Holographic Cosmos, Local Simulation: A Bridge Hypothesis

By posting this, I hope to explain my working hypothesis for all kinds of space-related anomalies and craft a cohesive model for our perceived reality. This hypothesis could be considered a bridge between generic space fakery theory and Flat Earth theory. I do not believe that the Earth is flat…but if you are a Flat Earther, I encourage you to read on.

We have to consider that Flat Earth is misdirection against something. What exactly? When I read Dubay’s 200 Proofs the Earth is Not a Spinning Ball, I find that his arguments for the flatness of the Earth are some of his weakest…even though this is what he is supposed to be convincing us about. This is a bad sign, and any experienced alternative researcher knows that Flat Earth is the #1 bad source. All kinds of disinformation and deception is found therein.

With disinformation, we are often fed kernels of truth in order to lead us astray. With Dubay’s Flat Earth proofs, the best kernels of truth are the ones stating that the Earth is not moving through space at tens of thousands of miles per hour.

Circling the solar system, circling the galaxy, the galaxy itself moving. There are supposed to be tremendous motions at hand other than the Earth’s daily spin. Dubay says that experiments (Michelson-Morley, Sagnac) have failed to detect these other motions. This has nothing to do with the Earth being flat, so it is an interesting inclusion, and the kind of thing that makes a bad theory (Flat Earth) actually seem compelling. It fits with an inherent conflict we feel as humans…it does not seem right that Earth is moving at all these different tremendous motions.

The illustration above is supposed to represent the motions occurring for the Earth. To me, this is one absurd picture…considering our earthly experiences. Circling the sun, the sun circling the galaxy, and (not pictured) the galaxy moving through the cosmos. Some of the best of Dubay’s proofs state that experiments have shown we are not actually at such wild motions.

Where does Dubay go astray? The arguments for flatness. They simply are not compelling, and they need to be surrounded by more compelling observations to be swallowed. This is how disinformation works.

The flatness concept is easily countered by celestial observations leaving quite literally no doubt that the arrangement of the cosmos matches with globe shape, as part of a solar system. A flat model cannot and has never explained the relative solar motions, celestial motions, and all kinds of other everyday Earth-based observations. It is essentially indisputable that observation verifies the current cosmological model. With that said, remember…I have said that we are not actually circling the solar system and circling the galaxy and moving at incredible rates of speed toward neighboring galaxies. These motions would leave telltale signs that we cannot seem to detect.

What does that leave us with? A somewhat contradictory set of observations. One thing stands out about the celestial observations used to prove that the Earth must be round: They are correct as far as it goes, but what is often overlooked is that these are indirect methods of verification.

It is like Plato’s Cave, the allegory of shadows on cave walls. Looking up at the sky is no better than seeing the shadows of the cave walls and believing that they represent reality. They are an indirect way to observe. While they do seem to confirm that the Earth is part of a solar system circling the sun with the sun as part of a galaxy, this is entirely indirect. This is only how it is made to look.

To this, I ask: Why do you trust that what you see when you look up at the cosmos is actually a reflection of something real?

Imagine yourself to be a character in the computer game “The SIMS”. In this game, a simulation of a human town is run and you are in control of it. If you were a character in an advanced version of The SIMS, the sky could be programmed to seem like exactly what we see on planet Earth. Would that mean that your town in The SIMS is actually situated on a planet within a solar system and galaxy? No, it would not. It is only a simulation.

The people living in that simulation of The SIMS, if conscious, would likely believe themselves to truly be part of a solar system and a galaxy, but they would have been lead astray by their indirect observations of their sky. Their local environment would seem very real to them; they would not know that their sky is not a reflection of something real. Especially if that fact were intentionally kept from them.

This could be exactly what we are experiencing here on Earth.

It has already been postulated that it is highly probable that we live in a simulation and that the cosmos might be a 2D hologram made to look like it is 3D. Apparently, many puzzling cosmological observations work much better when you turn them into 2D holograms. Then, simulation hypothesis has already been around for quite some time. My hypothesis is simply a way to tie these two fascinating theories together into an complete model for our perceived reality.

My hypothesis is that we live on a local simulation of a round planet with a holographic cosmos. The local planet is more-or-less stationary…only made to rotate at a measly 0.000694 RPM (see: Foucault’s pendulum). The planet is indeed round, as this is what our simulators created for us. The cosmos, on the other hand…entirely simulated, holographic, with resolution degrading by distance.

Like any simulation, parameters are built to keep us within the boundaries of the game. Our atmosphere and the Van Allen belts make any travel to the moon, stars, or beyond virtually impossible without a major breakthrough in technology. The Earth is the only real terrain of our simulation. This even ties in with NASA fakery. Perhaps they know that the objects in our local environment are Potemkin bodies. Not real.

This hypothesis also ties in with the incredible improbabilities surrounding the Earth…the origin of our water, the origin of our moon, the origin of life, the maintenance of life on Earth for 500 million straight years. It is as though we live in the most improbable of all improbable worlds, where everything just happened to turn out right. This is all explained by the hypothesis in question.

This would also explain why there is seemingly strong evidence that the local solar system was under a different configuration…even in very recent times. Think Velikovsky. If you are running a simulation, you can test out all kinds of local Solar System configurations.

My theory can be summed up basically as “Holographic Cosmos, Local Simulation”.

This takes the best of Flat Earth theory, strips away the misdirection, and utilizes some of the most exciting outside-the-box theories in current science such as the simulation hypothesis and holographic universe theory.

This might also be able to explain phenomena such as UFOs and ghosts, because if we live in a simulation, then there must be all kinds of backdoor ways for those who have reached “admin” levels to do things that would seem magical to the average human eye.

There would also be a significant incentive for those “in the know” about this to keep it from the regular populace. If the populace were aware that they were living in a local simulation, there would be utter chaos and anarchy. Maintaining secrecy about this would be the bedrock of all order…the foundation of how society is made to operate.

The only reason I post this in such a preliminary state is that I was not sure whether anyone had ever come up with anything similar. Am I the first to tie these theories together into one over-arching concept?

I wanted to publish this idea for posterity…who knows how long I will be around here?

127 thoughts on “Holographic Cosmos, Local Simulation: A Bridge Hypothesis

  1. You start off ” we have to consider the flat earth is misdirection against something” WHY? You go on to mention eric dubays 200 proofs and that his arguments for flatness are some of the weakest, but then list maybe 2 of them? Then you go on with: “with disinformation we are fed kernels of truth…..” basically leading the reader to assume from that statement eric dubay is disinformation with very little supporting evidence beside your opinion. I will further direct but it is late.
    Water will not pool unless contained and once contained it always seeks and finds its LEVEL.


    1. I’m sorry but I do find Dubay to be disinformation. Water can flatly fill a void on an enormous, slightly curved body. This is where the Flat Earth arguments suck people in…they are surrounded with concepts that are actually interesting, but they lead people to an incorrect, bad conclusion. I really don’t mean to burst anyone’s bubble, but the Earth is not flat.

      Something might be amiss, as I write, but if you still feel the Earth is flat you are about three curtains short of the rest of us. Flat Earth is absolutely disinformation.

      This will be an open discussion, but I hope the FE true believers can keep an open mind here and cease to relentlessly push the theory they’ve been force-fed and have swallowed.


      1. Hey fauxlex, I am for sure wanting to keep an open mind, with that said I am just pointing out things that remind me of how I was “taught” back in my indoctrination camp days, the “teacher” told me what was what, my job was to accept it without question.

        Can I prove this is not a simulation, no I cannot do that and I do not even know really what the idea this is a simulation even really means. For me whatever we decide to label this reality it IS our reality.

        You also mention I am about 3 curtains short of the rest of us,who is this rest of us you speak of? I can only infer that you speak for all of the readers here? That seems awfully bold to me. Peace brother, just searching for the truth.


        1. Your mention of the fact that you are certain about Flat Earth because you are trying to look at things differently from how you are taught is actually the problem. The road of alternative research is pockmarked with clever disinformation meant to capture those like you who are seeking alternatives, but designed to ensure that you end up with a flat tire. Flat Earth is one of the most significant of these, and it results in the largest number of people being shipwrecked.

          I don’t know this because I am an expert physicist, I know this because I am an expert in alternative research. Flat Earth is very obviously a trap.


    2. Take this diagram for example:

      Just because the ocean floor underneath has some slight curvature does not mean that the water is not sitting flatly and finding its level.

      Again, these FE docs suck people in by surrounding the numerous bad arguments with a few good ones. It’s a telltale sign of disinformation. I hope you can keep an open enough mind to consider my theory.


      1. “water … sitting flatly and finding its level” – Actually, not even in near-spherical flatness, but according to the irregular potato-shape of the geoid defined by gravity (as attraction minus centrifugal force).


