# In 1931 (before NASA and the CIA were created) Popular Science describes the earth as a flat disk with upturned edges.



## Knowncitizen (Apr 26, 2021)

I found this over on the Deaddit conspiracy sub and thought it would get a better discussion here. 




> Note: This OP was recovered from the Sh.org archive.





> Note: Archived Sh.org replies to this OP are included in this thread.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: StarmonkeyDate: 2019-10-25 14:32:40Reaction Score: 5


The moon used to be made of cheese! Until we stopped believing...


----------



## feralimal (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: FeralimalDate: 2019-10-25 16:11:57Reaction Score: 1


Isn't Mad Mike Hughes planning another attempt later this year to reach as high as possible in a steam powered rocket?

Ignoring crazy ideas might be easy, but it seems to give fuel to those who believe


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SchismDate: 2019-10-25 16:39:37Reaction Score: 1


Interesting stuff OP.

Don't assume there was nobody controlling people's minds, perceptions, etc, back in those days too - I feel confident saying there were such things going on back then, and even way further back - as do many others here.

This video was likely created by someone that believes the earth is flat. It was likely created for flat earth believers, and/or to convince others that the world is flat.



At 32000+ meters, you can clearly see a slight radius.

I don't see an upward curve along the edge of anything - anywhere.

I don't see an infinite flat earth plane, or anything of the sorts.

I'm pretty sure I seen Venus, or Jupiter in that clip too.

In the _ Concave Earth Discussion._ - post 18 - I already brought up that we don't see any stars in the video, and feel comfortable saying there is a logical, and reasonable explanation as to why.

Based on the single comment left in the video at this time - I guess that person will not consider the possibility that the balloon left the planet as the planet was rotating. I haven't a clue why they suggest the earth should be wizzing by - when I would urge them to consider that the balloon left the earth as it moving and spinning.

I wish whomever put all the time, effort, and investment into that imperticular substantial video production had thought their production out far enough - to have a camera that panned, rotated slowly, or something along those lines. Woulda - coulda - shoulda.

I agree with _@Dielectric_ as to why to balloon expanded, and blew up at the end of the video. That comment is in post 69 - in the thread below -

_Stars, Galaxies, Planets: how do we know what they are?_

Edited - added a link


----------



## Knowncitizen (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: knowncitizenDate: 2019-10-25 16:52:53Reaction Score: 1


I am not a flat Earth person but I also don't believe NASA so I'm always interested by this stuff. I can't help but ask, where are the stars? This frame is after the balloon burst and the camera is spinning.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SchismDate: 2019-10-25 17:17:48Reaction Score: 1


NASA = never a straight answer. Of all entities - why do people expect a straight answer from them? Give me a break - it's not happening. Who financed, and controls NASA, etc - and for how long has that been going on?

I have absolutely no reason to trust anything they tell us either. Why would I? My answer - my opinion - NASA = truth and lies.

I make my own observations over time, and am not easily programmable. The programming generally does not stick.

NASA front man - goofy spokes person - Donald R Pettit - "we destroyed that technology bla bla bla" - I think he was chosen - and plays his part well.

Donald Pettit - Wikipedia

Why no stars? That answer can be found with ease. Search the internet for it.

When's the last time you seen stars in the daylight? In my opinion - the answer to that question is relevant to the answer you are looking for.

Edited to add waki link - Donald R Pettit


----------



## Knowncitizen (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: knowncitizenDate: 2019-10-25 17:26:01Reaction Score: 3


It's possible it is a light issue with the camera, but then I end up on Youtube looking a videos zoomed in on a star and it looks like plasma/electric rather than a distant object. I gets rather confusing over time.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SchismDate: 2019-10-25 17:29:53Reaction Score: 1




knowncitizen said:


> It's possible it is a light issue with the camera, but then I end up on Youtube looking a videos zoomed in on a star and it looks like plasma/electric rather than a distant object. I gets rather confusing over time.


I understand. Please do your own homework, and make your own observations over time.

YouTube, internet forums, etc, = truth and lies too.


----------



## Knowncitizen (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: knowncitizenDate: 2019-10-25 17:34:30Reaction Score: 1




Schism said:


> I understand. Please do your own homework, and make your own observations over time.
> 
> YouTube, internet forums, etc, = truth and lies too.


I hear ya man, hard to pick the truth out of the tsunami of lies! Take Care!


