# Flat Earth



## grav (Nov 16, 2020)

I am new to this forum and don't see an active thread on flat earth. Is there any interest in the topic?
SH's format is quite impressive. And imposing, to the point that navigating it is tricky for a simple mind like mine. Generic forums have become gross mockeries of their original designs, and so I am looking for a new home where I may spout my heresies, primarily the most basic hidden truth upon which all other distorted truths are based. The Infinite Plane of the Electric Universe.

My overall guesstimate of reality is a computer program which is crashed and rebooted every 300 years or so.

The gnostics may have had insights about our true history, starting with creation by an aeon named Sophia.
Who, if memory holds, became Gaia "in the flesh" so to speak.
I also respect ancient "myths" like that of Pyrrha and Deucalion, who threw rocks over their shoulders to repopulate the world after the Deluge. Rocks growing into organic beings? And vice versa. Nope, human beings are not imaginative enough to come up with such a crazy conspiracy theory.


----------



## archangelclk (Nov 16, 2020)

This has been a regular topic of discussion between my Flat Earther friend and myself for some time and I was able to read a few books and booklet(101 flat earth truths?) and I found a few arguments quite compelling and definitely brought me to a 50/50. I found that in order for FE to work, you kind of have to disregard Nasa and the world organizations or at least assume they have some deliberate joint deception agenda. I personally hold to some of the notable evidence/arguments I found to support FE as GE did not have a sufficient answer or had holes in it that I was not able to find a reasonable explanation or answer to. To this day, I am a 50/50.


----------



## grav (Nov 16, 2020)

That was a good response, and a positive sign that there still are critical thinkers out there in the aether.
As for Nasa, you don't have to be a flatearther to see that agency as the Ministry of Truth which controls (rules) all science. I mean pseudoscience, aka theoretical science.
Instead of using the Scientific Method to obtain repeatable empirical data, scientists are now encouraged to speculate and invent fake mathematical constants. e=mc^2 for example, would have us believe that light travels forever.
But it looks cool when a faker with wild hair draws it on a chalkboard.

We will never know our real history, but by golly, we can take real laws of physics and honest math to discover that we don't live on a wet spinning ball in a vacuum.


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 16, 2020)

https://stolenhistory.net/forums/earth-shape-discussion.37/


----------



## dreamtime (Nov 16, 2020)

You are free to continue discussing this here on a technical level, but please let me offer another view: Cosmology and ancient myths


----------



## msw141 (Nov 16, 2020)

archangelclk said:


> I found that in order for FE to work, you kind of have to disregard Nasa



I think this is the primary gateway into the FE rabbit hole.  It boggles the mind that we accomplished so little in space during the 50 years since that initial 3 year span of successful moon landings despite the advancements in technology.  You can't help but be convinced that something is being covered up and eventually you make the connection that everything you were told about the nature of space and the solar system might be unreliable.   I'm not sure how people get into FE without that as a stepping stone.


----------



## grav (Nov 16, 2020)

FE is not incompatible with CE, Concave Earth.
The Ygdrassil tree of Norse myth, the Cosmic Egg, the Mundane Shell, and other images of other ancient cosmologies are all quite similar.
https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.N8WMrm2RjhpPsMraYFiLYQHaEb&pid=Api&H=95&W=160&P=0

We can also see our existence as an electric torus, in which our Infinite Place becomes the accretion disk at the center.
Flat Earth is actually a simplified term to describe the motionless and irregular surface we are familiar with.
What lies below? which knows? The deepest hole ever dug is the Kola Superdeep Borehole, which was only reached 7.5 miles, at which depth the massive density burned up drill bits.


----------



## veeall (Nov 17, 2020)

This image is from Wikpedia, it visualizes the degrees of Latitude on Earth globe. Each degree contains 60 minutes, each minute being one *mile* in length. *A nautical mile from WP*: "A nautical mile was originally defined as the length on the Earth’s surface of *one minute (1/60 of a degree)* of arc along a meridian (north-south line of longitude). Because of a slight flattening of the Earth in polar latitudes, however, the measurement of a nautical mile *increases slightly toward the poles*."

So there are 60 miles in a degree of latitude and it is claimed the natural length of a mile (as measured (assuming) by sextant using North Star as fixed point) doesn't vary much over latitudes. See how sextant works:




Source

Now returning to the first picture posted, it is obvious you cannot measure a degree of latitude *relating to the center of the earth *using a sextant (or any other device?). I've marked the angle measured by sextant with an "*A*" in my modified image of the first picture.





See my problem here! The length of a mile (marked by the blue lines) becomes vastly different on a globe when nearing the equator. (!?)

It is contrary to the claims of WP, which states nautical mile being slightly longer when approaching a pole. Also it should be asked why, using this true analog method of measurement with a sextant, one gets different lengths for a mile if measured on a ground vs at the sea level.

	Post automatically merged: Nov 17, 2020

Might take a look at that. This is an obfuscation of a simple concept, all math later grafted in, made to retrofit.


----------



## Gold (Nov 17, 2020)

Was it not the concave earth model that allowed the travel paths of planes to finally make sense?


----------



## Fortuna Fled (Nov 17, 2020)

*7 ways you can easily prove that the Earth is not flat*
Posted Sunday 24 May 2020 10:00 by Mimi Launder in tech
UPVOTE


Picture: iStock 
*Pretty much everyone knows the Earth is a globe. But a very, very small minority of us cling inexplicably to the idea of a flat Earth.*
So, with everyone staying inside over the course of the Covid-19 pandemic, we thought it was the perfect time to compile the ways you can prove that the Earth _most definitely_ a globe.
*1. Look upwards*

Yep, this one's pretty simple. When you look up at the night sky, you can only see certain constellations from certain points on Earth.

Someone in Australia will see a different sky to someone in England at night - for example, you can't see Polaris, the North Star, from the southern hemisphere. 
If the Earth was flat, everyone would be able to see the same constellations. 
*2. Look down*
An equally straightforward way to prove the Earth is not flat is to simply measure your shadow. 
If you get two people at different distances from the equator, and they measure their shadows at the same time, their shadows will be different lengths. But if the Earth was flat, their shadows would be the same.
Eratosthenes, who conducted a version of this experiment, knew this *3,000 years ago*
*3. Weigh yourself *


Gravity, which pulls everyone towards the centre of our planet's mass, means we weigh the same wherever we are in the world. 

But a flat Earth would mean that those at the edge of the disk would be pulled sideways, while those at the centre would be pulled down. 
To iron out this problem, Flat Earthers have concluded there is no such thing as gravity - you know, that force that pretty much holds the entire Universe together. 

But if they were correct, you would not be able to weigh yourself at all. You would also be dead. 
*4. Take a trip to Antarctica*
Flat Earthers argue that Antarctica is actually a massive ice wall around a flat Earth.
But, if that were true, the countless planes that fly over Antarctica would surely have just... fallen off? 

*5. Check your watch*

Picture: iStock / FoxysGraphic 

To explain seasons, Flat Earthers argue that the sun orbits in a circle above us. 
But that doesn't explain time zones, though this is their attempt, which shows the sun as some kind of spotlight,

Everyone whose ever used a torch at night knows you can see its beam from the side - and that would apply to a flat Earth too. 
*6. Grab a compass*
Our planet has a magnetic field generated by the molten iron at the core of our planet. 
If the Earth was flat, it would have no core. And even if it had a flat layer of liquid metal instead, the planet wouldn't rotate in a way that created a magnetic field. 

*7. Grab a pendulum*
This famous experiment was first demonstrated in 1851 by Leon Foucault and is now found in museums around the world.

If you watch a pendulum for long enough, you'll notice it starts to swing in a slightly different direction, which proves the Earth is rotating beneath your feet.


----------



## msw141 (Nov 17, 2020)

@veeall my biggest question is similar to yours, but from the perspective of the horizon.  

The concept of how they say that a ship sailing away from you starts to look like it disappears into the ocean because it is on the downside of the earth's curve that you can't see.  That sounds nice but I don't feel like that works in practice, one of the better FE experiment videos I saw showed that with high-power zoom you can still see those "vanished" ships, it's more of a vanishing perspective effect.

But I think of curve in the horizon sense, from left to right in your field of view.   I think the calculation is called 'arc minutes' or something.  If you were able to measure how long your FOV is, which should be possible with known landmarks, and you were able to measure the amount of "drop" the center of your FOV, then you can calculate the rate of curve.  This is a crude drawing, but green is horizon that you can see, red is just a flat line superimposed over the horizon, and yellow is some small amount of drop that you can measure of the earth's curveature.




I'm not convinced that calculation experiment would equal the circumference of the Earth.  From googling various terms, the rate of the Earth's curve is supposed to be 1/8th of an inch over 100 feet.  So if you can figure out how wide your FOV is (or half of it from center to left or center to right) you should be able to validate how much curve you should see at either end.  We all know that even from the best of scenic views, there is no perceptible curve.  My issue with that is that it seems like this would calculate out to a huuuuuuuuuge Earth.  I know the Earth is very big, but I just really want to see the numbers prove out.  I can drive a good chunk of a map in a day, you can fly a much much greater distance in the same amount of time.  It's not impossibly huge.  I feel like if you were able to prove there are shenanigans with what we're being told, this should be how you can prove it.  It doesn't seem like it bends enough such that if you extrapolate that out you will get the 24,900 mile circumference.  Based on that 1/8" inch calculation (assuming it is accurate) then in 2000 miles there should be 1100 feet of decline from the horizon. (maybe I didn't do the math right).  

Recently David Blaine did that Ascencion special with the balloon.  Here he's at 24,000 feet and you can overlay a line on this horizon and it doesn't drop anything on either end.  it may look like its curved but it's due to some land features that are a different color close to the horizon, when you look at it closely.  Now they say you can't detect curvature at this level, you have to over 35,000 feet.  It just seems like it curves so little, how could it really be a ball 25000 miles in circumference.  It's got to bend somewhere dammit.  

Anyway, that's my rant.  They teach you that you can see the curve when its a ship sailing from a harbor, but if you want to prove it for yourself, you can't because you have to nearly be in space to see the slightest amount of curve by the naked eye.  why the discrepancy?


----------



## veeall (Nov 17, 2020)

If the Earth was flat, everyone would be able to see the same constellations.


Fortuna Fled said:


> *7 ways you can easily prove that the Earth is not flat*
> Posted Sunday 24 May 2020 10:00 by Mimi Launder in tech
> UPVOTE
> 
> ...



These are all bogus claims.


----------



## JWW427 (Nov 17, 2020)

In an alternate universe, timeline, or reality, planets may have more linear 2D physicality. Anything is possible.
However, Im of the humble opinion that our efforts are better suited to historical mysteries that need solving soon, for the world is waking up and we are on the front lines of a war. The enemy of freedom, awareness, truth, and self-determination is at our doorstep. Triage of topics is a necessary tool.


----------



## grav (Nov 17, 2020)

Wow. Posts above discuss a wide range of physics and math. One of them is very professional looking. Not at all like my amateurish presentations. I will not attempt to answer Fortuna's points at this point. I have addressed them on other sites over the years. None of them are valid, but again, tmi to cover per post.

Before I continue, I'll need to learn how to embed images. My earlier attempts were flops. It looks like I have to use Imgur or other app? or download? Surely there is a simpler way.

This link below, for example, shows an old air map used by real pilots in the real world decades ago. I expect today's freemason retrofit-engineers have designed clever software to cover their, ahem, basses.
 Latitude lines are a real problem when mapping east-west distances with this map. And Australia is much larger than in conventional representations.
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71Cnd4gCfVL._AC_SY679_.jpg
Math, by the way, measures curvature drop with this formula:
8 inches per mile squared. 8xdxd
Over 1 mile of water, 8 inches of drop should be observed.
2 miles, 8x2x2 = 32 inches
3 miles, 8x3x3 = 72 inches, or 6 feet
10 miles, 8x10x10 = 800 inches, or 66.666 feet.


----------



## veeall (Nov 17, 2020)

I think it is worth checking, using a sextant, the true distance of one degree of latitude at, say 25 parallel vs at 50.
I have the impression the length of a degrees of latitude measured relative to North Star is found almost equal by ancient navigators, but this do not conform to a globe model, so it was presented to us as if latitudes/parallels are set relative to the (fictional) center of the earth instead. Now the numbers of fictional globe conform to real earth measurements.
In reality, at least in olden times, if north star is visible in the sky at 45 degree it means you are at 45th parallel. Should check that myself though. 

Also it seems never is the whole half of the Earth lit by the sun, worth checking also. With huge sun like that, it should lit very close to a half or even more, sunrise appearing at the same time at both top and bottom of the globe. I will probably keep these up in my future plans.


----------



## Gold (Nov 17, 2020)

grav said:


> Wow. Posts above discuss a wide range of physics and math. One of them is very professional looking. Not at all like my amateurish presentations. I will not attempt to answer Fortuna's points at this point. I have addressed them on other sites over the years. None of them are valid, but again, tmi to cover per post.
> 
> Before I continue, I'll need to learn how to embed images. My earlier attempts were flops. It looks like I have to use Imgur or other app? or download? Surely there is a simpler way.
> 
> ...


You can imbed images using the toolbar above the text field and they will be put where your caret was.


----------



## msw141 (Nov 17, 2020)

grav said:


> Before I continue, I'll need to learn how to embed images



There's probably more to it, but if you save the image to your computer first, then use the paperclip icon to attach a file.  it will upload the file to the site like an image clipboard.  You can do this as a batch of images you intend to use.  They don't immediately go into your post,  you then place your images into your post by clicking either "thumbnail" or "fullsize" which show next to your images that you uploaded.  It will then insert the image where your cursor is positioned and you can see in the preview if you need to change it.  Thumbnail option will expand the image when you click on it, since sometimes images are too large to put in your post using the full size option.


----------



## grav (Nov 17, 2020)

JWW427 said:


> In an alternate universe, timeline, or reality, planets may have more linear 2D physicality. Anything is possible.
> However, Im of the humble opinion that our efforts are better suited to historical mysteries that need solving soon, for the world is waking up and we are on the front lines of a war. The enemy of freedom, awareness, truth, and self-determination is at our doorstep. Triage of topics is a necessary tool.



No argument about imminent war or other upheaval, reset, end of a world age.

I totally disagree that we should stop exploring our physical reality.
Until you know that the ground we live on is the opposite of what the Control System tells us, then you will never know just how fake everything else is.
It's like a child stolen from his real parents, then raised in a cult and forced to believe in a crazy religion or satanism. 
It's all a magic spell. Walt Disney knew all about it and gave us Tinker Bell and Nasa gave us SpaceX.

Waking up is holistic. You can't pick and choose which lie is real and worth rebelling against. Everything they tell us is a lie.


----------



## anselmojo (Nov 17, 2020)

grav said:


> FE is not incompatible with CE, Concave Earth.
> The Ygdrassil tree of Norse myth, the Cosmic Egg, the Mundane Shell, and other images of other ancient cosmologies are all quite similar.
> https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.N8WMrm2RjhpPsMraYFiLYQHaEb&pid=Api&H=95&W=160&P=0
> 
> ...


 
Agreed! Shapes are relative and malleable. It can be all of the above: ball, flat, concave, ribbon, torus, etc. depending on your orientation with respect to time (in both it's scalar component(normal time) and it's 3D component(relativistic/EM))

These illusions and more become more obvious when you ingest aromatic matter whose shape/time fields are more or less infolding than average (whatever that means). Aromaticity - Wikipedia

I have also noticed that my whole perspective on the matter shifts depending on whether I am wearing glasses (-8 diopters) in which case I stand tall at the bottom of a fish bowl, or whether I take them off, in which case I become a gollum like *Sméagol* and have to crawl around on all fours as I try and avoid falling into the abyss.

Furthermore, I have become an avid long-boarder and have noticed some serious glitches in the matrix while spending days upon days navigating the urban jungle of San Antonio Tx. When you are on top of the world on a hill, and the Texas sun is beating down on you, things feel quite different than when you are hurtling down a highway access road at 3am. Terms like lay lines, gravitational/magnetic disturbances, humidity, pressure, density, wind, momentum, etc. all take on a different meaning when you are standing still on your board and the universe is whirring by (all while trying to avoid any minor cracks or pebbles that might send you flying into oncoming traffic, a concrete drainage ditch, or a barbed wire fence...)

I think at this point I have to go with the Homer Simpson model: Doh!  Do-knot discuss! Unless of course we get to eat cake, then anything goes...


----------



## Fortuna Fled (Nov 17, 2020)

JWW427 said:


> In an alternate universe, timeline, or reality, planets may have more linear 2D physicality. Anything is possible.
> However, Im of the humble opinion that our efforts are better suited to historical mysteries that need solving soon, for the world is waking up and we are on the front lines of a war. The enemy of freedom, awareness, truth, and self-determination is at our doorstep. Triage of topics is a necessary tool.


I humbly agree. We’ll never know the truth anyway until (if) man or woman travels to the stars and gets to see what Earth looks like.


----------



## Taira Earth (Nov 17, 2020)

I use machine translation.

I voted for the concave earth theory.
That's the exact opposite of NASA's model of the universe. That's the only reason.
Also, I'm curious about the inclusion of "Flat Earth" in the familiar card game.


----------



## JWW427 (Nov 17, 2020)

Fortuna Fled said:


> JWW427 said:
> 
> 
> > In an alternate universe, timeline, or reality, planets may have more linear 2D physicality. Anything is possible.
> ...



I truly believe people have seen Earth from far away. By all accounts it looks like an egg, but mostly spherical.
There has to be an international secret space program for why did President Trump pass the Space Mining Bill?
Asteroids and the Moon and Mars have been occupied and mined for a few decades now. Thats my belief.

*The shape of the Earth is subjective, it pertains to the viewer's intention. It can be whatever you want.*


----------



## msw141 (Nov 17, 2020)

JWW427 said:


> why did President Trump pass the Space Mining Bill?



I think they've been trying to help transition some amount of these secret things back into the public, while making it seem plausible that they are happening in real time and not uncovering a long-time secret black ops program.  I suspect that's what the purpose of Tesla (or rather Space-X) is in that they've created a partnership in the private sector that they can use to make it look like they're making incredible leaps in progress in the public eye over a short period of time, meanwhile what you aren't seeing is that they're just declassifying tech we've developed in secrecy since Roswell (or Von Bron research, or whatever you want to attribute it to).  Space-X will get the credit for making it easier to go back and forth into space, and it's plausible because of the reputation that Tesla created along with the Elon Musk's persona.   Because if you think of it, let's say that we do have the ability to mine the moon.  The public perception right now is that in the 50 years since the moon landing, we've lost the technology to get back there.  So if suddenly we just show up on the moon and start mining it for resources, that's going to set off a few alarms in the skeptic community.  But now we've at least made a narrative that people believe, and now we don't have to hide this technology anymore that is better off being used for public good.

same thing with how they seem to prepping us for a UFO declassification with those stories about "off world vehicles" and a task force to study these craft that the Navy confirms exist but that they don't know what they are.  Trump may not be the one doing this, it could just be occuring at this time regardless of who is in office.

I'm still skeptical of Space-X though.  Watching that manned crew launch was bizarre.  there was zero rattle or vibration in that launch, those two guys just sat there in those chairs like they were riding the Amtrak Acela quiet car.  And to think that a space craft is going to operate via a touchpad panel has got to be a joke, especially with a gloved hand.  None of it looked real.  But it makes more sense to me if it fills in that gap between the moon landing and now and we were advancing this technology while in public we thought we just gave up on exploring space.


----------



## Fortuna Fled (Nov 17, 2020)

JWW427 said:


> Fortuna Fled said:
> 
> 
> > JWW427 said:
> ...


Yes, I found that quite surprising. It would certainly explain all the efforts made to convince us that there were no lunar landings.

	Post automatically merged: Nov 17, 2020



msw141 said:


> JWW427 said:
> 
> 
> > why did President Trump pass the Space Mining Bill?
> ...


Very interesting idea. A secret within a secret within a secret.


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 17, 2020)

JWW427 said:


> By all accounts it looks like an egg, but mostly spherical.


This is some coincidence!
http://justegg.co.uk/news/earth-egg-shaped.html 
2 minutes ago | World


----------



## Citezenship (Nov 17, 2020)

kd-755 said:


> JWW427 said:
> 
> 
> > By all accounts it looks like an egg, but mostly spherical.
> ...


So do they actually have a pic or are they just saying so and also isn't voyager 2 a bit far away for a photo op??

https://www.inverse.com/science/nas...lly-back-online-11.5-billion-miles-from-earth
Think the term is oblate spheroid!

All a bit Arthur Dent!

https://petapixel.com/2015/09/30/5-ways-nasa-photoshops-images-to-create-stunning-photos-of-space/


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 17, 2020)

Citezenship said:


> So do they actually have a pic or are they just saying so and also isn't voyager 2 a bit far away for a photo op??


Click the link!


----------



## Citezenship (Nov 17, 2020)

kd-755 said:


> Citezenship said:
> 
> 
> > So do they actually have a pic or are they just saying so and also isn't voyager 2 a bit far away for a photo op??
> ...


Haha, that got me!


----------



## Prolix (Nov 17, 2020)

Fortuna Fled said:


> JWW427 said:
> 
> 
> > In an alternate universe, timeline, or reality, planets may have more linear 2D physicality. Anything is possible.
> ...



The always fascinating Rudolf Steiner – via his akashic access, so I guess you might argue he "saw" it – suggested that the Earth stands in the universe as "a rounded tetrahedron, as a kind of pyramid". Which is certainly a distinctive view.

He also didn't have very nice things to say about the Copernican view of the Earth moving around the Sun – at least in part because it meant man "could no longer seek the spirit in the ether in a sensory fashion" and Copernicus' ideas are "incapable of promoting any understanding of the spiritual foundations of the world" – although it turns out he wasn't advocating the geocentric model as such. Rather, in some sometimes contradictory seeming statements, that the Earth and the planets follow the Sun rather than revolving around it, by way of a corkscrew motion. 

He did say, though, that in terms of the astral plane, the Ptolemaic model holds true and that "Ptolemy's system will be rehabilitated in an epoch yet to come". He considered this the correct picture of the world, but because of "man's sin" the Earth has gone over "into the kingdom of the Sun; the Sun has become regent and ruler of earthly activities". He also held the view that "the Sun is not physical and does not generate heat, but acts as a focal point for the reflection of cosmic forces".


----------



## Taira Earth (Nov 18, 2020)

kd-755 said:


> This is some coincidence!
> BREAKING NEWS: Astronomers Discover That Earth is Egg-shaped
> 2 minutes ago | World


I tweeted that link because I was reading the thread seriously.... Clever trap?

To be honest, I have a hard time accepting the model of the universe made of rocks anymore, but everyone's posts are very informative. I'd love to hear more.


----------



## Citezenship (Nov 18, 2020)

Taira Earth said:


> kd-755 said:
> 
> 
> > This is some coincidence!
> ...


Had me too, i used to trust kd775....


----------



## grav (Nov 19, 2020)

​This map, an azimuthal-equidistant projection, is how pilots used to navigate before Nasa and its subordinates invented the false systems called satellites and gps.
Notice how longitude lines splay out wider toward the south (the outer rim of Antarctica).
East and west are curved orientations that follow the circular lines of latitude.







	Post automatically merged: Nov 19, 2020

The Electric Universe is often seen as a torus.
The Infinite Plane forms the central accretion disk in which earth and other worlds are embedded.
Multiple planes may be stacked on earth other.
You can envisage the  construction as an egg, apple, the Ygdrassil Tree, or even a donut.


----------



## khaoz (Nov 19, 2020)

Obviously, they don't fly anywhere. All these NASA-USSR-etc. use occult oriental religious symbols.
All this is filmed in swimming pools, in flying planes, near the green screen. They send a bunch of confirmations that these are fakes in the press. It's just that if you read the newspapers, you can die laughing (as an example, my favorite news is that there was a hole in the ISS and they covered it up with a finger. They used to think that it was such a serious object as a Submarine)
Do not even think about all these Voyagers, Luna, the loss of documents on the flight to the Moon.
At least the UK has no space program. And all other countries steal a lot of money in this area.

Also people often see a bunch of UFOs 
I saw it myself once. Some objects of Vimana, it is not clear who is sitting there. Most likely, evil managers of the planet and outsiders.

In terms of the shape of the earth, you need to be mentally prepared that the Geography may not be the same (Map is different; Copy-Paste to confuse; Single continent Asia Europe-Asia-USA; Australia like Antarctica with a fence and other jokes; in the middle HyperBorea - Hyperhole) and there may be new continents on our map (Let's call them Asgard and Agartha).
And all this on a super huge land from the Indian Vedas.
I will not be surprised at anything, it is necessary to practically check everything, study, fly on airships, ask questions.
They lied so many times that it's strange to trust them in ordinary matters))
"Вelieve the cop" (a prison expression about the constant attempt of the prison authorities to do nasty things, interrogate, set up, deceive, etc.)


----------



## veeall (Nov 19, 2020)

msw141 said:


> @veeall my biggest question is similar to yours, but from the perspective of the horizon.
> 
> The concept of how they say that a ship sailing away from you starts to look like it disappears into the ocean because it is on the downside of the earth's curve that you can't see.  That sounds nice but I don't feel like that works in practice, one of the better FE experiment videos I saw showed that with high-power zoom you can still see those "vanished" ships, it's more of a vanishing perspective effect.
> 
> ...



There's a lot of light bending-compression going on at the horizon during daytime, reflections make islands float above the waterlevel, objects appearing sometimes closer, sometimes farther.

As for my previous posts, i must back of, if i had drawn the diagram correctly there would have been no discord. According to science no matter where you are on a planet, the light of Polaris comes parallel to earths axis.


----------



## grav (Nov 19, 2020)

@khaoz, you mean you don't believe there was a Dutch boy who plugged the hole on the space station? Why, that's tin foil crazy talk! ?

The video below demonstrates the ludicrousity of space in the first place.

The very idea that earth has a thin envelope of air defies all laws of physics. 
. You just can't have a breathable atmosphere smack dab next to a total vacuum a mere 62 miles up. Gas laws require a container to keep air from escaping. Gases are required by law to equalize according to equations which all have a v (volume). Infinite space does not qualify as a volume.
. Then, the earth ball spins 1000 mph and orbits the sun at 66,600 mph, which requires molecures of oxygen and nitrogen to match those ginormous speeds.
. And then we have astro-nots, aka fake space actors, who again defy physics by floating outside the ISS. This flimsy structure absurdly maintains a pressurized cabin without exploding outwards , even when a meteorite punctures a wall. 

I will repeat myself: scientists and physics teachers are well aware of these impossible and ridiculous Hollywood productions. They go along with them for the usual reasons. Just like doctors who know the Germ theory is a hoax.
.........
The first part of this short video shows what really happened to a man in a spacesuit decades ago when he was exposed to a vacuum chamber on earth.  
He survived the experiment. That's when Nasa started doing its real space walks. In giant swimming pools in Star City near Moscow.
Now that is real Russuan collusion. Our Chinese "enemies" also play their parts in the NWO fake space programs.




_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D-AIMg1sugI&t=6s_


----------



## Citezenship (Nov 19, 2020)

grav said:


> @khaoz, you mean you don't believe there was a Dutch boy who plugged the hole on the space station? Why, that's tin foil crazy talk! ?
> 
> The video below demonstrates the ludicrousity of space in the first place.
> 
> ...



I love one of the comments from that vid,

Excellent guys. NASA, NAZI , same, do you actually believe GOD would leave a door open for us to escape this realm, i think not, this realm is a prison realm, two doors , one to enter= birth, one to exit = death, thats it folks.

I am not a believer in the religious sense but do think there is an "architect" for want of a better word!


----------



## Bogdan (Nov 19, 2020)

The fact that there is a big discussion about the shape of the world, in itself is indicating that humanity still hasn't figured that one out yet. Where there's smoke, there's a fire. NASA is definetely doing special effects trickery. For a trained eye it's easy to spot and sometimes even laughable (especially in their older footages). The US-military has a history of creating "special" motion pictures.

*Lookout Mountain Air Force Station*

@grav I quickly made these animations based on a higher resolution version of the map you posted... just to please my own curiousity. The ball version seems to fit the flight paths best. But then again, I would need to start digging on how those were measured and drawn in the first place...

Flat:





Concave:



Spherical:


----------



## AthroposRex (Nov 19, 2020)

grav said:


> I am new to this forum and don't see an active thread on flat earth. Is there any interest in the topic?
> SH's format is quite impressive. And imposing, to the point that navigating it is tricky for a simple mind like mine. Generic forums have become gross mockeries of their original designs, and so I am looking for a new home where I may spout my heresies, primarily the most basic hidden truth upon which all other distorted truths are based. The Infinite Plane of the Electric Universe.
> 
> My overall guesstimate of reality is a computer program which is crashed and rebooted every 300 years or so.
> ...



I used to entertain the flat earth theory until I came across wild heretics concave earth theory. It has a lot more to it. The fact that light bends should be a serious consideration for anyone who is researching this stuff using their eyes.


----------



## khaoz (Nov 20, 2020)

grav said:


> ...


It's just obvious to me that this international network of Oriental Churches (Masons), in principle, cannot launch anything. Previously, at least they were shy, now they just sculpt their signs everywhere. Again, the head of Roscosmos is a life-tortured linguist...


----------



## Skydog (Nov 20, 2020)

AthroposRex said:


> grav said:
> 
> 
> > I am new to this forum and don't see an active thread on flat earth. Is there any interest in the topic?
> ...


Here Here! The fact that the horizon always rises up to the eye level as one ascends (or at least when one’s camera is hoisted up on a weather balloon and said footage is posted on YouTube) is when the Concave Earth Theory penny dropped for me. But don’t worry Flat Earth Theory - you never forget your first!


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 20, 2020)

A question.
Why parabolic lines in this UN presentation overlaid on a flat map?


----------



## Bogdan (Nov 20, 2020)

kd-755 said:


> A question.
> Why parabolic lines in this UN presentation overlaid on a flat map?
> 
> View attachment 3065​


Do you have a link for this video? I guess the parabolic lines are chosen for aesthetic reasons by the art director and/or the motion graphics artist to emphasize "flight".


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 20, 2020)

Yes here it is but turn the sound down as the blokes voice is LOUD!
https://www.brighteon.com/e10f6df0-6f67-4ec6-8e1d-62991b33bad1


----------



## grav (Nov 20, 2020)

@Bogdan, can you "round" this image? I can't insert it, even after refreshing and doing all the steps that work sometimes ---  when the internet gods favor me and no bird lands on my "satellite" dish.
[edit: I was able to embed the image after all.]

It's interesting to see how airplanes fly in the southern hemi'sphere', such as from South America to Africa.

https://stolenhistory.net/attachments/oip-2-jpeg.3061/?hash=049b3014c836ef62260ea28f6e8f0464


----------



## grav (Nov 23, 2020)

10 reasons for thinking the world is not a spinning ball in a vacuum


1. Curvature. Spherical trigonometry dictates that the globe should exhibit a curve of 8 inches per mile squared. No experiments on land or water have ever proven this math to be accurate. On the contrary, with proper telephoto lenses, objects can be detected far beyond the expected curvature. Example: Photos of Chicago from across Lake Michigan.

2. Atmosphere vs space vacuum. Space theoretically begins 62 miles above the earth’s surface, at the Karman Line. The laws of physics say that a vacuum can not exist next to an atmosphere. Without a barrier to separate the two areas, the atmosphere would instantly escape into the hard vacuum of space. Example: open a tank of compressed air; the oxygen or other gases inside the tank will rush outside to achieve equilibrium of air pressure. A vacuum cannot exist next to the atmosphere.

3. Water. Liquid water always seeks its own level. Gravity, which is really the function of density (weight) of objects over distances, cannot cause oceans to curve around the globe. Sea level must be consistent throughout the world. Water, in other words, can not curve. Example: the Pacific Ocean, sea level.

4. Centrifugal force. If earth rotated at 1000 mph at the equator, nothing could withstand being thrown off of it along a curved or tangential path. Gravity is said to be the weakest force in the universe. It is, under any circumstances, unable to overcome the extreme speed of rotation. Gravity is actually the ratio of densities of adjacent objects, such as the density of water compared to that of air.. Examples include insects, clouds, smoke, other low density-objects which rise above the earth despite the alleged gravity and centrifugal force. Example: merry-go-rounds.

5. Authorities.  Professionals in many fields --pilots, engineers, surveyors, gunners, artillerymen, radar operators, etc. -- do not account for curvature in any manner. Example: surveyors never adjust for earth curvature when they design canals, causeway bridges, railroad lines.

6 Moon and sun. Both objects appear to the eye to be the same size, though the moon is around 238,000 miles away and the sun is 93 million miles distant. Sunlight beams deny the claim that rays enter earth’s atmosphere in parallel beams. Using simple geometry, one can determine that the triangular pattern results in a distance of only 3000 miles above. The moon emits a cooling light which illuminates only the clouds which are near it, not those that are further away. Example: sunlight beaming rays through clouds (crepuscular rays) form a triangle with a base of less than 8,000 miles miles

7. Constellations. Star patterns have not altered appreciably in human history. Considering speeds of celestial objects which travel billions of miles per year in multiple directions, as well as earth’s own rotation, revolution around the sun, following the sun through the universe, we should observe some changes in as little as 6 months (stellar parallax). But no such changes have been seen in 6000 years. Example: Orion, Polaris  in the same locations for millennia.

8. Airplane travel. Flights to and from countries in the southern hemisphere always pass over countries in the north, even though they could refuel in places along a direct route. When plotted on the flat earth map, the planes show that they follow a straight line. Example: flights between South America, Africa, Australia.. 

9. No Sensation of movement. If earth actually rotated and revolved around the sun at 67,000 mph, we should hear sonic booms and be swept away by winds far beyond hurricane strength.       Examples: quiet, calm days, east-to-west winds

10. Photographs of earth from space. There are no legitimate pictures or videos of earth.  All pictorial evidence is computer-generated, as are almost all photos of celestial objects. NASA even says that these photographs were created to “match people’s expectations.”  
Other evident fakery from space agencies, including the ISS and the Space Shuttle, further supports the argument that our ideas about space are entirely faked. 

http://tse3.mm.bing.net/thid=OIP.x2Ym3dHd4c34mQo2wAauqAEsCd&pid=15.1
Gravity is density


----------



## emperornorton (Nov 24, 2020)

grav said:


> The very idea that earth has a thin envelope of air defies all laws of physics.
> . You just can't have a breathable atmosphere smack dab next to a total vacuum a mere 62 miles up. Gas laws require a container to keep air from escaping. Gases are required by law to equalize according to equations which all have a v (volume). Infinite space does not qualify as a volume.
> . Then, the earth ball spins 1000 mph and orbits the sun at 66,600 mph, which requires molecures of oxygen and nitrogen to match those ginormous speeds.
> . And then we have astro-nots, aka fake space actors, who again defy physics by floating outside the ISS. This flimsy structure absurdly maintains a pressurized cabin without exploding outwards , even when a meteorite punctures a wall.



The problem I have with this sequence is that your third supposition, relating to space travel, is rejected on its apparent incompatibility with physical principles you have just said are wrong. I am not vouching for NASA's integrity by any means, but there's something circular in that logic and it's not the earth. 

And this relates to a broader "all or nothing" tendency I notice in this thread. From the conjoined conclusions that _(a)_ _the upper atmosphere and outer space, so-called, are entirely different from what mainstream science says_ and _(b) NASA lies about everything_, there is an evident temptation to proceed directly to the "it's all fake" camp. That seems to me to be a mistake. For one thing, the possibility of space travel or satellites doesn't necessarily rise or fall with any conjectured terrestrial topology or cosmos. For another, the evidence attesting to the existence of space travel and satellites is enormous. Finally, keep in mind that dissimulation, like the serpent, is a most subtle thing. 

I believe that the evidence shows that: the space program is very real; that it was conceived and developed for military purposes; that its public-facing benevolent ambitions had the purposes of concealing its military character, engendering public support, distracting the public as necessary, and sustaining the orthodox scientific world-view; and that whatever evidence of the _real_ space program happens to drift into public sight is explained away in terms of mundane phenomena. As far as satellites go, I am referring only to vehicles semi-permanently positioned at very high altitude and am not presupposing any theoretical conceptions of outer space or gravitational orbit; indeed, most of these vehicles can be regarded more correctly as "electrogravitic platforms." 

Here's a timeline of space activities I will vouch for:

1960s - US space program rockets launching from islands in the South Indian Ocean begin secretly moving men and materials to the moon's Copernicus crater for construction of a moon base.

1960s - NASA films a series of movies, notably the popular _Apollo_ franchise, and releases them straight to television. The Hollywood film _Planet of the Apes _provides cover for the creation of the set for _Apollo 11_.

1977 - Russian manned satellites attack the US moon base with neutron particle beam weapons; Russia then inhabits the base and fortifies it with directed-energy howitzers. (See _Moonraker_).

1980s - The US Space Shuttle program, conceived as a response to Soviet domination in space, is engaged in a series of (mostly losing) battles with futuristic Soviet _Cosmosphere _spacecraft (or, as the public calls them, UFOs)

1990s - Israel's fleet of fusion-powered killer DEW satellites begins its reign of terror 

??




msw141 said:


> I'm still skeptical of Space-X


Space-X was reputed to be engaged in Antisat intrigues; no idea what's happening right now. Oh, and there's this:


----------



## grav (Nov 24, 2020)

@emperornorton, you say I use circular reasoning, while your proof of Nasa's veracity is moon bases? maglev satellites? etc.?
A whole lot of speculation there, to put it mildly.
Below, we see another example of Nasa's handiwork. Will you "vouch" for the far side lunar transit as you did for the Russian howitzers?
Enjoy the view.



_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=DMdhQsHbWTs_


1. clouds don't move during the 5-hour transit
2. size of the US is wrong -- at 3000 miles wide, it should be 3/8th the diameter of the blue sphere (8000 miles)
3. moon is 2-dimensionally flat and does not rotate clockwise as advertised by Nasa
4. moon travels in a straight line while the EPIC "geostationary" satellite maintained an amazing fixed position
5. earth exhibits a curious pareidolia in the appearance of an angry clown with one eye closed and the other one open and baleful (the dark object off the coast of California)
Overall, a slipshod product, its many glaring peculiarities a test of human discernment.


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 24, 2020)

No spacecraft of any size or description carries enough water with it to meet the needs of any stated mission. The weight argument alone negates any space bound water tanker from getting off of the ground.


----------



## Citezenship (Nov 24, 2020)

kd-755 said:


> No spacecraft of any size or description carries enough water with it to meet the needs of any stated mission. The weight argument alone negates any space bound water tanker from getting off of the ground.



_View: https://youtu.be/fV1HkTTlZ_I_


----------



## Blue Ice (Nov 24, 2020)

No one's discussing the monolith they just found in Utah? Sorry for posting here, I couldn't find the relevant thread.


----------



## Bogdan (Nov 24, 2020)

grav said:


> @Bogdan, can you "round" this image? I can't insert it, even after refreshing and doing all the steps that work sometimes --- when the internet gods favor me and no bird lands on my "satellite" dish.



*List of map projections. *

I found the map of which you took a screenshot from youtube in highres. I hope we are clear that those kind of maps are for illustration purposes only, they don't depict the actual flight paths of planes. This map was done on a sphere and then unvrapped to this most common "equirectangular" projection which we all grew up with. Just a line has been drawn from airport A to airport B. Here's the original map and the converted ones:





AEP:





Projected onto a sphere:



Below is an example of a *real flight path* from Baltimore to San Juan. Comparison of an illustration to the actual tracking of the flight:







The Great Circle Mapper

Non-stop flight route from Delhi to San Francisco:





Actual flight route from Delhi to San Francisco:





The explanation is, that they are making use of the northern/polar jet stream to save fuel...

Here's how the actual flight path back to Delhi looks like:


----------



## grav (Nov 24, 2020)

Blue Ice said:


> No one's discussing the monolith they just found in Utah? Sorry for posting here, I couldn't find the relevant thread.




The 2001 monolith, lol. Maybe a real Nasa stunt, in which case, this thread is as good as any. Maybe a Hollywood prop, prank.


----------



## Bogdan (Nov 24, 2020)

grav said:


> View:
> _View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=DMdhQsHbWTs_




This supposed "EPIC View" is an insult to my intelligence. It's not a real view. As a professional 3d artist and motion-graphics designer, doing this type of stuff for over 15 years, I can assure you without even going into the details, that this is rendered and not taken by a camera as suggested. I know from my own experience, that it's easy to fool people with these kind of images and with the right caption. The vast majority of people who don't have a trained eye, will mistake this for a real view. The fact, that it has an "official" stamp on it because it's from NASA, doesn't change the fact that this is digitally made. The landmass alone is a huge composite. 

The only convincing picture of earth NASA ever put out, was the first one in *1967*. Apparently taken from *22300* miles above the surface of the earth . It looks more convincing because CGI didn't exist yet, and all that special effects stuff had to be hand drawn, painted, cut, pasted, overlayed and multi exposed. Hence the more organic look:





Stormy earth there. That's alot of clouds. Oh and there's a video WITH moving clouds which goes along with it. Gotta give it to Disney and his team, they did a good job:





Your browser is not able to display this video.


----------



## grav (Nov 24, 2020)

@Bogdan, thank you so much.
Your graphics and animation work is much appreciated.

I need to add "equirectangular" to my vocabulary.
Yes, I understand the perspective issue when looking at lines in a sphere.
A 2d straight line is necessarily curved in 3d.

Regardless the map, pretty much all flights for southern latitudes (South America, Africa, Australia) travel north before heading back south to their destinations.
There are no direct flights, e.g. between the 3 southern continents. 

Plotted on the Flat Earrh map, azimuthal_equidistant, the flights make sense.

	Post automatically merged: Nov 25, 2020

There are no (0) real photos of earth from space.
Nasa cranks out ludicrous images of the blue marble and gets away with these cgi cartoons, which insult Bogdan's intelligence. mine too.

But as we see in the "news", the Powers That Be can convince the people that the government knows best. If the MSM told people to wear paper bags over their heads, 95% would do it. 

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along, little dogies. Mask up and social distance.

This is your world, until we tell you different.

View attachment 3345​


----------



## grav (Nov 26, 2020)




----------



## emperornorton (Nov 26, 2020)

grav said:


> @emperornorton, you say I use circular reasoning, while your proof of Nasa's veracity is moon bases? maglev satellites? etc.?
> A whole lot of speculation there, to put it mildly.
> Below, we see another example of Nasa's handiwork. Will you "vouch" for the far side lunar transit as you did for the Russian howitzers?
> Enjoy the view.



No. I believe that nearly everything NASA presents to the public is either fake or misrepresented. For instance:

_Apollo moon landings? Fake. _
_Challenger shuttle explosion? Real, but destroyed by Soviet spacecraft, not faulty O-rings (and manned by clone crew.)_
_Skylab crash? Real, but again caused by Soviet spacecraft and not "orbital decay." _
_Mars rover? Remote controlled car in remote Irish headlands. _
_Blue marble photographs of earth? Fake._
_ISS drama? Fake. _
_Columbia shuttle explosion? Prevarication. Shuttle occupants were transferred to a second vehicle headed to Mars._
More to the point, I believe that NASA's lies conceal a space program very different from, and far more advanced than anything the public has been led to understand. That scenario is a lot more plausible in my opinion than the idea that behind all this subterfuge is _nothing._


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 26, 2020)

The subterfuge creates the illusion of a finite ball earth confinement.


----------



## emperornorton (Nov 26, 2020)

kd-755 said:


> The subterfuge creates the illusion of a finite ball earth confinement.



I agree in a general way that is a plausible motive for deception. However, I am not concerned with arguing for either a flat earth theory or a globe earth theory here. I was specifically addressing claims made in reference to space flight insofar as they relate to the narrative promulgated by NASA et. al.

Thus, in consideration of the following narratives

_beneficent scientists driven by curiosity hang out in a zero-gravity space fort, play golf on the moon, and use robots to measure dirt on Mars _(mainstream narrative); and
_space flight is fake, satellites are fake, space stations are fake, nobody ever travelled to the moon, etc._ (militant skepticism narrative)
*It is my contention that both are specimens of propaganda*, that both proceed from a common source (although intended for different audiences) and that both are false. The reality is that the scope and sophistication of spaceflight technology is secretly far in advance of anything claimed by any space agency. Understand this and you will understand why the opening crawl of _Star Wars_ ("A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...") is meant as a joke.

So while it is true that the mainstream narrative does reinforce the "spinning globe theory," the program of deception orchestrated by NASA and its cohorts is plotted mainly on lines of technological secrecy. The corresponding lesson to be found in facile Miles Mathis-tier hoax propaganda would be that the joke is on you.*

_*I mean this in a general sense; I'm not referring to anybody in this thread_


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 26, 2020)

Point is the defining of the shape of earth into a ball that can only be left by using technology to enter the skies above us, which get labelled space, confines the mind into a "no escape" sort of thinking be it held consciously or sub-consciously.
If the truth is all we have to do 'escape' is to wander off in any direction for long enough the confinement evaporates and with it everything we are told is true.
The theorising about shape is rooted in the same source that gains something from the confinement thus propaganda writ large run for reasons unknown.

The fakery of space travel said to be in use is self evident once the logistics of what they say is going on is examined.
Overt space tech fails the water supply test every time and the same test would fail the covert space tech should such a thing exist and should such a thing come to light. Water is the fundamental for life and we live in a watery environment. 
The same fakery is used in the earth shape theories which become clear once the practical reality we live in is examined.
Trouble is for most people they have 'too much going on in their lives' to take the time to just sit and look into such things.


----------



## Bogdan (Nov 26, 2020)

Have you seen this experiment? This force is not even close to what's supposedly in outer space.

2:20



Without even arguing about the shape of the earth or if space exists, the physics they tell us make space flight (in a conventional way) impossible. For me it is unfathomable how you would be able to counter the almost perfect vacuum of outer space (which we can't reproduce on earth) with some metalpanels and some rubber suits... I heard somebody theorising about liquid helium being up there. Found that an interesting idea to consider.

*Moon facts from NASA:*

"Surface pressure (night): 3 x 10-15 bar  *(2 x 10-12 torr)*"

From Wikipedro:

"
The atmosphere of the Moon is a very scant presence of gases surrounding the Moon. For most practical purposes, the Moon is *considered to be surrounded by vacuum*. The elevated presence of atomic and molecular particles in its vicinity compared to interplanetary medium, referred to as "lunar atmosphere" for scientific objectives, is *negligible* in comparison with the gaseous envelopes surrounding Earth and most planets of the Solar System. The pressure of this small mass is around *3×10−15 atm (0.3 nPa)*, varying throughout the day, and in total mass less than 10 metric tonnes. Otherwise, the Moon is considered not to have an atmosphere because it cannot absorb measurable quantities of radiation, does not appear layered or self-circulating, and requires constant replenishment due to the high rate at which its gases get lost into space.

Roger Joseph Boscovich was the first modern astronomer to argue for the lack of atmosphere around the moon in his _De lunae atmosphaera_ (1753)."

... who was a Jesuit Priest.

"The standard atmosphere (symbol: atm) is a unit of pressure defined as 101325 Pa (1.01325 bar). It is sometimes used as a _reference_ or _standard pressure_. It is approximately equal to Earth's atmospheric pressure at sea level."

Then we have the largest vacuum chamber here: 





Wiki:

*"**Space Power Facility* (SPF) is a NASA facility used to test spaceflight hardware under simulated launch and spaceflight conditions. The SPF is part of NASA's Plum Brook Station, which in turn is part of the Glenn Research Center. The Plum Brook Station and the SPF are located near Sandusky, Ohio (Oxford Township, Erie County, Ohio).

The SPF is able to simulate a spacecraft's launch environment, as well as in-space environments. NASA has developed these capabilities under one roof to optimize testing of spaceflight hardware while minimizing transportation issues. Space Power Facility has become a "One Stop Shop" to qualify flight hardware for manned space flight. This facility provides the capability to perform the following environmental testing:


*Thermal-vacuum testing*
*Reverberation acoustic testing*
*Mechanical vibration testing*
*Modal testing*
*Electromagnetic interference and compatibility testing*
Thermal-Vacuum Test Chamber:

The Space Power Facility (SPF) is a vacuum chamber built by NASA in *1969*. It stands 122 feet (37 m) high and 100 feet (30 m) in diameter, enclosing a bullet-shaped space. It is the world's largest thermal vacuum chamber. It was originally commissioned for *nuclear-electric power studies* under vacuum conditions, but was later *decommissioned*. Recently (?), it was recommissioned for use in testing spacecraft propulsion systems. Recent uses include testing the airbag landing systems for the Mars Pathfinder and the Mars Exploration Rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, under simulated Mars atmospheric conditions.

The facility was designed and constructed to test both nuclear and non-nuclear space hardware in a simulated Low-Earth-Orbiting environment. Although the facility was designed for testing nuclear hardware, only non-nuclear tests have been performed throughout its history. Some of the test programs that have been performed at the facility include high-energy experiments, rocket-fairing separation tests, Mars Lander system tests, deployable Solar Sail tests and International Space Station hardware tests. The SPF is located at the NASA Glenn Research Center at the Plum Brook site.

The facility can sustain a high vacuum *(10−6 torr, 130 μPa)*; simulate solar radiation via a 4 MW quartz heat lamp array, solar spectrum by a 400 kW arc lamp, and cold environments (−320 °F (−195.6 °C)) with a variable geometry cryogenic cold shroud.

The facility is available on a full-cost reimbursable basis to government, universities, and the private sector.

In Spring 2013 SpaceX conducted a fairing separation test in the vacuum chamber."

Here's a table for vacuum pressure comparison:





They say the atmosphere on the moon is 0.3 nPa (10-12 torr or even lower when they say "For most practical purposes, the Moon is considered to be surrounded by vacuum.") while the largest vacuum chamber can only produce 130 μPa or 10−6 torr? The LHC at CERN uses 10-10 torr they say.
This what happened to one of the CERN vacuum chambers:









Here about a vacuum Accident at General Electric.
And here another one.

They want to tell us, that some dudes flew in a tincan 384400 km through space, able to counter this enourmous force, landed, then rode a makeshift caddy in rubber suits and played golf on there? Then flew back again? Give me a damn break.


----------



## veeall (Nov 26, 2020)

And they weren't the slightest afraid to scratch or tear the pressurized soft costume while jumping around on the moon.
It is interesting though, while i'm sure all of it was filmed on earth, it seems they took few extra steps to create footages about mysterious ruins on the moon for the alien narrative.

For me the sabotaging of the space/aliens/multiunivers narrative by the emergence of the Earths shape discussion is the main indication it wasn't purely just a psyop. Though i think it was still managed to some extent and extra publicity given to it for some reason.

Also i remember just before the emergence of the Flat Earth discussion there was very active discussion against the rotation of the Earth around its axis. Maybe this was set to be undermined by leaking even more preposterous idea of the Flat Earth to public, which even if true, would probably marginalize the whole movement in the sight of public.

And curiously, the axial rotation is what has supposedly shaped all the globes. Maybe they overdosed public with (twisted?)truth to keep the official narrative from collapsing.


----------



## grav (Nov 27, 2020)

The ISS is another pressurized tin can in space vacuum.
My "satellite" signal is even poorer than usual today and won't let this gif upload.
How can anyone with a basic science "education" accept any part of any space program? 

https://external-preview.redd.it/v--pooLVPDKPdkvE7yRU1GyF5crzOGueSQo_SK5DnlCp0w.gif?width=480&height=251.308900524&s=f75b55805ead4395715fdca5e697a05b02f8c03c


----------



## emperornorton (Nov 28, 2020)

Bogdan said:


> *They want to tell us*, that some dudes flew in a tincan 384400 km through space, able to counter this enourmous force, landed, then rode a makeshift caddy in rubber suits and played golf on there? Then flew back again? Give me a damn break.
> 
> the physics *they tell us* make space flight (in a conventional way) impossible.



_This is still a question-begging line of argument._ NASA is unreliable, you say, because certain NASA claims are implausible in light of data...you got from NASA.



Bogdan said:


> *They say* the atmosphere on the moon is 0.3 nPa (10-12 torr or even lower when they say "For most practical purposes, the Moon is considered to be surrounded by vacuum.") while the largest vacuum chamber can only produce 130 μPa or 10−6 torr? The LHC at CERN uses 10-10 torr *they say*.



Well if they say so...  

What grounds are there for assuming the moon is surrounded by vacuum? What reason is there to assume that space technology is limited to what NASA puts out for public exhibition? Why believe _anything_ NASA (wikipedia, etc.) says? The whole argument is vacuous.



kd-755 said:


> Overt space tech fails the water supply test every time



I can imagine a similar test proving the impossibility of interstate motorcycle travel on the grounds that no horse could be sustained by fodder limited to such meager storage space. That's probably a stupid example, but you know what I mean.


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 28, 2020)

What was the volume of water sent up in an Apollo rocket?
What was the volume of water sent to the moon on the moon lander?
What was the volume of water held in the Gemini spacecraft?
How is the ISS resupplied with water?

What powers satellites at thousands of miles per hour?
What guidance system is able to detect a collision at such speeds?
What is able to divert the satellite from the collision at such speeds?

If space is somewhere human bodies can visit without a resupply of water then I am Lord Lucan!

Incidentally the same water supply test when applied to all the wooden ship 'exploring voyages' in days of yore shows them to be either faked or just as likely they were always sailing in sight of land armed with maps from even earlier days of yore with water sources marked upon them. Without water human beings die. Knowing where to find water is a survival fundamental for all living beings even horses. Set one free and follow it and it will find water for you.

Not really all that much to do with the op premise but space is not the final frontier. Letting go of what you have been told you know is.


----------



## Prolix (Nov 28, 2020)

emperornorton said:


> The whole argument is vacuous.



I see what you did there.


----------



## grav (Nov 29, 2020)

The whole space program is vacuus. Nasa gets away with space travel because people don't pay attention to the picky details -- like how air pressure goes from 14.7 psi on earth to 0.00 a mere 62 miles up.

The only way for a vacuum to exist is if there is a contained "space" for gas particles to disperse. All gas laws require a volume for pressure to accumulate. Heavy density forms at what we call the bottom. Lighter density becomes nil at the top.

By contained, we need a hard surface to constitute the area's volume.
But why can't we see the top? The lid, so to speak.

Pretty much all ancient "myths" speak of a very visible firmament, some metallic or crystalline structure with a bumpy surface. Some describe it as hammered or pitted, possibly a welded construction.

This video, or maybe a timelapse, shows what may be the thing itself. It's a shame the opening image displays a graphic which obscures the view.


_View: https://youtu.be/3x3APUxiSd4_


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 30, 2020)

I just came across this image from April 1st 1960 an event horizon so too speak.



Source


----------



## 6079SmithW (Nov 30, 2020)

kd-755 said:


> I just came across this image from April 1st 1960 an event horizon so too speak.
> View attachment 3538​Source


Looks legit to me!


----------



## EUAFU (Dec 1, 2020)

Well, I believe that the Earth is flat, or at least where we live is quite flat. Now, knowing what the size of the Earth really is is a problem.

In the old Stolen Story, a topic arose about living on a Super-Earth or rather, that the Moon is actually a hologram of the Earth in the sky (or Dome of the Earth) and that we actually live in one of the craters of the Super Earth.

According to this theory, the aliens would be beings that come from other craters on this Super Earth.

Thus, the Earth would be round, just gigantic and would continue to expand and the crater in which we live (limited by the edges of Antarctica) would be somewhat flat.

But there are varied theories like Hollow Earth, Convex Earth, Universe Hologram.

	Post automatically merged: Dec 1, 2020



JWW427 said:


> In an alternate universe, timeline, or reality, planets may have more linear 2D physicality. Anything is possible.
> However, Im of the humble opinion that our efforts are better suited to historical mysteries that need solving soon, for the world is waking up and we are on the front lines of a war. The enemy of freedom, awareness, truth, and self-determination is at our doorstep. Triage of topics is a necessary tool.



If people found out that:

1- Heliocentrism is false and the shape of the Earth is completely different from what people say would question all of history.

The Flat Earth, or discovering the true shape of the Earth, is the fundamental step for any historical lie to fall.

Without Heliocentrism the lie about billions of years, carbon dating, Darwin's evolution fall and with them this whole fraudulent system.

Even the pathetic Enstein (who is only so famous for saving Heliocentrism) would perish.

For those who do not know (I doubt anyone here knows this) they have never been able to prove that the Earth moves. It is known as Airy's Deception.

To summarize, they tried to prove that the Earth was moving, they didn't succeed and then Einstein (stealing Poincaré's work) came up and saved Heliocentrism with a wonderful theory and "proving pictures" that gravity (which has never been proven to exist) did the trick. light bends when passing near "planets" ... they did not think that the difference in density between the media makes light change its course (something we learned as children at school).

Well, I think that all fronts to combat lying should be supported.


----------



## Bogdan (Dec 1, 2020)

It is claimed, that *SOFIA *is taking all the so called space pictures of stars and galaxies. Then, the pictures are released to be from the *Hubble space telescope*.

I would almost place bets that this acronym is no coincidence.

This is an interesting call with notes concerning this:


----------



## luddite (Dec 1, 2020)

Bogdan said:


> View attachment 3556
> 
> View attachment 3557
> 
> ...



Robert Basano has been doing great work for years. This and the van Allen fraud are some of his best videos.


----------



## E.Bearclaw (Dec 2, 2020)

Bogdan said:


> It is claimed, that *SOFIA *is taking all the so called space pictures of stars and galaxies. Then, the pictures are released to be from the *Hubble space telescope*.
> 
> I would almost place bets that this acronym is no coincidence.
> 
> This is an interesting call with notes concerning this:




Hadn't come across that plane before. Have just had a look. It appears to go under an alternative name also of Clipper Lindbergh. Presumably after a Nazi Sympathiser (rumoured) and general aviation hero Charles Lindbergh. 

Charles Lindbergh - Wikipedia


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 2, 2020)

Clipper was an early name for photographers I remember reading somewhere. They clipped images of life or some such wordage.

That plane eh, who'd have thought it.
Which types take the images attributed to satellites?
U2's, Sr 71's or does every airliner carry a camera pod or three?


----------



## Citezenship (Dec 2, 2020)

kd-755 said:


> Clipper was an early name for photographers I remember reading somewhere. They clipped images of life or some such wordage.
> 
> That plane eh, who'd have thought it.
> Which types take the images attributed to satellites?
> U2's, Sr 71's or does every airliner carry a camera pod or three?


A lot of google earth images have Airbus copyright!


----------



## rwiser (Dec 2, 2020)

Because "flat earth maps" are rather flat.  Very accommodating idea in terms of viewing, filing and archival.


----------



## 6079SmithW (Dec 2, 2020)

We should start a thread with just images of "space missions " that are ridiculous, with a caption.

Like the NASA lunar tin foil lander, and then the calculation for the differential of earth atmosphere inside the capsule versus the official vacuum of space.


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 2, 2020)

The FE is stationary. It is not rotating, nor is it moving upwards at a certain speed, nor is it an infinite plane.

It is very easy to prove that the surface of the Earth is plane.

The explosion which occurred at Tunguska (1908, June 30, 7:15 am Siberia time, 0:15 London time) was seen instantaneously from London (5,200 km distance), Antwerp, Berlin, Stockholm. On a globe the humongous curvature would have blocked an explosion which took place at some 7 km in the atmosphere, from a distance of 5,200 km.

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.


----------



## grav (Dec 3, 2020)

kd-755 said:


> I just came across this image from April 1st 1960 an event horizon so too speak.
> View attachment 3538​Source



Why did it take me so long to find this forum? I am continually surprised when posters present ideas and discussions. I've been a flatearther for over 5 years and get nothing but abuse and mockery everywhere else. Not here.
There really are critical thinkers out there! I give many thanks to a certain "conspiracy nut" who brought SH to my attention.

As to photos of earth from space, they are non-existent.
Like the one above, the earliest images were sliced and spliced. poorly.
Modern cgi has improved so much that Sophia and other planes can photograph slices of real estate which are blended perfectly, giving us gps and updated Google  maps.


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 3, 2020)

The only thing that interests me is what you yourself have done, have experienced, have observed to prove these claims to yourself.
1. The FE is stationary.
2. It is not rotating, 
3. nor is it moving upwards at a certain speed,
4. nor is it an infinite plane.


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 3, 2020)

kd-755 said:


> The only thing that interests me is what you yourself have done, have experienced, have observed to prove these claims to yourself.
> 1. The FE is stationary.
> 2. It is not rotating,
> 3. nor is it moving upwards at a certain speed,
> 4. nor is it an infinite plane.



1. Global SAGNAC EFFECT formula proves the Earth is stationary
2. See 1
3. The vertically pointed Sagnac interferometer would pick up any upward movement in a fraction of second on the fringes (Sagnac applies to both rotational and linear/translational/uniform motion)
4. An infinite plane requires attractive terrestrial gravitation: the Biefeld-Brown effect exact formula derived by H. Weyl and B. Ivanov proves that gravity cannot be attractive


----------



## grav (Dec 3, 2020)

kd-755 said:


> The only thing that interests me is what you yourself have done, have experienced, have observed to prove these claims to yourself.
> 1. The FE is stationary.
> 2. It is not rotating,
> 3. nor is it moving upwards at a certain speed,
> 4. nor is it an infinite plane.



You are more of a cynic that I am (or claim to be).
4. the alleged infinite plane. We'll never know, any more than we can learn our true history. If we live in a computer program, infinity is possible.
Our own world is enclosed by a dome. But if Admiral Byrd was right, there are lands outside the Antarctic forbidden zone.
How about this analogy? Russian Matryoshka dolls, or nesting dolls, a set of typically seven wooden dolls of decreasing sizes that all fit inside of each other
Matryoshka Nesting Dolls: Meaning of Russian Wooden Stacking Doll

Domes within domes. One over earth. Another one over a wider area of the "infinite" plane. A total of 7 heavens. Nesting domes?
Of course this is all conjecture based on biblical, Norse, other myths.


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 3, 2020)

Admiral Byrd flew over Antarctica and noticed that there are huge areas which are not frozen (forests, lakes). Not beyond Antarctica.

The Dome makes the infinite plane hypothesis superfluous.

The Russian Matryoshka dolls = imbedded universe theory: someone creates within his third eye (the place where tridimensional dreams take place) an Earth with a dome. Then a human being from that Earth is given the power to create, in turn, another universe within his/her own third eye.


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 3, 2020)

Domes, ice walls Admirals and so on and on are all well and good but the evidential experience of them is lacking. In truth the evidential experience of anything pertaining to the vastness of this place, where it is, what it is, is lacking save for one thing.
Contained water always but always displays a level surface.

This is evidence that the ocean as we have been taught to call it must be contained by something. Where that something is, what it is no-one has ever found out, or so it seems. Either way I don't know and have never had any experience of the container.
What we have been told to call 'air' is in reality another state of water as in water vapour. Does water vapour display a level surface?
I don't know as it is invisible to the eyes I use to get about with. If mist and fog are any guide or clouds even when viewed from above water vapour does not exhibit a level surface ergo it is most likely not contained.

Taken together these two things seem to point to the ocean being a puddle of some description. Contained all around by something but the water vapour over the ocean and land and us is not so contained which suggests, sadly nothing more but a suggestion, that this puddle is not the only puddle and there are others beyond the boundary of the one we are in.
They may be at different elevations to this one which is possibly where the deluge myths come from.
Just like the Tibetan plateau has been mooted as once being an ocean whose container fractured and may have also been the source of the deluge myths
Hyperborea and Atlantis type worlds could well be still extant in another of these puddles and heaven and hell could also be explained by the multi elevation puddles. All real places, as real as this lunatic asylum we find ourselves in today, and all connected by the sky above us all.

Journey to the centre of the earth doesn't mean going down, down, deeper and down (with apologies to Status Quo!) it would more likely mean travelling across the plane to reach a centre but the only way to establish the probability there is a centre to be found one has to find the extreme edge and work ones way around it to establish it is finite. Trouble is I doubt anyone can live long enough to accomplish such a feat.

The ball theory prevents such exploration from even getting going but based on how much effort those who deign to act as  controllers put into keeping the ball theory rolling my guess is they have no more idea about what is really out there than we do.

	Post automatically merged: Dec 3, 2020



sandokhan said:


> 1. Global SAGNAC EFFECT formula proves the Earth is stationary
> 2. See 1
> 3. The vertically pointed Sagnac interferometer would pick up any upward movement in a fraction of second on the fringes (Sagnac applies to both rotational and linear/translational/uniform motion)
> 4. An infinite plane requires attractive terrestrial gravitation: the Biefeld-Brown effect exact formula derived by H. Weyl and B. Ivanov proves that gravity cannot be attractive



So you've done nothing, experienced nothing, observed nothing just accepted other people theories.


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 3, 2020)

I have derived the global SAGNAC EFFECT formula.

The most direct proof that indeed the Earth is stationary.




_Domes, ice walls Admirals and so on and on are all well and good but the evidential experience of them is lacking.  _

You haven't done your homework on the subject.

The most definite proof.



The calculation was carried out by Wolfgang Pauli, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century.

"If the electromagnetic field would really have a non vanishing zero-point energy, 'the universe would not even reach to the moon'".

If the ether drift field (zero point energy, scalar waves) does exist, then the radius of curvature of the observable universe is 31 km.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/9/1/011/pdf

C. P. Enz, A. Thellung : Nullpunktenergie und Anordnung
nicht vertauschbarer Faktoren im Hamiltonoperator ,
Helv. Phys. Acta 33, 839–848 (1960) pg 842

Walther Nernst: grandfather of dark energy?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0810.2213.pdf

"If the electromagnetic field would really have a non vanishing zero-point energy, the radius of the universe would then be 31 km."

This is precisely what happens in reality.

The distance from the center of the flat surface of the Earth to the top of the second dome is 31 km.


Newton, in the official chronology of history, assumes that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK: a pressure type of terrestrial gravitational force, and a rotational gravitational forces which moves the planets/stars.

These two forces are separated by a dome (ether/aether).


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 3, 2020)

You are just offering up the language of mathematics no experience, no observations just other peoples maths.


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 3, 2020)

My math/physics.

As for the 31 km radius of the universe, the formula is 100% valid.

It doesn't take much to see that the surface of the Earth is flat.

Professional videos taken on the European side of the Gibraltar strait, showing the other shoreline bottom to top (13.5 km distance, 3 meters maximum midpoint curvature).


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 3, 2020)

sandokhan said:


> I have derived the global SAGNAC EFFECT formula.


Indeed you did. My apologies for the forumla derivation but the comment stands for everything else you have posted.
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic...ffect-formula/?do=findComment&comment=1101035


----------



## grav (Dec 3, 2020)

Gravity is not a force; it is a property of matter, specifically the ratio of densities of adjacent substances. We can verify this observation through experimentation to obtain empirical data. 
The Electric Universe is the Aether in the form of matter, radiation, consciousness. I may be missing other manifestations of dielectricity. Magnetism? 

But equations with manmade constants (speed of light is useless) are fancy and farcical posturings by theoreticians. Like that old humbug, Einstein, the father of pseudoscience.
The true scientist was Tesla, who wanted to give us free energy.
hmm, was he a Tartarian engineer in a previous life?


----------



## 6079SmithW (Dec 4, 2020)

6079SmithW said:


> We should start a thread with just images of "space missions " that are ridiculous, with a caption.
> 
> Like the NASA lunar tin foil lander, and then the calculation for the differential of earth atmosphere inside the capsule versus the official vacuum of space.


Just for quick reference. Ie if I'm trying to make a colleague question their heliocentric belief system.

I realise I should start the thread and I will if I get time, working flat out during the plandemic and have a 11 month old to care for doesn't leave me much time sadly 

Feel free to beat me to it


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 4, 2020)

Einstein's TGR is a subluminal theory. However, the singularity is described by quantum entanglement, superluminal speeds.

The deepest connection between gravity and quantum entanglement:

“The universality of the gravitational interaction comes directly from the universality of entanglement- it is not possible to have stress-energy that doesn’t source the gravitational field because it is not possible to have degrees of freedom that don’t contribute to entanglement entropy.”

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2933.pdf

Universality of Gravity from Entanglement


Advanced Flat Earth Theory (quantum entanglement, gravity)

Advanced Flat Earth Theory (longitudinal boson strings, transverse subquark waves)

Advanced Flat Earth Theory (Biefeld-Brown effect)


The Weyl-Majumdar-Papapetrou-Ivanov solution is the exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect:




https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507082.pdf

Weyl electrovacuum solutions and gauge invariance
Dr. B.V. Ivanov

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf

On the gravitational field induced by static electromagnetic sources
Dr. B.V Ivanov

Nipher electrogravitational experiments:

Advanced Flat Earth Theory

The electrostatic solutions discovered by Hermann Weyl in 1917 prove that there is functional relationship between the gravitational and electrostatic potentials, thus theoretically justifying the movement of a capacitor towards one of its poles.

Let us now apply this theory to the B-2 bomber.

Aviation Week — March 9 1992

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2cbcfa7c2e0dcf5704ad84ee6ad2a861-c

B-2 electrostatically charges its exhaust stream and the leading edges of its winglike body.

"A scientist said other, more dramatic classified technologies are applicable to lasers, aircraft control and propulsion. However, the scientists and engineers were especially hesitant to discuss these projects."

"Besides it would take about 20 hr. to explain the principles, and very few people would understand them anyway."

What he meant is that this aircraft control and propulsion technology is based on physics principles that go beyond what is currently known and understood by the general public as well as most academic physicists.

The B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber

        In 1993, LaViolette wrote a paper discussing the B-2 bomber and speculating on its probable antigravity propulsion system, based on a solid understanding of electrogravitics, the aircraft’s design and the materials used in its manufacture.  It appears that the craft is using a sophisticated form of the antigravity principles first described by T. Brown.  Support for this thesis came from the Aviation Week and Space Technology (March 9, 1992), which reported that the B-2 bomber electrostatically charges its leading edge and its exhaust stream.  Their information had come from a small group of former black project research scientists and engineers suggesting the B-2 utilizes antigravity technology.  This information was supported by Bob Oechsler, an ex-NASA mission specialist who had publicly made a similar claim in 1990.  These findings support the contention that there have been major developments in the area of antigravity propulsion which are presently being applied in advanced aircraft.

Here is the data for the B-2 bomber Biefeld-Brown effect.

At sea level the aircraft maintains a voltage differential of 57 million volts, while at an altitude of some 9 km, the voltage differential will measure 20 million volts.

It was Thomas Townsend Brown who also invented the flame-jet generator to extract power out of the ionized exhaust stream.

To get the engine ionizers started, the B-2 bomber has electric generators mechanically driven by the jet turbines.

We have

d=0.5cm
e=1e4 [units] (barium titanate)
V=6.67e4 statvolts
G=6.67e-8 [cgs units]
u= 6.02 g/cm^3
S=4.78e6 cm^2 (wing area of a B2 bomber)

Then, F = 4.906e10 dyne (cgs) = 4.906e5 N

Gravitational force on an empty B2 is 7.1e4*9.81 = 6.8e5 N

THAT IS 72% of the force required to lift the B-2 bomber.

And the percentage can become 100% or even higher using supercapacitors.

This is the power of the Weyl-Ivanov electrogravitational formula.


----------



## 6079SmithW (Dec 4, 2020)

sandokhan said:


> Einstein's TGR is a subluminal theory. However, the singularity is described by quantum entanglement, superluminal speeds.
> 
> The deepest connection between gravity and quantum entanglement:
> 
> ...


Dude, did you write this? If so, it's far too complex for someone like me to understand this early in the morning. 

If you could summarise your overarching point - then the details would make more sense. Really good post, if you write this, you should write a book on the Flat earth fact.

Cheers
Smith


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 4, 2020)

The best time to understand the Biefeld-Brown effect is early in the morning.

Flat earth theory is a subset of the new radical chronology of history field of study. If Hipparchus, Ptolemy, Kepler, Galilei, Copernicus were real historical figures, then the shape of the Earth cannot be flat. FET makes sense only within the context of a radical chronological reevaluation of history. That is, for the flat earth to exist, history must be much shorter than we have been led to believe.

On a flat earth, the diameter of the Sun is much smaller: its orbit has to fit a 6,102 km arc of a circle distance. Its upper and lower bounds are the two tropics. Its westward precessional shift is 1.5 km/year. Divide 6,102 by 6 (6 months period, Jan - June and July - Dec), and you get 1,017 km.


----------



## grav (Dec 4, 2020)

@sandokhan, how does FE rely on Copernicus and Ptolemy and alternate chronology?
Yes, the Control System  lies about everything. No, there is no direct correlation berween alt history and alt cosmology. I myself am an Electric Universe follower, but Laviolette's bomber's antigravity theory does not seem to mention density. And I'm a Sim Earth believer, which means that the computer code can rewrite the whole shebang from minute to minute. In a way, we wake up in a new world every day.
But even that does not help me understand your Biefeld-Brown effect. 
Perhapd you could apply that formula to a fluffy cloud that weighs 100 tons. Sorry, my old brain can't work out metric measures.


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 4, 2020)

Ptolemy and Copernicus = axial precession of the Earth

That is why, in the context of the accepted chronology of history, flat earth theory cannot be valid.

Electric Universe = Ether Theory

Never forget about the POTENTIAL, that is, the field which gives rise to the electrical subquark wave.

Whittaker scalar wave/potential theory:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059
Density of Ethereal Medium
Dr. F. Gorbatsevich

Felix Gorbatsewich - The Ether and Universe

Euler Pressure Gravity

Advanced Flat Earth Theory

http://www.orgonelab.org/newtonletter.htm (I. Newton letter to R. Boyle)

4. When two bodies moving towards one another come near together, I suppose the aether between them to grow rarer than before, and the spaces of its graduated rarity to extend further from the superficies of the bodies towards one another; and this, by reason that the aether cannot move and play up and down so freely in the strait passage between the bodies, as it could before they came so near together.

5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition. 

AntiNewton antigravity formula:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2265207#msg2265207
If you are an EU follower, you must become an expert in the BIEFELD-BROWN effect (Dr. Paul Biefeld used to do Einstein's homework  at the Polytechnic University in Zurich.

http://ttbrown.com/defying_gravity/12_biefeld-brown.html

“Yes,” Biefeld told the Denison campus newspaper, “when Einstein would forget to go to a class, he would come and borrow my notes to get caught up on what he had missed."


----------



## grav (Dec 4, 2020)

Another dive into the pool of confusion.
First, Einstein was a yuuge liar, plagiarist, flim-flam artist.
Second, axial precession is One More theory without proof.
Thrid, will Mssr. Biefeld please explain why clouds with much mass don't fall down boom onto the ground.


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 4, 2020)

grav said:


> Second, axial precession is One More theory without proof.



Not if Hipparchus, Ptolemy and Copernicus were real historical figures.



grav said:


> Thrid, will Mssr. Biefeld please explain why clouds with much mass don't fall down boom onto the ground.



The water droplets in the clouds are held up by the Biefeld-Brown effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759968#msg759968


----------



## grav (Dec 4, 2020)

sandokhan said:


> grav said:
> 
> 
> > Second, axial precession is One More theory without proof.
> ...



What do historical figures, real or fictional, have to do with the price of rice in China? 
or anything else? Because if they were real and espoused heliocentrism, they were wrong. Copernicus, from what I've read, was more or less coerced into publishing his treatises.
The Jesuits have ways, you know. And people took excommunication seriously back then. 

Now, really, seriously,,,...??? the Biefeld-Brown holds up water droplets? You are really pulling Auntie grav's leg with this thingamagiggle. 
It's density.
Lighter-than-air particles float.
Heavier-than-air particles sink.
Clouds float.
Raindrops fall.


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 4, 2020)

grav said:


> What do historical figures, real or fictional



If Hipparchus and Copernicus were actual historical figures, then their astronomical observations as they relate to the axial precession of the Earth prove heliocentrism. 



grav said:


> Heavier-than-air particles sink.



No.

"Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation."


----------



## Wolfgang (Dec 4, 2020)

Fortuna Fled said:


> *7 ways you can easily prove that the Earth is not flat*
> Posted Sunday 24 May 2020 10:00 by Mimi Launder in tech
> UPVOTE
> 
> ...


This is complete nonsense, this user really needs to get a warning for spreading false government propaganda. That the earth is *not a globe* is common knowledge by now, some more substantial response (written in haste friday evening if you know what I mean):

1. By looking up you see different views because you see the stars from different locations. Also Polaris is always above the north pole, no matter where you observe it (for thousands of years) which is clearly impossible if the earth was a spinning space ball rotating around the sun.
2. Same here, since the sun is small and moves above us, our relative distance to the sun creates different shadow lengths. Funny you mention Eratosthenes experiment, isn't it strange that it still is held as the experiment which proves the earth is a globe, isn't it more realistic photos, videos or any modern technology as official proof of the shape of the earth?
4 There are not countless planes, there's is one single company doing guided tours to Antarctica and you are not allowed to leave the trip to explore freely. Check the Antarctic Treaty, for example you are not allowed to bring fuel below a certain latitude.
6 "Our planet has a magnetic field generated by the molten iron at the core of our planet", that would make the compass point down towards your feet. Truth is compasses always point to the north, since the south "pole" is actually an ice barrier, the compass ONLY ever points towards your back as you travel south.


----------



## trismegistus (Dec 4, 2020)

While this discussion overall has been civil, I am issuing a blanket warning to everyone to avoid using statements like “anyone with two eyes and a brain can obviously see” or that “__________ is common knowledge”, that is a begging the question fallacy and does the discussion no good.

Also, one of the primary rules of SH is to treat others as you want to be treated, and accusations of shilling/propaganda in these threads will not be tolerated. If anyone has a legitimate concern regarding this, please privately message a moderator or file a report for review.

As you were


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 5, 2020)

For what its worth, I took fortuna fields post to be sarcastic.

In other news I was playing with the Tiros image of earth and flipped through ninety degrees and the touted 'blue marble' of recent times disappears. That is neither a 3D ball or the mathematical object labelled sphere.


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (Dec 5, 2020)

_View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/XvAwLc7FZm2z/_


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 5, 2020)

"200 Proofs Earth Is Not a Spinning Ball"

Yes.

All mainstream science has to do is to bring forth a single ring laser gyroscope, and it's all over for those 200 proofs. Right under the eyes of the geocentrists, the RLG will record rotation (according to the formula published by A. Michelson in 1925).

This, notwithstanding that GPS satellites do not record the orbital Sagnac effect, which is much larger in magnitude than the rotational Sagnac effect. If the orbital Sagnac would be recorded by satellites, the error on the ground would amount to hundreds of meters. To escape this very precise fact (see the calculations carried out for the LISA space antenna) relativists are now embracing the modified Lorentz ether theory (local-ether theory).


----------



## grav (Dec 5, 2020)

sandokhan said:


> "200 Proofs Earth Is Not a Spinning Ball"
> 
> Yes.
> 
> ...