        1. If you know more than I, then please help me out. The other thing about there being “200 proofs” is that there is no way I am going to be an expert on all of them.

          I published this idea because I think it’s interesting and possibly new, but I am not a physicist. Some of the silliest of Dubay’s proofs are the airplane routes…some of which are actual routes that you can pay to take nowadays. He claims that the lack of such routes is proof of flatness, when in actual fact there are very good reasons the airlines do not typically fly these routes. To fly such a route once is to absolutely destroy these proofs.


        2. I was simply trying to say imagine you poured water into a container with a curved bottom. That water is still going to find a flat surface at the top regardless of whether the bottom is curved.


            1. This is the kind of logic-trap so common to the Flat Earther.

              Are you telling me that if I pour a gallon of water over a bowling ball there will be the same effect as my pouring a gallon of water over a gigantic Earth-sized globe with giant tectonic plates and continental shelves? Because you seem to think that the effect should be the same, that the water will simply roll off…


              1. Science is supposed to be testable, repeatable and verifiable, I’m interested in seeing a body of water stick to a spinning ball experiment!


              2. Well first of all a bowling ball is smooth. Obviously the water will roll off. The earth has dips and valleys where the water can pool. All I’m saying is that it doesn’t matter what the bottom of it is like pertaining to your diagram. The surface of water will always be level. And on a sphere it will never be flat.


                1. Why do you think that there cannot be flat surfaces on a sphere? Gaia described above the conflation with sea level. That seems especially apt here and where the FE logic is going astray.


                  1. You can have flat areas on a sphere but you have to make up for it eventually. They say Kansas is flat but when does it make up for it?


                    1. “You can have flat areas on a sphere but you have to make up for it eventually. ”

                      The whole definition of a sphere is that it has constant curvature everywhere. So any object that has flat areas cannot be a sphere. By definition.


                    2. A sphere by its definition has no flat areas, because the whole definition of a sphere is an object with constant positive curvature (curving downwards).

                      If you have flat areas and “you make up for it” by having larger curvature in other places you don’t have a sphere.

                      Take a pear. It is mostly convex (the bottom part; curving downwards), but you have a concave part (curving upwards) between the also convex top of the pear and its bulky bottom. And going from convex to concave you have an infinitesimally small “flat” area (0 curvature).


                  2. Is the earth flat? Maybe. Is it a sphere? Is it a mound? Maybe. You’re coming from the angle that it can’t possibly be flat. You shouldn’t do that.


                    1. “You shouldn’t do that”?
                      What, sticking to reality as opposed to an idea planted in our heads since the mid 2010s?

                      That is what FE does, it confuses. And you do the same here. “Keep people in the dark about the reality we live in so I can sell them my snake oil”.

                      The shape of the Earth is one of the few things we can prove with certainty, hence why the psyop is so vicious, demonic almost with makebelief.


        3. This whole “water stays level” point has been pushed by Flat Earthers who project their flat ideas onto reality.

          The question to ask is “level with respect to what?”. With respect to the Earth’s surface (sea level, 0 m). So the water level just follows the curvature of Earth, with respect to that it is level indeed.*

          FErs invent an extra “horizon” that doesn’t exist.

          *on a larger scale it is not even level because of tidal action (caused by Moon and Sun, thank you Simon Stevin, 80 years before Isaac Newton and thus gravity!), atmoshperic pressures, the differences in little g (minor, but still) across Earth.

          That is another thing the “gravity deniers” have never explained; the fact that g varies between about 9.78 and 9.82 m/s^2. That cannot be explained away by “buoyancy” and “density”, which they allege “gravity” is. I understand, gravity (and seismic waves) debunks their idea, so they grasp at straws to keep pushing it.


          1. Gaiassphere, gravity seems to me a label to describe a physical phenomena . I am a simple guy, but linked here is a article regarding a string theory scientist who thinks scientist have it all wrong about gravity. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html.
            Is he the only scientist questioning “gravity”? Have you investigated his claims as well as others against gravity? Isn’t it possible that there could well be a DIFFERENT explanation for this variation in “g” that you describe then what you ohave attributed to it?


            1. Thanks for the article, reading now. Dutch twins, born close to where I grew up, what a small world.

              I am also a simple guy and “string theory” goes about 6 dimensions above my head.

              But what I read is that he proposes another element behind gravity, on a more fundamental theoretical physical level I think. Will check for more about this guy and his proposal, thanks again!

              Of course I am open to other explanations for the variations in g across Earth, if it holds water (pun not really intended, but it fits).


              1. No problem regarding posting the article, its not so much that I agree with it or not, just that if a flat earther says gravity does not exist they are considered retarded simpletons but if a “scientist” makes such a claim it becomes more possible. I have a youtube channel that maybe one day we could do a livestream on or anyone else here to delve deeper into earths shape. I was super happy to see this even posted here, I think discussion on any topic is good if the motives are pure.


                1. You do podcasts, or videocasts?
                  Would be nice to have that discussion, if not at your platform, we can (also) do an Eye Am Eye Radio podcast. I even have some Flat Earthers in my server, but that doesn’t stand between us.

                  A question to consider: knowing the hundreds of years of maritime history (mostly by private people, also today), why did it take till 2014-15 and guys like Dubay, Sargeant and others to come up with this idea?

                  Wouldn’t we expect those who depend on their navigation based on a spherical model be the ones to shout out that the Earth would be flat?

                  What Verlinde says “I don’t believe in gravity” seems to me a quote pulled out of context by the NYT. He says there is something behind it and that relates with thermodynamics.

                  I tried to understand what they say here, but it is like French to me (I understand bits, but too little to make fromage of it).



                  1. I do videos on my tiny YouTube channel zoom truth. There are actually quite a few old articles and books from people claiming the earth is flat going back quite some time. Just so happens Nicole cote youtube ch. Just posted a vid about book on flat earth from 100 years ago, this stuff is hidden or forgotten. Regarding navigation you must not have ever seen this video about sailors, engineers, surveyors and pilots all giving testimony that earth is not a ball, its by eric dubay but it is one of my favorite TESTIMONY based videos many dating back quite some time.


                    1. Thanks.
                      That is the thing. I am just 15 seconds in and Dubay already makes a wrong claim. He is projecting Flat Earth onto reality and creating an imaginary line that doesn’t exist.

                      Why do canal builders and other engineers do not have to take the curvature of the Earth into account? Because everything is derived from sea level. Sea level is our datum, our zero line. In Dubay’s view that is flat and so he projects that on engineering etc.

                      But if the Earth is not flat and sea level follows curvature, like it does, water always stays level, then there is no extra line “needed to be accounted for”. There is just one line; sea level.

                      I have seen the same claim made by even sillier FE videos that “pilots should point their planes always to the ground else they’d fly off into space”.

                      Again, same thing. It is projecting an incorrect idea about Earth onto reality and creating an extra line that doesn’t exist.

                      A pilot flying at 30,000 ft above sea level can just keep flying at that altitude and theoretically should arrive at where he started. No need to “point the nose down” or any such nonsense.

                      Do you see how these FErs confuse and conquer you?

                      Liked by 1 person

            2. ” The moribund Zetetic Society was rebirthed as the Flat Earth Society in 1956 by Samuel Shenton.
              His genealogy is not available, but there are several indicators on his Wikipedia entry that he was
              following the same pattern. Most strikingly is that, despite having allegedly dropped out of
              elementary school and being a Flat Earth promoter, he was elected into the Royal Astronomical and
              Royal Geographic societies. This makes absolutely no sense, unless we understand that Shenton
              was actually enlisted as an ally of the scientific aristocracy. So we see the Flat Earth society
              coming right out of the Royal Scientific Societies in the 1950s, just as it is now coming right out of
              NASA and SpaceX. Apparently it had been decided long ago that accusing someone of being a Flat
              Earther would be a good way for the mainstream to discredit those who criticized accepted dogma.
              And now of course they are using it to discredit anyone who questions the propaganda that the
              Mockingbird media spoon feeds a dumbed-down populace. Everything old is new again.”

              By Josh, who used to write for this blog. http://mileswmathis.com/flat.pdf

              “This is the most important thing that string theorists have learned from quantum mechanics: you do not have to make sense anymore. Any contradiction can be relabeled a paradox, any infinity can be relabeled an axiom, any absurdity can be given to Nature herself, who is an absurd creature, in love with illogic and caprice.”

