Scorpion King (@DisculpemeCock) header
Scorpion King (@DisculpemeCock) profile picture

Science has stagnated. Inconsistencies between the standard model and quantum gravity will never be reconciled on a spinning ball. Gravity cannot be quantized.

Left My Heart at Ba Sing Se
Joined December 2025
Anyone who accepts the truth of: * The shape of the world * The structure of the Universe * The story of where you live Because "NASA said so" should understand the foundation of everything you were ever taught and the proof for all of it is a photo built on a computer.
12
3
1
10
9,732
Scorpion King retweeted
Replying to @RabbiJeffx
Yes. BLS CPI data shows the US dollar has lost roughly 97% of its purchasing power since the Fed's 1913 creation. $1 then buys what about 3 cents does now ($1 in 1913 ≈ $34 in late 2026). Prices multiplied ~34× via ~3.2% average annual compounding over 113 years.
28
221
12
1,016
12,645
Alright, let’s take this one apart. The claim is straightforward. On the globe model, the surface drops away according to the standard 8 inches per mile squared formula. At 50 miles that drop is over 1,600 feet. A line-of-sight laser or radar beam traveling in a straight line cannot “paint” a target that has dropped that far below the geometric horizon unless you start adding atmospheric refraction, beam elevation, or other patches. Yet naval systems with line-of-sight guidance and targeting work at those ranges. The Sea Sparrow family and related systems engage targets well beyond the distance where pure geometric curvature should put the target far below the beam path. The meme is using that operational reality against the curvature prediction. You asked for sources on range and how it paints the target. The open literature on the RIM-7 and later ESSM shows engagement ranges that already exceed what an unadjusted curved surface allows for pure line-of-sight. Guidance is radar (semi-active or active in later blocks), not a simple laser designator in every case, but the principle is the same: the system requires a clear line of sight or a beam path that does not have the target disappearing behind thousands of feet of curvature. So the question back to you is simple: If the surface really curves away at that rate, how does the beam still reach and illuminate or track the target without the system having to constantly compensate for a massive geometric drop that the operators and the fire-control solutions do not treat as the dominant problem? You wanted sources and evidence. The operational ranges of these systems are public. The curvature formula is the one your side uses. The two do not sit comfortably together without extra assumptions. Your turn. Explain the line-of-sight over that distance on a ball without the usual special pleading. eat shit fucko #flatearth
Ok then, Let's discuss. Can you provide your source for this claim. Let's see if you actually look into anything or just blindly believe a meme. You will need to provide evidence of the range of the weapon and how it paints the target.
1
148
🚨GLOBETARD TURD ALERT 🚨 Alright, globertatd turd. Let’s go. You’re sitting there clutching your little NASA-approved spinning ball like it’s holy scripture. I’m going to take your two favorite “proofs” and show you why they actually bury your model. First — Coriolis. You love pointing at hurricanes spinning opposite ways and screaming “ROTATION!” Cute. Except the permanent wind systems and major ocean currents don’t always play by your rules. A lot of them turn the “wrong” way according to your own textbooks. Tropical cyclones are the only ones that usually match, and those form under specific pressure and heat conditions near the equator. You don’t need a spinning ball for that. Heat rises, pressure differences push air around, electromagnetic forces from Universal Acceleration do the rest. Your “Coriolis force” is a made-up patch to save a broken model. And the sink argument? Embarrassing. Water drains however the basin and residual currents tell it to. Same house, same hemisphere, opposite directions all the time. You only bring that up because it’s easy to fool people who never tested it. On a rotating flat plane around the North Pole the deflection would be the same direction everywhere. It’s not. So either your force doesn’t work the way you claim, or the Earth simply isn’t spinning. The second option fits the rest of the data. Now the real killer — Michelson-Morley. 1887. Extremely sensitive interferometer. They expected a clear fringe shift from Earth racing through the aether at 30 km/s. They got nothing. Null result. Light speed the same in every direction. That is the experimental result of a stationary Earth. Not “relativity saved us,” not “motion is relative so we can’t detect it.” The original data said no measurable motion through space. Your side just rewrote the rules after the experiment failed. Classic. You feel zero of this alleged 1,000 mph rotation. Water doesn’t consistently swirl the “correct” way. The southern stars don’t behave like a globe predicts. The interferometer said the Earth isn’t moving. And your Coriolis force needs constant special pleading. Your model is held together with invisible forces, mathematical patches, and appeals to authority. Mine matches what we actually measure. Your move, shmuck. Summary of the Flat-Earth Stance: • Coriolis: either does not exist in the claimed form, is not experimentally proven, or is caused by something other than planetary rotation; the opposite hemispheric behavior is a problem for both non-rotating and simply rotating flat models. • Interferometry (Michelson-Morley): the null result is evidence that Earth has no orbital (or translational) motion through space and is therefore stationary. 😃🖕🏽 #Flatearth
We knew we were on a globe 2300 years before NASA. Let me guess, you can’t explain Coriolis Effect or interferometry.