----------



## JimDuyer (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Jim DuyerDate: 2019-10-27 01:00:32Reaction Score: 1


Those aren't actually weather balloons - they're actually UFOs.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: zxcv0Date: 2019-10-27 07:07:51Reaction Score: 12


In relation to this topic at hand, optics sure are a strange thing, that much is certain. It's hard to know whether the eye is perceiving something that is there or not. Personally, as someone who views the concave earth theory as the most plausible of the 'big 3', stuff like this lends weight to that theory.

On a slight tangent, most people don't have the resources, to say nothing of the know-how, in going about doing their own research to determine the shape of the earth. They rely on expert opinions to steer them in the right direction.

At present, the people with the most resources to determine the shape of our plane/t present to us abysmally inconsistent images from 'outer space' that can easily be (and are) concocted using basic imaging software.

If you ever wanted to know why the world you live in likely isn't a round ball suspended in nothingness, all you need to know is that the people telling you that it is have never produced a single shred of believable evidence for this. In some 60-70 years, the best we have is cartoonish renders and the supposed ISS flying about with the earth in the background, showing us a small portion of the surface.

There should be a 4k camera positioned on the moon living streaming the earth 24 hours a day. 'But don't we already have the ISS? Isn't that good enough?' No, because it's practically impossible to fake a 24 hour live stream of the earth from the moon. It's very easy, on the other hand, to fake what the ISS shows us, because all it requires in a camera suspended in low-earth orbit. 

So where's our moon cam?

After all, we landed on the moon, the astronauts had a casual conversation on the phone with the US president with almost no delay, and we've been to moon some 5-6 times. Since we've done all that already, why isn't there a 4k camera on the moon filming the earth in all its ball-shaped glory? We've sent people to the moon, we know that the connection lines are fantastic, so what's the problem?

Naturally, every single purported evidence presented to us suggesting a round earth can be easily faked. And a wise man once said that if something can be faked, there's a good chance it is being faked.

The easiest thing for space agencies to do would be to present an image or video of the ball-shaped planet that doesn't look like it's been drawn. Why do they need to create composite images (that they admit to) if they have spacecraft which can easily take a picture of the planet from great distances?

There's a great video which I've uploaded below showing how easily the mind can be manipulated to believe that CGI (like the one presented by NASA or SpaceX) is reality. If you think it is difficult to pull off the ISS flying about with a curved earth in the background, then you haven't seen what Hollywood is capable of (I have to admit that I have seen better depictions of the ball-shaped planet in Hollywood movies than anything to come out of a space agency. At least they put a bit of effort into making them seem somewhat believable). 

With a green screen, there's no limit to what can be done:


----------



## Timeshifter (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: TimeshifterDate: 2019-10-27 09:33:03Reaction Score: 5


Few things which may help out, from a photography/ image editing expert.

When exposing for the foreground in those balloon, moon, space images, you are never going to see stars in the background with a single image exposure, the camera simply cannot see them (underexposed)

Those plasma stars and planets you see on The P600 etc, are simply out of focus. How do I know? I have done it and can repeat it. They are not plasma balls, they are out of focus, that is all.

It is entirely posible however to fake all of this in your bedroom now....


As someone above stated, do these things yourselves to see for yourselves and remember, optical illusions are everywhere.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: zxcv0Date: 2019-10-27 10:02:40Reaction Score: 5




Timeshifter said:


> It is entirely posible however to fake all of this in you bedroom now....
> 
> View attachment 32918


*Google, how high up was the SpaceX car?*

"The _car_ was observed by the Deimos Sky Survey (DeSS) at a distance of 720,000 km (450,000 mi) with a flashing effect suggesting spinning."

*Google search: *Heat layers of atmosphere....


*Google, at what temperature does steel melt?*

"Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around *1510 degrees C* (2750°F). Steel often melts at around *1370 degrees C* (2500°F)."

*But we promise this setup here is just for illustration purposes! For reals!*


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: dianagDate: 2019-10-27 13:30:07Reaction Score: 2


I may have posted this video before, but it does apply to this post so posting again.  Auguste Piccard and his brother were scientists and explores in the 1930's.  There are several videos on YouTube about him.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ManwichDate: 2019-10-30 01:21:17Reaction Score: 6




Timeshifter said:


> Few things which may help out, from a photography/ image editing expert.
> 
> When exposing for the foreground in those balloon, moon, space images, you are never going to see stars in the background with a single image exposure, the camera simply cannot see them (underexposed)
> 
> ...