              “String theory begins by defining a string. In most instances a string is a one-dimensional loop, we are told. String theory is famous for its ever-increasing number of required dimensions, so that you would think that the theorists would have a pretty tight idea of what a dimension is. But if you think this you would be wrong. String theory is about math, not about concepts, and these brilliant mathematicians don’t have a very clear idea what a dimension is or what a one-dimensional “thing” would be. In math, a one-dimensional thing is a line. It always has been, since the time of Euclid, and that has not changed recently. A zero-dimensional thing is a point, a two dimensional thing is a plane, and a three-dimensional thing is a cube or sphere or whatnot. But all of these things are mathematical abstractions. They don’t exist and can’t exist. Of all these mathematical things, only the three-dimensional things have a potential existence, and then only if you add time. There is a very simple reason for this that has nothing to do with gods or turning on the universe or anything else esoteric or metaphysical. Points, lines and planes cannot exist because they do not have any physical extension. A plane disappears in the z direction, a line disappears in the x and y direction, and a point disappears in all three directions. In mathematical terms, it means that the variable or field has hit a limit—a zero or infinity—at this point in the equations, making existence impossible.”

              “This is the basic technique of string theory: if you run into some dead-end at any point in the math, transport that dead-end back to the string. For example, perhaps you find the need for a new particle but your math at that level of size or theory does not allow it. Well, simply make it another axiom of string theory. Postulate that your basic string takes that shape under the circumstances you have discovered, and your work is done. In this way, every conceivable problem can be collected at the foundational level and made into an axiom. Since you don’t have to prove axioms, you will never be pestered to supply a proof or explain anything. All problems can be collected, reinserted at the axiomatic level, and treated ever after as assumptions. In this way string theory really is the perfect theory. Using this technique, nothing is beyond mathematical expression.”

              Full string theory deconstruction both theoretical and trigonometrical, http://milesmathis.com/string.html


          2. In regards to gravity, why doesn’t the Earth pull the moon all the way to the surface? Basic science shows that horizontal velocity does not affect the downward pull. I used to be a science teacher and they sell $10 devices that prove this. But yet we’re told that the moon stays in orbit because of its “perfect” speed.


            1. You are con-fusing two g’s here.
              Small g is about Earth
              Big G is about space

              However it exactly works, but the Moon is in gravitational equilibrium (orbit). There is only one other possibility; gravitational disequilibrium (crashing). That is why we observe meteors daily, small asteroids/NEOs in gravitational disequilibrium burning up in the atmosphere (I have seen 8 of them in 2 hours flying parallel to the Sahara desert and their behavior seems to correlate well with the given explanation for them; burning up to dust).

              But the point you make is good for the space fakery question. Indeed, if the Earth has a gravitational effect on the Moon (and she on Earth; the tides) then how come those space thingies are not affected by that and claim they can just make new orbits, jump orbits, etc.?

              Orbits are the result of gravitational (?, big G might be different or there might be an electromagnetical component as Miles Mathis suggests) forces just like magnetic fields are. You cannot just pretend those forces don’t affect you, just because you CHOOSE to go to the Moon (JFK),

              That’s like “choosing to stand on top of Mt. Everest”. Not how exploration works, but his speech revealed those truths so thank you Johnny!


            2. What about the ether? Didnt they teach ether in textbooks long ago. They don’t do that anymore. Speaking in terms of ether and the way its said to operate makes more sense to me.


      2. Right, but look at the TOP of the water, it is FLAT AND LEVEL. The cgi pictures from nasa show earth from space with thousands of miles of CURVED water. If water does NOT take the shape of the terrain beneath it how the hell does it FIGURE out to make a almost supposed perfect sphere?


          1. Because cgi in MY mind would be the ONLY way to make an enormous body of resting water bend into the shape of a ball. The illustration you provided actually supports what I am saying, if terrain beneath is irrelevant to water laying flat at the top then why would that water all of a sudden bend into a ball (leaving aside the idea that said ball is spinning 1,000 mph ?


            1. The shape of the underlying crust has nothing to do with the flatness of a body of water, that was sort of my point, but I should really let the physicists in the room answer this one.

              The 1000MPH thing is also misleading, as I mentioned it is only 0.0007RPM. We are not exactly spinning out of control.

              And it has been proven that we are indeed spinning. Look, a clever disinformation agent could convince you that your asshole was your elbow. There just is not enough compelling evidence to support flatness. Even the best of the Flat Earth proofs only support a lack of cosmic motion, not flatness. This is my entire argument.


            2. So you assume they CGI Earth to push the Convex Earth?

              That is why realizing yourself we cannot go into space so enormously important (it is an existential question and one of the oldest we probably asked ourselves looking up at the back then unspoiled views of the skies).

              Because if space travel is fake, ALL the data “from space” is either fake or coming from Earth (like passing off real Earth-bound astronomical observations as “space telescopes”).

              So you cannot use the data that is fake to prove anything (except its falsehood). That is what I read in Fauxlex’s comment.

              Flat Earth follows the mantra of the Animal Farmers; confuse and conquer.

              I had it live, in a discussion with a middle-aged Canadian lady truth seeker. I asked her the question I ask most others at Discord “Do you believe in space travel?”.
              Her immediate (kneejerk) reaction was “I don’t think the Earth is Flat!”. I never had that before and she is an open minded researcher so we had a short chat that realizing space fakery =/= Flat Earth. That was new to her. And to me to seeing how “successful” that FE psyop is.

              Was not recorded though, just a casual chat.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. What a funny sync. I just talked with another Canadian (coincidence or sync?) who had the exact same reaction to my question!
                “Do you believe in space travel” ->
                “I had a discussion with Flat Earthers before”

                The guy is a truth seeker and philosophizing (loving wisdom) a lot, so open minded, but it was funny to see the same thing as 2 months ago or so and I mentioned our discussion here.


  2. So let’s try and play your mind game … When we look up at the sky and behold celestial bodies, we’re seeing a holographic simulation of stars, planets, our Moon and our Sun. An immensely powerful simulation without which there’d be no life on Earth. Man being incapable of building anything even remotely as powerful, who’d be the author of this world? You see this question has been asked and answered innumerable times during the existence of mankind on this planet. It is one of the roots of religious belief in its many forms.

    Tackled from another angle: If the celestial bodies are simulated, what about the weather? What about wind and rain and snow and fog? What about the rest of Creation? The land, the sea, the mountains and plains? Plants and animals? Our fellow human beings?

    The role of Flat Earth Theory is, in my opinion, trivial. It is an obvious regression into a pre-science or anti-science world view so grotesque that no one in their right minds would go near it. And yet it is under this banner of absurdity that various bits of true insight about hoaxes and illusions, such as those about space travel fakery, get published, and thus are associated with FET, contaminated with it, infected by it – in the mind of the superficial onlooker. So FET is like a toxic landfill where creative system administrators try to dispose of and contain annoying bits of useful insights that are not to spread within the populace.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You asked about the weather and my theory is very clear that the local environment is simulated and far more “real” than some distant celestial body, which would just be a holographic projection.

      I assume the resolution would degrade significantly the farther away we would be talking, so the moon might actually have a very high degree of resolution built in. The weather would be part of the local simulation with an extremely high degree of reality totally indistinguishable by us, the tiny humans inhabiting the planet.

      You asked how such technology would be possible, and I think you are not keeping anywhere near an open enough mind. If we consider that the universe is billions of years old and this might not even be the first universe or even the only universe, it would only require ONE civilization to have developed vastly superior technology to ours to be running such simulations.

      The odds are extremely low that we are actually living in base reality. Humans are actually still living in a stone age technologically, and through billions of years, technology would be developed that would be completely incomprehensible by our standards.


    2. Michael, we FEEL ABSOLUTELY NO MOTION. The earth supposedly “circles” the sun in an elliptical manner,at both ends of the apex of that elliptical orbit there should be a CHANGE in velocity that has to occur, again we feel zero motion.

      The adhominm attacks are surprising considering that most here have been on the receiving end of adhominm attacks for their beliefs in a range of subjects from school shooting hoaxes to fake gas chambers to 9/11 etc etc.. adhominm attacks in my mind are one of the lowest forms of argument and in my mind undermine credibility significantly. Peace. By the way I thought the same as you with your opening argument in the first two paragraphs.


      1. By the way, the lack of motion is part of what I’m suggesting is a legitimate gripe, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with flatness. This is exactly my point. They’re fooling you by placing a few decent observations around many, many bad ones.


        1. Yes I did get that lack of motion part with your argument, where I get lost is that there are other pieces of evidence even more compelling supporting flat earth than the lack of sensation of motion argument that in my mind are easier to “see”. I think hypothisizing about whether we are in a simulation is many times more abstract/complex than using our physical world here along with logic (if the moonlsnding was fake it could have played a part in the ball earth deception by giving “photographic “evidence we live on a ball etc etc) lastly if we live in a simulation than in my mind maybe it could be both, I have even wondered that just thinking this place was created but I do not believe that is the case, there is enough of deception in this world to have room that they lied about the shape of the earth.


