# Does Zooming in Change How Much of Something is Hidden by the Horizon [No]

#### FolsomG10

##### New Member
Trying to wrap my head around the science behind how 'Zoom' works, esp with regards to these FE claims that since you can zoom in and see something that you can't with the naked eye this proves the earth is a giant quarter or something... When you zoom in on something (using super-telephoto) aren't you essentially moving closer to the object and since you are zooming in what seems like several miles at minimum would that not mean you are virtually advancing across "the curvature", hence the reason you can see more of your objective again?

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Mick West

Staff member
When you zoom in on something (using super-telephoto) aren't you essentially moving closer to the object and since you are zooming in what seems like several miles at minimum would that not mean you are virtually advancing across "the curvature", hence the reason you can see more of your objective again?

No. Zooming in on something does nothing at all to change the actual image (unless you are really close, like 3 feet of less)

When you zoom in on something it's basically the same as taking a bit of the middle of the image, and making it bigger.

If you move closer to something things the relative sizes and positions of things will change. If you zoom in they will not.

There's a very minor exception if something is obscured by something very close to the camera. In that instance changing the zoom (or even in extreme cases the focus) will change the shape of the lens. For example here:

Here in the top image the camera is zoomed in, showing a pink ribbon tied to a tree. But when zoomed out the ribbon is obscured by the books.

However this ONLY applies when the camera is very close to the obstruction. It's a common problem when trying to simulate zoom on a small scale.

Last edited:

#### THATSNOTPROOF

##### New Member
No. Zooming in on something does nothing at all to change the actual image (unless you are really close, like 3 feet of less)

When you zoom in on something it's basically the same as taking a bit of the middle of the image, and making it bigger.

If you move closer to something things the relative sizes and positions of things will change. If you zoom in they will not.

Sorry, can you elaborate on the topic of zooming please.

If part of the sun (bottom part, obviously)
is obscured by the horizon, and we zoom in on the sun, does it just make the sun bigger and still partly obscured, or can we possibly see the whole sun without any obscurity ?

And if we can see the sun in its entirety by zooming, how is it possible ?
Sorry if you've covered it already.

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Pete Tar

##### Senior Member.
Sorry, can you elaborate on the topic of zooming please.

If part of the sun (bottom part, obviously)
is obscured by the horizon, and we zoom in on the sun, does it just make the sun bigger and still partly obscured, or can we possibly see the whole sun without any obscurity ?

And if we can see the sun in its entirety by zooming, how is it possible ?
Sorry if you've covered it already.
Zooming a picture is just enlarging what's there - while you may see information captured by the resolution that you might not normally see otherwise (texture details perhaps), you're not getting any new information from other vantage points or changing perspective. So yes to the first part, no the second.

#### Crackton

##### New Member
Sorry, can you elaborate on the topic of zooming please.

If part of the sun (bottom part, obviously)
is obscured by the horizon, and we zoom in on the sun, does it just make the sun bigger and still partly obscured, or can we possibly see the whole sun without any obscurity ?

And if we can see the sun in its entirety by zooming, how is it possible ?
Sorry if you've covered it already.

I think you're referring to some videos where the sun looks to be partly behind the horizon, then they zoom in and it's above the horizon?

What you see in the zoomed out pic is actually just a lens flare. since it's an artifact of the camera, it doesn't change size.

So when zoomed out (A), the flare is bigger than the sun and looks kinda like it goes behind the horizon, but it's not actually the sun you see.

When zoomed in (B), the flare is still the same size, but looks much smaller relative to the sun, so we look at the sun, not the flare.

(in real life, the flare would be in front of the sun, I only put the sun in front to show it's position)

#### Amber Robot

##### Active Member
Zoom doesn't change the angles of the light coming in to the camera, it just limits the range of angles captured by the camera. If the line of sight to the bottom of the sun's disk is below the horizon, zooming in won't change that fact.

#### Z.W. Wolf

##### Senior Member.
As others have mentioned, it's not possible. Zooming in on something that is far away will just make it bigger.

There's a very minor exception if something is obscured by something very close to the camera. In that instance changing the zoom (or even in extreme cases the focus) will change the shape of the lense. For example here:

Here in the top image the camera is zoomed in, showing a pink ribbon tied to a tree. But when zoomed out the ribbon is obscured by the books.

However this ONLY applies when the camera is very close to the obstruction. It's a common problem when trying to simulate zoom on a small scale.

