Flat Earth

[captainfearnot]

That's complete rubbish! The FE community is, for the most part, quite united. It's not at all like a religion, they are simply calling the evidence as they see it.

That's funny. One minute you're declaring varnaj42 a neophyte for their ignorance of the various Flat Earther schisms, now you're denying they exist.

But I'll play along. Please show me the Flat Earth map that your community is, for the most part, quite united around.

[Ymarsakar]

That's complete rubbish! The FE community is, for the most part, quite united. It's not at all like a religion, they are simply calling the evidence as they see it.

That's funny. One minute you're declaring varnaj42 a neophyte for their ignorance of the various Flat Earther schisms, now you're denying they exist.

But I'll play along. Please show me the Flat Earth map that your community is, for the most part, quite united around.

There was a thread about this forum in fact. People take all sides of the arguments, perhaps multiple times on the same person/topic.

It doesn't make lds forums here a religion, but the opposite. Freedom of belief and debate/speech allows a diverse number of options to be provided. Otherwise a religious authority or cult would center around a figure or 3, and people would feel coerced to obey the leader and adhere to doctrine/dogma, much like Nelson does with his people and followers. Follow and Obey. Or else.

2015+ flat earth communities sometimes devolved to that, yes, although I think it has more to do with CIA agents and ego than a religious fervor. MOst of the religiuos fervor was with the fundamentalist Enoch fallen angel watcher types in the movement.

THey made strong arguments that the bible and biblical world view was a terrarium type of model, not a Vatican/Lucifer type of model aka heliocentricism.

Also Shawn and Var are not enlightened masters. Let's give each other a break on perfection.

To be perfect means you have one theory of a ball Earth. Except, you know, Neil DIsgrace says it is pear shaped. So that's 2 ball theories. Are there more? Probably. Mike drop, hard to tell.

The Flat earthers 2015+ have different models of their models and maps. Yes, but they are united in their distrust and non belief in NASA. Sorta like waxxines and WEF issues going on now uniting Tucker Carlson, Leftists and Demoncrats like Tulsi Gabbards, and crazy apocalypse seers like me.

Canadians took a poll of 3x+ waxinated vs the unwaxinated when it came to Russia. There was a stark divide March 2022. I predict the same thing will happen if we took a poll of how many FEarthers are waxed vs those who refuse to believe it and how many boosters they took.

At the time I recognized 2015+ FEarth theories as being a godsend salvation. I didn't know exactly how, but it was contributing to the Great Awakening. I was disappointed that google and others managed to shut it down from the public.

But it was indeed a mercy, a godsend. Because the people that came to believe it, also came to distrust pharma and doctors and everything else really. THis distrust ensured that 99% or even 100% of em refused the mrna. The godhead often talks about "remnants". Well, this is quite a remnant, called Flat Earthers. What humans make fun of, God takes seriuos, and what God takes seriously, humans think foolish.

I mean, think about it, almost all the religious christians there believed in 1st Enoch faleln watcher dna manipulation of humans. Would you take the mrna if you were them?

So how did they do compared to latter day saints? Heh

If you believe in a god or have a god, then be grateful a mercy was extended to a remnant of humanity, even if it passed you by. Either you didn't need it or you needed something tougher of a challenge.

[Ymarsakar]

You're referring to the flat earth society, they are a shill organization, crafted specifically to distract by claiming dumb stuff like the earth is moving upwards at 9.8 meters per second squared and that is how they explain gravity.

Ever since the flat earth movement started in 2015, everyone involved has disavowed that group and called them out as controlled opposition. Point number two that you are very new to this.

It's just like a religion. Every Flat Earther believes in a different Flat Earth, and has as much (or more) disdain for the other flavors of Flat Earthiness as they do for globalism. Meanwhile the globers have but one globe.

EVERY sect, in whatever sphere, is the rallying-point of doubt and error. Scotist, Thomist, Realist, Nominalist, Papist, Calvinist, Molinist, Jansenist, are only pseudonyms.

There are no sects in geometry; one does not speak of a Euclidian, an Archimedean.

When the truth is evident, it is impossible for parties and factions to arise. Never has there been a dispute as to whether there is daylight at noon.

Poor Voltaire, getting resurrected at lds freedom forums to be a sock puppet on an age that he never even saw. I think he wishes he was here to debate. We can talk about Epsteins, satanists, and how the Vatican is evil. That would be a blast.