          1. I think where you disagree with the crowd is how compelling the Flat Earth arguments are. What I see in Flat Earth is 20 lousy argument for every one halfway decent argument. And even the halfway decent arguments tend to not relate directly to flatness.


          2. That is why it is so important to separate the issue you want to cover.

            Is it the shape of the Earth?
            -> Flat, convex, or concave*
            Is it the relation between us and the celestial bodies?
            -> Geocentric, heliocentric, Tychonian, other serious models?
            Is it the humans faking superhuman to supernatural things?
            -> e.g. Nukes, space travel, invisible monsters that come with eating a bat, etc.

            *or any combination thereof, I had people come up with a donut Earth ad hoc argument, but a donut is a combination of concave and convex.

            If you keep wading in murky waters, you’ll keep being in a confused state.

            We should first establish that what
            1 – is fake (throw it out)
            2 – must be real (baseline), a convex spherical Earth falls in this category

            Then we can assess the rest and go into speculative terrains like simulation theory or electromagnetic universe or the excellent work by Dr. Anatoly Fomenko in trying to revise a historical chronology.


            1. My hypothesis is a marriage between simulation theory and holographic universe. The flat-earthers, I agree, they mix up numerous problems. The whole Flat Earth campaign is designed to mix these things up…wholeheartedly agree.


  3. I appreciate the philosophical and cosmological perspective this discussion opens up. Let’s assume a technologically superior civilization that has built a simulation for the inhabitants of Planet Earth like a giant pseudonatural Truman Show. Where do they dwell themselves? Here on Earth, in our midst? Or in an outside world that we never get a glimpse of?

    I am not convinced we are in stone age technologically. I do not know what is to come. To launch satellites, combustion and propulsion is still the one and only way to go. Magnetism can be leveraged to make attitudinal adjustments, but not for travelling. Mankind is doing fine, but there may be limits in physics. Promethean minds may find that unacceptable, hence come up with science fiction (like gravity assist).


    1. To me, asking where they dwell is a silly question and a triviality. They may very well be super-intelligent energy beings. I think you give our current technology a little too much credit. Any intelligence capable of this kind of thing would have likely evolved beyond their mortal bodies long ago and would be capable of things we cannot even fathom. Penguins might as well speculate about nuclear physics as well as I could hypothesize what these beings would be like or be capable of.


      1. Gaia, space fakery, to me, is Gagarin, Apollo, space stations – the entirety of manned spaceflight, plus unmanned space exploration to the outer planets, plus other things like landing probes on asteroids. But I do think space probes travelling to Mars and Vensu are real – not the rovers, though. Satellites are definitely real. Have you ever adjusted your satellite dish? I have, and it works. This stuff just works. It’s great technology and a fantastic accomplishment of research and engineering.


        1. What makes probes to Venus and Mars real but all the rest not? I have never heard this. What is the discriminating factor that you call Venus and Mars probes (of the 1970s you mean?) real but the rest fake?

          The reason I call man-made satellite fake is because of the science. If space travel is impossible (and it is following NASA cum suis own models) then satellites simply cannot exist. So they must be fake.

          Of course you can adjust your “satellite” dish to a point in the sky. Does that prove there is something in the sky to point it to?

          Signals bouncing off the ionosphere works for more than a century. Then there are dozens of remote islands with military bases on them, the ocean outside of shipping lines and flight paths is not seen by anyone, so they can easy park ships transmitting signals.

          A GPS device shows “satellites” on their screens. Does that prove there are “satellites” or just that you need triangulation to pinpoint a location?


          1. And adding to this.
            According to the mainstream narrative, those geosynchronous satellites should just hang there, some 33,000 km high. Right in the middle of the (just as theoretical; we cannot go into space to verify them) outer Van Allen belts.

            Do you know of any technology that works without maintenance?

            And then imagine the craziest radiation of all sorts and a metal object “hanging” there filled with technology.

            Do you really believe the Grapefruit Satellite still exists there?

            How can you get to such an idea after establishing the fakery in all the other areas (except those probes, you believe the Soviet Venus programs were real? Really??)

            Venera 7’s parachute [????] failed shortly before landing very close to the surface. It impacted at 17 metres per second (56 ft/s) and toppled over, but survived. Due to the resultant antenna misalignment, the radio signal was very weak, but was detected (with temperature telemetry) for 23 more minutes before its batteries expired. Thus, it became, on 15 December 1970, the first human-made probe to transmit data from the surface of Venus.

            Venera – Wikipedia

            Liked by 1 person

    2. Michael: “To launch satellites, combustion and propulsion is still the one and only way to go.”

      What makes you believe man-made satellites exist? When we have undersea cables allegedly responsible for “99% of all data traffic” (I of course cannot verify such claim).

      And how would satellites (or any man-made object) survive under the conditions of space presented to us (again not verifiable); 3 K (-270 C, Fahrenheit you can do yourself) and 10^-16 bar (psi I don’t do, SI units please).

      I have written quite a bit, but more to find in the linked podcasts, mostly in reaction to what was said over at Cutting Through the Fog here.

      I thought you were on board with space fakery being a thing (and I completely agree has been infested by FE) but now I see you believe in satellites? Or do I misunderstand you here?


  4. Lots of closed-mindedness here in the initial comments, whether by Flat Earthers hell bent on their own theory or non-FE’er unwilling to conceive of super-advanced technology.

    All I ask genuine readers is to try to keep an open mind here. The reason I came up with this theory is that it seems like a decent model for explaining our perceived reality.

    Considering the recent hostilities here, I am fully expecting hostility in full force. I just think it’s a neat idea worth exploring!


    1. Hey faux, I don’t feel I am being hostile here or closed minded so much as the theory is so ABSTRACT as to leave very little usefulness for it to achieve. Something created this place. How? Why? When? I am not sure we are meant to figure that out while we are here. When I first heard simulation theory I was an atheist I am embarrassed to say, once I heard simulation theory I knew that there COULD be a creator. When I learned the earth is flat I KNEW there was a creator. What exactly is the creator, no idea.


      1. Dave: “When I learned the earth is flat….”

        The Earth cannot be flat. No matter how many YouTubers make videos, the observations we all can make debunk the Earth being flat (or concave). As there are only 3 geometrical possibilities; flat, concave or convex, convex remains. And we see that. We cannot directly observe curvature (because we cannot go high enough), but we can observe the effect of curvature; the horizon.

        Also seismic wave propagation cannot work on a Flat Earth, or at least no Flat Earther has ever used seismic data to pinpoint an earthquake. Same for plate tectonics, how do FErs explain not only the surface fit between South America and Africa, but also the subsurface (the Atlantic basins in Brazil and Angola are a mirror image of each other!).

        Just like no FEr has ever predicted the most basic of celestial phenomena; lunar and solar eclipses and how different they look when you see them from different points on Earth. Back in Sep 2015 there was a lunar eclipse that I observed for hours in Barcelona. My wife was watching it here in Colombia and the angle of the shadow passing over the Moon was different. Something no FEr has even begun to explain.

        I said it before and will say it again, please wake up from the misguidance you fell for.

        Flat Earth = cancer

        Liked by 2 people

        1. I hate the word debunk. As far as no flat earther being able to make celestial predictions the astrolab i believe was used during a time when people thought the world was flat? https://youtu.be/o-P2Et-755E. Video gives some info on astrolab. I seriously hope one day we can do a livestream hangout and record it, or I will end up with carpool tunnel using my phone keyboard! We are NOT so far apart, you think space is fake? You do not believe we are hurling through space at insane speeds? Etc etc etc. At this point I feel like anything taught in school or by government its almost best to assume the opposite is true, and they push the hell out of a ball earth and Space being real! Peace brother , email me at david@zoomtruth.com if you ever want to maybe do a YouTube show, I think we could have an EXCELLENT discussion, and I could learn something.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Thanks! I will send you an email. We will make it happen.
            Also others who prefer voice over text (like me) and like to get to know many other truth seekers, just contact me at agenda2020@protonmail.com

            But on the Flat Earth and astrolab I fear we have a “Mandela Effect” at hand. I see the ME as just people actively changing history, not some wild idea others give meaning to it.

            It is not true the Earth was thought to be flat. Maybe some fringe groups thought it, but the general view has been a geocentric, heliocentric and later Tychonian view of Earth. So spherical, just the relation with the celestial bodies was different.

            Only the famed Edmund Halley, yes the one who got his own comet, was a Hollow Earther, all other serious astronomers were spherical Earthers but disagreed about geo/heliocentrism.

            The Flat Earth movement floats on that idea you present “everything you learned is false, so the shape of the Earth too”. That is a non sequitur, because only the physical observations and data count, not what people say or claim. And it is propagating that confusion, where the waters are murky. By design, as I see it.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. The horizon does not disprove flat earth. Even modern science agrees with that. It’s called perspective.