Yes?
as in 'Yes, we have we no bananas'?
And , yes? a ring laser thingamajig  device can nullify ocean water being flat, air needing to rotate 100 mph, Chicago being visible from 50 miles, and 197 other Dubay proofs?
Could it be that the gyroscope is detecting the movement of the dome, not the earth plane ifself? I say yes. Yes, meaning yes.

But yes, I do not think that satellites, as advertised, exist in a highly suspicious region called space. A silly freemason fiction, to have tin boxes careening and zipping around hundreds of miles up, or prowling the vastness of the cosmos. AND, transmitting signals billions and billions of miles back to earth, which -- who is kidding whom -- we can't get close to on terra firma. No cell tower for 3 miles = no signal.

And, yippie yahoo,  we get another theory to play with, modified at that!
Modified Lorentz ether THEORY.
Whereas the modified grav theory is provably flat and stationary.


----------



## Silent Bob (Dec 5, 2020)

I enjoy discussing this topic, whatever your view there is a lot of interesting topics to look at. 

Its funny, even before the resurgence of FE around 2015 I had been thinking about this. A few years earlier I wanted to test myself about what I really knew and could prove for myself without having to rely on information from other people. I decided to choose something I knew for certain to be true, something I wouldn't even question normally and the earth being round seemed a good place to start. I very quickly realised that I couldn't prove it all, not without resorting to NASA photos etc. Quite a wake up! So when the FE topic did suddenly have a resurgence I was ready to consider it all with an open mind. I was quickly convinced that FE was possible, but wasn't intially convinced that it was so, just open to the possibility. These days I increasingly find myself thinking that space doesn't really exist as its described to us, so nothing would surprise me anymore.

Also the old Occam's razor argument, that the simplest explanation is usually the right one. To say the earth appears flat and stationary because it actually is, is much simpler than explaining orbital mechanics, the maths for which is fiendishly complex! I am a physicist and we love to reduce everything to the status of a sphere in a vaccuum (makes the maths easier!) so it's no surprise we ended up with a RE model. This just about sums us all up 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUwlEdz42xo_


I recently was on ebay looking for old book, due to getting interested in history and this forum. I just wanted an old book, didn't really care what it was. The first one I found for decent price, condition and age turned out to be 'The earth is not a globe' by Samual Rowbotham, so I snapped it up - original 1800's copy, seemed like a bargain. What a great read it is too, especially as everything is described in a simple to follow way using classical science, none of todays overly complex maths and relativity etc. I think I prefered science back then! This book pretty much convinced me, although since I have also come across concave earth, hollow earth etc, so who knows! I'll probably go with John Levi's description of a 'realm' as this covers all bases!

Here is a pdf copy of Rowbotham's book for anyone interested, as far as I can see this pdf is true to the original book.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Earth Not a Globe (Samuel Rowbothan).pdf
My favourite experiment is still the Bedford flats, where he rowed the boat 6 miles away whilst watching it with a telescope just above the water level. It should have vanished due to the earth's curvature but didn't of course. The only explanation put forward for this, refraction, doesn't make sense to me. You would need the graded optical refraction, due to air temp differences, to be just right to curve the light in a way which perfectly follows the curvature of the earth. Grasping at straws with that one, I've never heard another attempt to explain it from a RE point of view. This experiement has been repeated many times today, with lasers, but I still like the original one the best! Once again Occam's razor would suggest that the simplest explanation for this, that the earth looks flat because it is, is much more likely than a complex graded refractive index coincidence against all the odds.

If anyone else on here has read the book, what was the main experiment that convinced you? Also any RE's that can explain any of the experiments in the book, i'd be interested to hear what you have to say


----------



## Citezenship (Dec 5, 2020)

Silent Bob said:


> I enjoy discussing this topic, whatever your view there is a lot of interesting topics to look at.
> 
> Its funny, even before the resurgence of FE around 2015 I had been thinking about this. A few years earlier I wanted to test myself about what I really knew and could prove for myself without having to rely on information from other people. I decided to choose something I knew for certain to be true, something I wouldn't even question normally and the earth being round seemed a good place to start. I very quickly realised that I couldn't prove it all, not without resorting to NASA photos etc. Quite a wake up! So when the FE topic did suddenly have a resurgence I was ready to consider it all with an open mind. I was quickly convinced that FE was possible, but wasn't intially convinced that it was so, just open to the possibility. These days I increasingly find myself thinking that space doesn't really exist as its described to us, so nothing would surprise me anymore.
> 
> ...



Yes I read this book on a beach in Goa(India)Jan 2016, looking out on the Arabian sea and just by luck the friend i was traveling with said to me as i was reading it, that the view was so amazing that he could see the curvature of the earth, he was very shocked when I said all I could see was a strait line, we talked a bit more and then i said watch for a boat to go over the horizon and disappear, then have a look through your camera and zoom in as much as you can, the boat reappeared but he could not accept what his own eyes and mind was telling him, the programming was just to strong!


----------



## grav (Dec 6, 2020)

@Silent Bob, I'm still rolling the "spherical --×-- in a vacuum" around in my mind. 
And I don't get it. Sorry. Does math predict something in a vacuum?
or is it one of those impossible scenarios. Schrodinger's cat ? 

A real physicist in a forum. That must be a first! 
Have you ever talked about FE to your colleagues? 
Example, air.
On earth we have 1 atmosphere of 14.7 psi.
At 62 miles, the Karman line, air pressure is virtually nil.
When I checked the Ideal Gas Law/s, all the equations have volume in their equations.
If volume is infinity, then should there not be an equilibrium of gas particles everywhere?

This is when Globe defenders trot out Gravity. We FEers call it grabbity.
This "force" supposedly velcroes air and oceans to the many-mach spinning and vortexing ball.
And when we point to clouds and smoke as exceptions to the grabbity rule, here comes another theory. Big Bang, special relativity, dark matter, the list goes on and on.
Theories and manmade constants have dragged Modern Science into the mud. Do you agree? I would also ask if it can be fixed but ha ha. Scientists and medical doctors are so suppressed and oppressed. Publish or perish. I used to think that perish referred to academic status, or a teaching position or pension. The truth may be more the origunal meaning of the verb. Perish.


----------



## cnut (Dec 6, 2020)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGPhjptxwow_

hello,
This is my first time using this format, so please bear with me.
I would like to share a video that discusses long distance photography and the 
Antarctica midnight sun, in relation to the shape of the earth. 
Titled :
*20200426 Globalists and their Lies Prove the Earth is Flat*


Taboo Conspiracy [Mirror] 

A bit crude, but makes very relevant points.
The people behind taboo conspiracy woke a lot of
people up. At 40 seconds in you will see the humble
Auntie Grav, dedicating her time to spreading the truth, 
and standing her ground. She deserves respect. 
And I applaud the new sh for allowing this discussion, without 
the nonsense.
Thanks,
cnut


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 6, 2020)

grav said:


> Could it be that the gyroscope is detecting the movement of the dome, not the earth plane ifself?



The two domes are fixed (first dome separates our atmosphere from the high density ether which provides the rotational gravitational force which keeps the planets/stars moving; the second dome contains these stellar/planetary orbits).

Only the ether drift can rotate above the surface of the Earth.

However, the round earth believers will smile and show you the results of the Michelson-Gale experiment (1925), where Michelson detected fringe shifts which he promptly assigned as being a proof of the rotation of the Earth (he claimed that his formula is the SAGNAC EFFECT formula). Every ring laser gyroscope will also detect rotation, the formula used for the RLGs is the one derived by Michelson.

You then might say: "well, this is not the Sagnac effect, but the Coriolis effect of the ether drift". Then, you will be kindly asked to provide such a formula. Do you have a Sagnac effect formula for the MGX? You do not. Einstein, Lorentz, Michelson, Post could not provide one. So the RE win all the way, no matter how many proofs (200 or 500) are presented which show that the Earth is not rotating.

Michelson provided the biggest subterfuge in the history of science (Kepler's fake data in Nova Astronomia, Newton's fake attractive gravitational force pale by comparison): he assigned the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula to the SAGNAC EFFECT. 

"Sagnac effect is a change in propagation time for light going in a closed path. The time delay Δt appears when a test equipment is rotated with an angular velocity Ώ. Sagnac effect is frequently used in rate gyros in navigational systems. Fiber optics is used with light-speed c inside the fiber in a circular light path. The difference in propagation time Δt for two opposite directions of light is described as

Δt = 4AΩ/c^2

Where A is enclosed area. Δt is derived based on an integration of Ω over A.

According to Stokes' rule can an integration of angular velocity Ω over an area A be substituted by an integration of tangential component of translational velocity v along the closed line of length L limiting the given area. This interpretation gives

Δt = 4vL/c^2

producing the same value as the earlier expression. This can also be demonstrated by geometrical relations. *These two integrations have different physical implications.* We must therefore decide which one is correct from a physical aspect. Mathematics can not tell us that. So the decision is whether the effect is caused by a rotating area or by a translating line. Since Sagnac effect is an effect in light that is enclosed inside an optical fiber we can conclude that Sagnac effect is distributed along a line and not over an area. *No light and no rotation exists in the enclosed area.* Sagnac detected therefore an effect of translation although he had to rotate the equipment to produce the effect inside the fiber.

We conclude that the later expression

Δt = 4vL/c^2

is the correct interpretation."

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research Papers-Astrophysics/Download/2159

"Sagnac effect is distributed along a line and not over a surface. The assumption that starts from an integration over a surface (2Aw; rotation) is mathematically correct (due to Stokes' rule) but equal to a line integral (vL; translation). We must decide if the reason is a translating line or a rotating surface from a physical point of view. The rotation theory is correct only mathematically. Since the effect is locked inside an optical fiber the translating line is the correct interpretation. Classification as a rotational effect is wrong."

Professor Ruyong Wang has proven the Sagnac effect applies to uniform/translational/linear motion:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609222.pdf

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609202.pdf

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/ruwang/ION58PROCEEDINGS.pdf


Therefore, the formula for the Sagnac phase shift which features the area and the angular velocity IS INCORRECT. Only the formula which includes the linear velocity is CORRECT. 


You see, Georges Sagnac used the formula which features an AREA to describe the effect he discovered (an earlier version was provided by Oliver Lodge), since at that time (1913) no one understood that Stokes' theorem could be applied to an interferometer.

Michelson picked up Sagnac's omission and went all the way with it in 1925.

MGX experiment (nine consecutive messages):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2024700#msg2024700
MMX experiment:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2041450#msg2041450

Then, the RE will use the HAMMAR experiment to finally put to rest geocentricity. However, Hammar also made a huge error, which has remained undetected (until now) for almost 80 years:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2031383#msg2031383

More details on the MGX experiment:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2049574#msg2049574
Advanced Flat Earth Theory (five consecutive messages)


Unless you can provide the correct SAGNAC EFFECT formula for the MGX, the RE will always win.

Here is the correct Sagnac effect formula for the MGX:

Advanced Flat Earth Theory (two consecutive messages)


Coriolis effect vs Sagnac effect:

Advanced Flat Earth Theory (three consecutive messages)

Superluminal Sagnac effect - subluminal Coriolis effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2234148#msg2234148

Kassner effect: the Coriolis effect is not related to the Sagnac effect

Advanced Flat Earth Theory (two consecutive messages)


----------



## grav (Dec 6, 2020)

We talk about the ether, or aether, as if science has its true nature nailed down.
Nicola Tesla, who actually invented useful things, called light the luminferous ether.
Theoretical physics defines the aether loosely, as packets of energy called protons.
Then, there's liquid gravity, black holes, and all manner of mysterious faces of energy and/or matter.

As @Silent Bob mentioned, Occam would not approve of the flights of fantasy of theoreticians who make up alphabetic constants to finagle their hoohah equations.
My definition goes with Occam. The aether is electricity. Period.
Positive and negative charges in a solid mass. No empty spaces. Just lines of configurations of +++___,+_+_+++ and an infinity of variations.

No damned proton or idiotic electron shell. Just dielectric particles..
Now this business of ether drift, it seems to me that it was thunk up to prove that earth moved through space, though no proof of outer space exists.

@sandokhan claims there are two domes, both of which are stationary.
It is the stars inside them which move, right?
Maybe like lights flowing through a plastic rope of a Christmas tree light.

- - - - - - internet search for ether drift -->


*Ether-Drift Experiments at Mount Wilson | Nature*

www.nature.com › news
Abstract. THE Michelson-Morley experiment for determining the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous ether, the “ether-drift experiment,” was ...
*The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth * | Nature*

www.nature.com › news
The ether-drift experiment first suggested by A Maxwell in 1878 and made possible by Michelson's invention of the interferometer in 1881, though suitable for the detection of the general absolute motion of the earth, was actually applied for detecting only the known orbital component of the earth's motion.
*Michelson–Morley experiment - Wikipedia*

en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki
(1933). "The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth". Reviews of Modern Physics. 5 (3): 203–242 ... Aether theories · Albert A. Michelson · Edward W. Morley
*The classical ether-drift experiments: a modern re-interpretation*

arxiv.org › physics
Feb 12, 2013 · In spite of this, the so called `null results' of the classical ether-drift experiments, traditionally interpreted as confirmations of Special Relativity, have so deeply influenced scientific thought as to prevent a ...


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 6, 2020)

Aether is the medium through which ether propagates. 

Ether = transverse subquark waves through which longitudinal boson strings flow

Quarks consist of three subquarks, mesons have six subquarks, baryons have nine subquarks.

A proton is made up of NINE laevorotatory subquarks - an electron is actually comprised of NINE dextrorotatory subquarks (called now preons).

However, modern science has mistakenly named a SINGLE dextrorotatory subquark as an electron and has ascribed THE TOTAL charge of the NINE corresponding subquarks as the total negative charge of a single electron, thus confusing the whole matter.


TELLURIC CURRENTS are represented by double torsion waves of BOTH laevorotatory (antigravity) and dextrorotatory (terrestrial gravity) subquarks. 

A single subquark has some 14 billion bosons and antibosons.

Electricity = flow of bosons through subquark waves

Time is a torsion potential or a scalar wave.

Time is the dextrorotatory scalar wave (subquark string), or terrestrial gravity.

Anti-time is the laevorotatory scalar wave, or antigravity.

Space-time fabric is the aether (the medium) through which scalar waves propagate (ether), these scalar waves are called time and anti-time (terrestrial gravity and antigravity).

The flow of time and anti-time can cause matter to either increase or decrease in weight.

The external rays which disintegrate matter are telluric currents of dextrorotatory spin.

Tesla stated that if any radioactive element were to be shielded from these rays, the material would cease to be radioactive.

Radioactive materials are the dense targets of external energetic streams. 


A magnet has two streams of particles which flow N - S but also S - N.


----------



## Citezenship (Dec 6, 2020)

sandokhan said:


> The external rays which disintegrate matter are telluric currents of dextrorotatory spin.


I think the only spin here is yours, where the hell are you getting this shit from???


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 6, 2020)

Here is the story of one of the most distinguished American physicists ever, Dr. T. Henry Moray: everything you want to know about telluric currents, and the true source of radioactivity.

ETERNAL LANTERNS (Electric Rock, Ground Energy, The Swedish Stone, Crucible of the Stars, *Space Rays*, Photonuclear Reactors, Sea of Energy, Radioactive Impulses, sections)

Right-handed ether waves increase the weight, have a disintegrating effect on matter. Left-handed ether waves sustain life, lower the weight.

Dextrorotatory subquark waves = terrestrial gravity = time

Laevorotatory subquark waves = antigravity = anti-time


----------



## Citezenship (Dec 6, 2020)

sandokhan said:


> Here is the story of one of the most distinguished American physicists ever, Dr. T. Henry Moray: everything you want to know about telluric currents, and the true source of radioactivity.
> 
> ETERNAL LANTERNS (Electric Rock, Ground Energy, The Swedish Stone, Crucible of the Stars, *Space Rays*, Photonuclear Reactors, Sea of Energy, Radioactive Impulses, sections)
> 
> ...


Okay lets forget the words, why don't you give us a visual demonstration!


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 6, 2020)

Sure thing.

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/ttbekp.htm


----------



## codis (Dec 6, 2020)

Citezenship said:


> I think the only spin here is yours, where the hell are you getting this shit from???


There seem to be gateways to a magic dimension we mortals (me and you) have not discovered yet.


----------



## Citezenship (Dec 6, 2020)

codis said:


> Citezenship said:
> 
> 
> > I think the only spin here is yours, where the hell are you getting this shit from???
> ...


Do you think i can get there by meditating???


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 6, 2020)

codis said:


> Citezenship said:
> 
> 
> > I think the only spin here is yours, where the hell are you getting this shit from???
> ...



But you have already.

“Time is the most important and most enigmatic peroperty of nature. Time is not propagated like light waves; it appears immediately everywhere.” – Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev

"Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev, a respected Russian astrophysicist, announced almost fifty years ago that he had discovered a new force in physics that he called the “density of time.” He concluded that the rate at which time passes can be altered by other physical processes."

Kozyrev: Aether, Time and Torsion

CHAPTER 01: THE BREAKTHROUGHS OF DR. N.A. KOZYREV

http://www.fountainmagazine.com/Issue/detail/revisiting-november-2014

“After years of careful experiments, Dr. Kozyrev and his colleagues found that in a left-hand rotating system the time flow is positive-it adds energy. In a right-hand system the time flow is negative. ... In Dr. Kozyrev's view our world is a left-hand system and it has a positive time flow that adds energy to our universe.

Time not only has a pattern of flow, says Dr. Kozyrev, but also a rate of flow. He calls "the rate of flow" the difference between cause and effect. "As the rate of the time flow through a substance changes, weight is lost," Dr. Kozyrev told us.”

*Biohomochirality and Terrestrial Gravity*


_Some molecules come in left– and right-handed forms that are mirror images of each other (i.e.: they are related like our left and right hands. Hence this property is called chirality, from the Greek word for hand. The two forms are called enantiomers (from the Greek word for opposite) or optical isomers, because they rotate plane-polarised light either to the right or to the left.).  All biological proteins are composed of only left-handed amino acids.  How this could have come about in a primordial soup has long been a puzzle to origin-of-life researchers, since both L (levo, left-handed) and D (dextro, right-handed) forms react indiscriminately._

Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the DNA structure, describes this strange characteristic of the molecules of living organisms:

    It has been well known for many years that for any particular molecule only one hand occurs in nature.  For example the amino acids one finds in proteins are always what are called the L or levo amino acids, and never the D or dextro amino acids.  Only one of the two mirror possibilities occurs in proteins.


Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate in chemistry:

        This is a very puzzling fact . . . . All the proteins that have been investigated, obtained from animals and from plants, from higher organisms and from very simple organisms bacteria, molds, even viruses are found to have been made of L-amino acids.


http://we.vub.ac.be/~dglg/Web/Teaching/Les/Orlifequestions/Cronin-Reisse.pdf (origins of biohomochirality, an unsolved problem)

Origin of life: the chirality problem - creation.com (the best work on the problem of biohomochirality)

Mystery of the Left-Handed Proteins: Solved? | CEH (biohomochirality still unsolved)

http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/569/Essays_Fall2006/files/Rajan.pdf


The latest attempt to try to solve the biohomochirality problem (salt induced peptides formation and the more recent work on potassium ions Potassium ions are more effective than sodium ions in salt induced peptide formation - PubMed ) has many unresolved major problems:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=5ZGUD49fMcAC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=origin+of+salt+in+ocean+water+peptides+primordial+soup&source=bl&ots=FcdmUK6LXN&sig=oCgbOFYcBHsJp2SQ24xQJVxOozY&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=TFWCUcOrAoXatAaGjoGADA&ved=0CGwQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=origin of salt in ocean water peptides primordial soup&f=false

Oldies but baddies — AF repeats NCSE’s eight challenges to ID (from ten years ago) | Uncommon Descent (comments 282 and 305)


The best proofs from molecular biology and genetics which prove the theory of evolution to be just a myth:

What evidence is found for the first life on earth? (the best work on the proofs from molecular biology and genetics which demolish evolutionism)


The origin of biohomochirality is to be found in the physics of the subquark.

Dr.T. Henry Moray:

Further I realized that the energy was not coming out of the earth, but instead was coming to the earth from some outside source. These electrical oscillations in the form of waves were not simple oscillations, but were surgings --- like the waves of the sea --- coming to the earth continually, more in the daytime than at night, but always coming in vibrations from the reservoir of colossal energy out there in space.

Terrestrial gravity is represented by the dextrorotatory strings of receptive subquarks; antigravity comes into play once we can activate the laevorotatory strings of emissive subquarks (by torsion, sound, applying high electrical tension).



Origin of life: the chirality problem - creation.com

God left handed - creation.com

Right-Handed Amino Acids: Can They Smack Down the Evolutionist's Chirality Problem?

https://web.archive.org/web/20140921043113/https://creationresearch.org/members-only/crsq/50/50_2/CRSQ Fall 2013 lo res bookmarked for web.pdf

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/homochirality_i059531.html

http://www.creationismonline.com/YEC/The_Origin_Of_Life.pdf



The most extensive experiments with anti-time (using the implosion of the atom on mercury) were performed by the knights of the black sun (thule and vril societies): the Kronos Projekt (Die Glocke).


----------



## Potato (Dec 6, 2020)

sandokhan said:


> "Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev, a respected Russian astrophysicist, announced almost fifty years ago that he had discovered a new force in physics that he called the “density of time.” He concluded that the rate at which time passes can be altered by other physical processes."



I'm going to dumb-down this conversation to ask a question. Is there a correlation between this left-handed motion and the "widdershins" perambulation practiced in magickal workings or the haj of mecca?

*Widdershins definition:*

Widdershins is a Scottish term (Lowland Scots) meaning counterclockwise or against the sun. The Scottish Gaelic term is tuathal, which means “Northerly”. The opposite direction is deosil or, more correctly, deiseal, or sunwise (clockwise). The term Widdershins is also used to mean any direction that isn’t the proper or usual way.

Traditionally, it is bad luck to move widdershins around a building or person while walking deiseal confers good luck and protection. Walking widdershins around a church is especially unlucky. According to the fairy tale, Childe Rowland, running widdershins around a church may get you transported to the land of the fae and the story of Fairy Cross Plain tells of a boy who danced widdershins nine times around a faery ring and fell under their control.

Many modern magical practitioners will move widdershins only when “undoing” a magickal action, such as opening a circle. Some will walk widdershins when doing banishing magick and curses and deiseal for drawing and healing magic.

*Perambulation:

(2) Perambulation.*

In the absence of the cubic stone this ceremony has rather lost its point. In all the ancient mysteries this perambulation was observed and a similar custom is common in both religious and magical ceremonies; the number of rounds is usually either three or seven. It was until quite recent years common in all parts of the British Isles especially in regard to "holy" wells, and in many parts of the world the fields were annually protected by means of a procession carrying lighted torches; in Scotland this custom was observed on Halloween up to the last century. (31) The rule appears to be that when a blessing is intended the course of the sun is followed, but in black magic the perambulation was performed against the sun, which has the general meaning of Death. Muslims, however, perambulate the Kaaba at Mecca seven times against the sun, and the WaYao (Central Africa) do the same round a model of the sacred mountain.

An Examination Of The Masonic Ritual - MM (themasonictrowel.com) 




Or even the *Whirling Dervish dancers:*

The dervish whirls counter-clockwise with the right arm directed upwards (towards the heavens) and the left turned towards the earth. During the dance, the dervishes enter a hyperconscious state. This is all done while maintaining their perfect physical balance, which includes making small rocking movements with the hands, arms and head as they spin. 

Sufi Meditation and Positive Mental Health (stressresilientmind.co.uk)


----------



## Silent Bob (Dec 7, 2020)

grav said:


> @Silent Bob, I'm still rolling the "spherical --×-- in a vacuum" around in my mind.
> And I don't get it. Sorry. Does math predict something in a vacuum?
> or is it one of those impossible scenarios. Schrodinger's cat ?
> 
> ...



The joke is usually only understood by geeky physicists so don't worry! With any physical problem it is easiest to assume you are dealing with a sphere, like with charges for example. This is because we can calculate everything from one variable, the radius. Any other shape would be more complex to calculate things such as volume, surface area etc. Then we like to assume that whatever we're talking about is in a vacuum so that we don't have to account for interactions with other particles. So the only way we can work out the maths is if we assume the simplest case of a sphere in a vacuum even though real life is never like this. Yes, I know  

Here's another - A physicist gets stopped for speeding in his car. The police officer asks him 'Can you tell me how fast you were going?' to which the Physicist replies, 'No, but I can tell you exactly where I am!' - This is to do with the Heisenburg uncertainty principle 

I don't really talk FE with colleagues, if they've never looked into it for themselves they will just assume I am joking. I've discussed the golbal warming myth with them and the danger of vaccines, can have good debates on these subjects, but FE would be too mind bending for most of them!

You make a good point about Boyles law, it assumes a closed system which doesn't interact with anything outside. I can still remember one of my lecturers repeating how closed systems never exist in reality so these our only approximate models! I can't explain how our atmosphere could be contained without borders within an infinite vacuum, it makes my head hurt to try..... 

The gravity argument always confuses me. I still believe there is a force pulling everything down, this is what converts mass into weight. I know where you're coming from with density and buoyoncy but these only exist if we have a force pulling or pushing on them. So what I mean is that on a FE model we still need a force pulling everything down, whether you call it gravity or something else. However, the existance of gravity doesn't favour the RE or FE model, it would work for both. The same lecturer I mentioned above always used to stress that we don't know what gravity is, only what it does. If you try and describe gravity you just end up stating what it does, or describe it as a force. The same applies to a force, we know what it does but we don't know what it is. Just because you develop maths which can predict how something works accurately doesn't mean that you actually know or undertstand the mechanism of what is actually happening.

As for Big Bang, special relativity, dark matter etc, once more the same lecturer I mentioned above had plenty to say about this, you can actually hear him for yourself as he appeared on a thunderbolts podcast to talk about some of this stuff. Basically he confirms what you say about modern science being dragged into the mud! I won't be getting fixed anytime soon, I have helped apply for grants for research and they all want to know how your research meets all this bollocks criteria - the point being that if you don't go along with everything mainstream you won't get any funding, where as if you produce positive results for their pet projects you'll be successful.....


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnQ8UybIdAU_


----------



## codis (Dec 7, 2020)

Citezenship said:


> Do you think i can get there by meditating???


I'm afraid no.
You need to sell your soul, and apply for a position at a troll farm.


----------



## 6079SmithW (Dec 7, 2020)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–U.S._RQ-170_incident




Could it be it relies on internal inertial navigation because 

There are no satellites in space and the drone is too far away from land based GPS towers


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 7, 2020)

In this reality there is only a pushing force.
Pressure applied by something to something else creates motion.
Pull is simply a way of describing a direction of motion

Try this at home, in a cafe, at work or wherever you are.
Push a cup away from you on a table.
Pull it back.

It's impossible because no matter what method you contrive you have to push it towards you just as you push it away from you.

I fell for the iron core ball theory and the invisible undetectable pulling force theory until in fairly recent times I began scouring the physical practical reality for examples of a pulling force. There isn't one.

I'll say it again not to be boring just stating the only other obvious fact there is about this place.
Contained water always presents a level surface.

Push no pull.
Contained water is always level.

I get the impression the people who built the infrastructure we see ligging about knew this and perhaps more importantly knew how to use these facts in accomplishing their work.


----------



## veeall (Dec 7, 2020)

Inertia is why i cannot believe earths rotation, i mean, differences between rotational velocities of Oslo and Berlin is 180km per hour, however, there are no problems for planes to make the landing in Berlin coming from Oslo. Imagine trying to jump onto a platform moving with the speed of 180km/h. But in this world of absurd, no affects.


----------



## grav (Dec 7, 2020)

yeah, the problem with this thread is that its focus is 666^2. Haha a joke. Freemason falsities squared. 
In a nutshell, TMI.
First, the Scots and their counterclockwise wisdom is paralleled with the Muslim pilgrims (men only, right?) circumnavigating the holy Cube from space.
I reckon it's a man thing. Circles and balls, no pun intended. Football, soccer, basketball, tennis, etc.
What I mean is ..... the tendency of some people to think in terms of the solar system, with satellite entities orbiting a central core, often but not always a sphere.
The Atom is a fractal of this notion, with electrons orbiting a nucleus, which can be split to create a humongous bomb. because e=mc^2

I never ever never accepted this thing. Which is why in college I abandoned a major in science and ended up in the sanity of the humanities. 
When @sandokhan cites more and more theories, the rest of us grimace at the shameless audacity of modern science. Tesla must roll over in his grave like a whirling dervish. And the angel Einstein gets a new pair of wings whenever a new fugaboo theory is perpetrated on us.

And we know why the "peers" of pseudoscience academia do this -- to hide the plain truth that earth does not move. 
1000 mph rotation
66,600 mph orbit 
around a sun traveling .5 million mph

To hide the simple truth, that earth is motionless,  the freemason elites hire willing quislings to teach lie after lie. The Big Bang Theory tv show is a fictional representation of real academicians, the foolish boys who think they can prove a lie by faking math.
They may be smart, even geniuses. They think they are great thinkers, but they are really brainwashed believers of Authority. 
Why? My guess is that humans are dna hard-wired to obey. 
Stay home, social distance, wear masks.
And the sheeple herds say, OK, boss. moo


----------



## codis (Dec 7, 2020)

grav said:


> Which is why in college I abandoned a major in science...


So you missed Newton's second law ?


----------



## grav (Dec 7, 2020)

codis said:


> grav said:
> 
> 
> > Which is why in college I abandoned a major in science...
> ...



I missed the class which proved that outer space is a real thing.
Earth's atmosphere, or so I was taught, is gaseous. Which it is.
The atmosphere stays put, despite being hurled through space vacuum at 1000 mph thisaway and 66,700 mph thataway.
Did Newton factor that "fact" into his math?


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 8, 2020)

It is very easy to disprove Newton's concept of gravity. In fact, it couldn't be simpler.

The double forces of attractive gravitation paradox was discovered in the 70s, but the equations were not provided at that time.

Advanced Flat Earth Theory (two consecutive messages)

The equations:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1905467#msg1905467

This example may help visualize the double force issue.

Let there be two rafts ( x and y )  freely floating on a clear calm lake with a rope between them.
Both rafts are still and are a rope length apart. 
The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.
Raft x will move toward raft y,… and raft y will move toward raft x.
*Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion. *
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.   


Huygens dismissed the attraction concept:

”Concerning the cause of the flux given by M. Newton, I am by no means satisfied [by it], nor by all the other theories that he builds upon his principle of attraction, which to me seems absurd, as I have already mentioned in the addition to the Discourse on Gravity. And I have often wondered how he could have given himself all the trouble of making such a number of investigations and difficult calculations that have no other foundation than this very principle." 


"If a horse draws a stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the other."

I. Newton

Even here there will be two forces acting on each end of the rope.

X end of the rope: horse is pulling with force -A, force A reacting on the horse, the stone is exerting through the rope a force B on the horse.

Forces acting on the rope at the X end: -A and -B (reaction forces)

Y end of the rope: -B, while the horse is pulling with force -A

Forces acting on the rope at the Y end: A and B


Double the forces needed in the Newtonian description of mechanics.


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 8, 2020)

> X end of the rope: horse is pulling with force -A, force A reacting on the horse, the stone is exerting through the rope a force B on the horse.


The horse is pushing on the inside of loop of the rope it is attached to.
It is also pushing on the inside off the loop at the end of the rope attached to the stone.

There is no such thing as a pulling force. 
Pull simply describes describes a direction off motion.


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 8, 2020)

This is from the pages of the Principia.

As a matter of fact, Newton was pressed from all sides to provide an explanation for terrestrial gravity, that is why the second edition of the Principia, in the official chronology of history, includes the essay on the CAUSE of gravity.

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A


Newton's clear description again:

*the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail*

Newton's Philosophy of Nature

Right from the pages of the Principia.

ATTRACTION = PRESSURE EXERTED FROM OUTSIDE PUSHING TWO OBJECTS TOGETHER 


We are told that the Calculus was copied from Indian sources (Kerala), as were the principles of the three laws of newtonian motion, spacetime, relativity. It doesn't take long to find out that these facts are true:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1574605#msg1574605
Who gave mathematical analysis to the Hindu?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2229802#msg2229802


----------



## Silent Bob (Dec 8, 2020)

kd-755 said:


> In this reality there is only a pushing force.
> Pressure applied by something to something else creates motion.
> Pull is simply a way of describing a direction of motion
> 
> ...



You're definately onto something here, I never thought about it this way before but it seems obvious once pointed out. I have always believed in two forces, attraction and repulsion which would be like pulling and pushing. Now you have me thinking about it I can't think of an example of pulling that isn't just a some contrived way of pushing. This feels like a bit of an 'aha' moment for me, I'm looking at things differently already. I suspect we are taught to think in terms of pulling and pushing on purpose to cloud the issue. Now we can look at a little clearer at those things we call forces.

Lets take the obvious example which at first glance appears to be a pulling force, magnetism. We've all held two magnets and felt one magnet 'pulling' at the other or 'pushing' if one magnet is reversed. From this example its understandable how we have come to think in terms of push/pull. So if we instead look at this purely in terms of pushing what is actually going on here? When the magnetic fields repel each other, this is a simple push - so far so good. So what is happening when one magnetic field is reversed and they appear to pull towards each other? We need to think what could be pushing both magnets towards each other. How can we think of that same force which push's them apart then pushing them together? I can only imagine this pushing force changing position and direction, from between the magnets to behind the magnets. 

Diagrams will help us here I think. The one below make me think of a flow of something. Imagine it was water flowing through these objects as if they were pipes, the unmagnitised one would not have a force in any one direction, but the magnetised one would create a force pushing to the right. If we took another pipe with water flowing in the opposite direction the two pipes would 'push' or repel each other due to the water pressure flowing. If both pipes are reversed then the water flow would pushthe pipes together as they would both be pushing outwards with no force between them. My analogy breaks down here as this would be equivalent of N vs N pushing apart and S vs S pushing together when they should have the same effect, but hey ho its best I can do for now!





Now when both pipes have flow in same direction this would strengthen the force in that single direction, I can't think of the equivalent for the magnets here. Could they be attracted due to flow being in the same direction, they join together into one larger flow?



As for what is actually flowing through magnets, we're probably all thinking the same at this point - the ether! We're told that it is the flow of electrons, or charge, that creates electromagnetic fields. But what is an electron? Really, it just a theoretical particle which you can't see anymore than you can see a photon of light. So could movement of electrons in fact be the flow of ether? 

Ok, here goes! So if we are surrounded by a sea of ether, flowing in all directions with no net effect generally. Certain materials are structured in such a way that they ether flows through them in one direction only, and we call these magnets. When you magnetise another item, like a nail, you temporarily alter the structure of the nail so that the ether flow only in 1 direction. This change could be induced by the strong flow of ether in this one direction caused by the permament magnet held close by.

The next quesion is what is pushing us down towards the ground? Could this also be some kind of ether flow, exerting pressure over all matter as it flows downwards? Would that work if our realm was an accretion disk in the centre of a torus of ether flowing?


----------



## 6079SmithW (Dec 8, 2020)

Silent Bob said:


> kd-755 said:
> 
> 
> > In this reality there is only a pushing force.
> ...


Omg
Nailed it.

I've always thought this electron / atom business was rather contrived. Ether flow makes much more sense.


----------



## Safranek (Dec 8, 2020)

Silent Bob said:


> kd-755 said:
> 
> 
> > In this reality there is only a pushing force.
> ...



I've been trying to avoid this thread but here I am. 

Why have I been trying to avoid it? Because in answer to the question (title of another thread) 

"Is FE a psyop?" must be YES.

Why do I think that to be a fact? 

Because when we look at the recent history of FE revival we can clearly see that there is a hidden hand (no pun intended) hiding and guiding. My curiosity was also inspired by Eric Dubay's 200 proof initially. That led me down the path of the popular FE channels' research (Matt Boylan, Rob Sargent, Jeranism, Globebusters, Lord Steven Christ, etc.). A lot of info but I was not entirely convinced, at the time I thought LSC had the best theory of them (concave earth) but he was also the biggest idiot of them all. 

Not liking to be fooled, I bounced back and forth between them and Soundly, Reds Rhetoric, Wolfie, SciMan Dan, etc., running in circles and frustrated, and finally abandoning all research into the subject, after all, Mud Flood came to the rescue. Then the same thing happened there, it seemed the hidden hand was actively guiding the situation as they seem to have an endless supply of content creators who are ready to jump into any given subject and quickly become experts at it.

So, its a highly effective psyop to confuse most and waste their time going in circles.

---------------------------------------

Now I would like to address this pushing force issue.

We have David LaPoint's Primer Fields: 

http://www.rexresearch.com/lapoint/lapoint.htm
So who do we have introduce this theory to the FE crowd? 

Brian Lambert you know the egomaniac 33 guy (PPPlllllaaaaasssssma). Once again, the most obnoxious and egotistical person you could possibly have to tolerate to try and get the least bit of information. Immediately Lord Steven Christ and his concave earth came to mind.

So what does this tell me? 

Well, removing their characters from the equation, the two most plausible models I considered (given that I suppose the earth IS flat) happen to be the Primer Fields theory with a flat plane in the middle with upturned edges - as mentioned by PIcard, the first cosmonaut -  (to hold in the waters below). 

So I asked myself, why did the two seemingly most plausible models get introduced by the two most overbearing individuals. Well, if I believed in conspiracy theories (which I don't 'cause I know they are a fact), I would venture to say that the hidden hand planned, intended it this way.

IF we consider a flat earth model then a bowl would certainly make sense, after all, that's where we put our soup in this reality and our realm is mostly water.

Taking this further, 

IF we have such an environment, something must keep order within the realm, and the realm having an electro-magnetic nature, we should search for a model that would fit this presumption and best explain it's phenomena. So far the Primer Fields of David LaPoint is the closest I've come to as a possibility for further exploration. (Of course, removing both LSC and BAL33 from the picture).

The sun, moon, and stars must also function electromagnetically, and if we can weed through all the BS in physics, geography, etc. we can get closer to deciphering what so many of us are searching for, to answer the important questions, who we are, why we are, where we are and who created us? (I hope not to see the name Darwin in any replies.) 

So instead of allowing the PTB to classify those who search for the true shape of their realm (which is most likely flat) as flat earthers, we should always clarify that we are instead just seekers of the true nature of our realm, thereby escaping the psyop aspect of the stigma attached.


----------



## grav (Dec 9, 2020)

There is only one real force of nature. Electromagnetism.
The push-pull force being discussed is that of density of matter. Gravity means weight.
Ether flow may be one way to visualize how particles of water either fall as rain or float as clouds, depending on their relatuve densities.

The silly grwvity equations put forth by various societies and universities all ignore another so-called force. If earth actually rotated 1000 mph, nothing could withstand the massive centrifugal force.









​


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 9, 2020)

I too wonder what not only keeps me standing upright on earth but also upright in water. This body seems to have some mechanism or sense that can discern upright as in perpendicular to a level, possibly the eyes with their level awareness or the ears which we frankly know next to nothing about or some combination or unknown sense because people who are blind seem to have little trouble in knowing which way their body is oriented to the level plane. The body needs to know where it is in relation to itself and its surroundings,

I remembered we are apparently mostly water. Water has a range of densities. It can shift effortlessly from one of three known states to another changing its density each time. It is fundamentally lazy, it cannot support its own weight, it will fill a container to overflowing and will always display a level surface when contained no matter what shape the container is.
When flowing it seeks the path of least resistance and should an obstacle block its path it will build up behind the obstacle, forming its level surface and wait until there is sufficient volume to go around over or under the obstacle.

All land, liquid water and frozen water is covered over by water vapour which seems to have been misnamed air by god know who for unknown reasons. If the clouds when viewed from above are any guide this water vapour is always in motion just like liquid and frozen water so pressure is being applied by one object to another somehow. 
Once it is accepted that there is only push then something is pushing the water in all its forms. 

Our bodies and indeed all life at the vapour liquid boundary contain two forms of water, liquid and vapour. We do not contain the third form of water,ice or if we do then it's a fair bet we are dead. 
These water holding bodies exist within a water environment at the vapour liquid boundary yet they drown if they take in liquid water to the parts that require water vapour to be present and drowning is fatal. In respect of holding vapour and liquid within our bodies we are the same as the earth itself, save for it being able to accommodate ice in the mix. 
Water flows through the body during life. The fusion of water laden sperm and water laden egg takes place in a liquid water environment. We need a constant flow of liquid water and water vapour through these bodies or else we die and then they degrade alarmingly quickly as the liquid water leaves at the earliest opportunity.

Is it possible that as we are incapable of survival out of water, so too speak, that the water flow going through us is the ether. 
Ether being the name for the flow of water though all its states of being. As it constantly moves through the three known states of being then is it possible that it is this change of state that is providing the push motion running through this reality?


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 9, 2020)

They don't care about the centrifugal force, which can be easily explained.

They will present this in front of you:



_One of the more jaw-dropping segments of the documentary comes when Bob Knodel, one of the hosts on a popular Flat Earth YouTube channel, walks viewers through an experiment involving a laser gyroscope. As the Earth rotates, the gyroscope appears to lean off-axis, staying in its original position as the Earth's curvature changes in relation. "What we found is, is when we turned on that gyroscope we found that we were picking up a drift. A 15 degree per hour drift," Knodel says, acknowledging that the gyroscope's behavior confirmed to exactly what you'd expect from a gyroscope on a rotating globe._ 

https://ozzyman.com/flat-earther-spent-20k-and-accidentally-proves-the-earth-is-round/
What are you going to do then?


The existence of ether must be proven.


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (Dec 9, 2020)

sandokhan said:


> "200 Proofs Earth Is Not a Spinning Ball"
> 
> Yes.
> 
> ...


You say that "all mainstream science has to do is bring forth a single ring laser gyroscope, and it's all over for those 200 proofs". Have you even gone through each and every one of those proofs yourself? Has this ring laser gyroscope experiment even been conducted? Do you have a ring laser gyroscope? If yes, will YOU conduct the experiment for us, demonstrating what you are claiming, that is, a repeatable experiment that brings verifiable results consistently and then film it for us? What is this formula by Michelson you are referring to? Is it a formula on paper that cannot be demonstrated by an actual experiment, or is it something any one of us can conduct without needing a million dollar budget to produce a "special" camera or other magical device that only NASA possesses? You refer to the orbital Sagnac effect, labeling it as "precise", yet you provide no examples that could demonstrate such precision. You tell us to "see the calculations carried out for the LISA space antenna" without any sort of qualification or guidance as to what that even is, where to find a link to this info, or even how to interpret such data if we were to find it somewhere on the web. Outside of that, you are not even addressing the proofs presented in the video I posted above, which gives empirical demonstrations of real physics that can be conducted by anyone. Instead, you sweepingly dismiss the entire presentation without a shred of real evidence or even a thread of an argument debunking even one single proof. I have seen this typical approach to argument, or lack thereof, countless times, especially regarding the subject matter of the shape and physics of where we live, that is, lots of sweeping statements without any empirical data to back those statements up with.

I'll just ask simply and respectfully, please demonstrate your claims with verifiable, empirical data, not something that only works on paper that cannot be demonstrated in reality by any lay person interested in understanding the nature of where we live. Also, if you believe that the 200 proofs presented in the above video are fraudulent and erroneous, that is, if you have even bothered to go through that list of proofs, please demonstrate your evidences to the contrary as well. If you do not think it is worth your time, then perhaps you should reserve your judgement for a time when you do think it is worth your time.

This is the place where mature researchers, both self-made and academically trained, respectfully discuss opposing viewpoints on controversial subjects where the aim is always to get to the truth in all things. This cannot be achieved with dismissive, vague arguments and ad hominem attacks that undermine real research.


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 9, 2020)

Collapseinrealtime said:


> Also, if you believe that the 200 proofs presented in the above video are fraudulent and erroneous, that is, if you have even bothered to go through that list of proofs, please demonstrate your evidences to the contrary as well.



The 200 proofs are no match for a single ring laser gyroscope.

That gyroscope will show rotation.

What are you going to do then?



Collapseinrealtime said:


> Has this ring laser gyroscope experiment even been conducted?



What is this? The first proof of rotation was experimentally published in 1925 (MGX); the RLG uses the same formula and principles.



Collapseinrealtime said:


> What is this formula by Michelson you are referring to?



I already posted the original 1925 paper by Michelson which includes this formula.



Collapseinrealtime said:


> You refer to the orbital Sagnac effect, labeling it as "precise", yet you provide no examples that could demonstrate such precision. You tell us to "see the calculations carried out for the LISA space antenna" without any sort of qualification or guidance as to what that even is, where to find a link to this info, or even how to interpret such data if we were to find it somewhere on the web.



The calculations carried by the team from ESA/JPS on the LISA space antenna, involving the orbital Sagnac effect, are well known.


The spherical Earth believer will not bother with the 200 proofs (legit as they are). They will show you a single ring laser gyroscope which does record rotation, as evidenced by the claims made by Michelson in 1925 (he said his formula represents the SAGNAC EFFECT).

So, what are you going to do then? If you cannot debunk the ring laser gyroscope experiments, you lose.

	Post automatically merged: Dec 9, 2020

LISA space antenna orbital Sagnac effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1983786#msg1983786
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1985230#msg1985230
Michelson's original paper:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..137M&amp;data_type=PDF_HIGH&amp;whole_paper=YES&amp;type=PRINTER&amp;filetype=.pdf



Gran Sasso, Italy - GINGERino experiment

Latitude: 42.4166°

λ(He:Ne) = 632 nm

L = 3.6 m

https://home.infn.it/newsletter-eu/pdf/NEWSLETTER_INFN_35_inglese_10.pdf
GINGERINO: THE MOST SENSITIVE METER OF THE EARTH'S ROTATION IS AT THE GRAN SASSO LABORATORIES


See also the links I posted earlier:

https://stolenhistory.net/threads/flat-earth.3724/post-35634


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (Dec 9, 2020)

sandokhan said:


> Collapseinrealtime said:
> 
> 
> > Also, if you believe that the 200 proofs presented in the above video are fraudulent and erroneous, that is, if you have even bothered to go through that list of proofs, please demonstrate your evidences to the contrary as well.
> ...


So then I guess that answers the question. You have no intention of demonstrating any proofs, nor have you analyzed any of the proofs presented in the 200 proofs video. Since you have no intention of having a serious discussion, I do not see any need in addressing you further on this. Your links prove nothing verifiable. It's not a question of win or lose. We both lose in this case, since nothing new has taken place here. I will have to agree to disagree with your approach to discussion, since I have no intention in gaining or losing an argument, merely to have meaningful discussion and a way to verify and clarify ideas exchanged and presented. I do not sense such an intention from you. I agree with the moderators that this thread has not demonstrated the best in us as researchers. There is more unknown than known, but from the empirical evidence presented in the video, I can conclude that we do not live on a spinning ball. If you choose to disagree, we'll have to leave ot at that.


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 9, 2020)

_You have no intention of demonstrating any proofs, nor have you analyzed any of the proofs presented in the 200 proofs video.  _

I have analyzed those proofs long before you ever did.

The author of those proofs, E. Dubay, copied some of the most difficult flat earth subjects (solar eclipse, as an example) from my messages.

I agree that those proofs are legitimate.

However, I am trying to tell you that mainstream science will invoke immediately the ring laser gyroscope as a proof of the rotation of the Earth.


https://home.infn.it/newsletter-eu/pdf/NEWSLETTER_INFN_35_inglese_10.pdf

GINGERINO: THE MOST SENSITIVE METER OF THE EARTH'S ROTATION IS AT THE GRAN SASSO LABORATORIES 


My question to you: what are you going to do then? You might protest and declare that the formula used for RLGs is not the Sagnac effect formula. Then, you will be required to provide such a formula. You have none. So, no matter how many hundreds of proofs you might have, they will be ignored as soon as a simple RLG showcases rotation.


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (Dec 9, 2020)

sandokhan said:


> _You have no intention of demonstrating any proofs, nor have you analyzed any of the proofs presented in the 200 proofs video.  _
> 
> I have analyzed those proofs long before you ever did.
> 
> ...


This is not a proof that can be verified by anyone without this device. Merely showing photographs for this device and linking a harvard paper does not prove anything. If you have any issue with any one of the 200 proofs, by all means, present your issue.


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 9, 2020)

It was verified, without "this device", back in 1925 by Michelson and Gale.

Right now, you think you have those 200 proofs and that they will be sufficient to convince anyone, including mainstream scientists, that the Earth is not rotating.

But they will laugh in your face, and demand that you explain the Michelson-Gale experiment.

Dubay's book does not address this issue.


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (Dec 9, 2020)

sandokhan said:


> It was verified, without "this device", back in 1925 by Michelson and Gale.
> 
> Right now, you think you have those 200 proofs and that they will be sufficient to convince anyone, including mainstream scientists, that the Earth is not rotating.
> 
> ...


You still have not demonstrated how this device proves a spinning earth. Merely stating that it has been proven is not proof in itself. And neither you nor I can prove or disprove it without having access to one of these devices to demonstrate it for ourselves. This is where the great divide has grown. The experts assume we will trust them because they are experts. This site was founded because it has been demonstrated time and again that the experts can and do mislead. Does this device actually prove the earth is spinning? Not to me from what you have presented. And you still have yet to poke issue with any of the proofs presented in Dubay's video. Perhaps when you can present a comprehensive video demonstrating how this device proves the earth spins, other than linking us to a paper that posits formulas and presents these formulas as proof, then you might have an argument worth investigating. Until then, some verifiable proof will be needed to convince me we exist in a vacuum in space, spinning 1,000mph while we experience a reality that doesn't even come close to that kind of experience. I don't trust mainstream science, especially when they present ideas as facts that cannot be verified by repeatable experiment. Get your laser device and then we can see if it has the ability to detect a spinning earth, or show me a video of this device in action. Do you also believe that voting cannot be rigged, even though they use electronic machines to do the counting? Sorry, just can't buy into what you have presented.


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 9, 2020)

The earth is not flat. Flat earth, the term, is indeed used today as an opposition to the ball earth term. It is hard to imagine two more polar opposites than a round line forming a sphere in vision but ball in reality and a flat line so they are ideal candidates to hide the probable reality that this earth is a undulating container of some description. Nowhere is it flat as in no deviation in elevation from a level. It undulates under and above the contained liquid water level.

We call sea level, level because that is exactly what it is, level. We can see this with our own eyes no matter how small or how large the container is and it is always like this. Our eyes are built to recognise level amongst the patterns it is also built to recognise that is why we instantly see a picture hung on a wall that is only a tiny bit off of level. That is why we cannot see the shape of anything correctly as it is in reality. We always seek the level and base everything else off of it.
Altitude and depth are taken of sea level. They are also taken off any standing body of contained water level. The level surface can be at different altitudes in relation to sea level and this to me is where this place is in the grand scheme of things.

It is akin to a rock pool at high tide. The only time it experiences a deluge is when the tide is high. For the rest of the time it is a body of contained water with all life occurring at the boundary of liquid and vapour. Where this rock pool actually sits within the 'wider world' is something worth discovering, to me. It could be well above 'high tide' or it might be at 'high tide' level or equally it could be on a slight rise which contains a boundless ocean just a mile or much less below it for example. This would account for a deluge of water, mud, sand, silt, life, detritus etc which is likely unrecognisable to us sat in the pool, which occurs when 'the tide comes in' or gets high enough to flow in over the rim of the container.

Or we could simply be sat in a back water pool sitting at the exact same level as the ocean but connected to the ocean by a narrow passage that fills in and then breaks on a regular or irregular basis which would again create the deluge as the water vapour is able to cross the liquid water barrier with ease so there is the possibility that the level in the back water pool when blocked falls below the ocean and when the barrier is breached the levels equate again. 

Of course either scenario would only work if the sky above was of such a vast scale as to be incomprehensible to us and for me it seems that is the case. Contained water being level at its surface is the reality at any altitude on the level plane we call the known world. Clouds, fogs and mists all manifest and disappear from water level up to a certain height then go no higher so it seems probable the water vapour container is much much bigger than the liquid water container, aka rock pool we sit in.


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (Dec 9, 2020)

kd-755 said:


> The earth is not flat. Flat earth, the term, is indeed used today as an opposition to the ball earth term. It is hard to imagine two more polar opposites than a round line forming a sphere in vision but ball in reality and a flat line so they are ideal candidates to hide the probable reality that this earth is a undulating container of some description. Nowhere is it flat as in no deviation in elevation from a level. It undulates under and above the contained liquid water level.
> 
> We call sea level, level because that is exactly what it is, level. We can see this with our own eyes no matter how small or how large the container is and it is always like this. Our eyes are built to recognise level amongst the patterns it is also built to recognise that is why we instantly see a picture hung on a wall that is only a tiny bit off of level. That is why we cannot see the shape of anything correctly as it is in reality. We always seek the level and base everything else off of it.
> Altitude and depth are taken of sea level. They are also taken off any standing body of contained water level. The level surface can be at different altitudes in relation to sea level and this to me is where this place is in the grand scheme of things.
> ...


I don't think any "flat earther" will disagree with you on the idea of an actual flat earth or one with hills, peaks, valleys, and underground depth. We are aware of the idea of underground bunkers like Denver airport, the possibilities of where we live are endless. What is at issue is does the earth spin and are we living on something spherical rather than living IN a sphere of sorts. We may not be able to exactly label what it is that we actually live in/on, but I can conclude with certainty that we are not living ON a spinning ball, launching through a vacuum universe where "gravity" and "atmosphere" become the buzz words to explain away all anomalies related to making the heliocentric model "work".


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 9, 2020)

You should check back through my scribblings as I know there is nothing spinning, my bodily senses know when the body they are part of is in motion and have no difficulty in communicating this fact to me. The only difficulty I had was my senses were ignored in favour of 'education' from a young age.
There is no ball but neither is the thing we walk on flat.
Contained water being level at its surface no matter what size the container is proof nothing is spinning and proof it is not a ball.
A sphere is a mathematical object nothing more.
There is no vacuum. There is no space. There is no such thing as gravity just as there is no pulling force in this reality.
What there is is push.

What I want to figure out given the limitations of actual feet on the ground travel and the fact I live on an island, as we all do in reality, is stop arguing (EDIT) stay away from the argument of bashing the ball earth theory using the flat earth theory and instead focus on what is there in practical reality that can point me in the right direction.
Our predecessors on this plane knew the things we are having trouble remembering, that much I am sure of, though I cannot for the life of me say why.


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (Dec 9, 2020)

kd-755 said:


> You should check back through my scribblings as I know there is nothing spinning, my bodily senses know when the body they are part of is in motion and have no difficulty in communicating this fact to me. The only difficulty I had was my senses were ignored in favour of 'education' from a young age.
> There is no ball but neither is the thing we walk on flat.
> Contained water being level at its surface no matter what size the container is proof nothing is spinning and proof it is not a ball.
> A sphere is a mathematical object nothing more.
> ...


Totally agreed. The psyop of flat earth has been quite effective at subverting the overall "truth" movement. What the controllers have done is to create the ultimate rabbit hole. By presenting that rabbit hole as the dwelling place of idiots, "flat earthers", the controllers can now lump all controversial ideas revealing their shell game as conspiracy nuts who believe the earth is flat. I personally don't fear labels, but I also don't necessarily embrace them either. Which is why the controllers have such a hard time with people like us, because they can't pigeonhole us into a particular category so that they can employ new methods of control over us. Where we can be different is to find ways to move forward, even though we don't agree about everything, especially the helio vs geo. This subject is so hot right now, it can jeopardize an entire movement. Like it or not, sh.net is a movement. It is a conscious push towards a more honest approach in research and in the sharing of information. It represents next level communication between like minded folks. It doesn't stop at the realization that we've been deceived. It doesn't stop at replacing the lie with the truth. It grows into what we are all heading for, if not in this life, definitely the next: collective consciousness. We have been practicing collective consciousness with the illusion of separateness these several hundred years. Now that we have become aware of the illusion of separateness, we can finally let go of our egos and start to learn reality creation as a being of consciousness. We're ready for the next level. This is why understanding where we are becomes important. It is just one more proof of the lies we have now discarded.


----------



## Citezenship (Dec 9, 2020)

For me it is simple, maybe that is because i am simple, i can demonstrate centrifugal force to myself with a weight attached to a piece of string by spinning it, this is repeatable over and over again, i can take a tennis ball and soak it in water and spin it, the water will come away from the ball, always, no exceptions to this rule, therefore it matters not what theory can be theorised because that is not how the physical laws that govern my reality work, my conclusion is we are stationary.


----------



## Safranek (Dec 9, 2020)

My thoughts regarding the little interchange between Sandokhan and Collapseinrealtime;

IMHO both of you are sincere in your effort to put forth the best info you can to help us all in coming to the right conclusions regarding our realm.

Sandokhan:

You are an analytic type, able to process a lot of info and you seem to have a better understanding of complex math than most of us here. (Where is Miles Mathis when you need him?) JOKE   This makes you a valuable resource to this forum. You've covered a lot of ground, uncovered a lot and probably have much left to disclose.

But...

you must take into consideration that many of us here do not have that level of math to understand the formulas as you've posted them because to do that we'd have to study math for a 'bit' and only then would we be able to give an opinion. Right now we either believe you or not.



sandokhan said:


> Aether is the medium through which ether propagates.
> 
> Ether = transverse subquark waves through which longitudinal boson strings flow
> 
> ...



For instance, this post of yours has no references. It would certainly help us if we could confirm this or not. This is essential to form even a semi-educated opinion.

Solution:

Try and bring us up to speed (not by teaching us the necessary math) but instead by emphasizing the key elements of all that math you posted regarding the Sagnac Effect and the Coriolis Effect.

I agree with your point that no matter what proof we can provide in reality with REAL physics, it certainly WILL be shot down with the RLG argument. There are many of us who think that Bob was guided all along to drop the bomb on everyone with this RLG experiment purposely staged to have the effect it had from the beginning.

If many of us have enough of an understanding regarding this RLG scam, we would be in better position to further this info to the rest of the seekers questioning the mainstream and looking for answers.



sandokhan said:


> But they will laugh in your face, and demand that you explain the Michelson-Gale experiment.



Then obviously we need a *separate thread* for this and the *RLG* as one is being used to demonstrate the other.



sandokhan said:


> My question to you: what are you going to do then? You might protest and declare that the formula used for RLGs is not the Sagnac effect formula. Then, you will be required to provide such a formula. You have none. So, no matter how many hundreds of proofs you might have, they will be ignored as soon as a simple RLG showcases rotation.



Ok. Agreed. Now it would be nice if you also provide the solution if you have it.

You already mentioned in a previous post (if I remember correctly);

- the difference between the Sagnac Effect (SE) and the Coriolis Effect (CE).
- the fact that the RLG uses the CE instead of the SE while mainstream science is pushing it as RLG = SE
- your correction of the math for the proper formula for the RLG with SE

So, what would make this more understandable would be if you could put it into point form with a simplified (but complete) explanation of what is actually taking place or how the RLG is NOT actually measuring the earth's rotation but possible the movement of the ether. Of course, for this we need to try and locate some proof from past or present. There are a lot of great minds out there and we're used to scavenging for info, but for this we need guidance.

So my proposition:

Start new thread / Break down the issue into key points / Elaborate those points

Hopefully this will lead to intelligent questions instead of criticism with the result benefiting us all.

---------------------------------------------------

Aside from all that, what do you think about this?


_View: https://youtu.be/s2PNDGfQrYs?t=825_


-------------------------------------------------

Collapseinrealtime:

I sympathize with you on your statements regarding the manner of Sandokhan's posts as I felt similarly frustrated by seeing that something is there but without the 'manual' really nothing was there. Although my gut feeling told me something is there.

Sandokhan's reply didn't help alleviate the frustration much as he stuck to his conclusion only by stating the fact that all arguments against the globe will be shot down by the RLG experiment. Even though he is right on this point as I alluded to it above, he missed the gist of your post, which was to clarify in layman's terms and make his info useful to all (or at least most).

----------------------------------------------------------------



Collapseinrealtime said:


> Like it or not, sh.net is a movement. It is a conscious push towards a more honest approach in research and in the sharing of information. It represents next level communication between like minded folks. It doesn't stop at the realization that we've been deceived. It doesn't stop at replacing the lie with the truth. It grows into what we are all heading for, if not in this life, definitely the next: collective consciousness. We have been practicing collective consciousness with the illusion of separateness these several hundred years. Now that we have become aware of the illusion of separateness, we can finally let go of our egos and start to learn reality creation as a being of consciousness. We're ready for the next level. This is why understanding where we are becomes important. It is just one more proof of the lies we have now discarded.



I hope we all agree with this and is the reason why we are all here. We DO NOT want to allow anything/anyone to jeopardize this 'movement' as for most of us its the best we've come across and is the reason why we put our time in here. This is how REAL science should be done to begin with, no egos, biased agendas, just a determined and intelligent quest for one thing only, and that is TRUTH.



Collapseinrealtime said:


> It's not a question of win or lose. We both lose in this case, since nothing new has taken place here. I will have to agree to disagree with your approach to discussion, since I have no intention in gaining or losing an argument, merely to have meaningful discussion and a way to verify and clarify ideas exchanged and presented.



Let this statement apply to ALL 'arguments' on the blog.

When one wins a debate, he managed to pass on his better researched logic to another thereby benefiting many others, as the one to whom the info was passed will continue to pass it on.

When one loses a debate, he managed to accept a better researched logic replacing an inferior one thereby benefiting many others as he will also continue to pass that info on.

So when we debate issues with no ego or bias AND patiently help others to assimilate our well-founded ideas or whether we let go of an idea when its shown to us to be partially or wholly erroneous, we actually go on to benefit many.


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (Dec 9, 2020)

Safranek said:


> My thoughts regarding the little interchange between Sandokhan and Collapseinrealtime;
> 
> IMHO both of you are sincere in your effort to put forth the best info you can to help us all in coming to the right conclusions regarding our realm.
> 
> ...



Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate your analytical approach. To me, the universe is a very simple place. For instance, if I wanted to test the movement of something, I can easily place something stationary next to it. The stationary object rests while the moving object changes its location in distance to the stationary object. An easy test for seeing if the earth moves is to levitate above the ground in a hovering helicopter that remains stationary. Does the earth move at 1,000 mph while the helicopter stands still? I admit, that would definitely cut down on travel time if that were true. But no, it doesn't. But then the explanation comes in that everything within the atmosphere is somehow magically locking all objects within it in a kind of suspended animation, so that even though the helicopter isn't touching the ground or moving, it is still spinning with everything else. Interesting idea, but one that does not match anyone's physical reality. This so called test to measure the spin of the earth--how can you measure spin if you are also attached to the object supposedly spinning? With a laser? Pointing at what? It would have to be pointing at a stationary object not in any way connected to the earth, and thus the comparison of something moving or spinning vs the object not moving. All measurements require this comparison. Point A to point B. It's the same reason why the curvature argument doesn't work, or the coriolis effect, which a sniper never takes into account when hitting his target. This experiment that he keeps referring to cannot be demonstrated. It needs theoretical math to even be explained, versus the above simple experiment which I have presented. The great thing about so called flat earth cosmology, is it puts science back into astronomy. All proofs can be easily repeated. That is why they are proofs and not theories.


----------



## Safranek (Dec 9, 2020)

Collapseinrealtime said:


> Safranek said:
> 
> 
> > My thoughts regarding the little interchange between Sandokhan and Collapseinrealtime;
> ...




I agree with you totally one this and this works when we are on the ground, testing something else on the ground. In the case of the helicopter, we are testing something that's 'close' to the ground -  meaning in the accessible part of our realm.

In the case of the motion of astronomical objects in relation to us, we have things moving beyond the accessible part of our realm (at least as far as we know). Thus its easier to play the game; we're moving, and they're also moving - or we're standing still and only they are moving. This is why our task is not so simple. How to measure something that is beyond our measuring stick.

Actually, the helicopter issue is one thing that made me wonder this; 

How come our physicists don't have a scale for gravity/distance. We have a scale for pressure/distance, temperature/distance. We have it going down and up. But NOT for gravity. As 'science' says that the atmosphere moves with the earth they should have come up with a scale by now with all that space travel.

What I mean is at what distances upwards does the effect of 'gravity' begin to diminish and by how much. At what total distance for instance would the helicopter start to lose the 'gravity' effect and be able to land in a different place?

As NASA claims to have gone to space (vacuum) they should already have this scale if any real scientists worked there and if the earth was indeed spinning, but they don't. 

Another issue I have is with the Chinese. They just went to the moon and the land of gadgets forgot to leave at least a cheap GoPro MoonCam up there. What prestige it would have been to be the first nation to have a MoonCam available live on the web. I guess they never thought about it. They just make the stuff. If ham radio operators are bouncing signals via the moon, a MoonCam should've been a cinch.


----------



## Citezenship (Dec 9, 2020)

Safranek said:


> Another issue I have is with the Chinese. They just went to the moon and the land of gadgets forgot to leave at least a cheap GoPro MoonCam up there. What prestige it would have been to be the first nation to have a MoonCam available live on the web. I guess they never thought about it. They just make the stuff. If ham radio operators are bouncing signals via the moon, a MoonCam should've been a cinch.


You would think there would be a million cameras on that thing, or at least a couple of angles, or remote cam to look at earth from moon whilst landing, or even a small probe with cam to film the landing but alas no!


----------



## cnut (Dec 10, 2020)

The footage I have watched of China, India, and Israel reaching the moon in the
last few years is laughable at best. Certainly, we cant consider that real.
To me, it seems like they aren't even trying anymore.  Are we really supposed
to believe there is a tesla car in space. We see the rockets splash down in the ocean.
We see a rocket land on a moving platform like a video game, in reverse.
I am really surprised to see someone from the flat earth society{ a known disinformation
sight} posting here. Usually we get trolls, ad homs, sock accusations. 
They cant dazzle you with brilliance, so they baffle you with bullshi*.
Good luck.

peace,
cnut


----------



## grav (Dec 10, 2020)

So much good info above. My 2 cents.

1.  The gyroscope device shows movement -- of what in relation to what? If it is synced to earth's alleged rotation and orbit around the sun, then how do those trajectories not influence its measurements? It detects the turning of the dome, or the stars rotating in unison.

2. the definition of flat. A flat tire is not always perfectly smooth.
Pancakes are flat, and sidewalks. We major in the minors when we quibble with precise distinctions. Grand mountains and deep gorges fade to nothing when we take a long view of the motionless plane. 
I am a flatearther, not a planearther.







​


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 10, 2020)

Sagnac effect definition:

If two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a stationary circular loop of radius R, they will travel (in terms of any inertial coordinate system, such as that in which the center is at rest) the same distance at the same speed, so they arrive at the end point simultaneously.  If the loop itself is rotating during this procedure,  the counter-rotating pulse will arrive at the "end" point slightly earlier than the co-rotating pulse.





Quantitatively, if we let ω denote the angular speed of the loop, then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = ωR, and the sum of the speeds of the pulses and the receiver at the "end" point is c–v in the co-rotating direction and c+v in the counter-rotating direction. Both pulses begin with an initial separation of 2πR from the end point, so the difference between the travel times is




History of the Sagnac effect:

https://signallake.com/innovation/andersonNov94.pdf

Coriolis effect definition:

An effect whereby a mass moving in a rotating system experiences a force (the _Coriolis force_ ) acting perpendicular to the direction of motion and to the axis of rotation. On the earth, the effect tends to deflect moving objects to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern.


The Coriolis effect is a mechanical effect, proportional to thea area and angular velocity of the interferometer.

The Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic effect, proportional to the velocities of the light beams; it does not feature an area, or the angular velocity.


Derivation of the Coriolis effect formula for light interferometers:

http://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071


Dr. Ludwik Silberstein, a physicist on the same level with Einstein and Michelson, partially inspired and supported the Michelson-Gale experiment.

In 1921, Dr. Silberstein proposed that the Sagnac effect, as it relates to the rotation of the Earth or to the effect of the ether drift, must be explained in terms of the Coriolis effect: the direct action of Coriolis forces on counterpropagating waves.

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf

*The propagation of light in rotating systems*, Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. V, number 4, 1921

Dr. Silberstein developed the formula published by A. Michelson using very precise details, not to be found anywhere else.

He uses the expression kω for the angular velocity, where k is the aether drag factor.

He proves that the formula for the Coriolis effect on the light beams is:

dt = 2ωσ/c^2

Then, Dr. Silberstein analyzes the area σ and proves that it is actually a SUM of two other areas (page 300 of the paper, page 10 of the pdf document).

The effect of the Coriolis force upon the interferometer will be to create a convex and a concave shape of the areas: σ1 and σ2.

The sum of these two areas is replaced by 2A and this is how the final formula achieves its final form:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

A = σ1 + σ2

*That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the light beams is totally related to the closed contour area.*


"Sagnac effect is a change in propagation time for light going in a closed path. The time delay Δt appears when a test equipment is rotated with an angular velocity Ώ. Sagnac effect is frequently used in rate gyros in navigational systems. Fiber optics is used with light-speed c inside the fiber in a circular light path. The difference in propagation time Δt for two opposite directions of light is described as

Δt = 4AΩ/c^2

Where A is enclosed area. Δt is derived based on an integration of Ω over A.

According to Stokes' rule can an integration of angular velocity Ω over an area A be substituted by an integration of tangential component of translational velocity v along the closed line of length L limiting the given area. This interpretation gives

Δt = 4vL/c^2

producing the same value as the earlier expression. This can also be demonstrated by geometrical relations. *These two integrations have different physical implications.* We must therefore decide which one is correct from a physical aspect. Mathematics can not tell us that. So the decision is whether the effect is caused by a rotating area or by a translating line. Since Sagnac effect is an effect in light that is enclosed inside an optical fiber we can conclude that Sagnac effect is distributed along a line and not over an area. *No light and no rotation exists in the enclosed area.* Sagnac detected therefore an effect of translation although he had to rotate the equipment to produce the effect inside the fiber.

We conclude that the later expression

Δt = 4vL/c^2

is the correct interpretation."

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research Papers-Astrophysics/Download/2159

"Sagnac effect is distributed along a line and not over a surface. The assumption that starts from an integration over a surface (2Aw; rotation) is mathematically correct (due to Stokes' rule) but equal to a line integral (vL; translation). We must decide if the reason is a translating line or a rotating surface from a physical point of view. The rotation theory is correct only mathematically. Since the effect is locked inside an optical fiber the translating line is the correct interpretation. Classification as a rotational effect is wrong."


So far, so good: for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center, the SAGNAC EFFECT formula coincides with the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, the distinction is made in terms of Stokes' theorem: the Sagnac effect features a velocity of the light beams, the Coriolis effect is related to the area and the angular velocity.


Sagnac had no knowledge of these intricacies (as did no one else at that time, 1913), and delivered the formula which features an area in his paper.


Now, we move that interferometer on the surface of the Earth: its center of rotation will no longer be identical to its geometrical center, that is, the interferometer is stationary upon the surface, and we try to detect rotation.

So, Michelson and Gale built a huge interferometer in Clearing, Illinois, in 1925, here is the derivation of their formula:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2024700#msg2024700

What Michelson did is to derive the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula for the light beams: it can detect either the rotation of the Earth or the rotation of the ether drift above the surface. It is a slight lateral deflection of the light beams, not related to their velocities.

Michelson then claimed that this is the SAGNAC EFFECT formula for his interferometer, the same formula used today for ring laser gyroscopes (which are much smaller Michelson-Gale interferometers actually). Since Sagnac detects rotation, he then claimed that it is the Earth which is rotating.

No other physicist said anything, no one tried to detect this error, for the past 100 years.


That is why modern physicists are having a field day with geocentrists, when the latter try to prove that the Earth is stationary (even using those 200 proofs).

They will immediately point in the direction of the MGX, or even produce a small ring laser gyroscope, which, under the eyes of the geocentrist, will indeed record rotation.

In a court of law, the geocentrists will present the 200 proofs in front of the judge and of the jury. The mainstream physicists will sit quietly without any objections. Then, they will show a ring laser gyroscope to the judge and to the jury: rotation has been detected. Then, the jury will rule against the geocentrists.

So, what the geocentrists need is a SAGNAC EFFECT formula for the MGX.


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 10, 2020)

@silentbob
For toroids to be the answer to me the toroid has to be contained by a container shaped to create the pattern we are shown and can identify for ourselves. This doesn't have to be a tangible physical container but it has to be present as there is only push so without a container then the push would be in whatever direction the initiator of the push was pushing. It would only stop when the push or momentum given to the object being pushed stopped. 
It would not change direction unless it came up against another object that didn't move (or the a push coming from another direction) and like water it found another way to go assuming the pressure of the push was sufficient to allow it to overcome the 'back pressure' or 'push back' caused by pushing onto the immovable object.
The pressure of the pushing force must also be of sufficient strength to get above the level plane, assuming the level plane is where the pressure for push is brought to bear and follows the direction of the curving surface to enable it to come back down onto the level plane in the centre thus provide the pressure to hold whatever is at the level plane in place whilst passing through it to carry on on its way round and round the toroid. 

The toroid is in reality two cones or funnels which create contra flowing vortices as they pass across the level plane. The vortex above the plane is centripetal which condenses the push force to its centre and the vortex below the plane (above and below coming from our perspective of standing on the level plane) spins centrifugally which takes the push away from the centre.
This is the exact same thing that is easily noticeable in trees and indeed all plants. Water flows both ways up and down a tree from soil (liquid water) to sky (water vapour) and rain (liquid water) to soil (water vapour) . It goes up and down the inside of the roots and up and down the outside of the trunk. It changes over at the germination point which is the toroidal level plane.

All life is the level plane in the epicentre of the toroid. The act of living is the source of the push force. Life as we know it can only exist within a limited distance above and below the level plane. All known life lives within these very real boundaries which suggests that whatever is beyond them in relation to the level plane boundary does not have the right combination of liquid and vapour water to allow life to occur and thrive.

I get the feeling every life is a toroid created by the water changing its states of being. This changing may be the source of the push power that is used by all life forms in the act of living. I also feel it is the source of thoughts, again though why I feel this to be the case I don't know and it would not surprise me to find out that it is the source of all life.
Certainly the numbers 369 feature prominently and to me its this.
The 9 is all that is.
The 6 is the reflection of all that is.
The 3 is the point of perception which knows the difference.

Life is the 3.
The level plane is the 3.

When the 3 moves towards or gets mesmerised by the reflection 6 the all that is the 9 diminishes.
When the 3 moves or gets mesmerised by the all that is 9 the reflection diminishes.
The 3 is the boundary in which two worlds meet.
All life lives at this boundary.
We live at this boundary. We live smack bang in the middle of it.
We along with every other living thing are the 3. 
We seem to be unique amongst the life as we are the only life form that gets mesmerised by the reflection and over correct by getting mesmerised by the all that is 9. Everything else pays both equal heed, as far as I can tell.

The only fly in this line of thinking is the bloody stars.
That they revolve around the pole star is so obvious it is laughable to realise that the mathematicians have been blinding people for centuries using the language of numbers that have no bearing at all on the physical world we all live in. 
So the sky whatever it is moves around an axis (cue the axle thread Where did the axle come from?) Something is pushing this sky around as it is clearly in motion and all there is is a push force then something is pushing the sky and its axis round. Granted there could be an actual axle above the sky invisible to us powered by dragons and fairies which would make the sky a wheel and we are looking at its underside.

Stars form circles around the pole star on time lapse footage. All footage I might add which was not taken at the point directly under the pole star the so termed 'north pole'. No-one has ever been to the place on the plane to turn a camera through 90 degrees and point it directly at the non moving star for some reason or other. 
This circle is suggestive of a disc in motion around an axis so could this rotation pushed as it is by something be the thing that creates the push force we live in in that it somehow creates a force that pushes down from sky to earth and keeps everything in its place, keeps life at the vapour liquid boundary.

Putting a disc or wheel in an electric drill and holding it above the liquid water does indeed push the water vapour down onto the liquid and create a disturbance, in the same way as helicopters do I know but the helicopter was in for repair when this thought first arrived so one does what one can.
But were that the case with the sky it would mean that the water vapour goes all the way up to the disc and beyond or above it ergo the sky disc must be turning within water vapour if it were to replicate the effect the drill or helicopter does.

Rambling a bit I know but there's not much I can do about it. I'm not sure of anything bar the push force and level surface of contained water. It's not a theory so don't get the impression I think I've solved something I'm just a weirdo chucking things out as the come to mind. Thankfully this is a haven for weirdo's!


----------



## cnut (Dec 10, 2020)

Hello,
I was wondering if anyone watched the latest Spacex unmanned flight test explosion.
If you notice when the rocket lands/explodes, there is distinctly 2 different rockets
and launch pads. Why is the fakery so obvious? Elon did say it looks fake, that's how you know
its real. Absurd.
SpaceX Starship’s Unmanned Flight Test Ends in Fireball - YouTube 

thanks,
cnut


----------



## Silent Bob (Dec 11, 2020)

kd-755 said:


> @silentbob
> For toroids to be the answer to me the toroid has to be contained by a container shaped to create the pattern we are shown and can identify for ourselves. This doesn't have to be a tangible physical container but it has to be present as there is only push so without a container then the push would be in whatever direction the initiator of the push was pushing. It would only stop when the push or momentum given to the object being pushed stopped.
> It would not change direction unless it came up against another object that didn't move (or the a push coming from another direction) and like water it found another way to go assuming the pressure of the push was sufficient to allow it to overcome the 'back pressure' or 'push back' caused by pushing onto the immovable object.
> The pressure of the pushing force must also be of sufficient strength to get above the level plane, assuming the level plane is where the pressure for push is brought to bear and follows the direction of the curving surface to enable it to come back down onto the level plane in the centre thus provide the pressure to hold whatever is at the level plane in place whilst passing through it to carry on on its way round and round the toroid.
> ...



I'm pretty tired just now, so not sure I've fully followed everything you've said here yet - I'll have another read tomorrow, hopefully I'll be able to concentrate better! I think rambling is the way forward to an extent, it's hard sometimes to put your thoughts into words so sometimes it's good just to throw it all out there and then try and make sense of it 

One thing that did come to mind reading your post was Pressional motion, and how the rotating sky could create a downward push that we call gravity. Then I remembered Eric Laithwaite and his spinning fly wheel, which I saw a couple of years ago. This is really interesting if you've never seen it, back when we did proper science.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRPC7a_AcQo_


This is the only video of his I have seen but I just noticed he also made one about a 'magnetic river' - too much of a coincidence to ignore, I'm going to watch this tomorrow!


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI_HFnNTfyU_


I have a feeling that we have most of the jigsaw pieces between us, we just need to figure out how they all fit together.