[captainfearnot]

It's the ballers that follow everything their scientific high priests tell them, no matter how fanciful. It's unintelligent ballers that believe Nasa when Nasa tells them they are flying helicopters on Mars. Intelligent people know that a planet with 1/100th the atmosphere of earth can't produce lift for a helicopter.

(I hesitate to engage you on these tangents, because I fear being immediately carried away by the same gish gallop that brought us here. But here we go.)

How, exactly, do intelligent people know that a planet with 1% of Earth's atmosphere can't produce lift for a helicopter?

Is it because most intelligent people have already tested every possible helicopter design in chambers depressurized to 1% of Earth's atmosphere? Or, more realistically, enough different designs to confidently conclude that no matter how much you increase the surface area of the rotors, and increase the rotation rate, and decrease the mass of the payload (even accounting for Mars' reduced gravity), it just doesn't work?

Is it because most intelligent people already have a working knowledge of helicopter aerodynamics and can figure out on paper that it's theoretically impossible? What do intelligent people recognize as the minimum percentage of earth's atmosphere that allows helicopters to work? Is it 99%? 50%? 5%?

OR, is it that people who fancy themselves as intelligent already think they know everything, or that their intuitions are always right, so whenever they encounter something a bit challenging or counter-intuitive, they prefer to dismiss it as fantasy, rather than learn something new?

[Ymarsakar]

How do you know spacesuits work, have you tested them in a vacuum chamber? NASA testing them in a pool is... counter indicative, that's not a spacesuit.

No working spacesuit, guess what, Apollo was made up !

It's the ballers that follow everything their scientific high priests tell them, no matter how fanciful. It's unintelligent ballers that believe Nasa when Nasa tells them they are flying helicopters on Mars. Intelligent people know that a planet with 1/100th the atmosphere of earth can't produce lift for a helicopter.

(I hesitate to engage you on these tangents, because I fear being immediately carried away by the same gish gallop that brought us here. But here we go.)

How, exactly, do intelligent people know that a planet with 1% of Earth's atmosphere can't produce lift for a helicopter?

Is it because most intelligent people have already tested every possible helicopter design in chambers depressurized to 1% of Earth's atmosphere? Or, more realistically, enough different designs to confidently conclude that no matter how much you increase the surface area of the rotors, and increase the rotation rate, and decrease the mass of the payload (even accounting for Mars' reduced gravity), it just doesn't work?

Is it because most intelligent people already have a working knowledge of helicopter aerodynamics and can figure out on paper that it's theoretically impossible? What do intelligent people recognize as the minimum percentage of earth's atmosphere that allows helicopters to work? Is it 99%? 50%? 5%?

OR, is it that people who fancy themselves as intelligent already think they know everything, or that their intuitions are always right, so whenever they encounter something a bit challenging or counter-intuitive, they prefer to dismiss it as fantasy, rather than learn something new?

[Shawn Henry]

OR, is it that people who fancy themselves as intelligent already think they know everything, or that their intuitions are always right, so whenever they encounter something a bit challenging or counter-intuitive, they prefer to dismiss it as fantasy, rather than learn something new?

Wow! You're actually standing by Nasa's claim of helicopters flying on Mars. Is there no limit to what they can tell you? You think helicopters can fly in a near vacuum environment and then make the claim that those who know better prefer fantasy.

[captainfearnot]

Wow! You're actually standing by Nasa's claim of helicopters flying on Mars. Is there no limit to what they can tell you? You think helicopters can fly in a near vacuum environment and then make the claim that those who know better prefer fantasy.

I know next to nothing about the parameters in which helicopters are able to function. You are the one that made the claim that intelligent people know that a helicopter can't work in 1% of earth's atmosphere. I'm asking you to support your claim.

I do not know this fact, of which you claim intelligent people are aware. Therefore, by your criteria, I am not intelligent. Rather than mock my lack of intelligence, please walk me through the process by which intelligent people have acquired this knowledge.

[Shawn Henry]

I know next to nothing about the parameters in which helicopters are able to function. You are the one that made the claim that intelligent people know that a helicopter can't work in 1% of earth's atmosphere. I'm asking you to support your claim.

I do not know this fact, of which you claim intelligent people are aware. Therefore, by your criteria, I am not intelligent. Rather than mock my lack of intelligence, please walk me through the process by which intelligent people have acquired this knowledge.