          1. Please don’t con-fuse me with someone you can sell a word and think you have solved it. I have some FE experience and heard this word called out many times.

            It doesn’t mean anything. Just shout “perspective”. Case closed. Eh no, that’s not how things work (the same for others who just shout “gravity” in response to a FEr).

            You can prove the horizon at sunset by watching the sun set and stand up, climb a ladder or whatever way to get a higher viewpoint. The sun is still there.

            I filmed this with my drone. The sun had set in front of our eyes but on the drone view it was still there. What “perspective”?

            And following the FE idea, the Sun should not set at all. It should become smaller and smaller (farther away on a flat plane). The fact we don’t observe that again proves FE false.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Going up higher proves perspective. Things vanish from the bottom. Go up higher and vanishing point rises.


              1. The “vanishing point”, yet another one of these words thrown around in FE videos.

                The vanishing point doesn’t physically exist. It is an effect of our eyes, not of the nature around us. And the higher you go, the farther away the vanishing point becomes; the further the horizon. Indeed that proves FE is impossible because on an overall flat surface (with bumps and valleys ofc) there would be no horizon (the boundary between atmosphere and ground), it would go on indefinitely.


                1. Not really following you on this. You agree the higher you go the further the vanishing point. That would explain why the drone could see the sun.


                  1. Kyle, FE has been accused here of “sucking all the oxygen out of the room”, and do you see how you are confirming this portrayal to the letter? You are so dead-set on trying to make everything fit with flatness that you are disregarding about a dozen nearly irrefutable proofs for the globe shape.

                    We ought to be having a very enlightening discussion about the simulation hypothesis, its philosophical implications, its connection to Western religious tradition, and so many other interesting topics.

                    Instead, you are challenging every comment to an almost laughable degree. Your comment about 1% and the sun being an especially egregious example of how astray you have been lead. Flatness has led you deeply astray…you are so stuck on a bad theory that it is keeping you (and this entire comment thread) from actually getting anywhere interesting. Even though there literally cannot possibly be a flat model to explain our perceived reality, if the discussion at hand does not give flatness a gigantic amount of credit, you just won’t let it go. It sucks to witness this because I do feel you are probably a genuine truth-seeker.

                    Nobody is telling you that you are not free to believe what you want, but just let it go man. Until some kind of gigantic breakthrough is made to make serious alternative researchers reconsider Flat Earth theory, we are correct to consider it a silly disinformation campaign. Your sucking the oxygen out of the room is not helping anyone.


                    1. I’m totally open to earth being a sphere. I just haven’t heard any concrete evidence yet. Seeing things differently in the sky from different hemispheres works on both ideas. Just list a few reasons for me. In no way am I trying to be confrontational. I think I’m just a little excited to be talking about something other than coronavirus.


                    2. If you don’t feel like there’s concrete evidence available for the Earth being a globe, I suggest that you are not “totally open” to it.


                    3. It is probably rAcIsT of me to say it, but arguing about Flat Earth is like Br’er Rabbit fighting the Tar Baby. The more you fight against FE, the more stuck you get.

                      But I have to agree with Kyle on one thing … it is nice to get a break from Covid paranoia.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    4. That is precisely how it feels with Flat Earth…but I must say that it’s also a poor reflection upon the flat-earthers.

                      They are, by their own telling, looking for alternatives. Sadly, they appear to have bought the first alternative they discovered hook, line and sinker.

                      It might be partially related to the FE ban here that this post has brought out a few very ardent adherents. That said, jeez…you would imagine after 100 comments of their failing to really make ANY compelling case for flatness as a match for observed reality, they would consider they really might be wrong. Guess it could be the paid forum detailing types as well. Especially if they don’t respond to reason and consensus.

                      Consensus of the masses is one thing. Consensus here, among alternative researchers who are experienced with science, is a completely different animal.

                      I think part of what gets surreptitiously ingrained into them is that there is no need to be able to prove flatness if you can manipulate logic to question the globe shape. And it’s very easy to undermine even the strongest positions, but that doesn’t mean that you have proven a case of your own. Lacking even a theoretical model coming close to matching observed reality, they really do not deserve to be taken seriously, yet they demand it.

                      They usually get offended by this, but I really pity them…the true believers, anyway.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    5. Totally agreeing with Maarten and Fauxlex.

                      I haven’t followed FE videos in the last year, but before have seen too many. And the thing is, there is nothing new under the horizon (haha). It is all regurgitating each others points. That is not truth seeking (research), because in any research you should come across new points and rejecting old ones that were incorrect.

                      When do we see Flat Earthers admit they were wrong? They rather keep pushing their beliefs against all reason and observations.

                      And I also wonder, who is funding those Flat Earth conferences? I have been at quite some congresses when I was still a System Slave and those things are not cheap to organize. How are those Flat Earth conferences funded? Who is behind those? Why do we always see the same shills presenting the same BS as always, patting each other on the back and not being critical?

                      And instead of organizing meet-ups to hang out with other dogmatic believers where is the correct Flat Earth MAP?? Wouldn’t we expect that 150 years after Sammy Rowbotham (an inventor, I cannot stress that enough) there finally would be a map?

                      If the Earth were flat, mapmaking would be a piece of cake. Because it is not flat, everyday tens of thousands of people are splicing maps from different projections together as their job. I had my own share with it.

                      There is nothing easier than projecting a 2D shape (the “flat Earth”) onto another 2D shape (a map). It is much harder to project a 3D shape (the Earth as she is) on a 2D shape,


                    6. Before any FE’er tries to suggest that since there are FE shills and FE hit-pieces, then it must mean that they are trying to hide the fact that FE is legitimate…please reconsider.

                      Flat Earth is reinforced through paid agents so that the vast majority of amateur truth-seekers are trapped in a spider web of this bad concept. Then, on the other side, they are able to use Flat Earth as a laughingstock to ensure that the average worker bee continues living an unquestioning existence.

                      I just know that there are FE’ers out there who believe that since there are FE agents paid to make it look silly, that must mean that FE is actually true. Bad logic, that.

                      Liked by 1 person

    1. It read:

      “If this is all a simulation, and the controllers know that… why would they care about maintaining control of it?

      Surely they would quickly acknowledge the futility of such endeavours, then logically conclude that throwing themselves off the nearest tall building makes more sense than perpetuating someone (or something) else’s illusion.

      No, I do not think the controllers ‘know’ any more than we do about the true properties of this realm, except perhaps for the laws of nature. These they adhere to and fervently respect. Laws such as maintaining the greatest capacity and effectively a monopoly for violence via the military and the police, to ensure they remain at the top of the food chain if all else fails.

      The world they have created for us to live in, with fakery and artificiality at every turn, is itself a simulation. What we are shown is not what is really happening, and the controllers surely know this because they conceive of and nurture all the foundational legends that become all ‘factual’ material we are ultimately fed to digest.

      Everything this intellectual property machine generates serves the controllers’ interests and reinforces their grip — which again, would only be necessary if they do not know for certain that reality itself a simulation. They sincerely believe that maintaining control is not only worthwhile, but perhaps the only thing that really matters.”


      1. I was referring to the select few humans who might be clued into this truth, not the simulators themselves working to keep this a secret. Conceptually, we must imagine that the simulators are running a vast number of simulations and they do not particularly care about any single simulation or the events therein. I do suggest, however, that there would be something akin to moderators or admins. I mention this in the post. It would explain the hierarchical secrecy that we observe as we try to peek behind the curtain. It could also explain a great deal of legitimate supernatural phenomena.


        1. In my former professional life I ran thousands of simulations. To model the Earth and her history. Every simulation is an approximation of reality. How is that done in the “Universe Simulator” you sketch? What do you see as input?

          And how come all the observers have the same output (nobody calling the Moon a green square for example)?

          Which supernatural phenomena are explained by introducing a superhuman phenomenon?


          1. Conceptually, I don’t see the problem of every human having a shared output. The simulation is what it is, and we all have eyes that work to accomplish the same thing, the capability of witnessing this simulation.

            The supernatural phenomena I mentioned were UFOs and ghosts. I suppose I could also add religious miracles to that list, like the burning bush. Fires that are not hot, beings of light. I feel that it is silly to dismiss all of these things as superstition.

            And again, I am not going to speculate as to why the simulators would have chosen all the particular details of this simulation. It is akin to asking a priest why God made alligators. I have no idea, but I do not see this as an inherent problem.

            Hopefully someday, we will have a breakthrough where we conceive of a way to test whether our reality is a simulation. Until then, I consider my hypothesis to be as good an explanation for our perceived reality as anything. I was not sure whether anyone had ever connected the dots between simulation theory and holographic universe.