Here is a video with the Nikon P1000 showing... not a planet.... I think you may be trolling a little.


Here is Mars....


I believe the stars are the product of sonoluminescence. The waters above the firmament on this flat plane.


----------



## Timeshifter (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: TimeshifterDate: 2019-10-30 06:28:55Reaction Score: 2




Manwich said:


> Here is a video with the Nikon P1000 showing... not a planet.... I think you may be trolling a little.
> 
> 
> Here is Mars....
> ...


Me trolling? I am categorically telling you those videos are out of focus. If you could come and stand in my back yard I would prove it to you.

I get that you want to believe that is really how they appear, but wishing something to be true does not make it so.

Be very wary of videos like those you linked.


----------



## fabiorem (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: fabioremDate: 2020-03-23 15:50:35Reaction Score: 0




Schism said:


> Interesting stuff OP.
> 
> Don't assume there was nobody controlling people's minds, perceptions, etc, back in those days too - I feel confident saying there were such things going on back then, and even way further back - as do many others here.
> 
> ...



The equator measures 40000km. You cant see a curve at 32km altitude, as this is less than 1/1000 from the equator coverage. If the camera is panned, the only thing to be seem will be the horizon of the Earth, which will be flat.

You have to be at least 4000km altitude to see some curvature. This was never achieved, though, because the Van Allen belt starts at 640km, and no ship or balloon can pass that belt, as the radiation is very high. Just for comparison, the ionosphere go from 60km to 1000km, with its higher part being inside the Van Allen belt. This belt extends as high as 58000km, which is more than the circumference of the equator. 

Space travel is not possible, even with flying disks. Forget those scenes from Star Wars where they "jump" to light speed. To be able to go to another planet, ships needs to be in the format of a tetrahedron and be able to break the structure of reality, thus "warping" to the other planet's orbit. I believe they can only do that on some points, though, whereas warping inside the orbit can be done from anywhere while in that orbit.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: NovaFeedbackDate: 2020-03-23 19:01:20Reaction Score: 3


...then why you beLIEve to alchemists/occultists/freemasons and je(w)suits like Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Einstein, Lemaitre etc. etc.?
They were all part of the same cabal that rules the world since hundreds of years.
And the bullshits about "even the old greeks knew" is just more fake history.
Get over it, the spinning ball is a delusion and an illusion by elite illuZionists.


----------



## Samson4prez (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Samson4prezDate: 2020-05-04 21:56:27Reaction Score: 1




Schism said:


> Interesting stuff OP.
> 
> Don't assume there was nobody controlling people's minds, perceptions, etc, back in those days too - I feel confident saying there were such things going on back then, and even way further back - as do many others here.
> 
> ...


 there has to be a vanishing point eventually
I forget how I stumbled on this but read this to the end it pertains to ufos and what we are experiencing NWO Plans - William cooper had Some Answers.


----------



## JimDuyer (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Jim DuyerDate: 2020-05-04 23:46:33Reaction Score: 0




dianag said:


> I may have posted this video before, but it does apply to this post so posting again.  Auguste Piccard and his brother were scientists and explores in the 1930's.  There are several videos on YouTube about him.


Then why does everyone seem to use him as an example for round earth and not flat earth? Piccard and Kipfer are widely considered the first people to visually observe the curvature of the earth.[4] 
I'm not a flat earther, but my unbiased opinion is that Piccard did not explain very well the need to
have extra uninflated room in his ballon, in order to reach the altitudes that he claimed. Perhaps
he did, perhaps not.


fabiorem said:


> The equator measures 40000km. You cant see a curve at 32km altitude, as this is less than 1/1000 from the equator coverage. If the camera is panned, the only thing to be seem will be the horizon of the Earth, which will be flat.
> 
> You have to be at least 4000km altitude to see some curvature. This was never achieved, though, because the Van Allen belt starts at 640km, and no ship or balloon can pass that belt, as the radiation is very high. Just for comparison, the ionosphere go from 60km to 1000km, with its higher part being inside the Van Allen belt. This belt extends as high as 58000km, which is more than the circumference of the equator.
> 
> Space travel is not possible, even with flying disks. Forget those scenes from Star Wars where they "jump" to light speed. To be able to go to another planet, ships needs to be in the format of a tetrahedron and be able to break the structure of reality, thus "warping" to the other planet's orbit. I believe they can only do that on some points, though, whereas warping inside the orbit can be done from anywhere while in that orbit.


