Post
Not schizo at all, imho. Same goes for FE. NASA is not what they're saying it is. Space isn't real, there's some kind of dome above us and we're surrounded by an icewall that we know as Antarctica. The globe is a relatively novel concept that's closely aligned with certain royal families and their alchemists over the last few hundred years. There's a reason the globe got pushed this hard right (by Disney for example) after WW2 when some secret societies that questioned it had formed the ideological part of the Nazi ideology that started it.
Viktor Schauberger, Wilhelm Reich, Robert O. Becker and Luc Montagnie were all on to something, just in their own rite. Water, light, magnetism, piezoelectricity and biology are more relevant and connected than we're taught.
Jack Kruse is talking a lot about all this, but he's a character you either enjoy listening to or you can't stand the guy.
0
0
0
0
The movement of the stars invalidates FE, IMO.
Also, Starlink as "sataloons" wouldn't be feasible
NASA fakes a lot of ISS footage and also the Apollo mission (as seen on TV) was obviously faked
Laser experiments show that there is not the expected curvature over long distances and we can see way past the horizon, but there may be other explanations for this other than the earth being flat.
Antarctica treaty is also super suss
Still, IMO, the preponderance of evidence supports the conventional sphere model of earth
The results of the laser experiments are tough to explain though
0
0
0
0