Just before I go, here's a quick simple summary of how you could visualise what the Sagnac effect is without any pesky mathematical equations 

Imagine a round wheel set into the ground, you can walk around it clockwise or anti clockwise to get to the other side. If the wheel is stationary then the distance would be the same either way and the time to walk it would be the same. However, if the wheel was turning slowly clockwise then the clockwise walk would be shorter and quicker than the anti clockwise route. If you couldn't tell if the wheel was turning you could get 2 identical twins to set off at the same time and see if they arrive together (stationary) or clockwise twin first (clockwise motion) or anti clockwise twin first (anti clockwise motion). The Michelson Morely experiment is basically this with photons of light instead of twins and the Sagnac effect is the difference in path length/travel time due to rotational movement.


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (Dec 11, 2020)

sandokhan said:


> Sagnac effect definition:
> 
> If two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a stationary circular loop of radius R, they will travel (in terms of any inertial coordinate system, such as that in which the center is at rest) the same distance at the same speed, so they arrive at the end point simultaneously.  If the loop itself is rotating during this procedure,  the counter-rotating pulse will arrive at the "end" point slightly earlier than the co-rotating pulse.
> 
> ...


How will the mainstream physicist demonstrate this theory to the judge and jury, using your above argument? Assuming a small ring laser gyroscope is produced, how is rotation detected? Can you break down exactly how this device is used? How does a math formula translate to an actual verifiable experiment? You say Sagnac detects rotation, but do not explain HOW that rotation is detected. Please clarify. Thanks


----------



## Citezenship (Dec 11, 2020)

Silent Bob said:


> This is the only video of his I have seen but I just noticed he also made one about a 'magnetic river' - too much of a coincidence to ignore, I'm going to watch this tomorrow!
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI_HFnNTfyU_


Thats a great video, Barry the assistant has an epic comb-over and iI should imagine a pack of hamlet cigars tucked in his blazer pocket, ah they don't make em like that any more!

Eric also so knows that you can't balance a pencil on it's point, unlike Elon Musk

I bet this magnetic river demonstration is somehow related to how our oceans produce waves.


_View: https://youtu.be/X0SbVFxl64A_


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (Dec 11, 2020)

If you're interested in next level geocentrism, this cosmic egg flat earth presentation is worth watching.


_View: https://youtu.be/2PJ1_uKGLVM_


_View: https://youtu.be/SUmNq0WyAZ0_


_View: https://youtu.be/dYxc3tBwxgI_


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 11, 2020)

Collapseinrealtime said:


> Assuming a small ring laser gyroscope is produced, how is rotation detected? Can you break down exactly how this device is used? How does a math formula translate to an actual verifiable experiment? You say Sagnac detects rotation, but do not explain HOW that rotation is detected. Please clarify.



I already did (explanation/formulas) in my previous message.

However, I am going to answer your request with something even better: a whole thread on ring laser gyroscopes, everything you asked for, one of the best ever, which nearly put an end to the FES:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50860.0
Here is also the thread on beam neutrinos, considered to be the best:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27426.0


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 11, 2020)

I've watched the river video a couple of times and after marvelling at the way the plate is stable I began to wonder what force is pushing on the plate to keep it floating in the magnetism. Its also pushing down on the electromagnets but I cannot figure out how this force is unable to prevent the magnetism from sitting above the magnets but is strong enough to keep it at an inch or so off of them and most weirdly of all keep the magnet runway in place on the floor.
All that comes to mind is whatever is pushing is pushing down onto these things and through them. Density seems to play a big part in this and the magnetism doesn't have any visible effect on the majority of man made materials.

Of course the round ball theory makes the earth ball into a magnet so in that scenario all magnetic experiments take place with a toroidal shaped magnetic field which somehow has no effect on the levitation demonstration. He actually does a video where he attempts to replicate a spinning ping pong ball in a jet of water using electromagnets and an aluminium ball.
He uses a roller on a pencil to reveal which direction the magnetism is travelling. Another head scratcher as these experiments require electricity to function and other than man made machines I struggle to see where in reality sufficient electrical power exists to achieve the same effects as Eric does.

As for the tides my money is on some manner of breathing type movement where capillaries provide the pressure differential in the same way they create blood pressure in our bodies liquid transport system.
Don't know for sure obviously, but it isn't the bloody moon pulling on the waters surface.


----------



## codis (Dec 11, 2020)

Citezenship said:


> Thats a great video, Barry the assistant has an epic comb-over and iI should imagine a pack of hamlet cigars tucked in his blazer pocket, ah they don't make em like that any more!


That's the best thing I have seen in this thread so far !


----------



## Blue Ice (Dec 11, 2020)

Does anyone else feel that the flat Earth (and thus no space) is not as big of a red pill to swallow than wrong history? Sure, it’s huge, but it’s easier to assimilate because it doesn’t affect the meaning of who we are and our identity as the latter. Every event that is happening today we are conditioned to put in the historical context, such as saying things like ”this is exactly ehat happened in WWII” or ”this is just like Edison’s inventing the light bulb.” Or we ask ourselves: ”what would abcient Greeks or Romans say about this?” and so on, and so on. I find myself now unable to say ANYTHING, unable to historicise, contextualize and thus understand the meaning of anything. Compared to this, flat Earth can hardly phase me. Just a thought...


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 11, 2020)

*Magnetricity*

Electricity = Magnetism - both consist of subquark flow, one in a conductor, the other in space

This flow is made up of TWO currents, of opposing spin, traveling in double torsion fashion: the dextrorotatory subquarks and the laevorotatory subquarks. 

Magnetic monopoles = subquarks

Wayback Machine (Dr. Stephen Phillips, Cambridge, UCLA)


PRECISE, REAL TIME, PHOTOGRAPHS OF ELECTRICAL CURRENTS, THE DOUBLE VORTEX/SPIN/STRINGS AT WORK: 







SPINTRONICS, secret world of magnets, the most thorough work on the double helix theory of the magnetic field (double helix of the telluric currents):

http://freenrg.info/Misc/The_Secret_World_Of_Magnets.pdf

HERE IS HOW THE FLOW OF SUBQUARKS OCCURS IN A MAGNET: 



Not only North-Center-South laevorotatory subquarks, but ALSO a South-Center-North flow of dextrorotatory subquarks/magnetic monopoles.







Absolute proof of the existence of subquarks:


Wayback Machine (Dr. Stephen Phillips, UCLA, Cambridge)


Advanced Flat Earth Theory (two consecutive messages)

Electrogravitational field:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2000525#msg2000525
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2009680#msg2009680


----------



## codis (Dec 11, 2020)

Blue Ice said:


> Does anyone else feel that the flat Earth (and thus no space) is not as big of a red pill to swallow than wrong history?


No.
Because with a little investment of time and/or resources, every one can come up with an experiment to prove his hypothesis.
That would be the scientific method.
History OTOH, is purely theoretical.


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 11, 2020)

Flat earth theory is a subset of the new radical chronology of history. If the Earth is flat, history must be much, much shorter. That is why the RLG proof/formula is so important. Conversely, if history is much shorter, the Earth is flat (see the submerged Gizeh pyramid proof).


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 11, 2020)

codis said:


> Citezenship said:
> 
> 
> > Thats a great video, Barry the assistant has an epic comb-over and iI should imagine a pack of hamlet cigars tucked in his blazer pocket, ah they don't make em like that any more!
> ...


Oh I don't know you could always press the ignore thread button. Saves one a lot of time and effort.

To answer blue ice.
For me they are part and parcel of each other. History as it is told is basically a description of the power vested in hierarchical authority with the highest level being the authority of heaven and hell or the realm of the gods out there above everything earth bound looking down, always looking down, on the pitiful humanity. 
The authority cult invents theories of history, official and alternative and the earth shape nonsense along with many others, using them to blind people into subjugating what their senses tell them, what their innate knowing tells them and specifically tangible history as in landscape, infrastructure buildings in the physical reality of where we live all told in relation to the ball earth theory being portrayed as truth.
I feel this is done to hide an actual truth that the cult people don't know much more, if anything, than we do. It derives its position from their pretending to know. Hence they weave smoke into tales of yore and we get hooked.


----------



## grav (Dec 11, 2020)

cnut said:


> Hello,
> I was wondering if anyone watched the latest Spacex unmanned flight test explosion.
> If you notice when the rocket lands/explodes, there is distinctly 2 different rockets
> and launch pads. Why is the fakery so obvious? Elon did say it looks fake, that's how you know
> ...



No one notices. I never saw it on teevee, which is all faux Covid and kraken news now.
The whole rocket thing looked so fake. All these backasswards landings on barges and yuuge explosions just boggle the mind. Musk gets tax money to make really bad rocket missions. Don't forget: he also got a contract to install a million 5g millimeter-wave transmitters. But he's sooooo photogenic I guess.
Anyway, if the Bill Gates vaccines don't get ya, Elon's microwave radiation will.

New topic: Godlike Productions still has the occasional flat earth thread.
Below is its string of quotations with no link. It is not new. There is also a site, redice maybe, with similar quotations about why the moon must be an observational error. I'll find it and make a new post.
..........


Re: If the earth is spinning around a sun that's moving through a galaxy that's also moving through space then....

"I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment."- Physicist, Albert Einstein

"...to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked...that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result."- Physicist, Albert Einstein

"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest..."- Physicist, Henrick Lorentz

"There was just one alternative; the earth's true velocity through space might happen to have been nil."- Physicist, Arthur Eddington

"The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the earth's motion..."- Physicist, Wolfgang Pauli

"We do not have and cannot have any means of discovering whether or not we are carried along in a uniform motion of translation."- Physicist, Henri Poincaré

"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth's movement. The results were always negative."- Physicist, Henri Poincaré

"This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation...which presupposes that the Earth moves."- Physicist, Albert Michelson

"The data [of Michelson-Morley] were almost unbelievable...There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest."- Physicist, Bernard Jaffe

"We can't feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion."- Historian, Lincoln Barnett

"Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo...it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves..."- Physicist, Julian B. Barbour

"There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun."- Physicist, I. Bernard Cohen

	Post automatically merged: Dec 11, 2020

Why can't I post a link? My limit is 0??
This does come from Red Ice, The Moon is an Observational Error.


*Here is a collection of interesting quotes from scientists, authors, researchers, NASA insiders and star-gazers relating to the enigmatic and often inexplicable nature of the moon:*



> *Isaac Asimov,*
> _American author and professor of biochemistry at Boston University and Science Fiction writer. Asimov was one of the most prolific writers of all time._
> 
> "We cannot help but come to the conclusion that the Moon by rights ought not to be there. The fact that it is, is one of the strokes of luck almost too good to accept… Small planets, such as Earth, with weak gravitational fields, might well lack satellites… … In general then, when a planet does have satellites, those satellites are much smaller than the planet itself. Therefore, even if the Earth has a satellite, there would be every reason to suspect… that at best it would be a tiny world, perhaps 30 miles in diameter. But that is not so. Earth not only has a satellite, but it is a giant satellite, 2160 miles in diameter. How is it then, that tiny Earth has one? Amazing."





> "The Moon, which has no atmosphere and no magnetic field, is basically a freak of nature"





> *Irwin Shapiro*,
> _Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics_
> 
> “The best possible explanation for the Moon is observational error – the Moon doesn’t exist.’
> ...





> *Christopher Knight and Alan Bulter*
> _Book: Who Built the Moon?_
> 
> The Moon has astonishing synchronicity with the Sun. When the Sun is at its lowest and weakest in mid-winter, the Moon is at its highest and brightest, and the reverse occurs in mid-summer. Both set at the same point on the horizon at the equinoxes and at the opposite point at the solstices. What are the chances that the Moon would naturally find an orbit so perfect that it would cover the Sun at an eclipse and appear from Earth to be the same size? What are chances that the alignments would be so perfect at the equinoxes and solstices?





> *Farouk El Baz,*
> _NASA_
> 
> "If water vapour is coming from the Moon’s interior is this serious. It means that there is a drastic distinction between the different phases of the lunar interior – that the interior is quite different from what we have seen on the surface."





> *Mikhail Vasin, Alexander Shcherbakov,*
> _Societ Academy of Sciences, 1970._
> 
> "Is the moon a creation of an alien intelligence?"





> *Dr Harold Urey,*
> _Nobel Prize for Chemistry_
> 
> "I’m terribly puzzled by the rocks from the Moon and in particular of their titanium content."





> *Dr S Ross Taylor,*
> _Geochemist of lunar chemical analysis,_
> 
> Said the problem was that maria plains the size of Texas had to be covered with melted rock containing fluid titanium. He said you would not expect titanium ever to be hot enough to do that, even on Earth, and no one has ever suggested that the Moon was hotter than the Earth.
> ...





> *Dr. Gordon MacDonald,*
> _NASA_
> 
> "it would seem that the Moon is more like a hollow than a homogenous sphere’. He surmised that the data must have been wrong – but it wasn’t."





> *Carl Sagan,*
> _Cosmologist,_
> 
> "A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object."





> *Dr. Sean C Solomon,*
> _Massachusetts Institute of Technology_
> 
> "The Lunar Orbiter experiments had vastly improved knowledge of the Moon’s gravitational field and indicated the frightening possibility that the Moon might be hollow."





> *University of Arizona Lon Hood*
> "We knew that the Moon’s core was small, but we didn’t know it was this small… This really does add weight to the idea that the Moon’s origin is unique, unlike any other terrestrial body."





> *NASA scientists*
> The Apollo 12 mission to the Moon in November 1969 set up seismometers and then intentionally crashed the Lunar Module causing an impact equivalent to one ton of TNT. The shockwaves built up for eight minutes, and NASA scientists said the Moon ‘rang like a bell.





> *Maurice Ewing,*
> _American geophysicist and oceanographer_
> 
> "As for the meaning of it, I’d rather not make an interpretation right now, but it is as though someone had struck a bell, say, in the belfry of the a church a single blow and found that the reverberation from it continued for 30 minutes."





> *Ken Johnson,*
> _Supervisor of the Data and Photo Control department during the Apollo missions_
> 
> "The Moon not only rang like a bell, but the whole Moon wobbled in such a precise way that it was almost as though it had gigantic hydraulic damper struts inside it."





> Moon rocks have been found to contain processed metals, including brass and mica, and the elements Uranium 236 and Neptunium 237 that have never been found to occur naturally.





> *Dr. D L Anderson,*
> _Professor of geophysics and director of the seismological laboratory,
> California Institute of Technology_
> 
> "The Moon is made inside out and that its inner and outer compositions should be the other way around."





> *Dr. Robin Brett,*
> _NASA Scientist_
> 
> "It seems much easier to explain the nonexistence of the moon than its existence."


----------



## codis (Dec 11, 2020)

kd-755 said:


> Oh I don't know you could always press the ignore thread button. Saves one a lot of time and effort.


While I'm already in my fifties, I can still learn.
One thing or the other ...


----------



## 0x92 (Dec 11, 2020)

I posted today the circle of earth investigation by daniel valles in the ressources section.

https://stolenhistory.net/resources/circle-of-the-earth-investigation-daniel-valles.5/
Really interesting PDF from a christian biblical background. Its well written and beautiful illustrated


----------



## Silveryou (Dec 11, 2020)

And the most viewed thread on stolenhistory.net is... Flat Earth.

	Post automatically merged: Dec 11, 2020

stolengeography.net


----------



## Safranek (Dec 11, 2020)

Silveryou said:


> And the most viewed thread on stolenhistory.net is... Flat Earth.



Well then let's not disappoint our spectators and keep the content coming.  

Jokes aside, I found an old video by a guy called Curious Life whose channel was deleted in one of YT's purges. I found only 2 references to him from the archive and neither was this video so I'm posting it here. This is from his new channel where unfortunately most of his old content is not up.

Its about the history of sci-fi programming upon the masses. I always liked his channel as he is intelligent, does good research and presents it well. Enjoy.

*1600-1900 Space Programming*


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPKe4kwVhOk_


----------



## cnut (Dec 12, 2020)

Hello,
 The flat earth threads have been the most viewed threads for over 6 years now.
The idea of an alternate earth shape is not new.
Around 2015, a group of serious thinkers posited  a number of proofs
that contested the mainstream science views about the earth we stand on.
Since then, a number of truthers have carried the torch of truth.
We know we  don't live  on a ball,
spinning 1000 mph,
orbiting the sun at 66,600 mph,
as the sun travels really fast.
We know the flat earth society is complete disinformation.
We have an advocate of said sight claiming a ring laser doodad
proves the rotation of the earth.
So the flat earth society is proving the globe now?
Inversion much?
This topic will continue to be the most viewed, because it contains 
the most truth.
Thank you grav for your tenacity!

 peace,
cnut


----------



## Safranek (Dec 12, 2020)

cnut said:


> Hello,
> The flat earth threads have been the most viewed threads for over 6 years now.
> The idea of an alternate earth shape is not new.
> Around 2015, a group of serious thinkers posited  a number of proofs
> ...



You have to read carefully.

1. Read the introduction post of the user (Sandokhan) you are referring to.

2. The links he is posting are to discussions in the forum of the FES. It didn't take long for most to figure out that the FES is controlled opposition. It has been so for a long time but as many don't know that, they post their theories, arguments in their blog.

3. Regarding the RLG, he is playing devil's advocate in saying that if he was a believer in the globe, that would be his one and only fallback argument against all logical observable and testable physics arguments, as the RLG experiment is accepted to be 'scientifically sound' and is most often used as of late to counter any FE argument. It was the argument 'inadvertently' presented by the controlled opposition FE channels to 'put a final nail in the coffin' of the flat earth movement. What Sandokhan is saying is that the principal under which the RLG is purported to work and what its actually measuring is erroneous and it must be shown to be so with actual proof.

If you look at some of his other posts regarding chronology, you can find some good references to material you may not have seen so far. Whether you agree with his hypothesis or not is another thing, but at least ideas are being researched and presented.


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 12, 2020)

@bob, getting familiar I know but it is the weekend!

A thought occurred after watching the magnetic river video again. On the scale model track where they were using the plate with the red tape on it where Eric reversed the polarity on half of the track and got the plate to go back and forwards. To my mind what we are seeing is two equal push forces pushing the plate in the direction of travel as in towards each other as long as the electricity is flowing (being pushed?) in the polar opposite directions but as Eric explained on his model the push force is making the electricity go up and down creating the illusion of a magnetic wave.

So magnetism does not flow laterally at all it simply goes up and down to create the appearance of the peak and trough of a wave.
The wind pushes on the surface of the water pushing it down into itself which means that the bit not being pushed by the wind rise up under ergo it is pushed up not by the wind but by the pushing force of the wind on the water that forms the trough.
It has nowhere else to go but up. So all the waves in liquid water and water vapour are up and down motions caused by an initial downwards pressure aka a push, coming from somewhere. 

Does what I have just typed out make any sense to you?

---

Incidentally writing this out it now becomes clear where the term polar most probably arose. Polar and pole came into being when electricity came to man's notice and and words were needed to explain what was assumed was going on. All that the people who gain from false knowledge did was take the terms polar and pole and stuck them onto their ball shaped invention and the maps based upon it.
I am aware that in official and alternative history the geographical usage predates the electrical usage but considering the amount of flipping that goes on it is not beyond the realms of possibility that they two uses were in reality the other way round.

The north pole is said to be under the north star the only non revolving light in the sky it is said but even this is potential nonsense as if the pole star is actually the only visible part of the axle holding the sky disc then as the centre of this axle disk combination it too would turn just imperceptibly to the human eye and the camera doing the time-lapse. Were such a camera set to run to capture the entire passage of the night at actual speed it may be noticed which may be another reason why there are no videos available of watching the pole star from directly underneath it.
It would be a bugger if evidence of an axle appeared in moving images.


----------



## Safranek (Dec 12, 2020)

kd-755 said:


> Does what I have just typed out make any sense to you?



It totally makes sense to me. I always felt that in old maps the role of the winds must have been important for them to be given so much 'real estate' on such highly selectively condensed documents. At first I thought that it was just an artistic rendering of the mapmakers' biblical beliefs but upon studying the subject matter further I now suspect that the four winds represent not only the atmospheric 'air' being moved but also the electromagnetic forces which influence our realm to such great extent that they decidedly could not be left out.

All we have to do is to track the definition of 'ether' from ancient philosophers through to the current times and see how it changes from one all encompassing medium, the cause of all, to just an inconvenient aspect of modern 'physics' where all mathematical attempts have been made to exclude it from real physics.

One certainly no longer can take the position of writing off our ancestors as uncivilized, unlearned, uneducated and unscientific given the amount of very real archeological evidence at our disposal (cathedrals, pyramids, megaliths, etc.).

So the 'winds' (magnetic forces) I surmise are a key to understanding the true physics of our realm, how its constructed, how it behaves, how it influences 'the heavens' and the earth realm.


----------



## Silent Bob (Dec 13, 2020)

Yes, that makes sense - it's not easy to explain as I think it's a bit counter intuitive. We see waves appear to travel across the ocean when in reality we just have water molecules moving up and down in a wave. A good way to visualise this is the classic 'Mexican wave' at football matches, we see what appears to be a wave travel around the ground but we can also clearly see that this effect is created by people standing up and sitting down. As an aside, I would find it virtually impossible not to join in when the wave arrived which is interesting as normally I find it easy to ignore what everyone else is doing!


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvIjyev6Hko_


I've been watching a few more of Eric's videos - I'd forgotten how good he was! He shows the wave really clearly with his magents rising and falling. This is always the case with waves, the wave doesn't physically exist it's just an illusion casued by the rising and falling of particles.The energy which travels through a wave is created somewhere and then uses the water as a medium to travel. Fairly easy to see with physical waves but what about electromagentic waves? They supposedly travel through vacuum, but the obvious question is how can it without a medium, what is 'waving'? - no one can rally answer this, it's almost a standing joke in physics, if someone asks change the subject quickly  The obvious answer would be the ether, which was the solution supported by scientists such as Maxwell, Boyle, Huygens but what did they know?

I've started to wonder if the ether is just a sea of electrons, which would make it very similar to plasma, which itself is the most common state of matter. We are surrounded by charge, we know atmospheric electricity exists and that the current varies on a 24hr cycle. Feinman gave a great lecture on this subject and shows the graph in this link that shows the current rising and falling each day. It peaks at 9:00pm uk time all over the world at the same time. It also shows how the voltage increases by 100v for each 1m you go up in altitude (hence those tall metal spires on all old buildings!). Could this suggest that 'gravity' is electromagnetic (or directly connected to it) as we are at the bottom of a potential well?

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html
So could they be hiding the ether in plain view? It would make sense that EM fields travel through charged particles, which themselves have no mass and are invisible to us. Is this also the same thing as Chi? and the same thing as Orgone? The electric universe has recently shown some interesting stuff which treats the body as an electrical circuit, and this is backed up by acupuncture which treats the body as a Chi circuit. More jigsaw pieces!

Almost forgot to add this bit - I was just watching one of Martin Liedke's recent videos where they found metal roads buried beneath tarmac in Russia. The video should start just before he starts talking about it. Since I had just watched Eric's magnetic river video I made the obvious connection, that these could have been ancient mag lev roads. Martin makes the same connection and the coincidence of it all made it worth sharing here!


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c77W87jyQDQ&t=5886s_


----------



## Safranek (Dec 14, 2020)

Safranek said:


> Silveryou said:
> 
> 
> > And the most viewed thread on stolenhistory.net is... Flat Earth.
> ...




It seems the channel is gone again so here's another link:

*Pre 1900 Science Fiction and Flat Earth by Curious Life*


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfkAy_N7cdU_


----------



## WorldWar1812 (Dec 14, 2020)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8FVHOJko4c_


----------



## grav (Dec 14, 2020)

The psyop of space travel began in 1958 when Nazi scientists were brought to the US in a NWO project called Paperclip.
Walt Disney was a major player in the agenda to brainwash taxpayers into funding NASA. Tinker Bell was a clue telling us that everything Disney was really a fairy tale. As usual, the sheeple fell hook, line, and sinker for the sci-fi fantasy. 
Then, we got all our ideas about space from Star Trek, Star Wars, and beaucoups of other tall tales from Hollywood and the government.
This propaganda program from 1955 got us ready for the fake space agency.
In 11 years, Nasa went from bupkis to the moon. 1962, touchdown.
After 4 more years of faking moon landings, they closed it down. We lost that great technology. Not making that up. That's been the official alibi for 62 years.



_View: https://youtu.be/beofFQ_QuiA_


----------



## cnut (Dec 14, 2020)

I was researching info on the ring laser gyroscope, and found this video explaining
how  rlgs are used on modern airplanes. It does a good job explaining how the rlg
actually works, and its function. 
The End of Flat Earth? Ring Laser Gyroscope (bitchute.com) 

Thanks,
 cnut


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 14, 2020)

The narrator in the video says that "the ring laser gyroscope is based on the Sagnac effect". That proves rotation at once. That is why FE believers, and geocentrists, are helpless when confronted with this kind of argument. They might try to deny statistically the MGX, claim anything they want, but in the end they have to accept that RLGs are an exemplification of the Sagnac effect. 99% of mainstream physicists do not understand the difference between the Sagnac effect and the Coriolis effect. 

Each ring laser gyroscope must have TWO DIFFERENT FORMULAS which describe its physics: the mechanical effect, which is simply a deflection of the light beam (Coriolis), and the electromagnetic effect, the modification of the speed of the light beams (c + v and c - v), (Sagnac). Modern physics uses only one formula, which is the Coriolis effect, and then claims that this is the Sagnac effect formula.


----------



## 6079SmithW (Dec 14, 2020)

I can't believe we're having this discussion

Earth is observably flat, and any 'evidence' to the contrary is demonstrably false.

If you still spout NASA, space x or heliocentric theory - I can't take you seriously


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 14, 2020)

6079SmithW said:


> I can't believe we're having this discussion
> 
> Earth is observably flat, and *any 'evidence' to the contrary is demonstrably false*.



For the sake of this discussion, please debunk the ring laser gyroscope which the heliocentrists say proves that the Earth is rotating around its own axis.


----------



## Safranek (Dec 14, 2020)

6079SmithW said:


> any 'evidence' to the contrary is demonstrably false.



The point here is that as yet nobody has PROVEN this to be false even though it must be false if the earth is stationary. I see only two options available;

1. Prove that the RLG is NOT measuring rotation.

2. Devise and conduct an experiment that proves the earth is stationary.

thereby two questions remain;

1. Who, how and when can prove the RLG to be false?

2. What instruments do we have available or can we devise that can prove the earth to be stationary.

At present, this is the situation. All other proofs on either side, no matter how convincing are simply not accepted as proofs for 'stationary'.


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 14, 2020)

The world of mainstream science is a very nasty and unforgiving environment for those who challenge its basic premises, that is why everyone here needs a solid arsenal of arguments and proofs at their disposal.

1. RLG are true, the formula is false. Use the global Sagnac effect formula, the one which features the velocities. 




2. Vertically launched projectile (a tennis ball will do).

Here is the formula for the lateral deflection: 





g = 32ft/s2

TE = period of rotation = 86,400 s

λ = latitude 

Let's consider 58 seconds needed time for a bullet to come back on the surface of the earth :

Using our formula above :

1. If we were at the North Pole our bullet should come back right in the gun muzzle.
2. If we were at the Equator our bullet should fall 75,27 feet (22,5 meters) away from our gun.

For a tennis ball the time measured might amount to 10-12 seconds.


----------



## 0x92 (Dec 14, 2020)

sandokhan said:


> The world of mainstream science is a very nasty and unforgiving environment for those who challenge its basic premises, that is why everyone here needs a solid arsenal of arguments and proofs at their disposal.
> 
> 1. RLG are true, the formula is false. Use the global Sagnac effect formula, the one which features the velocities.
> 
> ...


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 14, 2020)

Well done.

Now, deal with this.













Now, go ahead and fire a projectile as follows:

Let vo = 1,000 m/s and θo = 45 degrees (neglecting air drag and other factors such as the Coriolis and the Eotvos effects).

R = [1,000^2sin90degrees][{1 + 1,000^2cos^2(45deg)}/(9.81x6,378,164)}]/9.81 = 102.7514 km 

You will find that the formula which incorporated the curvature of the Earth does provide the CORRECT FIGURE.

The projectile will land at a distance of ~102.75 km.

So, how do you debunk this, if you are a FE?

	Post automatically merged: Dec 14, 2020

This is the RE formula for a ballistic trajectory:

R = [vo^2sin(2θo)]/g x {1 + [vo^2/gRe][cos^2(θo)]}

This is the FE formula for a ballistic trajectory (limit as Re goes to infinity):

R = [vo^2sin(2θo)]/g

The difference is considerable: it amounts to kilometers.

That is why no other FE for the past 150 years has been able to address this very important matter. The most that some of them have done, is to deny the actual calculations.

Here are the trajectory range tables used by the US Navy during WWII:

OP-770 Page 1 Range Tables for 16"/50 caliber gun

Had the FE formula with a fixed g been used, each and every target during WWI and WWII would have been missed by a large margin (mobile targets - other ships, fixed targets - ports/cities).


----------



## Safranek (Dec 14, 2020)

sandokhan said:


> Well done.
> 
> Now, deal with this.
> 
> ...



This immediately raises a question;

Why would the data used at this 39th PTTI meeting (2007) NOT include the curvature of the earth in its documentation if they already had a formula for it in WW2?

I would surmise that;

Either the formula presented is incorrect (in which case it would have already been shown).

or,

The mechanical apparatus that was being used for aiming the projectiles was done according to a different formula which when applied these measurement would hit the correct spot. If this is the case then we would be able to discover this by analyzing one of the aiming apparatus.


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 14, 2020)

https://www.ion.org/publications/browse.cfm?proceedingsID=68
Why should the formula for a ballistic trajectory have been included at those proceedings? Did they even mention this fact?

Now, the formula which has been derived above is correct, and was used correctly by the US Navy. 

What is going on then?


----------



## Safranek (Dec 14, 2020)

What I meant was *0x92 *'s post. One of his documents was a 2007 PTTI document.



sandokhan said:


> What is going on then?



I would surmise that;

Either the formula presented is incorrect (in which case it would have already been shown).

or,

The mechanical apparatus that was being used for aiming the projectiles was done according to a different formula which when applied these measurement would hit the correct spot. If this is the case then we would be able to discover this by analyzing one of the aiming apparatus.

The 3rd option would be a RE, but then why are they assuming a flat non-rotating earth in the PTTI documents in 2007?


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 14, 2020)

They are assuming a flat non-rotating earth for _flight dynamics_, which is a different subject. Not for the ballistic trajectory.

The formula for the ballistic trajectory of a projectile is correct, see the derivation. Had it not been correct, all of the targets would have been missed badly (WWI and WWII). This fact excludes the possibility that a different formula would have been used secretly. Anybody can fire a projectile, use the formula, and see that it works indeed.

But that is a formula for a globe.

That is why no other FE has ever been able to tackle this issue, not Rowbotham, not anyone else.

If we use the FE ballistic trajectory formula, the target will be missed badly.

	Post automatically merged: Dec 14, 2020

Here is the FE formula:

R = [vo^2sin(2θo)]/g 

Can't modify vo or the angle.

So, is g a constant, or can it become a variable?


----------



## 0x92 (Dec 14, 2020)

sandokhan said:


> They are assuming a flat non-rotating earth for _flight dynamics_, which is a different subject. Not for the ballistic trajectory.
> 
> The formula for the ballistic trajectory of a projectile is correct, see the derivation. Had it not been correct, all of the targets would have been missed badly (WWI and WWII). This fact excludes the possibility that a different formula would have been used secretly. Anybody can fire a projectile, use the formula, and see that it works indeed.
> 
> ...


I dont care about complicated formulas. Are you able to debunk these both videos?

Both videos proof that theres no Earths Curvature.


_View: https://youtu.be/G19hmYbk87g_



_View: https://youtu.be/bMFOtW-FagA_


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (Dec 14, 2020)

cnut said:


> I was researching info on the ring laser gyroscope, and found this video explaining
> how  rlgs are used on modern airplanes. It does a good job explaining how the rlg
> actually works, and its function.
> The End of Flat Earth? Ring Laser Gyroscope (bitchute.com)
> ...


It does do a good job of explaining the theory of measuring rotation, provides animations, but then does not demonstrate this with an actual device to show this device at work. If it is so easy to measure rotation with this "precise" device, they should have no problem demonstrating it by actually using this device, placing it anywhere on earth, and thus measuring the supposed rotation of 15 degrees per hour. Animations are great at providing a visual idea of an experiment, but it still cannot substitute for an actual experiment. Do you know of a video that actually demonstrates this experiment?


----------



## Citezenship (Dec 14, 2020)

Just for giggles, this strange shaped thing penetrating the upper atmos-fear, how do they get away with this??


_View: https://youtu.be/6KWGxt-DXAQ_


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (Dec 14, 2020)

Citezenship said:


> Just for giggles, this strange shaped thing penetrating the upper atmos-fear, how do they get away with this??
> 
> 
> _View: https://youtu.be/6KWGxt-DXAQ_



Very interesting! Basically demonstrates what happens once you cannot go any higher. The velocity actually hits zero and then the rocket quickly descends back to earth after it hits whatever it is (firmament perhaps?) that stops it from both climbing higher in altitude and in velocity, yet the announcer is saying the rocket has entered "space", only to turn right back around and re enter the atmosphere! Talk about spin!


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 14, 2020)

Those two videos (the first showing 'setting' behind an alleged curve) are not nearly enough to even start a debate. What you need is a video taken on the beach, on the European side of Gibraltar, showing the other shoreline from top to bottom.

So, the lesson to be learned from those formulas for a ballistic trajectory, is that you absolutely need ether theory (DePalma spinning effect) in order to apply the FE formula to real time situations.

Most physicists do not understand the implications of the existence of ether.



The calculation was carried out by Wolfgang Pauli, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century.

"If the electromagnetic field would really have a non vanishing zero-point energy, the radius of the universe would then be 31 km."

If the ether drift field (zero point energy, scalar waves) does exist, then the radius of curvature of the observable universe is 31 km.

Not the spherical radius, but the radius of curvature: if you look up, the distance to the second dome must be less than 31 km (including stars, planets, sun, moon, black sun, shadow moon). So the size (diameter) of the Sun must be much smaller than we have been led to believe, perhaps some 1000 sacred cubits (636 meters) in diameter.






Collapseinrealtime said:


> If it is so easy to measure rotation with this "precise" device, they should have no problem demonstrating it by actually using this device, placing it anywhere on earth, and thus measuring the supposed rotation of 15 degrees per hour.



The rotation is being picked up daily by thousands of ring laser gyroscopes: we are talking about a light interferometer, and the Sagnac effect upon the light beams.

One cannot debunk the ring laser gyroscope by denying its effects, or its existence.

The RE are claiming that the RLG fringe shift is an example of the Earth's rotation. But is that the true Sagnac effect?


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (Dec 14, 2020)

sandokhan said:


> Those two videos (the first showing 'setting' behind an alleged curve) are not nearly enough to even start a debate. What you need is a video taken on the beach, on the European side of Gibraltar, showing the other shoreline from top to bottom.
> 
> So, the lesson to be learned from those formulas for a ballistic trajectory, is that you absolutely need ether theory (DePalma spinning effect) in order to apply the FE formula to real time situations.
> 
> ...


You keep claiming that rotation is being detected without demonstrating it in an actual experiment where we see 15 degrees of rotation per hour. Stating and then re stating theories and formulas proves nothing until it can be trialed in a repeatable experiment. I am not denying that this laser gyroscope may be able to detect motion or rotation or movement of any kind. What you are not demonstrating is this "precise" device showing that the earth is rotating by conducting the actual experiment. Does the earth rotate? Let's use this gyroscope to answer that question! But then no demonstration. If it is being picked up by thousands of devices, show me.


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 14, 2020)

sandokhan said:


> Gran Sasso, Italy - GINGERino experiment
> 
> Latitude: 42.4166°
> 
> ...



I already did.

"In the bowels of the Gran Sasso, under 1,400 metres of rock, in addition to the big experiments for dark matter and neutrinos research, the INFN National Laboratories are home to the world's most sensitive instrument for measuring the Earth's rotation."


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy_9J_c9Kss&list=PL6pxt28A6Kr698HhssWZu9ldtEDknhKJ_&index=2&t=0s_


Or google with "ring laser gyroscope rotation of the earth".

"If you have a problem about the idea of detecting earth's rotation, maybe you should look at the GPS data. GPS receivers need to calculate the rotation of the earth every second of every day, by determining the Sagnac delay, which is the motion of the earth's surface receiver with respect to the satellite in the time of flight period of the microwave transmission. If the earth wasn't rotating, it would cause a range error of up to +/-30  meters. Seeing as GPS can determine position down to cm or even mm, the rate of rotation of the earth at all latitudes can be determined with quite high precision. "

Denial is no longer an option.

Do the GPS satellites experience a Sagnac delay? That is the much more important issue.


----------



## cnut (Dec 14, 2020)

interesting,
Inertial Navigation - Forty Years of Evolution (imar-navigation.de)


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (Dec 14, 2020)

sandokhan said:


> sandokhan said:
> 
> 
> > Gran Sasso, Italy - GINGERino experiment
> ...



I am not denying anything. I am merely pointing out the lack of evidence that the earth is rotating or moving in any way. I have not found a single DEMONSTRATION of this instrument being used to try to prove that the earth is anything other than standing still. Stating that GPS satellites experience a Sagnac delay proves nothing. I see no evidence that satellites even exist, other than from mainstream science propaganda "experts". 

A simple experiment putting the laser gyroscope to task would plenty suffice to put the matter at rest, but no such experiment exists. If it did, that is, if we had ANY experiment proving that the earth rotates, then there would not be 200+ proofs that the earth is not a spinning ball, because if there is even one proof, then we could establish hundreds of proofs. I do not understand why you keep restating a theory as a fact without supplying the necessary proof to support the theory. The experts have not made their burden either, or else we would have a demonstration to put the final nail in the proverbial coffin. 

Until you can demonstrate that the earth is rotating, beyond theoretical formulas and consensus from experts that depend on arcane, unproven mathematical formulas, animations and models in place of real repeatable, verifiable, trial and experiment, you are wasting everyone's time.


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 14, 2020)

You seem to be denying both the Sagnac effect on a light interferometer, and the existence of the ring laser gyroscope.

You cannot.

Live, RLG Sagnac effect beat frequency:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IYkisyOZvs_


Rotation of the Earth using a gyrocompass, live:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z291HWPNtc_



Use "gyrocompass rotation of the earth" to search on youtube.


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (Dec 14, 2020)

sandokhan said:


> You seem to be denying both the Sagnac effect on a light interferometer, and the existence of the ring laser gyroscope.
> 
> You cannot.
> 
> ...



This is a demonstration of magnetism, not of measuring spin or rotation. Notice the device has to be in water, so it acts like a compass. If the earth was moving or rotating, you would be able to detect the motion by simply placing anywhere on the earth. The experiment in the video above does not prove the earth is rotating.

	Post automatically merged: Dec 14, 2020



Collapseinrealtime said:


> sandokhan said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to be denying both the Sagnac effect on a light interferometer, and the existence of the ring laser gyroscope.
> ...




_View: https://youtu.be/esBaHppmhTQ_

This is a long presentation, but goes a long way to debunking mainstream science's approach to physics. Please watch this and give me your analysis if you're interested and willing. Otherwise, let's just agree to disagree. The evidence you have presented thus far does not convince me of a rotating earth. Thank you for the lively discussion and I look forward to your analysis of above video. Cheers


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 14, 2020)

Collapseinrealtime said:


> This is a demonstration of magnetism, not of measuring spin or rotation. Notice the device has to be in water, so it acts like a compass.



No.

A gyrocompass is a type of non-magnetic compass which is based on a fast-spinning disc and the rotation of the Earth to find geographical direction automatically.

"The electric motor contains a permanent magnet, and that magnet is affected by the Earth's magnetic field, making the boat act like a magnetic compass.  I added additional permanent magnets in approximately the opposite orientation to minimize the magnetic compass effect so that the gyrocompass effect would be as strong as possible."


"How is the gyrocompass like a passenger experiencing a catch-up force?  As you say, the water, table, and boat are already rotating with the Earth, so they experience no catch-up torque.  But the flywheel is not rotating with the Earth; it is rotating in a different direction.  A rigid object can only spin around one axis at a time, and the flywheel's spin axis is not aligned with the Earth's rotation axis.  If the gyro were bolted to the Earth, as a passenger, the Earth would force the flywheel's spin axis direction to change over time.  Spin direction only changes due to an applied torque, just as linear speed only changes due to an applied force.  That is the passenger torque.  The next part of your comment refers to what I call an "ideal gyroscope": a gyroscope with perfectly balanced and frictionless gimbals, able to turn in any direction.  First, note that an ideal gyroscope does not care about motion at all, since that involves linear forces, and its gimbals are perfectly balanced so that linear forces are not transmitted to the flywheel.  What an ideal gyroscope cares about is absolute direction*; specifically, because there is no friction or imbalance, it experiences no torque, so its spin axis direction in 3D space will remain constant.  So, if an ideal gyro's spin axis is pointed at a motionless asteroid, it will remain pointed at it *if the asteroid is infinitely far away.   But the gyrocompass is not an ideal gyroscope because it is constrained to rotate in the horizontal plane.  It therefore experiences the "passenger catch-up" torque I explained above; again, think about what the flywheel would feel if its spin axis could not rotate at all with respect to the Earth's surface, as the Earth rotates.  For reasons explained in the video, in a gyrocompass, that torque causes the flywheel's spin axis to precess until it is pointing North, such that the spin axis is as close to the Earth's spin axis as it can get.  It will then continue to point North because any time it deviates (for example, because it wants to keep pointing in the same direction in 3D space), it immediately feels the restoring torque caused by the Earth's rotation.  There is no need to calibrate the gyrocompass ahead of time; it always seeks North (or South, if you use the left-hand rule instead) because it always seeks to align its own spin axis with the Earth's."



Collapseinrealtime said:


> This is a long presentation, but goes a long way to debunking mainstream science's approach to physics.



That's something else entirely.

You must understand that a gyrocompass is a non-magnetic compass.


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 14, 2020)

Intriguing stuff Bob.
The thing that is bouncing about here in this tiny mind is the how the up and down motion gets translated into the illusion of a wave.

We get told all the time that waves are visual evidence of frequencies and indeed machines such as oscilloscopes are built to show us wave patterns and we seem to have no trouble conflating frequency and wave into one amalgam. That sound changes pitch seems an obvious thing to say but again frequency comes into the reckoning and we end up seeing waves everywhere when the reality seems to be waves are purely illusory only gaining the impression of reality through our trained perception.
Our 'wild' perception on the other hand knows they are illusions, least mine does since we began this written conversation.

Our eyes seem to be made to not actually lets us see the up and down motions for what they are no matter what medium is waving yet they do. Watch a young tree in a wind and it becomes obvious it is being pushed one way by the wind and which overcomes the push of its internal bits n bobs which which want it to remain perpendicular to the ground. When the wind 'push' drops enough the trees 'push' moves it back to the perpendicular and if the drop is sudden and the sapling is strong enough it will push it beyond the perpendicular in the direction the was pushing from then it comes back to the perpendicular.
Having written that out which is essentially up and down done horizontally, it occurs that the wind may well be pushing it past the perpendicular in concert with the upward push of the tree's internals.

As there is no way to check the 'space vacuum's existence but given this atmosphere is pressured the odds favour it being mythical, it has to be the case that the electromagnetism going up and down does so in pressrised atmosphere's. I know we can create near vacuums within this pressurised atmosphere and prove that electromagnetism passes through and across the vacuum and its container.I don't know of any experiments or examples of an electromagnet being energised within a vacuum but surely such a thing would prove the vacuum is no barrier to whatever is pushing the magentism up and down.

Your description of what Feynman said sounds very much like our act of breathing. In our case muscles are flexed to push the gases out and thus overcome the atmospheric pressure as it is termed but our muscular push is not sustainable unlike the atmospheric push which seems to be inexhaustible ergo a constant. 
We have to breath harder in other words push with more effort the further away we get from the water vapour and liquid water boundary so this must mean that the push pressure from the atmosphere is lessening with our increase in height. I know this is counter intuitive to people brought up on oxygen levels being the cause of breathlessness at height.

Taking another leap out of our indoctrinated reality it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the pressure increases as it approaches the liquid vapour boundary because it cannot fully penetrate the boundary. The boundary itself being the throttle so to speak.
It doesn't seem to bounce back so it could be that there is different things going on within the pushing force. We get pushed, pun intended, into the direction that the 'ether' is a thing, one sole thing and it never enters our thinking that it may be two or more things.
Could it be a pushing force made up of pushing forces working in both directions in the same way Erics magnet machine revealed the reality that the wave is simply up and down or in and out and as we know and can prove to ourselves ad infinitum, there is no down without up.


----------



## Safranek (Dec 14, 2020)

sandokhan said:


> They are assuming a flat non-rotating earth for _flight dynamics_, which is a different subject. Not for the ballistic trajectory.
> 
> The formula for the ballistic trajectory of a projectile is correct, see the derivation. Had it not been correct, all of the targets would have been missed badly (WWI and WWII). This fact excludes the possibility that a different formula would have been used secretly. Anybody can fire a projectile, use the formula, and see that it works indeed.
> 
> ...



Ok, so you seem to have left a hint you didn't elaborate on. 

Is g a constant? 

If not, are there other variables influencing it within or external to the 'false' formula?

Do you know of any sources who have become aware of and tried to tackle this issue successfully?




0x92 said:


> I dont care about complicated formulas. Are you able to debunk these both videos?
> 
> Both videos proof that theres no Earths Curvature.



Let's keep one thing in mind. Sandokhan is not saying the earth is round. He is pointing out a scientific standing that seems to have stuck (not proven wrong to date) regarding ballistic trajectories. There is a working formula which works (reflects reality accurately) and this is used scientifically against FE arguments.

The issue is NOT whether you or anyone else cares about 'complicated formulas' or not. A complicated formula is a relative term, complicated for some, straight-forward for some.

If there's one thing that all people seriously questioning the shape of our realm SHOULD agree on, it is the fact that mathematics is the language that can accurately describe any physical phenomena, hence why it is and always has been the language of physics. (Yes it is also the language describing theoretical physics but that's another thing altogether, 'theoretical' aptly describes it.)

-----------------------------------------

For example you can have two artists painting a scene where 

one is actually painting the scene having experienced it and it can be verified by physically going to the scene and confirming what was painted via comparison, 

while another artist is painting the scene without having seen it and theorizes regarding the particulars of the scene. When trying to confirm his painting, it will differ from the actual scene as it is theoretical, not from his experience and thereby not being able to confirm reality when put through the test by comparing it to the actual physical scene as in the first case.

It can be done with paint and it can be done with math. Not the best metaphor but the best I came up with on short notice.  

-------------------------------------------

Having said that, like paint, math is flexible up to a* point* and can be manipulated into demonstrating reality by using the right variables and constants. 

Speaking of points:

*Bill Gaede: What's the point?*


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSJjs4l_FHU_


Him and Stephen Crothers were two of my influences when I was starting to try to understand the math behind theoretical physics. When the math became to complex and time-consuming to understand, I unfortunately postponed that study indefinitely.

------------------------------------

Back to the topic. So I hope we all agree that math CAN accurately define reality.

So my questions now are these?

In the RE Ballistic Trajectory (BT) formula:

1  Are we defining any constant(s) as a variable(s) or vica versa?

_My guess would be yes as the RE formula obviously omits the ether. _

2. Are the definitions of the characteristics of the variables and constants accurate

3. Does the formula include all known forces AND influences accurately?

4. Does the formula omit any variables or constants to derive it's accurate result?

In the FE Ballistic Trajectory (BT) formula:

On the basis of what the result of the formula you've posted is (missing by a long-shot) , then I'd venture to say the we don't.

I mean you posted one but its NOT an accurate formula for BT it it doesn't work. 

Thus;

1. Are the definitions of the characteristics of the variables and constants accurate?

2. Does the formula include all known forces AND influences accurately?

_With ether missing my guess would be a yes for 1 and a no for 2._

--------------------------------------------

Now for the best part.  

1. Do we have any sources of anyone in physics who considered the ether and its effect on 'gravity' who has provided any data regarding its physical and scientific characteristics mathematically and/or with actual experiments?

2. If the answer to 1 is yes, then who, when and how can we incorporate it into a BT formula that actually works?

If no, then there's a long road ahead.

	Post automatically merged: Dec 14, 2020



kd-755 said:


> Intriguing stuff Bob.
> The thing that is bouncing about here in this tiny mind is the how the up and down motion gets translated into the illusion of a wave.
> 
> We get told all the time that waves are visual evidence of frequencies and indeed machines such as oscilloscopes are built to show us wave patterns and we seem to have no trouble conflating frequency and wave into one amalgam. That sound changes pitch seems an obvious thing to say but again frequency comes into the reckoning and we end up seeing waves everywhere when the reality seems to be waves are purely illusory only gaining the impression of reality through our trained perception.
> ...



One thing we should keep in mind is that if the Enoch descriptions of our realm are considered possibly accurate then we have potential pressure release/increase through these so-called gates. I remember reading the sun working through them but was this also mentioned in relation to the winds?


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 14, 2020)

Arithmetic is what accurately describes reality. Mathematics does no such thing it is an abstract language.
Euclidean geometry does not work on a curving surface.. Anyone can test this for themselves.
And when you are stood the ball shape it curves away from you in every direction away from where you are standing.


----------



## Safranek (Dec 14, 2020)

kd-755 said:


> Arithmetic is what accurately describes reality. Mathematics does no such thing it is an abstract language.
> Euclidean geometry does not work on a curving surface.. Anyone can test this for themselves.
> And when you are stood the ball shape it curves away from you in every direction away from where you are standing.



To my awareness arithmetic is a part of mathematics.

Then my question to you is;

Can trigonometry, calculus, geometry, algebra (the theoretical part of math) be used in conjunction with arithmetic to accurately describe reality?


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 14, 2020)

There are no such things as coincidences. This popped up just a few minutes after posting this.

*Centuries ago, a prestigious Islamic library brought Arabic numerals to the world. Though the library long since disappeared, its mathematical revolution changed our world.*

The House of Wisdom sounds a bit like make believe: no trace remains of this ancient library, destroyed in the 13th Century, so we cannot be sure exactly where it was located or what it looked like.
But this prestigious academy was in fact a major intellectual powerhouse in Baghdad during the Islamic Golden Age, and the birthplace of mathematical concepts as transformative as the common zero and our modern-day “Arabic” numerals.
Founded as a private collection for caliph Harun Al-Rashid in the late 8th Century then converted to a public academy some 30 years later, the House of Wisdom appears to have pulled scientists from all over the world towards Baghdad, drawn as they were by the city’s vibrant intellectual curiosity and freedom of expression (Muslim, Jewish and Christian scholars were all allowed to study there).
An archive as formidable in size as the present-day British Library in London or the Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris, the House of Wisdom eventually became an unrivalled centre for the study of humanities and sciences, including mathematics, astronomy, medicine, chemistry, geography, philosophy, literature and the arts – as well as some more dubious subjects such as alchemy and astrology.

Source



> Can trigonometry, calculus, geometry, algebra (the theoretical part of math) be used in conjunction with arithmetic to accurately describe reality?


See above We are being blinded by theorists.


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (Dec 15, 2020)

Safranek said:


> sandokhan said:
> 
> 
> > They are assuming a flat non-rotating earth for _flight dynamics_, which is a different subject. Not for the ballistic trajectory.
> ...



The video I posted above addresses the very ideas you are considering and does a great job in delineating the confusion. Check it out when you get a chance.


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 15, 2020)

sandokhan said:


> Here is the FE formula:
> 
> R = [vo^2sin(2θo)]/g
> 
> ...



However, this is the correct FE formula:

R = [vo^2sin(2θo)]/f(k)

k is the variable electrogravitational value, which depends on the altitude, the atmospheric ether tide, the density of ether at a certain altitude, and the spin rate

The curvature factor is ~EQUAL to the antigravitational effect produced by the spin rate of the projectile which forms a torsion field which partially cancels out the g force. 

It is assumed by modern science that “differences in spin rate do not affect the aerodynamic coefficients”. (Ballistics 2011, 26th International Symposium, pg. 474)

“How far the bullet drops has nothing to do with spinning other than that it keeps it in the most favorable aerodynamic position”.

But spinning has everything to do with the calculation of the range, as proven by the experiments carried out by Dr. Bruce DePalma. 

Let vo = 1,000 m/s and θo = 45 degrees (neglecting air drag and other factors such as the Coriolis and the Eotvos effects).

R = [1,000^2sin90degrees][{1 + 1,000^2cos^2(45deg)}/(9.81x6,378,164)}]/9.81 = 102.7514 km

The curvature factor is: 1.007991

Even though f(k) is a nonlinear function of k, let's approximate this factor by k in order to get an estimate:

R(flat earth) = 101.937 km (a difference of some 800 meters)

102,751.4 = 1,000^2sin90degrees/k

k = 9.73223

"The only explanation for this effect is that both balls are drawing energy into themselves from an unseen source, and the rotating ball is thus “soaking up” more of this energy than its counterpart – energy that would normally exist as gravity, moving down into the earth.

With the addition of torsion-field research we can see that the spinning ball was able to harness naturally spiraling torsion waves in its environment, which gave it an additional supply of energy." 


Gyro Drop Experiment (experiment carried out by the team of researchers who worked with Dr. Bruce DePalma)

Gyro Drop Experiment

In this experiment a fully enclosed, electrically driven gyroscope is released to fall freely under the influence of gravity. The elapsed time taken to fall a measured distance of 10.617 feet was measured, with the rotor stopped and also with the rotor spinning at approximately 15,000 RPM.

Data was gathered on a Chronometrics Digital Elapsed Dime Clock measuring 1/10,000 second, actuated by two phototransistor sensors placed in the paths of two light beams which were consecutively interrupted by the edge of the casing of the falling gyroscope.

A fully encased, spinning gyroscope drops faster than the identical gyroscope non-spinning, when released to fall along its axis.


The word “curvature” has to be replaced with the phrase “DePalma spinning effect” in the US Naval manual for curvature calculations applied to the range of the projectile:

https://i2.wp.com/mathscinotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/CurvatureTable1.png?resize=768,723 (Table of Curvatures for Different Horizontal Ranges) 


Advanced Flat Earth Theory (DePalma spinning ball experiments)

"The precise application of Newton’s laws … have to be restricted to non-rotating mechanical objects in field-free space. In a gravitational field, the possibility of extraction of greater energy by a new mechanical dimension [rotation] opens up the possibility of an anti-gravitational interaction"

Dr. Bruce DePalma, 1977


"Artillery projectiles are spinning at a very high speed when they exit the barrel of the gun. The spinning stabilises the projectile in flight and makes it more accurate."

BALLISTICS

For artillery projectiles spin rates in the order of *20,000 revolutions per minute* are needed, rifle bullets are an order of magnitude greater.

The rotation of the projectile (its spinning rate) will radically alter both its mass and its inertia.

The rotation produces a TORSION FIELD which will attract the Whittaker potential waves (ether longitudinal waves) thus forming an ether vortex around the projectile which will impart antigravitational properties.

The magnitude of this effect is totally unaccounted for by modern science, in fact it is attributed to curvature calculations.

But the DePalma effect can only take place on a flat stationary Earth, since both the gravitational and the antigravitational strings/waves of the electrogravitational field of the Earth must rotate at the same rate above the surface of the Earth.

The Eotvos effect is caused by the rotation of the ether field; a superb study of the seminal paper published by Roland Eotvos on gravitational anomalies almost 100 years ago (his discoveries remain completely unexplained by modern science):

ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF THE EOTVOS EXPERIMENT*


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 15, 2020)

Safranek, sorry but I cannot keep track of your edits.
Maths is an invented language of theory.
Arithmetic describes physical reality. Earth shape theory is entirely within the former without the latter.
To conflate the two into a hybrid is how where we are today came about with our senses showing us how things (edit) our are and our minds are away with the fairies of theories.

For the gates of Enoch or whatever to be creating the push force then something has to be be something beyond the gates doing the pushing of whatever is being pushed so are we in the Simpsons dome scenario again?


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 15, 2020)

*COLUMBUS AND THE FLAT SURFACE OF THE OCEAN*


Internet History Sourcebooks Project


Columbus received the reward offered by the king for being the first one to see a human signal coming from some unseen land. Let's read his own words:


Thursday, 11 October. Steered west-southwest; and encountered a heavier sea than they had met with before in the whole voyage. Saw pardelas and a green rush near the vessel. The crew of the Pinta saw a cane and a log; they also picked up a stick which appeared to have been carved with an iron tool, a piece of cane, a plant which grows on land, and a board. The crew of the Nina saw other signs of land, and a stalk loaded with rose berries. These signs encouraged them, and they all grew cheerful. Sailed this day till sunset, twenty-seven leagues.


After sunset steered their original course west and sailed twelve miles an hour till two hours after midnight, going ninety miles, which are twenty-two leagues and a half; and as the Pinta was the swiftest sailer, and kept ahead of the Admiral, she discovered land and made the signals which had been ordered. The land was first seen by a sailor called Rodrigo de Triana, although the Admiral at ten o'clock that evening standing on the quarter-deck saw a light, but so small a body that he could not affirm it to be land; calling to Pero Gutierrez, groom of the King's wardrobe, he told him he saw a light, and bid him look that way, which he did and saw it; he did the same to Rodrigo Sanchez of Segovia, whom the King and Queen had sent with the squadron as comptroller, but he was unable to see it from his situation. The Admiral again perceived it once or twice, appearing like the light of a wax candle moving up and down, which some thought an indication of land. But the Admiral held it for certain that land was near; for which reason, after they had said the Salve which the seamen are accustomed to repeat and chant after their fashion, the Admiral directed them to keep a strict watch upon the forecastle and look out diligently for land, and to him who should first discover it he promised a silken jacket, besides the reward which the King and Queen had offered, which was an annuity of ten thousand maravedis. At two o'clock in the morning the land was discovered, at two leagues' distance; they took in sail and remained under the square-sail lying to till day, which was Friday, when they found themselves near a small island, one of the Lucayos, called in the Indian language Guanahani. ...Saturday, 13 October. This is a large and level island, with trees extremely flourishing, and streams of water; there is a large lake in the middle of the island, but no mountains: the whole is completely covered with verdure and delightful to behold.


The math is simple: 22½ leagues = 90 miles. From 10 to 2 hours after midnight there are 4 hours x 12 miles per hour = 48 miles. The land still was 2 leagues away, which is 8 miles, added to 48 gives 56 miles or above 90 kilometers. By his own words, there was not mountain. The ship could be some 3 meters above the water.


If the water of the ocean was curved, the island would be more than 600 meters below the line of sight of Columbus. Therefore neither he nor the others could see any light from that far a distance. Columbus and all those experts in high sea navigation knew these realities common among mariners: the water surface of the ocean is flat (except for the waves).


----------



## Silveryou (Dec 15, 2020)

flatearth . net


----------



## Myrrinda (Dec 15, 2020)

I actually read somwhere about everything being pushed from above, for the life of me I can't remember where... Was it Walter Russell? I don't think so? I have devoured so many books the last few years it's impossible at the moment for me to recollect where I read what (sorry) but I'm really glad I was reminded of the fact by this thread! I don't know why I read the whole thing, since FE does not interest me usually, but I'm glad I did ? there is always so much great info here, no matter the subject. And if some of you remember me from the old forum, I'm one of those sensitive intuitive types and I just_ feel _certain things...  and this must be it. Things don't drop to the ground, they are being pushed. And the universe is liquid.
We have a balance organ in the ear and feel when we are not perpendicular. It feels bad to have certain health conditions (vertigo) and when there is something wrong with this organ, or when we move too fast and tumble around at the same time, we even get sick and vomit. It's kind of important and healthy to be in the right angle to the ground so to speak. All liquids become level, yes, even in our inner ear, that's how it's supposed to be.

As for the"widdershinns" there is a german word "widersinnig" which means non sensical (literally _wider_ = against [with an i only, not to be confused with wieder = again] and _sinnig _= referring to the sense) so you could also say counter-sensical or opposed to what makes sense/is sensible [again and against is like wider/wieder almost the same spelling...]


----------



## Safranek (Dec 16, 2020)

kd-755 said:


> Safranek, sorry but I cannot keep track of your edits.
> Maths is an invented language of theory.
> Arithmetic describes physical reality. Earth shape theory is entirely within the former without the latter.
> To conflate the two into a hybrid is how where we are today came about with our senses showing us how things (edit) our are and our minds are away with the fairies of theories.
> ...



Here are two definitions, I used it with the understanding of the second. Arithmetic is just one of the methods of calculation included in mathematics.

*math·e·mat·ics*
   (măth′ə-măt′ĭks)
_n._ _(used with a sing. verb)_
 The  study  of  the  measurement,  properties,  and  relationships  of  quantities  and  sets,  using  numbers  and  symbols.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

*math·e·mat·ics*
 (măth′ə-măt′ĭks)
 The  study  of  the  measurement,  relationships,  and  properties  of  quantities  and  sets,  using  numbers  and  symbols. * Arithmetic*,  algebra,  geometry,  and  calculus  *are  branches  of  mathematics.*
The American Heritage® Student Science Dictionary, Second Edition. Copyright © 2014 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

So accordingly *arithmetic* is a *branch* of mathematics.

So when I wrote "_the fact that mathematics is the language that can accurately describe any physical phenomena_" I was correct.

I concede that other branches of math have been and still are being used to fudge physical reality but I was not referring to that in my statement.

------------------------------------------------

Regarding the gates of Enoch;

I suspect that you guys are right in your hypothesis of push forces being the only forces.

Our realm, 'the earth' must be under the influence of forces internal and external. You mentioned a pressure system. Pressure systems need valves to control the pressure. Valves can either let pressure escape or add to the pressure. 

Now if we hypothesize that the earth is a closed realm in which water is the source of all sentient life, then we have water in 2 states (liquid, gas) at all times and in 1 state (ice) only under certain temperature conditions, extreme edges in FE or poles in RE and extreme heights (high mountains and high atmosphere). Sentient life only requires the first 2 states.

Logic would dictate that for the liquid state there is likely a 'valve' that controls the amount of water in our oceans possibly at the bottom of our realm (could be the cause of tides), and for the gaseous state (our atmosphere) the 'gates' of Enoch could be those 'valves'.

Of course this is just hypothesizing. 

Furthermore, if we consider that our realm is not the only realm created, then we have to also include the possibility of ways to enter and exit our realm either in a physical, semi-physical or spiritual state. Otherwise we would be at a loss for being able to reasonable account for any so-called 'alien' visitations in our documented past or at present.


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 16, 2020)

A single image explains everything about our universe.



We are being told that this is due to the pressure of the atmosphere.

However, that cannot be true.

"Go look at your bathroom scale. The atmosphere should be pressing down on that scale right now. Why doesn't it register a number? That scale is probably about a square foot, so it should register about a ton, or 2,000 pounds. Why don't we have to re-zero all bathroom scales to 2,000 pounds? If we did that, wouldn't that mean that I really weigh 2,170 lbs?"

The barometric pressure paradox defies the currently accepted facts about atmospheric pressure.

"It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation." 

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m.

The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations.

*If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.*


Lord Rayleigh: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’



Currently, the barometer pressure paradox CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AT ALL.

Richard Lindzen tried, some 40 years ago, to include the effects of ozone and water absorption in the atmospheric tide equations; notwithstanding that in his original paper he did express some doubts, the scientific community happily concluded that the barometer pressure paradox has been solved.


Not by a long shot.

Here is S.J. Woolnough's paper detailing the gross error/omission made by Lindzen.

The Diurnal Cycle of Convection and Atmospheric Tides in an Aquaplanet GCM

While the surface pressure signal of the simulated atmospheric tides in the model agree well with both theory and observations in their magnitude and phase, sensitivity experiments suggest that the role of the stratospheric ozone in forcing the semidiurnal tide is much reduced compared to theoretical predictions. Furthermore, the inﬂuence of the cloud radiative effects seems small. It is suggested that the radiative heating proﬁle in the troposphere, associated primarily with the water vapor distribution, is more important than previously thought for driving the semidiurnal tide. 


So, what does cause the IMPLOSION of the plastic bottle as it is brought down towards sea level?


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 16, 2020)

Safranek why do you need to use someone else's definitions?
Why not use your own?
The only truths I can see are Euclidean geometry does not work on curved surfaces and we in our daily lives build, construct, move in relation to a level which is provided by the properties exhibited by contained (edit) water and our eyes ability to recognise said level.
These truths are self evident and can be rested again and again by anyone, no theory required just practical real world efforts to check things out something that is an anathema to the theorists.

Again regarding the push force. You can test it for yourself using a coffee cup and a table top. Push the cup away from you then pull it towards you without pushing it. Anyone can do this over and over as yet again it is a practical real world fact that blows up every pull theory ever written.

This entire reality is the requirement for life, all life within this water realm to exist. Nothing is here by chance or just as some sort of left over. it is impossible to remove one bit of it from the whole as you seem to be suggesting with the ice form of water. The instant we try and isolate we focus on the isolation from the view of what WE have allowed so lose the knowing. Whether we claim to understand something or not the whole seems to be oblivious to our machinations.

The idea of valves above and below is interesting. Clearly something is causing tides to rise and fall and the only things we know for sure is the moon pulling on the liquid water is nonsense.  As they are rhythmical and predictable either something is doing the regulating external to the tide or it is simply the process itself. Liquid water leaving the container via a valve and water vapour coming in via another valve would create a tide all over the water within the container in the same instant as the level would drop uniformly across the entire surface. This doesn't seem to happen. The ebb and flow of tides is an up and down motion just like the magnetism waves and the pressure is down from vapour to liquid though I feel it whatever it is that is doing the  pushing and it passes through the vapour and the liquid and indeed everything in this reality.
It does seem to be connected to the innate densities within things but I'm buggered if I can figure out or even see how.

I can throw a stone and a feather into the water vapour and the stone will go further into the pushing force than the feather which to me suggest the density of the stone is better able to penetrate the push force than the feather's density can but then the push force will put the stone back on the ground much quicker than the feather.
Doing the same thing in the liquid water will see the stone moving in the direction of the push force until it hits something as dense as it is whereas the feather will not even overcome the surface of the water so its density has to be less than liquid water but more than water vapour.
Then there is the ice itself which is able to rise up from the liquid vapour boundary and stay there by becoming less dense than liquid water and more dense than water vapour. It is more dense than both stone and feather as they will both sit on the surface of the ice, the ice vapour boundary for as long as the ice persists.

Density is probably not the word the people who once lived that knew what is going on used it doesn't feel right to me somehow but it's as close as you get.

Then if one fills a rubber balloon with half water vapour and half helium it will float or hover in the water vapour and providing there is no draught it will sit there for as long as the rubber holds the right balance within itself. Should the helium escape it will move down towards the liquid vapour boundary until it hits something at least as dense as it is then it moves no more.
Pull the water vapour out and it moves further away from the boundary and in doing so further against the pushing force which we seem to find counter intuitive so we invent the term 'lighter than air' to pigeon hole what is going on from further investigation. Science cannot deal with the whole which is why its proponents  concentrates on separation.


I know this is a stolenhistory forum however history is a broad church and the stealing of our innate knowledge about where we are if not about who and what we are was historical and is ongoing today. The more this thread has devleoped the more obvious it has become to me that the whole of recorded 'official' history is a concerted effort to keep us from remembering what our real story is.  When the veil of illusion thins it's game over that is why it's ongoing today.
Even the word history has taken on a comic turn for me. Hi Story!


----------



## codis (Dec 16, 2020)

Safranek said:


> Here are two definitions, I used it with the understanding of the second. Arithmetic is just one of the methods of calculation included in mathematics.


The permanent redefinition and confusion of terms is a tool of thought control and manipulation, see George Orwell's NewSpeak.
It is obviously a tool for forum trolls as well.
The older you get, the more selective you will become in choosing which topic you dedicate your time to.


----------



## Safranek (Dec 16, 2020)

codis said:


> The permanent redefinition and confusion of terms is a tool of thought control and manipulation, see George Orwell's NewSpeak.



Yes. But what does it have to do with anything I said?



codis said:


> It is obviously a tool for forum trolls as well.



Obviously it is one tool. But again what does that have to do with this thread and especially my comment? 



codis said:


> The older you get, the more selective you will become in choosing which topic you dedicate your time to.



So you decided to make a comment without saying anything pertinent and now you're attributing it to your age?

If you're gonna make a post and especially a critical one, you should first analyze your intent. 

Ask yourself:

Is my comment going to add something constructive to the subject?
Will it clarify something to me or to others?
Will it inspire new thought?

And in *your case*, you may wanna ask yourself: Am I old enough? 

I don't think you need to be very old to be polite, constructive and intelligent. 

I don't mind elaborating or clarifying to *kd-755* because his posts are usually well thought out and show considerably research. I like many of his posts as a result.

You on the other hand, are wasting both our time with comments like this not to mention valuable thread space. Its a distraction from the topic. 

By all means state your point or critique, but do it at least respectfully and with the proper intent, and do it clearly, not as an insinuation.

Given this criteria, lets see what you come up with.


----------



## codis (Dec 16, 2020)

Safranek said:


> Yes. But what does it have to do with anything I said?


Nevermind.
Go on.


----------



## grav (Dec 16, 2020)

Frankly, I don't know where @sandokhan stands. on a globe or a flat nonrotating plane. Looks to me like he plays both ends against the middle.
I am a flatearther.

The Coriolis effect, really? Measuring movement of a ball that is assumed to rotate 1000 mph and orbit 66,600 mph while following a burning ball of fire-nuclear fusion .5 million mph.
Wow, that a ring laser device takes all that into account as it shoots light beams into infinity, with no beam spread.

......... someone pointed this out to me. from glp.

******* GOVERNMENT FLAT EARTH DOCUMENTS ******* Question: Why do "globers" look up when they are trying to prove what they are standing on is a globe? Shouldn't we be looking out over the horizon or even down at the very thing we stand on???? And this is biblical.

Here are some of the govt. (CIA, NASA, Military, University) documents used in Pastor Dean's message “Government Documents Admit Flat Earth:” [link to youtu.be (secure)]

Russia 1948 Shape of the earth unknown.. [link to www.cia.gov (secure)] || Russian Light Study “Brightness of the firmament” [link to www.cia.gov (secure)] || Government Definition of Geoid [link to www.ngs.noaa.gov (secure)] || page 168: equations of flat-earth trigonometry. [link to www.irig106.org] || page 8: The Earth is flat and nonrotating. [link to www.navair.navy.mil]

General Equations of Motion for Damaged Asymmetric Aircraft Page 1: “...equations of motions must properly reflect the underlying physics.” page 2:
"In this paper, the rigid body equations of motion over a flat non-rotating earth are developed...” [link to ntrs.nasa.gov (secure)]

Approximate Optimal Guidance for the Advanced Launch System On page one this document does mention a spherical rotating earth but then states that “...these schemes” (based on a spherical rotating earth) 1) “...are difficult to prove” and 2) “...not suggested to be used as a basis for an online real-time guidance law.” Page 32 goes on to say: "Lastly, the equations of motion for the zeroth-order problem of flight in a vacuum over a flat Earth are presented." [link to ntrs.nasa.gov (secure)] || SR-71 Page 8 “...nonrotating Earth...” [link to www.nasa.gov (secure)] || page 14: (2) A flat, nonrotating earth [link to ntrs.nasa.gov (secure)] || page 8: the missile position in space is computed relative to a flat nonrotating earth. [link to ntrs.nasa.gov (secure)] || page 108: aircraft flying over flat, nonrotating earth page:12 "aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over flat nonrotating earth" [link to www.nasa.gov (secure)] || NASA Technical Paper 2835 September 1988 Page 1 Summary: Flat nonrotating earth Last page 126: "The nonlinear equations of motion used are six-degree-of-freedom equations with a stationary atmosphere and flat, nonrotating earth" [link to ntrs.nasa.gov (secure)]

Determination of Angles of Attack and Sideslip from Radar Data and a Roll Stabilized Platform NASA March 1972 page 2: "The method is limited, however, to application where a flat, nonrotating earth" [link to ntrs.nasa.gov (secure)] || An Aircraft Model for the AIAA Controls Design Challenge NASA 1991 page 11: "The nonlinear equations of motion used in this model are general six-degree-of-freedom equations representing the flight dynamics of a rigid aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat, nonrotating earth" [link to www.nasa.gov (secure)] || Investigation of Aircraft Landing in Variable Wind Fields NASA 1973 page14 pdf or 6 on actual report: a) The earth is flat and non-rotating. [link to ntrs.nasa.gov (secure)] || A Mathematical Model of the CH-53 Helicopter NASA page 17: “The helicopter equations of motion are given in body axes with respect to a flat, nonrotating Earth.” [link to ntrs.nasa.gov (secure)] || Atmospheric Oscillations Georgia Tech April 1965 Prepared for NASA page 13: A model frequently used is that of a flat, nonrotating earth. [link to ntrs.nasa.gov (secure)] || Stability and Control Estimation Flight Test Results for the SR-71 Aircraft With Externally Mounted Experiments NASA June 2002 page 18-19: “These equations assume a rigid vehicle and a flat, nonrotating Earth.” [link to www.nasa.gov (secure)] || Flight Testing a VSTOL Aircraft NASA 1988 page 9 pdf or 4-5 on actual doc: “For aircraft problems, the state and measurement models together represent the kinematics of a rigid body for describing motion over a flat, nonrotating Earth...” [link to ntrs.nasa.gov (secure)] || Time to Climb page2: “In our minimum time-to-climb problem, the aircraft is modeled as a point mass and the flight trajectory is strictly confined in a vertical plane on a non-rotating, flat earth. [link to ntrs.nasa.gov (secure)]

page 9: “...input to a flat earth” [link to www.arl.army.mil] (original found here) [link to www.researchgate.net (secure)]

. . . .

If you believe in the Globe model you BETTER NOT CLICK THE FIRST LINK.... I'm warning you!!!!! DON"T DO IT.... No... STOP!!!!! You will be forever lost as a Flat Earther!!!!!! [link to youtu.be (secure)] ||
[link to www.youtube.com (secure)] || [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] || And if you bring up Erostothenes then how do you like them apples???? LOL [link to www.youtube.com (secure)]


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 16, 2020)

grav said:


> Frankly, I don't know where @sandokhan stands. on a globe or a flat nonrotating plane. Looks to me like he plays both ends against the middle.
> I am a flatearther.



I am trying to prepare you for real time debates with mainstream physicists. Anything you thought you might present which would make a positive impression, will be dismissed in less than 30 seconds. They will immediately make use of the ring laser gyroscope interferometer, and claim that the Earth is actually rotating around its own axis. Your previous message is eloquent, but will not count for much, once they introduce the ring laser gyroscope into the debate.


----------



## grav (Dec 17, 2020)

sandokhan said:


> grav said:
> 
> 
> > Frankly, I don't know where @sandokhan stands. on a globe or a flat nonrotating plane. Looks to me like he plays both ends against the middle.
> ...


excellent response.
But I already am ready!
 to match points with any professional defender of the faith.
The ring laser will itself be on trial. If it detects motion, it must prove how it determines its frame of reference. 

Let a physicist also prove earth's movements as it spins, spirals, and chases its sun. It is the heliocentists who cannot support their model with empirical evidence, laws of  physics, or optical proofs. 

Their reliance on theories and constants (such as gravity, the speed of light) discredits the very basis of the scientific method.

No ipse diixit astrophysicist in his right mind would debate a serious flatearther now.
We've done our due dilignce, got our ducks in a row. 
They know it too.
Such a debate will never happen.


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 17, 2020)

grav said:


> The ring laser will itself be on trial. If it detects motion, it must prove how it determines its frame of reference.



No.

If it detects motion, it is you who has to provide an explanation. The frame of reference is already taken care of since they claim that the RLG measures the SAGNAC EFFECT. You can mention the frame of reference only when you are able to prove that what the RLG is detecting is the CORIOLIS EFFECT.



grav said:


> But I already am ready!



I believe you.


----------



## grav (Dec 17, 2020)

#1. Please prove the existence of the Coriolis effect.

#2. "I have come to believe that the motion of the earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment."
And this is the reason Einstein was thrust onto the flat world's stage.
To hypnotize the taxpayers into believing in a fantasy called relativity. It sounds food in paper, has many practical applications, but is in this case is a knowing lie.

And now we have a space-time continuum and Big Bang and more theories than you can shake a stick at. Ah, but the theories come from Authority. Peer reviewed power brokers in charge of universities and texrbooks.

This shameful modern subterfufe is analgous to judges who refuse to look at evidence, such as that of voting fraud.

@sandokhan, you will readily admit that FET will never get a fair hearing. 
I also expect to get no (0) argument from you when I say that
Everything Big Brother Teaches Is a Lie.

p.s., I really really dislike the image embedding system here. Sometimes it works. Usually, it sucks.  
​


----------



## Citezenship (Dec 17, 2020)

sandokhan said:


> The frame of reference is already taken care of since they claim that the RLG measures the SAGNAC EFFECT.


The hook of that sentence is "claim".


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 17, 2020)

grav said:


> "I have come to believe that the motion of the earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment."



That is from 1922.

And Michelson set out to prove him wrong, which he did in 1925 (MGX).



grav said:


> Please prove the existence of the Coriolis effect.



http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/ep8/vorticity.pdf
https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research Papers-Mathematical Physics/Download/6212
http://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071



Citezenship said:


> The hook of that sentence is "claim".



You are now in front of a very large audience, defending FET. Right next to you, the best, the most proeminent of the heliocentrists. Right at the start of the debate, one of these distinguished professors, will show a ring laser gyroscope (the audience will view it on a large screen), briefly explain how it functions, and remind everyone to check back on it in one hour. After one hour of hard debating, the ring laser gyroscope will show a 15 degree rotation (everyone will see it on the screen). You will then say, "well, you are just claiming that the Earth is rotating, the formula you are using can't represent the Sagnac effect". They will look at each other, smile, and respond "show us your formula". Since you do not have a formula, everyone in the audience will start to believe that the Earth is really rotating around its own axis.


----------



## Citezenship (Dec 17, 2020)

sandokhan said:


> You are now in front of a very large audience, defending FET. Right next to you, the best, the most proemiment of the heliocentrists. Right at the start of the debate, one of these distinguished professors, will show a ring laser gyroscope (the audience will view on a large screen), briefly explain how it functions, and remind everyone to check on it in one hour. After one hour of hard debating, the ring laser gyroscope will show a 15 degree rotation (everyone will see it on the screen). You will then say, "well, you are just claiming that the Earth is rotating, the formula you are using can't represent the Sagnac effect". They will look at each other, smile, and respond "show us your formula". Since you do not have a formula, everyone in the audience will start to believe that the Earth is really rotating around its own axis.


You are now using hypothetical situations to defend the "claim".