Wow, just wow.  So, never went anywhere, never happened, no go on the space thing, huh?


----------



## Knowncitizen (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: knowncitizenDate: 2020-05-05 00:43:26Reaction Score: 6




Jim Duyer said:


> Wow, just wow.  So, never went anywhere, never happened, no go on the space thing, huh?


Why is it so shocking that another person might not have the same beliefs as you. Do you require everyone in your hive to think the same?
I grew up believing in all the space stuff and NASA. Today after 20 plus years of wakening up I firmly believe that it's all Photoshop, camera trickery and CGI movie style production. As for flat earth, I believed that we were on a globe spinning around while at the same time spinning around the sun while at the same time spinning around other solar systems, then I watched a video about flat earth. Imagine that, I entertained an opposing idea. The outcome is that now I am not sure what to believe and have delved into the concave earth theory also. We can still be friends though, Right?


----------



## JimDuyer (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Jim DuyerDate: 2020-05-05 01:11:18Reaction Score: 0




knowncitizen said:


> Why is it so shocking that another person might not have the same beliefs as you. Do you require everyone in your hive to think the same?
> I grew up believing in all the space stuff and NASA. Today after 20 plus years of wakening up I firmly believe that it's all Photoshop, camera trickery and CGI movie style production. As for flat earth, I believed that we were on a globe spinning around while at the same time spinning around the sun while at the same time spinning around other solar systems, then I watched a video about flat earth. Imagine that, I entertained an opposing idea. The outcome is that now I am not sure what to believe and have delved into the concave earth theory also. We can still be friends though, Right?


No, I don't try to convince anyone of anything regarding space.  And yes, I can still be a friend.  And I'm sorry if I stepped on any toes - I just did not realize that the belief went that deep - as in no trips to space period.  I really have not looked into the flat earth idea much at all.  Actually, almost not at all.  I do think that our ancestors believed in a circular earth - based on their calculations of circumferences and radius of stars and suns the Sumerians believed it.  I have not looked into it too much because of that knowledge of the changing positions of the stars and their 24,000 year cycle, that frankly makes not much sense if the sky is actually only part of a painted bowl or in some cases I guess its a fixed system that rotates over the earth in circles?  See, I don't even know the jargon.


----------



## Knowncitizen (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: knowncitizenDate: 2020-05-05 01:18:31Reaction Score: 0




Jim Duyer said:


> No, I don't try to convince anyone of anything regarding space.  And yes, I can still be a friend.  And I'm sorry if I stepped on any toes - I just did not realize that the belief went that deep - as in no trips to space period.  I really have not looked into the flat earth idea much at all.  Actually, almost not at all.  I do think that our ancestors believed in a circular earth - based on their calculations of circumferences and radius of stars and suns the Sumerians believed it.  I have not looked into it too much because of that knowledge of the changing positions of the stars and their 24,000 year cycle, that frankly makes not much sense if the sky is actually only part of a painted bowl or in some cases I guess its a fixed system that rotates over the earth in circles?  See, I don't even know the jargon.


It's all good, I don't know half of the jargon myself but I know there is way too many coincidences with the globe model. The eclipse's of the sun and moon are one in a bazillion chance based on official story. I believe what I can see these days more than what I was thought. We are all here to share ideas and learn from eachother.


----------



## fabiorem (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: fabioremDate: 2020-05-05 03:00:19Reaction Score: 0




Jim Duyer said:


> No, I don't try to convince anyone of anything regarding space.  And yes, I can still be a friend.  And I'm sorry if I stepped on any toes - I just did not realize that the belief went that deep - as in no trips to space period.  I really have not looked into the flat earth idea much at all.  Actually, almost not at all.  I do think that our ancestors believed in a circular earth - based on their calculations of circumferences and radius of stars and suns the Sumerians believed it.  I have not looked into it too much because of that knowledge of the changing positions of the stars and their 24,000 year cycle, that frankly makes not much sense if the sky is actually only part of a painted bowl or in some cases I guess its a fixed system that rotates over the earth in circles?  See, I don't even know the jargon.