Phil Dick's Galactic Pot Healer is a particularly good choice.

#### THATSNOTPROOF

##### New Member
I think you're referring to some videos where the sun looks to be partly behind the horizon, then they zoom in and it's above the horizon?

What you see in the zoomed out pic is actually just a lens flare. since it's an artifact of the camera, it doesn't change size.

So when zoomed out (A), the flare is bigger than the sun and looks kinda like it goes behind the horizon, but it's not actually the sun you see.

When zoomed in (B), the flare is still the same size, but looks much smaller relative to the sun, so we look at the sun, not the flare.

(in real life, the flare would be in front of the sun, I only put the sun in front to show it's position)

Confusing.
When zoomed in, is the flare still looking like it's below the horizon?
Could you possibly show some real images of these flares

#### THATSNOTPROOF

##### New Member
Ok, these 2 photos show what looks like the sun partially below horizon ( zoomed out)
and then above horizon (zoomed in)
would love for someone to point out where exactly the sun is in both photos.
Cheers.

#### Rory

##### Senior Member.
Ok, these 2 photos show what looks like the sun partially below horizon ( zoomed out)
and then above horizon (zoomed in)
would love for someone to point out where exactly the sun is in both photos.
Cheers.
Sorry, can you explain again what these photos are demonstrating please?

To me they look like two different photos - different places? different days? certainly different times - and it's not clear that either of them are zoomed in.

What's the source for them?

Thanks.

Last edited:

#### Trailspotter

##### Senior Member.
Sorry, can you explain again what these photos are demonstrating please?

To me they look like two different photos - different places? different days? certainly different times - and it's not clear that either of them are zoomed in.

Thanks.
I think the first photo is zoomed in, the second one is zoomed out. It is not clear however, which of the two was taken first and what time elapsed between the two shots. Also, I think the camera was in 'auto' mode and changed settings automatically for different zooms.

#### Crackton

##### New Member
I think there's just a lot of overexposure on the zoomed out pic.

Kinda like this one:

I think we can agree the sun didn't actually hit the ground.
It's only the picture that are burnt out.

#### Amber Robot

##### Active Member
You need examples that don't overexpose the Sun. Something like the following, which I took from a 16th floor condo in Waikiki:

Zooming in won't bring that Sun back up over the horizon.

#### andy collis

##### Banned
Banned
No. Zooming in on something does nothing at all to change the actual image (unless you are really close, like 3 feet of less)

When you zoom in on something it's basically the same as taking a bit of the middle of the image, and making it bigger.

If you move closer to something things the relative sizes and positions of things will change. If you zoom in they will not.
Hey Mick,I've personally taken a telescope and looked at a ship 40 miles away from me.I was on the beach and the ship was out at sea.The curvature that all of the official bodies tell us about and all agree with over 40 miles is 1066.96 of drop. I could zoom and see the whole ship! How can that be possible when it should be 1066.96 feet below the line of site? I really can't work this out.

#### Mick West

Staff member
Hey Mick,I've personally taken a telescope and looked at a ship 40 miles away from me.I was on the beach and the ship was out at sea.The curvature that all of the official bodies tell us about and all agree with over 40 miles is 1066.96 of drop. I could zoom and see the whole ship! How can that be possible when it should be 1066.96 feet below the line of site? I really can't work this out.

Hard to say without pics, but I'd suspect it was not 40 miles away.

#### andy collis

##### Banned
Banned
Yes it was DEFINITELY 40 miles.I know this as I was in contact with the skipper/captain at all times.

#### Mick West

Staff member
Yes it was DEFINITELY 40 miles.I know this as I was in contact with the skipper/captain at all times.

Then I suggest replicating it with video, audio, and GPS.

What ship was it? How big? And where EXACTLY were you?

#### Trailblazer

##### Moderator
Staff member
Yes it was DEFINITELY 40 miles.I know this as I was in contact with the skipper/captain at all times.
It's easy to make claims, but what is needed is evidence. Photos with timestamps; identity of the ship that can be cross-referenced with marine traffic tracking sites; exact location where the photo was taken from. Without evidence, anyone can claim they saw anything.

#### Chew

##### Senior Member.
Yes it was DEFINITELY 40 miles.I know this as I was in contact with the skipper/captain at all times.

Which communication method were you using? How did you check the range to the ship?