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 17, 2020)

No, it happened for real, some one and half years ago (february 2019). Bob Knodel obtained a $20,000 ring laser gyroscope, and it registered a 15 degree rotation, after one hour.


----------



## Silent Bob (Dec 17, 2020)

I think a lot of modern maths and science has deliberately been developed to confuse and cloud our reality, such as relativity, black holes, dark matter etc.... Many experiments are so complex and are affected by so many variables that it is hard to get meaningful results. Things were much simpler in the past, experiments could usually be seen and understood by most observers and the maths was usually straight forward (at least compared to todays maths which is responsible for big bang and black holes). 

The whole thing with the Sagnac effect is that the interpretation of these experiments relies on certain assumptions you have made. No matter how well you argue against this result showing rotation, it will fall on deaf ears as your argument does not start with the same assumptions as they have. Ultimately you are wasting your time thinking that any main stream physicist would debate you on this topic - in their reality the FE is impossible, ridiculous and a waste of their time thinking about it. You can't debate someone with that mind set as they aren't listening to you and their response will demonstrate this. No argument can be effective if it isn't listened to. It would be a lot like this guy experiences, no matter what he says they just respond with a typical put down and go back to talking about burgers  Ultimately you could take a typical main stream physicst up in a space ship, high enough to see a vast plain stretching our in every direction, you could fly over the ice wall and he still wouldn't beiliev you - would probably accuse you of drugging him and after the journey he would convince himself that it didn't really happen.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elKS0DEytHw_


For me this thread is more about us exchanging thoughts and ideas with those who are already interested in the topic, rather than trying to come up with arguments to convert RE believers. The only time someone changes their mind is when they take the time to look into it for themselves, very rarely because someone beat them in a debate. Think about how many still believe 9/11, weapons of mass destruction, mad cows disease, swine flu, bird flu, zika virus, all vaccines good, all medicine good, goverment is good and caring, terrorists everywhere, Russian agents everywhere, etc, etc, etc. Reasoned debate and evidence never converts there beilievers, as Morpheus said - 'no one can be shown the matrix, they have to see it for themselves'

Going back to push forces, and using 'traditional' science, here is a book that I've just put a bid on - 'The Book of Science' 1835. Hopefully some interesting stuff will still exist within these pages, before modern distortion of science took fully hold. It is designed, and dumbed down, for children as stated by this sub title:

'A FAMILIAR INTRODUCTION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL PHILOSOPHY ADAPTED TO THE COMPREHENSION OF YOUNG PEOPLE.'

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/254806722807?autorefresh=true
A quick look at the contents will show you how much we have been dumbed down, imagine trying to teach all of this in schools today. What caught my attention was on one the last pages shown in the item description, which talks about hydrostatics. There is an image of someone holding a very long, thin tube with a funnel at the top, pouring water in to create pressure on something. Hopefully no one else will bid for this book and I'll be able to read more about it from the perspecive of push forces. From the image it looks as though the push force created by the water lifts up the person doing the pouring, which is very counterintuitive to me! Could this have been a method to lift heavy objects/bricks etc in the past?


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 17, 2020)

Bob so much sense in that post, wowsers. 
Just in case you don't get the physical book here's the pdf version courtesy of the GoogleGod pdf


----------



## grav (Dec 18, 2020)

Wowsers indeed.

This thread covers so much ground that we never finish one line of thought.

Now, this future debate with a physicist ......sounds wonderful.
in my wildest dream.
First, I would stipulate that each debater be connected to a lie detector device. or take a truth serum. It's my dream, so it can and will happen.

Each time an honest but deluded heliocentrist physicist would trot out the magic gyroscope, I would ask him to explain how it makes water seek its own level in oceans. How Chicago is clearly visible from 50 miles across a lake.
How air exists on earth with a complete vacuum 62 miles up.

Because a device says that light in the aether travels at the same speed as the stars. 

If the globe could be proven, physicists would be all over the internet with unimpeachable data. They aren't. They known that they are being  paid to disseminate a pack of lies. The 3 P's rule them. Their paycheck, prestige, pension. So they take the payola and keep their true cosmology on the down-low.


----------



## Citezenship (Dec 18, 2020)

sandokhan said:


> No, it happened for real, some one and half years ago (february 2019). Bob Knodel obtained a $20,000 ring laser gyroscope, and it registered a 15 degree rotation, after one hour.


Haha if that your go to reference then you are in real trouble, may as well bring in mark sealant and his boy freind patricia the steer!


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 18, 2020)

Could the pressure be from vortices?
Say a very wide one driven by the rotating sky with many smaller ones within it?
Debating with anyone with a fixed idea of their reality is a waste of time and effort as;

You cannot teach a pig to sing.
It wastes your time and annoys the pig.


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 18, 2020)

The greatest mathematician of the 19th century, G.F.B. Riemann, also solved the mystery of terrestrial gravitation (1853).

B. Riemann stated in 1853 that "gravitational aether sinks toward massive objects where it is absorbed, at a rate proportional to their mass, and is then emitted into another spatial dimension". 

Downward motion provided by the shower of cosmic subquarks:

His belief at that time was that, to quote Westfall, ‘gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle invisible matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down'.

I. Newton 


https://cds.cern.ch/record/223258/files/9202054.pdf

Gravitons and Loops

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin

The “reality conditions” are realized by an inner product that is chiral asymmetric, resulting in a chiral asymmetric ordering for the Hamiltonian, and, in *an asymmetric description of the left and right handed gravitons*.

The first step towards this goal is to recast the Fock *description of graviton also in terms of closed loops*.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.3552.pdf

Chiral vacuum fluctuations in quantum gravity

Is made up of the *right handed positive frequency of the graviton and the left handed negative frequency of the anti-graviton*.

Anti-graviton = laevorotatory subquark = positron

Graviton = dextrorotatory subquark = electron

Exactly the subquark model derived earlier:

In this ultimate state of physical matter two types of units, or Anu, have been observed; they are alike in everything save the direction of their whorls and of the force which pours through them. In the one case force pours in from the "outside," from fourth-dimensional space, the Astral plane, and passing through the Anu, pours into the physical world. In the second, it pours in from the physical world, and out through the Anu into the "outside" again, i.e., vanishes from the physical world. The one is like a spring, from which water bubbles out; the other is like a hole, into which water disappears.

Ether vortex model, published in the Journal of Mathematical Physics.

Dr. Ellis' groundbreaking paper takes GTR from a singularity to a drainhole aether model, the paper was published in the JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS.

Now, the mathematical theory for the absorption/emission of aether through a Planck length level particle.

http://euclid.colorado.edu/~ellis/RelativityPapers/EtFlThDrPaMoGeRe.pdf

Ether flow through a drainhole: a particle model in general relativity

Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 14, no. 1, 1973



Dr. Ellis:

This ether is in general "more than a mere inert medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves; it is a restless, flowing continuum whose internal, relative motions manifest themselves to us as gravity. Mass particles appear as sources or sinks of this flowing ether."

The absorption of aether causes the density of aether to decrease (between two objects, as an example), the pressure of the ether waves will cause these objects to move toward each other. 


Tides and Radio Waves

_Walter gives credit for the initial impetus to investigate the PUSH GRAVITY concept to his son TOM. Tom was only 6 years old when he told his father that he did not believe that the Moon created the tides. When Walter asked him why, Tom launched into his idea of a pushing force which created pressure waves to move the water._ 

How Dr. T. Henry Moray, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, discovered these telluric currents:

During the Christmas Holidays of 1911, I began to fully realize that the energy I was working with was not of a static nature, but of an oscillating nature. Further I realized that the energy was not coming out of the earth, but instead was coming to the earth from some outside source. These electrical oscillations in the form of waves were not simple oscillations, but were surgings --- like the waves of the sea --- coming to the earth continually, more in the daytime than at night, but always coming in vibrations from the reservoir of colossal energy out there in space.


While investigating the output of his device, he discovered a feature of the natural static energy, which had somehow been overlooked by other aerial battery designers. The electrostatic power had a flimmering, pulsating quality to it. He learned of this "static pulsation" while listening through headphones, which were connected to telephone wires. The static came in a single, potent surge. This first "wave" subsided, with numerous "back surges" following. Soon thereafter, the process repeated itself. The static surges came "like ocean waves". Indeed, with the volume of "white noise" which they produced, they sounded like ocean waves!

These peculiar waves did not arrive with "clock precision". Just like ocean waves, they arrived in schedules of their own. Dr. Moray was convinced that these were world-permeating waves. He came to believe that they represented the natural "cadence of the universe". This intriguing characteristic suggested that small amounts of pulsating electrostatic charge might be used to induce large oscillations in a large "tank" of charge.


Dr. Gustav Le Bon and his work on telluric currents:

Another researcher, a contemporary of Tesla, succeeded in advancing the "external bombardment" theory of radioactivity with new experimental proofs. Dr. Gustav Le Bon, a Belgian physicist, examined and compared ultraviolet rays and radioactive energies with great fascination. Concluding from experiments that energetic bombardments were directly responsible for radioactivity, he was able to perform manipulations of the same. He succeeded in diminishing the radioactive output of certain materials by simple physical treatments. Heating measurably slowed the radioactive decay of radium chloride, a thing considered implausible by physicists.


In each case, Le Bon raised the radium temperature until it glowed red-hot. The same retardation of emanations were observed. He found it possible to isolate the agent, which was actually radioactive in the radium lattice, a glowing gaseous "emanation" which could be condensed in liquid air. Radium was thereafter itself de-natured. Being exposed to the external influence of bombarding rays, the radium again became active. The apparent reactivation of radium after heating required twenty days before reaching its maximum value.

 Le Bon stated that the reason why all matter was spontaneously emanating rays was not because they were contaminated with heavy radioactive elements. Ordinary matter was disintegrating into rays because it was being bombarded by external rays of a peculiar variety.


The external rays which disintegrate matter are telluric currents of dextrorotatory spin.


----------



## grav (Dec 18, 2020)

Why are we devolving into gravity theories again?
This relates to flat earth, how?
Other than a ploy to rationalize an alleged force to counter the real effects of centrifugal force. 

I do not disagree with wave motion of the aether. 
Does it flow inside matter? Is aether flow in ocean a separate movement from the great waves of water, like the Gulf Stream?

In my experience, and from experiments in high school physics, wave patterns stop or reflect off a hard surface. Aether flows in a rock?

Gravity, let us be very clear on this issue, is a property of matter.
All those high-falutin' theories with imaginative constants do is clutter up the clean slate of logic. 

Now, why does dielectricity sometimes bond to form matter, while other times it sloshes around as radiation or plasma or packets of intelligence?

A computer program could do it. 
Outside the motherboard of that program may be another reality.
Or maybe an aether that is pure energy, which imagines that it can be a real boy.

I guess @sandokhan will require a formula.
r = m +c^2 [l-3.1416] x Y.

I do not apologize for my silly soiree of speculation. Theoreticians do it all the time with no empirical date or solid math.

The true math is this: 8xdxd.

The globe curves 8 inches times miles squared.


----------



## TurpinHero (Dec 19, 2020)

Very interesting stuff here, and thanks for everyone for their input. It’s sent me off rifling through my Antarctica notes to find the quote by Capt. Robert Falcon Scott on the clarity of of the atmosphere on the ice shelf. Words to the effect of “An exceptionally clear day today, Mount ??? (Must find source note) clearly visible to all at a distance of 112 miles.”


----------



## Safranek (Dec 19, 2020)

Citezenship said:


> sandokhan said:
> 
> 
> > No, it happened for real, some one and half years ago (february 2019). Bob Knodel obtained a $20,000 ring laser gyroscope, and it registered a 15 degree rotation, after one hour.
> ...



If you haven't noticed, they will ONLY debate their controlled opposition. Bob and his boyfriend, Mark and his boyfriend, ODD (they got him on board at some point), etc. . When MIchael Tellinger made a statement regarding his view on the side of FE, he had to come back with a video stating that its no use taking that position of something along those lines. Others, like Curious Life, Brian Mullins and Mr. E. get their channels pulled. No intelligent researchers will be seen on MSM debating ANY subject unless they have been brought into the fold.


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 19, 2020)

Got 7 minutes?
​


----------



## grav (Dec 19, 2020)

_View: https://youtu.be/m_-aru4OfP0_


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 19, 2020)

The whole video (and I have to say the music is mesmerising) filmed in Cappadocia is showing us for an hour and forty odd minutes there is no curve but if you are strapped for time just play it at half speed from the timed start underneath and watch the horizon rise up with the camera and way the the valleys between balloon and horizon come into view all impossible on a ball curving away in every direction from the point of view. There is no curve, never was, never has been and never will be. Neither is it spinning at 1,000 plus mph
You can only realise this by observation not sitting with other peoples theories rattling round your mind.
It is inconceivable that people alive on this plane prior to us failed to notice this.

PS even if the earth shape is of no concern to you you get a most fantastic overview of the landscape of Cappadocia without a google digital map being involved!

​
EDIT to add;
For those who still cling to ships disappearing over a horizon is proof or evidence of a ball just watch the balloon in the background. 
.​


----------



## cnut (Dec 24, 2020)

*Meet Conspiracy Music Guru*
I would like to insert a brief moment of levity.
This gentleman creates music videos describing an alternate 
earth shape. 
Meet Conspiracy Music Guru's first character.. - YouTube 
_ thanks,
cnut_


----------



## xxometeotl (Dec 26, 2020)

grav said:


> I am new to this forum and don't see an active thread on flat earth. Is there any interest in the topic?
> SH's format is quite impressive. And imposing, to the point that navigating it is tricky for a simple mind like mine. Generic forums have become gross mockeries of their original designs, and so I am looking for a new home where I may spout my heresies, primarily the most basic hidden truth upon which all other distorted truths are based. The Infinite Plane of the Electric Universe.
> 
> My overall guesstimate of reality is a computer program which is crashed and rebooted every 300 years or so.
> ...




first paragraph: the old SH dot org were relating the issue with this topic, even korben dallas ( i have screenshoots of this) why the flat earth topic related to mudflood for google search is soweird almost giving you crazy results. the relation of all cosmologies with mudfloos and buildings is a topic that controllers wants to the humans dont relate it.

resets after some humans events(if they reach golden age again) are a fact.

Sophia, the black sun, the mind, is ISIS is Pachamama is Magna Matter ... archons related to sophia making the "material" (electri-city matrix) matter... the trinity is lke that, duality negative positive result, dielectric and magnetism...

magnetism = maria isis pachamama
dielectric = holy spirit, "first was the word" without that is dielectricity, everywhere, calm.
electric = the son, dielectric + magnetism then you need only vibration to create "potential" matter






this topic was allowed by korben dallas in the old stolen history and promoting this topic if was related to all cosmologies and mudfloods events

*Mokosh is the Mother nature goddes in slavic,the symbol is like a cross but is magnetism symbol (toroid if you want), you can research mokosh and see the symbol and how was usurped for transform into a real human who existedthanks to the bible created by the same people doing the actual reset


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 27, 2020)

The push. Could it be something that pushes through the tangible reality we experience in a top to bottom fashion and the physicality of what it is passing through creates a drag or a friction or a resistance and it is this that creates what we perceive as 'the physical' in relation to what we as the point of perception realises ?

The push slows down if you will when it encounters different mediums of physical reality which in turn could set up currents in the push which is what really creates the wind and the tides.
No matter what we do to ourselves we cannot jump far above our height into the water vapour. Even with the bounce of a trampoline we do not get far and always get pushed back down to whatever we jumped off of. If we jump up off of a boat on any body of water we will get pushed into the body of water under its surface and if we keep our gobs shut will bob back to a position where our head is in the water vapour but the remainder of our body is under the waters surface. This is likely because we are pretty similar in regards the drag effect as the water in the main but we hold within a quantity of water vapour which has less drag so doesn't experience the same degree of push  hence we bob about with our bodies in the two different mediums.

The liquid water itself creates a different degree of drag on the push force and where it travels off of a waterfall it enters the vapour where it is still subject to the same push it had when flowing over the land but the vapour creates less drag so the liquid water gets pushed down to the ground or the next body of water beneath it whilst the vapour eddies, whirls and vortexes around basically the push on the vapour has the effect of being more slippery than the liquid even though the force pushing through them is the same. Water is changing its state of being all the time so some of the falling liquid joins the vapour it is falling through but the majority falls through the vapour.
When we are daft enough to join the water in going over a fall we behave as it does for the same reason the only difference being when we hit the water we will bob with our heads in the vapour bodies in the water and the water will simply join with the water taking the form of whatever is containing it and moving in the direction of the undercurrent within it. If it falls into a contained body of water with a level surface it will fill to overflowing.

This might also explain the conundrum of steam and vapour rising from the liquid water and entering the vapour.
As the liquid water changes its state from liquid to vapour it becomes more slippery due to there being less drag/friction on the push force so it rises from liquid to vapour. We say it is less dense but the word dense is not the right descriptor. As with the liquid falling through vapour at a waterfall the vapour does the same thing in reverse. Contrary to popular belief the evaporation from liquid waters surface is not driven by the heating of the liquid but by the cooling of the vapour although the liquid vapour boundary is the bottom of the container. Heat always travels towards cold. So when the liquid water is warmer than the vapour above it it will seek to warm the vapour by taking its liquid heat into the vapour.
It can only do this by changing its state of being as the push force has to be lessened for this phenomenon to take place. The only way for the liquid water to lose its drag is to change into vapour.

Just recording and sharing observations and thoughts as they appear.


----------



## grav (Dec 29, 2020)

hi again, TA. You've already seen this. 
Flat earth is the portal which led me to alt history and the rest of the lies of the Control System.

Star forts and serpent mounds and resets make the flat world go round.
Martin Liedtke ties all the loose ends together, as much as possible. 

Milky Way galaxy in the opening pic? haha, as if.
Martin thinks the world's oceans may have come from the waters below, not above. As he mentions, that's how the Flood happened in the Noah movie.
In Saturnian Cosmology the earth was watered by mists, similar to a glass jar terrarium. Rain was unknown, as was the moon.

TA, where did mud floods come from?


_View: https://youtu.be/x7QVUuWnkUQ_


----------



## grav (Dec 30, 2020)

More guessing here. I am inclined to take myth as history, but whose myths are we to trust? I like Greek best, and often use those myths as bases to build on with Mayan, Norse, Chinese, other cultures.

Saturn (the planet) was possibly earth's first sun. This was the Golden Age, when humans were giants, and peace and plenty lasted for a great time. Silver, bronze, and iron world ages followed. After the Deluge Saturn was demoted to a star in the dome.

Saturn is often linked to the Demiurge, aka Satan, who satanists worship.
Its rings set it apart from the other twinkly lights in the sky.
What is their function? 
maybe a communications antenna, or a motherboard component that connects the user to the software?


----------



## grav (Jan 2, 2021)

Thie analemma is another proof that scientists lie.
Astronomers and astrophysicists have to know that the earth's alleged movements are false.



The figure 8 pattern the sun makes overhead in a year (measured every day at the same time) is created by the sun moving in the dome.




_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2h4pmoGrftM&t=202s[/_


----------



## Citezenship (Jan 3, 2021)

An alternative vid for our alternative thread, utterly bonkers but i really could take this guy seriously.

And he is quite funny too.


_View: https://youtu.be/TNckuLzzdWA_


----------



## Akanah (Jan 3, 2021)

Throught the theorie of Erhard Landmann many language are come from a old german language and I would say the word "Earth" or "Terra" was former given to the old plasma-sun which was created by a plasma-event. This plasma-event was first consist of two birkeland-currents with ends looking like two horns or a moon-sickle. So this plasma-event was first the moon-god which later created the sun. And that´s why I am believing the current moon on our sky is a fake-moon. The idea of a flat earth or a ball-earth was related to the old plasma-sun. In one state she must looked like a disc or swastika and in a later state she must looked like a ball. The place we live maybe didn´t have a name in past ages because the place we could live could only be a massgrave with former giant petriefied animals, humans and plants which lived together with smaller beeings in symbiosis. This giant living beings maybe died current the deluge (fall of the old plasma-sun) and the heaviest petriedied being today could bring together all other animals, plants and humans gravitational. So the place we live could have a misshapen look. To underpin the idea of a massgrave there are the people of "Fossilien der Götter" -> Fossilien der Götter

By the way: To locate the ground zero where the old plasma-sun could have fallen of our place you only must look after a place with a high matter compression. Mountains and earthground which consist of iron are suspicious. In our place (called planet) there are not so much mountains consist of iron. The most moutains on our place (predominantly on deserts) looks like giant mudflood-hills which was dried up later. If you merged all Moutains of iron you have located the ground zero (the current world-map is probaly wrong). And around this ground Zero you could find traces of mudflood because water could created above the ground Zero but there it was to hot for water to rain down. Water could only rain down many km behind the iron mountains and ground Zero. Another material you could found around this ground Zero is potassium salt (Kalium) of burned animals on the ground Zero like you would expect by atomic strike (because it was like a atomic strike).


----------



## grav (Jan 3, 2021)

> Citezenship said:
> 
> 
> An alternative vid for our alternative thread, utterly bonkers but i really could take this guy seriously.
> ...


You ain't just a'whistling Dixie when you call him bonkers, I'm a subscriber of his channel and am always confused and impressed with his complex connections.
Landlubbers like me can't understand geniuses, so I try to eke out ideas my simple brain can comprehend. Like these:
"Escape from ..." movies are like the earth prison with exits in Antarctica. ok, I get that. Thunderdome is another movie that flatearthers can relate to.
His geo term, Crater Earth, is a brilliant description of how earth is a mud hole in the Infinite Plane. He likens the moon to a reflection of earth.
Disney and Wizard of Oz and much scifi also give us clues. He also compares some clues to the computer code oh the human brain/operating system. Which, btw, the Covid vaccine will hack into.

I also liked his Odin image as used by freemasons in rituals, with a wounded leg and an eye patch. They have lots of rituals, I guess.
I bet the Nazi-Jesuit-Zionist head knockers know most of the secrets.

My totally wild theory is that the Demiurge, or Archons, or whoever the Big Boss is -- uses Saturn as the electromagnetic device that communicates with human quislings, who then sell us down the river. Which is a reference to slavery.


----------



## Starman (Jan 3, 2021)

Citezenship said:


> An alternative vid for our alternative thread, utterly bonkers but i really could take this guy seriously.
> 
> And he is quite funny too.
> 
> ...




Thanks Citezenship for pointing us to godgevlamste and his videos on our possible crater earth.  First time for me to give some credence to our world as a bowl (with crater rim) rather than a flat plane.  His idea of the moon being a reflection of a gigantic earth, with our world just one of the many craters seen on the moon, is super trippy.  Once you wrap your head around his perspective, it makes some kind of sense. Is that us up there on the moon waving back at ourselves??

Also, I like the notion that 'space exploration' is actually a trip to other lands on this gigantic earth.  The astro-nots are indeed going somewhere, but it's not to space or the moon!  They go through the atmosphere to get to arid lands (moon-like) beyond our verdant world bubble ringed by the antarctic ice wall rim.  If this were so, it could explain all the infrastructure and people involved with NASA actually doing something, not just faking everything.

I find these thoughts quite satisfying.


grav said:


> View attachment 4910​More guessing here. I am inclined to take myth as history, but whose myths are we to trust? I like Greek best, and often use those myths as bases to build on with Mayan, Norse, Chinese, other cultures.
> 
> Saturn (the planet) was possibly earth's first sun. This was the Golden Age, when humans were giants, and peace and plenty lasted for a great time. Silver, bronze, and iron world ages followed. After the Deluge Saturn was demoted to a star in the dome.
> 
> ...



Curious how Saturn has a mythic history of once being a benevolent sun influence incubating the well being of humanity and later as a monster devouring its own children.  It is celebrated both as Saturnalia in a bountiful, compassionate way, and also as a satanic being for those wanting to live on the dark side.  

Jupiter won the sky battle with Saturn and became the prevailing deity.  In Saturn's death throes he turned on those he originally nurtured.

I wonder if this dual Saturn story gave impetus to the example of satan overturning the natural benign order.  What once was good, became evil, and you too could follow along in this trajectory that was clearly laid out in the heavens.  Screw Jupiter, you could stick with the newly perverted cult of Saturn and worship the darkness.


----------



## Citezenship (Jan 3, 2021)

grav said:


> You ain't just a'whistling Dixie when you call him bonkers, I'm a subscriber of his channel and am always confused and impressed with his complex connections.



It is out "there" for sure.



Starman said:


> His idea of the moon being a reflection of a gigantic earth, with our world just one of the many craters seen on the moon, is super trippy.



For me it is a new perspective, also i keep wondering why the FE creeps like seargent and co turned out to be fakes, very well funded and supported fakes, distraction is always the first line defence of such magicians.

This guy was actually pointed out by this member quite some time ago.

https://stolenhistory.net/members/mike-nolan.18/


----------



## Silent Bob (Jan 4, 2021)

Starman said:


> Citezenship said:
> 
> 
> > An alternative vid for our alternative thread, utterly bonkers but i really could take this guy seriously.
> ...




Here's an interesting story about the early days of Saturn being our sun, in line with the electric universe theory.

http://saturndeathcult.com/the-sturn-death-cult-part-1/
It starts with the 'Purple Dawn' when we were enveloped in a purple plasma shield from Saturn. It is from a RE perspective but is interesting and probably compatible with FE in some way! At this point there was no time, i.e. no night or day, just a constant purple twilight. The EU theory proposes that gravity (whatever it is) was weaker then, hence the much bigger lifeforms such as dinosaurs. We were lined up with mars and saturn during this period.

'Like an eye looking onto the world from a swirling purple chaos in the heavens, primordial man would have seen one pale disk of light radiating its benign presence from a position locked at the celestial north pole.  It had always been there,… its presence an integral, yet silently ethereal part of the Earth’s landscape and mankind’s experience.'






'Earth in its distant past is reported by ancient traditions to have enjoyed a stable relationship with a dimly lit sun or star that sat motionless at the celestial north pole.  For cultures in the southern hemisphere the world was a nocturnal haze devoid of all celestial references save for the chaotic void that hug above them. As a silhouetted dot against Saturn’s larger disk, Mars would ultimately provide the ‘pupil’ to the all-seeing eye that would look down on Earth. '

Then we came within the orbit of our current sun, along with some of it's planets such as Jupiter, causing Saturn to initially glow much brighter, giving us the 'Golden' age and our first bright sunlight. Next we got closer to our present sun and I think they say Jupiter took Saturn into its orbit and away from us. This agrees with a lot of old legends, myths etc about Cronos/Saturn being cast out by Zeus/Jupiter.






'Saturn battling with the Chaos Monster, that Dragon or Feathered Serpent of world mythology most likely to have been ejected debris resulting from the birth of the new planet Venus due to Saturn’s massive flare-up. Enhanced electrical plasma activity called Birkeland currents would appear like a pillar of light leading up to Saturn.'




'After its flare-up and ejection of Venus, Saturn would alternate between quieter times in which Venus could be seen behind Mars and more electrically active periods in which Venus flared in a distinctive eight-pointed star burst.'

Lots more on the link posted above!


----------



## Citezenship (Jan 4, 2021)

grav said:


> Thie analemma is another proof that scientists lie.
> Astronomers and astrophysicists have to know that the earth's alleged movements are false.
> 
> 
> ...





grav said:


> Thie analemma is another proof that scientists lie.
> Astronomers and astrophysicists have to know that the earth's alleged movements are false.
> 
> 
> ...





grav said:


> Thie analemma is another proof that scientists lie.
> Astronomers and astrophysicists have to know that the earth's alleged movements are false.
> 
> 
> ...




I have to stop doing this but it just hits my crystal in the right place to make it resonate.


_View: https://youtu.be/7U25d1Ngaug_

Sorry about the formating it seems to double every time i try to undo.


----------



## grav (Jan 4, 2021)

Akanah said:


> Throught the theorie of Erhard Landmann many language are come from a old german language and I would say the word "Earth" or "Terra" was former given to the old plasma-sun which was created by a plasma-event. This plasma-event was first consist of two birkeland-currents with ends looking like two horns or a moon-sickle. So this plasma-event was first the moon-god which later created the sun. And that´s why I am believing the current moon on our sky is a fake-moon. The idea of a flat earth or a ball-earth was related to the old plasma-sun. In one state she must looked like a disc or swastika and in a later state she must looked like a ball. The place we live maybe didn´t have a name in past ages because the place we could live could only be a massgrave with former giant petriefied animals, humans and plants which lived together with smaller beeings in symbiosis. This giant living beings maybe died current the deluge (fall of the old plasma-sun) and the heaviest petriedied being today could bring together all other animals, plants and humans gravitational. So the place we live could have a misshapen look. To underpin the idea of a massgrave there are the people of "Fossilien der Götter" -> Fossilien der Götter
> 
> By the way: To locate the ground zero where the old plasma-sun could have fallen of our place you only must look after a place with a high matter compression. Mountains and earthground which consist of iron are suspicious. In our place (called planet) there are not so much mountains consist of iron. The most moutains on our place (predominantly on deserts) looks like giant mudflood-hills which was dried up later. If you merged all Moutains of iron you have located the ground zero (the current world-map is probaly wrong). And around this ground Zero you could find traces of mudflood because water could created above the ground Zero but there it was to hot for water to rain down. Water could only rain down many km behind the iron mountains and ground Zero. Another material you could found around this ground Zero is potassium salt (Kalium) of burned animals on the ground Zero like you would expect by atomic strike (because it was like a atomic strike).



An Electric Universe theory: 'In principio' was a plasma event.
A gnostic belief: Sophia became Gaia.
Could we have a giantess computer coder?

I am not being frivolous, just trying to merge and simplify several origin theories.
And we can't forget Saturn as the first sun, when humans and/or titans lived on earth in a purple haze.

Your avatar is interesting. Can you tell us about it?
I see a dragon.
There be dragons here. There were giants in the earth.


----------



## Starman (Jan 4, 2021)

Citezenship said:


> grav said:
> 
> 
> > Thie analemma is another proof that scientists lie.
> ...




Wow, there's some truth embedded here (the planet of the Ape-p video).  I can feel it, but it's currently beyond me to get a handle on it. I'll have to dig deeper. 

All this ancient storytelling is not about a wild imagination.  It has to do with the nature of reality and how cultures encoded the knowledge for themselves and for posterity.  Our modern conceit and stupidity thinks the old gods were just cults of personalities. I think these images and stories were meant to tell us how the world worked for them.  It's what they discovered and they are showing how they utilized their knowledge (if we can decipher their meaning).

Nothing is completely hidden from us, it's only veiled.


----------



## grav (Jan 4, 2021)

Silent Bob said:


> Then we came within the orbit of our current sun, along with some of it's planets such as Jupiter, causing Saturn to initially glow much brighter, giving us the 'Golden' age and our first bright sunlight. Next we got closer to our present sun and I think they say Jupiter took Saturn into its orbit and away from us. This agrees with a lot of old legends, myths etc about Cronos/Saturn being cast out by Zeus/Jupiter.



This ^ is a nice feature. When I highlighted text, a reply message appeared and made it easy to quote a portion of a long post.

Saturnian cosmology accepts fake-sci cosmology, which we need to deconstruct in order to tie in with fake history. Not sure of other ancient myths, but Greek chronicles have Saturn/Cronos swallowing his own children. 

That always confused me. 
This version, however, makes lots of sense, in the Electric Universe perspective. 
Not that planets or gods fought each other like we see in movies. 
More like........what? A light bulb flaring up and blotting out other light sources?
Or some electric phenomenon.

I tend to see earth/ reality/Genesis as a computer program in which gnostic gamers play Simworld, with frequent resets. 
Velikovsky claimed that Venus was born as a comet from the head of her father, Zeus/Jupiter. She fought Mars over several centuries, frightening humans in the so-called classical period. She threw down burning naphtha and upheaveled the earth on a regular basis, every 52 years as I recall.

To repeat an earlier point, Saturn is imo the master key. 
The part of the motherboard that sends commands to other components?
And who has access to the Saturn key?


----------



## Akanah (Jan 4, 2021)

grav said:


> An Electric Universe theory: 'In principio' was a plasma event.
> A gnostic belief: Sophia became Gaia.
> Could we have a giantess computer coder?
> 
> ...



I believe Saturn was the plasma-phenomenon of synchrotron-overlay-ray (model for stonehenge.)

My avatar is a found picture from the mudfossil-group "Fossilien der Götter" and could be a giant head of a petrified T-Rex.
Here is this mudfossil in Detail.


----------



## grav (Jan 5, 2021)

Akanah said:


> grav said:
> 
> 
> > An Electric Universe theory: 'In principio' was a plasma event.
> ...



I believe in dragons, not in dinosaurs.
Your dragon has teeth! His body is below and he is facing up.
You can even see the pupil in his eye.

Petrified means what? Turned to stone over centuries - - -  in mud?? - - -
or immediately re-densified by electricity?

a plasma weapon?


----------



## Lightseeker (Jan 7, 2021)

I have been researching flat Earth for a while and here is a summary of what I have gathered:

-There is no reliable/trustable footage of Earth from outer space. In fact, there seems to be quite the discrepancy between images provided to us by NASA. There is a lot of CGI going on. Pop scientists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson claim Earth is like an egg, but then Nasa shows a perfect sphere...
-Simple logic and/or common sense suggests that NASA didn't manage to go to the moon by means of rudimentary equipment. In recent years they have been claimed that "they lost the technology to go back there" or "there is no point in going back".
-The people who have claimed to have been at the North Pole were bluffing.
-It is certainly intriguing that the most famed cartographer ever, Mercator, would publish a map that features land at the North Pole. Not only Mercator did, but others before him. Interestingly enough, those four islands at the North Pole have disappeared from maps after the 16th century.
-Antarctica is not freely accessible for explorers. Is it really a boring frozen continent or is there something beyond it? Some people theorize that there is land beyond. Admiral Byrd in fact said that there is land beyond Antarctica.
-Most ancient cultures seemed to believe in a flat Earth that was part of an orb-shaped universe.
-It is mainly due to propaganda and science fiction that we believe Earth to be a stupid piece of rock flying across space for no real reason.
-If people believe Earth to be one of quintillions of planets, then human life has no value and our existence is pointless, void of meaning. We will not mind being enslaved by our rulers.
-If Earth is a planet, then there is no way out, other than using a spaceship. But if Earth is a plane, and there is land beyond the poles, then perhaps we are all free to leave and explore. Of course, we can't freely explore, due to the poles not being that accessible.
-The myths and cosmology of ancient cultures agree on Earth being the center of the universe, and Earth being a plane, not a planet.

It is a very fascinating topic, inspiring and intriguing.


----------



## grav (Jan 8, 2021)

Lightseeker said:


> I have been researching flat Earth for a while and here is a summary of what I have gathered:
> 
> -There is no reliable/trustable footage of Earth from outer space. In fact, there seems to be quite the discrepancy between images provided to us by NASA. There is a lot of CGI going on. Pop scientists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson claim Earth is like an egg, but then Nasa shows a perfect sphere...
> -Simple logic and/or common sense suggests that NASA didn't manage to go to the moon by means of rudimentary equipment. In recent years they have been claimed that "they lost the technology to go back there" or "there is no point in going back".
> ...


Yes, it is a fascinating topic. But the average human is more fascinated with politics and invisible germs. I call our species Homo ignoranus. Most people accept the inroctrination that starts when they are babies.

Though I reject religion, I think that the world was created for us. 
We are avatars who live in a computer program. 
This site is all about uncovering the lies of our existence. 

For example, I recall, from childhood, learning that the North Pole was solid land or ice, where explorers used dog sleds to travel over areas which are now open water. I learned other facts and lies too: the Atom Theory, the Great Circle of Navigation, outer space, moon landings, etc.

Dark City was a sci-fi movie from 1998. It featured a place where mysterious controllers re-wrote people's memories while they slept. Physical changes were made to the city at the same time. So people literally woke up in a new world every day. 

That's kind of how I see us. Tptb and Big Brother create reality. 
When I recite facts of globe earth to people, they often react angrily. 
Their earth rotates 1000 mph. And so does the air, even though it appears to be still. On and on, laws of physics broken left and right. But they refuse to open their eyes to logic and truth. 

Dark days are coming. The US is about to be handed over to China. Europe is a gone pecan. Covid will lock us all down and likely bring transhumanism everywhere.
Flat earth was my introduction to the complete fabric of lies of this world. 
It is, imo, the easiest lie to debunk, since laws of physics totally destroy the globe deception. But the sheeple won't even listen to our side. 

I try to remain optimistic about the future, but it's a losing battle.
Davd Icke says we are dumb, drugged, and docile. 
I agree.


----------



## Lightseeker (Jan 8, 2021)

grav said:


> Yes, it is a fascinating topic. But the average human is more fascinated with politics and invisible germs. I call our species Homo ignoranus. Most people accept the inroctrination that starts when they are babies.
> 
> Though I reject religion, I think that the world was created for us.
> We are avatars who live in a computer program.
> ...



Man, Dark City was a great movie. Interestingly enough, it depicts the world as being flat. 

I find it hilarious how emotionally people react to the idea of Earth being flat and stationary, which is what our senses tell us. They are like "OMG uRe so STupEeD!". The irony is that the average Flat Earther has done more research and questioning of the globe Earth than the average person who believes Earth to be what we are told it is.


----------



## Silent Bob (Jan 8, 2021)

grav said:


> Their earth rotates 1000 mph. And so does the air, even though it appears to be still. On and on, laws of physics broken left and right. But they refuse to open their eyes to logic and truth.



You're going to love this one then - the earths rotation is speeding up now.....

https://www.ladbible.com/news/news-...ts-are-considering-removing-a-second-20210107
'You see, the official time-keepers of the world have noticed that the world is currently spinning at the quickest pace in 50 years, and this means that the days on earth - historically around exactly 24 hours - are slightly shorter.'

Here the scientists attempt to 'explain' this variation of rotational speed.

A New Spin on Earth's Rotation

'The Earth is known to constantly slow down and speed up, which imperceptibly alters the length of our days. '

'The rotation data shows oscillations over several different timescales. The one with the largest variation is seasonal: Earth slows down in January and February. ' - well, we all slow down after Christmas don't we - i guess the earth is just sypathising with us....

Here's the punchline 

'In this case, the whole system - comprised of the spinning Earth and swirling atmosphere - adjusts to the blustery winter months by slowing down the solid Earth's rotation. This means the days get longer - by a few thousandths of a second.'

and just to top it off:

'Some have suggested that global warming will slow the planet ' - why not, something new we can blame global warming for.....

This is a great example of when you have a theory/belief that you refuse to consider being wrong, so you have to come up with the most complex and far fetched explanations to keep it alive!


----------



## Lightseeker (Jan 8, 2021)

Silent Bob said:


> grav said:
> 
> 
> > Their earth rotates 1000 mph. And so does the air, even though it appears to be still. On and on, laws of physics broken left and right. But they refuse to open their eyes to logic and truth.
> ...



I love how scientists can pretty much say anything they feel like and the average person will believe every word: "Omg did you hear about that diamond planet they found?" "Elon Musk said we will be living in Mars in 10 years!" "They found an Earth-like planet a few light years away!" and the like. It is like science is a greater force than religion and all it takes for you to make people believe the most outrageous claims is being a scientist.


----------



## Citezenship (Jan 8, 2021)

Silent Bob said:


> 'You see, the official time-keepers of the world have noticed that the world is currently spinning at the quickest pace in 50 years, and this means that the days on earth - historically around exactly 24 hours - are slightly shorter.'


Key words, around and slightly!

You would think that a lab that is responsible for the very definition of time through it's own measurements would be a little more accurate with it's description!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Physical_Laboratory_(United_Kingdom)


Citezenship said:


> Silent Bob said:
> 
> 
> > 'You see, the official time-keepers of the world have noticed that the world is currently spinning at the quickest pace in 50 years, and this means that the days on earth - historically around exactly 24 hours - are slightly shorter.'
> ...


Here is one of it's previous directors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Galton_Darwin


----------



## Starman (Jan 8, 2021)

Silent Bob said:


> grav said:
> 
> 
> > Their earth rotates 1000 mph. And so does the air, even though it appears to be still. On and on, laws of physics broken left and right. But they refuse to open their eyes to logic and truth.
> ...



I like the example of big rockets taking off upwards through the atmosphere with no effect on its relative position to earth.  You'd think that the rapidly spinning earth and its hurtling through space would have some effect on a rocket's trajectory.  If you tried to land that rocket back on a landing pad in the water or on land (SpaceX), you'd have to hurry up before you left that rocket hanging in the sky, or rather in deeper space because the earth had said bye bye a few minutes ago.


----------



## Lightseeker (Jan 8, 2021)

Starman said:


> Silent Bob said:
> 
> 
> > grav said:
> ...



I like how people just unconditionally believe that NASA or other agencies are able to land stuff on objects that are moving across the universe at tremendous speeds.


----------



## Jd755 (Jan 8, 2021)

Nasa are testing an engine that they say can propel a rocket at 17,500 miles per hour allegedly. No mention of what it would be pushing against in a vacuum but such things don't seem to matter. You wouldn't see that bugger leaving the atmosphere it would be the same effect as the Enterprise entering warp. Gone in less than a blink of an eye.


----------



## Starman (Jan 8, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Nasa are testing an engine that they say can propel a rocket at 17,500 miles per hour allegedly. No mention of what it would be pushing against in a vacuum but such things don't seem to matter. You wouldn't see that bugger leaving the atmosphere it would be the same effect as the Enterprise entering warp. Gone in less than a blink of an eye.



I think they want a faster rocket in order to bang it against the dome to see if they can shatter it.  They're tired of being cooped up on this earth, or else they want to bring on the apocalypse and release the waters already.

Yeah, what about that steering around in a vacuum by little bursts of fuel, along with oxygen to give it combustion.  How much of that can you carry in a little capsule? Absolute vacuum doesn't have anything in it to push up against, or else they're wrong about vacuum out there. Instead its an ether with something physical in it to push up against.  And I like that landing on the moon with the thrusters gently guiding it to the surface, with no evidence of disturbed soil from the engine blast.  Yeah sure.

Complete and total bullshit everywhere you turn.  A world of retards running around plugging holes in their brains from all the intelligence wastefully leaking away.


----------



## grav (Jan 8, 2021)

Starman said:


> You'd think that the rapidly spinning earth and its hurtling through space would have some effect on a rocket's trajectory. If you tried to land that rocket back on a landing pad in the water or on land (SpaceX), you'd have to hurry up before you left that rocket hanging in the sky, or rather in deeper space because the earth had said bye bye a few minutes ago.



but, but, you're forgetting relativity.
You see, it's like, you know, like when you're riding in your car or an airplane, and you don't feel fhe movement and yadda yadda.

Please excuse my drollery. The rocket travesty can't be budged from the sheeple collective mindthink. 

It's like the hilarious scene in My Cousin, Vinny, in which a witness finally admits that his testimony was flawed. Laws of physics, pfft, ain't no thing.
. . . . .

Movie Speech: My Cousin Vinny - Gambini Cross Examines Mr. Tipton
americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechmy...
Gambini: Well perhaps the laws of physics cease to exist on your stove! Were these magic grits? I mean, did you buy them from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans?! D.A. Trotter: Objection, Your Honor! Judge Haller: Objection sustained.


----------



## Starman (Jan 9, 2021)

On the old Stolen History site now running as an archive, is a thread called, “The Matrix: Sphere with a Flat Surface.”

https://www.stolenhistory.org/articles/the-matrix-sphere-with-a-flat-surface.483/
There is an interesting conundrum on the layout of the spherical planet spread out onto a flat map.  Such maps have an east-west orientation with the far right and far left of the map meeting each other at the same location.  You are able to see the whole ‘breadth’ of the world. 

Not so for the north and south orientation.  At top you’ve got the arctic, the bottom the antarctic.  You only see a portion of the arctic that is facing you, same with the antarctic.  It’s splayed out in a fashion that gives no hint at what the real shape is. We’re not able to see what’s going on with the other side of the globe at the poles because we are being given an especially fake shape that has no bearing on anything.

Also in a similar vein, how can we accept that in such a flat map we are able to see around the earth as a complete picture, but in the representation of up-down (north-south), it is impossible to do the same?   The top of the map and the bottom of the map are two completely different locations, unlike the east-west orientation where they meet to complete the globe.

Something weird about that.  Almost like they are hiding something.  Or just plain fakery going on.

Of course there are polar maps that show a top down (and bottom up?) configuration of supposed land masses or ice at the poles, but these maps seem to be troubled by the curvature of the earth, as if they have extra difficulty reconciling the shape between a flat map version vs. a curved earth map.  Why extra difficulty there, but not so much in representing lands in the middle of the earth?

I think the ball earth is just one more dissonant reality that leaves people purposely confused.


----------



## Jd755 (Jan 9, 2021)

Starman thankyou. You have revealed what has been hidden in plain sight from the first day I opened an atlas, mid sixties most likely.


----------



## Lightseeker (Jan 9, 2021)

Starman said:


> Something weird about that.  Almost like they are hiding something.  Or just plain fakery going on.



It is for this reason that I find the speculation about the polar regions so fascinating. It is obvious to me that something is being hidden, but what?

The answer probably lies in what ancient cultures believed to be at the North Pole.

As for Antarctica, several people have claimed that there is land beyond it. And if that is the case, then it cannot just a frozen continent, but a limit of sorts.


----------



## Citezenship (Jan 9, 2021)

Starman said:


> I think the ball earth is just one more dissonant reality that leaves people purposely confused.


Add to that our most used map these days have completely removed the ice pack up top(middle) and thoroughly obscured the bottom(edge) and as we know Greenland is now whiteland!





This is with the gamma adjusted,


----------



## NigeWz (Jan 9, 2021)

I think I was about 6 years old when my Dad told me that we live on a spinning ball. I thought he was mad. However, like everyone else, we get indoctrinated into this system of nonsense. All NASA has to do is give us just ONE picture of the Earth from 'space', and we'd all go away.

It was actually the 'Mandela Effect' that 'woke me up' (quite profoundly in fact), and then it was the topic of 'flat-Earth'. I even helped a friend of mine (who had a flat-Earth YT channelat the time) do some laser experiments.
To this day I still can't beLIEve how many people still hold on to the official (fake) narrative.


----------



## Lightseeker (Jan 9, 2021)

NigeWz said:


> I think I was about 6 years old when my Dad told me that we live on a spinning ball. I thought he was mad. However, like everyone else, we get indoctrinated into this system of nonsense. All NASA has to do is give us just ONE picture of the Earth from 'space', and we'd all go away.
> 
> It was actually the 'Mandela Effect' that 'woke me up' (quite profoundly in fact), and then it was the topic of 'flat-Earth'. I even helped a friend of mine (who had a flat-Earth YT channelat the time) do some laser experiments.
> To this day I still can't beLIEve how many people still hold on to the official (fake) narrative.




What came out of the laser experiments?


----------



## NigeWz (Jan 9, 2021)

Lightseeker said:


> Starman said:
> 
> 
> > Something weird about that.  Almost like they are hiding something.  Or just plain fakery going on.
> ...


I am 100% convinced that there is land beyond Antartica, but we'll never know for sure, because our controllers won't allow anyone to go there. That said, I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the shape of this plain is more like the 'Disney Map' than a round 'pancake'.                                                                 



That said, it can't be proven either.
People have been quick to say that the U.N Flag is more like the plain we live on, but I don't even think that's true. It's just a urinated-on breadcrumb, IMHO.


Lightseeker said:


> NigeWz said:
> 
> 
> > I think I was about 6 years old when my Dad told me that we live on a spinning ball. I thought he was mad. However, like everyone else, we get indoctrinated into this system of nonsense. All NASA has to do is give us just ONE picture of the Earth from 'space', and we'd all go away.
> ...


We did the experiments across large bodies of water. It's 'flat', lol


----------



## Lightseeker (Jan 9, 2021)

NigeWz said:


> Lightseeker said:
> 
> 
> > Starman said:
> ...



I believe Earth to be flat, and that there is land beyond the antarctic wall.
It is very likely that once governments had the technology to see what is up and out there, they started to push the narrative the average person believes in. That said, knowing what the average person is like, it is likely that they wouldn't give a shit if the truth came out.
"Earth is flat? Lmao who cares. I'm watching Netflix, don't bother me."

I thought you had done that other laser experiment wherein you point lasers at the reflectors the astronauts supposedly left on the moon.


----------



## grav (Jan 9, 2021)

regarding the Arctic and Antarctic,
I used to collect videos and articles and images in a FE research thread on another forum. The thread was closed and the topic is heavily censored now.

Over the years, many of the videos have disappeared, as well as other information.
In particular, an old and very brief black-and-white video of a plane flying close to the North Pole, out of which a giant beam of energy was projecting.

Was that real or was it fake?
It may still be out there but I can't find it. 
"Ancient" cultures often portrayed the earth, or our part of it, as a roundish realm with a central power source. Mt. Meru of Hindu and Buddhist cosmology, the Norse Yggdrasil tree, the Axis Mundi, and other views of a central pillar holding up the sky.

In the Electric Universe theory,  we possibly see a saltwater battery with layers of materials that conduct energy which the dome receives, moves, acts as a computer circuit board. 
Next, we may as well ask, who knows how this all works? Nasa? 
Google Earth surely hides it. There used to be several videos exposing the glitches in their software. 

As usual, the image I tried to embed is messed up. 
I'll try to fix it. What a complicated process it is.


​


----------



## Starman (Jan 9, 2021)

Lightseeker said:


> NigeWz said:
> 
> 
> > Lightseeker said:
> ...



For all the countries of the world to agree that Antarctica is off limits, there must be more to the story than simply undiscovered land.  Since when did empires agree to keep their hands off new territory?

No, there is something there that would open a big can of worms if it was accessed.  The attempt to go there already happened with Germany and the U.S. during the WWII era, and everybody backed off and eventually a worldwide agreement was made to bury the whole issue.

My hunch is that 'we' found evidence of a previous civilization, call it Hyperborea or whatever, or else there was an active civilization discovered that told us to bugger off.  A treaty was made to close off the place and all the nations of the world agreed, because they couldn't stomach letting their people know of an alternate story of earth history.  It was better for our rulers to keep to the story of a humanity confined to a ball earth with all lands already known. 

We have the same story with the moon.  All nations have agreed to the same fake storyline of what it is, where it is, and how we've already visited it.  I believe some kind of treaty exists in order for no nation to be able to claim exclusive ownership of it.

For all nations to agree to such fake news, this is evidence of a worldwide conspiracy to deceive.  We think the main story is nations vs. nations seeking dominance, but what supersedes that is the collusion to keep the general populace from knowing the true state of the cosmos.

For me, this is probably the biggest realization, knowing that there is a false dynamic that exists in the rulership of this domain.  Surely, nations war on each other, but there's also a tacit admission that the primary job in a luciferian world is to keep the plebes in disarray.  You can't lord over your population if it discovers its true origins and purpose. You can't have emancipation if you want to continue to harvest the well being of humanity.

So, amazing as it seems, the elite of all nations agree to keep their populace in the dark above all else.  This secret is sealed by humanity's inability to wake up to the deception.  We self-correct ourselves at this point because we have been thoroughly indoctrinated and get a steady dose of daily propaganda.

You'd think some ruler of a nation, at some point in time, would call BS on the whole affair, but the plebes are too deep in delusion and that person would only be called crazy and lose their power base for speaking out.  So the charade continues and gets played time and time again. I'm not buying it.

So, my dear SH friends - for those that have woken up to these deceptions I say hurray!  CONgratulations that you have already figured out this piece of the puzzle.


Citezenship said:


> Starman said:
> 
> 
> > I think the ball earth is just one more dissonant reality that leaves people purposely confused.
> ...



Weird looking configuration of the pole as a 360 view.  Tell me why the pole image is so funky, focused on an orientation that is supposedly the center point of the pole.  We could take any point on earth and do the same, but we wouldn't create such a splayed out, artificial shape. 

For some reason we are accustomed to regard a pole as some sort of super-rounded-off and distorted place.  That's where the rounded shape of the planet is most pronounced in our minds.   But it's not, it's the same as any other point on a ball earth.   

I feels like it's just one more mind trick, distorting what the pole areas are really like, drawing you in to figure it out, but trapping you with the whole notion of a pole.  

I accept there is a north pole or at least a magnetic center of a realm, but another pole doesn't exist. Clues are found in the various fuckery going on with the distorted pole business.  Poles are an artificial construct and the weirdness going on with them are a sign they are messing with us.  

As seen on the old maps, there once was a central land, call it Hyperborea, at what we now call a pole.  It was the center of our realm. I think it was Atlantis. Where it is now, I have no idea.  It's either under the water, under the ice or wiped away, or maybe it's hidden in plain site, but we can't go there or get pictures of it.  

Thinking more cosmically, is it possible that with enough trickery and mind enslavement we can't find it or see it, but if enough focus is given someday, it will appear to us?  It's got to be somewhere.


----------



## Citezenship (Jan 9, 2021)

Starman said:


> Lightseeker said:
> 
> 
> > NigeWz said:
> ...


Yes it's quite funny, i would imagine that there would in the southern hemisphere be a compass that points to the south pole because one that point to the north should be pointing down, or up depending on perspective.

I think there is a thing about needing a different compass in the south but it still point north,

https://www.spsnational.org/the-sps-observer/spring-summer/2016/compass-confusion-answers.

Couldn't agree more on the antarctic treaty, no way competing factions came together to stop exploration to stop exploitation or contamination, more like stop anyone seeing what is there or how long, big the wall is.

There was a Norwegian guy who tried but did not get very far!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarle_Andhøy


----------



## NigeWz (Jan 10, 2021)

Lightseeker said:


> NigeWz said:
> 
> 
> > Lightseeker said:
> ...


No-one left anything on the Moon, because no-one ever went there.


Starman said:


> Lightseeker said:
> 
> 
> > NigeWz said:
> ...


As much as it pains me to say it, I don't think we'll ever really KNOW. The maps that go way back are mostly different and bear no resemblance to the Jesuit-created globe.
As far as the poles are concerned, I think there's a big 'truth-drop' there. If this flat plain is a huge battery, then it makes sense that there's a North and South 'pole'. Furthermore, take a look at the image here. It's called a 'Cathedral', right? Could that word come from perhaps 'Cathode-ral'? Were the gold-domed 'Mosques' the anodes?
Was the 'mud-flood' / melted buildings, etc., all caused by a giant shorting-out of the whole electrical grid? Quite possibly, IMHO.


----------



## Lightseeker (Jan 10, 2021)

NigeWz said:


> Lightseeker said:
> 
> 
> > NigeWz said:
> ...



I wonder if Fulcanelli's book "the mistery of the cathedrals" could shed some light on this.


----------



## NigeWz (Jan 10, 2021)

Lightseeker said:


> NigeWz said:
> 
> 
> > Lightseeker said:
> ...


Not heard of it, but I will certainly check it out. Thanks.


----------



## Lightseeker (Jan 10, 2021)

I remember having seen the Flammarion engraving as a teenager and being fascinated by the idea that a man reaches an outer border of the Earth and sees stuff we have never been neither taught or told about. Many years later as an adult man the image makes sense. Anyone else can relate?


----------



## NigeWz (Jan 11, 2021)

Lightseeker said:


> View attachment 5403
> I remember having seen the Flammarion engraving as a teenager and being fascinated by the idea that a man reaches an outer border of the Earth and sees stuff we have never been neither taught or told about. Many years later as an adult man the image makes sense. Anyone else can relate?


Yes. This has a very deep and esoteric meaning that can't be explained in just a few sentences. If you read my post 'Deception Goes Back Further Than You Think' then it may answer a few of your questions. I am preparing for Part 2 of that thread, and will be posting it in a few days.


----------



## grav (Jan 12, 2021)

under 3 minutes


_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DTPD9jfkf0I_


----------



## Starman (Jan 12, 2021)

grav said:


> under 3 minutes
> 
> 
> _View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DTPD9jfkf0I_



Thanks for the video and the great music.

Stars supposedly give off their own light, so that is how we can see them. Planets are lit by the sun and hence we see these rocky bodies because of reflected light. 

Does it make sense that a rocky planetary body millions and millions away would reflect enough light back to us so that we could see it?  Those surfaces must be so shiny as to be like a mirror!  Same goes for the moon.


----------



## NigeWz (Jan 12, 2021)

Starman said:


> grav said:
> 
> 
> > under 3 minutes
> ...



There's plenty of evidence on YT to show that planets are also either some kind of plasma, or energy shimmering in (what looks like) water).
There's zero REALevidence to show that there's anything 'rocky' up there.
A couple of years ago I was watching a Lunar eclipse from my friend's balcony in Australia.
Prior to the eclipse starting, the Moon was full, not too big, and quite dim. I stood and watched the Moon get covered, and slowly uncovered. Once the un-covering was complete, the Moon kind-of flickered (you know, like a fluorescent light strip flickers when you turn it on), then, it was full, much bigger, and really bright. Definitely source of its own light, IMHO.


----------



## E.Bearclaw (Jan 12, 2021)

Lightseeker said:


> I thought you had done that other laser experiment wherein you point lasers at the reflectors the astronauts supposedly left on the moon.



This is an easily proven bit of misinformation. If you read the link below, the laser moon experiment has been achieved since 1962. The first trip to the moon (manned) was 1969. Unmanned was 1966. Ergo if the Laser experiment can be done before we put a reflector on the moon, something else must be causing it.

Lunar Laser Ranging experiment - Wikipedia.

Furthermore, if you think about the speed the earth is rotating (1000mph at the equator), plus the speed everything is moving in space (earth & moon), it defies logic how one could hit the reflector and pick up its reflection also.

FWIW the results appear consistent with a possible reflection from a dome / firmament.


----------



## Lightseeker (Jan 12, 2021)

E.Bearclaw said:


> Lightseeker said:
> 
> 
> > I thought you had done that other laser experiment wherein you point lasers at the reflectors the astronauts supposedly left on the moon.
> ...



My question had a bit of a provocative tone in it. As in, "yes, you did laser experiments, but what about those reflectors the detractors of the flat Earth theory put forward every time as a counter-argument?".

It is obvious that the moon isn't what we make it out to be. The very fact that a ball cannot reflect light in that way says a lot. Or the fact that the light of the moon doesn't have the same properties sunlight does.


----------



## E.Bearclaw (Jan 12, 2021)

Lightseeker said:


> E.Bearclaw said:
> 
> 
> > Lightseeker said:
> ...


Yes, I did get that. I was just adding a bit of background information over the Laser / refraction test, for the purposes of collation in the thread, as that is one that can be easily disproved. Apologies if it read that I thought you were an advocate of the laser experiment. 

For what it is worth - I think that disproving the laser / refraction experiment only PROVES that the idea we left such devices on the moon, and therefore must have been to the moon as incorrect. For me it would also IMPLY there is the possibility of a dome / firmament with refractive capabilities.


----------



## Lightseeker (Jan 12, 2021)

E.Bearclaw said:


> For what it is worth - I think that disproving the laser / refraction experiment only *PROVES t*hat the idea we left such devices on the moon, and therefore must have been to the moon as incorrect. For me it would also IMPLY there is the possibility of a dome / firmament with refractive capabilities.





E.Bearclaw said:


> Lightseeker said:
> 
> 
> > E.Bearclaw said:
> ...



I don't remember know which ancient culture claims the dome to be made of molten glass.

It would explain why the milky way looks like a fissure on a glassy surface. As if something broke up there.


----------



## E.Bearclaw (Jan 12, 2021)

Lightseeker said:


> E.Bearclaw said:
> 
> 
> > For what it is worth - I think that disproving the laser / refraction experiment only *PROVES t*hat the idea we left such devices on the moon, and therefore must have been to the moon as incorrect. For me it would also IMPLY there is the possibility of a dome / firmament with refractive capabilities.
> ...



Hmm. I wonder if that also explains where all the sand under the sea and on the deserts comes from. I would assume that if you can make glass from sand, then the reverse process is possible, even if beyond us at the minute.


----------



## grav (Jan 12, 2021)

NigeWz said:


> Was the 'mud-flood' / melted buildings, etc., all caused by a giant shorting-out of the whole electrical grid? Quite possibly, IMHO.



Trying to fit togrther puzzle pieces above, we have

shorting-out the whole electric grid,
plasma lights in the dome,
sand under ocean waters,
the Dark Rift of the Milky Way........

These points remind many of us of a closed system/terrarium/battery.

They are also copasetic with the resets throughout our stolen history.
Way before I heard about FE, I read Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision.
The remarkable book asserted that Venus sprang full-grown as a comet from the head of her father, Jupiter. She regularly plagued the earth with rains of fire and brimstone. Eventually Comet Venus settled down into a Fibonacci style orbit.

The time frame from creation to 2021 is much shorter than the insane millennia as claimed by the Status Quo. Multiple resets have altered earth's shape, construction, and life forms. 

What initiates these macro alterations? Plasma events? Inevitable breakdowns of electrical systems? How do new world constructions come into being? 
My best guess would be a computer program with scheduled reboots.















_View: https://youtu.be/lZlSimsiPUA_


I think it's fake, but who knows?


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (Jan 13, 2021)

Safranek said:


> When MIchael Tellinger made a statement regarding his view on the side of FE, he had to come back with a video stating that its no use taking that position of something along those lines.


That's very interesting, considering that he basically describes a geocentric universe that is essentially a disc inside of a torus field. How much more off the fence can one get than that!

I have seen this kind of cowardly sidestepping with other "truthers", particularly Crrow777, describing the earth existing as a stationary plane, yet refusing to give any endorsement to the idea of a flat earth, as if in doing so he would suddenly either lose all credibility or be instantly lumped in with the mark sargent brand of disinfo agents that make "flat earthers" seem absolutely off their rockers. I think it may have to do with the fact that they make their living on the gift economy and on those that subscribe monthly to their paid content. By taking any radical stance they may risk losing some of their paying subscribers. I can't help but to conclude that they are part of a controlled opposition operation, even though the majority of their research tends to be of high quality.


----------



## NigeWz (Jan 13, 2021)

grav said:


> NigeWz said:
> 
> 
> > Was the 'mud-flood' / melted buildings, etc., all caused by a giant shorting-out of the whole electrical grid? Quite possibly, IMHO.
> ...



There's more to the 'simulation / hologram' theory that most of us realise. While on the face of it it sounds silly, my long-asked question is this;
Why are kangaroos only found in Australia? Why are Pandas only found in China? ......the list goes on...... There's a small island off the coast of Western Australia called 'Rottnest'. Here, you'll find an animal called a 'quokka'. Apparently, they are not to be found anywhere else - not even on the Australian mainland.


----------



## Skydog (Jan 13, 2021)

NigeWz said:


> Starman said:
> 
> 
> > grav said:
> ...



I highly recommend Mark Knight’s free ebook on the moon if you haven’t already come across it as its main premise - that the moon is an old malfunctioning sun - is consistent with your lunar eclipse reflickering observation above.

Flat Earth Advanced - The Moon - Free eBook.


----------



## grav (Jan 13, 2021)

Mark Knight, aka WaykoWayki, is also a well-spoken truther whose videos are entertaining as well as insightful.
I'll add Nibiru to the list of old suns -- or suns waiting to be energized.
Can I also add Enoch to the thread? I'm posting this video as an image, just because it's so easy to paste and embed videos compared to attaching images.


_View: https://youtu.be/R-Jpr3kGQXM_

Enoch wrote about portals through which winds and waters pass.
Since I see the sun and moon as moving lights in the dome, could they also travel through their own channels? Perhaps the dome is honeycombed with circuits, tunnels, and other components?  It would be do-able to reengineer new configurations. Which is how I see Nibiru, as a possible replacement of our current sun.

By dome, I mean the multiple layers of solid structures that all "ancient" chronicles include in their cosmologies, like that of 7 heavens.

The dome rotates above us. Yes, but what about its base in Antarctica? How would that work, where its bottom travels in the ice wall of Antarctica?

Last, animals in isolated locations, like rare species on islands. hmm.


----------



## Citezenship (Jan 13, 2021)

Skydog said:


> NigeWz said:
> 
> 
> > Starman said:
> ...




Funny, I was just re watching this take down piece by mark,

https://bittube.tv/post/6b89edb0-f94c-4015-b85f-d537dac5f9aa


----------



## Skydog (Jan 13, 2021)

Citezenship said:


> Skydog said:
> 
> 
> > NigeWz said:
> ...



That takedown video is a CTC (certified truther-classic)! Even UAP went out of his way at the time of its release to promote the video as he was so impressed with the lengths Mark must have gone to in order to gain access to the target in the first place. Let alone utterly decimate her (in a professional Q&A format) at the absurdities big space has been jamming down our throats since the dawn of A. Einstein.


----------



## Citezenship (Jan 13, 2021)

Skydog said:


> Citezenship said:
> 
> 
> > Skydog said:
> ...



Yes, I made quite a few unusual noises when he asked some of those questions, they complimented my giggles at her answers!


----------



## Lightseeker (Jan 17, 2021)

So a team of Brazilians made experiments to try and see what the Earth's shape is truly like. Here is a very well-made documentary showcasing both experiments and results thereof:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McdMMmclGVc&feature=emb_title_


No comments on the lack of aesthetics in that CGI rendition of the flat Earth.

Interestingly enough they mentioned something about land beyond the ice.


----------



## grav (Jan 18, 2021)

Lightseeker said:


> So a team of Brazilians made experiments to try and see what the Earth's shape is truly like. Here is a very well-made documentary showcasing both experiments and results thereof:
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McdMMmclGVc&feature=emb_title_
> ...




I watched that when it first came out. 
It is very well made. But seriously flawed. 
The Wild Heretic is a concave earther. 
A new perspective is the crater-earthers who see earth mirrored in the dome.
These may all be looking at the cosmic egg torus holistically.
Similar to the Matryoshka Russian dolls which nest one on top of the other.
All I can say is that the land surface on which we live is a vast and irregular plane.
..................
This is a new post.
I would prefer that it stand alone instead of being merged with the previous one.

But anyway. This regards the James T. Webb telescope which is decades behind schedule and billion  of dollars over budget. It looks like a solar simulator.


The following quotation comes from the Banned.Talk Forum.



cnut Wrote: 
I'm pretty sure I remember the James Webb Telescope "launch" a while back as well.
I agree with the nefarious possible uses of the contraption, as grav pointed out.
Good catch!

My memory is so bad, but I don't remember a launch. Maybe it was another fake satellite. Blue Origin or some jackleg looking Musk project?

They are lofting rigs up into the stratosphere. on balloons or conventional aircraft. But to do what? yes, some of it provides weather radar in areas without cell towers.
This thing, though. It's a masterpiece of Nasa psyops. Billions of $$$ to produce a single fake space thingy?
Sheesh. Even for the fake space agency, that's a helluva boondoggle.

China and other countries are also putting these things in the skies.
Back in the old days on gelpea we talking about sightings of a second sun in Antarctica. Those may have been practice runs.

_View: https://youtu.be/9dltpwxFKaA_

While they could serve as weapons platforms, I think that would be unlikely. We have seen fake forest fires in California, other states, Australia, maybe other places? for a few years. An average military drone could easily throw down laser brams much more cheaply than a delicate balloon.

So my guess is hologram projection. And we've been getting many hints about ufo sightings, signals from space, the usual buildup to an upcoming false flag. I smell an alien attack psyop.
And why that yuuge military presence in DC? to ward off old farts in MAGA hats and imposters in buffalo horns?
hmm
edit. maybe not a War of the World invasion.
Possibly the second coming of Christ. Finally, peace on earth, good will to mankind.
Either way, my money is on hologram.
O


----------



## JWW427 (Jan 18, 2021)

Question.
If the Earth was flat, wouldn't the sunrise cover the entire planet?


----------



## Silent Bob (Jan 18, 2021)

JWW427 said:


> Question.
> If the Earth was flat, wouldn't the sunrise cover the entire planet?



No.






Also a great little gif here on the whole solar system, I didn't know how to emeb it!

https://tenor.com/view/flat-earth-movement-model-gif-18798930


----------



## Jd755 (Jan 18, 2021)

Why does everyone assume there is a circle involved in the earth shape conundrum?


----------



## Lightseeker (Jan 18, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Why does everyone assume there is a circle involved in the earth shape conundrum?



Because apparently, most ancient cultures pictured/depicted Earth as a flat circle.

Technically it is an orb.


----------



## Jd755 (Jan 18, 2021)

The difference being?


----------



## Lightseeker (Jan 18, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> The difference being?



If it is only flat, there is no firmament. There is just a plain disc. 

If you take a look at the ancients' depiction of the Earth, it is basically an orb.


----------



## Jd755 (Jan 18, 2021)

Sorry I don't trust ancients. But thanks for the explanation.


----------



## Lightseeker (Jan 18, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Sorry I don't trust ancients. But thanks for the explanation.



Too bad we don't have Mr. Cohenbergensteinwitz from NASA telling you the same stuff I just posted. You'd unconditionally believe most of it, I guess.


----------



## Jd755 (Jan 18, 2021)

I don't believe anything. Belief is the food of religion.
I went looking for definitions of orbs and this one stood out although they all feature circles balls and spheres.
I find it quite odd how the circle/sphere/ball/orb is trusted as the shape of all that is without question by all earth shape theorists despite there being no physical evidence what shape the earth has or even if it has a defined shape.



> orb(Noun)
> 
> A circle; especially, a circle, or nearly circular orbit, described by the revolution of a heavenly body; an orbit


Source
Belting site for definitions from a lot of sources.


----------



## grav (Jan 20, 2021)

Silent Bob said:


> Also a great little gif here on the whole solar system, I didn't know how to emeb it!
> 
> https://tenor.com/view/flat-earth-movement-model-gif-18798930



That's a nifty model. I tried to keep any eye on the sun. Or were there multiple suns?

Unlike other images, it tries to illustrate the land beyond the Antarctic rim.
But it doesn't show the dome, which I have fo come to think the sun, moon, and stars roll around in. How thick is it? What is its shape?
Possibly this, an image I think the FE Core team made years ago, which tracked the sun over a year. It doesn't display the entire dome. It supposedly only travels befween the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn.


----------



## 6079SmithW (Jan 28, 2021)

From my private Dropbox stash.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/r5slesduyjrcpog/Firmament in CIA docs.pdf?dl=0


----------



## matematik (Jan 29, 2021)

I've noticed there's an increasing amount of UFO/aliens stuff in the media at the moment. I wonder if the UFOs/aliens thing is the elites' subtle cover for the establishment scientific theory on earth shape and space, etc. To believe most UFO/alien theories, as in aliens coming from outer space from other planets, requires one to more or less accept mainstream science as fact because most of these theories simply do not work on a flat earth model. My understanding is that Ufology within flat earth belief tends to argue that if there are UFOs/aliens they're coming from inside the earth rather than from outer space, which probably doesn't even exist.

I wonder if UFOs/aliens are a kind of double bluff by the establishment, to make people think if the government is going to great lengths to cover that up then the established theories on earth shape and space must be correct.


----------



## Lightseeker (Jan 29, 2021)

matematik said:


> I've noticed there's an increasing amount of UFO/aliens stuff in the media at the moment. I wonder if the UFOs/aliens thing is the elites' subtle cover for the establishment scientific theory on earth shape and space, etc. To believe most UFO/alien theories, as in aliens coming from outer space from other planets, requires one to more or less accept mainstream science as fact because most of these theories simply do not work on a flat earth model. My understanding is that Ufology within flat earth belief tends to argue that if there are UFOs/aliens they're coming from inside the earth rather than from outer space, which probably doesn't even exist.
> 
> I wonder if UFOs/aliens are a kind of double bluff by the establishment, to make people think if the government is going to great lengths to cover that up then the established theories on earth shape and space must be correct.



I like how aliens and UFOs stopped appearing once everyone had a high-definition camera in his pocket i.e. a smartphone.

Maybe aliens are shy and not very photogenic, who knows...


----------



## Bitbybit (Jan 29, 2021)

If there is a conspiracy, its probably that people are told that oil and gas are fossile fuels. This is made within the earth.
As you have noticed, the date of "Peak oil" is always pushed forward while they are pumping up more and more oil and the many oil wells are refilling up by themselves.

The earth has been growing, and we probably dont know why.
Earth was smaller million years ago and had less gravity, thats why dinosaurs legs, necks and bones could withstand the weight.


_View: https://youtu.be/oJfBSc6e7QQ_



_View: https://youtu.be/tiCMFzpMnZM_


_View: https://youtu.be/zSff0pwc1Xc


https://dinox.org/_


----------



## Silent Bob (Jan 29, 2021)

The talk of Aliens has reminded me about what Bob Lazar said regarding his investigations within area 51. The advanced UFO technology he was studying was actually found in an archeological dig. This makes sense from a FE persepctive, this is ancient human technology from a previous civilisation. The more recent 'sightings' could be our reverse engineered reproduction of this ancient tech. I agree with matematik about them using the idea of aliens to strengthen the whole concept of outer space, which I find myself no longer believing in. It's funny, I was a huge fan of the X-Files, I was like Mulder in that I wanted to believe, so I was always biased towards the possibility of space travel and aliens and yet still ended up not believing in it!

Just been talking about the TV series 'The Prisoner' on another thread. For the first time it has just occured to me that this may be symbolic of the round earth scam. So, is the village symbolic of the realm we are currently in, as we are told that it is limited and there is no way out. Nothing exists outside of the village. Only local maps exist, the rest of the world is not acknowledged to exist at all. When he tries to escape via the sea an odd character called 'Rover' stops him. Rover is a giant white sphere, balloon like, which envelopes him and returns him to the village.

You can watch it all for free on youtube, I'm going to rewatch it soon as it's been a while.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dcq2Ape4DTw&list=PLm-jfafuTZEEi0ByMGDdkOmvnQwHMd3ce_


----------



## grav (Jan 30, 2021)

Thoughts about posts above:

1. While I think "aliens" exist, I reckon that most or all of the ufo sightings are hoaxes courtesy of the elite brainwashing agenda. For what purpose? Before he died, Wehrner Von Braun predicted an alien invasion scam. This could be achieved with a Bluebeam projection. For what purpose? All nations joining to form a One World Government.

2. Fossil fuels are impossible, aren't they? Organic matter either decomposes quickly or petrifies. So they may be formed from below the crust. I also remember reading Velikovsky's reports of burning naphtha raining down on the earth in ancient times.

3. The Prisoner was a superior and seriously weird tv program. The Truman Show also depicted a hapless human kept in a caged habitat.  A few Star Trek episodes and other sci-fi also hinted that earth is an enclosed terrarium.

4. Spraking of a terrarium, that protected environment requires a lid.
I've been trying to find images or text to embed, like that CIA Dropbox file.
No luck so far. And it does include multiple pages.
This link is one of a few that list of Nasa documents that address the firmament:
NASA Documents Conclusively Provide ‘Proof’ of a ‘Flat Nonrotating Earth’

5. Record-keeping would be an efficient way to quickly access information that supports the FE position. I had a research thread years ago at a forum which has since been overtakrn by Nasa shills posing as mods.
There are plenty of books, videos, images, and other ingelligence that makes our case. But we need a better system. Online, free, copy-and-paste- friendly. If we had Nasa's budget, $52 million a day, we could make it happen.


----------



## Lightseeker (Jan 30, 2021)

grav said:


> Thoughts about posts above:
> 
> 1. While I think "aliens" exist, I reckon that most or all of the ufo sightings are hoaxes courtesy of the elite brainwashing agenda. For what purpose? Before he died, Wehrner Von Braun predicted an alien invasion scam. This could be achieved with a Bluebeam projection. For what purpose? All nations joining to form a One World Government.
> 
> ...



1. What I have read is that aliens might be beings from (beyond) the Poles. 

4. Do we have any engineers or architects here? As far as I know the curvature of the Earth is not taken into account when planning railways, lighthouses and air travel (planes don't compensate for the curvature).

5. Which forum was that?


----------



## grav (Jan 31, 2021)

Lightseeker said:


> grav said:
> 
> 
> > Thoughts about posts above:
> ...



1. I agree about aliens coming from outside the dome. Sitchin's Anunnaki seemed to come through a watery entrance. I also think that the "creator" was an Advanced Being who wrote the Sim Earth program.

4. Eric Dubay's free pdf, "200 Proofs Earth Is Not a Spinning Ball," lists several examples of flat construction engineering, including the Suez Canal, over 100 miles of level waters connecting 2 seas.

5. Lunatic Outpost. Heavily censored, one of several forums which allow "no flat earth derp."


Lightseeker said:


> grav said:
> 
> 
> > Thoughts about posts above:
> ...



1. I agree about aliens coming from outside the dome. Sitchin's Anunnaki seemed to come through a watery entrance. I also think that the "creator" was an Advanced Being who wrote the Sim Earth program.

4. Eric Dubay's free pdf, "200 Proofs Earth Is Not a Spinning Ball," lists several examples of flat construction engineering, including the Suez Canal, over 100 miles of level waters connecting 2 seas.

5. Lunatic Outpost. Heavily censored, one of several forums which allow "no flat earth derp."


----------



## Lightseeker (Jan 31, 2021)

grav said:


> 5. Lunatic Outpost. Heavily censored, one of several forums which allow "no flat earth derp."



I wonder why that is. 

In general I wonder why the topic triggers such an emotional response among most people. No other topic is so controversial, apparently.


----------



## grav (Jan 31, 2021)

Lightseeker said:


> grav said:
> 
> 
> > 5. Lunatic Outpost. Heavily censored, one of several forums which allow "no flat earth derp."
> ...



It beats the heck outta me too  

Antisemitism, whatever its definition, is another touchy topic.
Free energy, 5g, anti-vaxx also arouse negative emotions in many people.
And that's when they are even allowed to be exposed to heresies.
It is true that indoctrination starts early, but I think close-mindedness is a  genetic predisposition.


----------



## Silent Bob (Jan 31, 2021)

Lightseeker said:


> grav said:
> 
> 
> > 5. Lunatic Outpost. Heavily censored, one of several forums which allow "no flat earth derp."
> ...



I have definately noticed the same thing. I used to go on the David Icke forum before I came across SH. You could have some good discussions on most topics, except for the flat earth topic. I just had a look for the first time in ages, every FE thread has been locked, which doesn't surprise me. I lost count of the times I tried to have a sensible discusion about FE on that forum, I never managed to get close. Without exception you would get all the RE believers insulting and ridiculing anyone who dared to even entertain the idea. This also showed me that I was in the wrong place there, some very closed minded posters!


----------



## Lightseeker (Jan 31, 2021)

Silent Bob said:


> Lightseeker said:
> 
> 
> > grav said:
> ...



Their logic is that "the flat Earth theory is a psyop to make people instantly believe that conspiracy theorists are nutjobs".

Yeah, because the belief that the elites are reptilians is more accessible and logical than the Earth's shape not being what we are told to believe it is.


----------



## grav (Jan 31, 2021)

Lightseeker said:


> Silent Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Lightseeker said:
> ...



riiiiight!
You can capture a reptilian and prove that the royals are possessed with them.
- - - -
but no way can you use laws of physics, and math, and long distance photos, and any of the other crazy psyops flatearthers pull.