You are plenty smart to know helicopters can't fly in 1% of the earth's atmosphere. You are simply feigning ignorance to protect your emotional investiture. I'm not sure why it is so hard to say, "Yeah, Nasa is lying on that one". We all already know that an acknowledge of one point made by the other side doesn't mean you concede the debate.

Here is the first thing about helicopters that came up on my search.

"The maximum altitude that a helicopter can fly depends on the helicopter engine and its function. However, most helicopters operate at altitudes between 500 and 10,000 feet. This range provides the optimal atmosphere for maneuvering and safety considerations. As the helicopter climbs higher, the air gets thinner, requiring the blades to work harder to generate lift. Some helicopter pilots consider 10,000 feet the upper limit of the ideal or safe altitude for flying."

Humans can breathe with much less air. The 'death zone' for breathing doesn't even start until about 26,000 ft.

So which of us is believing in fantasy?

[captainfearnot]

Here is the first thing about helicopters that came up on my search.

"The maximum altitude that a helicopter can fly depends on the helicopter engine and its function. However, most helicopters operate at altitudes between 500 and 10,000 feet. This range provides the optimal atmosphere for maneuvering and safety considerations. As the helicopter climbs higher, the air gets thinner, requiring the blades to work harder to generate lift. Some helicopter pilots consider 10,000 feet the upper limit of the ideal or safe altitude for flying."

So an intelligent person reads about the normal operating limits of existing terrestrial helicopters, and concludes that it must be theoretically impossible to design a helicopter that can operate outside of those parameters?

The first thing that came up on my search is that the altitude record for helicopters is 42,500 ft. set by Fred North in 2002. Do you know what the atmospheric pressure is at 42,000 ft.? I don't, but then I'm not intelligent--maybe this is something intelligent people know intuitively. So I looked it up and it appears to be about 170 MBAR. I didn't know what MBARs were either until I looked it up just now, turns out it's a metric unit of air pressure. At sea level we have pressure of 1,000 MBAR, so that means this manned helicopter was able to fly at 17% of normal atmospheric pressure.

Given that, it doesn't seem so fanciful to me that purpose-driven engineers with a big R&D budget could design a small, unmanned helicopter that could operate in much less air than that, especially on a planet with a third the gravity of Earth. At any rate, I'm not seeing anything from either of our searches that would lead us to conclude that such a thing is impossible. I gather I'm still missing something that intelligent people know.

[Shawn Henry]

So an intelligent person reads about the normal operating limits of existing terrestrial helicopters, and concludes that it must be theoretically impossible to design a helicopter that can operate outside of those parameters?

The first thing that came up on my search is that the altitude record for helicopters is 42,500 ft. set by Fred North in 2002. Do you know what the atmospheric pressure is at 42,000 ft.? I don't, but then I'm not intelligent--maybe this is something intelligent people know intuitively. So I looked it up and it appears to be about 170 MBAR. I didn't know what MBARs were either until I looked it up just now, turns out it's a metric unit of air pressure. At sea level we have pressure of 1,000 MBAR, so that means this manned helicopter was able to fly at 17% of normal atmospheric pressure.

Given that, it doesn't seem so fanciful to me that purpose-driven engineers with a big R&D budget could design a small, unmanned helicopter that could operate in much less air than that, especially on a planet with a third the gravity of Earth. At any rate, I'm not seeing anything from either of our searches that would lead us to conclude that such a thing is impossible. I gather I'm still missing something that intelligent people know.

Assuming that he actually set that record and that your units of measurement are accurate, you do realize that going from 17% to 1% is not a straight line on a graph, but rather a bell curve. It could never happen.

[larsenb]

It's just like a religion. Every Flat Earther believes in a different Flat Earth, and has as much (or more) disdain for the other flavors of Flat Earthiness as they do for globalism. Meanwhile the globers have but one globe.

That's complete rubbish! The FE community is, for the most part, quite united. It's not at all like a religion, they are simply calling the evidence as they see it.

It's the ballers that follow everything their scientific high priests tell them, no matter how fanciful. It's unintelligent ballers that believe Nasa when Nasa tells them they are flying helicopters on Mars. Intelligent people know that a planet with 1/100th the atmosphere of earth can't produce lift for a helicopter.

" Intelligent people know that a planet with 1/100th the atmosphere of earth can't produce lift for a helicopter.' . . . . an interesting assertion from you, being someone I assume is a believer in the flat earth idea.

Which raises the question, how does a "planet" such as Mars fit into flat-earth hypotheses?