Just to make it clear, I'm not a flat earther. For me the Earth is round, and this can be proven by the movement of the sun in the sky.
But men did not go to the moon. The pictures were analyzed by photographers and identified as fake, and Stanley Kubrick admitted he filmed it. So its not black and white as some may think.


----------



## JimDuyer (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Jim DuyerDate: 2020-05-05 20:41:03Reaction Score: 1




fabiorem said:


> Just to make it clear, I'm not a flat earther. For me the Earth is round, and this can be proven by the movement of the sun in the sky.
> But men did not go to the moon. The pictures were analyzed by photographers and identified as fake, and Stanley Kubrick admitted he filmed it. So its not black and white as some may think.


May I mention one other possibility that I have come to believe :   That the photos and images of the moon are fakes, but for a good reason.  At the time of the landings we were deeply involved in a cold war with Russia and China.  We had already, on many many occasions, had work that we had done and published, stolen and used for free by some from those groups.  We lost the atomic bomb secrets that way, and a great many of our patents are simply copied for reverse engineering - thus saving the cost of research and experiment.  In addition to putting an American on the Moon, another thing JFK was trying to do was to plug these leaks.  So perhaps they did go, but substituted this movie-set version so that others would have to do their own work, and invest their own time and money.  Just my two cents.


----------



## Knowncitizen (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: knowncitizenDate: 2020-05-05 21:20:49Reaction Score: 5




Jim Duyer said:


> May I mention one other possibility that I have come to believe :   That the photos and images of the moon are fakes, but for a good reason.  At the time of the landings we were deeply involved in a cold war with Russia and China.  We had already, on many many occasions, had work that we had done and published, stolen and used for free by some from those groups.  We lost the atomic bomb secrets that way, and a great many of our patents are simply copied for reverse engineering - thus saving the cost of research and experiment.  In addition to putting an American on the Moon, another thing JFK was trying to do was to plug these leaks.  So perhaps they did go, but substituted this movie-set version so that others would have to do their own work, and invest their own time and money.  Just my two cents.


Wagging the Moondoggie
You may never believe in the moon landings again if you read this guy's work, it's available in audio and video if you are not in the mood to read.
There was never a war with Russia, nukes might not even exist, Japan was firebombed not nuked, nothing is ever lost or stolen just trafficked to the central group in control. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## JimDuyer (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Jim DuyerDate: 2020-05-06 00:37:11Reaction Score: 5




knowncitizen said:


> Wagging the Moondoggie
> You may never believe in the moon landings again if you read this guy's work, it's available in audio and video if you are not in the mood to read.
> There was never a war with Russia, nukes might not even exist, Japan was firebombed not nuked, nothing is ever lost or stolen just trafficked to the central group in control. Just my 2 cents.


Thank's for the link.  I will check it out.


knowncitizen said:


> Wagging the Moondoggie
> You may never believe in the moon landings again if you read this guy's work, it's available in audio and video if you are not in the mood to read.
> There was never a war with Russia, nukes might not even exist, Japan was firebombed not nuked, nothing is ever lost or stolen just trafficked to the central group in control. Just my 2 cents.


OK - read all of the Moondoggie links.  I find that his evidence is compelling, and I no longer believe that we went to the Moon.   Do you have any other links to the other ideas?   
(Feeling entirely foolish, having watched the original broadcast when I was a kid, and defending our great accomplishments - until yesterday that is)


----------



## Knowncitizen (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: knowncitizenDate: 2020-05-07 23:03:54Reaction Score: 5




Jim Duyer said:


> Thank's for the link.  I will check it out.
> 
> OK - read all of the Moondoggie links.  I find that his evidence is compelling, and I no longer believe that we went to the Moon.   Do you have any other links to the other ideas?
> (Feeling entirely foolish, having watched the original broadcast when I was a kid, and defending our great accomplishments - until yesterday that is)


There is no reason to feel foolish. The programming we receive to believe all the huge lies they have told us is quite thorough and well researched. I'm glad you were able to view the material without allowing your ego to get in the way. 
ISS is fake also and you can dive into that on youtube by searching for the wire/harness or CGI glitch clips.
'Wires on astronaut' show how NASA 'fakes anti gravity' in ISS that's 'REALLY on Earth'
Also I'm 90% sure the mars rover is on an Canadian Island called Devon Island.
HOAX OF THE CENTURY: Could NASA Mars rovers really be filming here on Earth?
Not the best sources, but there is lots of evidence out there.


----------