Stanley Kubrick, who faked the moon landings, did so to get funding to make movies like 2001, a Space Odyssey. His last movie was Eyes Wide Shut. A perfect title to describe how people only see what The Control System tells them they see. 

David Icke has to know the true shape of earth. He puts on this act to make a living as a public speaker and writer.


----------



## Bitbybit (Jan 31, 2021)

_View: https://youtu.be/9HyZ1Ns_yKA_


----------



## Starman (Jan 31, 2021)

Silent Bob said:


> The talk of Aliens has reminded me about what Bob Lazar said regarding his investigations within area 51. The advanced UFO technology he was studying was actually found in an archeological dig. This makes sense from a FE persepctive, this is ancient human technology from a previous civilisation. The more recent 'sightings' could be our reverse engineered reproduction of this ancient tech. I agree with matematik about them using the idea of aliens to strengthen the whole concept of outer space, which I find myself no longer believing in. It's funny, I was a huge fan of the X-Files, I was like Mulder in that I wanted to believe, so I was always biased towards the possibility of space travel and aliens and yet still ended up not believing in it!



My sentiments as well.  

Nothing comes from outside our realm in the 3D sense.  This is it.  Any woo woo technology we've found is from past civilizations, not from aliens outside this realm.  There is no outside this realm.  This place has been turned upside down multiple times. The whole space thing is a fabrication, same as ball planets floating in a vacuum.  

Our controllers can't stand being cooped up in this realm under god's watch, and must believe we have the agency to break out of here.  As of late THEY have constructed a new religion of scientism that works to destroy the old beliefs and institutes a luciferian lie about the nature of our realm. THEY want the plebes to be captured in this new intellect-based world of physical form while they scurry around weaving a web of lies and trying to figure out on their own how the hell to get the Creator off their backs. 

We plebes, also feeling constrained in some vague way, believe the only way out of here is to get on a space ship and haley on. We live the lie while our controllers know more, but are confused themselves, trying to figure out what's going on, signing on to lucifer who might have the answer because THEY don't want to take the Creator's way out. THEY want immortality, so they follow satan and create their stupid upside down world.  What a shitshow!


----------



## grav (Feb 1, 2021)

The expanding earth video, hmm. Even Tesla proposed aether coming down from above and  being absorbed into the inner earth, making the ball fatter.

Another pie-in-the-sky theory for academics to argue over.

If we apply it to the flat earth, it would involve an expanding dome that encompasses a larger area of the "infinite" plane. Could this have been the cause of the Dark Rift known as the Milky Way?

Ancient cultures mention a lower firmament. The Tower of Babel was an attempt to build a ladder to Heaven. Chinese myth speaks of a goddess whol held up and repaired a sky ceiling that was getting too low for comfort. The sky is falling, Chicken Little, the sky is falling. And Jack in the Beanstalk climbed into a giant's home in the clouds. But the sky is higher now, or at least the first layer that Nasa mapped out in the 60s with their "atom bomb" tests.

As I guessed earlier, I think that chemtrails may be trying to hide the skydome, or prepare it for a Bluebeam alien invasion.

To connect with the forum's premise of fake history, it sounds like this world age may be about to reset. Maybe because the human hamsters are realizing they can escape from their cage. And the elites don't want that to happen.


----------



## Petra (Feb 1, 2021)

grav said:


> That was a good response, and a positive sign that there still are critical thinkers out there in the aether.
> As for Nasa, you don't have to be a flatearther to see that agency as the Ministry of Truth which controls (rules) all science. I mean pseudoscience, aka theoretical science.
> Instead of using the Scientific Method to obtain repeatable empirical data, scientists are now encouraged to speculate and invent fake mathematical constants. e=mc^2 for example, would have us believe that light travels forever.
> But it looks cool when a faker with wild hair draws it on a chalkboard.
> ...



Hi, let´s talk about : WHO is doing so big lies and for what reason?
One reason, you EVER will find is - CASH!
If you lie about going to moon or mars, you will ask for MONEY to start the equipment and the technology and the staff and....
So, you see, its a MONEY-MAKER!!!! In real, you take that money for to dig in the ground to have big areas in secret, to go ahead with teslas big ideas, not for the masses, but for the ÉLITE´, or what they think they are...!
Oh, by the way: THEY know very clear, earth is be done by THAT power, you know as GOD, GODESS, ....and is flat, with middle NORTHPOLE and circled halfway äquator and surrounded by ICEWALL Antarktis. The only area, every State around the world is happy to accept, to walk on is FORBIDDEN!!!!!
Another point of interest:
When GOD made human being like herself, WE have also the POWER to create, to make our wishes came true!
There is very less, we are fenced to overtake that possibility:
Clean up your body (eat NO pieces of animals, drink NO alcohol, bath your body for at least 2h/day for 3 weeks in natron-water to start cleaning via osmose -150g per bath), and after that, clean your mind of all egoistic ideas , you THINK you would wish, and start thinking about what you realy wish!!!
( Imagine, a fairy ask you for 3 wishes, WHAT is it, you would ask for? Would it realy be a sportscar and 5 kg gold??? or would it be 1.)peace, 2.) freedom, 3.)love  -not ONLY for YOU, instaed for all living thing on earth? I did!


veeall said:


> I think it is worth checking, using a sextant, the true distance of one degree of latitude at, say 25 parallel vs at 50.
> I have the impression the length of a degrees of latitude measured relative to North Star is found almost equal by ancient navigators, but this do not conform to a globe model, so it was presented to us as if latitudes/parallels are set relative to the (fictional) center of the earth instead. Now the numbers of fictional globe conform to real earth measurements.
> In reality, at least in olden times, if north star is visible in the sky at 45 degree it means you are at 45th parallel. Should check that myself though.
> 
> Also it seems never is the whole half of the Earth lit by the sun, worth checking also. With huge sun like that, it should lit very close to a half or even more, sunrise appearing at the same time at both top and bottom of the globe. I will probably keep these up in my future plans.



It seems to be easier: don´t think about the sun bigger than 55km wide, in around 4000km highness. there is a map, Gleasons new standart map of the world from 1892(?),  on that you see the sun never enlights more than 90°....


Silent Bob said:


> Lightseeker said:
> 
> 
> > grav said:
> ...




Its hard to be alone with a working kind of a brain...! For me it seems to be clear: Because, if you begin  to ask for the "MOTHER OF ALL CONSPIRACYS", that idea of mother earth flat and sourunded by icewall Antarktis, covered with the firmament,  THEN you are on the path of true, of coming to the very shoking idea of YOU are importent, YOU have power ...
THAT is something, in NO WAY the elite want you to know.
THAT is the reason of all the "TRUTHER", beeing paid to burn down a lots of fake-fakenews, not to find you the truth!!!!
Sorry, may be some of them THINK realy, they do some good. But, unfortunaly, they do not! They try YOU not to find the lies, to engage your power in staircases instead in the townhall!!!!
And be carefully, because I myself found me 20 years ago very quick in a sanatorium with knocked doors, when I tryed to tell my outfindings....


----------



## Six (Feb 1, 2021)

This debate is easy to debunk with all of you guys from different places / continents . Set a time when the moon it's visible and capture some photos. If you all see the same shape (align with cardinal points) that should be = earth is round, else = it's flat. Btw time zones by itself debunks the FE theory because of the sun "hitting" earth from nort to south.


----------



## Starman (Feb 2, 2021)

I enjoy 'Vlad from Flat Earth' videos, short clips using his Nikon P1000 to record video of star and 'planet' movements.  I particularly like his images of stars that look like wave forms jumping around and flashing different colors.  No solid globes there.  Debunkers say it's just an image out of focus, but what about the dancing around?

He made an interesting comment in this latest video - How come some stars get larger in his view finder as he zooms in?  If they are supposedly millions and billions of light years away, it shouldn't matter how much you zoom., they should stay points of light.  Is there a come back to that observation?


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drY1VhhFbD8_


----------



## Bitbybit (Feb 2, 2021)

Stars getting larger in cameras in high zoom is obviously because of imperfection of the optics or athmospheric distortion.  FE/UFO community seems to be filled with extremely lack of technical understandings, which destroys good conversations. And it puts up a barrier to spread alternative cosmology because main stream people with good technical skills will think all alternative theories is like this and will laugh at everyone attached to this.
So yes, if FE is a psy-op it is damn well working exactly like planned.


----------



## Lightseeker (Feb 2, 2021)

Bitbybit said:


> Stars getting larger in cameras in high zoom is obviously because of imperfection of the optics or athmospheric distortion.  FE/UFO community seems to be filled with extremely lack of technical understandings, which destroys good conversations. And it puts up a barrier to spread alternative cosmology because main stream people with good technical skills will think all alternative theories is like this and will laugh at everyone attached to this.
> So yes, if FE is a psy-op it is damn well working exactly like planned.



If FE is a psyop then why when I search for Flat Earth videos on Youtube all I get is parodies and the only way to access real FE videos is to seek the channels that are dedicated to that topic?


----------



## Starman (Feb 2, 2021)

Bitbybit said:


> Stars getting larger in cameras in high zoom is obviously because of imperfection of the optics or athmospheric distortion.  FE/UFO community seems to be filled with extremely lack of technical understandings, which destroys good conversations.



Nothing's obvious here, except your need to accuse people of lacking your special understanding.  A throw away comment blaming optical imperfection and atmospheric distortion is not a winning argument. You are the one destroying a good conversation.  If you want to address the issue I raised, you need to qualify what you mean by atmospheric distortion and optical imperfection in plain language.  What is optical imperfection anyways?  Is the camera faulty?  Is what we see through a lens not what is actually out there? To what degree is it distorted?  A little bit, a lot, 10% out of whack? Should we be mistrustful of all imagery that is viewed and photographed through a lens?


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 2, 2021)

You cannot determine the shape of  the thing you walk on by looking up.


----------



## grav (Feb 2, 2021)

I added Vlad from Flat Earth to my yuuge subscription list.
Some people claim to see faces in the close-up images of stars. Ah, the watchers.
Sometimes I do see eyes and mouths. Pareidolia, most likely.
My guess is that they are components in a curved motherboard.

Which brings us back to the height of the dome. 62 miles? 300? Rockets can't seem to fly higher than a few dozen miles. Light rockets have gone up 60 to 70 miles, at which point they hit a layer of gases which slow and halt their momentum. I exaggerate, as the GoFast rocket video is the only one that I've seen with a camera on board to record the trip to "space."

Distance to the moon is around a quarter million miles. How is it possible for telescopes and zoom lenses on cameras to focus on lunar craters like Tycho, which is 50 miles wide?

So, no, to pooh-pooh FE photos of far distant objects is just plain false.

Though looking up doesn't prove the earth's shape, it does debunk establishment science and the entire field of astronomy.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 2, 2021)

The sky is all about speculation. We can and do speculate ourselves into a fractal which defeats the object of figuring out what the objective reality is.
The biggest clue for me that I am not stood on a ball falling away from me in every direction from my position upon it, is not the truth there is no such thing as pull its the active prevention of exploration by our blind belief in the existence of the authority cult aka states/nations/experts indeed anything outside of us as the individual point of perception.
How to get to exploring the room seems to me to be the thing that needs figuring out then go do it.
The big problem with looking up is our visual geometry.
Edit to correct word order.


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (Feb 2, 2021)

Lightseeker said:


> Bitbybit said:
> 
> 
> > Stars getting larger in cameras in high zoom is obviously because of imperfection of the optics or athmospheric distortion.  FE/UFO community seems to be filled with extremely lack of technical understandings, which destroys good conversations. And it puts up a barrier to spread alternative cosmology because main stream people with good technical skills will think all alternative theories is like this and will laugh at everyone attached to this.
> ...


Flat earth is a psyop that has many steps. The first question that must be asked is, "What is the goal of this psyop and what are the tactics to carry it out? There are many layers to this psyop. The fact that it is a psyop does not necessarily mean that the concept is in and of itself false. The psyop seeks to co-opt this concept and take it in a very specific direction. 

The psyop began by first giving flat earth absolute credibility. The target audience was the awakening truth seekers that have already begun to come to the conclusion that we are being lied to on many fronts. This took place on YT in early 2015 with the first wave of timely information with the 200 Proofs video by Eric Dubay, in addition to an explosion of interviews he gave on alternative media platforms over the next succeeding months, berating fake science while exposing the fraud of NASA.

As this began to gain serious traction, the next wave of videos came out from Mark Sargent, with his "Flat Earth Clues" series, a dumbed down approach to flat earth with lots of speculation and very little real actual scientific data to back up the flat earth concept. He also went on an alt media tour, giving hundreds of interviews, behaving like a complete fool and idiot. This seemed to get much greater traction than Dubay's presence, resulting in an overall dumbing down of the information while making followers of this information look foolish by direct association with Sargent. Also, hangout groups began popping up, seemingly out of the woodwork, discussing and showcasing the arising conflict that quickly developed between those supporting Dubay's more scientific approach versus Sargent's speculative rantings.

Wave three came with the flat earth debunkers, those that attempted to either use mainstream scientific ideas to prove a spinning ball or to troll flat earthers, labeling them as unscientific tin foil hat wearers.

Dubay then upped the ante by posting "Hitler vs the Jew World Order". This was the masterful stroke of the psyop, since it now lumped Eric Dubay with not only "tin foil hat conspiracy theorists", but it also now identified anyone looking into flat earth as anti-Semites.

The synthesis could now take place. Now that flat earth research was merged with anti-Semitic research, the mainstream media could now freely label anyone looking into flat earth as conspiracy nuts, haters, racists, and potential domestic terrorists.

With the great Covid-Youtube censorship purge, most of these videos were nearly completely wiped from Youtube's servers. Those that had been making a living through monetized platforms were now de-platformed, forced to start from scratch on other competing platforms like Bitchute and lbry and others, which was now an uphill battle, since video content was now scrutinized much more intensely.

This is the reason why it is now quite difficult to find any decent, credibly presented videos on this subject on Youtube, with some exceptions. Those that made flat earth look really bad from the beginning, your Mark Sargent types, can still be easily found on Youtube, except that now it is so completely marginalized, even they get hardly any views anymore.

Since videos take up such great bandwidth space, those who thought their uploaded videos on YT would be there forever, failed to back these videos up onto storage drives. As a result, many of those great early proof videos are gone forever. Those that did back up their videos are slowly uploading them back onto other platforms, but exposure is far more minimal.

What this leaves us with is the one step forward, two steps back approach to information war, since the greatest grass roots archive of our time has now been completely whitewashed to become just another competing pay-per-view streaming cable network.

I would say that the flat earth psyop has succeeded in its agenda: to completely invert the scientific method approach to controversial material, shutting down truthful dialog by labeling all that participate in such dialog as tin foil hat wearing, anti-semitic, racist, domestic terrorist flat earthers.

This will later be co-opted again when they choose to flip on NASA, exposing it for the that fraud it is, in favor of a more accurate cosmology in order to get flat earthers and conspiracy theorists on board to the NWO, since they may be the only ones left still alive that haven't taken the "vaccine".


----------



## Starman (Feb 2, 2021)

Collapseinrealtime said:


> Flat earth is a psyop that has many steps. The first question that must be asked is, "What is the goal of this psyop and what are the tactics to carry it out? There are many layers to this psyop. The fact that it is a psyop does not necessarily mean that the concept is in and of itself false. The psyop seeks to co-opt this concept and take it in a very specific direction.
> 
> The psyop began by first giving flat earth absolute credibility. The target audience was the awakening truth seekers that have already begun to come to the conclusion that we are being lied to on many fronts. This took place on YT in early 2015 with the first wave of timely information with the 200 Proofs video by Eric Dubay, in addition to an explosion of interviews he gave on alternative media platforms over the next succeeding months, berating fake science while exposing the fraud of NASA.
> 
> ...



One of the bigger clues that FE has validity, is the extent of the vilification of the theory.  The degree of psyop that has been engaged to discredit it, is evidence enough that we have stumbled upon something significant.  If a theory is far fetched enough, nobody bothers to debunk it.  If it instead hits a nerve, all hell breaks loose and people pile on to muddy the waters.  

Simple observations are the key to decoding the psyop.  As soon as the opposition starts throwing words around, using formulas and making convoluted, complex arguments, you know you've hit the jackpot.  My favorite is the explanation why rocket thrusters on a descending space ship onto the moon don't ruffle the earth underneath it.  We're supposed to believe that a mighty incendiary force being applied to slow the descent won't leave on a mark on the surface.  We're also expected to believe that you can have combustion without atmospheric oxygen and that in a vacuum or near vacuum you have something to push against, and that these tiny craft can carry enough fuel, along with an ATV strapped to the outside to touch down and later lift off the surface.  

The stupidity goes on and on.  It's just not here and there, it's everywhere you look.  A psyop is needed only for those that haven't sufficiently attuned their BS meter.

SO special that Nixon was able to talk to the astronauts live on the moon via telephone in the oval office.


----------



## Citezenship (Feb 2, 2021)

Starman said:


> Collapseinrealtime said:
> 
> 
> > Flat earth is a psyop that has many steps. The first question that must be asked is, "What is the goal of this psyop and what are the tactics to carry it out? There are many layers to this psyop. The fact that it is a psyop does not necessarily mean that the concept is in and of itself false. The psyop seeks to co-opt this concept and take it in a very specific direction.
> ...


Yes the magic camera film in the magic hassleblad cameras that will not melt in +/-330, +/-666 degrees(sarcasm) along with the acompanying batteries that function in the same environment.

We should have had a dust cloud that lasted for months given the supposed low G but not even a speck, wonder how they kept those lenses clean, they had to assemble the battery operated ATV, they had to operate the camera with those big ol space gloves, it just goes on and on!


----------



## Lightseeker (Feb 2, 2021)

Collapseinrealtime said:


> Lightseeker said:
> 
> 
> > Bitbybit said:
> ...



Imagine being so cucked.


----------



## freygeist (Feb 2, 2021)

Lightseeker said:


> Collapseinrealtime said:
> 
> 
> > Lightseeker said:
> ...



While i don't agree on his statement, that this whole thing is a psyop, you have to admit that he made some fair points about certain individuals in this scene. But nonetheless most points still stand, that were being made by genuine researchers, and there are still many things to be explored about this subject.


----------



## grav (Feb 3, 2021)

Well, whoa. Let's be careful.
It's not Flat Earth that is the psyop; it's the carpetbaggers who joined the 'origjnal gangsta' truthers to take advantage of the movement.
Yes, Dubay should have tempered his language about Zionism and Hitler's role in the Israel NWO agenda. but but his assessment should stand on its own merits, or faults, and not influence FE science.

Almost all the old researchers have gone to hangouts. Often, these are 2 hour productions that fill no need that I can see. Even if they present good information, I will not sit still long enough for these talk fests. I'm subscribed to dozens of YT channels and almost never see anything I care to watch. One exception, Taboo Conspiracy, continues to do field work to prove lack of observable curvature.

Sadly, we seem to be in a rut. Geoshifter's  Flat Earth Friends was promising a few years ago. Lack of interest has let that forum go downhill.

Why? We are not getting our message out there, but maybe Covid and Biden-Trump have sucked all the air out of ct. CT means critical thinking, but the world at large still thinks of it, and us, as crazy conspiracy thinking.

Big Tech is our major enemy now. They censor the Truth community. Google, Youtube, Facebook, newspapers, and other media outlets have suborned what used to call the life of the mind. People want what our pets want. A safe space, food, comfort. Not truth. Our leaders aren't doing their jobs. And I mean the FE leaders who no longer reach out to educate the public.


----------



## Bitbybit (Feb 3, 2021)

Starman said:


> One of the bigger clues that FE has validity, is the extent of the vilification of the theory.  The degree of psyop that has been engaged to discredit it, is evidence enough that we have stumbled upon something significant.  If a theory is far fetched enough, nobody bothers to debunk it.  If it instead hits a nerve, all hell breaks loose and people pile on to muddy the waters.



This is not necessary how it works.
Until a couple of years ago I defended mainstream theories and tried to debunk all alternative history and cosmology.
But i "woke up".
And Flat Earth threads inside a forum is comparable for me like trying to discuss if Vitruvius or Ceasar was a real person, then other threads are constantly discussing that Napoleons triumphant arc must be made of bananas because it is obviously curved, and if you zoom in you can see yellow pigments in the stone.

So the nerve that is hit could be called flabbergasting. I think this state is why many alternative critics first reply to FE, because its hard to resist when you read something like that.


----------



## Lightseeker (Feb 3, 2021)

grav said:


> Well, whoa. Let's be careful.
> It's not Flat Earth that is the psyop; it's the carpetbaggers who joined the 'origjnal gangsta' truthers to take advantage of the movement.
> Yes, Dubay should have tempered his language about Zionism and Hitler's role in the Israel NWO agenda. but but his assessment should stand on its own merits, or faults, and not influence FE science.
> 
> ...



Eric Dubay seems the most believable/authentic of all modern FE.


----------



## veeall (Feb 3, 2021)

Starman said:


> I enjoy 'Vlad from Flat Earth' videos, short clips using his Nikon P1000 to record video of star and 'planet' movements.  I particularly like his images of stars that look like wave forms jumping around and flashing different colors.  No solid globes there.  Debunkers say it's just an image out of focus, but what about the dancing around? Distortions are much more pronounced
> 
> He made an interesting comment in this latest video - How come some stars get larger in his view finder as he zooms in?  If they are supposedly millions and billions of light years away, it shouldn't matter how much you zoom., they should stay points of light.  Is there a come back to that observation?
> 
> ...



Very nice lightwaves in this video. I've checked this stars-thingy with my p1000 and i think it doesn't hold - when manually adjusting the focus ring while zoomed in, at some point the star loses its wavy look and becomes (basically) a smaller dot light you would expect. It is still interesting effect though. Images of the moon aren't so much distorted by atmosphere at maximum zoom than far objects on earth, maybe the simple answer of these being just air distortions is also not correct. 

Regarding the earth shape, i just remembered - An interesting quote from Viktor Grebennikov, the antigravity platform guy: (while going higher) "The huge disk of the Earth with all this for some reason appears more and more concave-I still haven't discovered the reason for this already familiar illusion."


----------



## grav (Feb 3, 2021)

veeall said:


> Starman said:
> 
> 
> > I enjoy 'Vlad from Flat Earth' videos, short clips using his Nikon P1000 to record video of star and 'planet' movements.  I particularly like his images of stars that look like wave forms jumping around and flashing different colors.  No solid globes there.  Debunkers say it's just an image out of focus, but what about the dancing around? Distortions are much more pronounced
> ...




Lightwave is a good term to describe whaf Crrow77 used to film in his lunar wave videos.
A wavy line would appear at the bottom of the moon and move up.

He explained that it wasn't a camera artifact or atmospheric distortion, but an actual movement of light that was more or less straight horizontally. If the moon were a rocky ball, the light would have curved around the sphere, but it remained flat, more or less, as it flowed from down to up, as if refreshing, updating, whatever.

I don't see much of this kind of investigation lately, now that everyone wants to be a blogger or hangout-er. Since the first lunar wave videos appeared, we have learned about the dome as a fixture (I hate to say light bulb!) which emits or displays plasma phenomena.

But that's kinda where I am right now. We live on a vast and irregular plane, know zilch about what lies below 7.5 miles. Overhead we see lights which fake science says are stars, planets, moon, sun. The glasslike motherboard embedded with led or other components makes as much sense as the vacuum of infinite space as advertised by the lying scumbags of the Body Scientific.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 3, 2021)

I  don't get the dome theory and find it odd that people who realise the ball theory is bollocks persist with the idea of 'half a ball' floating or being held up above our heads. Its obvious once one accepts the geometry of the eye is what it is that the only level line the eye recognises is the one that is at ninety degrees to the bodies vertical position. Everything we do is wholly based within this visual truth which to me shows that any convergence or curve over our heads is nothing more than a product of our optical geometry.
The sky whatever it is is just as likely to be as level as the interface of water vapour and contained water so dead level or it could conceivably go up and down as the land does down here.
If the water vapour is contained in the same way as the liquid water is though I would expect a level interface between the vapour over our heads and whatever is above the vapour. 

It's all moot anyway, interesting but pure speculation as we cannot get our eyes to 'the top surface of the water vapour' best we get is getting them to the level of fogs or clouds and these phenomena are not contained for the most part and always moving even mist over a dead level surface of contained water such as a canal is moved by the slightest of movements within the vapour.


----------



## grav (Feb 3, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> I  don't get the dome theory and find it odd that people who realise the ball theory is bollocks persist with the idea of 'half a ball' floating or being held up above our heads. Its obvious once one accepts the geometry of the eye is what it is that the only level line the eye recognises is the one that is at ninety degrees to the bodies



Dome? Of course we don't know the true shape of the firmament.
For air pressure to exist, there needs to be a lid over the living space terrarium.

It does seem to have "walls" that extend to the ground in the Antarctic outer limits. But it does not "float" as you suggest.

Dome does imply a round top, though.

I have used this image before, which plots the sun's path over one year.
Mos def not a half sphere. More like a Chinese hat maybe.
Did my image disappear while I was editing?


----------



## Bitbybit (Feb 3, 2021)

Questions to Flat Earth proponents:

What is the twin paradox in General Relativity?
Is oil and gas really made of fossil?
Are the contintental plates really moving and crashing into each other?
Is quasar red shift really caused by universe expansion?
Is it possible to measure single photons?


_View: https://youtu.be/NJjO2J7HTF8_


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 3, 2021)

grav said:


> Dome? Of course we don't know the true shape of the firmament.
> For air pressure to exist, there needs to be a lid over the living space terrarium.
> 
> It does seem to have "walls" that extend to the ground in the Antarctic outer limits. But it does not "float" as you suggest.


I've never seen walls but then again I've no idea where Antarctica is in relation to where I live..
All pressure is created by something pushing on something else as I might have mentioned pull and pulling are just descriptors of direction. In that light it is entirely possible that the 'lid' as you so aptly put it is in contact with the water vapour or maybe something else exists between the vapour and the lid that we know nothing about.
The direction of the push is from head to toe as far as I can tell not toe to head.
For the dome to be fixed to walls or sides as in a lidded jar then it is hard to realise where the push could come from as the walls of the jar dome would prevent pressure being applied from outside, assuming there is an outside, and within the dome unless it is a pressurised environment produced when it was created there would be no increase of decrease in pressure possible as in a pressurised vessel it is the same pressure throughout the container.

How do you know what the Antarctic outer limits are or indeed where they are?


----------



## grav (Feb 4, 2021)

1. Air pressure
2. Antarctica as flat earth boundary
3. Astronomy jargon BS


1. Air pressure is caused by particle density, which results from gas particles sitting on top of each other.
Gravity is not a force. Specific gravity is the ratio of densities of adjacent substances.

It looks like the attachment option won't upload my image.
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71Cnd4gCfVL._AC_SY679_.jpg

It shows how liquids form layers based on their specific gravity. Heavy liquids settle at the "bottom" while lighter substances "float" on top.

That's it. Observable. Demonstrable. Repeatable, with empirical data. Logical.

Electromagnetism is the only true force in nature.
Gravity is the false theory which globers fall back on to justify their fallacious model. Clouds float because their water particles are widely dispersed. Rain particles have greater density and fall to earth, where they accumulate and form bodies of water which seek their own level. Hence, level means flat and straight along an x-axis. Not curved equidistantally around a spinng ball, which should cause any 6th grade science teacher to blush with shame.

2. Antarctica, which you will nener be allowed to see (past 60°S). The Antarctic forbidden zone is patrolled by a military fleet. Yes, it is.  The UN Treaty was established at the same time Nasa went online (~1958). Because that's when their Atom bomb tests (using TNT) mapped out the Lebensraum Earth.

3. As for Einstein, that old plagiarist, he was trotted out to invent his asinine space-time continuum relativity BS.

Addendum. As for Bittybit's multi-faceted list o' pseudoscience fables, try answering your own questions with the Electric Universe and Olbers's Paradox.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 4, 2021)

Here's your image.


----------



## Lightseeker (Feb 4, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Here's your image.
> 
> View attachment 6446​


That map doesn't show the four islands at the center, though...


----------



## Bitbybit (Feb 4, 2021)

grav said:


> Electromagnetism is the only true force in nature.
> Gravity is the false theory which globers fall back on to justify their fallacious model. Clouds float because their water particles are widely dispersed. Rain particles have greater density and fall to earth, where they accumulate and form bodies of water which seek their own level. Hence, level means flat and straight along an x-axis. Not curved equidistantally around a spinng ball, which should cause any 6th grade science teacher to blush with shame.



Is the moon a sphere?



grav said:


> Addendum. As for Bittybit's multi-faceted list o' pseudoscience fables, try answering your own questions with the Electric Universe and Olbers's Paradox.



TLT "Tired light theory" offers a good solution to the Olbers Paradox which i have no problem to adopt.
https://www.intechopen.com/books/redefining-standard-model-cosmology/tired-light-denies-the-big-bang


----------



## grav (Feb 5, 2021)

The 1587 Urbano Monte map


----------



## Lightseeker (Feb 5, 2021)

grav said:


> The 1587 Urbano Monte mapView attachment 6502



It seems like before the year 1600 a lot of world maps included that land at the north Pole.

I have heard Santos Bonacci claim that the north Pole is actually a tropical area. Can anyone provide reference material for this claim?


----------



## Bitbybit (Feb 5, 2021)

grav said:


> The 1587 Urbano Monte mapView attachment 6502



The middle circle ("equator"), what does this represent on a flat earth model?


----------



## grav (Feb 6, 2021)

The sun circles the flat earth between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn.
The equator? besides being the warmest latitude is ? a useful demarcation for navigation.

When I was a child, explorers traveled on dog sleds over snow-covered land to reach the North Pole. No land now. The Arctic Ocean has taken over that region on modern maps.

- - - - -


What the heck is a Hyperborea?
www.hyperborea.org/whatisit.html
Hyperborea does have its origins in Greek myth, as a land much like that which appears in the Sinbad film. Untouched by the long northern winter, the land was a virtual paradise, and was said to be the winter home of Apollo.

Hyperborea: Mythical Land That Fascinated Writers of the ...
www.ancient-origins.net/.../hyperborea-0013923
Jul 01, 2020 · Hyperborea is a location in Greek mythology. The inhabitants of this mythical land are known as Hyperboreans, whom the ancient Greeks believed enjoyed extremely long lives. Hyperborea is mentioned by a number of Greek and Roman writers, including Herodotus, Pliny the Elder, and Pindar.

Author: Dhwty
HYPERBOREA - Fabulous Northern Land of Greek Legend
www.theoi.com/Phylos/Hyperborea.html
PARENTS
Human tribe descended from GAIA (Hesiod Catalogues Frag 40A)
See full list on theoi.com

Hyperborean | Definition of Hyperborean by Merriam-Webster
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hyperborean
Hyperborean definition is - a member of a people held by the ancient Greeks to live beyond the north wind in a region of perpetual sunshine. hyperborean Has Roots in Greek Mythology


----------



## Bitbybit (Feb 6, 2021)

grav said:


> The sun circles the flat earth between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn.
> The equator? besides being the warmest latitude is ? a useful demarcation for navigation.



The capricorn circle (over flat earth) has a wider diameter right? If yes, is the speed of sun higher when its circling over the capricorn and vice versa?


By the way. The measured angle speed of movement of the sun over you during the day is constant. How is that achieved for every person on flat earth?

(The height of the sun makes no difference since the same angle speed from horizon to horizon still must be achieved.)

And why is the visible diameter of the sun the same when its far away and when it is in zenith?


----------



## grav (Feb 6, 2021)

Ah, so. Bittybit has many questions. So do I.
Like these - -

a. Speed. The sun travels around half a million mph. The globe swirls around it at 66,600 mph, in addition to its rotation at 1000 mph. And we feel nothing, because of the space-time continuum relativity factor where energy is the speed of light squared.
So, Bittybit and physicists, how can I verify these speeds using the Scientific Method at home?

b. Seasons. Here in the USA, we enjoy warm summer temperatures when the sun is 3 million miles FURTHER away (aphelion) than in the winter (perihelion). The axial tilt (66°) of an 8,000-mile wide planet appears to be the reason for the seasons, not the much yuuger 3,000,000 mile distance.

c. Midnight Sun. This image,
https://stolenhistory.net/attachmen...d]=3724&hash=f98815865a33273eb3b1d9ee9d73d6dd(which this device does not want to embed) shows the sun staying above the horizon over 24 hours near the Arctic. The only videos which purport that the midnight sun also appears in the Antarctic are, well . . . faulty (Photoshopped).
By the way, the sun's size does change during the day. Most of the effect occurs because of atmospheric refraction. But that only works with a close sun, not a behemoth that traverses the universe 93 million miles away.

Ill say it again. Astrophysicists know their model stinks to high heaven. But their paychecks, pensions, and prestige are more important to them than the Truth.


----------



## Bitbybit (Feb 6, 2021)

grav said:


> Ah, so. Bittybit has many questions. So do I.
> Like these - -
> a. Speed. The sun travels around half a million mph. The globe swirls around it at 66,600 mph, in addition to its rotation at 1000 mph. And we feel nothing, because of the space-time continuum relativity factor where energy is the speed of light squared.
> So, Bittybit and physicists, how can I verify these speeds using the Scientific Method at home?



You can add and substract similar speeds when you are sitting in an airplane, and as long as you arent measuring the ground, you are not really "feeling" any difference between the different speed.



grav said:


> b. Seasons. Here in the USA, we enjoy warm summer temperatures when the sun is 3 million miles FURTHER away (aphelion) than in the winter (perihelion). The axial tilt (66°) of an 8,000-mile wide planet appears to be the reason for the seasons, not the much yuuger 3,000,000 mile distance.



"yuuger" = about 3% closer, adding theoretical 7% more effect.
The difference of axialt tilt (23°) with longer days and higher sun has a much bigger impact.   You should easily disapprove this effect by experiment with the mainstram solar system and measure the absorbed energy.

However note though, Australia is closest to the sun during their summer. (->they have a problem with skin cancer)



grav said:


> c. Midnight Sun. This image,
> https://stolenhistory.net/attachmen...d]=3724&hash=f98815865a33273eb3b1d9ee9d73d6dd(which this device does not want to embed) shows the sun staying above the horizon over 24 hours near the Arctic. The only videos which purport that the midnight sun also appears in the Antarctic are, well . . . faulty (Photoshopped).
> By the way, the sun's size does change during the day. Most of the effect occurs because of atmospheric refraction. But that only works with a close sun, not a behemoth that traverses the universe 93 million miles away.



Seems it is relatively easy to access, why havent anyone proven the antarctica midnight sun doesnt exist?
https://www.coolantarctica.com/Travel/antarctica_travel_home.phphttps://explore.quarkexpeditions.com/blog/can-i-travel-to-antarcticaRegarding the argument of that image, the size of the sun can be measured with a telescope. 
You can easily do this any day, all year around. 

https://skyandtelescope.org/wp-content/uploads/telescope_projection_m.jpg
Using a camera image to measure the size of a light source, is exactly that kind of technical stupidity i was talking about previously.


----------



## grav (Feb 6, 2021)

Bitbybit said:


> You can add and substract similar speeds when you are sitting in an airplane, and as long as you arent measuring the ground, you are not really "feeling" any difference between the different speed.



gee, we've only had this conversation like 666 times.
"sitting in an airplane" is the same as standing on the ground. really?

If you had said "sitting ON top of an airplane" I might have taken you seriously. 
But INside an enclosed cabin with windows and walls and an air handling system, well, that sounds like a terrarium.

sheesh
tsk


Bitbybit said:


> Seems it is relatively easy to access, why havent anyone proven the antarctica midnight sun doesnt exist?



Wait. What?
Why hasn't someone proven it doesn't exist?
Doesn't the claimant of a thing have to provide burden of proof ?
Research stations in Antarctica in winter are not an easy gig to get.
And there are dozens of them. With big funding. to protect the penguins and keep explorers from littering the ice.


----------



## grav (Feb 6, 2021)

Citezenship said:


> Lightseeker said:
> 
> 
> > grav said:
> ...



That was a George Carlin skit. Don't watch him while drinking OJ!


*Get on the plane. Get on the plane." I... - George Carlin Quotes | Facebook*

m.facebook.com › posts

George Carlin Quotes · May 13, 2014 ·. "Get on the plane. Get on the plane." I say, ***k you, I'm getting IN the plane! IN the plane! Let Evil Knievel get ON the plane! I'll be in here with you folks in uniform! 
*George Carlin: The term Jumbo Shrimp has always amazed me. What is a Jumbo Shrimp? I mean, it's like Military Intelligence- the words don't go together, man.<br>*

www.quotes.net › show-quote


----------



## Bitbybit (Feb 7, 2021)

grav said:


> "sitting in an airplane" is the same as standing on the ground. really?
> If you had said "sitting ON top of an airplane" I might have taken you seriously.
> But INside an enclosed cabin with windows and walls and an air handling system, well, that sounds like a terrarium.




The effect of gravity is the same on top of the airplane, except the air is obviously blowing in your face.
So you mean if the earth ball is rotating, the atmosphere should blow in your face just like when the airplane is moving thru the air?
Should that apply to air moisture in the sky as well, how about small drops of water, how about the oceans?



grav said:


> Wait. What?
> Why hasn't someone proven it doesn't exist?
> Doesn't the claimant of a thing have to provide burden of proof ?
> Research stations in Antarctica in winter are not an easy gig to get.
> And there are dozens of them. With big funding. to protect the penguins and keep explorers from littering the ice.



Huh? I just linked several sites that offers trips for anyone to antarctica. Since FE have big conferences with people travel from all around the world, and some flat earthers even build rockets to shoot themselves into space, organizing just one trip to antarctica seems like a pretty easy thing to do.


----------



## grav (Feb 7, 2021)

Bitbybit said:


> The effect of gravity is the same on top of the airplane, except the air is obviously blowing in your face.
> So you mean if the earth ball is rotating, the atmosphere should blow in your face just like when the airplane is moving thru the air?
> Should that apply to air moisture in the sky as well, how about small drops of water, how about the oceans?



ok, your use of the "effect of gravity" is acceptable. Specific gravity is a property of matter, also called particle density. You were careful to avoid equating gravity with a force of nature. 

But you ignore another so-called force, that of centrifugal force, which throws objects off a rotating surface. Rim velocity can not be denied, as anyone at a carnival experiences. Example: sit on the edge of a carousel and see what happens when it speeds up to a whopping 5 or so  mph.

A major gapjng hole in the spinning ball fake science. It props up this fairy tale of oceans of air and water which adhere to a sphere that rotates, revolves, and races in space vacuum. And clouds also manage to rotate 1000 mph, revolve 66,600 moh, and race .5 million mph as if Superglued in place to the globe.

I think the airplane analogy needs to be retired from debate. Carnival rides are much more applicable.
It is a tough job, defending the heliocentric system. But it is just not accomplishable. After a while, your arguments get just plain silly, or else you introduce more non sequiturs than you can shake a stick at.

Antarctica, now now. You know very well that excursions below 60°S are either forbidden or restricted to tourist traps. Not unlike sneaking into Area 51 or the inner sanctum of the Bilderbergers.


----------



## Silent Bob (Feb 7, 2021)

grav said:


> But you ignore another so-called force, that of centrifugal force, which throws objects off a rotating surface. Rim velocity can not be denied, as anyone at a carnival experiences. Example: sit on the edge of a carousel and see what happens when it speeds up to a whopping 5 or so  mph.



There is a problem with this argument. In your example, 5mph would feel really fast and you'd be thrown off of course. However, a small roundabout spinning at 5mph would have a fast rate of rotation, maybe once a second? Now imagine the same roundabout spinning at the rate of one revolution per day, i.e. it takes 24 hours to rotate once. Imagine sitting for 24 hours watching this roundabout turn once, you would really struggle to see any movement unless you filmed and time lapsed it. Now imagine a microscopic lifeform living on the roundabout, would it feel this motion? The problem here comes from treating linear and rotational motion as if they are the same, if our roundabout was 'earth size' and still turned once a day then its linear speed would look much higher, but the rotational speed remains the same, i.e. i rev per day. So if we were spinning once a day I honestly don't think we could feel it.

This doesn't prove anything either way of course, just because it's theoretically possible for the earth to be moving without us feeling it doesn't mean that it is. I think Airy's failure, the experiment with the telescope and water, proves that the earth is stationary in a much clearer way 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bynntFteCFs_


I remember learning about this experiment back when I studied physics. The lecturer was the head of dept, a great guy and an extremely intelligent professor. He explained what happened and how we couldn't really explain it, and then just shrugged his shoulders with a mischevious grin and moved on lol. I think because we all accepted back then that the earth moved and never questioned it, we all just thought that these was one of those funny experiments that gave unexpected results and couldn't be explained. The same professor also taught us about the Michelson Morely experiment, which he treated in a similar way. He gave me the distinct impression that he thought the ether exisited, although I had no idea what the ether was back then - had never heard of it until being taught about that experiment! We had a great physics department back then, apart from that prof we had a senior lecturer who disagreed with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and wasn't afraid to voice this, and another who supports the electric universe and has appeared on a thunderbolts podcast! They're all retired now, they don't make them like that anymore.....

Edit - One of them hasn't quite retired yet, they just wish he had - here is his most recent paper attacking the 2nd Law (dum dum daaaa!)

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-18137-6_7
'In this paper I trace the origins of the concept of entropy laid down by *Clausius in the middle of the nineteenth century*. I will show how Clausius failed to link the mathematical structure he was developing to physical processes and consider the implications for our understanding of the Second Law. Finally, I address the question: if the theory of thermodynamics is as flawed as I believe it is, what should we be teaching our students? How can we encourage students to examine critically the connection between maths and physics and at the same time teach a theory in which this connection appears to be missing?'

I emphasised the part about Clausius in the middle of the nineteenth century - there's that time period again! How much fake science was put in place during this time I wonder...


----------



## Bitbybit (Feb 7, 2021)

yes, If you make a carnival ride along the equator with the same curvature as esrth going in the opposite direction as esrth rotation,  i think your weight would increase by about 0,34% due to nullifying the normal centrifugal force.


----------



## grav (Feb 7, 2021)

Silent Bob said:


> roundabout spinning at 5mph would have a fast rate of rotation, maybe once a second? Now imagine the same roundabout spinning at the rate of one revolution per day, i.e. it takes 24 hours to rotate once. Imagine sitting for 24 hours watching this roundabout turn once



RPMs and revolutions per day may be useful for some applications, but not for centrifugal force. Speed is speed is speed.
One rpd, so? The ground spinning at 1000 mph would chunk off an elephant or a bulldizer in a nanosecond. Mountains would crumble, oceans would turn into tsunamis, the whole ball of dirt and rock would disintegrate instantly.

Rim velocity is what matters. 1000 miles per hour. Golly gee, that would blow the doors off the Batmobile.
Nothing could withstand flying off at a tangent from a giant ball spinning at mach 1.5. So this rpd business is a useless comparison.

And Bob's professor who shrugged off experiments which failed to show earrh's movement. Well there you go! same ol' same 'ol false authorities.

That's what they do, these experts who make up fairy tales and call them theories.
They torture logic with false constants (like the speed of light) and when you catch them with their britches down, they shrug and grin and drop their microphones and say "my bad" and collect their paychecks for their peer-reviewed hogwash.


----------



## Frater Lapis (Feb 7, 2021)

_View: https://youtu.be/hEaSYljOvz0_

Take a look at this


----------



## Citezenship (Feb 7, 2021)

_View: https://youtu.be/DMKcO-T5Y4o_


centrifugal force works on the above scale just like when i spin a bucket with water in it attached to a piece of string, try it out see if you get a differing result.

No matter the size of the object the rules are the same.


Citezenship said:


> _View: https://youtu.be/DMKcO-T5Y4o_
> 
> 
> centrifugal force works on the above scale just like when i spin a bucket with water in it attached to a piece of string, try it out see if you get a differing result.
> ...



T^hat one is only doing 60mph!
Not really directly FE related but this guy is worth 10 mins as he very eloquently destroys the scien-trific dogma and it's ever evolving narrative.


_View: https://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg_


----------



## Bitbybit (Feb 7, 2021)

Centrifugal forces is calculated with the angular velocity not rim velocity.

The pilot is turning 360 degrees in a couple of seconds.
We turn 360 degrees in 24h.


----------



## grav (Feb 7, 2021)

Bitbybit said:


> The pilot is turning 360 degrees in a couple of seconds.
> We turn 360 degrees in 24h.



We do?
No evidence, no proof, ignores speed.
It also ignores air synching with 1000 mph spin, 66,600 mph orbit, .5 million mph solar system speed.


----------



## Bitbybit (Feb 8, 2021)

_http://www.brainkart.com/article/Centrifugal-Force-due-to-Rotation-of-the-Earth_34534/_


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 8, 2021)

Just for shits n giggles
​


----------



## Citezenship (Feb 8, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Just for shits n giggles
> ​



The bloodhound team removed 16000 tonnes of stone by hand,

Damn i thought they were taking the piss but,




​Those orange suits remind me of something but it is not "team players".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34200629
The result of all these factors is that the surface may look perfectly "flat" to the naked eye, but it's really a slightly rough, irregular and undulating surface, which approximately follows an equipotential gravity surface on the surface of the Earth.


----------



## veeall (Feb 8, 2021)

​


----------



## E.Bearclaw (Feb 8, 2021)

grav said:


> Silent Bob said:
> 
> 
> > roundabout spinning at 5mph would have a fast rate of rotation, maybe once a second? Now imagine the same roundabout spinning at the rate of one revolution per day, i.e. it takes 24 hours to rotate once. Imagine sitting for 24 hours watching this roundabout turn once
> ...



On this velocity business. I can kind of see how the effect of spinning "could" be passed off, as because of a sitting in the car effect. One thing, I haven't heard discussed by Flat Earth people, or defended, by non-flat earth people, is that if the earth is spinning at 1000mph at the equator, it must also be spinning at 0mph at the poles. Me who lives reasonably far up the North hemisphere - in the UK - should be spinning somewhere in between this, I am not going to learn spherical geometry to work out exactly what, but right now it feels really really cold outside, so lets say 200mph.

In short - I am allegedly spinning at 800 mph slower than someone on the equator. When I travel between the two places, I would notice physically the difference in speed at which I am being transported at? Why do I feel no difference? How do planes that fly from the north to the south hemisphere deal with the hundreds of mph difference at which they are being rotated? I have stepped off a few planes in my time, and my body needs to adjust to the temperature, the sunlight, the language, the new terrain, culture, time difference absolutely everything, why not the speed at which I am travelling?

My post is a classic example of how to preach to the converted.


----------



## Curved Pluto (Feb 8, 2021)

How do planes land on a north to south runway? At what point do they flip upside down when flying to Australia from North America?


----------



## Lightseeker (Feb 9, 2021)

I came across this video on YouTube tonight. Interestingly enough, it is featured on a mainstream media channel:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zzTanyzDoA_


Anyone ever read Lovecraft's "At the mountains of madness"? Perhaps Lovecraft, being a sensitive man of great imagination, was given a glimpse of what is going on out there in Antarctica and beyond.


----------



## grav (Feb 9, 2021)

Bitbybit said:


> Centrifugal forces is calculated with the angular velocity not rim velocity.
> 
> The pilot is turning 360 degrees in a couple of seconds.
> We turn 360 degrees in 24h.



Here is your so-called angular velocity of earth.
Which turns 24,000 miles in 24 hours.
. . . . . .
https://www.google.com/url?q=[URL]h...FjAQegQIDBAB&usg=AOvVaw3MUaE4rqgguTlJN7NlU5j6[/URL]

Sep 3, 2011 · When calculating the angular velocity of the Earth as it completes a full rotation on its own axis (a solar day), this equation is represented as: ωavg = 2πrad/1day (86400 seconds), which works out to a moderate angular velocity of 7.2921159 × 10-5 radians/second.
. . . . . 

This is false reasoning, aka sophistry, which the Body Scientific has embraced, after Einstein & Cohort threw out the Scientific Method. It uses obscure jargon, false mathematical constants, and the endless capacity of humans to BELIEVE Authority.

So this asinine calculation (radians per second) is mumbo jumbo gobbledygook.
Because it ignores distance.
The  globe's axis turns 1 mph.
Its equator turns 1000 mph. 
which the mathemagical equation sloughs off as insnignicant.

We see this shameful behavior every doggone day on the tv, where politicians and "news" reporters and "scientists" like Fauci sell their propaganda.
Climate change. Covid. Vaccines. Election results. Stock market. Social justice. blah blah BS.
And Homo ignoranus eats it up.

Same difference. because people just don't think. They believe. The education system has dumbed down the dumbasses to the point that they believe they live on a spinning ball in a total vacuum, which is kind of a metaphor for how people live in this disgusting world of lies.


----------



## Lightseeker (Feb 9, 2021)

I don't quite remember where I saw that argument, about the shape of the Earth having significance for a human being's feeling of freedom. If we live on a spinning ball making its way across the vacuum of a vast universe at tremendous speed, the only way out of here is "up", meaning that the people who hold the key to the gate are our rulers. Meaning that this planet is a prison.

If, however, Earth is indeed a plane (and I am 99% percent convinced that it is), then the way out is either towards the center or towards the edge.


----------



## Bitbybit (Feb 9, 2021)

grav said:


> Bitbybit said:
> 
> 
> > Centrifugal forces is calculated with the angular velocity not rim velocity.
> ...



No distance is not insignificant 
The centrifugal force is:
 angular velocity squared x DISTANCE
https://www.engineersedge.com/physics/centrifugal_force.htm


----------



## grav (Feb 11, 2021)

Lightseeker said:


> I don't quite remember where I saw that argument, about the shape of the Earth having significance for a human being's feeling of freedom. If we live on a spinning ball making its way across the vacuum of a vast universe at tremendous speed, the only way out of here is "up", meaning that the people who hold the key to the gate are our rulers. Meaning that this planet is a prison.
> 
> If, however, Earth is indeed a plane (and I am 99% percent convinced that it is), then the way out is either towards the center or towards the edge.



I'm also 99% convinced that the surface is an irregular plane.

The Hollow Earth theory may also explain how we can find what you call -- the way out -- of our prison. The UN has erected a fence (Antarctic Treaty) with a military presence to prevent our leaving this idiotic world of lies we live in. 

Once again, my "satellite" server is too slow to embed an attachment.
It shows Rick Potvin's map of the flat earth. Images like this almost always show an icy infinite plane beyond Antarctica. But Admiral Byrd reported seeing unfrozen land and waters when he explored Antarctica before the Great Lockdown in the 50s.

https://stolenhistory.net/attachmen...d]=3724&hash=c23092e106a9e2618b2412181852f068


----------



## Lightseeker (Feb 11, 2021)

grav said:


> Lightseeker said:
> 
> 
> > I don't quite remember where I saw that argument, about the shape of the Earth having significance for a human being's feeling of freedom. If we live on a spinning ball making its way across the vacuum of a vast universe at tremendous speed, the only way out of here is "up", meaning that the people who hold the key to the gate are our rulers. Meaning that this planet is a prison.
> ...



What is the basis for that map? Which ancient text or testimony?


----------



## grav (Feb 11, 2021)

Lightseeker said:


> grav said:
> 
> 
> > Lightseeker said:
> ...



I think it's basically the Gleason map with Rick Potvin's own guesstimates of distances across oceans.

We used to have a neat app on NullSchool, but they took away the azimuthal_equidistant projection after those pesky flateaethers started using it.

This bowdlerized version lets users click on options for wind, temps, world views, and other information.
https://classic.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/conic_equidistant
There are no true world maps anywhere. With one exception.
I'd bet the darn farm that NASA has them locked away where the peasants will never find them.


----------



## Lightseeker (Feb 11, 2021)

grav said:


> Lightseeker said:
> 
> 
> > grav said:
> ...



"Basically the Gleason map"

Does the Gleason map suggest endless ice beyond Antarctica?

I don't remember where I read that once certain modern organizations had the technology to reach a certain altitude and see the real shape of the world, they got scared and decided to keep it a secret.

Here is something I was thinking about last night: we are told that the north pole is a circle of ice, yet on Google Earth there is nothing like that to be seen?


----------



## Bitbybit (Feb 11, 2021)

veeall said:


> View attachment 2825
> 
> Also it should be asked why, using this true analog method of measurement with a sextant, one gets different lengths for a mile if measured on a ground vs at the sea level.
> 
> Post automatically merged: Nov 17, 2020



First of all, that image is incorrect. The rays from the sun and stars are so far away the rays can be considered parallell.
Second, whats a mile got to do with anything, the sextant gives you latitude. Not distance.
You measure the angle to the polar star and then you figure out where you are.
At the southern hemisphere, the polar star can not be seen.


----------



## grav (Feb 11, 2021)

Lightseeker said:


> I don't remember where I read that once certain modern organizations had the technology to reach a certain altitude and see the real shape of the world, they got scared and decided to keep it a secret.



I'd like fo see that source. What modern organizations would have the technology to fly high enough to get a good view? 60 to 70 miles is, as far as we know, the limit to any rockets. A photo from the 1960s showed a flat horizon.

Satellites are a hoax. Google maps are Photoshop constructions which stitch together photos and videos taken from airplanes and drones. One of Google Map's  planes is named Sophia, which was another name for Gaia in gnosticism.
There are videos which show glitches in the software. Or are they clues left intentionally by the head knockers?


_View: https://youtu.be/OvQz1dqkjIc_


----------



## veeall (Feb 12, 2021)

Bitbybit said:


> First of all, that image is incorrect. The rays from the sun and stars are so far away the rays can be considered parallell.


I realized, i mentioned it in my subsequent post. I tried to refute the scientific theory from that angle, didn't work out.



Bitbybit said:


> Second, whats a mile got to do with anything, the sextant gives you latitude. Not distance.
> You measure the angle to the polar star and then you figure out where you are.


Length of the mile is 1/60th of degree of latitude (measured using the angle of the north star), on sea level it's 1.8520km, if you go higher, the mile becomes shorter as you are approaching the northern star, which is close, as the sun and other stars.

Wikipedia states latitudes are measured relating to the center of the earth, in which case earth mile should get longer than nautical.
Wikipedia states latitude lines are of equal increments, which would be impossible with flat earth and close stars, hints toward concavity. So i don't know, my eyes see flat plane, with a sharp cutout and various atmospheric distortions at horizon. I don't hope to challenge science, the jargon would kill me at the spot.

Edited.


----------



## Bitbybit (Feb 12, 2021)

veeall said:


> Bitbybit said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, that image is incorrect. The rays from the sun and stars are so far away the rays can be considered parallell.
> ...


 
How would a spheric earth look with our eyes at the ground in your opinion?


grav said:


> Lightseeker said:
> 
> 
> > I don't remember where I read that once certain modern organizations had the technology to reach a certain altitude and see the real shape of the world, they got scared and decided to keep it a secret.
> ...



 I am not a fan of google, but i am pretty sure the ”scanning effect” is because the cameras are zoomed in to get more and more details to sell


----------



## veeall (Feb 12, 2021)

Bitbybit said:


> How would a spheric earth look with our eyes at the ground in your opinion?


No. How would checkerboard look on a ball? There are visual hints indicating flatness with straight lengthy parallel lines crossing over areas, non-tilted skyscrapers when observed from far, mountain ranges with tops of the same heights not appearing gradually lower the farther they are (that was actually tested by a youtuber).

Also there are different information depending on whom are you listening, there have been claims that that North Star Polaris is actually visible far into south of equator (in the Gleasons book), and that not all southern constellations are visible everywhere in southern hemisphere.

The rotation issue. A plane taking off from the North pole, flying toward south, should have to put up with gradually more violent western crosswind reaching few to five hundred meters per second (up to a thousand knots) at the equator, just because the atmosphere rotates along with the earth.

First time i've heard that there are no polar night in Antarctic was in my childhood, in soviet schooling system, while differentiating arctic from antarctic, It seemed controversial even back then, i remember a boy asking, how could it be, while mimicking the rotating ball with his hands. Teacher was like, yeah, but no.

Also, the notion that in a space program, all calculations are made relative to a stationary and flat earth, was known to these soviet teachers, though they could not provide a counterargument to the statement 'it doesn't matter'.


----------



## Bitbybit (Feb 13, 2021)

In the ball model, How high above the ball would correspond to the height of a person, skyscraper and path of an airplane?


----------



## grav (Feb 13, 2021)

veeall said:


> polar night in Antarctic was in my childhood, in soviet schooling system, while differentiating arctic from antarctic, It seemed controversial even back then, i remember a boy asking, how could it be, while mimicking the rotating ball with his hands. Teacher was like, yeah, but no.
> 
> Also, the notion that in a space program, all calculations are made relative to a stationary and flat earth, was known to these soviet teachers, though they could not provide a counterargument to the statement 'it doesn't matter'.



Russian academicians, Soviet or not, always seem to be more open-minded and much more advanced than other nationalities. Anatoly Fomenco, for example, is one of the leading alt chronologists. 

So I'm not surprised that flatearthism is quietly known in New Tartaria.

It's funny to, to see this site's abbreviation.
Sh, shh, hush up, don't spill the beans.
The sheeple must not know they live in a world of lies.


Bitbybit said:


> In the ball model, How high above the ball would correspond to the height of a person, skyscraper and path of an airplane?




no idea what your question is. 
Are you asking for the height at which the curve is perceptible?
Which I don't think is answerable.

It just seems obvious that as you rise in altitude, the ball should shrink in size below you. Like a sci-fi movie where a planet gets smaller and smaller in the rear view mirror of the rocket ship.


----------



## Bitbybit (Feb 13, 2021)

My feeling is the opposite, FE is primaru but bot only an american phenomena. Russian alternative researchers is open minded but i dont see them fallen into FE


----------



## Prolix (Feb 13, 2021)

I noticed Allan Weisbecker’s refutation of Flat Earth while I was reading his outing of Miles Mathis (one thing Mathis, Weisbecker, and Piece of Mindful do all seem to agree on is that Flat Earth is an easily refutable psyop, the latter even declaring it out of bounds for conversation as “flat earth is a mark of a spook”). I’ve no particular conviction either way, but I was curious about Weisbecker citing “dipping the light” as evidence of a globe (a means to calculate the geographical range of the observer to the beacon)

Helpfully, he doesn’t bother to then explain why this is the case (almost as valuable as his photos “proving” globe earth), but there’s an explanation of the principle here (the page is copy protected so I can’t quote it). I was wondering if you’d come across this argument, grav?


----------



## grav (Feb 13, 2021)

Magnumopus said:


> was curious about Weisbecker citing “dipping the light” as evidence of a globe (a means to calculate the geographical range of the observer to the beacon)



Well, yes, lots of optical effects may alter our ability to see long range targets.
Observer eye height, atmospheric refraction, the vanishing point, miraging.
The dipping effect has to do with refraction, I expect. 

But FE is neither a psyop nor an American invention.
We all started out as debunkers of geocentrism.
We all had to break our indoctrination which had us believing we live on a spinning ball in a vacuum.

Heliocentrism is a flagrant criminal agenda that violates all laws of physics which describe properties of liquid water, atmospheric gases, optics, etc.

Level has a strict definition: flat along a horizonal axis.
So the fake science authority would have us to believe that water seeks ifs own level by . . . . . curving around the spinning ball?

Supposedly, a force called gravity makes this happen. 
Chicago is clearly visible from across Lake Michigan. At a distance of 50 miles, the tallest skyscrapers should be hidden by the curved hill of water. 
Math (spherical trigonometry) predicts this result, but nope. Thar she blows!
The formula is easy to use. 8xdxd - - 8 inches times miles distance squared.

I am no genius, but even I could easily defeat a heliocentrist in debate.


----------



## Lightseeker (Feb 25, 2021)

grav said:


> But FE is neither a psyop nor an American invention.



Flat Earth beliefs are basically what most ancient cultures believed to be truth. I wonder how an Aztec or a Mayan or an Egyptian or an Israelite would react like if you told them that Earth is a spherical rock traveling across space, rotating around the sun, in a galaxy that is one of trillions. They would all probably burst into laughter.


----------



## matematik (Mar 6, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> Now is the government faking evidence for all this and then covering it up or is one giant coverup is being done by making a group of people believe everything above their heads is fake.



Many "normies" believe in space aliens and give a lot of credence to such theories, even the mainstream media regularly promote alien theories. In contrast Flat Earth theories are ridiculed and considered crazy, and the mainstream media almost totally ignores it other than to occasionally ridicule it.

If Flat Earth is a government psyops to cover up space aliens it doesn't seem to be very effective because belief in space aliens seems to be more mainstream than ever.


----------



## davtash (Mar 6, 2021)

hi stunned and need a better FE explanation please
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/mar/05/ship-hovering-above-sea-cornwall-optical-illusion


----------



## Prolix (Mar 6, 2021)

davtash said:


> hi stunned and need a better FE explanation please
> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/mar/05/ship-hovering-above-sea-cornwall-optical-illusion



Definitely anti-grav tech.


----------



## grav (Mar 6, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> Niribu the Ninth Planet.
> Moon and Mars bases
> Moon and Mars alien bases
> Mars ancient lost civilizations
> ...



Nibiru ? there is some evidence that a second sun exists. The theories of it being a dwarf sun or other celestial object are silly. More likely is another light effect in the dome itself. 

moon and Mars bases or alien civilizations? Nasa psyops. I doubt that anyone here believes that solar system bs.

Space Fleet? maybe Nasa and its allies have technology like the UFOs that defy gravity. Density modification, maybe.

Hollow Earth? Why not? but how deep can the tunnels go? Again, doesn't depth affect human blood pressure, like deep sea divers? or does that compression only happen in water?

Alien abductions? possibly. So many of my earliest ct teachers (Sitchin, Velikovsky, Lloyd Pye, etc.) make better sense than the evolution theorists.
And I still have my ancient copy of The Naked Ape, by Desmond Morris. Our hairless bodies are poorly adapted to cope with most earthly climates. Not to mention our weak skeletal system and overall bad design. Bigfoot makes a lot better sense and has been reported on multiple continents. Was he our ancestor that the Anunnaki blended their dna with a few hundred or thousand years ago? I think so.


----------



## grav (Mar 8, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> According to some flat earth videos NASA is faking space to earn tax money, but isn't the discovery of space and a lot of things in space discovered before NASA.



Not sure who discovered space. Maybe Walt Disney.
Copernicus and Galileo had to mind their p's and q's when they came up with heliocentric notions. Excommunication -- and worse -- kept lots of other astronomers in line too. Tycho Brahe got a lunar crater named after him when he amended his views on stellar parallax. haha, little joke there.
Other craters were named after Jesuit astronomers. 
The Vatican (freemasons) also "operate" a huge infrared telescope in Arizona. Its name is Lucifer.


----------



## matematik (Mar 8, 2021)

davtash said:


> hi stunned and need a better FE explanation please
> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/mar/05/ship-hovering-above-sea-cornwall-optical-illusion



Apparently there's been three sightings of this in Britain in a week, in Cornwall, Devon and Aberdeenshire.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9332859/Why-ships-floating-sky-Britain.html


----------



## grav (Mar 9, 2021)

matematik said:


> davtash said:
> 
> 
> > hi stunned and need a better FE explanation please
> ...




_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-xezLezKhzo_


----------



## Knowncitizen (Mar 9, 2021)

Magnumopus said:


> davtash said:
> 
> 
> > hi stunned and need a better FE explanation please
> ...


Right, comical. The media uses light refraction as an explanation but why does the refraction not affect the water the ship is floating in? The sky is reflected in the water giving the appearance that the ship is in the sky. Not really that difficult and can be seen in the higher resolution versions of the picture. You can still see the horizon if you look carefully.
The reflection at that distance is only possible if not curved hence the bullshit explanation.

If you like flat earth topic you will enjoy this video series posted here:
https://stolenhistory.net/threads/video-series-what-on-earth-happened.4097/


----------



## grav (Mar 10, 2021)

Knowncitizen said:


> The sky is reflected in the water giving the appearance that the ship is in the sky. Not really that difficult and can be seen in the higher resolution versions of the picture. You can still see the horizon if you look carefully.
> The reflection at that distance is only possible if not curved hence the bullshit explanation.



well explained. Plain text is always superior to videos, as written language can be transmitted precisely to enable study and debate.

It's a hard thing to do to open eyes. You can open your own lying eyes. But you can't force other people to look and think. Stanley Kubrick's last movie was Eyes Wide Shut. What a great title.

People in general (99.666% maybe) see what the Control System tells them to see.
They are clueless about the globe model. But they trust it.
All Nasa images are admitted cgi cartoons.

I found this new image today. No, it is not real. It is speculation. But it utilizes information that at least complies with laws of physics, optics, math.


This is a new image. Every bit as accurate as the official Planet Earth blue marble.

https://i.imgur.com/ac2esyx_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium


----------



## grav (Mar 10, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> Nice map, I like how it runs counter to other flat earth ideas.



How so? 
Beyond the icy wall, it's all guessing. I made a map years ago and put the Anunnaki's world Nibiru on it. This one has Atlantis and Lemuria outside the rim, which suggests a downsizing of our realm. And a smaller dome maybe.


----------



## Skydog (Mar 11, 2021)

grav said:


> Knowncitizen said:
> 
> 
> > The sky is reflected in the water giving the appearance that the ship is in the sky. Not really that difficult and can be seen in the higher resolution versions of the picture. You can still see the horizon if you look carefully.
> ...


The fact that I have never traveled below the northern hemisphere in our neck of the realm becomes all the more depressing. But I love these types of maps as they are probably closer to the truth than many other recent FE attempts.

It would also provide another explanation for the strict militarization zone around Antarctica and more or less be consistent with Admiral Byrd’s legendary comments about land beyond the South Pole.


----------



## Jd755 (Mar 11, 2021)

Skydog said:


> It would also provide another explanation for the strict militarization zone around Antarctica and more or less be consistent with Admiral Byrd’s legendary comments about land beyond the South Pole.


Have a read through all three pages here and visit the links and read through them. You might enjoy it.
https://stolenhistory.net/threads/the-making-of-antarctica.4057/


----------



## grav (Mar 19, 2021)

Shouldn't air pressure in "outer space" be 0.00 in any meausrement?
0.00 Torr, 0.00 psi, etc.

The real question is: how does earth have air pressure at all?
All gas laws include mass, volume, and temperature as factors in equations.
Volume requires a specified space. A container, with a top lid.
A firmament.


----------



## Sigian (Mar 19, 2021)

grav said:


> Supposedly, a force called gravity makes this happen.
> Chicago is clearly visible from across Lake Michigan. At a distance of 50 miles, the tallest skyscrapers should be hidden by the curved hill of water.



Just curious, and an honest question, Chicago can be seen across Lake Michigan, is this being viewed from lake level?  Or right across the surface of the water?  Genuinely curious, I see a lot of people claim to see distances but only from a higher vantage point, never have seen this done at the actual ground level.


----------



## Jd755 (Mar 19, 2021)

A few images that reveal the geometry  our vision uses. Taken earlier this morning.

The sea sitting above the hill. It isn't really but our vision makes it appear so.



Both bodies of water are dead level. The foreground body is a a reservoir the background is the sea yet our vision plays the same visual trick on us by making both bodies water appear to rise up. It doesn't it is dead level across its surface.


​Grainy but you can clearly see the wind turbines shrinking as they run away from my point of view. The reality is they are all the same size but our vision is not built to allow us to see the truth.


​Here you can clearly see the hill I am stood on falling away from me even though my vision is playing the same trick as in all of the other images the hill is easily recognisable as is the slag heap to the right. yet the sea appears to rise up until it disappears from my vision. It is dead level not rising, not curving.



Look at anything and its the same. Our vision distorts the reality of all that is. Including the sky, the passage o the luminaries etc.


----------



## 6079SmithW (Mar 19, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> I was looking up air pressure on Earth and space. A number of Flat Earth video makers treat space is if it should have a negative value because they are misreading the numbers wrong.
> 
> Air pressure is measured in Pascals
> At sea level air pressure it 1 Pascal written 10^0
> ...


This is wrong.

The rate of pressure is not important in any way.

The important thing is the *pressure differential* between earth air (14.7psi) and 'space!' (10-11th power tor).

The differential acts as a force in the second law of thermodynamics. In any given system all gasses will reach thermodynamic equilibrium


----------



## grav (Mar 19, 2021)

2 topics above:

1. space vacuum
At the Karman line at 62 miles, air pressure is virtually nil. At sea level it is 14.7 psi.
This differential happens in a closed environment; otherwise, oxygen and nitrogen etc. would immediately dissipate into the alleged void of space. It is beyond absurd for physics teachers to say that a force called gravity could make this happen.
Clouds float, butterflies fly with no difficulty. Gravity is simply particle density.
Specific gravity is the ratio of densities of adjacent substances. 
heavier-than-air, usually.

2. Chicago
Many people have photographed the Windy City from across the lake, usually on beaches where eye height was 5 or 6 feet.
Not only are tall skyscrapers visible, but so are structures close to the horizon, which is where all lines of convergence meet. The vanishing point in our eyesight.


----------



## Sigian (Mar 20, 2021)

grav said:


> 2. Chicago
> Many people have photographed the Windy City from across the lake, usually on beaches where eye height was 5 or 6 feet.
> Not only are tall skyscrapers visible, but so are structures close to the horizon, which is where all lines of convergence meet. The vanishing point in our eyesight.



That's interesting, will have to check that out on my travels around the country.  Was gonna stop at the Georgia guidestones last year but couldn't due to vandalism right after covid started.  Sorry not to derail.

So ocean would be harder to explain than a lake.  But just my own opinion, if the earth is a sphere, the land masses on it have plains to mountains, it doesn't necessarily mean they have to follow the curvature exactly right?  Even due to sub oceanic crevasses and such could drastically alter the surface of water, really we have no true idea how to measure something here on earth, with something called gravity when we have nothing to really compare it to.

https://www.pivotinteractives.com/b...us-rotating-fish-tank-deriving-the-paraboloid
Was interesting, since the fish altered themselves to their new environment and even swam along the top of the water, even when from our viewpoint it is curved.


----------



## grav (Mar 20, 2021)

Sigian said:


> grav said:
> 
> 
> > 2. Chicago
> ...



From your link: "What we mean when we say that water is _level_ is that it is perpendicular to direction of local gravity.  When we think about it that way, then the water in the fish tank is level since each part of the water’s surface is perpendicular to its local gravity."

Nope, level means flat. Smooth flat, no. But close enough, like horseshoes and hand grenades.

Einstein knew full well that his theories were poppycock.
To think that oceans bend 8 inches per mile squared -- that's just fallacious and fantastically farfetched -- and not funny.


----------



## El Forastero (Mar 21, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> Given how Eratosthenes determined the Earth's circumference (North to South) with only a few reference points for measurement. He measured the Earth's radius to about 24,000 miles.



To do so requires the assumption that the Earth is a sphere in the first place.


----------



## grav (Mar 21, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> Given how Eratosthenes determined the Earth's circumference (North to South) with only a few reference points for measurement. He measured the Earth's radius to about 24,000 miles.
> 
> Given he only used a few reference points I have to ask one question of Flat Earth believers. What is the radius of the Ice Wall around Antarctica?
> 
> This question takes in account that most measurements of the distance of far off objects only require the observer being in one location and not visiting the other. The distances of major planets and the speed of light were measured before the 20th century.



Eratosthenes measured shadows, right? And somehow he concluded the earth was a globe.

When you say radius of the Antarctic, do you mean circumference of the globe? Estimates are around 60,000 miles. 18th century sailing ships  took years to travel what should have taken 6 months or so.

The speed of light? You mean 186,000 mps? And it travels that speed forever?? 
 e=mc^2 = fake science


----------



## Sigian (Mar 21, 2021)

grav said:


> Nope, level means flat. Smooth flat, no. But close enough, like horseshoes and hand grenades.



But if there were a way for a force that is called gravity to exist, just no one really knows what causes it, then it would take the bubble from a level and have a pull on it that gives you a level mark much like a plumb bob is pulled down and gives a straight vertical line.

If gravity does not exist, then the pull must exist from outside forces that exist that we can explain, such as a large disc that the force of moving thru space at a certain rate of speed, keeps everything stuck to the ground.

So FE seems to be an anti-gravity movement as strange as that term sounds?  

Quite a few things have been invented/discovered in just my lifetime, yes it could have been around for eons and just reintroduced little by little.  But all of it?  Is it all just refurbished tech from the past?  So if gravity were one day discovered to be real and provable, would that sway people that believe in a flat earth?  

Just wanting an opinion, not stating or trying to push one theory versus another.  I find it nice to hear others thoughts on subjects.  It's so hard to have a stimulating but non explosive conversation anymore with people because a difference of opinions because it's good to have more information about something than less, even opposing views.

Sorry, again got carried away, bit lengthy.


----------



## David Glenney (Mar 21, 2021)

While not in itself their best, this Globebusters episode's description alone is a clearinghouse of info on the proposition that electromagnetism between an earth plane anode and firmament cathode--if I have that right--establishes a vector as down, while buoyancy and density do the rest, rather than a Flat Earth Society style discworld forever falling up through NASA (con-artist rendering) space:


_View: https://youtu.be/I0gI24pufUA_


My jury is still out on this, but I do not feel that we're plummeting anywhere at a million miles an hour while spinning a thousand miles an hour.  Maybe it's just my delusions of worldwide slavery that make me amenable to a notion of being pressed down...


----------



## NigeWz (Mar 21, 2021)

Sigian said:


> grav said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, level means flat. Smooth flat, no. But close enough, like horseshoes and hand grenades.
> ...


For 'gravity', just think 'density'. Explains everything.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Mar 21, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Look at anything and its the same. Our vision distorts the reality of all that is. Including the sky, the passage o the luminaries etc.



Your examples are images captured by the lens of a camera rather than what the eye actually sees. Your points are equally valid because camera lenses are spherical like the lenses of the eyes, but I think it's important to make the distinction. Also some camera lenses are much more spherical than others, like the typical GoPro wide angle lens, which emphasises the curvature in its images. Aircraft windows (and James May please note, bubble-type cockpits) do the same job.

If you can see curvature in front of you then it follows that there must be the same curvature happening behind you. Does that mean you are standing on a pipe? The same curvature is happening to the left and right of you as well, which makes things even more crazy.

Any image will show the high point of the curvature in the dead centre. If you move the camera or your eye, left or right the resulting image will still show the high point of the curvature in the dead centre of the image, i.e. in a different physical position - which is ridiculous.

This demonstrates that the curvature seen on images or by the eye, is the result of the form of the lens and cannot be given as physical evidence of the curvature of the Earth itself.


----------



## Jd755 (Mar 21, 2021)

All camera lenses indeed all optics are designed to work with the human eye and its geometry save the vertical shift lens. The human eye geometry is designed or built whatever to detect level.

Here's another image showing how it works. Not one of mine but a good one nevertheless. Clock the street lights in particular.


----------



## grav (Mar 21, 2021)

Sigian said:


> So FE seems to be an anti-gravity movement as strange as that term sounds?



That's my full name. Auntie gravity. 
A spinning globe would actually throw objects off, not hold them down.

I have defined gravity many times as a property of matter. Not a force.
The Electric Universe posits an aether that is a solid mass of dielectricity (positive and negative charges). When dielectric particles form matter in an enclosed area, they become arranged by density. Lighter-than-air air substances rise above those that are heavier-than-air. Clouds,for example, float. If a force called gravity existed, it would pull clouds to the ground.

Can anti-gravity devices exist? Yes, if density is altered.


----------



## E.Bearclaw (Mar 21, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> Given how Eratosthenes determined the Earth's circumference (North to South) with only a few reference points for measurement. He measured the Earth's radius to about 24,000 miles.
> 
> Given he only used a few reference points I have to ask one question of Flat Earth believers. What is the radius of the Ice Wall around Antarctica?
> 
> This question takes in account that most measurements of the distance of far off objects only require the observer being in one location and not visiting the other. The distances of major planets and the speed of light were measured before the 20th century.





El Forastero said:


> mega1000 said:
> 
> 
> > Given how Eratosthenes determined the Earth's circumference (North to South) with only a few reference points for measurement. He measured the Earth's radius to about 24,000 miles.
> ...



I also always wonder, if how before the knowledge of time zones and electronic instant communication devices, he could be sure he was measuring the suns angle at the same time (it may be I am missing something here).


----------



## Sigian (Mar 24, 2021)

E.Bearclaw said:


> mega1000 said:
> 
> 
> > Given how Eratosthenes determined the Earth's circumference (North to South) with only a few reference points for measurement. He measured the Earth's radius to about 24,000 miles.
> ...



Sundials? Or who knows what technology existed at the time.  According to modern science we have been measuring time for approximately 5000 years.  With SH at the forefront of trying to prove history isn't just as the victor painted it but much more and more advanced then we are told, it shouldn't be hard to believe that the exact time of day was able to be figured out only 2300ish years ago.  At least that's my take on things, with SH period, KDs love child to the new version, history isn't as we are told, things weren't as backassward as we are led to believe, amazing things took place that we still cannot explain, so telling time shouldn't be hard to believe.


grav said:


> Sigian said:
> 
> 
> > So FE seems to be an anti-gravity movement as strange as that term sounds?
> ...



Agreed, a spinning sphere should throw everything off of it.  I believe in the Aether as well, of push and pull of forces that we do not understand as of yet, but maybe we did at one time or another.  FE doesn't explain how clouds stay in the sky above us either, does it? (Honest question.)


----------



## E.Bearclaw (Mar 24, 2021)

Sigian said:


> E.Bearclaw said:
> 
> 
> > mega1000 said:
> ...


----------



## grav (Mar 24, 2021)

Sigian said:


> E.Bearclaw said:
> 
> 
> > mega1000 said:
> ...



Clouds mos def work in a closed system. 
They are aerosolized water particles which are lighter-than-air.

The GE model places the spinny ball in a total vacuum. 
All gas laws (which the Ideal gas law represents) require a contained space and all equations use Volume to derive air pressure. 
Any science teacher or physicist who preaches heliocentrism is either a liar or a goof.

Wiki:
law is often written in an empirical form:

 
Isotherms of an ideal gas. The curved lines represent the relationship between pressure (on the vertical axis) and volume (on the horizontal axis) for an ideal gas at different temperatures: lines that are farther away from the origin (that is, lines that are nearer to the top right-hand corner of the diagram) represent higher temperatures.
                   P        V        =        n        R        T              {\displaystyle PV=nRT}  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



where                    P              {\displaystyle P}  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




,                    V              {\displaystyle V}  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 and                    T              {\displaystyle T}  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 are the pressure, volume and temperature;                    n              {\displaystyle n}  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 is the amount of substance; and                    R              {\displaystyle R}  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 is the ideal gas constant. It is the same for all gase


----------



## grav (Mar 24, 2021)

The sun and moon are not solid objects. 
They are plasma light effects, probably inside the crystalline dome.
Stars are also embedded in the dome/firmament.