[captainfearnot]

Assuming that he actually set that record and that your units of measurement are accurate, you do realize that going from 17% to 1% is not a straight line on a graph, but rather a bell curve. It could never happen.

I love how your first search result is reliable but mine is suspect. I guess I need to learn how intelligent people search.

No, I don't realize what you are describing with respect to straight lines and bell curves. Care to illustrate with a graph?

[Shawn Henry]

I love how your first search result is reliable but mine is suspect. I guess I need to learn how intelligent people search.

No, I don't realize what you are describing with respect to straight lines and bell curves. Care to illustrate with a graph?

Just because I lead with 'assuming' doesn't mean I'm doubting you. No, I don't care to illustrate with a graph, you know what a bell curve is.

[Shawn Henry]

Which raises the question, how does a "planet" such as Mars fit into flat-earth hypotheses?

There is no shape of the earth that would have to incorporate the sky to justify its shape. They are two entirely different things that are independent of each other.

[captainfearnot]

No, I don't care to illustrate with a graph, you know what a bell curve is.

Sure, I know what a bell curve is. They are used in statistics to model random distributions. What I don't understand is how a bell curve applies to what we are talking about. How is "going from 17% to 1% not a straight line on a graph, but rather a bell curve"?

If Earth's pressure is 1,000 MBAR, then 50% of Earth's pressure is 500 MBAR. And 17% of Earth's pressure is 170 MBAR. And 1% of Earth's pressure is 10 MBAR. Seems like a straight line to me. What am I missing that involves a bell curve?

And, more to the point, how would this supposed bell curve help explain how you came to know that it is impossible to design a helicopter that could function in an atmosphere 1% of Earth's?

[Shawn Henry]

Sure, I know what a bell curve is. They are used in statistics to model random distributions. What I don't understand is how a bell curve applies to what we are talking about. How is "going from 17% to 1% not a straight line on a graph, but rather a bell curve"?

If Earth's pressure is 1,000 MBAR, then 50% of Earth's pressure is 500 MBAR. And 17% of Earth's pressure is 170 MBAR. And 1% of Earth's pressure is 10 MBAR. Seems like a straight line to me. What am I missing that involves a bell curve?

And, more to the point, how would this supposed bell curve help explain how you came to know that it is impossible to design a helicopter that could function in an atmosphere 1% of Earth's?

I don't know that I can explain it. If you half 1000 down to 17, it takes about 6 times. If you half 17 down to one, it takes about 4 times. The distance from 17 to 1 is as much as 1000 to 62, roughly.

You have to increase power to the rotors, which means you have to have a bigger engine. The bigger engine, however, increases your weight. It simply gets too exponential.

If you are trying to get me to say that I don't have firsthand knowledge, I would admit that from the beginning. I've never done any of this stuff myself.

[larsenb]

Which raises the question, how does a "planet" such as Mars fit into flat-earth hypotheses?

There is no shape of the earth that would have to incorporate the sky to justify its shape. They are two entirely different things that are independent of each other.

You evade. let me simplify: 1. Does Mars have a globular shape. 2. Does it rotate? 3. Is it seen to move against the 'fixed' background of stars? 4. Does it have moons, which are seen to revolve around it?

And these questions can applied to all of the other planets.

And how do these planets fit into a flat-earth model. Is there a separate flat-planet model, or not?

[captainfearnot]

If you are trying to get me to say that I don't have firsthand knowledge, I would admit that from the beginning. I've never done any of this stuff myself.

Not really, I'm just asking you to explain how you (and all intelligent people) came by your knowledge that helicopter flight is impossible in 1% atmosphere. You admit that you don't have experimental evidence and you haven't done the math. So how do you know?

[Ymarsakar]

Helicopters operate via rotation lift. Spin the propeller hard and fast enough and it provides lift. A child with a hand driven propeller knows how that works.

However Earth's atmosphere already gets thinner as one goes higher up. The air becomes thin and so helicopters can't climb that high. It's not a matter of strapping enough engines on, physics wise it doesn't work. An airplane's max altitude is determined by its plane (get it, it works only on a plane) engineering and engines. If the engine cannot work at a certain altitude, then the plane becomes a glider and a helicopter becomes a rock.

While Mars is said to have less gravity, about a 3rd of Earth's, the atmosphere is extremely thin and would be equivalent to the upper atmosphere of Earth almost.

If they can get lift to work like that, this technology would be capable of lifting a car up using no more power than a drone's engines.

