>>11276114 (lb)
Well I'm one, and I do. I've piloted a plane, and know the basics+… and know the shape of the wing causing differing airspeed over vs under is what achieves lift, blah, blah, blah… my whole point was kind of like a Joe Biden "I was named outstanding science student" (or whatever the nature of his lie was), except that I actually was, and do score in the top 1% on all standardized tests… and that made me smart enough to believe lots of NASA bullshit that mostly stood up to my understanding of physics, until the last few years.
>>11276159 (lb)
No clue. Not even demanding it's flat. And just mean the land part…fine with an overall spherical shape. And what's to say there NEEDS to be an "underneath"? But if there does NEED to be something, "turtles" works fine.
>>11276121 (lb)
I'm okay with concave. I'm okay with a torus. I'm okay with it being a reality generation machine that conforms to the will of our collective consciousness (clearly part or all of its design). I'm not okay with the official version, which has a few irredeemable holes in it… as do all the others, seemingly, admittedly!