#### andy collis

##### Banned
Banned
It was sailing from Immingham UK to Gothenburg Sweden.The vessel was a massive ferry.I was standing at Kilnsea on the beach

Last edited by a moderator:

Staff member

#### andy collis

##### Banned
Banned
We were in land mobile to ship mobile service.I've been told he is the Chief steward and not the captain/skipper.Position was gauged by using AIS live marine tracking.

Why do you need exact position,is it because of high and low parts of the beach?

I was roughly at the end of Easington road.

It's easy to make claims, but what is needed is evidence. Photos with timestamps; identity of the ship that can be cross-referenced with marine traffic tracking sites; exact location where the photo was taken from. Without evidence, anyone can claim they saw anything.
I'll have to do it again and gather all the evidence for you exactly as you've asked.

Are you guys still there?

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Landru

##### Moderator
Staff member
Are you guys still there?
So you saw this amazing proof of flat earth and sald, "nah I'm not going to take a picture."

#### andy collis

##### Banned
Banned
No I didn't.I didn't have a camera.Why are you being rude about this? Also it's you who has said that this is amazing proof of flat earth.I was just asking some questions.I said nothing of flat earth

#### andy collis

##### Banned
Banned
If that proves flat earth as you say then I'll do it again and send all the proofs,i'll record everything.It will be well documented and witnessed by trained observers.

#### Trailblazer

##### Moderator
Staff member
No I didn't.I didn't have a camera.Why are you being rude about this? Also it's you who has said that this is amazing proof of flat earth.I was just asking some questions.I said nothing of flat earth
Nobody is being rude, just pointing out that a claim is meaningless without evidence to back it up. I could claim I zoomed in on the Staue of Liberty from a beach in Cornwall, but if I don't provide any proof then that's just words on a screen.

Just looking at a map, was the ferry 40 miles out of Immingham? If so it would be a lot closer to Kilnsea, where you were located: probably more like 15 miles.

I haven't ever been there but according to the OS map, the end of Easington Road is about 5 metres (15ft) above mean sea level, where the road ends at a low cliff. It's the yellow road just above the blue P symbol in the centre here:

It's 4 metres at the junction and rises very slightly towards the sea.

If the ferry was, say, 15 miles away and the camera was 5ft above the ground (20ft above sea level), then the expected hidden amount would be less than 50ft, which would be fairly insignificant on something the size of a large North Sea freight ferry.

#### Z.W. Wolf

##### Senior Member.

The DFDS ro/ro-vessel Ficaria Seaways passes Skagen [Denmark] on route from Immingham to Gothenburg
Content from External Source
:http://c8.alamy.com/comp/FCPGC3/the...ses-skagen-on-route-from-immingham-FCPGC3.jpg

Looks as if it would be useful to note whether any of the red paint on the lower hull is visible; and how much of the writing.

Questions you might want to ask yourself:

-Was it forty miles away from you... or forty miles out from home port? (As above)

-Was the person talking to you Swedish or Danish? If so, was it really forty kilometers rather than miles?

-Could it have been fourteen instead of forty?

-Were you looking at the right ship?

-How high above sea level were you? The formula you are using assumes that your eye is at zero elevation. Were you standing in the water with your eye just at water level? Or were you some feet above the water level. Ask yourself, why is the lookout in a ship stationed way up in the crows nest? And why can the lookout see ships that the captain on deck can't see?

It's important to know what the horizon is. It's the line at which your line of sight intersects the water. I'm borrowing David Ridlen's illustration from page 3 of the Earth curvature refraction experiments thread.

https://www.metabunk.org/earth-curv...nts-debunking-flat-concave-earth.t6042/page-3

The horizon line is marked "C."

From Ryerson Park in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Canada, looking toward Toronto. Interesting that the ship is just on the horizon. There's a word for that part of the sea (or lake) that's labeled C in the above illustration - the "offing." You can actually see the waves that are right at the offing. They're silhouetted against the sky.

This is the proper way to picture the situation, and calculate how much of a distant object would be hidden.

https://www.metabunk.org/curve/

Last edited:

#### Henk001

##### Senior Member.
Yes it was DEFINITELY 40 miles.I know this as I was in contact with the skipper/captain at all times.
How did you deduce from that contact that the distance was 40 mi?

#### Chew

##### Senior Member.
We were in land mobile to ship mobile service.

What exactly is that? Do you mean you were communicating by telephone? Or are you referring to VHF bridge-to-bridge radio?