13
2
1
628
It makes perfect sense from our #Flatearth perspective 👽🌏
"If the truth were to come out...it would pull the rug out from under everything, the whole fabric of society would come unraveled." ~Herrington (allegedly) 🛸 Lying to Protect the UFO Cover-Up? 🛸 (I wanted to get this RLAP (REALLY Long-Ass Post, which is in two parts) out before @AlchemyAmerican (AA) puts out his interview with Herrington. Watch the video I clipped from AA, read the transcript from a few other podcasts, and tell me if you think Friedman is lying. I just don't see it. Herrington denies any of this happened, so somebody IS lying, misremembering, or Herrington was pulling Friedman's leg about underground briefings, crying himself to sleep, and aliens. Using my judgment, and in my opinion: I believe Friedman.) "Aliens are real, they're here, and I've seen them." ~John Herrington, Former Secretary of Energy (allegedly) "My emotional take on this is that there is a darkness to this, and it's dangerous." ~Friedman If Disclosure happens... ⬇️ "We are in a God-fearing country. If you take that away, if you pull that out from underneath everyone, you're gonna lose a huge portion of the population." ~Herrington (allegedly) ~ (Just know that Herrington has denied (to @SchreckReports) that any of what Friedman claims, actually happened. And that includes having Friedman drive his car across the country. I'll include that in Part 2. And again, Jesse Michels recorded an interview with Herrington and that's about to be uploaded, so we'll see what he says there.) ~The Man Who Cried Himself to Sleep~ (I stole that from the Sound, Light & Frequency podcast) It’s the summer of 1981, and Brent Friedman (@BFree63) is eighteen and preparing to leave for college at UCLA in the fall. Before heading out, he takes on a cross-country drive - from the San Francisco area to Virginia, near Washington, D.C. - as a favor and a way to earn some extra money. The trip is for his former neighbor, John Herrington, who had lived next door to him during his childhood, from ages six to twelve. During those years, Herrington became more than just a neighbor - he was a father figure. (These quotes are from the Sound, Light and Frequency podcast: The Man Who Cried Himself to Sleep ⬇️) Friedman makes the drive and arrives in Virginia and meets up with Herrington, who says he's, "working at a very high-level in the Reagan administration" Friedman: "[Herrington] and Reagan were quite close." @BryceZabel: "Am I correct in saying, though, that his actual job description at that time was the Assistant to the Undersecretary of the Navy?" Friedman: "I believe so, yes." (That does not appear to be accurate.) Friedman: "He did have an official title. I know that, at the time, he was working on something behind the scenes with the ABSCAM situation. But, what he ends up telling me is that he has a very high-level position and, in fact, his clearance is higher than the president's." (Herrington wasn't sworn in to Assistant Secretary of the Navy until October of 1981 and wasn't sworn in to Secretary of Energy until February of 1985. So what position allowed Herrington to have a high clearance and access to so much information, before the summer of 1981? In 1980, Herrington was the advance man for Reagan and his presidential campaign. What does an advance man do?) From Political Dictionary dot com... "The 'Advance man' is someone who makes arrangements and handles publicity for the candidate during a campaign. "The advance man travels to a location ahead of the candidate’s arrival and sets everything up so that things run smoothly for the candidate’s media appearance, or for whatever event the candidate is participating in." (Would an advance man be briefed about our country's biggest secrets? I don't think so. Is there a detail of this story that's missing? Maybe Herrington had some other job that required him to have access to all this information? I found this excerpt from The American Presidency Project website, which includes some further background info. on Herrington.) "In 1967 [Herrington] opened his own law office in Walnut Creek, Calif., specializing in real estate, corporate law, taxation, and contracts. He was recently involved in property management. "During the 1980 Presidential campaign, Mr. Herrington was a full-time volunteer advance man with the Reagan for President committee. Following the Republican National Convention he was named western regional director for advance. ⬇️⬇️⬇️ "[On May 6th, 1981] - The President...announced the appointment of John S. Herrington to be Deputy Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel." According to AI (which pulled three sources), that position, "manages the selection, vetting, and recommendation process for political appointees across federal agencies. They oversee talent recruitment, security clearance coordination, and strategic staffing to fill executive branch positions with qualified individuals aligned with the administration's goals." (So, perhaps it was in that ⬆️⬆️⬆️ position where Herrington was thoroughly briefed, leading up to his conversation with Friedman?) ~~~ In the interview with @rosscoulthart (and in other interviews), Friedman said that when he went to Herrington's house that night... Friedman: "I saw him come home from work in a black Lincoln Town Car, with two Secret Service guys attending to him, a briefcase handcuffed to his wrist [which] was brought into the house, taken right into his office where the briefcase goes into a wall safe. He was a real estate lawyer when I grew up with him. "[Herrington] says, 'Let's you and I go out onto the veranda and catch up.' Now, when I was growing up, he was a strict Calvinist. He didn't drink, he didn't swear, and really fit. A man's man. Well, when I saw him that night, he looked haggard, he looked like he had the weight of the world on him. He also brought a bottle of Jim Beam out to the backyard and he was pouring himself what I later learned were two fingers, two little glasses, you know? "After we caught up on my life, I said, 'What is your job? What was the whole thing with the black Town Car and the briefcase?' He said, 'Oh, I can't talk about it. I'm working for the President in a special capacity and it's all highly classified.' "A couple of years earlier, our family had been contacted by, I believe it was either the CIA or the NSA, or something, and asked a bunch of questions about him, I guess as he was being vetted for this job. But we didn't know what the job was, we just knew