Planets are different. They do not circle overhead in a fixed pattern, unlike how the constellations move in unison. They may be in front of the dome. Or else the dome has multiple layers on top of each other. Like the 7 heavens.


----------



## fega72 (Mar 24, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> I don't understand how a planet would throw things off of it. We're not on a little ball that Flat Earth videos try to compare Earth to.


Centrifugal force is the answer.


----------



## El Forastero (Mar 24, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> I don't understand how a planet would throw things off of it. We're not on a little ball that Flat Earth videos try to compare Earth to. But you are right about clouds. This expands to the sun and moon. Are they solid objects? What's causing them to stay in the sky?



The size does not matter in the slightest. Centrifugal force dictates so. 

Also, what is this "little ball" that flat earth videos compare the earth to? Sounds made up and absurd.

Clouds "stay" in the sky due to density.

Btw, what is this quoting system? It's madness.


----------



## El Forastero (Mar 24, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> You're right it doesn't matter about size, but rotational speed does. Earth rotates once per day. The Centrifugal force isn't fast enough to overcome gravity.



Can you demonstrate this rotation? Can anyone?


----------



## Sigian (Mar 25, 2021)

_View: https://youtu.be/G8cbIWMv0rI_


Easiest way I have seen it explained.  And no, not where I have heard about Eratosthenes.  

Has it been looked into that the "lighter than air" atoms have less electrons?  Could ionization be going on in the magnetosphere or ionosphere?  Less electrons, lighter atoms?  Meh just an idea.


----------



## fega72 (Mar 25, 2021)

Sigian said:


> Easiest way I have seen it explained.  And no, not where I have heard about Eratosthenes.


Only works if the sun is far far away (as it was mentioned in the video).


----------



## Knowncitizen (Mar 25, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> You're right it doesn't matter about size, but rotational speed does. Earth rotates once per day. The Centrifugal force isn't fast enough to overcome gravity.


Earth rotates once every 23h 56m (23.933h), so at the equator where Earth's circumference is 2ΠR = 2x3. 14x6378 km = 40,000 km it has to travel at a speed of Vrot = 40000km/23.933h = *1,674 km/hr., ok gotcha!*


----------



## grav (Mar 25, 2021)

Here we go again with revolutions per time period.
The machinery handbook is very clear about rim speed as the determinant of wheel integrity. One spin cycle per day. So? 
1000 mph revolution is insane. Do science teachers actually present such malarkey to their students? I don't remember that information in any science classes. Or the orbital speed of 66,600. Or anything at all about speeds of the alleged solar system.

Doesn't that seem odd to everyone?
I may be mistaken; please correct me if I am wrong about the education system. I was a teacher (of English) and I encouraged my students to ask questions. And they did. Now imagine a smart kid, or a smart-aleck, in a high school physics class where the prof brings up the blue marble spinning mach 1.5 and orbiting at mach 87.

And how about brilliant students learning spherical trigonometry?
Would any of them try to apply it to earth's curve and drop from sight?
And why don't they ask why clouds don't fall because of the "force" of gravity?
And air having to sync speeds with the surface of the whirling and zooming globe?
And why don't chemistry students ask how empty space exists between the Atom's nucleus and its electrons?


----------



## Sigian (Mar 26, 2021)

grav said:


> Here we go again with revolutions per time period.
> The machinery handbook is very clear about rim speed as the determinant of wheel integrity. One spin cycle per day. So?
> 1000 mph revolution is insane. Do science teachers actually present such malarkey to their students? I don't remember that information in any science classes. Or the orbital speed of 66,600. Or anything at all about speeds of the alleged solar system.
> 
> ...



So why don't clouds fall without gravity?  1000 mph is what like 14 to 15 degrees of rotation on a planet that has a circumference of a stated 24,901 miles.  It isn't a car or an airplane that can go 1000 mph, it is an entire planet and everything within its atmosphere held in place by an electromagnetic field that literally creates our atmosphere, all spinning at the same time.  How do you explain other celestial bodies?  Orbs that orbit the firmament?  The aurora caused by the EMF? Other planets? Antartica being 3337 miles across at the largest point?  

Sorry again, not trying to argue, just getting your viewpoint.  Is it all based upon religious texts?  Was there anything outside of the bible that claims there is a firmament surrounding earth?  So it wouldn't be a whole sphere moving thru space, just a half a sphere stagnant in space?  The equator moves at about 1000 mph and it is the warmest area of our planet, the poles move at almost nothing being the coolest points, how does a flat earth explain the north pole?  Does the disk not rotate at all?  

A wheel is a wheel, centripetal force yes, does it have a pull called gravity that also pulls?  Yes I know gravity is that one argument here it seems, but it wasn't many years ago we had no radio, television, computers or anything else, who is to say we will not have a better explanation for gravity here one day?


----------



## fega72 (Mar 26, 2021)

Sigian said:


> Yes I know gravity is that one argument here it seems, but it wasn't many years ago we had no radio, television, computers or anything else, who is to say we will not have a better explanation for gravity here one day?


So if gravity holds Earth on its path around the Sun then it is a HUGE force. It will pull everything on Earth as well. Is this means your weight in daytime when you are "between" Earth and Sun less than night time when the Sun's gravity force try to pulling you trough Earth?


----------



## fega72 (Mar 26, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> fega72 said:
> 
> 
> > Sigian said:
> ...


I will tell my wife to only use the scale around midday then.


----------



## grav (Mar 26, 2021)

Sigian said:


> it is an entire planet and everything within its atmosphere held in place by an electromagnetic field that literally creates our atmosphere, all spinning at the same time.


This is a pretense of ignorance and confusion. 
I call it the kitchen sink defense. Throw in pseudoscience and jargon and you see how the freemasons have thoroughly brainwashed the sheeple.

I do not for one minite think you are sincere, Sigian. But I appreciatw your polote manner. This distraction serves only to dissuay people from investigating flat earth.

Your electrogagnetic field is what? gravity? which holds the atmosphere in place as it spins 1000 mph, orbits 66,600 mph? and lets clouds and plumes of smoke float while being dragged along with the surface?

utterly impossible.


----------



## Knowncitizen (Mar 26, 2021)

grav said:


> Sigian said:
> 
> 
> > it is an entire planet and everything within its atmosphere held in place by an electromagnetic field that literally creates our atmosphere, all spinning at the same time.
> ...


Thanks for typing this up, LOL
@Sigian's response made me feel like the freemasons were touching me inappropriately. LOL I'm sure it took a whole 10 minutes for him to copy/paste from nasa.com.


----------



## grav (Mar 26, 2021)

Knowncitizen said:


> grav said:
> 
> 
> > Sigian said:
> ...



touching you inappropriately? Uh, maybe worse than that.
Remember the scene in Silence of the Lambs where Anthony Hopkins relishes a particularly gruesome memory? He had drugged or hypnotized a victim and fed him his own brains.

That pretty much describes how I feel about the freemasons who keep their livestock dumb, drugged, and docile (David Icke's words)
Like this herd immunity thingie with Covid. Oh, the irony. Tell us we're herd animals and then the dumb bunny humans line up and take their poison vaccines.


----------



## Knowncitizen (Mar 26, 2021)

grav said:


> Knowncitizen said:
> 
> 
> > grav said:
> ...


Once you break the flat earth spell, the other spells are easier to see through.
This telegram chat group has great videos to help break the Nasa, Space, Space Station, Mars and Globe lies.
Wecome To Flat Earth!!!!!!
https://t.me/Killshot2020


----------



## Razor2299 (Mar 30, 2021)

We all were told that magnetic field on Earth is created by molten iron in its core. However, if you start heating a magnet, on gas stove for example, at 176° F or 80° C it will lose its magnetic properties. Magnet Experiments: What Happens When a Magnet is Heated | Apex Magnets Blog 
So forget about molten iron and other nonsense- molten iron connot generate magnetism. 
This makes me think that there is something else under the places that are referred to "magnetic poles" that generate that magnetism. So what is it? And why we are told that this is molten iron, when anyone can disprove this by doing a simple experiment in their kitchen ??


----------



## Sigian (Mar 30, 2021)

grav said:


> Sigian said:
> 
> 
> > it is an entire planet and everything within its atmosphere held in place by an electromagnetic field that literally creates our atmosphere, all spinning at the same time.
> ...



Thanks for that but I am simply trying to figure out what makes people believe a flat, sphere or otherwise shaped earth, and so far nothing has really been conveyed besides a simple "you are wrong" reply.  Evidence, sources, some science thrown in?  Starting to sound like a political discussion where you are saying your opinion is wrong and mine isn't.  What exactly was the point of this thread then if not to discuss things?


----------



## Worsaae (Mar 30, 2021)

Razor2299 said:


> We all were told that magnetic field on Earth is created by molten iron in its core. However, if you start heating a magnet, on gas stove for example, at 176° F or 80° C it will lose its magnetic properties. Magnet Experiments: What Happens When a Magnet is Heated | Apex Magnets Blog
> So forget about molten iron and other nonsense- molten iron connot generate magnetism.
> This makes me think that there is something else under the places that are referred to "magnetic poles" that generate that magnetism. So what is it? And why we are told that this is molten iron, when anyone can disprove this by doing a simple experiment in their kitchen ??


Does it work the other way too? Cold increases the power of the magnets?


----------



## Jd755 (Mar 30, 2021)

Sigian said:


> Thanks for that but I am simply trying to figure out what makes people believe a flat, sphere or otherwise shaped earth, and so far nothing has really been conveyed besides a simple "you are wrong" reply.  Evidence, sources, some science thrown in?  Starting to sound like a political discussion where you are saying your opinion is wrong and mine isn't.  What exactly was the point of this thread then if not to discuss things?



Believers believe what they feel comfortable with. Plain truth is our senses are not built to give us a true picture of this place. No bugger knows what shape it is, even if it has a shape or needs one. It's almost all speculation delivered by cone shaped visual apparatus geometry save these two truths.
Contained water is always dead level at its surface.
Our visual geometry detects level and we orient the body to level.
Applying these truths to what we see, are told, are shown, experience however is beyond believers.


----------



## Prolix (Mar 30, 2021)

Some pretty footage here, variously claimed to be the downing of two military satellites (ahem, Ben Fulford) and SpaceX's Falcon 9 (well, that _must_ be so, then).

https://video.wixstatic.com/video/bcb736_616b35e912434434ae6e1350cfa7d746/720p/mp4/file.mp4
https://video.wixstatic.com/video/bcb736_fec7871c89a843e1baf413d4f84fdfa8/480p/mp4/file.mp4


----------



## David Glenney (Mar 30, 2021)

fega72 said:


> Only works if the sun is far far away (as it was mentioned in the video).



At 3:10, even Neil Freemason Tyson admits that Eratosthenes' alleged experiment would return the same result on a flat earth with a close sun as on a globe (or perfectly spherical pear) with a ludicrously far away sun:

Eratosthenes and the Globe Religion by Sky Free


----------



## Sigian (Mar 31, 2021)

Razor2299 said:


> We all were told that magnetic field on Earth is created by molten iron in its core. However, if you start heating a magnet, on gas stove for example, at 176° F or 80° C it will lose its magnetic properties. Magnet Experiments: What Happens When a Magnet is Heated | Apex Magnets Blog
> So forget about molten iron and other nonsense- molten iron connot generate magnetism.
> This makes me think that there is something else under the places that are referred to "magnetic poles" that generate that magnetism. So what is it? And why we are told that this is molten iron, when anyone can disprove this by doing a simple experiment in their kitchen ??




Certain magnets can go well beyond 80° C -

List of Magnets That Can Withstand High Temperatures | Stanford Magnets

https://www.duramag.com/techtalk/alnico-magnets/alnico-magnets-for-high-heat-applications/
Still not the almost 11,000° F that is a claimed core temperature, but there could be more heat resistant magnets.



kd-755 said:


> Sigian said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for that but I am simply trying to figure out what makes people believe a flat, sphere or otherwise shaped earth, and so far nothing has really been conveyed besides a simple "you are wrong" reply.  Evidence, sources, some science thrown in?  Starting to sound like a political discussion where you are saying your opinion is wrong and mine isn't.  What exactly was the point of this thread then if not to discuss things?
> ...



Agreed so much.  Look I known the Bedford Experiment (Bedford Level experiment - Wikipedia) and ensuing measurements really did not prove or really disprove a sphere or flat earth.  Both sides do sound logical to a physicist, and other experiments really didn't either.  

Can we not just create a super long spirit level, put it across the surface of water, and when it finds its level, see if the ends are touching the water or not?  

I am not against or for either side here, just trying to justify my view and see others, and then to determine where I myself stand.  Is that not how this is supposed to work?  Seems like these new and KDs original forum worked, bouncing ideas around with all the lies told to come to a better understanding of who we are, where we came from, and the truth of how it all came to be.  Though maybe I am a freemason, my kids do call me an alien or their Google all the time because I read a lot, either way, I want to figure it out as 100% fact or fiction just like most do.


----------



## Jd755 (Mar 31, 2021)

Your eyes deliver level across their cone of vision right slap bang in the middle every time. Why do you thing gun sights have 'cross hairs'. The eyes are built to establish level yet, I might have mentioned that, and off of that level they can also establish 90 degree to the level aka perpendicular.

You seem not to want to use or trust your eyes in this matter.
Discover the world of the water level. Basically two marks one on each end of the clear hose pipe.
Filled with water this simple device becomes the most accurate level there ever can be.
When the water is at the same level as defined by the marks on the hose no matter how long the hose is I guarantee that a wall built to the two marks will be level. anything built off of this wall will be dead perpendicular to the dead level.

Everything humans build including their optics and spirit levels is built off of a level.

Contained water adopts the shape of its container and is dead level at its surface every time, every single time. It doesn't curve, doesn't bend doesn't rise up to a horizon. It is level. Do test it out for yourself it's the best way for you to accept the truth.


----------



## Sigian (Mar 31, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> When the water is at the same level as defined by the marks on the hose no matter how long the hose is I guarantee that a wall built to the two marks will be level. anything built off of this wall will be dead perpendicular to the dead level.



Of course they will be, but the question is will they be level with the water as well?  Since water isn't as misshapen as the land can be, even with waves/ripples etc., but a still/mostly still body of water long enough to actually try this out?



kd-755 said:


> Contained water adopts the shape of its container and is dead level at its surface every time, every single time. It doesn't curve, doesn't bend doesn't rise up to a horizon. It is level. Do test it out for yourself it's the best way for you to accept the truth.



At a small scale I can, but at the larger one where curvature could come into effect I cannot, if I had that kind of money laying around I wouldn't be travelling so much for work and instead travelling for pleasure.


----------



## Jd755 (Mar 31, 2021)

Contained water does not curve, bend, warp. It is always every single time dead level at its surface. The size of the container is irrelevant water always, always adopts the shape of the container and gives a level surface. Tea cup, puddle, pool, dock, lake, inland sea, the ocean all contained all present a the level surface.
How do you think the first spirit level was developed?
By using a water level to establish true level and check the accuracy of the device.
Water level of contained water is the base, the very foundation of all levelling devices ever invented and is the thing used to check their accuracy.

Assume you are stood on a ball then the surface of that ball is falling away from your position in every direction. There's another truth. This would mean establishing level would be impossible, totally and utterly impossible yet we live by establishing level and as I said every single thing we build is built on the level. On a ball everything on the surface of the ball is falling away from the point of view.


----------



## grav (Apr 1, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Contained water does not curve, bend, warp. It is always every single time dead level at its surface. The size of the container is irrelevant water always, always adopts the shape of the container and gives a level surface. Tea cup, puddle, pool, dock, lake, inland sea, the ocean all contained all present a the level surface.
> How do you think the first spirit level was developed?
> By using a water level to establish true level and check the accuracy of the device.
> Water level of contained water is the base, the very foundation of all levelling devices ever invented and is the thing used to check their accuracy.
> ...




Pure-D perfect logic.
I'm going to copy and paste this at Banned.Talk.


----------



## Citezenship (Apr 1, 2021)

grav said:


> I'm going to copy and paste this at Banned.Talk.


What is this, Banned.Talk???

Thanks


----------



## grav (Apr 2, 2021)

Citezenship said:


> grav said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to copy and paste this at Banned.Talk.
> ...



Sorry, it's a generic forum. Sometimes an unruly bunch of childish posters who are typical of other discussion groups.

https://www.banned-talk.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=2
Like all the others, excepting SH, forums were abandoned years ago by serious critical thinkers who were run off, partly a result of inevitable entropy, but also by infiltration of CIA and the usual dark state agents.

So why do I post at a place where emotions rule, while ideas are usually ignored or ririculed?

Because one forum, Lunatic Outpost, is where I first heard about a crazy notion that the world was a motionless plane.
I have chosen to return the favor by helping other people see the truth -- people who would never find it anywhere else.

No sense preaching to the choir. 
Yes, I encounter a good number of trolls, shills, and people who think they are critical thinkers. I use the word "think" loosely here. People BELIEVE their indoctrination and believe they are thinking.

How to fix that? hah! As 'they' say down South, ya can't fix stupid.


----------



## conspiracyorJAC (Apr 2, 2021)

grav said:


> FE is not incompatible with CE, Concave Earth.
> The Ygdrassil tree of Norse myth, the Cosmic Egg, the Mundane Shell, and other images of other ancient cosmologies are all quite similar.
> https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.N8WMrm2RjhpPsMraYFiLYQHaEb&pid=Api&H=95&W=160&P=0
> 
> ...


Hitler also believed in "concave earth theory" they made fun of him in the books but he thought he woudl be able to sail out into the waters off some european country and spy on the british. The way the book wrote it they watned to make him sound like an idiot. but maybe theres some credibility there.


----------



## Worsaae (Apr 2, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Contained water does not curve, bend, warp. It is always every single time dead level at its surface. The size of the container is irrelevant water always, always adopts the shape of the container and gives a level surface. Tea cup, puddle, pool, dock, lake, inland sea, the ocean all contained all present a the level surface.
> How do you think the first spirit level was developed?
> By using a water level to establish true level and check the accuracy of the device.
> Water level of contained water is the base, the very foundation of all levelling devices ever invented and is the thing used to check their accuracy.
> ...


Mathmatically speaking, this is not the case. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometryhttps://math.stackexchange.com/ques...urface-of-the-sphere-is-not-a-euclidean-space
A spherical non-euclidean geometry is euclidean locally but not globally. This means that when you zoom in, it is level but globally it is not level because it is round. 
To understand this, go to paint. Create a circle.



Now watch what happens when I zoom in:



It becomes less and less circular



And less:



And less:



And less:



And less:



And less:




Of course if we continue, Paint will go to 100% level fast, because it only has a limited amount of pixels, but you can imagine that you can keep zooming in infinitely and it would keep being "round" for eternity, but less and less round. We say that when we zoom in a lot it approaches level (euclidian space). In the real world, we can't zoom in for eternity, so it would actually resemble Paint more than the mathmatical construct, which is more "round". 

So something can be round globally but level locally.


----------



## conspiracyorJAC (Apr 2, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> kd-755 said:
> 
> 
> > Contained water does not curve, bend, warp. It is always every single time dead level at its surface. The size of the container is irrelevant water always, always adopts the shape of the container and gives a level surface. Tea cup, puddle, pool, dock, lake, inland sea, the ocean all contained all present a the level surface.
> ...


I am sure you are correct. I honestly suck at math and what you just wrote makes zero sense to me lol. I just wanted to point out that Hitler according to Jim Mars (I think) believed in the Ice Creation Theory and in Concave earth.


----------



## Worsaae (Apr 2, 2021)

conspiracyorJAC said:


> Worsaae said:
> 
> 
> > kd-755 said:
> ...


You don't have to be good at math. What I wrote had a lot of weird words, maybe, but just look at the pictures. It is not complicated and everyone can understand it. When you look at the entire ball, it is very round, when you start zooming in, it becomes less and less round and more and more level/stretched out. Do you see this pattern? 
It goes from this:




To this:




The more you zoom in, the more level it becomes


----------



## Jd755 (Apr 2, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> The more you zoom in, the more level it becomes


As I mentioned believers believe what they feel comfortable with.
A curve of a SPHERE never flat lines.
The outer surface of a BALL never flat lines.
You know this which is why you did not paste in a level line..
Here I'll do it for you.
A zoomed in curve never ever becomes this.
*___________________________________________ *

You confuse a 1D mathematical object, a *sphere* with a tangible 3D object a* ball *either deliberately for shits n giggles or inadvertently or you really do believe a sphere and a ball are the same thing. Try drawing a sphere on a ball.


----------



## grav (Apr 2, 2021)

conspiracyorJAC said:


> grav said:
> 
> 
> > FE is not incompatible with CE, Concave Earth.
> ...



Hitler definitely had inside information. And access to Antarctica. The Wild Heretic is also no dummy. He is a Concave Earth theorist which, really, I have trouble visualizing. The Hollow model is of course much simpler.

The Cosmic Egg (torus) is a universal motif of ancient chronicles. It often depicts an ouroboros, a circled snake eating its own tail. In essence, we have a closed electric system. We are aware only of the surface we live on (the accretion disk mentioned earlier).

 Nasa has better intel about what lies above and below, but they are a bunch of Nazi freemason liars who want to keep us ignorant and distracted with fake science and crazy politics.

As for Euclidean math, thanks, but its basic geometry absolutely proves  the lack of curve. When real world distant targets like Chicago are visible beyond the curve of an 8,000 mile globe, then you know you are looking across a plane.


----------



## Starman (Apr 17, 2021)

Love ODD TV.  Coming soon:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtrbBS007wk_


----------



## Lightseeker (Apr 17, 2021)

I like how Santos Bonacci is going to be part of it.


----------



## Jd755 (Apr 17, 2021)

Video's not needed frankly. Trust ones own experience and intuition instead.
This workboats and its aerial are not taller than Blackpool tower it just appears to be.
Blackpool tower is not leaning backwards away from the camera even though it should be according to some.
The water is not rising up from foreground to background even though it appears to be.
Blackpool is not sinking into the water even though it appears to be.
Horizon is dead level just as it always is.


----------



## cmgtech2525 (Apr 18, 2021)

Knowncitizen said:


> grav said:
> 
> 
> > Knowncitizen said:
> ...


I never said I believe the earth is flat.  Only that we are for sure not spinning on a ball and I really don’t know what the earth is.  This is what I tell people when my friends say.  Chris is a flat earther.


----------



## Jd755 (Apr 18, 2021)

Apologies I was going to add this the other day but couldn't remember where I put it.

The submarine is not 'under' the silo even though it appears to be.
The camera viewpoint and the land the silo is stood on is at the same elevation.
Our optical apparatus and its operation makes  the submarine appear lower than the silo.
If the camera was at sea level then the conning tower of the submarine would be obscuring part of the silo.
Oh and the horizon is still dead level.
Download some gurus chatting in a video, for a price of course, truth doesn't come cheap,
(actually truth is freedom but don't tell anyone it scares them) OR pay attention to two things all the time, the way your eyes function and the behaviour of contained water.
YOU are all the guru you need to ascertain that you are on a level plane.



The long-anticipated transit of the Russian-built, Algerian Kilo-class submarine Messali El Hadj (S021) on April 15 in the Strait of Dover.​


----------



## grav (Apr 18, 2021)

Starman said:


> Love ODD TV.  Coming soon:
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtrbBS007wk_




I hope the documentary isn't too long.
I'm one of those who will only watch about 10 minutes of evidence.
But I'm a flatearther -- I already know this stuff. And globeheads won't watch any FE videos.

I prefer text and memes. Short sentences and images with captions are hard to ignore, even for a hard-as-a-rock globehead.

1. Outer space is 62 miles away. 62 miles. 
At the alleged Karman line, air pressure is virtually nil. Gas laws prohibit this physical impossibility. 62 miles.

2. Oxygen and other gas particles also must synchronize speeds with the surface of the spinning globe.
1000 mph rotation
66,600 orbital speed around the sun. Beyond ridiculous.

3. Water seeks its own level.
Level means straight along an x-axis (horizontal).
Oceans are water.
Ergo, oceans are level.

4. Star patterns have not changed in human history. Constellations wheel overhead just as they did 6000 ago.
We should see, if stars move as claimed, new patterns in 6 months or less.

5. Spherical trigonometry strictly calculates a curved drop of the surface at 8 inches times miles squared. 8xd^
It is fairly easy to test the globe yourself. With a zoom lens and good visibility, I have observed New Orleans from a distance which should have entirely obscured the Superdome. A famous example is Chicago, which many people have sighted from 50 miles away across the lake. Math makes that impossible, as even the tallest skyscrapers should have been hidden by the curve.


http://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.x2Ym3dHd4c34mQo2wAauqAEsCd&pid=15.1


----------



## El Forastero (Apr 18, 2021)

Yes, if you take even the slightest look at it, and you strive to be honest with yourself and your own senses and mind, then the truth becomes patently obvious.

The majority of people who ridicule this have never even taken the slightest look at it. Their ego won't let them.


----------



## Lightseeker (Apr 18, 2021)

El Forastero said:


> Yes, if you take even the slightest look at it, and you strive to be honest with yourself and your own senses and mind, then the truth becomes patently obvious.
> 
> The majority of people who ridicule this have never even taken the slightest look at it. Their ego won't let them.



I often think about how easy it has been to make people distrust their own senses and reasoning. Show them a photoshoped image of Earth or outer space and they will think it's real. 

The average person:
"people in positions of power are all liars and crooks"
Also the average person:
"why would people in positions of power lie about history/geography/health?"


----------



## El Forastero (Apr 18, 2021)

It's also important not to lose sight of the matter at hand and instead resort to the same tactics of ridicule and notions of superiority against those who cannot, or will not, see what's right in front of them.

I can only speak for myself but even just a couple of years ago I harboured those very same feelings that we are up against now.

It's all part of a greater process than we can fully understand, imo.


----------



## Citezenship (Apr 18, 2021)

In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus

Catholic priests always know/knew!


----------



## Starman (Apr 19, 2021)

Great interview out yesterday on various FE topics led by Shawn at SGT Report and his guests, David Weiss and Matt Long.
David was on screen all the time and had some great photos and videos explaining what he was talking about.  The guy has really connected some dots for me. Holy cow!

This is one example below.  He goes through the timeline of the physical discoveries about the nature of our flat world and firmament, and the efforts to hide what they discovered.  Go to 58 minutes if you want to jump in there.


Operation High Jump 1946..............Discovery of the ice wall

Operation Deep Freeze 1955...........Discovery of the Firmament

Nasa Founded 1958........................The Firmament is the Van Allen belts

Antarctic Treaty 1959......................Guarding the Firmament

Operation Fishbowl 1962...............Bombing the Firmament

Apollo Mission 1969.......................Hoax to Hide the Firmament



_View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/OULEg75g6DSw/_


----------



## Jd755 (Apr 19, 2021)

Starman said:


> Operation High Jump 1946..............Discovery of the ice wall
> 
> Operation Deep Freeze 1955...........Discovery of the Firmament
> 
> ...


It's as if there is nothing outside of the United States and its government.
What has this chap or indeed anyone done to test the claims made?
For example when these operations/missions (what's the difference?) of the United States were underway what were other countries governments doing?
Granted there were other governments people signing paper, in the United States during two events on the list the'58 and '59 pair but other than them who knows what the rest of the known world was up too at the time?
At least Wallace went to the moon to see if it was made of cheese.

It is quite telling that whenever people who know government people lie then use government sources to lay out their case for the existence of things that cannot be tested other than by government people and they use youtube of all things to 'spread their word' 
You know youtube the  evil incarnate whose people removes videos all the time for reasons unknown somehow they manage to miss these flat earth proofs/evidence videos in its vast catalogue, as if.
Macro and micro only governments have the propaganda.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Apr 19, 2021)

I abandoned the Flat Earth debate years ago precisely because of the pointless fragmentation caused by the firmament and dome movement, which was obviously a deliberate ploy and a successful one as it appealed to the biblical folks. Still today there is no real proof of either a firmament or a dome or at least none that has ever convinced me personally.

The business of seeing a curved horizon is also the FE movement's Achilles Heel, imo. If you were a fly who was unfortunate enough to find itself on the top of a hot air balloon, your horizon would look perfectly flat throughout it's 360 degree view around the balloon's circumference or local horizon. How could it be otherwise? How could there be any curves, lumps or bumps in one part of it and not the other? In my view, lack of curvature on the horizon is not proof of anything.

Far more important is that when the fly gets up to any considerable altitude on the hot air balloon ride, he will find that when he looks beyond the circumference of the balloon to the true horizon he will see it's also flat, but he will see it *at eye level all the way up*. If he then takes off and flies even higher above the balloon he will lose sight of it as it drops away beneath him, but the actual horizon will still be at eye level no matter how high he goes. (As per non-photoshopped images from the Red Bull balloon parachute jump.)






*Eye Level Horizon*​


----------



## Lightseeker (Apr 19, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> I abandoned the Flat Earth debate years ago precisely because of the pointless fragmentation caused by the firmament and dome movement, which was obviously a deliberate ploy and a successful one as it appealed to the biblical folks. Still today there is no real proof of either a firmament or a dome or at least none that has ever convinced me personally.
> 
> The business of seeing a curved horizon is also the FE movement's Achilles Heel, imo. If you were a fly who was unfortunate enough to find itself on the top of a hot air balloon, your horizon would look perfectly flat throughout it's 360 degree view around the balloon's circumference or local horizon. How could it be otherwise? How could there be any curves, lumps or bumps in one part of it and not the other? In my view, lack of curvature on the horizon is not proof of anything.
> 
> ...



Gee that is one small Earth!


----------



## grav (Apr 20, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Video's not needed frankly. Trust ones own experience and intuition instead.
> This workboats and its aerial are not taller than Blackpool tower it just appears to be.
> Blackpool tower is not leaning backwards away from the camera even though it should be according to some.
> The water is not rising up from foreground to background even though it appears to be.
> ...





Starman said:


> Great interview out yesterday on various FE topics led by Shawn at SGT Report and his guests, David Weiss and Matt Long.
> David was on screen all the time and had some great photos and videos explaining what he was talking about.  The guy has really connected some dots for me. Holy cow!
> 
> This is one example below.  He goes through the timeline of the physical discoveries about the nature of our flat world and firmament, and the efforts to hide what they discovered.  Go to 58 minutes if you want to jump in there.
> ...





Excellent post. I will copy pasta on Banned.Talk and FEFriends.
As I said earlier, I prefer text to videos. You provided both. I will watch this one. 
Critics will say there is no proof of those discoveries. As if we can break into top secret headquarters and steal their documents.
So-called Atom bomb tests were conducted by the hundreds back in the 50s and 60s. First, there is no atom to split in the Electric Universe. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were firebombed with conventional explosives. Primarily truckloads of TNT.

The true purpose of those explosions were, as you have noted, to map the height and shape of the firmament.
Wehrner Von Braun made that clear on his tombstone: Psalms 19:1. "The heavens are telling the glory of God and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.”


----------



## Lightseeker (Apr 20, 2021)

grav said:


> kd-755 said:
> 
> 
> > Video's not needed frankly. Trust ones own experience and intuition instead.
> ...




Care to provide any reading material that substantiates this statement?


----------



## Starman (Apr 20, 2021)

I like this night time video clip of what appears to be a rocket skipping along and plowing into the curved firmament like some speed boat leaving a wake behind. It really has the look of water or some kind of evanescent fluid that the rocket is pushing into. 

I've seen this imagery before on mainstream media. 

Starts at 35:27


_View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/7d03557ycOJe/_


----------



## Jd755 (Apr 20, 2021)

The firmament a frame of reference?
What are the definitions of the word firmament?
Which one is being used to describe something 'in the sky'?
How does gaining evidence of its existence prove the shape of the thing we walk on?
Who would test the lid of a container by exploding a bomb underneath it?
Who would do that test on a firmament having no idea what is beyond the lid?
Why is it the United States government the thing that did these 'tests'?
If the firmament is really in place as the tests 'proved its existence' and its seemingly indestructible nature and it is big secret then why are talking heads allowed to talk about in on the devils platform youtube repeatedly and at length.?

You and I see a domed starry sky as a result of our eyes geometry.  It's weird people who seem to accept the sun and moon do not rise up or sink below an horizon see a domed shape starry sky with the exact same apparatus, their eyes, and their singular geometry. People who accept water does not actually rise up to meet the sky at the vanishing point see a dome over their head. Maybe just me but I find it quite funny these days.

Edit to add "the thing that"


----------



## grav (Apr 20, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> a deliberate ploy and a successful one as it appealed to the biblical folks. Still today there is no real proof of either a firmament or a dome or at least none that has ever convinced me personally.
> 
> The business of seeing a curved horizon is also the FE movement's Achilles Heel, imo. If you were a fly who was unfortunate enough to find itself on the top of a hot air balloon, your horizon would



1. Firmament
Did you read my summary points above? one of which asked how air pressure is maintained without a container? Atmosperic gases require a specified volume in order to resist the vacuum of space at the Karman line. 62 miles. As an atheist, I interpret the Bible as a hodgepodge of Jesuit/freemason truth-telling and BS-ing.

2. The horizon
 rises to the eye of the observer. If earth were a finite globe, it would diminish in size as altitude increases. The opposite happens, as the horizon expands to take in a larger view of the Infinite Plane. The Red Bull (haha more bull clues) jump by Felix Baumgardner shows a curvy horizon thanks to a fish-eye lens. Pics made with a lens correction show a flat horizon.


----------



## Worsaae (Apr 20, 2021)

grav said:


> Will Scarlet said:
> 
> 
> > a deliberate ploy and a successful one as it appealed to the biblical folks. Still today there is no real proof of either a firmament or a dome or at least none that has ever convinced me personally.
> ...


How far away is the horizon?


----------



## grav (Apr 20, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> grav said:
> 
> 
> > Will Scarlet said:
> ...



That depends. Human vision is limited to around 3 miles.
Zoom lenses can extend visibility to much greater distances.

The horizon is an optical illusion. It's where all lines of convergence meet at the vanishing point.


----------



## Jd755 (Apr 20, 2021)

grav said:


> Human vision is limited to around 3 miles.


If you don't mind me asking how did you establish this?


----------



## grav (Apr 20, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> grav said:
> 
> 
> > Human vision is limited to around 3 miles.
> ...




Multiple sites, including this one, 
When I stand at the water's edge and look out over the ocean, how far away is the horizon?.


----------



## Citezenship (Apr 21, 2021)

https://babylonbee.com/news/nasa-frantically-building-real-moon-for-elon-to-land-on/This one cracks me up!


_View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/RUe04ct1QEsx/_


----------



## David Glenney (Apr 21, 2021)

That doesn't seem a very credible source, grav.  Ha!  But really, they are claiming the horizon is further or lower the higher you are.  I mean, it _would_ be if one resided on a globe.

I found this piece pretty interesting.  He does some practical-scale experiments with perspective.  Good visual aids--perspective lines, graphs:

A Concept for Vision Appendix A: Bottom First Disappearance Across Flat Surfaces

And mega brings up a good point.  If I was skeptical of my high school history book, but thought my science book was totally legit (though the same indoctrination officials selected both), then I may not have been skeptical enough.  But there's no Torah in the school--though I've heard of Holocaust Studies.  No I Ching.  Certainly no Flat Earth, German New Medicine, Tesla, anything _supernatural_ and absolutely no Stolen History.  It's the Church of the Official Narrative...

Innerspace, Outerspace, History--the Unseen.  This is the easiest stuff for them to lie about.


----------



## Jd755 (Apr 21, 2021)

Grav apologies poor wording on my part. What did you do to establish this limit with your own efforts. Not sure that's any clearer. Did you test the web page answers in the real world?

Edit to add
From the linked site. Dearie me.


> One of the funniest things about the ocean is the fact that its surface is *curved*. We tend to think about water forming large flat sheets, but the surface of a large body of water is not actually flat at all -- it follows the curvature of the Earth.


----------



## grav (Apr 21, 2021)

Distance to horizon.
No, I did not go to the seashore with a Google map app in order to measure an optical illusion.
What is up with all this hoopla about our ability to see the vanishing point?
This is a matter of perspective and ALL analyses of it come up with a ballpark number of 3 miles for a person 6 foot or under. And? So what?

A more important question is this -- with zoom lenses can we see actual targets beyond what globe math says we should? Yes. All Chicago skyscrapers should be hidden by the curve at 50 miles across Lake Michigan. The horizon itself is a blurry line that has nothing to do with observation of physical objects.

Instead of haranguing me for my own calculations of the horizon, I recommend a web search of perspective and optics of human eyesight.


----------



## Jd755 (Apr 21, 2021)

Thank you for your honest reply.
It's obvious to me from a lot of real world situations of using my eyes to establish the likely distance of mountains, most often but other things on occasion,  on 'the horizon' in relation to where I am stood or more often sat it differs. I then of course have to look up the stated distance in books/internet/charts. How far I can see depends on the state of the weather between me and whatever I am looking at so I know its a movable feast not a specific distance that we cannot see beyond. The furthest I have been able to see a mountain has been 73 miles from my position.
I can easily see an island  54 miles away from me stood on the sea shore most days unless the weather obscures it.
It was just the assertion that the horizon distance was limited to just 3 miles that prompted the question you found so irksome which was asked  as you might have found a limit I had not.

Edit to add "it differs"


----------



## Will Scarlet (Apr 21, 2021)

grav said:


> Will Scarlet said:
> 
> 
> > a deliberate ploy and a successful one as it appealed to the biblical folks. Still today there is no real proof of either a firmament or a dome or at least none that has ever convinced me personally.
> ...



I think maybe one of us has missed the point. Probably my fault I expect. There's no disagreement here as far as I can tell.

I've just remembered why I don't get involved in FE discussions anymore, so I won't.


----------



## grav (Apr 21, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Thank you for your honest reply.
> It's obvious to me from a lot of real world situations of using my eyes to establish the likely distance of mountains, most often but other things on occasion,  on 'the horizon' in relation to where I am stood or more often sat it differs. I then of course have to look up the stated distance in books/internet/charts. How far I can see depends on the state of the weather between me and whatever I am looking at so I know its a movable feast not a specific distance that we cannot see beyond. The furthest I have been able to see a mountain has been 73 miles from my position.
> I can easily see an island  54 miles away from me stood on the sea shore most days unless the weather obscures it.
> It was just the assertion that the horizon distance was limited to just 3 miles that prompted the question you found so irksome which was asked  as you might have found a limit I had not.
> ...



You still do not get the distinction.

Yes, you can see targets that have nothing to do with the horizon. 
A simple search for "the vanishing point" would clear up your misunderstanding of this optical illusion. Have you?


Will Scarlet said:


> grav said:
> 
> 
> > Will Scarlet said:
> ...



Yep, a motionless plane is not easy for some people to grasp.
A spinning sphere moving many machs in multiple motions is much easier to believe in. 
If I have misunderstood your previous point, I regret the confusion.
But I never regret my alliteration.


----------



## Jd755 (Apr 21, 2021)

grav said:


> Have you?


Have I what?
Oh I get it. You want me to go and get other peoples take on what a vanishing point is. I know what it is and what creates it and know it doesn't really exist other than in my eyes and brain's optical geometry.
Sheesh all this because someone, worsae I think, asked a question."How far away is the horizon?" and then I had the temerity to ask you a question as you stated "Human vision is limited to 3 miles".
Human vision does not have a 3 mile limit it has a varying limit.
If you look at the photo of the boat in front of Blackpool tower that tower is about 8 miles as the crow flies from the camera's position. The tower is beyond the horizon line created by the water appearing to rise up in our vision.

Edit to remove a surplus 'asked'


----------



## Starman (Apr 22, 2021)

Tomorrow:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8qwZhYQfb8_


----------



## grav (Apr 22, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> Starman said:
> 
> 
> > Tomorrow:
> ...




Videos which shread FE evidence. haha, as if.
Eric Dubay does have an annoying voice. But his free pdf, 200 Proofs Earth Is Not a Spinning Ball, may be the most important document to disprove the heliocentric model.

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html
While Dubay borrowed heavily from other writers, his brief summaries and images make a well-organized and compelling case that, imo, started the modern flat earth movement. This is his second proof.

2)  The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it.  If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.


----------



## grav (Apr 22, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> Dubray did take information from books from the 1800s, but a lot measurements and math he uses is wrong. As for gravity he's basically saying gravity doesn't work as he understands it, so everyone else is wrong.



Which measurements and math are wrong? Specify, please.
Even professional shills do not dispute the drop formula as 8 inches times miles squared. 

Gravity is not a force. It is a property of matter -- density.
When particles of matter are lighter-than-air, they float: clouds, smoke, helium balloons.
When particles  are heavier-than-air, they fall: raindrops, tree leaves, tennis balls.
I am heavier-than-water and sink in a swimming pool.
My sister-in-law is lighter-than-water and floats like a cork.


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (Apr 22, 2021)

_View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/lSQQST8P311V/_


----------



## Lightseeker (Apr 23, 2021)

Collapseinrealtime said:


> _View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/lSQQST8P311V/_




Watched it today. Excellent work by everybody involved.


----------



## Starman (Apr 23, 2021)

Lightseeker said:


> Collapseinrealtime said:
> 
> 
> > _View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/lSQQST8P311V/_
> ...




Enjoyed it as well, but didn't rise to the heights I had hoped.  I note in the final act of the video, Dubay is itching for deGrasse Tyson to follow through and debate him.   

Nice to see prominent FEers working together and keeping up the energy.  I really appreciate how these guys are speaking out and have learned a lot from them these past two years as a recovering ball earther.  I thought being a Velikovskian was enough for me, but I feel fortunate to have discovered another deeper layer of the onion.


----------



## Lightseeker (Apr 23, 2021)

Starman said:


> Lightseeker said:
> 
> 
> > Collapseinrealtime said:
> ...




I had expected the documentary to be longer than just barely over an hour but it did feature new content, such as video footage of that scientist claiming that the moon is made of plasma. Or the guy addressing a group of judges (?) showing how in official documents there is talk of a flat, non-rotating Earth, or the cameos by pilots.

I found it odd that they would all address DeGrasse Tyson at the end. Kind of felt sorry for the man, because he is not the only one poking fun at flat Earthers. He simply happens to be the most prominent. 

The vid is at 60 K views as of now on Youtube. Let's see how long until it gets taken down.


----------



## Lightseeker (Apr 23, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> Lightseeker said:
> 
> 
> > Starman said:
> ...




This thread alone contains quite a few proofs.


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (Apr 23, 2021)

The weather balloon satellite was a new detail also. I hadn't seen any of that footage of crashing satellites with balloons attached. I think the timing for this is really good also. It gives populists new energy to expose the frauds of the cabal, especially since the Covid narrative is getting a bit stale, even for the talking heads. I'm sure they would love to talk about "those crazy flat earthers" over addressing vaccine damage and deaths. Even though it's a relatively short video, I think it's great, especially for the newly initiated. Much preferred over the Globebusters or Mark Sargent/Patricia Steer marathon Google hangouts of 3+ hours per video with very little actual content or proofs. Should be interesting to see how this plays out, especially since deGrasse Tyson is on the defensive. Why wouldn't he debate Dubay if the globe is so easy to prove? On another note, it will also focus new attention on Spacex, raising new questions as to what that is really all about, not to mention the alien "disclosure" project. Flat earth cosmology blows the lid off of many of the cabal's long planned agendas.


----------



## icecap (Apr 23, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> fega72 said:
> 
> 
> > Sigian said:
> ...



 it's actually the total opposite. The conventional (globular) model is the one that uses impossibly large numbers to explain away everything.

Why don't we ever see paralax in regards to the stars? Oh that's because they're all many trillions of light years away.

How can we see all those stars if they're so far away? Well you see there's different star types, some of which are Super Giants which can be as big as our solar system!

Why is it that we can see further than we should if we're living on a spherical earth with a 25 thousand mile circumference? You're just not able to comprehend the extreme size of the earth maaaaaan.


mega1000 said:


> Here's an analogy I want to make to explain my feelings on the Flat Earth.
> 
> Have you ever visited someone's house where they have pets, dogs, cats, or their house is dirty? They don't seem to notice the smell and once you are there long enough you don't notice the smell. This is called Nose Blindness.
> 
> Motion is also a sense, but since all life evolved already having a natural Motion Blindness. We only notice movement and motion when something deviates from it.



You are constantly deviating from it. 

Flat earth skeptics love to use newtons first law that, if a *body is at rest or moving at a constant speed in a straight line*, it will remain at rest or keep moving in a straight line at constant speed unless it is acted upon by a force.

People like to use this as proof that we can be moving at thousands of miles per hour in multiple directions, but in the end it's jusy lazy thinking. It makes sense that you can jump up on a plane and land in the same spot because we're dealing with an object that is going in a straight line at a constant velocity. This is not the case AT ALL with the earth. It is supposedly spinning on multiple axis, circling the earth at 67,000 mph, and shooting through space at nearly half a million mph SIMULTANEOUSLY. Even just simplifying it and looking at one of the motions, NONE of them have a constant velocity because they are moving in circles. Moving in a circle means your velocity is constantly changing which means you are constantly accelerating. Newtons first law does NOT apply here and it is impossible for a constant acceleration of this magnitude to be IMPERCEPTIBLE and affect NOTHING about our world. What makes much more sense is that the earth is not moving just as we percieve it. You only think you're moving because you're told you are by NASA.


----------



## El Forastero (Apr 23, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> Lightseeker said:
> 
> 
> > Starman said:
> ...




You simply haven't looked into it, I'm afraid.


----------



## El Forastero (Apr 23, 2021)

That wasn't a reply to you.


----------



## grav (Apr 24, 2021)

I skipped a lot through the video, having heard all this before.
As I have often said, very few people will watch a video, no matter how good it is. 
I forgot to look for a text summary, which is a much better way to introduce flat earth to new truthers.
Debating Neil deGrasse Tyson is something most of us old hands could do, with relative ease.


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (Apr 24, 2021)

grav said:


> I skipped a lot through the video, having heard all this before.
> As I have often said, very few people will watch a video, no matter how good it is.
> I forgot to look for a text summary, which is a much better way to introduce flat earth to new truthers.
> Debating Neil deGrasse Tyson is something most of us old hands could do, with relative ease.


I understand why someone familiar with the subject would skip through, though it is quite possibly, in my opinion, the most palatable flat earth presentation to date that I've seen. A text summary would definitely be quite useful, though I wonder how long it will last on YouTube 2.0, so I imagine there will be a lot of mirror posts on other platforms. 

I think ultimately the cabal will get on board Flat Earth, and perhaps this video was made just for that purpose. I don't think it was an accident that the UN flag's design is a flat earth map inside of a target scope. This would also appear to be another aspect to the larger disclosure project. 

This disclosure project entails making the Left the ultimate scapegoat while the alt Right emerges as the saviors of the New World Order. The timing of this disclosure will be closely connected with the planned world financial/currency collapse, which will entail what some researchers have labeled a "truth tsunami", a giant expose of the crimes of the cabal, but through the filter of the alt right, of which I have concluded Dubay and the entire team on this "Level" film project are a part of. The truth tsunami will unpack a plethora of conspiracies we've been talking about and researching for years, including flat earth, 911, geo-engineering, pizzagate, paperclip, monarch, mk ultra, nasa, election fraud, the plandemic, just to name a few. The Q psyop is also a part of this, as well as the majority of the "truth" movement. How they will ultimately roll this out and when is probably their best kept secret, but once it finally begins, it will be epic.

Right now we appear to be in the final push before the collapse, so, as I've already stated, the timing for the release of this seems to be quite telling, as it is tailor made for the newly awakened and is just what we could use right now: a viral, populist video that polarizes like no other subject does.


----------



## grav (Apr 24, 2021)

Collapseinrealtime said:


> I think ultimately the cabal will get on board Flat Earth, and perhaps this video was made just for that purpose.



Really? But how could the Illuminati disclose FE truth after all those decades of globe-ism?
It would be great if it happened. The only way I can this come to pass if there is a world age reset. maybe a mudflood or other cataclysm.
DITRH interviewed a woman who was around 100 years old. She remembers learning that the world was flat back in the 1930s, I think. I would love to get my hands on a pre-Nasa science book.


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (Apr 24, 2021)

grav said:


> Really? But how could the Illuminati disclose FE truth after all those decades of globe-ism?
> It would be great if it happened. The only way I can this come to pass if there is a world age reset. maybe a mudflood or other cataclysm.
> DITRH interviewed a woman who was around 100 years old. She remembers learning that the world was flat back in the 1930s, I think. I would love to get my hands on a pre-Nasa science book.


Disclosure has always been the Trump card of the cabal. Pinning one side against the other, the whole left-right paradigm is their bag baby. Now that their days of cashing in on the globe-tard nonsense are nearly over, they'll jump that ship and switch sides while sacrificing a few of their foot soldiers to give the switch legitimacy. Look at the neo-cons of the George W timeframe. They started out as Trotsky-communist far lefties, and then one day they had a life changing epiphany and suddenly went conservative. 

The cabal have no real ideology other than divide and conquer. They'll tell the truth when it suits their agenda. In this case, their agenda is world government, so it will suit them to change their cosmology tune. Since their plans involve inter-generational parameters, they have all the time and resources in the world to play their games, until their time is up. Well, their time is nearly up, so it's time for them to reach into their back pockets for the next game plan in their playbook: switching sides, whatever it takes to hold the reigns of power. Pushback central is coming to town soon enough, and this is how they will navigate that pushback to their ultimate advantage. What they've been trying to sell us on these last decades is merely the decoy.


----------



## Skydog (Apr 24, 2021)

Starman said:


> Tomorrow:
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8qwZhYQfb8_



I am proud of these folks for working together to put together a project of this caliber. I really am.  However, I was a little disappointed in the overall in your face production / repetitive nature of the narration at times. It’s almost like they should try using an academic setting / institutional approach to show the round earth absurdities. Beat them using their own game board 

In any event, can anybody explain the shadow that appears on the moon from the weather balloon - under any earth shape model - during this little priceless clip?


----------



## Starman (Apr 24, 2021)

Skydog said:


> I am proud of these folks for working together to put together a project of this caliber. I really am.  However, I was a little disappointed in the overall in your face production / repetitive nature of the narration at times. It’s almost like they should try using an academic setting / institutional approach to show the round earth absurdities. Beat them using their own game board
> 
> In any event, can anybody explain the shadow that appears on the moon from the weather balloon - under any earth shape model - during this little priceless clip?
> 
> View attachment 8483View attachment 8484



To me I am looking at a balloon with something hanging below it, like a 'satellite.'   I don't see the shadow on the moon, just two objects hanging in the sky.  That being said, if the uppermost object is a giant helium balloon, you'd think a satellite hanging from it wouldn't be as big as the object we see below it.  But who knows!

On another matter, I can't imagine that there will ever be any kind of FE reveal by TPTB.  People are too invested in the current paradigm.  It would mess with too many heads.  It would just create chaos.  To what end?  Besides, people LOVE their spinning ball in space and don't want to ponder any other reality.  They just can't go there, nor do they want to!

The only way the paradigm will change is when the old order is overturned, and a reset ensues.  Only then is it possible, and is not guaranteed. There has to be a complete undermining of the existing paradigm before people will abandon ship and adopt a new set of beliefs.  We're a long way from that happening.  And besides, we're going to have helioexcentrics perennially trying to rebuild their luciferian world and squashing our perspective.  Perhaps with the pendulum swinging, the ball earthers will be shown to be frauds and we will win out in the upcoming era. This will be a battle for all time to recover the memory of what the human realm is.


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (Apr 24, 2021)

The only way the paradigm will change is when the old order is overturned, and a reset ensues.  Only then is it possible, and is not guaranteed. There has to be a complete undermining of the existing paradigm before people will abandon ship and adopt a new set of beliefs.  We're a long way from that happening.  And besides, we're going to have helioexcentrics perennially trying to rebuild their luciferian world and squashing our perspective.  Perhaps with the pendulum swinging, the ball earthers will be shown to be frauds and we will win out in the upcoming era. This will be a battle for all time to recover the memory of what the human realm is.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed on all counts, and the way they will achieve this is to collapse the false narrative themselves, revealing the fraud on the one side in the form of disclosures from the freedom fighters and truthers (in their employ), while perpetuating the falsehood from the other side by the deceivers (in their employ), until the false narrative can no longer sustain itself because of the truth power of the disclosures. This is how the reset is guaranteed, because they themselves are masters of the art of reset, by always being behind both sides of the argument. To the unwitting public, this will appear to be a grassroots undertaking that concludes with a reset of understanding and awakening, while the real powers behind the scenes remain in control of the new narrative established.


----------



## Starman (Apr 24, 2021)

Collapseinrealtime said:


> The only way the paradigm will change is when the old order is overturned, and a reset ensues.  Only then is it possible, and is not guaranteed. There has to be a complete undermining of the existing paradigm before people will abandon ship and adopt a new set of beliefs.  We're a long way from that happening.  And besides, we're going to have helioexcentrics perennially trying to rebuild their luciferian world and squashing our perspective.  Perhaps with the pendulum swinging, the ball earthers will be shown to be frauds and we will win out in the upcoming era. This will be a battle for all time to recover the memory of what the human realm is.


Agreed on all counts, and the way they will achieve this is to collapse the false narrative themselves, revealing the fraud on the one side in the form of disclosures from the freedom fighters and truthers (in their employ), while perpetuating the falsehood from the other side by the deceivers (in their employ), until the false narrative can no longer sustain itself because of the truth power of the disclosures. This is how the reset is guaranteed, because they themselves are masters of the art of reset, by always being behind both sides of the argument. To the unwitting public, this will appear to be a grassroots undertaking that concludes with a reset of understanding and awakening, while the real powers behind the scenes remain in control of the new narrative established.
[/QUOTE]

Starman response:
I like to think that the arising of truth will happen naturally, in the absence of the elites ability to control the narrative. When the center no longer holds, there's no dominant narrative that is continually being reinforced.  That is when green shoots appear and condense into a new outlook. In that way, I don't subscribe to the never ending iron grip management of TPTB even in crisis situations.  They are losing control of the narrative and it will accelerate as more and more crises appear.  They will no longer be on top of the situation.  They're not going to be able to manage "both sides of the argument" or run their divide and conquer shenanigans.  It's not that they won't try, but they'll be ineffective because enough people have seen through them.

In summary, I think it is important not to give TPTB some kind of all imposing stature.  They "real powers behind the scenes" are very vulnerable at times of reset.  A healthy revamping of our world view is quite possible ahead.  If we have a real apocalypse this time, the frauds we have lived by will become evident.  If NASA falters, can't get enough money to continue, people will start jumping ship all over the place. This will happen in every sector of society.  When disorder rules the day, who knows how many secrets get revealed? I think it will be an organic process as the onion gets peeled away.


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (Apr 24, 2021)

Starman said:


> Agreed on all counts, and the way they will achieve this is to collapse the false narrative themselves, revealing the fraud on the one side in the form of disclosures from the freedom fighters and truthers (in their employ), while perpetuating the falsehood from the other side by the deceivers (in their employ), until the false narrative can no longer sustain itself because of the truth power of the disclosures. This is how the reset is guaranteed, because they themselves are masters of the art of reset, by always being behind both sides of the argument. To the unwitting public, this will appear to be a grassroots undertaking that concludes with a reset of understanding and awakening, while the real powers behind the scenes remain in control of the new narrative established.



Starman response:
I like to think that the arising of truth will happen naturally, in the absence of the elites ability to control the narrative. When the center no longer holds, there's no dominant narrative that is continually being reinforced.  That is when green shoots appear and condense into a new outlook. In that way, I don't subscribe to the never ending iron grip management of TPTB even in crisis situations.  They are losing control of the narrative and it will accelerate as more and more crises appear.  They will no longer be on top of the situation.  They're not going to be able to manage "both sides of the argument" or run their divide and conquer shenanigans.  It's not that they won't try, but they'll be ineffective because enough people have seen through them.

In summary, I think it is important not to give TPTB some kind of all imposing stature.  They "real powers behind the scenes" are very vulnerable at times of reset.  A healthy revamping of our world view is quite possible ahead.  If we have a real apocalypse this time, the frauds we have lived by will become evident.  If NASA falters, can't get enough money to continue, people will start jumping ship all over the place. This will happen in every sector of society.  When disorder rules the day, who knows how many secrets get revealed? I think it will be an organic process as the onion gets peeled away.
[/QUOTE]
I share your optimism and outlook. By recognizing their plans, we have a real chance of transcending their traps. They are at their weakest right now and they grow weaker by the day. This is why they are scrambling to show a powerful front despite their vulnerability. Understanding their playbook is key to positioning ourselves strategically so as not to be fooled when they make their big moves with their operatives that appear to be our allies. This is the mistake we've made countless times in history: trusting their operatives. Pay close attention to the disclosure project. It is their last big play.


----------



## Sigian (Apr 24, 2021)

Honest question, because I cannot find a specific answer out there.  

What is the benefit of denying a FE and instead saying it is a globe?

Saying that there is more beyond the icy barrier is akin to saying there is more out there in space.

Just want to know your opinion, or if there is a specific set of views agreed upon by FE'rs.


----------



## Jd755 (Apr 24, 2021)

Flat earth, globe earth each is the others controlled opposition.


----------



## Starman (Apr 24, 2021)

Sigian said:


> Honest question, because I cannot find a specific answer out there.
> 
> What is the benefit of denying a FE and instead saying it is a globe?
> 
> ...



For me it comes down to the luciferian ideal of an inverted world to keep you off balance.  It doesn't matter to our controllers what we believe in, only that it is not based on natural reality or common sense.  It's about weaving a spell, keeping you away from truth.  It's a kind of game they play and having always played to their advantage.  For them it's fun to deceive, to pull down, to trick, to undermine.  They do this because they are in the business of farming this world and need pliant sheep to shear.

The globe and space deception pulls in all kinds of people with its fantastical storylines.  It promotes our insignificance as inhabitants of this realm and sets us adrift. We forget that we are god's creatures and live at the center of our universe, and have a reason to be incarnating here.  

Keeping us on a spinning ball hurtling through an infinite universe causes us to become disoriented. Just where they like us to be.


----------



## Lightseeker (Apr 24, 2021)

Sigian said:


> Honest question, because I cannot find a specific answer out there.
> 
> What is the benefit of denying a FE and instead saying it is a globe?
> 
> ...



-The globe Earth supports evolution and helps in denying the existence of God
-People are taught that Earth is just one of trillions of planets in one of many universes. We are nothing. Our existence has no meaning or purpose.
-We are an accident. We are basically apes that can talk. 
-We are taught that we are apes living upside down on a spinning ball flying across the universe at high speed for no real reason. And we believe it. It means that it is easy for TPTB to make us believe stuff that is just ridiculous. Every child out there will be like "what?" when you tell them that Earth is moving and that people in the southern hemisphere are living upside down.
-If Earth is a globe, the only way out is up. And that is only available to the elites. If Earth is flat, there is plenty to explore if you manage to cross the antarctic lands.
-If they lie about the very shape of the place we live in, what else have they lied about? What else has been covered up? Perhaps the location of paradise at the center of the flat Earth (the north Pole)? Civilizations under the Earth?
-If Earth is a globe and resources are limited, then why would they want us to know that Earth is flat and rich in infinite resources for everyone?


----------



## grav (Apr 24, 2021)

Starman said:


> thought being a Velikovskian was enough for me, but I feel fortunate to have discovered another deeper layer of the onion.



On top of all the other excellent points made above, this one tickles my fancy the most.
I found FE (and my science sanity) in 2015 when a remarkable poster named Rothbard posted a crazy thread on Lunatic Outpost. On that one wonderful day, the proverbial scales fell from my eyes and all my early complaints about the Atom theory and other nonsense finally, finally were answered.

This was way after I had found Velikovsky, whose Worlds in Collision I have read several times. It should be required reading for all alt-chron buffs. 
I've also taken classes in myth and have studied Sumerian and Gnostic writings about the business of creation, which led me to the Electric Universe. Oh, what a journey it has been! Why doesn't everyone want to take it?

As several people have noted, these ideas are labelled heresies by the Control System. To understand them requires independent thought and considerable effort to bypass the establishment's indoctrination system.
It is so much easier to believe the fairy tales: the germ theory, the spinning balls in space vacuum, 911, and all the insane goings-on that pass for reality.

Anyway, Velikovsky. Wow. Talk about resets! Usually by means of comets which "upheavaled" the world over and over. 

No one talks about them any more. Or Coherent Catastrophism.
We have Covid, idiotic wars, UFO invasion, and other psyops in public discourse now. Not comets, which are likely an electric short in the flat earth battery. 

Humans have a condition called collective amnesia. That brain wipe tendency may be how the Illuminati do resets, even without Covid vaccine compiter chips.

I'll quit typing now. I think I've said quite enough heresy and crazy talk. 
for now.


----------



## Prolix (Apr 24, 2021)

Collapseinrealtime said:


> _View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/lSQQST8P311V/_




I have to question the tone struck throughout the video. If it's aimed at novices, as it appears to be, then the frequently obnoxious pose struck, towards brain-damaged idiot "globeheads", is going to be self defeating. Or maybe it's just the self-congratulatory circle jerk it often appears to be. That would account for the gleeful ripping of deGrasse Tyson at the end. I thought it was very over produced too, much too busy (the slicker and closer to broadcast-standard videos become, the glibber and less rigorous they often are). Only Dave Murphy really came over well.

I'm also a bit wary of calling on the Buzz Aldrin confessional to that kid as evidence;_ I'll_ happily interpret it at face value, but if you take his entire answer then it's easy to argue as borderline incoherent.

I found the most interesting part the footage of the downed satellite with balloon attached. The narration suggested there were many such reported cases, and it would have been good to have a bit more on the numbers/detail.


----------



## Lightseeker (Apr 24, 2021)

Magnumopus said:


> I have to question the tone struck throughout the video. If it's aimed at novices, as it appears to be, then the frequently obnoxious pose struck, towards brain-damaged idiot "globeheads", is going to be self defeating. Or maybe it's just the self-congratulatory circle jerk it often appears to be. That would account for the gleeful ripping of deGrasse Tyson at the end. I thought it was very over produced too, much too busy (the slicker and closer to broadcast-standard videos become, the glibber and less rigorous they often are). Only Dave Murphy really came over well.
> 
> I'm also a bit wary of calling on the Buzz Aldrin confessional to that kid as evidence;_ I'll_ happily interpret it at face value, but if you take his entire answer then it's easy to argue as borderline incoherent.
> 
> I found the most interesting part the footage of the downed satellite with balloon attached. The narration suggested there were many such reported cases, and it would have been good to have a bit more on the numbers/detail.



Much to Dreamtime's surprise, I was also put off by the troll-like approach to language implemented by the guests in the video, as well as Dubay's. It took away from their potential to come across as credible. 

Either way, a good documentary in spite of its shortcomings.


----------



## Starman (Apr 24, 2021)

grav said:


> Anyway, Velikovsky. Wow. Talk about resets! Usually by means of comets which "upheavaled" the world over and over.
> 
> No one talks about them any more. Or Coherent Catastrophism.
> We have Covid, idiotic wars, UFO invasion, and other psyops in public discourse now. Not comets, which are likely an electric short in the flat earth battery.



At 41:55 in the Ewaranon video below he conjectures that comets are not moving bodies, but are light beams from pierced holes in the firmament. Howzz that for original thinking?  The 'comet' and its light stream are seen to rotate in the sky in a fixed way, in concert with the stars movement. The 'comet' therefore does not have a trajectory independent of the fixed stars.  In this scenario one can imagine that this hole in the firmament could let in substances that negatively affect the earth's environment. Damage to the firmament could be creating an electric short as well.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RHz_RQhfEQ_


Amazing that we can rationalize just about any scenario in the sky.  The neo-Velikovskians have a well worked out system of belief, which I was once convinced of.  Their theories are very elegant.  If I had remained in the fold and gotten more of a reputation in the Thunderbolts tribe, I wouldn't have broken away and explored things sideways to discover FE.  I wasn't so much into the physics or astral aspects, but more into the cultural amnesia theory of Velikovsky.  I gave a speech on the subject at the 2017 Electric Universe conference in Phoenix.

I find the subject of amnesia intriguing and realize how deeply pervasive it is as a mechanism for forgetting or sublimating traumatic experiences.  It is a type of psychic self-protection.  Most humans don't want to remember, they want to get on with daily life.  The past is filled with discomforting bug-a-boos.


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (Apr 24, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> I doubt it'll be taken down. You'll see reasonable people shred the claims made in the movie, but I think it'll remain up.
> 
> Here's the problem I see with both Flat Earth and Young Earth Creationism, they spend a lot of time trying to knock down the evidence provided by science, but don't provide any of their own. Often times both groups will make claims that can simply be dismissed because they don't have anything to back them up.


Plenty of proofs are made in the video. What flat earth does more than anything else is it puts common sense back into science. Scientism only accepts arguments from other "qualified" scientists, regardless of how unscientific their arguments may be. It is also the backbone of the scamdemic narrative, where "experts" make outlandish claims that cannot be supported by facts. If you believe the proofs presented in this video are not backed up by scientific investigation, please specify.


Magnumopus said:


> I have to question the tone struck throughout the video. If it's aimed at novices, as it appears to be, then the frequently obnoxious pose struck, towards brain-damaged idiot "globeheads", is going to be self defeating. Or maybe it's just the self-congratulatory circle jerk it often appears to be. That would account for the gleeful ripping of deGrasse Tyson at the end. I thought it was very over produced too, much too busy (the slicker and closer to broadcast-standard videos become, the glibber and less rigorous they often are). Only Dave Murphy really came over well.
> 
> I'm also a bit wary of calling on the Buzz Aldrin confessional to that kid as evidence;_ I'll_ happily interpret it at face value, but if you take his entire answer then it's easy to argue as borderline incoherent.
> 
> I found the most interesting part the footage of the downed satellite with balloon attached. The narration suggested there were many such reported cases, and it would have been good to have a bit more on the numbers/detail.


I agree, it seems to be more about providing red meat for the base, though there are still some great proofs presented for those with an open mind to examine. If someone is put off by a presenter, it seems to me that they're just looking for reasons to write it off anyway, though I do understand the value of a diplomatic presentation. At this point in time, I'm far less concerned with awakening normies and more focused on helping those of like mind with ideas and details that may help to enhance their understanding of the cabal's playbook, while learning from their input as well. If they still can't see a flat plane everytime they look at the horizon, especially after viewing this video, there's probably little else they'll be open-minded to either. The time for waking people up is just about over. Now's the time to get ready for the cabal's next play: disclosure.


----------



## grav (Apr 25, 2021)

The Thunderbolts are wedged between a rock and a hard place.
First, their Electric Universe negates the Atom and, by extension, nuclear bombs.
Can they also, in one fell swoop, sweep away Nasa's astronomy and the space program? Yes, I guess, if a worldwide reset were engineered.

I know that mudfloods are the reset du jour on forums.
Let's not forget resets by fire from the skies.

The following excerpt comes from a long and remarkable article about the Comet Biela conflagration that destroyed thousands of acres in the Midwest in 1871.
It was not as horrendous as some comerary insults recorded by Velikovsky, who claimed that Comet Venus was born from the head of her father, Jupiter. She ravaged the earth on a regular basis until she settled into a quiet orbit as a planet.

Comet Biela and Mrs. O’Leary’s Cow | Cassiopaea

The flames that consumed a great part of Chicago were of an unusual character and produced extraordinary effects. They absolutely melted the hardest building-stone, which had previously been considered fire-proof. Iron, glass, granite, were fused and run together into grotesque conglomerates, as if they had been put through a blast-furnace. No kind of material could stand its breath for a moment.

I quote again from Sheahan & Upton’s work:

“The huge stone and brick structures melted before the fierceness of the flames as a snow-flake melts and disappears in water, and almost as quickly. Six-story buildings would take fire and disappear for ever from sight in five minutes by the watch… The fire also doubled on its track at the great Union Depot and burned half a mile southward in the very teeth of the gale – a gale which blew a perfect tornado, and in which no vessel could have lived on the lake… Strange, fantastic fires of blue, red, and green played along the cornices of buildings” [“History of the Chicago Fire” 85, 86].

Hon. William B. Ogden wrote at the time:

“The fire was accompanied by the fiercest tornado of wind ever known to blow here” [Ibid 87].

“The most striking peculiarity of the fire was its intense heat. Nothing exposed to it escaped. Amid the hundreds of acres left bare there is not to be found a piece of wood of any description, and, unlike most fires, it left nothing half burned… The fire swept the streets of all the ordinary dust and rubbish, consuming it instantly” [Ibid 119].

The Athens marble burned like coal!

“The intensity of the heat may be judged, and the thorough combustion of everything wooden may be understood, when we state that in the yard of one of the large agricultural-implement factories was stacked some hundreds of tons of pig-iron. This iron was two hundred feet from any building. To the south of it was the river, one hundred and fifty feet wide. No large building but the factory was in the immediate vicinity of the fire. Yet, so great was the heat, that this pile of iron melted and run, and is now in one large and nearly solid mass” [Ibid 121].


----------



## Starman (Apr 25, 2021)

grav said:


> The Thunderbolts are wedged between a rock and a hard place.
> First, their Electric Universe negates the Atom and, by extension, nuclear bombs.
> Can they also, in one fell swoop, sweep away Nasa's astronomy and the space program? Yes, I guess, if a worldwide reset were engineered.



I don't think the Thunderbolts/Electric Universe people are interested in abandoning the infinite spaces, rocky planet, ball earth paradigm. This is a legacy of Velikovsky's work and David Talbot's "Saturn Myth" story of the earth and other planets lined up under Saturn at time when it was our sun.

Besides, they are too excited about their theories of what the sun is and how it operates.

Flat Earth is heresy in those circles, as they already have a very elegant theory for astrophysics based partly on the mainstream view and on the alt-planet story of Velikovsky.  It's been updated by them and it works in their minds.  They've corrected the errors of NASA and can point out the missing ingredient of electricity as the fundamental influence in the universe.

They know NASA is lying on many fronts, but lots of differing opinions on how deep the rabbit hole goes with their deception.  Most people don't believe we flew to the moon, but they still think it's a rock up there we can go visit. People in the Thunderbolts camp are open minded in many ways, but at the end of the day they want their rocky ball planets and jagged comet rocks and super huge electrical ball suns racing and spinning through space.

To convince them of a flat earth, you'd have to burst their bubble and convince them of the existence of the firmament and a local sun, which would disappoint them - ha.


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (Apr 25, 2021)

Starman said:


> I don't think the Thunderbolts/Electric Universe people are interested in abandoning the infinite spaces, rocky planet, ball earth paradigm. This is a legacy of Velikovsky's work and David Talbot's "Saturn Myth" story of the earth and other planets lined up under Saturn at time when it was our sun.
> 
> Besides, they are too excited about their theories of what the sun is and how it operates.
> 
> ...


It's always interesting to see other researchers' limits in how far they will open their minds to new ideas, especially when those new ideas would have the effect of broadening horizons rather than restricting them. I have had the sneaking suspicion that the Thunderbolts project is the product of a controlled opposition campaign to steer truthers away from discovering our true cosmology. I admit I was very intrigued by the electric universe concept when I came across that research back in 2011. When I discovered flat earth a few years later in 2015, the electric universe concept fit in flawlessly, minus the comet rocks and spheres. I was elated and excited, eager to learn more. Then I came across godgvlamste on youtube within this past year, where he explodes the crater earth concept. Still working on that one, but very compelling research that fits into flat earth cosmology quite seamlessly, though like all things that scratches the surface of truth, more questions than answers. The point in all of this is to keep an open mind. When there is excessive gatekeeping, even when new research brought forward enhances rather than restricts an idea, either the individual is still not ready for unadulterated truth through open minded research, or we have discovered a well coordinated psyop in progress. I suspect the latter with the Thunderbolts project.


----------



## Starman (Apr 25, 2021)

Collapseinrealtime said:


> It's always interesting to see other researchers' limits in how far they will open their minds to new ideas, especially when those new ideas would have the effect of broadening horizons rather than restricting them. I have had the sneaking suspicion that the Thunderbolts project is the product of a controlled opposition campaign to steer truthers away from discovering our true cosmology. I admit I was very intrigued by the electric universe concept when I came across that research back in 2011. When I discovered flat earth a few years later in 2015, the electric universe concept fit in flawlessly, minus the comet rocks and spheres. I was elated and excited, eager to learn more. Then I came across godgvlamste on youtube within this past year, where he explodes the crater earth concept. Still working on that one, but very compelling research that fits into flat earth cosmology quite seamlessly, though like all things that scratches the surface of truth, more questions than answers. The point in all of this is to keep an open mind. When there is excessive gatekeeping, even when new research brought forward enhances rather than restricts an idea, either the individual is still not ready for unadulterated truth through open minded research, or we have discovered a well coordinated psyop in progress. I suspect the latter with the Thunderbolts project.



I doubt Thunderbolts is a well coordinated psyop.  I knew too many of these people over the years and how they went about their business and what they had to deal with in order to stay relevant.  It was and is a wide ranging group of people and lots of ideas get kicked around. A great forum of people.  However, Dave Talbott their leader, might have gotten some marching orders and funds and protection by some shady characters over the years in order to create a diversionary following, who knows?!  He might not have been coerced, but instead was encouraged to charge ahead, as TPTB like to grease the skids of alternative views that end up in dead ends or at least far from the truth.  

Maybe Velikovsky the Russian jewish immigrant was the gatekeeper, though he had some quite difficult times with the mainstream throughout his career.  Curious how his radical theories never got him kicked out of his professorship. Did you know he dabbled in psychoanalysis and was one of the earliest practitioners in Israel?  He sucked up to Einstein in a big way and wanted to become famous like him. He was kind of an incorrigible guy, the perennial withholding father figure.  Almost single handedly he created the alt-planet story with all its catastrophes, electrical forces, and mythical allegories pointed to as long ago cosmic physical events.  He also said our history was corrupt and set up a new B.C. chronology.

He threw a lot in our pathway and we are still digesting these subjects.  

Perhaps Velikovsky also had some marching orders and some protection as part of the club, and was allowed to offer radical theories that perhaps don't lead to the truth, but who can say?!  If you're a committed flat earther and this reality is what you really believe, then yes you'd have every reason to think these people were set out to deceive you, and have a fun time in the process!   Though I think these people like Velikovsky and Dave Talbott (Vel's student) do believe in their theories.  I don't think they are continually showboating and undermining people for the fun of it.  They follow their head and their insights vigorously.  They aren't being told to create a career of misinformation.  I believe they are mostly being encouraged to go down certain roads they are already traveling.  To TPTB, it doesn't matter what that road is, only that they believe it won't end up with too much truth telling.

All the world's a stage!


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (Apr 25, 2021)

Starman said:


> I doubt Thunderbolts is a well coordinated psyop.  I knew too many of these people over the years and how they went about their business and what they had to deal with in order to stay relevant.  It was and is a wide ranging group of people and lots of ideas get kicked around. A great forum of people.  However, Dave Talbott their leader, might have gotten some marching orders and funds and protection by some shady characters over the years in order to create a diversionary following, who knows?!  He might not have been coerced, but instead was encouraged to charge ahead, as TPTB like to grease the skids of alternative views that end up in dead ends or at least far from the truth.
> 
> Maybe Velikovsky the Russian jewish immigrant was the gatekeeper, though he had some quite difficult times with the mainstream throughout his career.  Curious how his radical theories never got him kicked out of his professorship. Did you know he dabbled in psychoanalysis and was one of the earliest practitioners in Israel?  He sucked up to Einstein in a big way and wanted to become famous like him. He was kind of an incorrigible guy, the perennial withholding father figure.  Almost single handedly he created the alt-planet story with all its catastrophes, electrical forces, and mythical allegories pointed to as long ago cosmic physical events.  He also said our history was corrupt and set up a new B.C. chronology.
> 
> ...


I'm compelled by all of the research that has come to light, but I view the characters bringing forth said research with extreme caution. The truth is a tightrope that requires keen balance to navigate. It is a lonely journey, yet encounters many companions along the way. I look forward to the time where deception and misunderstanding is not the constant antagonist, though it has proven to be a great catalyst in my awakening, so I cannot say that I am not also grateful for it.


----------



## Sigian (Apr 25, 2021)

Ty for the replies, I do appreciate it, I am just trying to get information that isn't as easily found on search engines (wonder why). 

So please don't get upset, but I have to ask, it seems as most are religious here, as in the biblical firmament talks here and there.  Is that just a bad take on everything I have read or am I just taking it out of context?  Again, honest question.  Backing away slowly, as earlier questions have me labeled already.  Just wanting to take part in a thread that has my interests and pick peoples brains.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Apr 25, 2021)

Velikovsky did an excellent job of collecting all those ancient tribal records,myths,and legends . I read his books when they first appeared and I was a young brainwashed mainstreamer. I could never reconcile the parts of those histories where the earth stood still or even reversed the spin (Worlds in Collision) with our wonderful like clockwork solar system . 

Later , after finding out everything I knew was bullshit , and coming to the scientifically based conclusion that the earth was stationary and most likely flat , I worked through that book again - fits perfectly within the FE model -and that's good info about comets and the dome , thanks.
          I know he was a 4bi2,  connected to the plagiarist Einstein. and thus a gatekeeper but they don't hide the truth - we just have to sort the wheat from the chaff so to speak.
          Hey Grav , we have ancient vitrified granite forts in Bonnie Scotland too. Cause unknown. Fit's with your info about that comet.


----------



## grav (Apr 25, 2021)

FarewellAngelina said:


> we have ancient vitrified granite forts in Bonnie Scotland too. Cause unknown. Fit's with your info about that comet.



Two points have been raised.

1.  As for why EU and Thunderbolts guys talk the talk, maybe the 3 p's: paychecks, pensions, prestige. Also too  a preference for not pushing up pansies. That is, fear of having an unfortunate accidental death if too many beans are spilled.

2. vitrified granite? Are y'all familiar with Roger at Mudfossil University? He with the dull voice and feather pointer? He claims to have had rock samples tested which reveal dna. 
I have a very pretty tile floor in one bathroom. It is mostly gray, with streaks of red and pink. It looks just like a cross-section of veins in tissue of a living being.

My conclusion: same ol' same ol' theory -- that reality is a computer program with the potential to have its code rewritten. From a time when Saturn was a giant sun ruling over a purple misty world. And there were giants in the earth. And trees that grew miles high. And Pyrrha and Deucalion, according to "ancient" Greek myth, threw rocks behind them to repopulate the earth after the Deluge.

2 (b) comets.
Maybe the major reset mechanism that transformed the sim world?
Are they part of the original code or bugs in the system?


Sigian said:


> Ty for the replies, I do appreciate it, I am just trying to get information that isn't as easily found on search engines (wonder why).
> 
> So please don't get upset, but I have to ask, it seems as most are religious here, as in the biblical firmament talks here and there.  Is that just a bad take on everything I have read or am I just taking it out of context?  Again, honest question.  Backing away slowly, as earlier questions have me labeled already.  Just wanting to take part in a thread that has my interests and pick peoples brains.