#### Clouds Givemethewillies

##### Senior Member
What exactly is that? Do you mean you were communicating by telephone? Or are you referring to VHF bridge-to-bridge radio?
Hams chat for long periods, on 2metres, at a guess..

#### JFDee

##### Senior Member.
I could zoom and see the whole ship
Ocean movement has also to be taken into consideration. It's obvious for smaller boats that even on a seemingly calm surface, long swells can hide or 'lift' a boat from one moment to the other.

What you saw may have been a momentary effect.

Why not try to repeat the test, with documentation and recording?

#### Rory

##### Senior Member.
No Gothenburg ferry today but every other day there is one. Schedule here.

Or if you went to Kilnsea now there's a ship sailing from Immingham to Vlissingen, Holland, which you can track at marinetraffic.com.

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/shipid:711809/zoom:11

At the minute it's about 9 miles offshore from Kilnsea - closely followed by another big ship en route to Puerto Rico - and looks to be sailing the same approximate route as the Petunia and Ficaria do to Gothenburg.

When you go to get your photo, if you note (and evidence) the time and/or direction you're facing in, that should be enough to discern the exact position, as the routes are tracked on the website above.

Last edited:

#### andy collis

##### Banned
Banned
It seems to me after checking certain information that maybe I got some of this wrong.I'll check again.Thanks for all the pointers you gave me

#### Bas Koning

##### New Member
To recreate the most common experiment for this you need to zoom into a ship max with a P900, wait until it sails over the horizon.

Zoom out completely. The ship is too small a number of pixels (even below 1 perhaps) to be noticed. Point out the ship is 'invisible', and 'behind the horizon'. Then zoom in, to make it 'pop back up'.

The confusion has to do with the resolution of the image, and that of the eye.
When zoomed in the ship has say 1000 pixels, and half of it is obscured. Zoom out, 500 pixels, half obscured. etc. Till 0 pixels. But then what. 'half of it obscured' or.. 'obscured'. If you compare the zero state with any single measured stated you could incorrectly assume it is a 'obscured' 'half obscured' situation. Only when you measure several visible states, and notice it is half obscured no matter how many pixels, can you safely assume it is also half of zero pixels obscured.

Also some people have difficulty seeing a small ship, even before it hits the horizon. Due to their eyes failing to produce decent resolution for such a small angle of view-ship. They then take out a binocular, and 'there it is again'. Naked eye: 'obscured'. Binoculars: 'not obscured'. Supporting the 'if you zoom in you can see beyond the horizon' claim.

Last edited:

#### Mick West

Staff member
Also some people have difficulty seeing a small ship, even before it hits the horizon. Due to their eyes failing to produce decent resolution for such a small angle of view-ship. They then take out a binocular, and 'there it is again'. Naked eye: 'obscured'. Binoculars: 'not obscured'. Supporting the 'if you zoom in you can see beyond the horizon' claim.

I think that's essentially the source of the claim. Back in the 1800s, with Samuel Rowbotham, your choices were generally the naked eye or a telescope. So it's quite easy to imagine you are seeing the boat "vanish" in a certain way if it's really small.

But in modern times, with the advent of super-zoom video, there's no excuse for this. You can zoom in all the way on a boat and see that it simply takes up more space in the image. Zooming is magnifying, that's all.

#### Chew

##### Senior Member.
If zooming in causes a ship to appear farther from the horizon as the FEers claim then there is some scaling law that governs the alleged phenomenon and it should be easy to calculate. But first it should be determined if the alleged phenomenon actually occurs and that is very easy to test. Zoom in on a ship, take a picture, zoom in again by a factor of two, take another picture, magnify the first picture by a factor of two, then line up the two pictures to see if the distances between the waterline of the ship and the horizon are the same. If they are the same distance then the phenomenon doesn't exist. I did this with the red buoy P900 video. Guess what the result was?

#### yoda900

##### New Member
I have a question about zooming in. And I believe it perhaps is relevant to debunking flat earth although I am not entirely sure if that is necessarily 100% specific to this thread although I certainly see it and the sunset being disussed. The reason for this question is, I came up with an experiment I haven't seen anywhere, and am attempting to get flat earther's challenge them to do this. Bascially it is the entire "horizon always rises to eye level" argument.