[Shawn Henry]

You evade. let me simplify: 1. Does Mars have a globular shape. 2. Does it rotate? 3. Is it seen to move against the 'fixed' background of stars? 4. Does it have moons, which are seen to revolve around it?

And these questions can applied to all of the other planets.

And how do these planets fit into a flat-earth model. Is there a separate flat-planet model, or not?

It's not evading. You're saying a banana is long and cylindrical so therefore an apple should be. The lights in the firmament move in their set pattern, regardless of what is beneath them. You're basing your argument on a lot of assumptions. You assume they are planets. You assume their distance. You assume they move by gravity. You assume planets have actual moons. You assume they are actual bodies of mass. Those are speculations based on observations, but it doesn't mean that is what you are actually looking at.

[larsenb]

You evade. let me simplify: 1. Does Mars have a globular shape. 2. Does it rotate? 3. Is it seen to move against the 'fixed' background of stars? 4. Does it have moons, which are seen to revolve around it?

And these questions can applied to all of the other planets.

And how do these planets fit into a flat-earth model. Is there a separate flat-planet model, or not?

It's not evading. You're saying a banana is long and cylindrical so therefore an apple should be. The lights in the firmament move in their set pattern, regardless of what is beneath them. You're basing your argument on a lot of assumptions. You assume they are planets. You assume their distance. You assume they move by gravity. You assume planets have actual moons. You assume they are actual bodies of mass. Those are speculations based on observations, but it doesn't mean that is what you are actually looking at.

I asked you simple questions. They are based on empirical observations using optical telescopes. The only assumptions being made with these observations are that the eyes reporting on them are actually seeing what they are seeing. It's called empiricism.

You come back with more evasion; telling me what I am saying based on your very definite assumptions. Remember, I am responding to your calling Mars a planet. Can you actually answer the questions? I very much doubt it.

But perhaps it would help if you substitute: "the light in the Firmament know as Mars", in place of just Mars, in my questions. Oh, and you could also substitute: "round orbs commonly called moons", in place of moon. And please note, I made no mention of of distance, mass or gravity.

[Shawn Henry]

I asked you simple questions. They are based on empirical observations using optical telescopes. The only assumptions being made with these observations are that the eyes reporting on them are actually seeing what they are seeing. It's called empiricism.

You come back with more evasion; telling me what I am saying based on your very definite assumptions. Remember, I am responding to your calling Mars a planet. Can you actually answer the questions? I very much doubt it.

But perhaps it would help if you substitute: "the light in the Firmament know as Mars", in place of just Mars, in my questions. Oh, and you could also substitute: "round orbs commonly called moons", in place of moon. And please note, I made no mention of of distance, mass or gravity.

The questions were answered, even if you can't discern the answers, but I'll try to be more direct.

1. Does Mars have a globular shape? A round shape does not mean a globe. Discs and circles are not globes.
2. Does it rotate? Everything above has a fixed pattern of movement.
3. Is it seen to move against the 'fixed' background of stars? Yes
4. Does it have moons, which are seen to revolve around it? If a planet has moons, so what? That's just another fixed pattern of movement, which don't prove anything.

[JohnnyL]

For those wanting more information, I found these few threads related to arguments brought up on this thread:

satellite-hoax-satellites-do-not-exist
https://ifers.forumotion.com/t52-satell ... -not-exist

debunking-star-and-planet-distances-using-physics
https://ifers.forumotion.com/t400-debun ... ng-physics

earth-is-not-a-planet
https://ifers.forumotion.com/t189-earth-is-not-a-planet

Not going to bother with "Satellites Do Not Exist!" and "The Earth Is Not A Planet!" because I honestly don't know where I would even begin, the arguments are such gibberish.

But "Debunking Star and Planet Distances Using Physics" is easy to refute because they are measuring the wrong thing. They do all this math about the size of stars, and how they aren't big enough to resolve with the human eye at their supposed distances, all of which is true. But we don't see stars by resolving their sizes, we see them via the brilliance of their light output.

It's the same way a marble is too small to see from a mile away, but you can see a candle flame or an LED. Has nothing to do with how big they are, everything to do with how bright they shine.

That's why if you look at a star chart, they are listed by their magnitudes, not their sizes.