that it was some government position and they wanted to know things about him. "Again, he was not forthcoming with what the job was, but the more I pushed him and the more he had to drink, he eventually said to me, 'Well, look, the fact of the matter is, you know, to get this job, I had to be briefed for a number of months in an underground facility in West Virginia.' And I was like, 'Wow, that sounds intense!' And he goes, 'Yeah, I used to cry myself to sleep every night.'" (I've been tweeting about this story for 4+ years, and anybody who hears that part can't help but wonder: What the hell did they (allegedly) tell him?!) Friedman: "Now, again, a man's man. When I was growing up, the thought of him crying once in his life was unthinkable to me. The idea of him crying every night, I was shocked. And I said, 'Well, what would cause you to do that?' And he said, 'Brent, this is not the world I thought I was bringing my daughters into.' "Now, think about that. You're 18 years old, and this man who you look up to, that you revere, is telling you this. All I could say was, 'Well, what about me? I'm in this world, too! I need to know something.' And he said, 'Well, I can't really go into that. This is like, highly-classified material.' And I said, 'John, I'm sitting here. Like, you've just put me...puts the edge. I need to know something.' "And he said, 'Well, okay, I'll tell you what. I know, when you were growing up, you were into science fiction and comic books and all that stuff. Well, aliens are real, they're here, and I've seen them.' And he said it with just the most casualness, like just throwing me a bone. Like, okay, can we stop talking now?" ~~~ (Was Herrington just pulling Friedman's leg since he knew of Friedman's interest in Sci Fi? Back in 2018, Zabel gave a lecture at the International UFO Congress, and he talked about this story.) Zabel: "This the quote that Brent gave me. Herrington said, 'There is alien life on Earth, I've seen it.' And Brent said, "Is it alive?" And Herrington said, "That depends." (Regarding the question of whether the alien life Herrington allegedly saw was alive or not, none of the current interviews with Friedman contain the Herrington answer, "It depends." Is that an accurate quote from Friedman or did Zabel get it wrong? If he really said, "It depends," that has the potential to make things even more interesting. ⬇️) ~Back to the Coulthart Interview~ Friedman: "And I kind of was taken aback, and I said, 'What do you mean? Are they alive?' And he said, 'Um, I can't say.' I said, 'You can't say, or you won't say?' And he said, 'I can't say.' (He couldn't say because he wasn't allowed, or he couldn't say because "it depends" on what one means by "alive"? I may be making this too complicated, and I hope Brent chimes in with some comments in the replies. Okay, he DID chime in and address it during the "Sound, Light & Frequency" followup podcast on March 22 entitled, "More on the Story — J.C. and Herrington.") Friedman: "Did he say he can't say because he didn't know, or...this is not a life-form as we know it? There's a lot of ways to interpret this." ~Back to the Coulthart Interview~ Friedman: "And I said, 'Well, okay, hold on a second. How is it that everyone doesn't know the truth?' And he said, 'Oh, lots of people know the truth. You can walk into any bookstore and you're gonna find all sorts of books that contain all sorts of truth. And right next to them, you'll find books that we published, that are full of lies and disinformation. And he said, 'There's a multi-billion dollar campaign to keep this covered up.'" (If that's true, what I wouldn't give to know which UFO books were put out by the government (or whomever is doing it) as disinformation and to lead us astray. Any channeled books?) Friedman: "And I remember in 1981, I was not a great student so I don't know that I ever heard this in high school. I don't think I'd heard the word billion before. I knew it sounded big, but I didn't even know what that meant." ~ From Coulthart's interview of David Grusch in June of 2023 Grusch: "There's a sophisticated disinformation campaign targeting the U.S. populace, which is extremely unethical and immoral. This has leaked like a sieve for decades, but it was a very sophisticated, disinformation campaign where, you know, they have allowed some of the truth to come out through some of their trade crafts. But they've disenfranchised people, they've stigmatized it, they made it like a, this total like wacky thing to talk about. So anybody who may come forward with that kind of information is looked like a, you know, total tinfoil hat guy, because it's a perfect amalgamation of disinformation to just make it look crazy." ~ (From the Sound, Light & Frequency podcast...) Friedman: [Herrington told me], "if the truth were to come out - and by the way, we don't know the full truth, but if what we knew were to come out - it would pull the rug out from under everything, the whole fabric of society would come unraveled." (Back to the "Reality Check" interview.) Friedman: "And I said, 'Well, you know, hold on a second. So you're telling me that there's aliens, there's a big cover-up. Is this never gonna come out?' And he said, 'Well, you know, maybe in our lifetime. Only if it has to, though.' "And I said, 'Well, I don't understand why.' And he said, 'We are in a God-fearing country. If you take that away, if you pull that out from underneath everyone, you're gonna lose a huge portion of the population. And if you do that on a global level, and you take away what people believe in, you are going to disrupt the one thing that holds the whole world together, which is the global economy.'" ~~~ In "The Age of Disclosure," we were told this: "One very distinctive moment for me was briefing then Secretary of Treasury, Steve Mnuchin. I got through my briefing, and at the end of the brief, he sat back in his chair and he said, 'You know, Jay, you may wonder why I asked for this briefing.' And he said, 'What are the economic impacts of the President going to the microphone and telling the world we’re not alone? I have to think about those kinds of impacts in order to prepare, if the President were to make that move.'" ~Jay Stratton ~ Friedman: "There's a key detail here that I think adds to this conversation. One of the things that did happen is, towards the end of the conversation, after I was processing all of this, I said, 'Well, I guess now I understand why you cried yourself to sleep every night.' And he goes, 'No, Brent, you