I know from research that the angle of your eyes is so small in general you would not notice but our eyes focus on the horizon because it is a focal point that is easy to see and the eye is drawn in. my experiment idea revolves around going to the top of the mountains in the rockies and look toward Kansas. get a flat table, verify with a level. and have a camea, preferably with a cross hair (horizontal and may vertical lines) I proposed that if you took a telescope or super zoom lens aiming the lens straight out horizontal, at regular viewing, it would certainly show up above the horizon. which I have seen videos showing this. but what if you were to maintain a camera/ telescope what have you, and zoomed in 100x 500x etc.. I am assuming you would zoom into the sky.

Would this be the case? or would you still have the earth in the picture?
I have never tried this, but I am hoping someone does this that has access to such things ( I live way too far from anywhere like this, don't have the vacation time or the finances to buy these thing currently) but I am hoping someone out there can.

I am pretty sure this would end the debate if the results match with what I would expect, however, I don't completely know how these lenses work 100%, as I saw a couple with the sun earlier in the thread and it was close to, but not exactly what I thought.
so I am asking to both learn something. oh , and part of my rules I told the flat earther was pick a very low humidty day and probably earlier in the day to eliminate as much atmosphereric distruptoin as humanly possible.

I look forward to any resopnses!
thanks

#### Amber Robot

##### Active Member
I have a question about zooming in. And I believe it perhaps is relevant to debunking flat earth although I am not entirely sure if that is necessarily 100% specific to this thread although I certainly see it and the sunset being disussed. The reason for this question is, I came up with an experiment I haven't seen anywhere, and am attempting to get flat earther's challenge them to do this. Bascially it is the entire "horizon always rises to eye level" argument.

I know from research that the angle of your eyes is so small in general you would not notice but our eyes focus on the horizon because it is a focal point that is easy to see and the eye is drawn in. my experiment idea revolves around going to the top of the mountains in the rockies and look toward Kansas. get a flat table, verify with a level. and have a camea, preferably with a cross hair (horizontal and may vertical lines) I proposed that if you took a telescope or super zoom lens aiming the lens straight out horizontal, at regular viewing, it would certainly show up above the horizon. which I have seen videos showing this. but what if you were to maintain a camera/ telescope what have you, and zoomed in 100x 500x etc.. I am assuming you would zoom into the sky.

Would this be the case? or would you still have the earth in the picture?
I have never tried this, but I am hoping someone does this that has access to such things ( I live way too far from anywhere like this, don't have the vacation time or the finances to buy these thing currently) but I am hoping someone out there can.

I am pretty sure this would end the debate if the results match with what I would expect, however, I don't completely know how these lenses work 100%, as I saw a couple with the sun earlier in the thread and it was close to, but not exactly what I thought.
so I am asking to both learn something. oh , and part of my rules I told the flat earther was pick a very low humidty day and probably earlier in the day to eliminate as much atmosphereric distruptoin as humanly possible.

I look forward to any resopnses!
thanks

You'd be better off taking a theodolite up to the Rockies than a zoom lens.

#### Mick West

Staff member
I proposed that if you took a telescope or super zoom lens aiming the lens straight out horizontal, at regular viewing, it would certainly show up above the horizon. which I have seen videos showing this. but what if you were to maintain a camera/ telescope what have you, and zoomed in 100x 500x etc.. I am assuming you would zoom into the sky.

Would this be the case? or would you still have the earth in the picture?

If your camera is level, and you are high up, then the center of the image would be slightly above the horizon, the amount being the "dip" in the calculator
https://www.metabunk.org/curve/?d=4&h=1000&r=3959&u=i&a=n&fd=60&fp=3264

Distance = 4 Miles (21120 Feet), View Height = 1000 Feet (12000 Inches) Radius = 3959 Miles (20903520 Feet)

Results ignoring refraction
Horizon = 38.73 Miles (204470.14 Feet)
Bulge = 2.67 Feet (32.01 Inches)
Drop = 10.67 Feet (128.03 Inches)
Hidden= None, horizon is beyond the target distance
Horizon Dip = 0.560 Degrees, (0.0098 Radians)

With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 4618.83 Miles (24387440 Feet)
Refracted Horizon = 41.83 Miles (220852.62 Feet)
Refracted Drop= 9.15 Feet (109.74 Inches)
Refracted Hidden= None, refracted horizon is beyond the target distance
Refracted Dip = 0.519 Degrees, (0.0091 Radians)
Content from External Source
Zooming in is like taking a rectangular bit in the exact center of the image and then magnifying it to fill the whole picture.

So, if you zoom in far enough then you are going to be looking at sky, assuming everything is done exactly.