            1. I agree that ghosts and other supernatural phenomena are definitely not “just superstition”. I have become much more aWARE. of the spiritual world of Gaia than just the physical. UFOs I see as a different thing; military psyops.

              But I see these phenomena as a sign of divinity, “God”, or Gaia in my views.

              How can we ever prove to live in a simulation if we are part of the simulation? That becomes philosophically tricky I guess. It’s like the fish in the fish bowl who’ll never know the bowl, because he is part of it.

              Also why (without AI) we can never understand the brain. Because we need the brain to understand it, so you end up in a loop.

              Taking that to simulation theory (or divinity, God) is similar; if we cannot step out of the simulation, how can we ever prove it exists?


              1. I hope someday someone develops a breakthrough so that we can actually detect whether we live in a simulation. That would be one heck of a scientific breakthrough. Even a philosophical breakthrough.


                1. It is an interesting concept, but I struggle to understand how we could ever know it.

                  A few weeks ago I had a chat about it too with someone who said that we “all see different things”. True of course, we cannot possibly process all the impulses coming to us every second, but if I throw the ball with Molly, she catches it. She sees the same reality as me and she’s a dog!

                  I don’t think animals can conceptualize a “simulation” (but cannot disprove they can either), so does the simulation work on everything then? What discerns the simulation then from reality?


                  1. Just because it is currently unknowable does not mean it is invalid. I understand the frustration people might have in this is currently being untestable.

                    You asked what discerns the simulation from reality, and of course I can’t tell you. I wish I were clever enough to be the person to design a true test of whether out perceived reality is a simulation.

                    This is why I am simply asked for people to keep an open mind but I absolutely understand why would be frustrating for some to consider this idea over others. I guess I am more willing than others to make that leap. I feel that it does a better job at explaining the perceived reality than anything I have ever considered previously.


  5. I agree about flat earth being more of a discredit by association tool. There’s lumping of truths like space fakery poured into the soup outlined in flat earth. Some time ago I came across old newspaper articles mostly this century even up to around 1960 that appeared to be still trying to convince the reader that the earth was a sphere and not flat. You read that right articles in the 1960’s. One can search for those there is a site I’ve used before to find old newspaper articles I have no idea the name of it though. I’m not old enough to know how much of recent history is back dated. It does give a hint to “1984” though where history was constantly being updated.


  6. The words “holograph”/”hologram” and “simulation” are products of the Transhumanist Age we live in (computers).

    What was the reality before people knew about those concepts introduced to us in (science)-fiction?

    We only know about those words “simulation” and “holograph” because they have been fed to us as part of a digital age. That couldn’t be farther from Nature, Gaia, Divinity. It intends to destroy divinity in every way.

    I see this “simulation” idea as just as fed (or should that be FED?) to us as Flat Earth, an impossible idea, geometrically. Like you said, the celestial phenomena debunk Flat Earth.

    “Round Earth” is a silly term. Flat Earth is also Round Earth, as round refers to a 2D shape and the Earth is 3D. So spherical, or if you really insist “Globe Earth”.

    I don’t see problems with the theoretical velocities in the astronomical movements of Earth, but if you have problems with it, there is the TYCHOS, which I must say has gained credibility over the years (no matter what you think of Simon Shack, his model is rigid and predictive). The TYCHOS has just a 1 mph movement of Earth around the central point.


    1. I do not agree here. Just because the Ancients could not conceive of something as wild as Ultra-intelligent entity simulations does not mean that it is impossible that this was actually the underlying nature of reality back then.

      They truly may have just been incapable of conceiving of such a notion. Their observations would be like the characters in SimCity. Their simulated characters could be made to look up at a sky that is identical to ours in every way. They would have postulated themselves to be living in a real solar system.

      It would only be much later in their evolution that they might actually question whether they themselves were living in a simulation, and their night sky might not be a reflection of anything real.


  7. The TYCHOS model is incorrect because he still assumes the planets are real. Which they’re not. Basic laws of reflection prove this.


    1. Huh? You can look at the planets through a telescope. Whatever they are, they are real.

      Which “basic laws of reflection” do you mean? And how does that relate to objects in the sky (not only light, the wavelengths of it are also different) that follow predictable patterns?


      1. They’re real but not what they say they are. For one light spreads out from its source. We wouldn’t even see the reflected light from the tops and bottoms of the planets because it would reflect out into space. Same as the sun. We should only see the less than 1% of sun rays that would directly hit earth. The sun is close. The way it lights up clouds proves this.


        1. We should only see 1% of the sun’s rays? Huh? I mean, the sun is enormous in comparison to the Earth. Maybe we do only receive 1%? I’m not familiar with the argument you are making here.

          FE is so damned insidious. I wish I could make its adherents realize the depths to which they have been had.


          1. I’m not talking about flat earth. I’m talking about basic laws of science we observe. Light, or radiant energy, radiates out from its source. So we only get the sun rays that would directly hit us. Which modern science agrees with. Because they have to. Because it’s wrong. How can we see the top of the sun if that light shoots out into space nowhere near us? It’s elementary really. The sun has to be close. Doesn’t mean the earth is flat. But it could be.


            1. As both Gaia and I have suggested though, what makes you think the Earth gets more than 1% of the sun’s overall light?


        2. They’re real but not what they say they are.

          To be able to make such a claim, don’t you need to make a case for what they are then? There are rings around Saturn, you can see the moons of Jupiter with your simple camera (I took photos of them). It fits what they are supposed to be, not?

          For one light spreads out from its source. We wouldn’t even see the reflected light from the tops and bottoms of the planets because it would reflect out into space.

          Shine a light on a spherical object in a dark room and the top and bottom show up, you see a circle (a 2D representation of a 3D object, a sphere), I don’t see the problem with that.

          Same as the sun. We should only see the less than 1% of sun rays that would directly hit earth.

          I don’t understand this, or what “we should see”. And following the mainstream model with distances and sizes I’d say we receive far less than 1% of the sun rays (the “2D circle” that is lit by the Sun, cf. a full moon receiving the light from the Sun) because the vast majority of light from the Sun doesn’t reach Earth but is sent into space in all other directions but Earth.

          The sun is close. The way it lights up clouds proves this.


          And the Sun cannot be close to us. Because if the Sun would be at 5000 km/3000 miles (“close”), that what FErs claim, the size of the Sun would be very different when seen from different angles. The fact that is not the case proves that the Sun (or Moon) cannot be close.

          Objects close to you have a much bigger difference in size when seen from different distances than objects far away from you.

          But you bring up another point that doesn’t make sense in Flat Earth. All the other celestial bodies (minus comets) are spheres.
          1 – the Sun rotates (observable sphere)
          2 – the Moon looks like a circle to us and that can only happen (again geometrical laws) if the Moon is a sphere, because no other shape can look like a circle when seen from different angles, only a sphere can,

          So even Flat Earthers must admit the Sun and Moon are spheres, why would Earth suddenly be a pancake? Makes no sense.


          1. Do you see the actual ball or the photons reflecting off the ball? I think you see the ball. Science says the photons. But you can’t have it both ways. Again, I’m not arguing flat earth, so the sun being close wouldn’t have to get bigger or smaller. And the sun and moon wouldn’t have to be spheres with that logic, they could be mounds of some sort.


            1. You haven’t really explained anywhere what you DO mean with your 1% of light comment, though…so you can’t really blame us for grasping at straws to understand what you are trying to get at there.


              1. Basically if we only receive 1% of the rays then why do we see the whole sun. Same with the stars in the sky. They tell us that we see the stars as they were billions of years ago because that’s how long it took the light to reach us. But we know light spreads out. There is no way we would still see them as a tight knit white dot in the sky. Btw, I definitely think your simulation idea has merit. Mostly because I’m open to all ideas because what “science” is telling us does not mesh with basic scientific laws we experience on earth.


                1. Oh c’mon, man…

                  Just because I personally only receive a small fraction of the light from a light bulb which lights up a whole room doesn’t mean that I can’t see the entire light bulb. This thing which you seem to think is problematic is just not actually problematic.

                  Flat Earth is so freaking damaging. It never ceases to amaze me how effective FE is at making genuine skeptics ask all the wrong questions.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. I agree. It usually starts with a false premise and then the whole house of cards is built on top of it. Back in 2015 I made a video with the impossibilities of Flat Earth (two parts and 2 of the few videos I produced so far) but the world hasn’t changed. It is the same faulty points that are brought up ad nauseam.

                    You’re right and the reason Mark didn’t allow FE before, but I am glad we can have these discussions at least to make clear how faulty FE is and what a psyop it is leading otherwise sharp enough people completely astray into this rabbithole.