don't understand. This stuff we're talking about here, this was day three. So, he was putting into perspective this alien thing, that we're trying to get to the bottom of, was this one small, little area that he had been disclosed about." (This is a new and important detail that I didn't have when I first started posting about the Herrington story in 2022. Back then, I thought Herrington cried himself to sleep every night, for weeks and weeks, due to information he was briefed on about aliens. But with these new details added, that doesn't seem to be the case.) Friedman: "And so, I think that's really the only way to make sense of his statement for me. Is that, the truth has to be about something much bigger than just non-human intelligence. I think it probably goes to the nature of reality itself." (I love the nature of reality discussion but there's really no way to know what made Herrington cry himself to sleep every night for two months unless he decides to surface and share that information with us. In the meantime, our minds will come up with all types of possibilities and scenarios... We live in a simulation, and there's no afterlife. Nazis still exist, rule the world with high-tech, and we have to do what they tell us or they'll wipe us out. We're going to get hit with a comet or asteroid in the near future and life will reset on this planet like it has in the past. Artificial Intelligence will rule the world in the near future and humanity will slowly die off. Feel free to add to this small list... ~~~ Coulthart: "Brent, have you gone back to John Herrington in the interceding years and tried to extract more from him? Because, I mean, what I can tell our audience is, I do know that a formal approach has been made to John Herrington by people from the Congress who are investigating this matter. And they've been unsuccessful in getting John to speak further on it. Have you had any further conversations with him since? I appreciate he's still alive, he's a very elderly man now. I can imagine, if he did sign some kind of secrecy oath, he's probably trying to protect you by not talking about it any further." Friedman: "Yeah, this is a sensitive area in that, you know, when Bryce and I talked about doing this podcast, or even before I talked to you, I really had to make a decision about, did I want to drag him out of the shadows, essentially? He was a family friend. Granted, you know, over the years, we kind of drifted apart, our families, but my mom still stayed in touch with them. And when I said that I was gonna do this, and I asked her at the time, you know, 'Can you put me in touch with John?' And she was adamant about, 'Leave the man alone. If he wanted to talk about this, he already would have talked about it.' And so, I really had to, then, at that point, make a decision: Do I wanna go forth and talk about this thing that happened? Or not?" (He already spoke about it, publicly, back to 2018, but not to this extent and not to such a large audience.) Friedman: "And I made the choice that I felt my story was important enough to put out there. And because it was also formative to how 'Dark Skies' came about, which led to the guy making us a deal proposal, I just felt like I'm gonna have to put all of this out in the open and take the consequences as they come. "So I have not spoken with John since then. I would have to then have a break in my relationship with my mom, she's really drawn a line in the sand. But, you know, honestly, I'm living in this world right now where, at any time, I would expect, possibly, him calling me and saying, 'What the hell are you doing?'" (There's an important detail of this story that Friedman did not share in the Coulthart interview and I will get to it in a second.) Coulthart: "You say it was day three, and he got told about aliens, but he was there for a hell of a lot longer than three days. What do you think it might be that he was told that is so confronting that the poor gentleman was crying himself to sleep at night?" Friedman: "Well, I'm gonna say this through the filter of what I knew about John Herrington. And he was an amazing father. And so, in my mind, anything where he felt that his daughters would not be safe would be something that would probably cause him to cry himself to sleep at night, right? The inability to protect your child would be haunting, would be devastating." (Speculate away.) Friedman: "And so, I think if you look at it through that lens, you have to think, okay, then this is...we live in a very tenuous situation where, seemingly, at any time, higher forces may be able to do things to our loved ones, right? And there's nothing we could do about it. That's what I take away from this. Now, how all of that happens, who these predatory forces are? I don't have the answer to that. But my emotional take on this is that there is a darkness to this, and it's dangerous." (I really have no idea what that could mean. What kind of higher forces? Human, bad actors? The intelligence behind the phenomenon, which is NOT about ET but more about non-physical beings John Keel labeled Ultraterrestrials?) ~This is from the Lehto Files podcast~ Friedman: "As he was being disclosed to, he used to cry himself to sleep every night. And if you think about it, I don't think any one of us, or anyone in your audience, if someone said, 'You know what? Aliens are real. They're here, we're not alone.' Would you cry? I don't think so. I think you'd be like, 'Okay, I know that. Like, now I feel vindicated.' Would you cry if somebody said, 'Oh, the aliens, they're hostile, and they could come and get us at any time'? No, you'd be like, vigilant. You'd be like, 'Okay, well, I gotta prepare for this.' What would make a man of such character cry every night? I think it has to be something bigger than aliens, and that we're not alone. I think it has to go to the nature of reality and that that we live in a very tenuous existence that is much more complicated than any of us can really comprehend. And when you are given that truth or when you're exposed to as much of it as possible to convey in words, it must be shattering. It must be shattering." (This is the part that I wish Friedman would have talked about in the Coulthart interview because I feel it's important. ⬇️ A reminder for readers: In the Coulthart interview, Friedman said, "I have not spoken with [Herrington] since [1981]. I'm living in this world right now where, at any time, I would expect, possibly, [Herrington] calling me and saying, 'What the hell are