I'm not sure there's much to be gained here over sighting along a bubble level or a water level. The problem is that from the image along there's no way to demonstrate the camera was level. It's also quite hard to level a camera perfectly.

See general discussion here:
https://www.metabunk.org/a-diy-theodolite-for-measuring-the-dip-of-the-horizon.t8617/

And a nice water level example here:
https://www.metabunk.org/water-level-showing-mountain-and-horizon-dip-due-to-curvature.t9203/

Replies
126
Views
47K
Replies
59
Views
25K
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Claim: Pfizer's own data shows that their vaccine "does more harm than good" Coronavirus COVID-19 81
Does the beginning part of Gimbal debunk the claim that the object rotates? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 23
How much research does a truther have to do to get any respect around here? 9/11 170
What exactly does “Explained:” mean in a thread title? Site Feedback & News 2
Does this video footage show a dragon (sea serpent) attacking a manatee? [No] Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 4
Does Benford's Law apply to Elections? Election 2020 2
What does "genuine UFO" mean in the Condon Committee report General Discussion 5
Needs Debunking: That the GPS does not implement time corrections from Einstein's relativity Science and Pseudoscience 7
What does "Off-World" mean to the US Military? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 17
Why Does the Sun Rise and Set In a Straight Line? Flat Earth 14
WTC7: Does This "Look Like" a Controlled Implosion? 9/11 45
Does google earth pro simulate refraction [No] Flat Earth 7
Does the inverse-square law apply to the flat-earth debunking tool chest? Flat Earth 4
Explained: Why the Earth does not look oblate in photos from space Flat Earth 5
Why Does the Atmosphere Not Fly off into the Vacuum of Space? Flat Earth 21
What does the Flat Earth Look Like From Space, with Perspective? Flat Earth 19
Does my FE Debunk in this case make sense to you guys? Practical Debunking 23
Need Debunking (Claim): Metabunk Curve Calculator Does Not Calculate for Angular Size Flat Earth 13
Explained: Why does this Apollo11 photo act so weirdly? Conspiracy Theories 13
Explained: Why a Spirit Level on a Plane Does Not Show Curvature "Corrections" Flat Earth 98
Why does Polaris appear stationary on a rotating Earth? Flat Earth 16
Does this photo show a too-small hole in the Pentagon? [No] 9/11 28
Why does the equator stay warm all year? Conspiracy Theories 7
Does Orlando victim switch legs when he switches languages [No] Conspiracy Theories 8
Does the Earth's Curvature Vary with Latitude? [No, not significantly] Flat Earth 34
Does Sundial Disprove Flat Earth? Flat Earth 17
Does Mick West's WTC model meet the Heiwa Challenge? 9/11 25
How does this Domino Tower Collapse relate to 9/11 Collapses 9/11 75
Study: When Debunking Scientific Myths Fails (and When It Does Not) Practical Debunking 3
Does the exclusion of stiffness from Nordenson's falling girder calculations demonstrate anything? 9/11 288
Does Damage to MH17 indicate or exclude a Particular Buk Launch Location? Flight MH17 662
Where does "Scientist" end and "debunker" begin? Practical Debunking 16
Does Guy McPherson believe in chemtrails? [No] Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Does DNA emit light General Discussion 8
How Does This Failed Demolition Relate to the Collapse of the WTC Towers? 9/11 14
Erin Brokovich does not believe in chemtrails. Contrails and Chemtrails 64
SkyderALERT: where does the money go? Contrails and Chemtrails 7
does Social Media + Ego help drive conspiracy theories ? General Discussion 63
Super/subscript, how does one do it? Site Feedback & News 4
Why does the Lunar Lander leave not tracks Conspiracy Theories 44
The Johnson and Johnson Settlement, where does it fit in the conspiracy world Conspiracy Theories 13
Does concrete melt? 9/11 84
Does Seismic Evidence Imply Controlled Demolition on 9/11 9/11 101
How Much Does Metabunk.org Cost to Run? Site Feedback & News 17
Video that does actually support hypothesis with evidence Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Why does JFK's Head go back after he's shot from the back? [warning: contains gore] Conspiracy Theories 178
How much does a storm weigh? Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Does NIST not testing for explosives and not testing WTC7 steel invalidate everything 9/11 246
How Much Money Does Alex Jones Make? People Debunked 17
What does Greenpeace think about chemtrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 34
Related Articles