Most are religious? 
I don't see that.
I am an atheist. I see Jesus as the philosophical archetype of the perfect soul. What is the soul? An electric bundle of consciousness.


----------



## grav (Apr 27, 2021)

_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0O0cE88Lics&feature=youtu.be_


‘Quantum Locking’ on the Dielectric Inertial Plane
121 views [Let's increase that number, please]

UndeadSouls
43 subscribers [plus one. I just subscribed]
Published on Dec 5, 2020
“This is called Quantum trapping/locking; so that an object can be sustained within the locked magnetic field. These magnetic fields act just like sound does; they create toroidal fields. Torus shapes/esoteric designs are found when observing these fields.. The Seed of Life is rooted within our magnetic field. These are precisely the ley lines in which all ancient cultures built their structures upon in order to harness the energy in our Ætherstream / Magnetic field..

.

.
The sun (+) ⚡️& moon (-)  are suspended above dielectric inertial plane similar to how quantum locking of the electromagnetic fields work. The magnetic field can be locked at any altitude above the electromagnetic plate below, just as our dielectric inertial plane.
It was proved that accelerated motion of a linear dielectric causes it’s polarization. Acceleration of translational motion of dielectric’s plate leads to the positive charge of the surface facing the direction of motion. Metal plates of a capacitor were used to register polarized charges on a dielectric’s surface. Potential difference between the capacitor plates is proportional to acceleration, when acceleration is constant potential difference grows with the increase of a dielectric’s area, of its permittivity and is hardly dependent on a dielectric’s thickness..”


----------



## Sigian (Apr 28, 2021)

Thank you for your reply Grav, religious was simply a speculation due to the firmament theory of FE that I have always read as having religious roots.  Thank you for confirming that it isn't just that main view that supports it.

As for my other question, why?  I still see no benefit of lying about the earth being a globe versus being flat.  Exploration is exploration, whether it be into space or beyond the wall that surrounds a FE.  Something could be out there, or even right next to us.  If accounting for Newtonian physics is faked through mathematical fakeries, it makes no sense that the pull of gravity 9.8 m/s/s is slightly (minimally) faster at the poles because we are not a globe per say but squished in at the poles, and the further down you go, that force increases.  If there were no real pull called gravity, and we were a flat disc not moving at all, what would account for those numbers, short of just claiming they were made up?

I know, I could/should give links and substantiation evidence from reliable sources, but haven't really seen that much at all here without it being called out without support.

Look, I have studied physics for over a decade, take that as you will, have found Einstein and other mainstream academia to be utter shills when it comes to true information.  But the math just doesn't add up for me. And in saying that is also why I press more and more, trying to come to a decision for myself on all of this.

The Electric Universe theory is definitely more founded than others, electrons definitely play a major role as well, the aether is slowly being found again, and none of it probably matters at all anyways sadly, but it would be nice to know before I've left this part of existence, what is real, and what isn't that we aren't told about.


----------



## Starman (Apr 28, 2021)

Love the Conspiracy Music Guru and his FE videos:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcqKUhU0WDc&list=PLwmPipduK2G-tMOEhdpTiYTj78XH-Lnxv&index=7_


----------



## grav (Apr 28, 2021)

Two quotations below, which examine "ancient" descriptions of the dome as a solid expanse, close enough for people to see it.
Chicken Little was worried that the sky was falling.
Jack climbed a beanstalk to break into a giant's home.

And then, the sky was raised higher and out of reach of curious humans.The first quotation refers, of course, to the Tower of Babel and the origin of languages.




> "Those who gave counsel to build the tower, for they whom thou seest drove forth multitudes of both men and women, to make bricks; among whom, a woman making bricks was not allowed to be released in the hour of child-birth, but brought forth while she was making bricks, and carried her child in her apron, and continued to make bricks. And the Lord appeared to them and confused their speech, when they had built the tower to the height of four hundred and sixty-three cubits. And they took a gimlet, and sought to pierce the heavens, saying, Let us see (whether) the heaven is made of clay, or of brass, or of iron. When God saw this He did not permit them, but smote them with blindness and confusion of speech, and rendered them as thou seest. (Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, 3:5–8)"


 

                 Wikipedia:           



> The Flammarion engraving (1888) depicts a man crawling under the edge of the sky, depicted as if it were a solid hemisphere, to look at the mysterious Empyrean beyond. The caption underneath the engraving (not shown here) translates to "A medieval missionary tells that he has found the point where heaven and Earth meet..."The word firmament translates shamayim (=115%שָׁמַיִם‎) or rāqîa (=115%רָקִ֫יעַ‎), a word used in Biblical Hebrew. shamayim is translated as "heaven". Rāqîa derives from the root raqqəʿ (רָקַע), meaning "to beat or spread out thinly", e.g., the process of making a dish by hammering thin a lump of metal.[5][6]
> The Hebrews believed the sky was a solid dome with the Sun, Moon, planets and stars embedded in it.[7] According to The Jewish Encyclopedia:
> The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse.[8]
> The 6th-century Egyptian traveller Cosmas Indicopleustes formulated a detailed Christian view of the universe, based on various Biblical texts and on earlier theories by Theophilus of Antioch (2nd century CE) and by Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215). Cosmas described a flat rectangular world surrounded by four seas; at the far edges of the seas, four immense vertical walls supported a vaulted roof, the firmament, above which in a further vaulted space lived angels who moved the  heavenly bodies and controlled rainfall from a vast cistern.[9


----------



## veeall (Apr 28, 2021)

Sigian said:


> What is the benefit of denying a FE and instead saying it is a globe?



In general, IMO, if there's a lie, the agenda behind it is well hidden. Like someone rhetorically asking 'why would i lie?' - as if not being able to come up with the reason for a lie establishes it's truthfulness.


----------



## David Glenney (Apr 29, 2021)

Yeah.  A friend asked me years ago, "Why would they lie about the shape of earth?"  As if a plausible-sounding speculation would outweigh any observations.

Who am I to say why psychopaths deceive everyone about everything?  I am not involved in their fraud.

I guessed, "To make people atheists.  Seems to work very well."  Of course the gentleman who asked is an atheist space believer who got offended when I called schools indoctrination camps.  They have made a monkey's nephew out of him.

Another, slightly more aware friend asked himself, "Why am I getting mad?" when I confessed to him my world-view.

A flat earth practically proves creation.  If you had something like a worldwide satanic dictatorship, especially if most of its power was smoke and mirrors--or photoshop and monopolies--pulling the ground out from under your feet and flinging it into a void might be the first order of business.

Fool spectrum dominance.


----------



## grav (Apr 29, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> My question is if the Flat Earth is true then do the people hiding it have the accurate information of the firmament and the size and distance of the sun and moon?



The people hiding it are Nasa Nazis who came to the US after WW2.

I can't embed this image,

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e2/9/15/e2961551cd43866402c0e355a1787197.jpg
which shows Operation Fishbowl as the project which mapped the dome.

Tptb have known the flat earth truth for 50 years.


----------



## space966 (Apr 29, 2021)

I was reading novel, action goes in village, year is 1880 or 1890, east Prussia, nowadays known as Kaliningrad Oblast , there's episode, when children come from school laughing and say: '`Did you know, what they teach in school? That Earth is round!" Parents keep serious and everybody became silent.

Also, why in Southern hemisphere Moon is upside down?


----------



## Jd755 (Apr 29, 2021)

From the recent complete archive upload in no particular order.

https://stolenhistory.net/threads/is-flat-earth-a-psyop.5190/https://stolenhistory.net/threads/is-the-flat-earth-conspiracy-the-conspiracy.4617/https://stolenhistory.net/threads/questions-about-flat-earth.4920/https://stolenhistory.net/threads/polish-asstronaut-admits-earth-is-flat.5034/https://stolenhistory.net/threads/how-to-logically-prove-a-round-earth.1079/https://stolenhistory.net/threads/the-concave-earth-discussion.4914/


----------



## Knowncitizen (Apr 29, 2021)

grav said:


> The people hiding it are Nasa Nazis who came to the US after WW2.
> 
> I can't embed this image,
> 
> ...


The image link doesn't work for me, any chance you can embed this image?


----------



## grav (Apr 29, 2021)

Recent posts discussed above:
--Jesus and religion in general. Touchy topic, but my own understanding is that the NT Christ figure did not exist historically. He was more likely the Byzantine emperor, Andronikos I Komnenos. Other archetypes of the Enlightened One were Buddha, Quetzalcoatl, Krisha, Zoroaster, etc.

-- embedding images. I suck at that! Sometimes the digital gods smile on me and I can get a meme to embed. Mostly, not. Operation Fishbowl is easily Googled.
Here is a more "scientific" image that represents the atom bomb tests that sounded out the dimensions of the dome. Yet another psyop, as atom bombs are impossible. TNT and other explosives created the awe-inspiring mushroom clouds. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were fire-bombed.

When we hear the word 'science' we should always remember that the Scientific Method was murdered by Einstein and Galileo many moons ago.
And many other people who knowingly lie and cheat for the Illuminati.

Yep. I still suck. I can't delete the spare image and can't embed a larger size.


----------



## space966 (Apr 29, 2021)

As for now, I accept Earth form like this, this small ball inside is Earth or our observation point, everything is around, horizon is flat.


----------



## Jd755 (Apr 29, 2021)

As for now I don't have a scooby doo what shape it is or if it has one or needs one.

Here's video that might shake a few people up but what the hell.
Edit to add. It gets a bit broader than flat earth so if a mod thinks it needs shifting be my guest.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsSqR0tyjWQ_​


----------



## 6079SmithW (Apr 29, 2021)

https://globeterminator.com/
It's flat


----------



## Jd755 (Apr 29, 2021)

Contained water is level earth is bumpy!

Shamelessly stolen from the comments under this video. Plagiarising is all mine.

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVaCPr2Op7U_​


----------



## Sigian (Apr 30, 2021)

Just remember that "flat" and "level" are actually two completely different things. Flat is flat, a 180° plane if you may, and level is level according to the pull of earth's gravity towards the center of the planet.  I just can't find it in me at this point in time to say that the Earth is otherwise a globe, well a squished globe at least.  There's really no true reason to lie about it, religious wise I don't subscribe to any sorry to me it is just yet another form of control with 100's plus different variations, not just one.  

I do thank you for all the information provided herein though Grav, a good plethora of information to pour over for those that are interested in the idea.  And take me saying "idea" lightly, it's like a religious person trying to convert you, they may like the story, but I'm just not fully convinced yet.  If you don't mind I wanna stuck around and see what else may arise informational wise.


----------



## Jd755 (Apr 30, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> It seems a bit too long for me to watch,


So you didn't watch but scanned the comments and came to a position on the content. Well done.


----------



## Starman (Apr 30, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> It seems a bit too long for me to watch, but it appears some of the Flat Earth people seem to be having problems. I believe most of its self-inflicted. It's kind of sad, but when you think large numbers of people are lying to you it's a sign of paranoia and not that you've discovered a big secret.



kind of an elementary observation 

appears to me to be a child’s view of others

seeing people as easily swayed and driven by fearful impulses

must be a real looking down on others as beneath your station

easily packaged as wayward thinkers less sophisticated than you

must be enjoyable to see yourself atop the heap

a kind of childish superiority

hubris

wonder why you bother with this forum


----------



## Citezenship (Apr 30, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> It seems a bit too long for me to watch, but it appears some of the Flat Earth people seem to be having problems. I believe most of its self-inflicted. It's kind of sad, but when you think large numbers of people are lying to you it's a sign of paranoia and not that you've discovered a big secret.


For those that have listened to this guy for even a short amount of time understand and empathise with his position that it is not just the shape but whole environment, as it is one lie built on another, that there is no free, there is no health, history is as much of inside joke as particle physics, I too struggle to maintain an acceptable balance of sanity in such an upside down place but hey, I haven't had my vax yet!


----------



## Jd755 (Apr 30, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> Is the youtube algorithm only locating the craziest and most nonsensical Flat Earth videos on purpose


You needed to ask?
Trust yourself its all you have and all you need.

Here one theory postulates a spinning ball and yet practical lived reality we experience through our  senses show us this. Buttermere to be precise a lake found in the British Lake District. The horizon is the dead level bit slap bang in the middle of the image. The water is dead level from camera viewpoint to the horizon and equally level from shore to shore across the width of the mere.
EDIT to add. It also disproves the flat earth theory as well as earth is very bumpy!




Anyone can replicate a contained body of water and spin it to see what happens to it.. Size of the contained body of water has no bearing on what happens.
Watch the Norwegian sea tunnel video, it's short so won't take you long. That reveals the engineering that is going to be used all built off of the sea (a very big contained body of water) being dead level on both entry/exit points of the tunnel.


----------



## grav (Apr 30, 2021)

The earth is flat. And it's level along an x-axis horizon.
What other name choice do we have? Geocentric Earth? nah.
This is petty semantics.

Almost everyone here is satisfied with the term as it is commonly used.

I'd rather we spend our time exploring the science of Terra Firma. That term also has several meanings -- dry land - or - fixed, steady, unmoving.

Not only do we struggle with the descriptive name of our world, we have also been cheated of evidence which, like the name of this forum, is stolen.
Nasa Nazis have known since the 50s and 60s that our flat world is a closed system.
Antarctica is not a continent. Besides holding the oceans in place, it is the outer wall of the prison that is earth. I don't mean the ice shelf that ships anchor next to. I mean the inner regions where the dome meets the surface. It may even continue below the surface, forming an oval or egglike cosmology.

Some of the images in this meme remind me that some ancient cultures spoke of an underground Hell.  Like the Hebrew Sheol. I've also seen comments lately about Tartaria sounding like Tartarus, the depths of earrh where the wicked are punished and the Titans are emprisoned. Does that mean that Tartaria was Hell?


----------



## Sigian (Apr 30, 2021)

Don't think it was hell, look at the Shagri-La myths that place it deep inside the earth guarded by monks, or even the Antarctic stories of a lush underground civilization, talked about by the Nazi's and further perpetuated by Admiral Byrd.  Maybe the whole up is down and down is up applies, instead of heaven up and hell down biblical sense.


----------



## veeall (May 2, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> You needed to ask?
> Trust yourself its all you have and all you need.
> 
> Here one theory postulates a spinning ball and yet practical lived reality we experience through our  senses show us this. Buttermere to be precise a lake found in the British Lake District. The horizon is the dead level bit slap bang in the middle of the image. The water is dead level from camera viewpoint to the horizon and equally level from shore to shore across the width of the mere.
> ...


And there's no spherical distortions on the reflection. Even though it's just a small landscape here, maybe few miles across, but then, everybody has seen how curved surfaces distort the reflections - got to appear somewhere.

And tunnels, if they do not compensate for earths curvature, they would dig higher by the same rate as earth curves.

The same for compensating for coriolis effect, not needed, because it's not reality.


----------



## Starman (May 2, 2021)

At 43:10 Ewaranon discusses how all rainbow arches in the atmosphere exist because they are sun driven natural reflections of the arched dome firmament. He goes on to show experiments in the lab with rainbow bars that are not arched.  He shows more evidence in double rainbows. Can you follow his extensive logic?  Convincing?


_View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/7d03557ycOJe/_


----------



## grav (May 3, 2021)

It is no easy task, using words to explain optical effects. 
Debunking shills would probably say a rainbow is a trick of the curved human eye. 
That is not always the case, though, as a prism can create a straight line effect.

Here is a discussion from Banned.Talk. A new poster offered his perspective on the problems we have when we think outside the box the freemasons made for us.





Operation High Jump | American expedition | Britannicawww.britannica.com › topic › Operation-... exploration of Antarctica Byrd's fourth expedition, called “Operation Highjump,” in the summer of 1946–47, was the most massive sea and air operation theretofore attempted in Antarctica. It involved 13 ships, including two seaplane tenders and an aircraft carrier, and a total of 25 airplanes.
[/quote]

In order for the book to "work for you," the reader would need to let go of how we are trained to interpret what we see when we look up at the sky, at "space," and how we perceive "celestial" and "terrestrial." In other words, there is more going on than just _more land over there. _This requires quite a leap cognitively, and really has little to do with Admiral Byrd and Operation Highjump, etc. This is the point where flat earthers are trapped in a loop of the mind. This is the undiscovered territory which awaits, but which will remain undiscovered thanks to the tyranny of our mental and actual open air game preserve prison wardens. I am running out of time and opportunity to pursue this as the wolves have come slinking towards Bethlehem as promised, as the center once again fails to hold, as Zappa's wall at the back of the theatre is stripped bare, devoid of comforting illusory furnishings. 

There's no getting around Byrd's masonic connections, and he was also high up in the military. The military isn't known for openness and truth; I'm sure the high command would laugh about that. I wonder how many civilians understand how little regard the military has towards the general population. We are deceived on so many levels, it's hard to know where to start.
[/quote]

Just saw your post, been out of the loop for a few days. Forums are, with rare exceptions, as useful as Facebook.
And so much to unpack in your post:

. open air game preserve prison wardens.... Alex Jones Prison Plane.t
. undiscovered territory will remain undiscovered.... Even if the full Truth were plainly delivered to them on live teevee, the sheeple would not believe it. Come on, man. There's a plandemic and you have to take the shot, and men with guns will help you decide which arm will receive the fetal cells and nanobots.
. running out of time.... sounds ominous. and personal. I'd like to tell you to stay safe, but the inner circle apparatchik laugh at such quaint notions.

Like you say, we have to at least try before we die.

Anyone with a lick of sense can easily see that we live on a motionless plane. All laws of physics and pure math absolutely obtain a result called Geocentrism. What lies beyond the South Pole is jealously protected by the military, as independent explorers have learned when they are disappeared.

Much of my old research material has also disappeared. And FEers on the internet make little progress, doing hangouts and loooong debates that I don't watch. I want text and images.

That said, some evidence does benefit from video explanations.

The dome, for example, is a necessary component for the closed system to maintain air pressure, which is impossible in space vacuum.

At the Karman line of 100 km (62 miles), air pressure is virtually 0.0 psi. Is that the bottom of the dome structure? Or is it a thick layer of noble gases or other lighter-than-air matter under the glasslike firmament?

This video does the math for the altitude of the sun, which FE consensus presents (I think) as a plasma effect inside the dome.
 The Pythagoreum theorem arrives at 6004 km, 3730.71264 miles.
Conclusions? several or 7 domes or one dome 3000+ miles in depth?






		
		Your browser does not support the video tag.


----------



## Starman (May 3, 2021)

grav said:


> Your browser does not support the video tag.




I drilled down via a comment to your video and found a Russian language FE video on Byrd's expedition and published today (May 3) with 51,000 views and 1,250 comments.  It appears the Russians are all over this subject:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mYka55Nw3I_


----------



## Silent Bob (May 3, 2021)

I keep thinking about airships and if their demise was partly to do with hiding the FE. They had great range and would be very useful for exploring new far away lands. Imagine if we could just take an air ship over the north pole, like in the film 'The Golden Compass', to see what was really there. We could also look for 'lost' islands like Frisland and High Brasil - something almost impossible to do with standard boats or even aircraft due to fuel. Then we could sail over the icewall to see the land Byrd talked about.

We do have a seperate thread on Airships and how popular they were. For instance, the top of the empire state building was actually desgined for airships to dock at and was going to be the intercontintal air port at the time. Many old world towers seem to have this purpose in their design. The Hindenburg was capable of flying around the world in 1936 without stopping for fuel, how inconvenient would that be for the controllers?

https://stolenhistory.net/threads/h...-technology-a-threat-to-the-20th-century.549/


----------



## FarewellAngelina (May 4, 2021)

Hope this link works . 
_View: https://youtu.be/3SJ45QYY99A_


Good info on meteorites and the firmament.


----------



## cmgtech2525 (May 4, 2021)

Silent Bob said:


> I keep thinking about airships and if their demise was partly to do with hiding the FE. They had great range and would be very useful for exploring new far away lands. Imagine if we could just take an air ship over the north pole, like in the film 'The Golden Compass', to see what was really there. We could also look for 'lost' islands like Frisland and High Brasil - something almost impossible to do with standard boats or even aircraft due to fuel. Then we could sail over the icewall to see the land Byrd talked about.
> 
> We do have a seperate thread on Airships and how popular they were. For instance, the top of the empire state building was actually desgined for airships to dock at and was going to be the intercontintal air port at the time. Many old world towers seem to have this purpose in their design. The Hindenburg was capable of flying around the world in 1936 without stopping for fuel, how inconvenient would that be for the controllers?
> 
> ...


I was reading a new Rochelle pioneer April 08 1882 page 1.  An article talking about. Factory work or craftsman’s work.  “If you are a machinist, see that every bolt and rivet is as firm as if your life depended on its properly fulfilling its duties.  How carefully the aeronaut examines his ballon, the tight rope performer his rope, before he trust his life to it.  Would a ship builder.....”. 
nyhistoricneespapers.org.


----------



## grav (May 4, 2021)

The opening images in the videos above are intriguing. Two videos are Russian. Or should I say Tartarian? as I see Russians as the descendants of the great empire.
Airships are also Tartarian tech. 

My guesstimate of the beginning of the globe deception is when the Romanov dynasty was ended with the Communist NWO agenda. Aroumd 1917.
I've only learned about the Tartarian influence in the last year. It seems to me that our ridiculous modern world age was invented at that time. 


           Also in that year:

https://worldhistoryproject.org/1917* Einstein publishes first paper on cosmology*
In 1917, Einstein applied the General theory of relativity to model the structure of the universe as a whole. He wanted the universe to be eternal... Read more

And in 1918 the Spanish flu reportedly killed 20 million people. I doubt that -- only vaccinated people died.


----------



## Starman (May 4, 2021)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Hope this link works .
> _View: https://youtu.be/3SJ45QYY99A_
> 
> 
> Good info on meteorites and the firmament.




Thanks for the video, Russian language with English subtitles.  Interesting idea that meteorites as large and small fragments lying on the ground were once part of the dome firmament.   These rocks have a gem matrix backed primarily by iron.  The dome could be kilometers thick.

Also stimulating to consider that so-called incoming meteorites are not physical rocks that burn up in the atmosphere, but are instead electrical discharge events, hence no rocks that land on earth.

Halley was a freemason and made up the BS about meteors as rocks in space.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (May 4, 2021)

Didn't know that about Halley but its no surprise . Think that video complemented the one you posted by Ewaranon. First time Id seen that footage of the rocket hitting the (waters of the ) firmament . Good stuff though I'd disagree on his statement that the planets are stars - stars twinkle , they are part of the dome whereas planets do not ,they are within the dome imho .

 .


----------



## Starman (May 5, 2021)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Didn't know that about Halley but its no surprise . Think that video complemented the one you posted by Ewaranon. First time Id seen that footage of the rocket hitting the (waters of the ) firmament . Good stuff though I'd disagree on his statement that the planets are stars - stars twinkle , they are part of the dome whereas planets do not ,they are within the dome imho .
> 
> .



Many interesting thoughts on where stars, planets, moon and sun are located in and around the firmament.  Some may be above, some embedded within, and some below.  In this SGT video (at 38:40), David Weiss conjectures that there is a sun above and outside the firmament.  According to him, there's also a sun in the shape of a disk below the firmament, so in effect there are two suns.  At first I thought this was a crazy idea, but it makes sense that the master sun could be outside our realm and is projecting a sun inside our realm in a beam of light.  Follow the video explanation of how this beam could create a disk shape that we see in the sky.


_View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/OULEg75g6DSw/_


If the firmament is full of translucent jewels embedded in iron as shown in your "Meteors and Comets are Electric Discharges" video, you could imagine that light would do strange things filtered through this material.  If it was too thick however, you'd think very little light would get through. Near the end of the video, using conventional physics, the guy imagines the dome could be kilometers thick in order to have structural integrity.

So what about the waters as part of the firmament?  How does that jibe with this jewel lattice rock material fallen to earth that people are erroneously calling 'meteorites'.  Nothing spongey about that stuff.  Perhaps it is just rock and has no evidence having been in contact with a liquid because the watery material remains integrated on the underside of the dome and somehow the rock slipped through it.

Too many questions and too few answers.  Something about all this doesn't add up if we're including the possibility of "Creator Level" manifestations. Conventional physics and all the other so called 'natural laws' don't give us enough of a foundation. So how are we supposed to figure all this out if we don't know what the rules of the game really are??


----------



## grav (May 5, 2021)

Starman said:


> So how are we supposed to figure all this out if we don't know what the rules of the game really are?


Rules? what rules?
Oh, the dirty pool game that the freemasons made up.

Back to the DITRH video. 
I like his comparing the sun to a light source and a secondary light effect. Maybe a projection screen or lens that filters it some way.
The Russian video shows slabs of iron, which could be the strong supporting material of the dome structure. A thin outer layer of crystalline material forms the surface, some of which which may chip off and fall to earth as meteorites.

Then where is the water? On the other side of the main body of iron?
Or between the iron and gemlike layers?
I will guess that the crystalline material contains channels through which plasma (ionozed gases) travel. The glass ceiling is also, in my cosmology, a computer motherboard. It absorbs energy from the earth's salt water battery and powers the sun and all celestial objects. 

David hints that a whistleblower may spill some beans about what Nasa knows. 
He is more optimistic than I am. Just look at the Covid hoax to see how well informers are kept in check. And Trump, a former President, is banned on social media. I'm no fan of his. I reckon he is controlled by an Illuminati faction. But to ban free speech at that level? 

Sad to say, your average sheeple is so easy to mind control. 
I also mean no respect to David or the other FEers who believe in the God of the Old Testament. But as an atheist since childhood, I have always seen religion as another false Authority to control me.

A creator or collective, like the gnostic Pleroma, may have created the Gaia computer program. Why should we worship that being?


----------



## Starman (May 5, 2021)

As for


grav said:


> Rules? what rules?
> Oh, the dirty pool game that the freemasons made up.
> 
> Back to the DITRH video.
> ...


 
As for the composition of the 'water' below the firmament, check out again Ewaranon's video at 39:10.  There is a video clip by an oceanographer who likely discovered this 'water' in the 1990's at the bottom of the ocean!  He couldn't descend into what appeared to be a small 'lake' of this material with his mini-submarine, but instead bounced off it!

This gooey soft, yet impenetrable substance would be a good candidate for the watery dome material.  


_View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/7d03557ycOJe/_


Thanks grav for your various ruminations.  I am also not an Old or New Testament guy, but there's obviously an intelligent Creator or Creators that set up some kind of program to run our 3D world.  Either the program is working fine or it's been hijacked for nefarious purposes.  Who knows?  Maybe when we die we finally get clued in (as long as we have developed a passionate desire to find out).

One of the limitations in the search for FE truths is the wall we hit when we use conventional physics or other conventional 'scientific' standards to measure by.  How does one posit the physical structure of a world wide impenetrable dome?  It doesn't add up for lots of people because it just seems to be beyond the realm of possibility.   BUT, if we look further into it, we see lots of far fetched ideas about galaxies and big bangs and black holes ad infinitum. Is that any less far fetched than a dome?  

Perhaps it is more comforting to fantasize about realities that are at a great remove from us in distance and time.  BUT if we had to consider a dome not so far above our heads, it might cause people discomfort and lead to too many unsettled questions for our controllers.  BUT then again, another religion would come into being to handle this new reality.  Oh wait!  We already had that iteration!


----------



## Citezenship (May 5, 2021)

_View: https://youtu.be/4V7Z0SZftl0?t=481_

Recommended Flat Earther Channels:





Beyond the Imaginary Curve:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvswlgeHodOejVN21TWweLw


Flatty McFlatFace:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCf_53fHUNAYegSKbMFzWn0Q


Daniel Pratt:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCB3j5KM8U3ec4jUy1l_hDeg


Truth Center:  https://www.youtube.com/user/Ramboftw26


Harry Growler:  https://www.youtube.com/user/MrBoredsenseless


Elissa Hawke:  https://www.youtube.com/user/lisshawke


Mary At Sea Level:  https://www.youtube.com/user/twolilfish


Flat Earth Warriors:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnpr9pHxSAnRQ5jRfZnQ1eQ


The Oddest Vegan Couple:  https://www.youtube.com/user/Heronfire


My Perspective:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIurtSuhBTv0wzlZaKVbMyw


Plane Ranger:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbpL-0tKvRiPbZ-scSNljvA


Marilyn Spirit Level Teed:  https://www.youtube.com/user/marilynteed


RealmWalker:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCYk7DGVQ-zg-JcyD7ic8yA


Flat Earth City:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdmeBYb_bJYFymkZD9McDfQ


A Flat Journey:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-hz0H0BwTXwDAI8EdVGZIg


Steve h v:  https://www.youtube.com/user/townfan1975


Bill Flat Earth Florida:  https://www.youtube.com/user/HandsomeWillF


Mr. Cheswick:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCR-eQIa2xkXwuQgYVMVIKjA


VortexPuppy:  https://www.youtube.com/user/vortexpup


Plane Permaculture:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0CFFLPseJ_eMUUVeeaC_Ww


Dan Dimension:  https://www.youtube.com/user/DimentionalDan


ODD Reality:  https://www.youtube.com/user/MrDoseman


Seth Davis:  https://www.youtube.com/user/StoneDeafBand


For the Love of the Truth:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKt9ujuR3-exZIfDvxki0jg


P-Brane:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7pHE0PsVBBGIyAShyyUCqQ


MGTV Truth:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCosRr0tWXNIdgmndQ9mXeVA


Flat Earth Reset:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7fuF4eVxhkIj5hcld-8SYg


Red Flag Media:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQEL-zq8jCkXhc1mi_Ei2xw


Red Pill Philosophy:  https://odysee.com/@RedPillPhilosophy:4


Stargods:  https://www.youtube.com/user/Stargods


Luke Dough Nelly:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCydtB4rsXdtdX6fP2jj_LTQ


Gunna Doo:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkdZFfzMdljJCcMt2wcx95w


Flat Earth Banjo:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxGin_qxbd6kFFSfYkZKu2g


RawKVIBRATIONS:  https://www.youtube.com/user/lesgray1


Level Earth Berk:  https://www.youtube.com/user/iRideThePinkPony69


neo HUMAN eve:  https://www.youtube.com/user/neohumaneve


Zetetic Flat Earth:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe7FBDnfm0-XOFIA0CXSrjg


FastLine V:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXphAaeDf3vu8FXbjUQ4lbQ


Hopefor Truth:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUmr3HJWhjaM2_kJJVq-v_A


Au Naturel Natalie:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4qulg01zE3FjLBumaeaWSQ


ColshyCats:  https://www.youtube.com/user/colshycats


Beyond Belief:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3_C6-RnciA6EZ37eNzGIRw


Gibson225:  https://www.youtube.com/user/ruudgeldermans


Real World:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpkbXTRk39Z4rKO6KOuGNdw


Crazy Polish Flat Earther:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeFspOju4E6YiR8OE18ljJA


Emily Suzanne:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFpLplBmSNvN-nJUTtfjQiw


Billy Zig:  https://www.youtube.com/user/web247oz


stonedharry:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz-uFoqr1Haz1J4XxdvoUxA


Curved Water Music:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5Ux7rpzwUU3X9-baKqGuMg


Nee B:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIXWjptG9ehPTuD0wQsl5ZQ


Conspiracy Music Guru:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnle0nUC3Fx0lkchpmZy0Lw


Jessica Davidson:  https://www.youtube.com/user/herpette1990


Celtic 67:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaZEY4M-J8In5vYMNXkCu4A


Authentic Intent:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUyESujKVvSpP6Z6FvyPwQw


Lazy Diamond 369:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbwg983DYU-KPtGS_6gSBVA


Vic Ramirez:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgRNPKCdd5sJj8Pyg7HsUg


Stationary Plane:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLp7qUBRqw7kysj3iqyZl7A


Who is Tesla:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnn43phlrbq_H829Yauch_A


Masta Peace:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9UwqA6GYWkVmvp76GbpdSw


Flat Earth Female:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkiesC7ogCqG6j0ZcSdsRDQ


Paul Patry:  https://www.youtube.com/user/tbiman


Deanna Flat Earth:  https://www.youtube.com/user/DeAnnaLarae


Emerald Rider:  https://www.youtube.com/user/bwilton3


Flat Earth Hawaii:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCip5-TqP8wvrLPCtgO8Bvcw


Flat Max UK:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOJI_UUspIbOTNg37wfVHqw


Immune2BS:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClHUwQPkEbrqUyUOOuA2LlA


Level Earth Observer:  https://www.youtube.com/user/toteendloverbluenotr


The Flat Out Truth:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCM5HFDeiMdmoOKdNX2w7tFg


Maelstrom30:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJLr5lYYzOoyn1k74qf_LQw


Nick Havok:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXZ5yBlKNTkcPGl6svEqt2A


Organic Flat Earth Prepper:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCP3nz5rgOZjwzz6n5dr_vUg


Phuket Word:  https://www.youtube.com/user/phuketword


Stinky Cash:  https://www.youtube.com/user/jwalstein1


SubjecttoScrutiny:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCp-V2z9Mlym8feghFo8kkMg


TheSeattleGreen:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvYycwwwALqPEbtMuDHZf-w


URBrainWash:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVINyEEd6nTx8Cr9MPwjH6g


WaykiWayki:  https://www.youtube.com/user/waykiwayki


Zoom Truth:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqc0iolBAYCjoRIRs6-gIZg


Zorch Martino:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8em37TJ6B7yg7yFLwznNmA


John Thor:  https://odysee.com/@JohnThor:0


Shotgun Sus:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsWp9mMraB3LnGtPbK5LzoQ


Jay Decasby:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0_YtePcWGwOuBygXZKF7YQ


Planet Plane:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYzhm1OEmyyMM9E53iRvcEg


Hibbeler Productions:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFSZcAvRS0RHtzg9fEi9iqQ


World Without Curve:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyvnxDZetM-wutXYZq2ygkA


Gorou the Fifth Son:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCPu8xyQkIrUwRhHtIww7YA


Amish Space Station:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0RMXjY3tuZcyBRBqLpHGCQ


Michael Prince 1954:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKZqcBSmI7gfQ9MHrtujjyA


Exploring the Plane:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaUJsrd3xgdxOlfpQruzRyQ/videos


The Potters Clay:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpEdOLvL6olNghR-BWghUQA


NZ Flat Earth Woman:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1yjc51A80oNjzDozN69EKA/videos


Kirk Bufford:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrxFa3ayaOPQJxE2Fu8Sgog


P900 Coolpics:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCuBLug8vryCci0glEt_c3Q


Vlad on Flat Earth:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6OhSOi1xjSmocZ2-mhKpxg


----------



## E.Bearclaw (May 5, 2021)

Starman said:


> As for
> 
> 
> As for the composition of the 'water' below the firmament, check out again Ewaranon's video at 39:10.  There is a video clip by an oceanographer who likely discovered this 'water' in the 1990's at the bottom of the ocean!  He couldn't descend into what appeared to be a small 'lake' of this material with his mini-submarine, but instead bounced off it!
> ...



Briny Lake Under the Sea

I am not sure if you have come across the footage above, or the briny lakes you speak of. Its pretty good footage.


----------



## Starman (May 5, 2021)

E.Bearclaw said:


> Briny Lake Under the Sea
> 
> I am not sure if you have come across the footage above, or the briny lakes you speak of. Its pretty good footage.



This appears to be of the same or similar event and place, but nobody saying anything about their mini-submarine bouncing off the 'briny' substance. This video has eels going in and out of the mystery 'briny' substance, which you'd think wouldn't be possible if the substance was impenetrable.  

So what's going on here with these two conflicting storylines?  Who to believe?  Did Blue Planet videos make up their own narrative, conveniently leaving out the bigger mystery of the rubbery material and the bouncing mini-submarine?

Or did Ewaranon's source create a hybrid story with real footage, but an actor who tells a fake story?  Information like this can be warped into whatever you want, and the result in seeing both is to doubt all.  And isn't that one of the primary ways to disillusion people in seeking the truth?


----------



## E.Bearclaw (May 5, 2021)

Starman said:


> This appears to be of the same or similar event and place, but nobody saying anything about their mini-submarine bouncing off the 'briny' substance. This video has eels going in and out of the mystery 'briny' substance, which you'd think wouldn't be possible if the substance was impenetrable.
> 
> So what's going on here with these two conflicting storylines?  Who to believe?  Did Blue Planet videos make up their own narrative, conveniently leaving out the bigger mystery of the rubbery material and the bouncing mini-submarine?
> 
> Or did Ewaranon's source create a hybrid story with real footage, but an actor who tells a fake story?  Information like this can be warped into whatever you want, and the result in seeing both is to doubt all.  And isn't that one of the primary ways to disillusion people in seeking the truth?



I think that Ewaranon's video quoted the cameraman from the blue planet footage. So it would be his word, in what he experienced, versus what the BBC wanted to present.

I haven't swum in the deep sea, or anything of particular high salinity, but I imagine if you pushed down it would feel like something was pushing back. 

I also imagine that if there are waters above, it could be that we cannot get through a firmament as it is too saline, as opposed to there being a massive sheet of glass. I don't know this is just idle speculation. It makes sense with the footage of spaceSHIPS (I can never get over that one!) looking like speedboats.


----------



## Starman (May 6, 2021)

E.Bearclaw said:


> I think that Ewaranon's video quoted the cameraman from the blue planet footage. So it would be his word, in what he experienced, versus what the BBC wanted to present.
> 
> I haven't swum in the deep sea, or anything of particular high salinity, but I imagine if you pushed down it would feel like something was pushing back.
> 
> I also imagine that if there are waters above, it could be that we cannot get through a firmament as it is too saline, as opposed to there being a massive sheet of glass. I don't know this is just idle speculation. It makes sense with the footage of spaceSHIPS (I can never get over that one!) looking like speedboats.



So what keeps the liquid, heavily saline or not, up in the air as an integral part of the firmament?  

We bitch about gravity being a misnomer, what about the force that keeps this liquid in place?  Yes, we are at the stage of idle speculation.

None of it makes any sense in any conventional way.  There's way more proofs in the earth being flat or at least not being a sphere, but the dome is something all together different.

I too love the speedboat careening off the firmament and creating a nighttime phosphorescent wake.  I took the meaning that the 'speedboat' was a rocket that they fired at the dome to see if they could penetrate it, but instead it just skipped along until it petered out.


----------



## E.Bearclaw (May 6, 2021)

Starman said:


> So what keeps the liquid, heavily saline or not, up in the air as an integral part of the firmament?
> 
> We bitch about gravity being a misnomer, what about the force that keeps this liquid in place?  Yes, we are at the stage of idle speculation.
> 
> ...



My Idle speculation is: Some kind of magnetic field propelling water, water being diamagnetic. I guess it would make sense for this mega magnet to be at the North Pole, thus its field would approximate a centre in the demi sphere that a firmament would possibly be. Although I would happily trash this proposition at the sight of a better formed one! It certainly includes huge concepts of cosmological engineering that are quite hard to comprehend.


----------



## grav (May 6, 2021)

Heavy water? Definitely heavy posts above.
And so many flat earth sites. I didn't see FE Core in Citizenship's list. The group has done outstanding work in the past, including this video which tracked the sun over one year. Their site is now monetized, which.....why?


_View: https://youtu.be/nPlNcJ_IC5w_



Starman said:


> So what keeps the liquid, heavily saline or not, up in the air as an integral part of the firmament?
> 
> We bitch about gravity being a misnomer, what about the force that keeps this liquid in place?  Yes, we are at the stage of idle speculation.
> 
> ...



Can't ionized gases behave like water? When the rocket makes waves, it is pushing against noble gases which collect under the dome. The effect would therefore resemble the wake of a boat.
And maybe the pools of water in the ocean (which I thought were fresh and not saline) likewise consist of chemicals besides H2O. 

The video presents a good case for the layers of gases under the dome and demonstrates how neon and argon can create daylight when exposed to electromagnetism from the sun.


_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q68vpnRtN64_


----------



## Starman (May 6, 2021)

grav said:


> Heavy water? Definitely heavy posts above.
> And so many flat earth sites. I didn't see FE Core in Citizenship's list. The group has done outstanding work in the past, including this video which tracked the sun over one year. Their site is now monetized, which.....why?
> 
> 
> ...




Wow, thanks grav for this information on the noble gases being trapped up against the dome.  I had been thinking water (H2O) because that's the word used in old documents.  It seems we're talking more of a 'water-like' substance; gasses that visually behave in ways similar to water. The NOBLE GASSES video has some new insights for me, as you and the video explain; that our local sun has an electric charge that excites these gasses (argon, helium, neon), and so the daylight we experience is not just light from our sun, but also the glow of charged particles (photons) from these noble gases. Each of these gases has an atomic weight, so will separate out in the upper atmosphere and give a colored layering effect to the diffused light we see especially in the evening sky.  Pretty simple, really.

I hadn't come across this info yet.  I'm fairly new to all these FE theories.  There's a lot to bring together to make enough sense to build a believable foundation. Now all I need to know is how that rocky jeweled firmament got built above our heads and what holds it in place - ha!

BTW, 'FE Core' missing in Citizenship's list is a copy of a list provided by Eric Dubay in his latest YT video, so is perhaps a commentary on them being monetized now.


grav said:


> Heavy water? Definitely heavy posts above.
> And so many flat earth sites. I didn't see FE Core in Citizenship's list. The group has done outstanding work in the past, including this video which tracked the sun over one year. Their site is now monetized, which.....why?
> 
> 
> ...




Just watched the Magnetic Flat Earth video.  These guys also posit a master sun out beyond the dome, with the local sun phenomenon projected under the dome.  Interesting to see their complex toroidal pattern of the local sun as it moves over a 12 month period.

This toroidal form in its upper half appears dome-like.  Is the dome a complete hemisphere as most FEers conjecture or could it possibly be toroidal with the center at the north pole and thus the dome is more like a donut with the hole at this pole?  That would mean that instead of the dome being at its tallest at the north pole, it would round downwards around the pole and encircle it.  But does than mean that the dome touches the earth at that point?

The reason for my following this imagery, is the notion that the firmament could exist as a function of electromagnetic properties and held in place by this toroidal energy system.  Maybe the dome is not composed of physical matter, but exists as a kind of force field, or is holding this physical matter in suspension.  That would be easier to believe than a monstrous rocky dome of simple physical construction.


----------



## Citezenship (May 6, 2021)

Starman said:


> This appears to be of the same or similar event and place, but nobody saying anything about their mini-submarine bouncing off the 'briny' substance. This video has eels going in and out of the mystery 'briny' substance, which you'd think wouldn't be possible if the substance was impenetrable.
> 
> So what's going on here with these two conflicting storylines?  Who to believe?  Did Blue Planet videos make up their own narrative, conveniently leaving out the bigger mystery of the rubbery material and the bouncing mini-submarine?
> 
> Or did Ewaranon's source create a hybrid story with real footage, but an actor who tells a fake story?  Information like this can be warped into whatever you want, and the result in seeing both is to doubt all.  And isn't that one of the primary ways to disillusion people in seeking the truth?


There was a rumour that the blue planet was filmed in a tank in Wales!


Starman said:


> BTW, 'FE Core' missing in Citizenship's list is a copy of a list provided by Eric Dubay in his latest YT video, so is perhaps a commentary on them being monetized now.


This is correct, not "my" list.


----------



## Sigian (May 7, 2021)

grav said:


> Can't ionized gases behave like water?



Of course, water is of course H and O, some of the lightest elements with the least amount of electrons to them.  I don't see how different states of matter would differ on a flat earth vs globe, water still changes from a solid to liquid to a gas.  Ionization just helps temporarily remove electrons and causes it to rise.  If you take aluminum and apply a charge does it not seem to levitate?  Ionizing the electrons making it temporarily able to rise into the air.  Ever notice how the lighter elements have less electrons than the heavier ones?  Sorry, maybe it's just me...if a globe earth and atmosphere within were spinning, wouldn't it cause a static buildup that could ionize particles?  Even cause such things as lightning?  

Kind of makes sense that a space shuttle would heat up going from the frictionless environment of space into an atmosphere with numerous particles that would cause friction.  Then again, it would take a very large electromagnetic field to hold these particles within an atmosphere in the first place.  Isn't electricity itself generated by an electromagnetic field taking electrons and then channeling them into everyday appliances?  Though wouldn't that also create an abundance of protons and neutrons without a generated electron cloud?  Sorry, it's late, just speculating.  Could be wrong on all accounts, just putting it out there.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (May 7, 2021)

grav said:


> Heavy water? Definitely heavy posts above.
> And so many flat earth sites. I didn't see FE Core in Citizenship's list. The group has done outstanding work in the past, including this video which tracked the sun over one year. Their site is now monetized, which.....why?
> 
> 
> ...



Be wary of the FEcore bunch Grav . Generalizations that FEr's know little about astronomy make me wince . Globe head version of astronomy is complete make believe . It's nonsense that the sun rises due east 90 degrees and and sets due west 270 at equinox at all latitudes - it should according to globe theory ,that's all 

Anybody can check that out at timeanddate website which is based on real and repeatable observation.

Take the March 20th equinox this year, that day when at all latitudes have sunrise at 90 degrees and sunset at 270 according to "science" . Here at 54N on that day the sun rose at 89 degrees and set at 271 degrees, not 90 and 270 as the solar system model predicts . 

Here on 18th March it rose at 90 degrees and set at 270  - two days before , i.e equinox was two days earlier. I mean this is simple research .

Using depictions of degrees of latitude which have an equator at zero degrees is pure globe theory . Doesn't apply to flat earth - it's not reality. Flat earth latitudes should come from observation to the North star . Perhaps these people should start their work without the use of globe assumptions - do real science . 

The flat earth torus field idea is not new. The south magnetic anomaly gets a mention but is shown as a pole . Since it is given by mainstream as located at 64S I don't see how that has been checked since we can't go there . I am of the opinion it doesn't exist . 

The FEcore group seem to have an agenda . Some work they have done is good , but some is not  , seems like smoke and mirrors to me. 

Yeah I'm grumpy but these people annoy me sometimes .


----------



## 6079SmithW (May 7, 2021)

Starman said:


> So what keeps the liquid, heavily saline or not, up in the air as an integral part of the firmament?
> 
> We bitch about gravity being a misnomer, what about the force that keeps this liquid in place?  Yes, we are at the stage of idle speculation.
> 
> ...


If you look up superfluids, you can stir a cup of superfluid and it will never stop moving. It clings to its exterior container, despite 'gravity'


----------



## grav (May 7, 2021)

FarewellAngelina said:


> The FEcore group seem to have an agenda . Some work they have done is good , but some is not , seems like smoke and mirrors to me.
> 
> Yeah I'm grumpy but these people annoy me so.



LOL  I'm so glad you came here.
Listen to all voices. Trust no one.
I mostly trust Dubay. And Rothbard, who is Taboo Conspiracy. David weiss, aka DITRH.
Does that mean these truthers know the whole truth?
I prefer to not ruffle feathers too much. But sometimes I get grumpy when truthers drag God or some other Authority into their analyses.
RichieFromBoston, for example. He's a smart guy, knows his way around ct, cusses like a drunk sailor one minute, tells us the next minute to fall on our knees and pray to Yahweh.
Which I can't do. Never could. Will go to hell a'bouncin according to my Pentecostal in-laws. But I know I'm loaded up with good karma and fear no afterlife in an eternity of fire and suffering.

The FE Core has a new video with their laser tests. I have none of the computer and mechanical skills that the group takes for granted. I think they mean well when they run laser tests. Can they be any more boring and full of themselves? 
The great majority of FE Youtubers are clueless and off-putting presenters. If an old hand like moi doesn't care to watch their movie-length videos, why would a globe bunny?

So, yeah, grumpiness is to be expected. An oral presentation should be short (5 to 10 minutes). Each video should address one (1) single  topic: the dome, space vacuum, globe math, et al. All visuals should be captioned and provide stand-alone evidence.
No music, no excessive face time, minimal distractions, major editing.

And people in Hell want ice water. Ironic choice of metaphor, yes.
Many a truth is told in jest.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (May 7, 2021)

Just watched the second video about the neon emissions. Really good stuff - thanks for that one Grav. When I worked nightshifts I was lucky enough to see the noctilucent cloud phenomena which  occurs around the middle of the night. Both times were around the summer solstice . Thing about it is that half the night sky was blue both times. That yin-yang sun cast shape could be an explanation for that . This phenomena occurs around the summer solstice in the northern parts . It'll soon be the solstice so keep an eye out .

Respect your view on religions ,which are mainly cults ( I checked that spelling by the way ) - my view is we humans are spiritual beings , there are some evil people out there though. 

I never seem to have time to watch the longer ones , short and to the point does it for me too and there are good ones out there..


----------



## grav (May 7, 2021)

I try to thank Youtubers who make videos that teach new info. But one of the major problems with videos is that we can't retain all the information they cover. Memory fails. At least for me. I forget things I learned months or years ago. Like the video/s from 2017 which explained how noble gases in the atmosphere rise and collect under the dome. Neon and argon, especially, are ionized when exposed to the sun, thereby creating daylight. I used to know that, but only recalled it after re-watching the video.

As y'all know, I like memes. A good meme illustrates a proof or example of a law of physics or other evidence.
With this topic, we have slim pickins, only one or 2 that I could find. This meme, while instructive, assumes that readers understand dome theory.







Embedding images is not in my skill set with the SH attachment thingie.
But if I embed one on another site, it will copy and paste intact here.

You can teach an old dog new tricks, apparently.

Edit. I should always clarify that while I reject supernatural aspects of religion, I embrace the teachings of Jesus. I consider myself an atheistic Christian.


----------



## Sigian (May 11, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> I don't trust many Flat Earth videos. I've been trying to look at these pictures and I think some contradict different flat earth models. The moon is a reflection of the Earth? Are the sun and moon in the dome, above the firmament.



Agreed, there doesn't seem to be one whole FE model that FE people all agree with, I see so many scattered thoughts and ideas, different shapes between bowl shaped and just flat.

Maybe Grav can help out and post something more put together in a single post or stickey to this thread if possible?  I'd like to know in FE theory how the moon/sun and stars work (shape etc.) If it's flat, the compass points towards the central point?  If so are east and west kind of a fabrication since you fly in a circle from one continent to the next?  From sea level how thick?  If you were at a high enough point couldn't you see the sun all day and night or does it take a certain path?

Sorry, not calling you out, just figured you started this thread, figure might as well make it a good place for people to find even more info if they are interested.


----------



## grav (May 11, 2021)

Sigian, please read previous posts which answer your questions about the electric battery concept of earth and the dome. Google is also your friend, or so they say.
I don't pretend to be a compendium of all things FE.

I also have no idea why you say there is no consensus about major FE cosmology.
I think researchers have made significant progress in our understanding of our freemason world. The movement started a mere 5 or 6 years ago.

Speaking of time, may I connect stolen history to stolen science?

Our world age may actually have begun around 1850.

Comets were once feared as agents of destruction. Years before I heard about flat earth, I followed GLP threads about Comet ISON. That was 2012, the alleged Mayan doomsday.

Modern science never talks about comets nowadays. That's how the Control System rolls. Always a new doomy thing to distract the sheeple.
But I haven't forgotten about comets as forces that upheavel the world.
"When beggars die, there are no comets seen.
The heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes." Julius Caesar. 2.2.29-31.







.

Comet Biela melted steel and granite as it burned down Chicago in 1871, as well as many thousands of square miles of the American Midwest.


----------



## jo'bo (May 11, 2021)

grav said:


> Sigian, please read previous posts which answer your questions about the electric battery concept of earth and the dome. Google is also your friend, or so they say.
> I don't pretend to be a compendium of all things FE.
> 
> I also have no idea why you say there is no consensus about major FE cosmology.
> ...


well to be fair, comet bella didnt melt steel, the fire did, if that's what happened

modern science talks a lot about comets,  you must be listening in the wrong place, though this isnt usually comets as harbingers of doom or to signify some important death.


more that hitting them in whole or even small parts is a really bad outcome, there are people who dedicate there lives to spotting them, predicting them and tracking them apart from those who just want to know what they are made of and where dod they come from

I'm not opposed to the idea that the mid west fires may have been started by space stuff,  it's a bit scarce on actual evidence that is so, but it's far from unlikely 

that doesnt however mean that comets are magical just flipping dangerous


----------



## Forrest (May 11, 2021)

jo'bo said:


> well to be fair, comet bella didnt melt steel, the fire did, if that's what happened
> ..
> 
> that doesnt however mean that comets are magical just flipping dangerous



The Great Chicago Fire broke out simultaneously across three states, attended by numerous electrical phenomena.

OTHERSCIENCE STORIES: Scapegoats and Sky Monsters  and references therein-

_As they put the fire out in one building, another one far behind the fire line would suddenly burst into flames for no good reason. “Strange, fantastic fires of blue, red, and green played along the cornices of buildings.” Granite, iron and glass were found afterwards, melted and fused together into peculiar shapes. Ghostly flames the color of burning whiskey rose up from basement floors, just before a building would ignite.
_


> _“The huge stone and brick structures melted before the fierceness of the flames as a snow-flake melts and disappears in water, and almost as quickly. Six-story buildings would take fire and disappear for ever from sight in five minutes by the watch. . .”_


_Witnesses in many places reported huge “balloons of fire” or “balls of fire”, descending from the sky. When they touched the ground, they annihilated everything, sometimes with a flash of light. One said “The sky, which had been dark, burst into clouds of flame.” A rain of dust was reported in some places, hot sand or gravel in other places. Hundreds of tons of pig iron stacked in a yard by the river, two hundred feet from the nearest building, “melted and run, and is now in one large and nearly solid mass.”
_


> _“One peculiar thing I remember about the street car rails… Downtown… the rails had been pulled up… from the road bed and in some instances the ends were curled up several feet in the air.“_


----------



## mutley7 (May 11, 2021)

Some pertinent information found here Comet Biela and Mrs. O’Leary’s Cow | Cassiopaea


----------



## grav (May 12, 2021)

I think the author of the Mrs. Leary's Cow article was Laura Knight-Jadczyk.
I also have her book, The Apocalypse: Comets, Asteroids and Cyclical Catastrophes.

I found her after my second or third reading of Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision.
Flat Earth and Alternate History/Tartaria and Sim World Reality added more dimensions to the mystery of comets as agents of resets.

Flat Earth undoubtedly offers the best discipline to learn what comets really are, electric phenomena in the dome. Short circuits in a n electric battery.
These guys came from conventional astronomy but ended up with a depressing conclusion, which modern science hides.

* Clube and Napier:  Coherent Catastrophism *


In 1982, two British astronomers, S. V. M (Victor) Clube and William Napier, published a book entitled The Cosmic Serpent. Clube and Napier suggested that the outer planets occasionally divert giant comets (more than 50 kilometers in diameter) into the inner solar system into short-period orbits. Debris from the resultant disintegration of these giant comets can adversely affect the environment of the Earth.  Dusting can block sunlight, resulting in globally cooler conditions.  Impact events in the super-Tunguska class may result in not only heavy localized destruction but also the occasional "impact winter" or dust veil with global climatological effects.


----------



## sandokhan (May 12, 2021)

It's not comets you have to worry about yet, but galactic cosmic ray waves. Comets (comet Encke) come later.

Flat earth theory allows for the precise calculation of the end of the present geological/astronomical world age: since the Sun is very small in FES, and its orbit is bounded by the two Tropics, and we are dealing with a 1.5 km/year westward precessional shift, you have all the ingredients needed to calculate this date.


----------



## grav (May 12, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> It's not comets you have to worry about yet, but galactic cosmic ray waves. Comets (comet Encke) come later.
> 
> Flat earth theory allows for the precise calculation of the end of the present geological/astronomical world age: since the Sun is very small in FES, and its orbit is bounded by the two Tropics, and we are dealing with a 1.5 km/year westward precessional shift, you have all the ingredients needed to calculate this date.



Long time, no see, Sandokhan. Glad to see you back.

Please expand on your galactic cosmic ray waves and calculation of the end of the world age.

I tend to see it as a clockwork mechanism with an entropy switch. kind of like built-in obsolescence.


----------



## Citezenship (May 12, 2021)

grav said:


> I tend to see it as a clockwork mechanism with an entropy switch. kind of like built-in obsolescence.


Haha, I like that!


----------



## Citezenship (May 18, 2021)

1997,


_View: https://youtu.be/tN8LapeK4bs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Is_Flat_(song)_


----------



## grav (May 19, 2021)

> On another forum someone introduced electricity into FE.


- - - - - - - -


> "I should post a few links about the effects of new energy upon the human body and mind, when it was introduced in the past such as electricity and radio waves. People died from shock. Today, we are awash in an atmospheric ocean of god knows what forms of new and exotic forms of electromagnetic energy such as scalar. And don't forget, HAARP isn't currently on the tip of everyone's tongue, but it should be. We are getting hornswaggled once again."



That would be a great thread. I'm reading The Invisible Rainbow (Arthur Firstenberg) which documents the harmful effects on humans and the environment since AC electricity was installed.
Like astronomy, Covid, politics, Israel vs Palestine, and everything else in the garbage dump of human perception, the truth is a jumble of non-facts and Tinker Bell fantasies.

I am, for example, one of those people who don't sleep well during a full moon.
Why?
The moon is a plasma phenomenon in the dome, which functions as a solid state mechanism of the earth battery.
Something like a semi-conductor of a computer module. We are inextricably connected to everything else in the aether of the Electric Universe. When there is increased solar activity (sunspots according to Firstenberg), humans and animals experience dis-eases. Perhaps we need to look at the Schumann Resonance and the electromagnetic spectrum of the atmosphere. Too bad so much of our vocabulary has 'sphere in suffixes. 

Regarding  satellites and spaceships, temperatures make it impossible for such nonsensical devices that would perish in 2000°C.


----------



## Starman (May 22, 2021)

Ewaranon back for round two.  He just put out 7 videos.

The Lost History of Flat Earth.  Volume 1 of 7: "Buried in Plain Sight"


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmWPH7tpf-8_


----------



## fega72 (May 22, 2021)

Starman said:


> Ewaranon back for round two.  He just put out 7 videos.
> 
> The Lost History of Flat Earth.  Volume 1 of 7: "Buried in Plain Sight"
> 
> ...



I like this video but only can watch it with the 1.25x speed (or above) otherwise the over dramatised voice drive me crazy


----------



## Jd755 (May 22, 2021)

Starman said:


> Ewaranon back for round two.  He just put out 7 videos.
> 
> The Lost History of Flat Earth.  Volume 1 of 7: "Buried in Plain Sight"
> 
> ...



So many polished videos in such a short time. Just something I noticed.







For the numerologists among us.



For the Freemasons are at the root of everything among us.


----------



## Lightseeker (May 22, 2021)

Starman said:


> Ewaranon back for round two.  He just put out 7 videos.
> 
> The Lost History of Flat Earth.  Volume 1 of 7: "Buried in Plain Sight"
> 
> ...




I like how more and more people are addressing Tartaria and the magnificent architecture that might be a remnant of that time in history.


----------



## Wanderer (May 23, 2021)

Starman said:


> Ewaranon back for round two.  He just put out 7 videos.
> 
> The Lost History of Flat Earth.  Volume 1 of 7: "Buried in Plain Sight"
> 
> ...



Thanks for sharing! I came upon Ewaranon's first series through this site and found it to be the most comprehensive and logical documentary on flat earth (and its implications) to date. I just watched the first 2 videos of this second round and I'm already hooked. Much of this is still relatively new to me so I look forward to having my mind blown! I think it deserves its own thread since it focuses more on hidden history than earth shape, though it will be interesting to see how he ties it all together.


----------



## Starman (May 23, 2021)

Wanderer said:


> Thanks for sharing! I came upon Ewaranon's first series through this site and found it to be the most comprehensive and logical documentary on flat earth (and its implications) to date. I just watched the first 2 videos of this second round and I'm already hooked. Much of this is still relatively new to me so I look forward to having my mind blown! I think it deserves its own thread since it focuses more on hidden history than earth shape, though it will be interesting to see how he ties it all together.



I think Ewaranon is doing what lots of us would like to do, given enough talent.  It seems like he is following a similar track as we are doing on SH.  We have a broader subject mix than Ewaranon due to this being a forum for all kinds of ideas, but he is picking up on the main thrust of altered or missing or stolen history.  He's also spicing it up with giant silicon trees and planet wide strip mining, so he's definitely promoting his own particular spin.

I don't know if flat earth is central to SH, like it is for Ewaranon, but it does resonate with a lot of members.  I'm very stimulated by the subject.

Dreamtime and her team are putting something together perhaps not dissimilar to what Ewaranon is doing.  It's exciting to see these themes being explored in video, with each person or group creating their own moods as part of the presentation.

Clearly the subject is resonating strongly with people.  You just have to read Ewaranon's comment section to see the responses.  People are blown away and quite excited by the information.

I'm sure Dreamtime's videos will also resonate strongly with viewers.  I can't wait to see them!  They're coming soon...


Starman said:


> I think Ewaranon is doing what lots of us would like to do, given enough talent.  It seems like he is following a similar track as we are doing on SH.  We have a broader subject mix than Ewaranon due to this being a forum for all kinds of ideas, but he is picking up on the main thrust of altered or missing or stolen history.  He's also spicing it up with giant silicon trees and planet wide strip mining, so he's definitely promoting his own particular spin.
> 
> I don't know if flat earth is central to SH, like it is for Ewaranon, but it does resonate with a lot of members.  I'm very stimulated by the subject.
> 
> ...



Wow, I just watched the fourth Ewaranon episode about electromagnetic energy and the old world buildings that harnessed this aetheric energy. He's done a really good job and the pieces are coming together in a strong way for me.  When I am able to feel the way of the old world and the grandeur of the energy harvesting buildings built with such love and inspiration and devotion to the divine energy of life, it takes my breath away.  I even find myself crying at times because I feel in partnership with these people of old who lived in a way so different from us.  It's very satisfying.  I'm not pining for something I don't have, or has been lost, but just feeling gratitude that I'm getting keyed into how things can or did work to the betterment of humanity.

I feel like his videos are helping me get over a hump in my belief system, and it comes with the demonstration of how our flat earth energy system works, and how our realm not long ago was one big energy grid that gave people an uplifted life.  I like that he presents some proofs using modern Physics. 

There's more to the story about how the old world ended and how the current luciferian system got established, but that's for another day. I'm just reveling right now in an atmosphere that helps me feel closer to Spirit.


----------



## Wanderer (May 23, 2021)

Starman said:


> I think Ewaranon is doing what lots of us would like to do, given enough talent.  It seems like he is following a similar track as we are doing on SH.  We have a broader subject mix than Ewaranon due to this being a forum for all kinds of ideas, but he is picking up on the main thrust of altered or missing or stolen history.  He's also spicing it up with giant silicon trees and planet wide strip mining, so he's definitely promoting his own particular spin.
> 
> I don't know if flat earth is central to SH, like it is for Ewaranon, but it does resonate with a lot of members.  I'm very stimulated by the subject.
> 
> ...


I find these videos sad and uplifting at the same time. There is something that resonates very deeply within when I watch them, like its showing me parts of myself that were missing. It is so vital to our spiritual growth to understand where we live and where we came from. 

I, too, am looking forward to the completion of Dreamtime's videos. I love reading about these subjects, but the visuals really help tie everything together, and they are the best way to help a skeptic who may be reluctant to see the truth. I plan to show the both Ewaranon and Dreamtime series (once completed) to my husband at some point - he sees through certain deceptions but is not nearly the "conspiracy theorist" that I am


----------



## Lightseeker (May 23, 2021)

Dreamtime is a woman?


----------



## dreamtime (May 23, 2021)

Lightseeker said:


> Dreamtime is a woman?



That would be new to me.


----------



## Lightseeker (May 23, 2021)

dreamtime said:


> That would be new to me.



That would have been the red pill of the week.


----------



## Silveryou (May 24, 2021)

Came to know today the two meanings of the word NASA in Hebrew language according to the different positioning of diacritic signs. Here the video (in Italian but it is easily understandable just by looking at it from minute 18:45).

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0usKif59m8_


In the first case it means "to lift" (from bottom to top) while in the second it means "to deceive"... enough said! (נשא - Wiktionary)

Remember that you are supposed to believe it's just a coincidence.
(I post this one here because it fits the most, imo)


dreamtime said:


> That would be new to me.


Gender fluid


----------



## Lightseeker (May 24, 2021)

Just watched Ewaranon's latest batch of videos. The seventh was full of mind-blowing stuff. And that ending!


----------



## Oracle (May 24, 2021)

dreamtime said:


> That would be new to me.


There are no girls on the internet.


Spoiler



An old meme but a good one


----------



## luddite (May 24, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> So many polished videos in such a short time. Just something I noticed.
> View attachment 9094
> View attachment 9093​
> For the numerologists among us.
> ...



500 years of the best mathmatical minds to do the inverted math and 10 years of internet trolling to debunk it. Priceless!


----------



## Jd755 (May 24, 2021)

luddite said:


> 500 years of the best mathmatical minds to do the inverted math and 10 years of internet trolling to debunk it. Priceless!


Too subtle for me you will have to explain.


----------



## luddite (May 24, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Too subtle for me you will have to explain.



It's been said that for the last 500 years since copernicus, that TPTB have utilised the worlds best minds to do the globe / heliocentric math that we have today. It literally took that long to get it to a believable point. Then in the last 10 years it has been debunked by internet content creators whom TPTB lovingly call trolls.


----------



## Jd755 (May 24, 2021)

luddite said:


> It's been said that for the last 500 years since copernicus, that TPTB have utilised the worlds best minds to do the globe / heliocentric math that we have today. It literally took that long to get it to a believable point. Then in the last 10 years it has been debunked by internet content creators whom TPTB lovingly call trolls.


Aaah! now I can see what you were saying. 
Was there even a 500 years ago? 
Was there even a copernicus?


----------



## luddite (May 24, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Aaah! now I can see what you were saying.
> Was there even a 500 years ago?
> Was there even a copernicus?


Is that how you gently request a deep dive into old Nikki C? 

19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543 was his birth/death. Already very suspicious... How did they get the exact dates. 

To answer your questions. Probably not and probably not.


grav said:


> atmosphere


That is meant to be spelt "atmos-fear" because you are meant to be afraid of it perhaps. 


grav said:


> The Invisible Rainbow (Arthur Firstenberg) which documents the harmful effects on humans and the environment since AC electricity was installed.


Fascinating! Is it free? Can you upload it to the books section please?


----------



## E.Bearclaw (May 24, 2021)

See below for a copy of The summary of Invisible Rainbow. I haven't uploaded to the book section myself, as I feel I have just kind of butted into this convo a little and wasn't sure it was my place - also it isn't the full book. It has relevance to many threads in this forum.


----------



## Citezenship (May 24, 2021)

Nothing to see hear, move along, move along...


----------



## grav (May 24, 2021)

E.Bearclaw said:


> See below for a copy of The summary of Invisible Rainbow. I haven't uploaded to the book section myself, as I feel I have just kind of butted into this convo a little and wasn't sure it was my place - also it isn't the full book. It has relevance to many threads in this forum.



I read enough of the pdf to pique my interest. So I bought the paperback and have been slogging through it for weeks or months. Basically, the author presents a sad case of the electric grid we all depend on. Even more sadly, alternating current interferes with life as we know it. I mean the whole environment.

I'm one of those people who think the Atom theory is bs, while the Electric Universe explains everything. In a computer program, all things are possible. Tartaria, Mandela, alternative history, religions, and whatever the creator/s and interlopers have done to our perceptions of reality.

The earth is obviously motionless, yet 99% of people believe it spins and rolls around the sun. That's the extent of their cosmology. They trust their political parties, the education system, the medical industry, and all the credentialed "experts" in science.
They also love their phones and other devices. They should know by now that these things emit dangerous microwaves. They look forward to getting 5g tramsmitters, which in experiments knock birds dead from the skies.

The elites know all about electricity and have weaponized it.


----------



## luddite (May 25, 2021)

grav said:


> The elites know all about electricity and have weaponized it.


Let's say that is true... firstly - we have derailed the topic and I apologise for that. Secondly, how do the elites avoid the electricity? It's everywhere. They will be effected by it the same way as you and I.


----------



## Sigian (May 25, 2021)

grav said:


> The earth is obviously motionless, yet 99% of people believe it spins and rolls around the sun. That's the extent of their cosmology. They trust their political parties, the education system, the medical industry, and all the credentialed "experts" in science.



Still waiting on irrefutable evidence of either globe or flat, or if we are even here at all.  But until that time what you are saying is that 99% of people are ignorant because you are right.  

Not offering up any 100% proof here, just opinions from what you have learned from books and the internet, as have many others.  I dunno myself, but if 1+1 doesn't equal 2 then yes, physics and all fall flat, but then we wouldn't have television, radio, internet, computers.  Simple kinematics can explain a lot about the world we live in, but again, if the math we have learned in school is wrong, then how does one actually explain things?

Maybe I'm just stirring the pot here, if so I apologize, just that opinions and guesses do not sate my curiosity at all.  Because after watching "Behind The Curve" and watching them disprove theirselves was a but disappointing.


----------



## sandokhan (May 25, 2021)

Sigian said:


> I dunno myself, but if 1+1 doesn't equal 2 then yes, physics and all fall flat, but then we wouldn't have television, radio, internet, computers.



Television, radio, internet, computers, jet aircrafts function even because the surface of the Earth is flat. You'd have no tv, no radio, no computers at all on a globe.



Sigian said:


> Because after watching "Behind The Curve" and watching them disprove theirselves was a but disappointing.



Bob Knodel's gyroscope measured the CORIOLIS EFFECT of the rotation of the ether drift, but not the rotation of the Earth, a huge difference.


----------



## Jd755 (May 25, 2021)

Sigian said:


> Still waiting on irrefutable evidence


If you don't mind what would pass muster for you as irrefutable evidence?


----------



## Sigian (May 25, 2021)

I don't think it truly exists honestly.  Every single person has their own vantage point, where they see things even just slightly different at times, to completely opposite.  Our senses being similar, aren't the same.  

Though complete access to everywhere, all data, information, histories, factual, technological.  Could also help to shed more light and carry out any testing needed by a group of unbiased people.  Though again, such a thing does not exist, actual people with the true knowledge, unbiased people.  The whole thing is so fractured by history itself, those that ruled it, and those that wrote it.  And no one person had all of the knowledge.  Isn't that how people termed the word 'god' in the first place?  Guess people always need to believe that someone knows it all.


sandokhan said:


> You'd have no tv, no radio, no computers at all on a globe.



Just curious, but elaborate more please?




sandokhan said:


> Bob Knodel's gyroscope measured the CORIOLIS EFFECT of the rotation of the ether drift, but not the rotation of the Earth, a huge difference.



Knowing of the ether, was it not proven to not exist?  At least on a level that does not affect anything we can physically measure?  But mostly, if the earth is flat, why would the ether drift like it was around a globe?  Wouldnt it more swirl on a flat plane?


----------



## luddite (May 25, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> If you don't mind what would pass muster for you as irrefutable evidence?



Seeing is believing. So if you look up and the stars are not whizzing about at 666 miles an hour and the atmosphere is not like a hurricane due to the friction and finally, you and everything else on the surface hasn't been slung off into the vacuum of space...well only then would you have irrefutable proof.


----------



## sandokhan (May 25, 2021)

Sigian said:


> Just curious, but elaborate more please?



740 messages, the best ever on FET:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.0
Covid-19 can only be understood in the context of FET. The emergence of the next (real) pandemic which will arrive as well from the atmosphere (cometary dust, comet Encke) has everything to do with FET. Right now, the biggest danger is the cross-reacting antibodies (HCoV-OC43 and Sars-Cov-2, where HCoV-OC43 is a simple cold) caused by the spike proteins in the vaccines.


----------



## Citezenship (May 25, 2021)

Anyone ever hear of accelerationism.

https://coronacircus.com/2021/05/20/accelerationism-and-new-world-order/


----------



## Jd755 (May 25, 2021)

Sigian said:


> I don't think it truly exists honestly.


Thank you.
Contained water presenting a level surface is truth that is observable, demonstrable, repeatable. No belief required.
Beyond that all bets are off.

Edit to add;
This property of water is proof the globe shape theory is a nonsense.


----------



## luddite (May 25, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Thank you.
> Contained water presenting a level surface is truth that is observable, demonstrable, repeatable. No belief required.
> Beyond that all bets are off.
> 
> ...



Now hold on. So you are saying that water doesn't curve at 8 inches per mile? And that we can measure that with a ruler or laser?


----------



## sandokhan (May 25, 2021)

Few scientists understand that Newton's law of "universal" gravitation is valid only for two separate objects found on the surface of the Earth. And then, it is due to the pressure exerted by the ether.

Newton's gravitational law cannot be applied to a situation where M = the mass of the Earth, and m = mass of a simple object. Why? Because Newton had to first prove that the Earth is a globe, which he never did. You cannot apply F = GMm/r^2 between two planets either: Newton had to first prove that the Earth is indeed rotating around its own axis, which he never did. He assumed that the Earth is a globe and that it is revolving around the Sun, without having any proof at his disposal.

The derivation of Newton's law of gravity using the ether pressure gradient:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2184253#msg2184253
The formula is identical to Newton's. It is ONLY valid for two objects found on the surface of the Earth. There is no attraction between the Earth and another body, or between two planets.

The greatest mathematician of the 19th century, the author of the most complex asymptotic expansion ever (Riemann-Siegel formula), absolutely was a brilliant physicist as well: he solved the mystery of terrestrial gravity in 1853.

Reviving Gravity's Aether in Einstein's Universe

B. Riemann stated in 1853 that "gravitational aether sinks toward massive objects where it is absorbed, at a rate proportional to their mass, and is then emitted into another spatial dimension".

Imagine this, as early as 1853, Riemann was mentioning the hyperspace of quantum entanglement.


> Quantum Gravity is not a quantization of the spacetime coordinates, metric.....If this were the case, one would have had quantized the spacetime coordinates long ago. In String Theory, from the two-dim world sheet point of view , the spacetime coordinates are nothing but a finite number of scalar fields whose quantization is essentially trivial by selecting the conformal or orthonormal gauge. The same arguments applies with the ( linearized ) spin two graviton. Quantum Gravity it is something much deeper than the naive notion of coordinates and gravitons. It is something that doesn’t need any spacetime background nor metrics whatsoever. Morever, it involves something that disposes of the ill-conceived notion of having a fixed dimension. The classical spacetime that we perceive with our senses is just a long distance averaging effect associated with a quantum network of processeses of a deeper underlying Quantum Universe. To merge Quantum Mechanics with Relativity it is necessary to enlarge the Einsteinian view of Relativity to a New Relativity Principle.



Antimatter is not missing: it has always been right in front of the quantum physicists, who are just now beginning to understand that the unification of GR with QM requires Knot Theory, right-handed spin gravitons and left-handed spin antigravitons as closed loop strings.

Mainstream quantum physicists are starting to infer that positrons and preons do not annihilate each other:

New Approach to the Fine Structure of Matter and Space

http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/ep8/electron_positron_sea.pdf (The Cubic Lattice Solution section, page 6)

Antimatter = antigravity = antigravitons = laevorotatory positrons/subquarks.

Photons = bosons

Antibosons = antiphotons 

Exclusive: This Wild Paper Suggests Gravity Is Just a Product of Quantum Mechanics

"In our proposal, space-time does not pre-exist, it is the result of a physical process by which the subquantum medium goes from a chaotic state to a more organised one."

This subquantum medium is something that Castro describes as "a kind of primordial foam from where space-time itself emerges".

Spacetime as an Emergent Phenomenon: A Possible Way to Explain Entanglement and the Tunnel Effect 

The deepest connection between gravity and quantum entanglement:

“The universality of the gravitational interaction comes directly from the universality of entanglement- it is not possible to have stress-energy that doesn’t source the gravitational field because it is not possible to have degrees of freedom that don’t contribute to entanglement entropy.”

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2933.pdf

Universality of Gravity from Entanglement 



> Fundamental physics started the 20th century with the twin revolutions of relativity and quantum mechanics, and much of the second half of the century was devoted to the construction of a theoretical structure unifying these radical ideas. Yet storm clouds are gathering, which point towards a new set of revolutions on the horizon in the 21st century. Space-time is doomed—how can it emerge from more primitive building blocks?



(N. Arkani-Hamed (IAS)) 



> Spacetime is doomed. It, and its particles, cannot be fundamental in physical theory, but must emerge from a more fundamental theory. I review the converging evidence for this claim from physics and evolution, and then propose a new way to think of spacetime: as a data-compressing and error-correcting channel for information about fitness. I propose that a theory of conscious agents is a good candidate for the more fundamental theory to replace spacetime. Spacetime then appears as one kind of interface for communication between conscious agents.
> 
> 
> Spacetime is doomed. There is no such thing as spacetime fundamentally in the actual underlying description of the laws of physics. That's very startling, because what physics is supposed to be about is describing things as they happen in space and time. So if there is no spacetime, it's not clear what physics is about.



Nima Arkani-Hamed (Cornell Messenger Lecture 2016)
Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton


----------



## grav (May 25, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> Antimatter is not missing: it has always been right in front of the quantum physicists, who are just now beginning to understand that the unification of GR with QM requires Knot Theory, right-handed spin gravitons and left-handed spin antigravitons as closed loop strings.



Antimatter? Gravitons?
Crap like this is why I almost never check out the Flat Earth's Society's site.
Antimatter and bosons and such theoretical gibberish militate against Ockham's admonition to avoid complicating a pure concept: "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."

The ether, or aether, is electricity, or dielectricity. Positive and negative charges which are arranged (in a computer program maybe) to form matter, magnetism, radiation, intelligence, everything else that comprises reality. Your Knot Theory, haha good name, does exactly what Ockham warned against.

Covid is a another hoax. The medical industry obeys the CDC's orders to label other causes of death as CV19. Its real name is Certificate Of Vaccine IDentification.
Because the ruse was concocted years ago by Gates and cohort to use the toxic vaccine to depopulate the useless eaters and/or transhumanize the survivors.

That said, I do not mean to disparage your interprerations. In fact, I appreciate your input and hope you continue to post here.


----------



## Lightseeker (May 25, 2021)

grav said:


> Antimatter? Gravitons?
> Crap like this is why I almost never check out the Flat Earth's Society's site.
> Antimatter and bosons and such theoretical gibberish militate against Ockham's admonition to avoid complicating a pure concept: "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."
> 
> ...



We all know that the FES is controlled opposition.


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (May 25, 2021)

Lightseeker said:


> We all know that the FES is controlled opposition.