Well, let me add some things from the "satellite-hoax-satellites-do-not-exist" thread:

///
"Not sure this answers your question, but I once worked on a salt field, about 1500m x 6000m, where depth measurement was critical (to around 50mm). We thought when we linked up the harvesters to satellites, we would get even more accurate harvests, but what we found was no end of troubles - we couldn't achieve consistent results across the entire field. In the end, we went back to assuming a simple flat plane (no satellites), to achieve the original acceptable accuracy. Not sure if this was just because our satellite linkups were wrong, but knowing what I know now, it wouldn't surprise me if the errors were from assuming the flat earth was round.

///
Doesn't the fact that "Satellite TV" companies are hyping up their ability to provide subscribers access to programming anywhere they are with the aid of an "App" proof that they don't use Satellites? What is that big antenna and all that nifty equipment for if you don't have to carry the antenna all around to watch TV where ever you go?

Just sayin...

///
...I'm a 38 year old Engineer with Raytheon Australia, a US defence company based in AU. Years of Defence engineering work presently on Naval Weapon Systems, previously aerospace AWAC's and before that Sat Com Engineering for Intel. Lots of stories we could share but when working with Satellite comms I was attempting to work out how we were getting certain comms because they didn't appear to be bouncing off satellites. We have TS clearance, compartmentalised so it is very difficult to stray outside your allocated slice of pie. Anyway, I was promptly told I was "thinking outside me clearance" and pulled into line."

///
All that matters is that any lights you may see in the sky are not satellites. We are meant to believe that they are roughly the size of a school bus, a relatively small size for an object thousands of miles away, and despite this they still claim we can see them with our naked eye... The idea that you could see it outside of the Earth's orbit when you can't two or three miles away down the road is a joke.

All communications are simply radio wave transmissions. They do not rely on satellite technology. Think about this, when you go into the forest with your mobile phone, it will lose reception. If there were satellites above it in the sky, it wouldn't matter whether you were in a skyscraper packed city or a tree filled forest, the reception should work in both locations, and yet it does not in most woods. That is because your mobile phone needs to be close to a phone tower in order to work. When someone goes missing, they check their mobile phone records by looking at the pings from the nearest phone tower to the person when they went missing. They do not check satellites for information. The concept of the satellite is classic NWO peacocking. They are trying to look more sophisticated than they are, and they are trying to give the impression that they can spy on you wherever you are on Earth.

///
It's been mentioned that skywave propagation can account for satellites.
[Wiki: "In radio communication, skywave or skip refers to the propagation of radio waves reflected or refracted back toward Earth from the ionosphere, an electrically charged layer of the upper atmosphere... skywave propagation can be used to communicate beyond the horizon, at intercontinental distances."]

///
With 1940's technology they could reach accurately to 1500 miles on open water. Research LORAN. The maximum range that radio signals travel depends on atmospheric conditions, signal frequency, signal broadcast strength and receiver sensitivity. There's already plenty of towers to cover land and with a few AWACS aircraft flying over oceans(who knows maybe they have even turned commercial aircraft into GPS towers now?) they have most every place a person could want to travel covered by now.

///
Hi, the fiber optic cables connect the world from phone to internet, they currently connect every continent apart from Antarctica. Not that it is known anyway.. here's a site that shows a map of the fiber optic cables www.submarinecablemap.com/ and here's a YouTube video of a company that's been laying them through out this world for over 50years now

///
Some interesting inside information regarding ground-based GPS and fake satellites starting around 49:00 here: https://youtu.be/1xAsKLjtTLM

///
I tried to use my G.P.S.(Global Pandemic Stupidity) while on a plane and it would not work whatsoever.I thought,this should work no prob, afterall GPS comes from satellites right? WRONG, my GPS came back on the same time my cell started picking up signal again. Interestingly enough, weren't GPS units pushed to the public domain roughly the same time cells started gaining mass appeal?

///
"... So it's policy that he has a working satellite phone on him at all times, in case something goes wrong or someone needs to contact him. So as soon as I brought up the idea of satellites being fake, he said "you know what, that is funny because even when the satellite phone says 'there at 20+ satellites above you' sometimes you still can't make a call". At first he thought it was just his phone, but he also mentioned there have been several occasions where there have been other staff on site, who could also not make calls from certain location."

///
There are more posts on that link. It's not a very long thread, maybe one page.

[Shawn Henry]

Not sure if this was just because our satellite linkups were wrong, but knowing what I know now, it wouldn't surprise me if the errors were from assuming the flat earth was round.

It's not just your work. All the military technical manuals start off by saying "assuming a flat non-rotational earth". Implying that's the only math that works.

[Good & Global]

Did Kanye start saying he believed in flat earth to make everyone think it was crazy people that believed this?