and goes head to head with the fallacy of scientism. They explore topics from the heliocentric model to evolution.
I'm not sure about flat earth, but geocentric is awesome. I'm weary of certain people in this movement, for obvious reasons, but it's worth a listen. There is certainly some truth in here.
The above image is a typical day photo from the ISS. Notice the number of stars. None. Sure it makes sense for the day, but their night photos were no different.
Above we see one Apollo image, but if anyone cares to browse them all, there will be no stars.
This claim of ours was allegedly debunked long ago, likely before I was here, but even I held this argument. Our opponent's theory? Something to do with exposure. That's why there are no stars.
To show our readers, here are some results on Google.
Not only did NASA, after 30 years, and 10 years of the ISS without stars, decide they were going to turn on the stars, they put the whole Milky Way up there!
Maybe if you didn't release a semi-recent Instagram post, of an obvious 3D video, of something played off as a real time-lapse, I would have believed them. *Snickers* Probably not.
Vanguard, a series of satellites tried by the United State of America. Launching started in the late 1950's. After a few years in orbit contact with the surviving Vanguard satellite was lost. Last contact: 1964.
The first Vanguard launch ended in failure, when the rocket plummeted back to earth, from only several yards in the air.
Exact cause of launch failure: Classified.
Bell was involved with the construction of Vanguard series. Strangely, there were six vanguard satellites constructed, but we can only find fragments of information.
The image above shows one of the Vanguards being stored on display. Click the link to enlarge, and zoom to read the plaque. It states this is meant to be the first, but couldn't due to launch failure. The plaque creates some confusing information. Is the vanguard above meant to be the Vanguard that survived the explosion?
The image above is T3, which allegedly survived our explosion. Is this the same Vanguard showed above? This survived the explosion of video one? Almost as convenient as terrorist passports floating down from the twin towers.
Can you believe, as Wiki states, that after explosion, this thing was emitting its signal?
"The Vanguard satellite was thrown clear and landed on the ground a short distance away with its transmitters still sending out a beacon signal."
The above video is interesting. At the end it makes a claim of Van Allen Belt destruction, but there's no good way to indicate which satellite, if any in the Vanguard series, he is talking about, due to the nature of editing. Also notice the noise maker he turns on. I wish we could have that analyzed by a specialist to see if it is anything more than a noise maker.
I'm going to call complete diss-info on some of the footage in the video above. Our friend here claims to be able to track the Vanguard satellite, despite the US government not being able to track our 6" friend. Notice at several points in the video the "satellite" stands still. At 2:06 it turns into a shooting star!
The following video shares footage which only touches the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the false alien disclosures in the government. This video contains the audio of controlled agents. David Ike, and I am highly suspect of Cathy O'brien, due to the behavior of "Miller Family." I do believe their words though in this video, as controlled agents often mix truth with their messages.
The lecture above goes over experiments and theories during the battle of geocentrims and the invention of heliocentrism. It's quite entertaining, and lines up well with scripture. It's interesting to hear about the buried debate. There are many experiments that found Einsteins theories and other heliocentric theories to be faulty.
Galileo was one of the first unmanned satellites to be sent out into deep space. This bad boy was said to have travelled through an asteroid belt (Where asteroids are allegedly far apart), to the planet Jupiter. During its life it travelled a total of 4,631,778,000 km, reaching speeds in the excess of 80,000 m/h.
"It was designed to use the gravitational force of the moons to bend the path of flight."
Sure, good job on your calculations.
The satellite's parachute probe will descend into Jupiter's atmosphere and send data back to the probe.
Lets see how this happened.
"NASA decided they could do one more mission."
Right, go ahead and talk like they came back for a probe to drop. Just stick with the program guys.
Look at how they depict the probe:
The actual probe:
Looks like R2's head.
Back to Galileo. What happened to our good friend? Well, it started losing itself to radiation problems, mechanical problems, and was running low on fuel, so our good friends at NASA decided to send it down to the same fate as the poor probe.
Reason? They didn't want to crash land on Europa, due to having found strong evidence of an ocean under the moon's icy surface. Right. I don't even want to get into the ridiculous notion of taking on ISS, Mars missions, and several solar missions, over the idea of going back to see if there's a fish in that sea.
Meet the great grand daddy. Above we see Pioneer 10! Okay, this is where things get really funny.
Mission launch? March 2, 1972. Duration of the mission? 30 years, and still going!
That's right Galileo, newer, better materials, built more efficiently, ran out of fuel, and suffered wear, so they crashed it. But a 30 year old hunk of junk, with dated equipment, is still going to be sending data back. After 10 BILLION Kms, carrying 70s gear, through -200 degree temperatures, or more, it's still going to send data back through its dish?