                    And again, if the Earth would be flat, it would not take Dubay or Sargeant to come up with that idea (after inventor Rowbotham’s work in the 19th century), but it would be the ones directly dealing with Earth (sailors, geologists, geophysicists, etc.) to expose this “humongous lie we have been believing for centuries”.

                    Look at the Anthropogenic Global Warmongering hoax, actual with Agenda 2030 on the horizon (haha). Thousands of experts in the field have rejected the whole AGW scam (Tony Heller is a great one on YT) based on scientific observations. Luckily it was the only big hoax I never believed in (before waking up to the alternate reality we live in).

                    Same with the COnsential Rape Of Nasal Apertures now. Look at all the experts speaking out against it; the Kaufmans, Cowans and many others of this world.

                    With the easiest to confirm or reject idea (not “theory”), Flat Earth, that would be the case too. Why did it take till 2014/15 for someone to come up with this idea?

                    The only field expert I know of who has proposed an alternative model for Earth (still spherical!) is Neil (forgot his last name) about Expanding Earth. I watched some of his videos but he suffers from the same; cherrypicking that what aligns with his ideas but ignoring everything that goes against it.


                  2. So again, this whole argument has nothing to do with flat earth. All I’m trying to do is use basic principles to prove they’re lying to us. I asked a question earlier, do you see the actual light bulb or the photons coming from the light bulb? So they tell us that we aren’t really seeing the stars, that we’re looking back in time and the stars may not even be there, right? Do you agree with that? So the light from a light bulb or flashlight radiates out, right? But we still see the whole bulb. Which one is it?


                    1. Typical FE talk, creating a false dichotomy.

                      If you stand close to a fire, do you feel the heat or do you see the flames. Which one is it?

                      It is both of course. And whatever photons are, seeing those and the lightbulb both is perfectly possible.

                      The distances to the stars have been calculated based on stellar parallax. And that is where the TYCHOS comes in, one of the conclusions Simon still needs to write out in full, is that the whole measurement of parallax is faulty. According to Simon it is based on the moment in the year you measure it. So if that is true, it would make stellar parallax non-existent, so all distances to the stars are based on something that cannot be measured.

                      The false dichotomy of either Flat Earth OR heliocentrism.
                      The false dichotomy of either Flat Earth and space fakery OR the whole NASA package.

                      etc. etc.

                      I even had FErs baffled how I could not believe in space travel but thinking the Earth is a sphere. Together with the Canadian examples it hurts to see so much confusion even among truth seekers.

                      And coming back to your point of “not being able to see the top and bottom of stars/Sun/Moon”, how is that possible? Just below the poles (let’s say 89.99 degrees) there is a component of light sent to us. If light is radial, then we should receive light from near the poles of celestial bodies.

                      Because what else would it be? Seeing just some half Sun (with the top and bottom “clipped” so to say) or so, or what are you proposing?


    2. To be fair, I can kind of/sort of agree with this. It is another thing my hypothesis could explain, strangeness with reflection. The resolution that we would see in neighboring planets would be strong enough that we can still use a telescope from Earth to get a decently clear picture of a planet like Jupiter and Saturn.

      Again, think of Plato’s Cave. Just because we see it does not mean that it is actually a reflection of something real.


  8. “Any experienced alternative researcher knows that flat earth is the #1 bad source” WOW. That statement SCREAMS trust ME,I know the real truth. I know many many “alternative researchers” (withatever they are) who have years of experience (by the way what qualifies one as experienced?, is it time? Expertise, depth of knowledge?, who gets to decide those measures?


    1. Hilarious! Although it is important I point out that the one thing I do acknowledge is that we are slowly rotating. Beyond this, it gets very murky, hence my post and my hypothesis…


    2. Lol, yes, a flat earth documentary SOMEHOW gets msm NETFLIX, and coincidentally the flat earth stars of the show somehow happen to at that EXACT MOMENT prove themselves wrong and no one here thinks WOW, that could all be SCRIPTED????????? Seriously?????? Most flat earthers I know have some serious doubts about a few of the people involved in that HIT PIECE, but no one here thinks a hit piece on flat earth is possible right?

      AND, even if the flat earthers in it were sincere, there are tons of ways to edit video to tell the story you want to tell no??? It actually scares me to hear you mention that stupid fake documentary and at least not QUESTION, its true intentions. WOW.


      1. Would be remiss if I did not point out that a Flat Earth hit piece would invariably cause vast numbers of people to buy into the standard model more deeply.

        Gullible flat-earthers get what they want, the sleeping masses are lulled more deeply into sleep. That’s a win-win from the perspective of someone trying to divert everyone away from the truth.

        Just saying, my hypothesis could still be the answer there…


      2. When Flat Earth became a thing I joined the Flat Earth Society forum. It was an interesting experience. About 80% were “shills”. I don’t think they were paid, but they were pushing anything mainstream (including space travel). 19% or so was Flat Earther and there was me and Heiwa (who believes partly in space travel), a well-known Swedish researcher.

        Later I heard those comments too “they are not representative”, “no, not THOSE Flat Earthers”, etc.

        A) reality doesn’t fit with that claim because the so-called “controlled” Flat Earthers are saying the same things, making the same claims, and committing the same errors as the so-called “uncontrolled” ones
        B) it is not an argument. We are talking about testable reality, physics. Not about some speculation.

        That is what hurts me with this FE phenomenon. One of the FEW things we can actually verify for ourselves and just that is made crazy.

        Nobody of us can know if JFK was really (not) shot (because all we had is a film produced 11 years after). No doubt Miles Mathis’ Hidden Kings and JFKTV by Tyrone McCloskey are the best pieces around on it, but still we cannot 100% prove what happened that day or what didn’t.

        Same that I cannot prove space travel is impossible period.
        So what I have done is using the model they present to us of space and align that with their narrative they present.
        The boomerang effect.

        But absolute proof space travel is impossible I cannot give. It could be they faked the whole shebang, including their physical and chemical models and in the background they have a supersecret science and engineering we don’t know about.

        I don’t believe that is the case, but it is to show what we can prove and what not.

        And we can prove and observe with our own eyes the Earth cannot be flat.

        That’s why it took so long for that psyop to kick off, and as Jimmy said, it is used as a weapon to ridicule alternative views.

        “You don’t want to be raped (*vaccinated)? You must be a Flat Earther!”


          1. First we need to be on the same page about geometry.
            You agree there are just 3 possibilities (or a combination of those) for any surface:
            A – Flat – no curvature
            B – Concave – negative curvature; curving upwards
            C – Convex – positive curvature; curving downwards

            A doughnut or torus is a combination of convex (outer ring surface) and concave (inner ring).
            A diamond is a combination of flat surfaces (with angles between them).
            A cylinder is a combination of convex and flat

            These are geometrical laws, laws of Nature, I call them divine.

            How do we know it is not flat?
            1 – the horizon. I was born in the Dutch Mountains (don’t laugh, see the music at the bottom, no hardstyle but a classic from the Nits. You’ll like it.). Yet I have never seen the east coast of England (some 200+ km away). Yet you don’t see even lights from the British coast. This is just one example.
            2 – sunsets and moonsets don’t work. You can lay flat faced on a beach, watch the Sun set and stand up and you see the Sun again. That couldn’t be the case if the Earth were flat and proves there is a horizon
            3 – we should see the backside and underside of the Moon. Let’s take a full moon above the middle of the Atlantic. From Western Europe/Africa the Sun is in the west, low on the horizon, while from eastern Americas the Sun is in the east, low in the sky too.
            The observer on a ship in the middle of the Atlantic should see the underside of the Moon, while the European and African observers should see her BACK! We don’t observe that.
            4- the stars don’t work – see below

            How do we know it is not concave?
            1 – there should be no horizon, the further you look the more you should see due to the upward curving nature of the surface. As we have a horizon, this is impossible
            2 – what makes concave even more impossible than flat; all the heavens, all the stars, planets, Moon and Sun need to fit into a sphere (the “inside” of the concave Earth with a radius equal to that of Earth in a convex situation; about 6400 km). Obviously no astronomic model exists that explains this, but as with Flat Earth but now more extreme due to the restricted space, is that the Sun and Moon must be very small and maxmimum 6400 km away. If that were the case, the sizes of Sun and Moon should differ when seen from different distances (big Moon/Sun in zenith, tiny Moon/Sun seen from high northern or southern latitudes)
            3 – same as Flat with the backside of the Moon
            4 – the stars don’t work – see below

            How do we know it is convex?
            1 – by elimination of the other 2 geometrical possibilities.
            2 – the stars. Everyone can do the Orion Test, now northern winter is coming so it is visible in the skies for all, that is the beauty of Orion, it can be seen from all latitudes and what Orion does is that it rotates. I saw it with my own eyes and because of that it is my main argument.