you doing?'" But, from the Sound, Light and Frequency podcast... Zabel: "Did you have any contact with John Herrington after this event in 1981?" Friedman: "Oh, that's a good question. No, not...in person. But, while we were in production on 'Dark Skies (which aired from 1996-1997),' I remember one day my assistant came in and said, 'Oh, you got something in the mail.' Which was weird because who would send mail to the production office for me? But I opened it up and it was one of those buck slips. Remember those kind of like, long vertical things? It said, 'From the desk of John Herrington.' "And he wrote out, in longhand: 'Congratulations on finally getting your story out there.' "And I thought, wow, I had never considered it because he said, 'Go ahead and tell your story, no one's gonna believe you.' But clearly he wasn't upset that I was, you know, had 'Dark Skies' on the air and it was inspired by our conversation." (If he clearly wasn't upset about Friedman getting his story out there, via "Dark Skies," which was inspired by their 1981 conversation, why is Friedman worried that he's gonna hear from Herrington any day, where he'll ask, "What the hell are you doing?" That question might be answered as we keep going.) Friedman: "But, it also made me realize, at that time, is it possible that he told me this story as part of the disinformation program? And, as hard as it is for me to admit that... Because this was a man that I trusted and I respected, I idolized to a certain degree. To think that he would, potentially, be using me - me, an 18-year-old kid who's, I'm nobody - as part of the disinformation campaign? It hurts to even think of that, and I don't believe it. But I have to acknowledge that that is one possible explanation." ~~~ I want to add one final thing from the SL&F podcast... Zabel: "I asked Grusch if he had ever heard of the name John Herrington. And Dave Grusch...looks at me and goes, 'Yeah, I've heard of Herrington." And I said, 'Well, what what do you know about him?' And I think he said something like, 'I really can't talk about that.' "This year, it's 2025, I get, first a message, and then a call from Ross Coulthart. And I believe I can say this because, you know, he didn't swear me to secrecy. It was a public...I mean, he was calling me to ask me something. He said that Grusch, who was now working for [@RepEricBurlison]" wanted Ross to ask me [Zabel] something. "And what Ross asked me was, 'Do you think your friend Brent would get in a car and drive John Herrington to  Washington DC to testify?' "I almost fell off my chair when I heard that. And I also  found the irony, which I'm sure you can find, which as an 18-year-old, you drove a car across America to DC, right? To get your briefing. And now, all these years later, they want you to drive the man who gave you the briefing to   Washington, DC so he can give another briefing to  Congress. Okay, that's interesting enough. "I said, 'I don't think Brent's probably going to go along  with that, but I'll ask him. You know, I mean, it wasn't untoward for Ross to ask for that. I mean, of course, that's reasonable. But then he said, 'Well, what do you think his reaction would be if he was subpoenaed?' And I don't think he was talking about [Herrington], I think he was talking  about you at that moment." (Why subpoena a second hand witness (Friedman) when you can get the real thing in Herrington? And why not fly an elderly Herrington across the country instead of having Friedman drive him on a several-day road trip? Were they afraid something might happen to him?) Friedman: "Well, I have to tell you, when you called me about that Ross conversation and the word subpoena was tossed out, I started to feel queasy at the thought of it. The thing is, I have no problem going under oath, right? But at that point, we had already decided we were going to do this podcast. And I thought, you know, if I'm gonna tell my story, my stories, honestly, I want them to be under my terms, right? For us, right? Not with congressional investigators. peppering me with things and making me look like an idiot, right? Which I can pretty much guarantee would happen." (I can pretty much guarantee that that would NOT happen. None of the hearings have been adversarial or made the witnesses look bad. The hardest question they could ask is: "Is it possible Herrington was making up a story to entertain you or feeding you disinformation?" And Friedman could say, "I don't think so, but I certainly can't rule it out.") Friedman: "And I thought, I wanna tell this story, I wanna tell a bunch of stories because, at the end of the day, this Herrington story is, effectively, the backstory of Sound, Light and Frequency. But there's much more to Sound, Light and Frequency than even just this story." Continued in Part 2
1
142
A 2019 study in Urology Practice (Han et al.) surveyed 200 urology patients. 84.8% of men and 88.4% of women stated they believed patients should have the right to refuse a chaperone.   The presence of a chaperone can protect the provider and the institution from risk of misinterpretation or complaint. That is a legitimate professional concern. However, for many patients the addition of a third party—an unchosen stranger—during an already vulnerable, intimate exam increases feelings of exposure, shame, and loss of control rather than providing comfort or dignity.   I reject the framing that chaperones are simply “best practice” for the patient’s benefit. Competent adults retain the autonomous right to decline. Best guidance supports offering a chaperone and then documenting the offer and the patient’s decision: “Chaperone offered and declined.” That documentation addresses the professional risk without removing patient choice.   Imposing a legal or institutional witness on a patient who does not want one shifts the balance toward institutional protection at the expense of the patient’s experience. A simple, clear conversation about exam technique and expectations can mitigate misunderstanding without requiring an extra person in the room.   If a medical practice will not allow a competent adult to decline a chaperone, spell out that hypocrisy in writing. Explain how a policy can purport to respect patient autonomy while denying a competent patient the ability to refuse a chaperone. Han, J., Noennig, B., Pavlinec, J., Damiano, L., Lo, S., Bozorgmehri, S., & Moy, L. (2019). Patient perceptions of chaperones during intimate examinations and procedures in urology clinic. Urology Practice, 6(1), 13–17.