Lets just get a little history on the internet, shall we?
In the 70's internet hardly existed. They were not using wireless in the beginning, they were sending data through phone lines. Later this would become known to the public as dial-up.
Later they started developing a system called ALOHAnet, which is really the first wireless connections, which used high frequency. It also only connected some Hawaiian islands. Kind of brings into question how the internet really works, even today. After all, the boxes are connected to wires. The only part we know for sure, that is sending a wireless signal is the box transmitter, which is ALWAYS in close proximity. We'll save that for another post.
From WIKI on Wi-Fi:
In 1971, ALOHAnet connected the Hawaiian Islands with a UHF wireless packet network. ALOHAnet and the ALOHA protocol were early forerunners to Ethernet, and later the IEEE 802.11 protocols, respectively.
- First high frequency tests of wireless internet.
A 1985 ruling by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission released the ISM band for unlicensed use.[3] These frequency bands are the same ones used by equipment such as microwave ovens and are subject to interference.
- AFTER the launch of Pioneer 10, our wonder satellite of 10 billion km data, they finally release ISM.
Basically microwave oven frequencies, that would later be adapted to the first LOW range equipment, such as blue tooth, and cell phones.
Wi-fi Wiki:
In 1991, NCR Corporation with AT&T Corporation invented the precursor to 802.11, intended for use in cashier systems.
Pioneer 10, in the era of dial-up, when they were birthing wireless cash-register technology, was beaming data back from millions of kilometers away. All from far away planets, in an era before we were trying to figure out if our cell would get a signal over that hill! Not only that, it's STILL sending data back.
We contemplated the Nile running north on a sphere globe. I wondered how this could be. What force is pulling it up? I bumped into the same answer, and no real reason why. Just acceptance of common logic.
To put it bluntly "There is no up. There are no sides. North, south, east, and west are only conventions. Maybe gravity has something to do with it."
Literally people are accepting the common answer, and not questioning it. When the common answer is "Just because." I tend to have a problem with it, and want to test it.
The eight ball above is a sphere. Also the same shape as the earth. It has a logical top, which anyone could point to. Most of us, if asked to point the top, by a pre-school teacher, would point at the logical top. We wouldn't point to a side, or the bottom.
The image above is a basketball. It is also a sphere, but slightly bigger than our eight ball. If our pre-school teacher dug it out, and said point to the top, most to of us would point to the logical top. Exactly as we did with the eight ball.
The image above is the earth. It is nothing more than a scaled up billiard ball. Most of us, if asked to point to the top of the earth, would locate the north pole. But now, all of a sudden, our pre-school teacher wants to give us an 'f'. No one cares to question this?
Our friend above is stuck to a wall. Imagine if that was a giant sphere. All the blood would rush to their head. You could build the sphere the size of New York. It wouldn't matter. The same logical occurrence would happen. The amount of energy you would need to walk from below the sphere's equator to the top is astronomical. So much so that it would be impossible. You would be walking sideways, as if up the side of a mountain. Only with suction cups could you do it.
So what is the force that sticks you to the earth's crust? Gravity. Gravity pulls us to the crust. However, logically speaking, Gravity ONLY pulls you towards the center. That's all, that's it. A pulling force to the center. It does not have some magical property that negates the shape, or behaviour of a sphere.
The image above shows little red arrows pointing to areas on the crust where gravity would be pulling towards. The large red arrow shows our logical up, also the flowing direction of the Nile.
Gravity would pull your feet to the equator, on Africa, as we would suspect. Now, what is the magical property of gravity that goes beyond this, and gives us reason to throw out all spherical logic, to go as far as to say we are not on the side of a sphere?
All the alleged spheres in our solar system have no top or bottom? That's as if to say space has no up or down. I like to assume space has a logical view. I'm not certain, but I assume if there was an upside down astronaut in space for too long, they would die.
You could use ISS footage of astronauts upside down to prove their is no up or down in space. I might then use an image of the tooth fairy to prove Santa.
That's okay. We don't care if the clouds hardly move for 5 hours, or that Australia is the only continent on earth, or if Antarctica is no longer on the south pole. Most will accept the mind control.
The following image is Australia from near the same angle in Google Earth.
Plenty of land visible from ISS. Of course I don't believe this photo is real either, considering the ship in the top right, which I'll call allegedly photoshopped in.
As a closing note. I'm not even a flat earther. Most likely the earth is round, and science is wrong about forces at play, or I'm just wrong about space having no up or down. This is just a fun way to question science, and what they enforce as science, and the forces at play.
I am however, very weary of NASA, and fakery. Considering all the evidence I have seen.
.jpg)