            In the northern hemisphere Orion comes up “straight”; shoulders first, then belt, then feet/knees of Orion, the most recognizable of the constellations.
            The more south you go, towards here near the equator, Orion rotates and here it comes up sideways. In the southern hemisphere Orion comes up upside down.

            This effect can only happen if the Earth’s surface curves downward (convex), no other geometry can produce this effect we all can observe with our own eyes without telescopes or relying on NASA cum suis.

            And the beauty of the Orion test is that it doesn’t matter what the stars are or how far they are. They can be bags of popcorn, “just lights in the sky”, up to spotlights in some enormous firmament, anything. It doesn’t depend on what the stars are, it is the surface that produces this effect. You could see it as a giant inverted halfpipe (not a sphere of course).

            The Orion test is not new or fancy, but when I saw Orion coming up sideways 2 years ago this point dawned on me. It is a result of the 2 celestial poles Earth has. And it is that what makes convex the only possibility, because to have 2 celestial poles you need 2 Earth surface poles and only a sphere can produce that.

            I also wanted to comment on the “water always stays level” point. While it is mostly true of course, it also is not. I come from probably the flattest country on Earth (funny now living in the Andes, I miss the beach!) and it is full of locks. Between locks the water level is different, the whole purpose of using them. Or take the Panama canal that has (from the top of my head, I may be wrong about the exact number) 27 locks to move from the Caribbean to the Pacific (or vice versa). If water would be level everywhere, no locks would be needed.

            The Nits – In the Dutch mountains


            1. None of that proves a globe. The horizon and sunsets is perspective. Don’t see how you can argue that. Seeing things differently from different parts of earth definitely doesn’t prove it. Just because your on a ball as opposed to a flat plane wouldn’t change much. Only the angle you’re standing. If you put two people on the left and right of a circle all you have to do is cut off the mound between them and it becomes a flat line. Whatever is above would stay the same. Only difference would be your standing angle. Plus these arguments use lots of assumptions. Your assuming a flat earth model and assuming a globe model.


                1. I have many questions for you but I’ll just pick one. Do you believe the white lights we see in the sky are either planets or burning balls of gas that are trillions of miles away?


  9. This is an interesting conversation as FE and simulation theory have fascinated me in the past. I have rejected them both as lacking sufficient evidence to adjust from the current paradigm. (I have rejected the multiverse idea for similar reasons.) However, I do see them as being useful in getting us to ask better questions for why things “appear” the way that they do.

    Shack’s Tychos model is also interesting. I have not studied that at any length other than what was said above about it. It does appear to align with some observations and attempts to answer some of the unanswered questions.

    If everything that we have been taught is true, then why do some of the answers to the easy questions not follow?

    Step 1: Question everything.
    Step 2: Ask better questions.


    1. For me, the difference is that FE is actively disproven several ways. Simulation theory? Not as much. In a hypothetical simulation, our simulators would essentially be indistinguishable from God. It would also stand to reason that certain entities would be capable of violating what appear to be physical laws. That would certainly explain a thing or two.

      The difference in the theory that I propose is that it is not solely simulation theory. It is a marriage between simulation and holographic universe. I basically propose that we are trapped here on this Earth. Traveling beyond would not only be impossible, but even if we miraculously traveled beyond Earth, we would quickly find that what we see is not actually there.


        1. I gave up on Dark City because I’m kind of a film snob and it just wasn’t my kind of thing, but I am watching The Thirteenth Floor right now based on your recommendation. I see why you mention it. I am also a fan of Vincent D’Onofrio, so I am excited to watch. Thanks for the recommendation.


            1. To return the favor, right now I’m watching a flick I’d never heard of before called Operation Avalanche. It’s kind of like a modern-day Capricorn One.


      1. I don’t know the shape of the earth, nor you. Tell me again what your clear cut evidence is that you know it’s a sphere. Specifically. I’m total open to anything.


        1. Observed reality is undeniably a near-perfect fit with the solar system model, and Gaia here has laid out numerous extremely strong arguments specifically for the globe shape.

          Short of buying into some form of simulation theory, a new form of which I attempted to provide above, there is simply no viable flat model. Observed reality fits the globe model. This is why I offer my own simulation theory as an alternative for flat-earthers. If you want to be able to disregard the strength of the globe model to fit observed reality, simulation theory is really your only logically-coherent choice.

          It is especially telling to me that when I read the infamous document purporting to be FE proofs I find that many are totally unrelated to flatness.

          It is total innuendo to say that since neither of us can personally be absolutely certain about the shape, this means that flatness deserves equal footing with globe theory.


          1. So then would you say that in any sort of simulation theory one would have to disregard everything that has been told to us about space?


            1. This is why I am publishing my own very customized version of simulation theory, because observed reality, even minus any observation of the cosmos, still strongly support a globe.

              The most fundamental thing being that it is proven that we are spinning.

              This is where I have stated it is only a local simulation of a globe planet. Many simulation theories indicate that the entire universe is a real simulation. I am indicating that an ideal explanation is that the simulation is localized to the slowly rotating globe planet. The cosmos is merely a holographic projection.

              I can see where you’re going here, so say that if space is entirely simulated then you can claim flatness doesn’t even need to explain observed reality. This is always the ridiculousness with FE. It doesn’t bother with trying to explain observed reality.

              I am indeed saying that the cosmos ought to be disregarded, but my hypothesis is still very much concerned with matching up with observed reality.


  10. Flat Earth has always seemed like an obvious psyop to me. In my opinion and in my experience, it is used to tarnish the reputations of people speaking legitimate truth. For example, there have been countless times in which the response I received from someone after laying down some truth was “oh I suppose you think the Earth is flat too huh.”


    1. Bring up fake gas chambers and see what they think of you then. Or try telling people school shootings are hoaxes. Its not flat earth that triggers them, its that anything beyond what their brains were programmed to perceive as possible that triggers them. Anyway, so happy to at least learn more why so many here have view flat earth negatively. Its weird how compelling evidence gets excluded by both sides though I know you’ll say flat earth has no compelling evidence haha.


      1. I do say that…no compelling evidence. The problem is that what the FE’ers have as compelling evidence usually does not actually relate to the flatness. Shouldn’t all of Dubays proofs relate to flatness? The ones that I have stated are actually compelling are not in any way “proofs that Earth is not a spinning ball”, but that’s what the title leads them to believe. Thusly, many are fooled.

        It’s so incredibly easy to sucker someone in with a few real truths and twist it from there to make them believe whatever you want.

        You say evidence disregarded on both sides…it is nowhere near that even. FE theory cannot explain basically anything…it operates through innuendo. The globe arguments, while not perfect, do explain about 99% of observation. Flat Earth operates through innuendo in that remaining 1% to dupe as many skeptics as possible.

        A flat-earther would have you believe it is something close to a fair fight, and that’s just totally incorrect.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. “Bring up fake gas chambers and see what they think of you then.”

        I used that in the very beginning of the scampanic (my Newspeak, to exclude the demos part; it is following their Animal Farmer idea of “goyim”). One of the vendors here in the village next to me (a neighborhood, but it used to be a village outside the rest of the city) said “there are so many deaths of Covid”.

        I said to her “if they could fake 6 million deaths 75 years ago, why not some hundreds today?”.

        She was a bit baffled as you can imagine, but mutual respect and no problems with it.

        I have been successful with quite some people waking them up to new realities (in real life I mean). My father in law HUGGED me and said “thank you, thank you for showing me the moonlandings were fake”.

        He didn’t see those white clowns bunnyhopping when he was a kid. He was 35 with Apollo 11…..


  11. Good stories there! I love challenging peoples current beliefs, never had someone literally wake up to the lies right in front of me though yet, congrats on your father in law!

    Liked by 1 person

  12. The reason why we forbid certain topics is not that they do not garner interest, but rather that they take this blog down roads that characterize it in a certain way. We become a FE blog, and we attract FEers, and that becomes the dominant theme. Notice how comments took hold here, and how it will never end. I am going to shut down comments on this thread now, so get angry, leave and never come back, do whatever you do when your toy is taken away. I must end this intrusion into a topic we specifically forbade.

    Faux and I have had a nasty exchange, the nastiness aimed at me, not him. I was tolerant, but also concerned, as I had given him “Admin” status, meaning that with a push of a button this blog and all of its content could disappear. That was unwarranted power, and in a moment of bad temper he could use it against us. Given his temper and negative remarks about me, I attempted to change his status from “Admin” to “Editor,” but the Admin status does not allow that. Consequently, I had but one option, “remove.” He is no longer a writer on this blog.

    Will he return? It’s up to him. It will not be as Admin or editor, but maybe as contributor. I did not remove him out of spite, only to defend the blog. WordPress can always pull the rug on us, of course, but I cannot allow that from any other source.

    Good day.


Comments are closed.