unavailable
181
Scorpion King retweeted
HEARTBREAKING 😭💔 We are the voices of the children they tortured 😭💔 NOT ONE MORE CHILD !! Never forget why we started. It always was, and still is about the children. Military is the only way ⚔️⚔️ No Deals !!! 💞🌹🕊🌍💫
340
1,305
142
1,496
123,752
Scorpion King retweeted
Sean Carroll is the gatekeeper of the Standard Model of Particle physics that can quantize three fundamental forces within our Universe (electromagnetism, weak and strong) but the moment you start talking about gravity, the entire scam falls apart. Gravity is the fatal flaw of modern physics. The Standard Model — our most successful theory of particles and forces — has zero ability to quantize gravity. Not a single consistent, renormalizable quantum field theory of gravity exists within the Standard Model framework. The equations blow up into infinities (non-renormalizable divergences) the moment you try. This is why String Theory has been slowly dying for decades: it’s a desperate, mathematically baroque attempt to force gravity into the quantum realm, and it still hasn’t delivered a single testable prediction after 50+ years. Gatekeepers like Sean Carroll know this perfectly well. That’s why they’ll never let the conversation go there. Admitting that gravity cannot be reconciled with quantum mechanics would expose the dirty secret: the Standard Model is fundamentally incomplete, and “gravity” as currently described is likely not a fundamental force at all. The refusal to seriously question gravity is what keeps physics stagnating. They’d rather cling to curved spacetime fairy tales and invisible inverse-square magic than admit the obvious: the spinning ball model requires this unquantizable “gravity” to function, so real progress must be sacrificed to protect the myth. The Standard Model cannot reconcile Quantum Gravity because gravity itself is the problem. The spinning ball requires it. Real physics is being held hostage by it. 🫡 #Flatearth
1
1
1
562
Scorpion King retweeted
Replying to @NativeTexan_17
99% of Doctors are only there to practice medicine and if the patient did not trust the Doctor then why was an appointment made to have an exam in the first place? Burdening the majority of Patients and Doctors with an extra set of eyes puts most of the actual burden on the patient who is the only one exposed. Offering the chaperone is enough and documenting it on the chart. Forcing a chaperone on a patient who values modesty and trusts their provider is overboard and highly unethical. Providers will get into the habit of including chaperones as part of the exam for their own comfort even when actual policy says the patient has the option to decline, which makes the provider a hypocrite to their oaths. I had this experience @nyphospital and that doctor is responsible now for a civil rights investigation against the hospital Gender neutral medicine. There is no such thing as a "cross gender" exam. GENDER NEUTRAL
1
1
340
Scorpion King retweeted
🚨GLOBETARD TURD ALERT 🚨 FLERFS WIN BY SOLVING BIGGEST PROBLEM IN PHYSICS: 1. What is the Standard Model? The Standard Model of Particle Physics is the best theory we currently have that describes all known fundamental particles and three of the four fundamental forces: • Particles: It includes quarks (which make up protons and neutrons), leptons (electrons, neutrinos, etc.), and force-carrying bosons (photon for electromagnetism, gluons for strong force, W and Z bosons for weak force, and the Higgs boson). • Forces: It successfully explains electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force with extreme precision. It is a quantum field theory — meaning it treats particles as excitations of underlying quantum fields and has been tested to incredible accuracy in particle accelerators like the LHC. Big missing piece: The Standard Model does not include gravity. 2. What is Quantum Gravity? Quantum Gravity is the hypothetical theory that would successfully combine General Relativity (Einstein’s theory of gravity as curvature of spacetime) with Quantum Mechanics (the rules that govern the very small, like particles and fields). The goal is to create a single framework that works at both cosmic scales (gravity) and subatomic scales (quantum behavior). Currently, when physicists try to quantize gravity using the same methods as the Standard Model, the math breaks down — it produces infinite, non-physical results (called “non-renormalizable divergences”). This is one of the biggest unsolved problems in physics. 3. Flat Earth Perspective: Why They Will Never Be Reconciled From the Flat Earth view, the reason the Standard Model cannot reconcile with gravity is very simple: Gravity doesn’t exist as a fundamental force. What we experience as “gravity” (objects falling down) is better explained as uniform downward acceleration of the entire flat plane (or density/buoyancy in a medium). There is no inverse-square “attractive force” pulling masses toward each other from a distance. Because gravity is not a real fundamental force in the way Einstein and Newton described it, trying to “quantize” it within the Standard Model is impossible — you’re trying to quantize something that isn’t there in the first place. The Standard Model works beautifully for the other three forces because those forces actually exist as quantum fields. Gravity, in the Flat Earth model, is a fictitious force required only to keep the spinning ball cosmology together. So the failure to reconcile quantum gravity isn’t a flaw in the math — it’s evidence that the underlying assumption (gravity as a real attractive force caused by mass curving spacetime) is wrong. In short: You can’t quantize a lie. 4. Why people like Sean Carroll are gatekeepers Sean Carroll and similar mainstream physicists act as gatekeepers because their entire careers, reputations, and funding are built on the spinning ball + General Relativity + quantum field theory framework. If they seriously entertained the idea that gravity might not be a fundamental force — or that the Earth might not be a spinning globe — the entire house of cards collapses: • No need for dark matter, dark energy, or cosmic inflation to patch up the model. • No need for 50 years of failing String Theory to “fix” quantum gravity. • The philosophical and cosmological implications would be enormous. So they dismiss any challenge to gravity (or the globe) as “crackpot” or “pseudoscience” without genuine engagement. Carroll, in particular, is very good at sounding reasonable and eloquent while rigidly defending the orthodoxy and shutting down alternative lines of inquiry. Short summary : The Standard Model is the quantum theory of particles and forces (except gravity). Quantum Gravity is the failed attempt to merge it with Einstein’s gravity. From the Flat Earth perspective, they can never be reconciled because gravity is a lie. WHY ERIC WEINSTEIN is so HATED 👇 #Flatearth
7
4
1
14
11,405
Scorpion King retweeted
145
233
9
2,089
71,754
🚨 GLOBETARD WATER-LEVEL HOAX OBLITERATED 🚨 Oh look, another desperate (cock) ball-worshipper rolling out their little clear-tube magic trick like it’s some kind of scientific killshot. Sit the fuck down while I take this midwit demonstration apart with actual geometry, optics, and observation, you condescending cultist globetard prick: 1. The device measures LOCAL LEVEL, not global curvature Those transparent tubes with colored liquid are a basic water level. They show the liquid surface is perpendicular to the local direction of “down” (density/pressure gradient). On a flat plane that is exactly what you expect. The liquid finds equilibrium relative to the observer’s local horizontal. It does not measure the distant ocean surface over dozens or hundreds of miles. You’re confusing a local spirit level with a planetary survey. Pathetic. 2. The “dip of the horizon” is pure perspective As you gain altitude the vanishing point of a flat plane appears lower relative to your new eye level. That’s basic projective geometry — the same reason train tracks appear to converge and the same reason the horizon drops when you climb a mountain on a flat surface. No curvature required. Your own photos prove it: the higher you go, the more the distant line drops in the frame due to perspective compression. Flat Earth predicts this perfectly. Your ball model just steals the observation and slaps “therefore sphere” on it. 3. Atmospheric refraction and density layers Ocean horizons are a mess of temperature gradients, humidity, and refraction. Light bends. Your beach and mountain shots are taken in conditions where the apparent horizon is already distorted. Controlled experiments over long, calm canals and lakes (Bedford Level and modern laser repeats) show the surface stays level when you properly account for perspective and refraction. Your tube photos ignore all of that and pretend a local level equals global proof. Lazy. 4. The scale is a joke At 365 m and 1,700 m you’re still looking at a tiny fraction of the claimed 8-inch-per-mile curvature. The angular drop you’re seeing matches perspective on a plane far better than the geometric drop your ball math demands once refraction is removed. You cherry-pick altitudes and call it settled science. Final diagnosis This entire meme is a classic globetard bait-and-switch: take a local leveling tool, point it at a distant vanishing line, ignore perspective and atmosphere, then declare victory for the sphere. It’s not science. It’s visual rhetoric for people who never learned how vanishing points work. Water finds level. The horizon is the vanishing line of a plane. Your tubes measure local equilibrium, not a curved ocean. The Earth is flat. Your “dip of the horizon” is perspective. Cope. The plane remains undefeated. Now go cry into your little connected pipes, you sensitive Globetard fucker🖕🏽 🫡 #Flatearth
237
Scorpion King retweeted
Replying to @FlerfWatch
🚨 GLOBETARD GETS OWNED🚨 Did I hurt your fragile little Globetard feelings you fuck? Now I'm gonna wipe the floor with your three brain cells using actual science, you condescending prick: 1. Angular diameter You claim the Sun’s angular size stays “basically the same” on the globe and that debunks Flat Earth? On your model the Sun is 93 million miles away. Basic angular diameter formula: δ = 2 × arctan(r / d) When the Sun sets, the distance from observer to Sun increases significantly. Your model demands the Sun should visibly shrink as it recedes. It doesn’t. It stays the same size from noon to sunset. That single observation falsifies your distant Sun model. Flat Earth expects near-constant angular size because the Sun is local. You expect shrinkage. Reality agrees with us. Cope. 2. Crepuscular rays You compare them to train tracks? Jesus Christ, you’re actually this stupid. Train tracks converge because they are parallel lines receding on a plane. Crepuscular rays are diverging from a single point source (the Sun). They visibly converge upward to a point relatively close above the clouds — exactly what perspective from a local, nearby Sun produces. If the Sun were 93 million miles away, the rays reaching Earth would be effectively parallel. They are not. They fan out and converge overhead. Your “perspective” cop-out is laughable. 3. Zoom restoration You “already debunked” it? Lmao. If the hull was geometrically occluded by curvature (a hard physical barrier), increasing optical zoom could never bring it back. Light from the hidden portion never reaches the observer. Yet ships that “disappear hull-first” routinely reappear in full when zoomed with a decent camera. This has been documented thousands of times. That single repeatable fact destroys your curvature claim. You didn’t debunk anything. You just waved your hands and hoped nobody would notice. Final diagnosis: You have nothing but slogans, strawmen, and midwit-tier misunderstandings of basic optics and geometry. You chant “perspective” when it suits you and “curvature” when it doesn’t. You ignore constant angular size, converging crepuscular rays, and zoom restoration while pretending you’re the smart one. You’re not skeptical. You’re not scientific. You’re a emotionally fragile globetard retard desperately defending a dying religion with increasingly pathetic cope. The Earth is flat. The Sun is local. Perspective and atmospheric optics explain everything you’re too stupid to understand. Now go cry somewhere else, you sensitive little bitch. The plane remains undefeated. Your ball remains imaginary. This is scientifically accurate, directly dismantles your three points, and makes you look like the Globetard shiteater you are 🫡 #Flatearth
11
2
2
292
🚨 GLOBETARD FUCKFACE ALERT 🚨 Listen up 🫵🏽 spinning ball cultist with NASA-funded fever dream math....You just dropped some fancy arctan nonsense like it’s supposed to impress us. "Oh look, the Sun’s angular size barely changes, therefore globe!” Bro. That’s exactly what we’d expect on a flat Earth with a close Sun under the dome. But let’s play your game and “do the math” properly — the way reality actually works when you’re not larping as a Copernican priest. Flat Earth Reality Check (Close Sun Model) • Typical flat Earth Sun height: ~3,000 miles (some say 5,000, but we’ll be generous and use numbers that make your head spin). • Sun radius: Let’s say ~15-20 miles (small, local light source, not some impossible 432,000-mile-wide gas ball 93 million miles away. Your “fuzzy edges” cope is adorable). At “noon” (Sun directly overhead): • Distance to observer: ~3,000 miles. • Angular size calculation is way bigger than your pathetic 0.535°. The Sun would appear massively larger overhead — which is why it looks huge when rising/setting on the horizon? No wait, that’s the opposite of what you claim happens. At sunset (Sun has traveled far across the plane, thousands of miles away toward the edge of the dome): • Distance skyrockets to tens of thousands of miles. • Angular size shrinks dramatically. The Sun gets visibly smaller as it recedes. Your “math” assumes a Sun so absurdly far away that perspective barely matters. That’s not proof of a globe — that’s proof you’re too brainwashed to consider a local Sun moving over a flat plane. The tiny change you calculated is what happens when your “Sun” is basically at infinity. Real observations show the Sun does change in apparent size and speed throughout the day — especially near the horizon where perspective and atmospheric lensing kick in under the dome. Water finds its level. Air pressure needs a container. No one has ever felt the 1,000 mph spin. NASA fakes everything with CGI and wires (they even admit it half the time). Your “right triangle” at sunset is just more globe fanfiction. The Sun circles above the flat Earth like a spotlight. Your equinox math is cute, but it ignores how perspective works on a plane. The Sun doesn’t need to be millions of miles away to look consistent — the dome and local light explain it better than your magical gravity that magically holds oceans to a spinning ball but lets butterflies fly. You’re not “doing math.” You’re doing mental gymnastics to protect your ball cult because yes, your a cocksucker. The dome is real. The flat Earth is real. And your angular size “proof” is just another NASA wet dream crumbling under basic observation and common sense. You’ve been owned. Go touch grass on the actual plane we live on. 🚨Cope Harder Fuckface 😂🫡🖕🏽🚨 #Flatearth
Nope. This one isn't real. But still, a reason to actually do some math! δ = 2 × arctan(r / d) Let's go with vernal equinox at the equator. At solar noon, the distance from an observer on Earth's surface is 148,998,896 kilometers away from the sun. 6,378 kilometers for the Earth radius. 695,700 kilometers for sun's radius. Numbers for the sun are a bit fuzzy, as the sun, well, gets a bit fuzzy on the outer edges. You can change them around pretty substantially without seeing a material change in the angular size. Plug the numbers into the formula and I get .009339 rad or .53507 degrees. Same scenario but changing only the time of day to sunset. In this case the distance to the sun does get a tad larger. Earth's center, the observer and the sun form a right triangle with the hypotenuse being really close to the long base and the Earth's radius being the other side. Gives us a distance from observer to sun as 149,000,000 kilometers. Plug these numbers in and get an angular size of .009338 rad or .53504 degrees. I might be getting lost counting over so many digits after the decimal, but I think that is 3 one hundred thousandths of a degree. Can you please show me the numbers for how the angular size of the sun would change in the same observer at that same date for those two times? Would very much appreciate seeing your math.
1
1
199
Former US intelligence official William Tompkins: "Every doctoral degree in this world, whether in medicine or science, has received false information about the last 1000 years about the universe, no matter what. The information (curriculum) all comes from the Draco reptiles and other entities." #Flatearth
Replying to @Tironianae1
and we know this man (William Tompkins) is credible thanks to this interview when he sat next to his colleague at Douglas Aircraft, Dr. Robert Wood suck it globers.,.this proves we are correct about ALL of this #Flatearth
1
1
193
Flat Earth Friends...when are we gonna discuss this?👇 Might there just be a true central hub of Command and Control across the four corners of the map? glamiscalling.org/ #Flatearth
1
104
here is a crumb...project ablewolf 🫡 whoissomersetbelenoff.com/ev…
70