The problem with a thread like flat earth is that it has gotten so enormous, new readers are posting questions that have already been addressed, but these new readers are not going through the archives to see if the ground has already been covered. To all new readers: please go back to the beginning of this thread and read it through thoroughly. In this thread are countless videos, websites, channels and arguments that have addressed nearly everything there is to address regarding the earth's cosmology from both heliocentric and geocentric points of view. If, after scouring this valuable archive of data, you find your questions have still not been thoroughly addressed, then ask away. For starters, please check out 
_View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/XvAwLc7FZm2z/_

This video outlines 200 proofs that earth is not a spinning ball. This is a great place to begin the process of comparison between what's been sold to us as science and science put into action with repeatable experiments that yield empirical results. There are obviously still many unanswered questions, and this is where the thread should continue, in my opinion, rather than on rehashing that which has already been thoroughly discussed. I'm only posting this caveat because I'm seeing the same information getting unnecessarily rehashed, muddying an otherwise decent archive of well documented research from both sides of the argument.


----------



## grav (May 26, 2021)

Collapseinrealtime said:


> The problem with a thread like flat earth is that it has gotten so enormous, new readers are posting questions that have already been addressed, but these new readers are not going through the archives to see if the ground has already been covered. To all new readers: please go back to the beginning of this thread and read it through thoroughly. In this thread are countless videos, websites, channels and arguments that have addressed nearly everything there is to address regarding the earth's cosmology from both heliocentric and geocentric points of view. If, after scouring this valuable archive of data, you find your questions have still not been thoroughly addressed, then ask away. For starters, please check out
> _View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/XvAwLc7FZm2z/_
> 
> This video outlines 200 proofs that earth is not a spinning ball. This is a great place to begin the process of comparison between what's been sold to us as science and science put into action with repeatable experiments that yield empirical results. There are obviously still many unanswered questions, and this is where the thread should continue, in my opinion, rather than on rehashing that which has already been thoroughly discussed. I'm only posting this caveat because I'm seeing the same information getting unnecessarily rehashed, muddying an otherwise decent archive of well documented research from both sides of the argument.




Hmm, I've said the same thing for 6 years.
Maybe there should be a Basic Flat Earth thread and one dedicated to advanced discussions by people who have done their homework. Newbies and potential shills could be gently redirected to the FE 101 thread.

@sandokhan, for example, has brought up status quo physics several times. I reject the Knot theory, the Atom theory, all the other gobbledygook that add garbage science to the elegant Electric Universe understanding.

But I do want to know what the opponents of FE are thinking. And we need to be able to debunk the tsunami of pseudoscience in cosmology and all the other forms of brainwashing.   

I've been around forum rodeos for a good while. Most of them end up banning the topic altogether or closing threads.
SH is the first forum that welcomes robust debate without the drama from shills and groupthinkers who go  ballistic when their globe is challenged.

I am amazed and delighted that so many independent thinkers have contributed to this thread. I had given up on free speech, figuring that the time had passed for honest discussions of alternative science.

Eric Dubay's free pdf is doubtlessly the best introduction to geocentrism.


http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html


----------



## Collapseinrealtime (May 26, 2021)

grav said:


> Hmm, I've said the same thing for 6 years.
> Maybe there should be a Basic Flat Earth thread and one dedicated to advanced discussions by people who have done their homework. Newbies and potential shills could be gently redirected to the FE 101 thread.
> 
> @sandokhan, for example, has brought up status quo physics several times. I reject the Knot theory, the Atom theory, all the other gobbledygook that add garbage science to the elegant Electric Universe understanding.
> ...


I'd say at this point, the thread is fairly well caught up on what is available and out there and being looked at. There is a channeler on youtube that has mentioned doing a possible future session where he asks Ra or Pleiadians their take on true cosmology. I've yet to see this particular subject channeled, so it should be interesting to see if higher 5th and 6th density beings are willing to lend us a peek without infringing on free will. The new age scene seems to depend on the heliocentric model since the idea of higher beings in our realm absolutely "have" to be extraterrestrial. The crater earth model lends to the idea that outer space is just that, the outer space of the greater earth, of which our section occupies a relatively small area where our locally projected sun and moon governs our particular universe, it all being a giant electric projection--as above, so below. Can't say for certain until we are able to perfect remote viewing or book a ticket on the disclosure express. So much to learn about the realm we occupy, its history, its purpose. We seem to be at a unique point where we're finally learning how to ask better questions, the right ones, for a change. It is when we know the right questions to ask that we are finally ready for the answers, no matter how shocking the truth may prove to be. Will post that video if the channeler chooses to finally cover flat earth. Whatever anyone thinks about channeled material, until one actually reads a channeled work (such as "Law of One"), they will never know what they are missing out on! The proof is in the wisdom offered. Everything else is just details. It is great to have a forum like this to share with awakening minds!


----------



## sandokhan (May 26, 2021)

Eric Dubay copied my explanation concerning the solar eclipse (Rahu/Fenrir), some years ago, long after I first had posted the information in my AFET. Ask Dubay to explain terrestrial gravitation, or to debunk the MMX. His 200 proofs are an introduction, perhaps, to the subject discussed here. He does not touch any of the advanced topics mentioned in AFET which is the state-of-the-art in flat earth theory.



grav said:


> @sandokhan, for example, has brought up status quo physics several times. I reject the Knot theory, the Atom theory, all the other gobbledygook that add garbage science to the elegant Electric Universe understanding.



You do not even understand what basic electricity is: you are relying on hertzian transversal waves.

Do you understand the difference between longitudinal electricity and transversal electricity?

Longitudinal electricity = ether = bosons/photons/neutrinos = non-hertzian waves

Transversal electricity = subquarks = ripples in the sea of ether

Do you understand the implications of Bell's theorem? The existence of the superluminal hyperspace, and of the ether.

So, there is a huge difference between conventional electrical theory and ether magnetricity.

At the core, electricity = ether/aether theory.

Knot theory = vortex theory (emissive and receptive), certainly not status-quo theory


----------



## Sigian (May 26, 2021)

grav said:


> Hmm, I've said the same thing for 6 years.
> Maybe there should be a Basic Flat Earth thread and one dedicated to advanced discussions by people who have done their homework. Newbies and potential shills could be gently redirected to the FE 101 thread.



Thought I mentioned that before since you were the one that originally started this thread, would be great to have everything all together in one space instead of having to search through pages upon pages of a thread to see if the topic had been brought up.

Being serious here, would be a great starting point for those interested.  Yes I ask questions, yes I ask for proofs, but shouldn't everyone be critical of everything now.  Just because I press harder, does not mean I do not respect the views that others present.





kd-755 said:


> Contained water presenting a level surface is truth that is observable, demonstrable, repeatable. No belief required.
> Beyond that all bets are off.



As it does on a globe with gravity, because the level is always directed towards the center mass if gravity does exist as explained.  So not reputable there in my opinion.  The earth isn't a small globe, it's huge, making a seemingly long distance just a fraction of what is actually there.  Doesn't explain this either.  









luddite said:


> Now hold on. So you are saying that water doesn't curve at 8 inches per mile? And that we can measure that with a ruler or laser?



Can't we just make a 10 mile long level, put it across the surface of a body of water and see from there?  

The Bedford level, laser gyroscope, hell even holding a light between point A and B showed that one side had to be raised up to see it at a distance, many others as well.






sandokhan said:


> Because Newton had to first prove that the Earth is a globe, which he never did.



Think it was the ancient Greeks, a few thousand years before Newton that mentioned that the Earth was a globe, at least that is what history mentions.  No need at that point to prove the point once again since it had already been a thing for a long time, Newtons donation was gravity itself, or at least his best explanation.

So a question, how does a compass work on a flat earth?  North is always the middle, guessing some large magnetic object?  But South doesn't make sense, if it always points to an ice wall surrounding us, then why must a compass needle need weighted specially for the southern hemisphere? Shouldn't it point towards the ice wall no matter what?  And then if as I have read that there may be more continents beyond the ice wall, then wouldn't that make us the very center of whatever flat world we live upon?

Sometimes the world which we live upon does not make sense with all the historical aberrations that appear.  So one must try and make sense of their surroundings, or just blindly follow along with narratives given.  I just haven't had anything that clicks into place as of yet, but really have enjoyed reading KDs original SH and now the newer version for a long time, but sometimes one cannot just simply sit on the sidelines and must figure out for themselves what is right and what is wrong. 

I respect everyone here and their opinions, so please don't let anything I say or ask deter you from a response, we are all civil beings of some sort or another.


----------



## sandokhan (May 26, 2021)

Sigian said:


> Doesn't explain this either.



What is this? The fake Pontchartrain video was debunked a long time ago:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2017477#msg2017477
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2016747#msg2016747


Sigian said:


> So a question, how does a compass work on a flat earth? North is always the middle, guessing some large magnetic object? But South doesn't make sense, if it always points to an ice wall surrounding us, then why must a compass needle need weighted specially for the southern hemisphere?



No. That's the wrong map with the North Pole in the center. The best map, so far, is the global Piri Reis map:



There might be an outer ice wall but it looks more like this:


----------



## Prolix (May 26, 2021)

Collapseinrealtime said:


> I'd say at this point, the thread is fairly well caught up on what is available and out there and being looked at. There is a channeler on youtube that has mentioned doing a possible future session where he asks Ra or Pleiadians their take on true cosmology. I've yet to see this particular subject channeled, so it should be interesting to see if higher 5th and 6th density beings are willing to lend us a peek without infringing on free will. The new age scene seems to depend on the heliocentric model since the idea of higher beings in our realm absolutely "have" to be extraterrestrial. The crater earth model lends to the idea that outer space is just that, the outer space of the greater earth, of which our section occupies a relatively small area where our locally projected sun and moon governs our particular universe, it all being a giant electric projection--as above, so below. Can't say for certain until we are able to perfect remote viewing or book a ticket on the disclosure express. So much to learn about the realm we occupy, its history, its purpose. We seem to be at a unique point where we're finally learning how to ask better questions, the right ones, for a change. It is when we know the right questions to ask that we are finally ready for the answers, no matter how shocking the truth may prove to be. Will post that video if the channeler chooses to finally cover flat earth. Whatever anyone thinks about channeled material, until one actually reads a channeled work (such as "Law of One"), they will never know what they are missing out on! The proof is in the wisdom offered. Everything else is just details. It is great to have a forum like this to share with awakening minds!



I've read The Law of One. As has David Wilcock, of course... It's not really much more revelatory than any other given channelled material, although the strained circumstances of its production are interesting in themselves (one might suggest these circumstances themselves make the material questionable).

Any form of clairvoyance, be it through hypnosis, remote viewing or astral travel can only be approached with extreme caution. You're never going to be sure of the purity of your information (if indeed, that is possible; in a demiurgic model, the angels are simply doing their bit for the status quo). As you suggest, though, channelling tends largely toward the negative when FE comes up. Just as it tends to excuse itself with possible time lines when called out for, oh I don't know, failing to anticipate the triggering of attempts to cull the global population.


----------



## sandokhan (May 26, 2021)

Here is the image drawn by the ayahuasqueros of the Amazon region:





(taken from the Cosmic Serpent by Jeremy Narby)

Cosmology of the Desana tribe: 



(notice, at the bottom of the image, the two heavenly bodies which are responsible for causing the lunar and solar eclipses)


----------



## Sigian (May 26, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> No. That's the wrong map with the North Pole in the center. The best map, so far, is the global Piri Reis map:



So north on the compass points where then?

The second image is what I have always seen described with an outer ice wall.

With the Piri Reis global map, is it nothing but water beyond the continents?  

Does a flat earth extend in all directions infinitely?  Is it a disc shape just sitting under a dome with what outside the dome?


----------



## sandokhan (May 26, 2021)

Sigian said:


> So north on the compass points where then?



Peary never discovered the North Pole:

This is supposed to be the area of the globe



Sigian said:


> The second image is what I have always seen described with an outer ice wall.



No. What you have seen is the outer rim of the usual North Pole centered map. The outer ice wall is well beyond the boundary of the first dome.



Sigian said:


> Does a flat earth extend in all directions infinitely? Is it a disc shape just sitting under a dome with what outside the dome?



1. No. That's the flawed infinite earth theory.

2. Yes. We have two domes, the first encompasses the global Piri Reis map.


----------



## Jd755 (May 26, 2021)

Sigian said:


> As it does on a globe with gravity, because the level is always directed towards the center mass if gravity does exist as explained. So not reputable there in my opinion. The earth isn't a small globe, it's huge, making a seemingly long distance just a fraction of what is actually there. Doesn't explain this either.


I have already posted actual photographs I have taken earlier this year that show precisely what happens in our visual geometry. No need for a internet meme with red lines ( why are the lines nearly always red, must they not be crossed?) to try and explain away something our eyes do.

It is not my opinion that contained water always presents a level surface it is demonstrable, provable, factual truth.


----------



## sandokhan (May 26, 2021)

How did the elites know that the cometary dust which contains the avian flu (BSL-3) would reach the surface of the Earth exactly in the month of November, 2019, well ahead of time (at least 250 years ago)? Exactly, using flat earth theory. With flat earth theory on their side, they already know the names of the two pathogenic agents (BSL-4) which will cause the next two pandemics.


----------



## E.Bearclaw (May 26, 2021)

luddite said:


> Now hold on. So you are saying that water doesn't curve at 8 inches per mile? And that we can measure that with a ruler or laser?



I guess an easy way to prove it for once and for all is to use a non shatter proof ruler to measure rather than a bendable shatter resistant.

I always wondered why TPTB at my school promoted that shatter resistant nonsense. They said it was to do with kids making them wibble off the side of the desk.



Sigian said:


> Thought I mentioned that before since you were the one that originally started this thread, would be great to have everything all together in one space instead of having to search through pages upon pages of a thread to see if the topic had been brought up.
> 
> Being serious here, would be a great starting point for those interested.  Yes I ask questions, yes I ask for proofs, but shouldn't everyone be critical of everything now.  Just because I press harder, does not mean I do not respect the views that others present.
> 
> ...



If you can see the curve on the pylons as they disappear into the distance, surely the horizon line should be curved also in that photo? It looks dead flat to my eyes.


----------



## Skydog (May 26, 2021)

Lightseeker said:


> Just watched Ewaranon's latest batch of videos. The seventh was full of mind-blowing stuff. And that ending!


I think @kd-755 makes a great point about the sheer amount of very high quality / produced content put out there by Ewaranon in a relatively short amount of time. I instinctively thought the same thing. Suspect? Genius? Or both?

In any event...my god - I haven’t been this moved by “alternative” video content in quite some time. And to top it all off - the fact that he offered a new model for the FE crowd to consider in the very last episode - that frankly seems as reasonable as any other given the incorporation of the precession on the equinoxes / great year (which I’ve personally always been instinctively drawn to) seems all the more comforting at this presumably critical chapter in our little lives.


----------



## E.Bearclaw (May 26, 2021)

Skydog said:


> I think @kd-755 makes a great point about the sheer amount of very high quality / produced content put out there by Ewaranon in a relatively short amount of time. I instinctively thought the same thing. Suspect? Genius? Or both?
> 
> In any event...my god - I haven’t been this moved by “alternative” video content in quite some time. And to top it all off - the fact that he offered a new model for the FE crowd to consider in the very last episode - that frankly seems as reasonable as any other given the incorporation of the precession on the equinoxes / great year (which I’ve personally always been instinctively drawn to) seems all the more comforting at this presumably critical chapter in our little lives.



I agree with it being suspect. However I feel that cards are revealed at particular times. Not saying that this is the apocalypse, but in many ways it feels like a time where truth gets revealed if you look for it, and if you close your eyes it stays hidden. Like a blue pill red pill revelation. 

Whilst the source may not be as presented, (his voice sounds to me like a 20-30 Londoner), and may be fed information, or is the work of a team. I don't think this necessarily means it is *dis*info. It does mean one must analyse it with a element of criticality. I appreciate this is the attitude your post indicates you have taken of course!

I guess the best thing to do is to disregard the source, which is not ideal admittedly, and to weigh up the information for what it is. Whether it stands up to reason, or resonates with your s elf. It sounds like it does! I still haven't got to the end yet, I am watching it with my other half, after working through the first series. Its the first thing that has resonated with her on this front, and she has actually started watching over videos on the subject.

One thing that has struck me so far is the Erie Canal discussion. There was a thread on that here in SH 1.0. I wondered whether he has been on here (it would be a logical place to come to garner some of the info), or maybe even has the same (possible) source of information that KD had.


----------



## Jd755 (May 26, 2021)

Sigian said:


> Can't we just make a 10 mile long level, put it across the surface of a body of water and see from there?


What would you use to calibrate the 10 mile long level?

Thanks to a good friend I listened to the video at 1.25 speed. You get to hear his real voice or something closer to his real voice. It sounds very familiar to me from some other video channel but I cannot recall which one. 
The videos all use the topics and research on here and the version one SH site. The videos 1-13 were actually created prior to August 2020 as Ewaranon states on his bitchute channel.



> Reuploading my series from August 2020 with improved audio.



Just some light background digging.


----------



## Skydog (May 26, 2021)

E.Bearclaw said:


> I agree with it being suspect. However I feel that cards are revealed at particular times. Not saying that this is the apocalypse, but in many ways it feels like a time where truth gets revealed if you look for it, and if you close your eyes it stays hidden. Like a blue pill red pill revelation.
> 
> Whilst the source may not be as presented, (his voice sounds to me like a 20-30 Londoner), and may be fed information, or is the work of a team. I don't think this necessarily means it is *dis*info. It does mean one must analyse it with a element of criticality. I appreciate this is the attitude your post indicates you have taken of course!
> 
> ...


In the comments section of his last video I noticed that he gave shout outs to most of the usual suspects in our space (Levi, UAP, exploring Tartaria etc.). While SH not specifically mentioned, think it’s a safe bet he stopped here every now and again.


----------



## grav (May 26, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> Eric Dubay copied my explanation concerning the solar eclipse (Rahu/Fenrir), some years ago, long after I first had posted the information in my AFET. Ask Dubay to explain terrestrial gravitation, or to debunk the MMX. His 200 proofs are an introduction, perhaps, to the subject discussed here. He does not touch any of the advanced topics mentioned in AFET which is the state-of-the-art in flat earth theory.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Excellent! I'd hoped I could provoke you to expand on my simplistic view of the EU. 
It's the jargon I object to. Like hyperspace, which has multiple meanings in multiple disciplines. Magnetricity is new to me.

I freely admit that electricity is way over my head, partly because its vocabulary complicates what should be a more understandable rendition of the aether.
The confusion is obviously intentional. EU scientists do not make it easier for oafs like me to see the matrix. Yes, academia frowns on disclosure of the Truth. 

Your post is the first attempt I've seen that presents ideas (theories) to explain how dielectricity arranges itself to form reality. I want a fuller development of the EM spectrum, an outline of its main parts, flowchart, meme, Aether for Dummies.
Yes, I do understand that people in hell want ice water.

You also refer to comets and flu. What are comets? Do you think electricity causes disease? That idea is a major theme of Firstenberg's The Invisible Rainbow.


----------



## Lightseeker (May 26, 2021)

Skydog said:


> In the comments section of his last video I noticed that he gave shout outs to most of the usual suspects in our space (Levi, UAP, exploring Tartaria etc.). While SH not specifically mentioned, think it’s a safe bet he stopped here every now and again.



What's wrong with Exploring Tartaria?


----------



## Skydog (May 26, 2021)

Lightseeker said:


> What's wrong with Exploring Tartaria?


Nothing. I was just listing the sites he specifically listed in one of his more popular comments in the most recent video.


----------



## grav (May 26, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> How did the elites know that the cometary dust which contains the avian flu (BSL-3) would reach the surface of the Earth exactly in the month of November, 2019, well ahead of time (at least 250 years ago)? Exactly, using flat earth theory. With flat earth theory on their side, they already know the names of the two pathogenic agents (BSL-4) which will cause the next two pandemics.



Bird flu is either misunderstood or another damn Yankee lie of the establishment.
Firstenberg makes a good case for aether-induced illnesses, not some cockamamie Germ theory bs that even Pasteur eventually disavowed.

You have skills, evidently, in math and investigatory science.
You dangle your own conclusions in our view but in a desultory fashion.
I used to be a member of FES, may still be under an old username, dunno.
I very much like this comment about you on your home turf.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4429.20
*Tom Bishop *

 
Zetetic Council Member                                                                                                        R*e: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions *
« *Reply #32 on:* January 27, 2016, 06:59:18 AM »                                                                
Sandokhan, I am not opposed to you having a section on the Wiki, but I think you really need to put significant work into simplifying these ideas for the layman.


----------



## Starman (May 26, 2021)

Had a full moon eclipse last night in Hawaii.  Dark and brooding moon it was. Dark blood red.

Am wondering about an explanation for lunar and solar eclipses in the FE model.  It appears that globalists use some kind of orbital mechanical calculations to accurately forecast eclipses into the future.  That is amazing on the face of it.  How is that done??  

I can imagine a computer program that tracks the path of the sun and moon under the globalist scenario and you just let it run, and presto you see that at some future time they intersect to cause an eclipse.  But how did they do it before computers?

I’m surprised that globe lovers don’t trot out this argument based on orbital mechanics more often in order to defend their model.


----------



## sandokhan (May 26, 2021)

Starman said:


> Am wondering about an explanation for lunar and solar eclipses in the FE model.



You should be wondering about the RE model for the solar/lunar eclipses.

The Allais effect for solar eclipses:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382
The Allais effect proves that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse at all.

The Allais effect for lunar eclipses:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2138487#msg2138487
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2209362#msg2209362
As for RE orbital mechanics, there are huge problems:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1774581#msg1774581
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1935048#msg1935048
The interval of assured reliability for Newton's equations of gravitational motion* is at most three hundred years.*

Pole shifts of the Earth in heliocentrism:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2254336#msg2254336
And orbital mechanics cannot as much as explain why planes stay in the air:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2230939#msg2230939


----------



## Silent Bob (May 26, 2021)

Sigian said:


> 1. The Bedford level, laser gyroscope, hell even holding a light between point A and B showed that one side had to be raised up to see it at a distance, many others as well.
> 
> 2. Think it was the ancient Greeks, a few thousand years before Newton that mentioned that the Earth was a globe, at least that is what history mentions.  No need at that point to prove the point once again since it had already been a thing for a long time, Newtons donation was gravity itself, or at least his best explanation.
> 
> 3. So a question, how does a compass work on a flat earth?  North is always the middle, guessing some large magnetic object?  But South doesn't make sense, if it always points to an ice wall surrounding us, then why must a compass needle need weighted specially for the southern hemisphere? Shouldn't it point towards the ice wall no matter what?  And then if as I have read that there may be more continents beyond the ice wall, then wouldn't that make us the very center of whatever flat world we live upon?



1. First the Bedford levels experiment, you can read the details of the orginal experiment right here, starting on page 11.

https://ia802705.us.archive.org/30/items/zeteticastronom00rowbgoog/zeteticastronom00rowbgoog.pdf
You will see that the observer with the telescope is actually in the water, ensuring his eye level is not more than 8in above the water level and yet he still saw the entire boat 6 miles away, so neither side needed to be raised up as you suggest. What made you think this?

2. You have surely learned by now on this website that our history isn't always entirely accurate and that just maybe some history is faked to present a particular narrative? If it's more than 200 years ago it's probably fictional, at least to some degree! What I do know, from some primary sources, is that in the 1800's most ordinary people still thought the earth was flat, whilst establishment academics were the ones who claimed the globe model. It seems our knowledge of most things was distorted by establishment academics in the 1800's, think evolution, germ theory, vaccines etc, a new perception of reality was being created and impossed upon the masses. The globe earth theory was just one of these, creating the perfect prison for us - perfect because we don't know it's a prison and don't realise there's an outer world to escape to! A prison where the walls are hidden by a theory, a belief, which prevents you from ever even imagining or conceiving of a way out.

3. A compass only points north, never south. Only the north attracts a compass point, the south has never been claimed to attract a compass point even in mainstream globe science. Here is the contrived mainstream explanation why:

https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/1...c-compass-point-to-the-geographic-north-pole/
Basically they say that the geographic north pole is really the magnetic south pole and that magnetic field lines outside of a permanent magnet always run from the north magnetic pole to the south magnetic pole. Therefore, the magnetic field lines of the earth run from the southern geographic hemisphere towards the northern geographic hemisphere. Confused? That's probably the idea  So we only need the centre of our flat disc to be magnetic to attract a compass point, the south or outer ring plays no part.


----------



## grav (May 27, 2021)

In the movie Apocalypto, pre-colonial shamans knew exactly when a solar eclipse would take place.
I've also heard that modern astronomy uses ancient records that predict these celestial events.

Full moons occur frequently, which should be impossible in the Copernican model.
If the sun has gone down, the alleged globe blocks the moon's being able to receive light to reflect back to earth. It may be possible for a portion of the moon to be illuminated on one side. But for the entire face to shine limb to limb, the sun must be in front of the moon, where the earth is. I saw a video years ago which purported to demonstrate the effect.
It was a shameful distortion using camera angles that skewed the observer's line of sight.


----------



## Starman (May 27, 2021)

grav said:


> In the movie Apocalypto, pre-colonial shamans knew exactly when a solar eclipse would take place.
> I've also heard that modern astronomy uses ancient records that predict these celestial events.
> 
> Full moons occur frequently, which should be impossible in the Copernican model.
> ...



Quite curious that pre-colonial people knew when solar eclipses would happen.  Also quite curious that there may be ancient records that help modern astronomers make similar predictions.  There may be some hidden information here that has bearing on flat vs. globe realities.  I will do some researching on modern day methods and see if anything makes sense.  You'd think that any formula being used would give evidence of the basis on which the measurement is derived.  If it's not based on orbital mechanics, then we have a gotcha moment.  If it is based on orbs transiting here and there in orbits, then we FEers need to scratch our heads and consider the implications.


----------



## luddite (May 27, 2021)

Last night in Australia and possibly other (less important) continents was a full eclipse. Red blood moon.

Here is a pic and analysis of it. Comments would be more than welcomed.


----------



## luddite (May 27, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> If the moon is supposed to be out during the night how come it appears during the day and there are nights without the moon?


A tidally locked moon doesn't rotate on it's axis, and we always see one side only. Both sides of the globe can see the moon simultaneously during the day and the night. That is because light bends perhaps. The globe earth model can't answer it. Flat earth answers it by having the moon lamp move around in a circle above us.



mega1000 said:


> If the moon is self-illuminating what powers it?


 Are you suggesting it's not self-illuminating? So you see rock reflect light on the ground like a flashlight? Shine a lazer into some basalt rocks and tell us the result. You might be perplexed that they don't glow like the moon. 

From wiki: Mineral composition of mare basalts[18]


 PlagioclasePyroxeneOlivineIlmeniteHigh titanium content30%54%3%18%Low titanium content30%60%5%5%Very low titanium content35%55%8%2%

_Mare basalts_ are named as such because they frequently constitute large portions of the lunar maria. These typically contain 18-21 percent FeO by weight, and 1-13 percent TiO2. They are similar to terrestrial basalts, but have many important differences; for example, mare basalts show a large negative europium anomaly. The type location is Mare Crisium sampled by Luna 24.





mega1000 said:


> How far away and how big is it? Plus who discovered those measurements?


 ]From wiki: The time-averaged distance between Earth and Moon centers is 385,000.6 km (239,228.3 mi). Millimeter-precision measurements of the lunar distance are made by measuring the time taken for light to travel between LIDAR stations on the Earth and retroreflectors placed on the Moon. 

They tell us they use a LieDAR. Kind of self-explanatory. They are laughing all the way to the indoctrination facility and then the debt facility called the bank.


----------



## luddite (May 27, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> Thanks for the help. I have a basic understanding of how the globe and reality works, but I was trying to see if people can explain some basic beliefs they have about the moon.


Please explain 

1. how a orbital body can be tidally locked when all other alleged planets rotate.
2. how someone in Brazil and Finland can both see the moon at the same time - directly above! 1 in daytime and 1 in nightime. 
3. If your answer contains "curved light" due to gravity from something then please demonstrate this close to the earth with a lazer.


----------



## sandokhan (May 27, 2021)

Double forces of attractive gravitation paradox:

https://stolenhistory.net/threads/flat-earth.3724/page-7#post-35779


----------



## luddite (May 27, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> moon is tidally locked by the Earth because Earth's gravity is stronger than the moon's and the fact that the moon is close to Earth compared to the rest of the solar system.


Gravity attracts. It never stops. If what you say is correct then the strength of earth's gravity would, over time and in concert with the moons strong gravity, collide them together. 



mega1000 said:


> self-illuminated why does it go through phases and sometimes go completely dark.


There is no use trying to understand that which is not controlled by us. 





mega1000 said:


> Liedar I find it foolish that someone trying to hide something would throw out a clue to the people its trying to hide it from


Foolish? The lie remains a truth for many. I would say it is wise not foolish.


----------



## Jd755 (May 27, 2021)

I have no idea why people who claim to understand the ball shape theory bother with any theory that counters their knowing. I have no idea what shape the earth has or if it has one or if it needs to have one.
There is a second elephant in the room in regards the globe theory and from a stolen history angle that doesn't require anyone to look at the ceiling in a vain effort to come to know what they are standing on.
Every built structure I have looked into is built to Euclidean geometry. Ignoring whoever is attributed by a manufactured historical record as the builder of these structures and the manufactured range of 'civilisations' and 'times' they get attributed to but instead doing something practical like visiting them, walking on them, in them, around them or if that is beyond people and sadly it seems google earth and google youtube are favoured by many as credible sources, then go to the holiday picture sites like tripadvisor and travel blogs. The latter sources are way more trustworthy than anything googles people control simply because people with cameras are doing the wandering.

Every structure is built to the level and the plumb. If you do not see how this singular demonstrable, checkable practical repeatable fact all by itself blows the illusion of ball theory out of your conscious attention then I don't know what will.
So there are two proofs of a level plane.
Contained water always presents a level surface.
All built structures of whatever historical age are built to Euclidean geometry which only works on the level plane.

These are not proofs in my opinion, they are proofs that anyone, literally anyone can check out for themselves by devising any experience and or experiments they care to dream up


----------



## luddite (May 27, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> It's easy to build on a flat surface of a curved object if the area being smoothed down to be level is very small compared to the size of the globe.
> 
> Here's one question I have for flat earthers.
> 
> In reality the Tropic of Capricorn's distance is 36,788 km (22,859 mi). On the flat Earth the distance is claimed to be greater. What is it's distance?


You just keep introducing new questions that highlight a basic understanding of a broken model. It gets refuted and you introduce another one. I think you are trolling.

The answer is infinite. A circle never ends.


----------



## Jd755 (May 27, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> It's easy to build on a flat surface of a curved object if the area being smoothed down to be level is very small compared to the size of the globe.


A curved surface no matter how big is never level.
A curved surface of a ball is falling away in every single direction from your point of standing.
I get the impression you are not here to investigate anything or further your understanding of the ball earth theory.


----------



## sandokhan (May 27, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> gravity would pull them together



Are you saying that gravity is attractive?

By all means, explain the mechanism. Use general relativity, quantum field theory, whatever is necessary.

What is the attractive mechanism? How do two gravitons attract each other? How does lake Ontario (as an example) remain fixed on the outer surface of a sphere? 

If you do not have a mechanism, you have nothing at all.

You have a graviton emitted by the water molecules of lake Ontario. You have a graviton released by the iron/nickel core of the Earth. How do they attract each other so as to constitute a gravitational pulling force?


----------



## sandokhan (May 27, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> but Einstein's explanation of matter pulling itself together through space/time is what causes it



No.

Einstein never explained how matter affects spacetime.

Dr. Erik Verlinde:

"General Relativity remains just a description of the force we call gravity. It leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time."


Since general relativity is of no help, all physicists must come back to the gravitons (which, incidentally, have been discovered).

Here are the issues facing you.

Please explain how a graviton emitted by a single molecule of water is attracted by a single graviton released by the iron/nickel core.

Have you ever thought about the enormity of this problem?

You have two choices to start with: either gravitons are being emitted continuously by the core, or they were emitted only once as soon as the atoms of iron were created in the stars. If I were to press the matter further and have you explain the origin of the atoms of iron, you'd be left speechless, since you cannot explain the helium gap paradox.

The first option means that there is a continuous loss of mass, not only by the core itself, but by each and every object/body on the surface of the Earth. The second option means you have to explain the incredible stability of these gravitons: five billion years with no loss of energy whatsoever.

Then, you have to explain how those gravitons emitted by the core reach the surface.

It doesn't take long to infer that there must be two kinds of gravitons: an emitting graviton, and a absorbing graviton (one has a vortex which releases energy, the other one has a vortex which receives this energy).

That is, an object on the surface will have to emit gravitons as well as to absorb them: two kinds of particles, with emissive and receptive vortices.

Now, you must explain the nature of these streams/strings of gravitons.

Are these streams fixed or do they move along with the object on the surface of the Earth? Newton's law of gravitation says nothing about density: how would the iron/nickel core know how to release more gravitons if you are standing on top of a mountain, or if you climb on top of something else? You are walking on the surface, the strings of gravitons move along with you. Now, you climb on top of a tank. Due to the density of the materials used for the tank, not as many gravitons will reach you as before. How does the iron/nickel core know how to release more gravitons depending on your whereabouts? Therefore, the streams must be fixed. Then you have a huge problem. These gravitons must reach each and every cell of the body, the blood vessels, everything. Think about it. Since the streams of gravitons are fixed now, it means you will slide along the surface, and have your gravitons being removed from the previous position, while they have to attach themselves to the streams of gravitons to be found in your new position in space. You also have fixed streams of gravitons. How do these wonderful streams/strings of gravitons detach themselves and then assemble together as if nothing happened?

And these are just the start of your woes. Now you have to explain the actual quantum mechanism: what is the nature of the energy which propagates through these graviton vortices?


----------



## luddite (May 27, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> And these are just the start of your woes. Now you have to explain the actual quantum mechanism: what is the nature of the energy which propagates through these graviton vortices?


Stunning and clear! I learnt something there and thank you for that @sandokhan


----------



## wise (May 27, 2021)

Nice to see that Sandokhan teached something. Because, learning something from Sandokhan is more and more harder than understanding the Aether.

Hello everybody. I need to read very things here first, before understanding whats going on here right now.


----------



## Jd755 (May 27, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> I have a good basic understanding of the globe and reality,


Globe and reality, now.


mega1000 said:


> My simple question still stands, how well do you understand the Flat Earth?


Please share your basic understanding of the globe and if it is relevant to this thread your reality.


sandokhan said:


> the gravitons (which, incidentally, have been discovered).


When, where, how?
https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2012/today12-10-19_NutshellReadMore.html


----------



## sandokhan (May 27, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> Gravitons are a hypothesis



Not anymore.

Gravitons = preons = dextrorotatory subquarks

Antigravitons = laevorotatory subquarks = tachyons



> ‘Science’ magazine in February 1996 reported – American researchers have said, they found that collisions between quarks in a particle accelerator were unexpectedly violent. William Carithers, of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, in Batavia, Illinois, told ‘Science’: “This is just the sort of effect you would see if quarks were not fundamental particles, but had some sort of internal structure.”







> Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.” On the 1st March 1997 – in an article in ‘New Scientist’ on page 14 – results from DESY, the German Electron Synchrotron pointed to the existence of what is described as a “leptoquark”. Robin Marshall of the University of Manchester, who was involved in the work, said “The leptoquark is a bizarre object that we don’t understand completely”. Researchers said this “could mean that quarks and leptons are not fundamental particles after all, but are made up of even smaller particles”.





https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.R2521


Has the substructure of quarks been found by the Collider Detector at Fermilab?

Keiichi Akama and Hidezumi Terazawa

Phys. Rev. D 55, R2521(R) – Published 1 March 1997



https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9608279.pdf


http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf99/ps/teraz.pdf


https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9608279.pdf




> You have to explain the significant excess of jet transverse energies which indicate the quark substructure.
> 
> 
> 
> One of the authors (H.T.) also wishes to thank Professor Stanley J. Brodsky and all the other staff members, especially Professors James D. Bjorken and Michael Peskin, of Theoretical Physics Group at Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University not only for their useful discussions on the substructure of quarks but also for their warm hospitalities extended to him during his visit in July, 1996 when this work was completed.





Imagine this: the best quantum physicists in the world, at Stanford and at Fermilab, already have a clear idea of the substructure of quarks.



The Nobel Prize in Physics 1998 (discovery of preons, fractional charges of electrons)



PREONS ARE SUBQUARKS!



https://books.google.ro/books?id=Q8...wQAQ#v=onepage&q=preons are subquarks&f=false


https://books.google.ro/books?id=Yf...kQAQ#v=onepage&q=preons are subquarks&f=false


https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/preons-and-subquarks.945976/


From 1979:



Subquark Model of Leptons and Quarks



https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/11/554/11554108.pdf


page 2: preons or subquarks



Splitting the electron, by B. Daviss, New Scientist, 31 January 1998, p. 36.



Fractionally charged quasiparticles signal their presence with noise, by G. P. Collins, Physics Today, November 1997, p. 17.



"In 1995, the fractional charge of Laughlin quasiparticles was measured directly in a quantum antidot electrometer at Stony Brook University, New York.



In 1997, two groups of physicists at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, and at the Commissariat à l’énergie atomique laboratory near Paris, detected such quasiparticles carrying an electric current, through measuring quantum shot noise."



J. Martin; S. Ilani; B. Verdene; J. Smet; V. Umansky; D. Mahalu; D. Schuh; G. Abstreiter; A. Yacoby (2004). “Localization of Fractionally Charged Quasi Particles”.



Now, the proof from mathematics, that gravitons/antigravitons (subquarks) must exist, using knot theory:



https://cds.cern.ch/record/223258/files/9202054.pdf


Gravitons and Loops



Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin





> The “reality conditions” are realized by an inner product that is chiral asymmetric, resulting in a chiral asymmetric ordering for the Hamiltonian, and, in an asymmetric description of the left and right handed gravitons.
> 
> 
> 
> The first step towards this goal is to recast the Fock description of graviton also in terms of closed loops.





https://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.3552.pdf


Chiral vacuum fluctuations in quantum gravity





> Is made up of the right handed positive frequency of the graviton and the left handed negative frequency of the anti-graviton.





https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/13/643/13643701.pdf


Subquarks-Possibly the Most Fundamental Form of Matter



A model of “subquark pregeometry” in which the graviton is also a composite of a subquark-antisubquark pair: Einstein’s gravity is a quantum effect of matter.



Everything is made of subquarks and every force is due to them.



https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article/64/4/1494/1924776


Magnetic Moments of Composite Leptons and Quarks in a Dynamical Subquark Model



J. Martin; S. Ilani; B. Verdene; J. Smet; V. Umansky; D. Mahalu; D. Schuh; G. Abstreiter; A. Yacoby (2004). “Localization of Fractionally Charged Quasi Particles”.



https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15310895/




> An outstanding question pertaining to the microscopic properties of the fractional quantum Hall effect is understanding the nature of the particles that participate in the localization but that do not contribute to electronic transport. By using a scanning single electron transistor, we imaged the individual localized states in the fractional quantum Hall regime and determined the charge of the localizing particles. Highlighting the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, our measurements show that quasi-particles with fractional charge e* = e/3 localize in space to submicrometer dimensions, where e is the electron charge.





http://yacoby.physics.harvard.edu/P...Fractionally Charged Quasi Particles_2004.pdf




> Our results constitute direct evidence that quasi-particles with charge e/3 localize at
> 
> 1/3 and 2/3. Moreover, our results highlight the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, indicating directly that at 2/3 the quasiparticle charge is e/3.
> 
> ...





“This “electron with a different mass” is called an “electron quasiparticle”.”



It is much easier to access the preons in an electron, than it would be to try the same thing using quarks (protons).



I was able to retrieve the ORIGINAL PAPER PUBLISHED BY FERMILAB IN 1996!



https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/9601008.pdf


No single experimental source of systematic uncertainty can account for the high-ET excess.



The presence of quark substructure could appear as an enhancement of the cross section at high ET .





> Above 200 GeV, the jet cross section is significantly higher than the NLO predictions. The data over the full ET range are very precise. They provide powerful constraints on QCD, and demand a reevaluation of theoretical predictions and uncertainties within and beyond the Standard Model.





https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/2018/conf/fermilab-conf-18-587-cms.pdf


From Fermilab no less!



Tachyons as Dark Energy Quanta





> An electrically-charged tachyon would emit Cherenkov radiation in a vacuum, lose energy and speed up. A tachyon with any value of Γ could be produced with negligible energy, eithersingly in multiparticle production or in pairs if needed to conserve momentum. Any tachyon with weak charge, with any coupling to the Z and/or W-bosons, would be pair-produced e.g. at LEP, spoiling its many precision tests of the Standard Model.





One of the greatest quantum physicists in the world, Dr. Robert Ehrlich, has published several papers on the discovery of tachyons.



https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.00488.pdf


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.2804.pdf


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.09897.pdf


Dr. Robert Ehrlich



Emeritus Physics professor at George Mason University



Ph.D. in physics from Columbia University in 1964 under then future Nobel Laureate Jack Steinberger



Contrary to the belief held by most physicists, a considerable amount of evidence has, in fact, been amassed prior to the KATRIN experiment that one of the neutrinos is a tachyon.



Dr. Robert Ehrlich, PhD Columbia University, worked on the Nobel prize winning experiment “two neutrino” experiment:



https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1988/illpres/hunt.html


KK particle is a tachyon.



https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0607246.pdf


https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1998/press-release/


13 October 1998



The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has awarded the 1998 Nobel Prize in Physics jointly to



Professor Robert B. Laughlin, Stanford University, California, USA,



Professor Horst L. Störmer, Columbia University, New York and Lucent Technologies’ Bell Labs, New Jersey, USA, and



Professor Daniel C. Tsui, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.



The three researchers are being awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering that electrons acting together in strong magnetic fields can form new types of “particles”, with charges that are fractions of electron charges.



Preon-quarkel structure of the electrons:



http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quarter-electrons-may-enable-quantum-computer




> Every science student is taught that the indivisible unit of charge is that of the electron. But 2 years ago, scientists found that charge sometimes shatters into “quasi-particles” that have one-third the fundamental charge. And in this week’s issue of Nature, researchers announce they have spotted one-fifth-charge quasi-particles–a decisive finding suggesting that its time to change any physics textbooks still claiming that electron charge is indivisible.





https://web.archive.org/web/20130621182913/http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/1999/05/19-01.html


More references on preons/particles with fractional charges.



http://sites.science.oregonstate.edu/~ostroveo/COURSES/ph673/Notes/FractionalCharge.pdf


The fractional QHE describes the plateaus where 4is a fraction, the most prominent

occuring at v = 1/3

Tsui, Stormer and Gossard, 1982



Understanding the FQHE requires a radically-new theory. You end up with

fractionally-charged quasiparticles which have been observed!



Quasiparticles have charge v 1/3!!



The fractional charge of the quasiparticle has been checked directly by several clever

experiments.

Goldman and Su, 1995; Saminadayar et al, 1997; de Picciotto et al, 1997



https://phys.org/news/2014-12-electrons-evidence-exotic-behaviors.html


How electrons split: New evidence of exotic behaviors



https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys3172


Our results establish the existence of fractional quasiparticles in the high-energy spectrum of a quasi-two-dimensional antiferromagnet.



https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electron-splits-into-quasiparticles/


In 1996, physicists split an electron into a holon and spinon. Now, van den Brink and his colleagues have broken an electron into an orbiton and a spinon, as reported in Nature today.



https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15721195-400-splitting-the-electron/




> But that pillar seems to be crumbling. Scientists have pushed open a window onto an unexpected world of quantum strangeness in which the electron’s “indivisible” unit of charge can be carved up to make particles carrying one-third or one-fifth of a unit, or even fractions far smaller.




Gertsenshtein-Zeldovich effect

The transformation of an electromagnetic wave into a gravitational wave when the electromagnetic wave propagates through a constant transverse magnetic field.



Inverse GZ effect: the birth of an electromagnetic field under the action of metric perturbation (equivalent of GW action) in the strong magnetic field.



The generated EM wave is a second-order effect (proportional to the square of the amplitude of the GW).





Wave resonance of light and gravitational waves



http://www.jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e_014_01_0084.pdf




Electromagnetic and gravitational waves in a stationary magnetic field



http://jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e_038_04_0652.pdf




Gravitational Hertz experiment with electromagnetic radiation in a strong magnetic field



https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1504/1504.06548.pdf




“Since it has definite energy, the gravitational wave is itself is the source of some additional gravitational field (static g-field). Like the energy producing it, this field is a second-order effect in the h(ik). But in the case of high-frequency gravitational waves the effect is significantly strengthened: the fact that the pseudotensor t^(ik) is quadratic in the derivatives of the hik introduces the large factor λ^(-2). In such a case we may say that the wave itself produces the background field (static g-field) on which it propagates. This [static g] field is conveniently treated by carrying out the averaging described above over regions of four-space with dimensions large compared to λ. Such an averaging smooths out the short-wave “ripple” and leaves the slowly varying background metric (static g-field).”



Landau, L. D. and Lifshitz, E. M. (1975), The Classical Theory of Fields





Field Equations in the Complex Quaternion Spaces



https://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.06182.pdf




Light passing through a strong magnetic field will produce a gravitational wave via wave resonance.







> "EM photons having the same frequency and direction as the GWs and suitable phase matching as the GWs, interact directly with GWs in a magnetic field and produce “detection” EM photons that signal the presence of relic HFGWs (high frequency gravitational waves).
> 
> 
> 
> ...





It is a first-order perturbative photon flux (PPF), proportional to A, not A2."





Perturbative Photon Fluxes Generated by High-Frequency Gravitational Waves and Their Physical Effects



http://www.drrobertbaker.com/docs/Li-Baker 6-22-08.pdf (it includes the peer review data)





Signal Photon Flux and Background Noise in a Coupling Electromagnetic Detecting System for High Frequency Gravitational Waves



http://www.gravwave.com/docs/Li, et al. PRD 09-9-09 .pdf




A New Theoretical Technique for the Measurement of High-Frequency Relic Gravitational Waves



https://www.researchgate.net/public...t_of_High-Frequency_Relic_Gravitational_Waves


http://www.gravwave.com/docs/J. of Mod. Phys 2011.pdf




Searching for high-frequency gravitational waves by ground high field magnetic resonant sweepings



https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.06251.pdf




Ultra-High-Intensity Lasers for Gravitational Wave Generation and Detection



http://www.drrobertbaker.com/docs/AIP; HFGW Laser Generator.pdf




Why LIGO can’t detect HFGWs



http://www.gravwave.com/docs/Why LIGO can't detect HFGWs.pdf




Tesla used gravitational waves (telluric waves) to send signals/information without any cables/wires ("true wireless").



The Value Estimation of an HFGW Frequency Time Standard for Telecommunications Network Optimization



http://www.gravwave.com/docs/AIP; HFGW Telecommunications.pdf




The Utilization of High-Frequency Gravitational Waves for Global Communications



http://www.iiisci.org/Journal/CV$/sci/pdfs/HDM219WH.pdf




High-Frequency Gravitational Wave Induced Nuclear Fusion



http://www.gravwave.com/docs/AIP; HFGW Nuclear Fusion.pdf




http://www.gravwave.com/index_2.html


http://www.gravwave.com/chi_joint_project.htm




GASER: Gravitational-wave Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation



https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0410/0410022.pdf




The Gertsenshtein-Zel'dovich effect can be used to create electron-positron pairs torsion fields (dextrorotatory subquarks-laevorotatory subquarks) out of the ether wave lattice. This torsion field will then act as a shield against the normal flow/propagation of ether waves (gravitational and electromagnetic), forming an invisible ball lightning sphere around the spacecraft.



https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en


Craft using an inertial mass reduction device



https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180229864A1/en


High Frequency Gravitational Wave Generator



Dr. Salvatore Cezar Pais

Naval Air War Center Aircraft Division



Both patents are very well written and documented (rivalising with the best patents published by N. Tesla or by T. Townsend Brown).



https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJSPACESE.2015.075910


https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2017-01-2040/




http://www.drrobertbaker.com/docs/Aerospace HFGW Applications.pdf


http://vixra.org/pdf/1311.0132v3.pdf (Gravitational Wave Generator via Tokamak Physics)



[PDF] Gravitational Wave (GW) Radiation Pattern at the Focus of a High-Frequency GW (HFGW) Generator and Aerospace Applications | Semantic Scholar (Gravitational Wave (GW) Radiation Pattern at the Focus of a High-Frequency GW (HFGW) Generator and Aerospace Applications)



https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.02443.pdf (HFGW/laser plasma interaction)



https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6148.pdf (Electromagnetic and gravitational radiation from the coherent oscillation of electron-positron pairs and fields)



The nuclear fusion tokamak uses a similar design to create/produce electron-positron pairs from the ether wave structure which permeates all of space.





"The patent application for a “Plasma Compression Fusion Device” was just published on September 26 after being lodged on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy back on March 22, 2019. The inventor is Dr. Salvator Pais, who works at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division and has previously lodged other patents on behalf of the Navy:"



(Craft using an inertial mass reduction device)

(High Frequency Gravitational Wave Generator)





> At present there are few envisioned fusion reactors/devices that come in a small, compact package (ranging from 0.3 to 2 meters in diameter) and typically they use different versions of plasma magnetic confinement. Three such devices are the Lockheed Martin (LM) Skunk Works Compact Fusion Reactor (LM-CFR), the EMC2 Polywell fusion concept, and the Princeton Field-Reversed Configuration (PFRC) machine. These devices feature short plasma confinement times, possible plasma instabilities with the scaling of size, and it is questionable whether they have the ability of achieving the break-even fusion condition, let alone a self-sustained plasma burn leading to ignition.
> 
> 
> 
> The plasma compression fusion device utilizes controlled motion of electrically charged matter via accelerated vibration and/or accelerated spin subjected to smooth yet rapid acceleration-deceleration-acceleration transients, in order to generate extremely high energy/high intensity electromagnetic fields. These fields not only confine the plasma core but also greatly compress it (by inducing a high energy negative potential well) so as to produce a high power density plasma burn, leading to ignition."





Dr. Salvatore Cezar Pais

Naval Air War Center Aircraft Division



https://patents.google.com/patent/U...r=Salvatore+Pais&oq=inventor:(Salvatore+Pais)


"It is claimed in the patent application that this plasma compression fusion device is capable of producing power in the gigawatt (1 billion watts) to terawatt (1 trillion watts) range and above with input power only in the kilowatt (1,000 watts) to megawatt (1,000,000 watts) range."



In a significant breakthrough, Dr. Salvatore Pais' paper on double torsion technology applied to portable fusion devices has been published by a major and prestigious mainstream scientific journal.



https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8871349


The Plasma Compression Fusion Device—Enabling Nuclear Fusion Ignition

Publisher: IEEE



November 2019 (Vol 47, Issue 11), IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)





> The plasma compression fusion device (PCFD) generates the energy gain by plasma compression-induced nuclear fusion. This concept has the capability of maximizing the product of plasma pressure and energy confinement time to maximize the energy gain, and thus give rise to fusion ignition conditions. The preferred embodiment of this original concept uses a hollow cross-duct configuration of circular cross section in which the concentrated magnetic energy flux from two pairs of opposing curved-headed counter-spinning conical structures (possibly made from an alloy of tungsten with high capacitance) whose outer surfaces are electrically charged compresses a gaseous mixture of fusion fuel into a plasma, heated to extreme temperatures and pressures.





The PCFD concept can produce power in the gigawatt to terawatt range (and higher) with input power in the kilowatt to megawatt range.



Dr. Pais' other major paper was also published in a mainstream scientific journal:



https://www.scribd.com/document/408469834/High-Frequency-Gravitational-Waves-Induced-Propulsion2017


https://saemobilus.sae.org/content/2017-01-2040


----------



## grav (May 27, 2021)

1. Why would THEY lie to us? 
Greed. Fear. And mind control. I don't know if there's a thread about MKULTRA and other CIA methods that turn people into mass murderers and other psychopaths. Call me crazy, but I do think that archons are real. The devil made me do it. Oh, yes. That's no excuse, of course, but we've seen many many examples of ordinary people who have done extraordinarily evil acts.

What about shills? Do they do their dirty deeds because, meh, the Control System cannot be defeated, so I may as well work for the winning team. Like this guy, who probably posts incognito on forums. I'm not saying he posts here. Or am I?

*Mick West - Wikipedia*

en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Mick_West
Mick West is a British-American science writer, skeptical investigator, and retired video game programmer. He is the creator of the websites Contrail Science and Metabunk, and he investigates and debunks ... Skepticism career · Websites · Escaping the Rabbit Hole

2. the moon
Back in the 60s a scientist told a news reporter that there was NO DOUBT that the moon was a plasma phenomenon. I guess the sun is another form of it.
Where, how? Maybe ionized noble gases which are illuminated like string lights we see in Las Vegas signs and Christmas decorations.

There is NO way a physicist or astronomer can honestly think the moon is a rock that hovers above the spinning, vortexing globe. In their case, they lie because of the 4 p's: paycheck, pension, prestige, avoiding pushing up pansies.


----------



## E.Bearclaw (May 27, 2021)

grav said:


> 2. the moon
> Back in the 60s a scientist told a news reporter that there was NO DOUBT that the moon was a plasma phenomenon. I guess the sun is another form of it.
> Where, how? Maybe ionized noble gases which are illuminated like string lights we see in Las Vegas signs and Christmas decorations.
> 
> There is NO way a physicist or astronomer can honestly think the moon is a rock that hovers above the spinning, vortexing globe. In their case, they lie because of the 4 p's: paycheck, pension, prestige, avoiding pushing up pansies.



Whilst I would err towards the moon being a plasma phenomenon (based upon personal observations during personal experiments with expanded consciousness). I have searched for information on this particular scientist, and his theories, and cannot find it anywhere. His confidence is compelling. Are you aware of anything?

They do a bit of a deep dive into him here, although it yields nothing further. Either he never existed or his works have been completely redacted.

PLASMA MOON SCIENTIST 1965

I guess he could be covered up, and probably most likely as his narrative runs very counter to the moon is thing like NASA says narrative, and he does refer to experiments that prove this. Possibly they would be repeatable? However, without the evidence the video suffers from a lack of proof. 

Does anyone have any ideas on how one could scientifically prove the moon to be plasma? If Robert Foster could, it should be possible right?


----------



## sandokhan (May 27, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> When, where, how?
> Fermilab Today



Now, even more direct proofs for the existence of gravitons/antigravitons.

Gravitational fields consist of gravitons.

Proof comes from a mainstream paper:


High Frequency Gravitational Waves - Induced Propulsion2017  | Field (Physics) | Electromagnetic Radiation

SAE MOBILUS



> "Electromagnetic (EM) radiation, caused by accelerating electrically charged objects, when passed through a static magnetic field (of constant magnetic flux density) gives rise to gravitational waves at the same frequency with the EM radiation. This phenomenon is known as the Gertsenshtein Effect.





> Artificially generated, high energy, electromagnetic fields can interact strongly with the local Vacuum energy state, an aggregate/collective state comprised of the superposition of all fluctuations in the collective of quantum fields (including EM and gravitational fields, among others) permeating a given spacetime locality. According to quantum field theory, this strong interaction between the fields is based on the mechanism of transfer of vibrational energy between the fields, further inducing local fluctuations in adjacent quantum fields which permeate that spacetime locality (these fields may or may not be electromagnetic in nature).





> Think of the local Vacuum energy state as the collective energy state(structure) comprised of the ground state of minimum energy (baseline fluctuations) that is the quantum vacuum, and the excited state of energy (induced fluctuations) generated by matter or any other source of energy in that spacetime locality. According to quantum field theory, matter, energy, spacetime are emergent constructs which arise out of a foundational structure, the fundamental framework which is the Vacuum energy state.





> These extremely *high graviton production rates* further show that if multiple high power, high frequency gravitational waves were to be focused on a particular point in a spacetime locality, they can induce a spacetime curvature singularity, namely a “highly distorted and disrupted patch of spacetime fabric”."



Dr. Salvatore Pais
NAWCAD [Naval Air War Center Aircraft Division]




https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0009291.pdf

An Explanation on Negative Mass-Square of Neutrinos



> The square of the neutrino mass is measured in tritium beta decay experiments by fitting the shape of the beta spectrum near endpoint. In many experiments, it has been found to be negative.



https://cds.cern.ch/record/466273/files/0009291.pdf



> It has been known for many years that the measured mass-square of neutrino exhibits significantly negative value.



http://fizika.hfd.hr/fizika_b/bv02/b11p049.pdf



> Interesting enough, the pion decay experiment also obtained a negative value for the muon neutrinos [5], m^2(νµ)=(−0.016 ± 0.023) MeV^2.




https://cds.cern.ch/record/294413/files/SCAN-9601133.pdf (pg 29)



The next equation, (36), is also negative; however, the authors have also refused to accept that the muon neutrino has negative/imaginary mass (a tachyon). Simply put, the scientists involved in the experiment refused to accept its outcome.




Causality and Locality in Modern Physics

Dr. Erasmo Recami:

Classical tachyons and possible applications

Classical tachyons and possible applications : a review



The unification of electromagnetism and gravity was taken to an even higher level by Dr. M.E. Gertsenshtein and by Dr. Y.B. Zel'dovich:

Wave resonance of light and gravitational waves

http://www.jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e_014_01_0084.pdf

Electromagnetic and gravitational waves in a stationary magnetic field

http://jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e_038_04_0652.pdf

GERTSENSHTEIN-ZEL'DOVICH EFFECT: GRAVITON-PHOTON CONVERSION

This is pure ELECTROGRAVITY.

The transformation of an electromagnetic wave into a gravitational wave when the electromagnetic wave propagates through a constant transverse magnetic field.

Inverse GZ effect: the birth of an electromagnetic field under the action of metric perturbation (equivalent of GW action) in the strong magnetic field.

The Gertsenshtein-Zel'dovich effect can be used to create electron-positron pairs torsion fields (dextrorotatory subquarks-laevorotatory subquarks) out of the ether wave lattice.




> It is a feature of the present invention to provide a method and apparatus for generating an impenetrable defensive shield to Sea and Land as well as Space-based military and civilian assets, protecting these assets from such threats as Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles, Radar Evading Cruise Missiles, Top Attack for Main Battle Tanks (land and sea based systems), as well as counteracting the effects of solar-induced Coronal Mass Ejections or defending critical military satellites in an ASAT role (space based system).



US10135366B2 - Electromagnetic field generator and method to generate an electromagnetic field          - Google Patents

The scientist behind the HEEMFG works at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) on advanced technology concepts. On two occasions, Dr. James Sheehy, the Chief Technology Officer of the Naval Aviation Enterprise, a US Navy affiliated organization, has intervened on behalf of Dr. Pais’ patent applications deeming them “operable” .


----------



## FarewellAngelina (May 27, 2021)

I would like to point out that after Isaac Newton formulated his theory of gravity  , which predicted that the earth must be an oblate sphere , The French Academy of Science tasked Giovanni Cassini with carrying out a scientific geometric survey of degrees of latitude along an arc of longitude across France in order to test this novel idea . Degrees of latitude are simple to measure using the star Polaris .

Newtons theory predicted that degrees of latitude would lengthen towards the pole since the light rays from that star come in parallel since the star is very ,very, very far away . If the earth was perfect sphere ( prevailing view at that time ) then each degree of latitude would be equidistant apart. Simple premise that uses no assumptions - other than the stars being very,very very far away- but will provide empirical evidence of the shape of earth.

The survey took several years and Cassinis' results brought the "age of reason" to a halt. He found that latitude actually shortened towards the pole . Over 8+ degrees across France that degrees of latitude shortened northward by a factor of about 1/800. 

This meant that the earth was neither an oblate or perfect sphere . His results were checked as correct by other astronomers of the time. If the earth was flat and the pole star was not very,very, very, far away then that empirical evidence would fit that model although the theorists could not consider that possibility.

Huge controversy ensued , theorists on Newtons side and real practical scientists on the other . Of course the theorists , with all their power and control waited many years till after Cassini died and gradually managed to shove real science aside . It's all worth researching although getting harder to find info on t'web. 

Sandokhan has pointed out already that Prof Maurice Allais and his empirical experiments did once again destroy the currently held gravitational view of the cosmos.

Any mention of gravity makes my eyes glaze over . Theoretical science based on globe theory can only ever be imaginary .


grav said:


> 1. Why would THEY lie to us?
> Greed. Fear. And mind control. I don't know if there's a thread about MKULTRA and other CIA methods that turn people into mass murderers and other psychopaths. Call me crazy, but I do think that archons are real. The devil made me do it. Oh, yes. That's no excuse, of course, but we've seen many many examples of ordinary people who have done extraordinarily evil acts.
> 
> What about shills? Do they do their dirty deeds because, meh, the Control System cannot be defeated, so I may as well work for the winning team. Like this guy, who probably posts incognito on forums. I'm not saying he posts here. Or am I?
> ...


Sorry for being pedantic Grav but theres 6p's in that little sentence.


----------



## Jd755 (May 27, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> Now, even more direct proofs for the existence of gravitons/antigravitons.
> 
> Gravitational fields consist of gravitons.
> 
> ...





> *Abstract*
> 
> *It may be possible* to generate high power / high frequency gravitational waves (HFGWs) by high frequency accelerated axial rotation (spin) and/or accelerated high frequency vibration of an electrically charged, possibly asymmetric structure, within the context of non-equilibrium thermodynamics, namely far-from-equilibrium physics, highly non-linear in nature.
> The structure which is the HFGW generator (HFGWG), has the ability to control the accelerated modes of vibration and spin of its electrically charged surfaces, in particular the rapid rates of change of accelerated-decelerated-accelerated vibration and/or accelerated-decelerated-accelerated gyration (axial spin) of these electrified surfaces, in this manner delaying the onset of relaxation to thermodynamic equilibrium, thus generating a physical mechanism which may induce anomalous effects. Under certain conditions, involving rapid acceleration transients, it is observed that there will be exponential growth in electromagnetic energy flux with accelerating vibration. In the present paper, high power HFGWs are generated by enabling the Gertsenshtein effect, that is gravitational wave production by propagating electromagnetic radiation through strong magnetic fields.
> ...



I*t* is a theoretical paper.based on more theoretical paper.


----------



## sandokhan (May 27, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> I*t* is a theoretical paper.based on more theoretical paper.



So, why aren't gravitational waves (and therefore gravitons) being detected all over the place, in many labs around the world?

Because physicists are using the wrong formula.

It is one of the most interesting and least known facets of modern physics. It had everything to do with the reason why A. Gullstrand did not award Einstein the Nobel prize for general relativity.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194405#msg2194405


> In Newtonian gravity, the two-body problem has a well-defined compact analytic solution. However, in general relativity, the problem is recognized that it cannot be solved analytically. However, many believed that the two-body problem could be solved in the perturbation approach. Their confidence is based on that the linearized Einstein equation has a bounded dynamic solution.





> For the dynamic case when gravitational waves are involved, it has been proven in 1995 that the Einstein equation does not have any bounded dynamic solution. This has far reaching consequences.





> Thus, Einstein is wrong in claiming his calculation of the perihelion of Mercury is valid, but Gullstrand, Chairman (1922-1929) of the Nobel Prize Committee for Physics is right who suspected that Einstein‘s calculation is invalid because it cannot be derived from the approach of a solution for many-body problems.



Advanced Flat Earth Theory (superb analysis)

Advanced Flat Earth Theory (excellent analysis, including field equations)


*Binary Pulsar Gravitational Waves*

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2229278#msg2229278


> The Einstein equation cannot have a bounded dynamic solution for a two-body problem or gravitational wave solutions; and the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsars experiments actually support the modified Einstein equation.
> 
> Einstein claimed in his 1923 Nobel lecture that his considerations led to the theory of gravity, which yields the Newtonian theory as a first approximation, as well as yielding the motion of the perihelion of Mercury, the deflection of light by the sun.





> In so doing, he did not respond to those questions raised by Gullstrand on the perihelion of Mercury. In particular, he failed to show the existence of a bounded dynamic solution, whose existence is crucial for the perturbation approach to calculate the perihelion of Mercury. However, The Nobel Prize Committee, well known for its cautious attitude, would not have changed its opinion based on Einstein’s statements alone; Gullstrand would have to have been proven wrong mathematically.



A paper by T. Levi-Civita in 1917, one of the inventors of Tensor Calculus, showing that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is nonsense because it leads to the requirement for a first-order, intrinsic, differential invariant, which, as is well known to the pure mathematicians, does not exist:

Wayback Machine


----------



## Skydog (May 27, 2021)

I started watching Ewaranon’s most recent LHFE video again this morning (for 3rd time) on YT and noticed commercials were added in for the first time.

Ewaranon has said that he would never monetize his channel. So YT clearly must have added them in without his consent to piss off his viewers. And the commercials were about the secret to picking up women of all things. Probably selected to distract what YT perceives to be his target audience. 

I just tried to pull up the episode again now to finish watching it and low and behold - YT wiped his account clean of all his videos.

Thank god for bitchute and odysee (for now) 

FUYT


----------



## dreamtime (May 27, 2021)

Skydog said:


> I started watching Ewaranon’s most recent LHFE video again this morning (for 3rd time) on YT and noticed commercials were added in for the first time.
> 
> Ewaranon has said that he would never monetize his channel. So YT clearly must have added them in without his consent to piss off his viewers. And the commercials were about the secret to picking up women of all things. Probably selected to distract what YT perceives to be his target audience.
> 
> ...



Youtube has announced a couple months ago they will add ads to small channels.



> The Google-owned video-sharing platform is giving itself some additional space to profit from the content it hosts. Once the updated rules come into force in June, YouTube will start putting ads on channels that have too few subscribers and views to qualify for its Partner Program, a mechanism that allows owners of bigger channels to monetize popularity by splitting ad revenue with the platform.



https://www.rt.com/news/524549-youtube-monetization-rules-creators/
But indeed his channel videos are gone: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCy6EQBAe0M7lsrFjGPbKQhg/videos

Probably deleted by the owner, though.


----------



## Citezenship (May 27, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> The moon is tidally locked by the Earth because Earth's gravity is stronger than the moon's and the fact that the moon is close to Earth compared to the rest of the solar system. I don't know if other moons have rotation around their planets.
> 
> As far as the moon being self-illuminated why does it go through phases and sometimes go completely dark.
> 
> If you someone is suggesting that Lidar which means, Light Detection and Ranging, a form of laser used to measure things and see through foliage, Liedar I find it foolish that someone trying to hide something would throw out a clue to the people its trying to hide it from.


Although it is kind of the same humour that writes(spells) the word corp-oratiion, or, dead, talking one could say but it really is no joke.


----------



## MadIrishman (May 27, 2021)

Has anyone explored the crater earth hypothesis and that the moon is actually the reflection of the greater earth? I am not convinced the earth is flat, however after seeing the video of the rocket suddenly stopping vertical motion at 73mi. I became certain the historical space narrative is incorrect.


----------



## Jd755 (May 27, 2021)

MadIrishman said:


> Has anyone explored the crater earth hypothesis and that the moon is actually the reflection of the greater earth? I am not convinced the earth is flat, however after seeing the video of the rocket suddenly stopping vertical motion at 73mi. I became certain the historical space narrative is incorrect.


https://stolenhistory.net/search/58965/?q=concave&o=relevance
Edit to add;



kd-755 said:


> When, where, how?
> Fermilab Today





sandokhan said:


> So, why aren't gravitational waves (and therefore gravitons) being detected all over the place, in many labs around the world?
> 
> Because physicists are using the wrong formula.


I have noticed you do this all the time. Ignore simple requests for evidence in support of claim and then pose a question of your own and give yourself another opportunity to post shed loads of links.


----------



## sandokhan (May 27, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> I have noticed you do this all the time. Ignore simple requests for evidence in support of claim and then pose a question of your own and give yourself another opportunity to post shed loads of links.



Nope.

You came up with the Fermilab article. I responded with the state-of-the-art experiments carried out by the U.S. Navy which rely exactly on the Gertsenshtein-Zeldovich effect (conversion of photons to gravitons). You think the person who wrote that article has any knowledge of the Gertsenshtein-Zeldovich effect?

Then, I came up with the scientific papers which do prove the existence of tachyons (antigravitons).

Yet, you are not happy.

I even offered the correct formula to be used in gravitational wave experiments, using copious bibliographical sources.


----------



## Jd755 (May 27, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> Nope.
> 
> You came up with the Fermilab article. I responded with the state-of-the-art experiments carried out by the U.S. Navy which rely exactly on the Gertsenshtein-Zeldovich effect (conversion of photons to gravitons). You think the person who wrote that article has any knowledge of the Gertsenshtein-Zeldovich effect?
> 
> ...


I owe you an apology. On another thread on here somewhere  I promised I would not  bother you again and I simply. forgot I had made that promise. Please forgive me.


----------



## sandokhan (May 27, 2021)

More proofs for you.


US20190058105A1 - Piezoelectricity-induced Room Temperature Superconductor          - Google Patents

The Navy’s Chief Technical Officer of the Naval Aviation Enterprise, Dr. James Sheehy, intervened on behalf of Dr. Pais at the US Patent and Trademark Office:



> I am familiar with the above referenced patent application (and related amendment), as well as the development, usage and properties of the piezoelectricity-induced room temperature superconductor. That as a result of my education and career, I am regarded as a subject matter expert and can be considered “a person of ordinary skill in the art” in the subject matter of the above patent application.





> That the invention described in the above referenced patent application is *operable* and enabled via the physics described in the patent application and the peered reviewed paper described in the Inventor Amendment.








> 2…. Dr. Pais is currently funded by NAWCAD [Naval Air War Center Aircraft Division] to design a test article instrumentation to demonstrate the experimental feasibility of achieving high electromagnetic (EM) field-energy and flux values… He is currently one year into the project and has already begun a series of experiments to design and demonstrate advanced High energy Density / High Power propulsion systems.



(letter dated December 15, 2017, by Dr. James Sheehy, the Chief Technology Officer for the Naval Aviation Enterprise)



US10144532B2 - Craft using an inertial mass reduction device          - Google Patents


High Frequency Gravitational Waves - Induced Propulsion2017  | Field (Physics) | Electromagnetic Radiation

SAE MOBILUS



> These extremely *high graviton production rates* further show that if multiple high power, high frequency gravitational waves were to be focused on a particular point in a spacetime locality, they can induce a spacetime curvature singularity, namely a “highly distorted and disrupted patch of spacetime fabric”.



Why do I go to these lengths to prove my point?



kd-755 said:


> I*t* is a theoretical paper.based on more theoretical paper.



Experimental as well: the Chief Technology Officer for the Naval Aviation Enterprise calls the Gertsenshtein-Zeldovich effect (conversion of photons to gravitons) "operable".


----------



## Starman (May 28, 2021)

dreamtime said:


> But indeed his channel videos are gone: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCy6EQBAe0M7lsrFjGPbKQhg/videos
> 
> Probably deleted by the owner, though.



Here is a quote from Ewaranon from his Gab account today:
_
"Sorry to post this here guys. It isn't FE related. But ergh. Lost all views and comments. Over pretty much nothing. And it's such a shame because there were so many kind comments. I'm working to get vids back up. They will be back don't worry."_

https://gab.com/Ewaranon/posts/106308808227574347


----------



## sandokhan (May 28, 2021)

Want to know if the Earth is flat or a globe?

Take your bathroom scale outside and step on it.

If it registers your weight + 2,000 pounds of weight, you are on a globe.

However, if it registers your weight only, you most definitely are on a flat surface of the Earth.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2037796#msg2037796

Advanced Flat Earth Theory (standard atmosphere value for a column of water paradox)

Advanced Flat Earth Theory (part II)

Advanced Flat Earth Theory (part III)


----------



## Jd755 (May 28, 2021)

So where to from here, what is here?
Here is for me the two proofs the earth is not a ball.
The behaviour of contained water and the built environment of Euclidean geometry are all it takes as each is easily tested, demonstrated and repeatable.

With that is my frame of reference it makes sense to me to continue down the physical practical demonstrable road. Theoretical mathematical language,the macro and micro world that are only be reached by machines are of no use.

As the ocean is contained there should be a container edge a upturned lip if you like over which the water cannot progress. It would make sense to seek out this container lip but where and how to look for it and what am I going to look for as in would I recognise it as such?
Water is contained by all manner of constraint. Pour some water onto a level surface and it will form up unto pools or puddles without there being a physical container. It's own volume is sufficient to limit it and keep it in place until more water is added, or it evaporates or the level surface moves.

This could be describing the ocean. It has no physical edge to keep it contained just a volume that evaporates and can re-condense and flow down the bumpy land on a level plane. This would mean the level plane continues beyond the 'ocean puddle'. Seems too fantastic. It is not a theory just a suggestion.
Perhaps the tides may show something.

Where I live there are two tides per day. I can sit down by a sea/dock wall and watch the water move over the mudflats relentlessly as the tide flows in. If its a calm day it simply flows gently across the entire mudflat in all directions powered it seems by the volume of water behind the front edge being pushed by something I know not what.
No waves just a gentle movement and as the water enters dips and gullies it speeds up and fills them. Once the level surface has been regained it moves on. If the wind is blowing it whips up a foamy wavy surface but the movement of the water is exactly the same just more violent depending on direction and strength of the wind. Currents are clearly visible in this moving body of contained water as the mudflats and gullies set them up it seems to me.
The water that originally filled the gully does not stay there it is constantly being replaced for as long as the tide is flowing in in the same way the water in a whirlpool is constantly changing.

At high tide there is a period of rest when the water no longer flows in and doesn't begin to flow out. The ending of the flow is imperceptible to my eyes as is the beginning of the ebb.The dock water on the other side of the sea wall is not affected in the slightest by this tidal movement.

Is this indicative of the ocean being contained not by a physical container but simply by its own own volume?
If so what is pushing the tide in and how does the push stop then seemingly disappear?

The trouble with engaging with reality on the human scale as I do each and every day, as it is all I have, the contemplation of all that is instantly becomes fantastic.


----------



## grav (May 29, 2021)

Gravity waves are ........ what?
They stick in my craw, for one thing.
My full name is Auntie Grav, your friendly neighborhood skeptic of modern science.
Gravitons are also .. what? Bosons and all the other jargon are, imo, language intended to distort and disguise what physicists really know.

There are beaucoups of videos showing small anti-gravity devices with superconductors. So, sure, matter can be manipulated by altering density. Tibetan monks have been reported to levitate yuuge boulders up mountains with sound waves from large musical instruments.

Would that mystical technology constitute gravity waves?

My point is this: modern science, especially tech belonging to military agencies, is 100% owned and operated by freemasons. They obfuscate, weaponize, and utterly distort all true information so that the public can never know what the hell is going on.

Sandokhan has pasted many examples of this diabolical methodology
Hypothetical gibberish. They take truth hostage, then kill it, then bury it in a fancy coffin.
Newton and Einstein, for example. Did they really discover or surmise "laws" regarding gravity, motion, relativity, etc.? Or were they chosen to be mouthpieces of Big Brother's control system? duh.

If true and simplified science were made available to the sheeple, we would all have free energy, flying cars, and peace of earth. That must never be allowed.


----------



## veeall (May 29, 2021)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Newtons theory predicted that degrees of latitude would lengthen towards the pole since the light rays from that star come in parallel since the star is very ,very, very far away . If the earth was perfect sphere ( prevailing view at that time ) then each degree of latitude would be equidistant apart. Simple premise that uses no assumptions - other than the stars being very,very very far away- but will provide empirical evidence of the shape of earth.
> 
> The survey took several years and Cassinis' results brought the "age of reason" to a halt. He found that latitude actually shortened towards the pole . Over 8+ degrees across France that degrees of latitude shortened northward by a factor of about 1/800.
> 
> ...



That's good to know. I was playing with the idea that in flat earth model, with closer North Star, latitudes cannot be at the equal increments. It spoiled the FE model, now, the above info points to just another cover-up.

Are north to south distances on our maps likewise distorted, by the same rate as lengths between latitudes are equalized?
"Over 8+ degrees across France" - Does this mean over 8x60 miles across France?, one degree being about 60 nautical miles.

And with latitudes lengthening toward the equator (or south), the same has to do the degree and the true unit of a mile - once being consisted of one minute of a degree of latitude.

Mainstream view is that while varying slightly the length between the latitudes is roughly 60 Nmiles.


----------



## Starman (May 30, 2021)

Video from May 25 with David Weiss talking to some young globe heads.  He's pretty good at hanging in there and challenging their thought process:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxJM-JYk9U8_


----------



## FarewellAngelina (May 30, 2021)

veeall said:


> That's good to know. I was playing with the idea that in flat earth model, with closer North Star, latitudes cannot be at the equal increments. It spoiled the FE model, now, the above info points to just another cover-up.
> 
> Are north to south distances on our maps likewise distorted, by the same rate as lengths between latitudes are equalized?
> "Over 8+ degrees across France" - Does this mean over 8x60 miles across France?, one degree being about 60 nautical miles.
> ...


Nice to see your interest.

The survey covered around 570mls from Perpignan in the south to Dunkerque in the north - over 8+ degrees of latitude as scientifically measured form the pole star.

The nautical mile ( knot ) is an imaginary measure based on globe theory supposed to be equal to 1/360 of the globes circumference . The idea of the equator being 0 degrees is also arbitrary based on the globe theory and is not based on measurement from the pole star.

This survey has to be covered up to protect the globe theory . I think distances overland on our maps must be pretty accurate since it's straightforward to triangulate these. 

You are correct that latitudes cannot be of equal increments - also the pole star cannot be at a silly distance . When I have more time I will give some more info if you require some . Must dash , sorry


----------



## veeall (May 30, 2021)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Nice to see your interest.
> 
> The survey covered around 570mls from Perpignan in the south to Dunkerque in the north - over 8+ degrees of latitude as scientifically measured form the pole star.
> 
> ...


I've read somewhere from the internet that a nautical mile was originally an unfixed unit of a minute of a degree of latitude, measured relating to the North Star using navigational sextant. Wikipedia explains that latitudes are measured in relation to the center of the globe which makes them all equal, but i cannot imagine how a navigator could practically find the center of the earth for determining the latitude.

So do our latitudes as given by GPS coincide with the readings of a sextant with the North Star? Googl brings up the definite yes answer, but it couldn't be true if the world isn't a globe. Or maybe latitudes coincide, while actual distances between them differ, ie how the cover-up would be achieved, what data is forged? The factor of 1/800 doesn't seem much, has anyone calculated how far the North Star has to be to produce such difference, assuming the earth to be flat?

Did Cassini measured the North Star from the sea level, or on what altitude? I guess it can change the outcome, if stars are actually nearer to earth.

When you have time, i would welcome your info.

Here, the proportions of France on the maps of (one of) Cassinis seem stretched.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170515024529/http://www.cartocassini.org/cartecassini/france.htm


----------



## Skydog (May 30, 2021)

I’m pretty intrigued by Ewaranon’s clocklike version of the FE model given the source (our moon), the incorporation of the precession of the equinoxes, the Latin cross, nobility version of the crescent moon, temporary ice wall as well as many other SH aspects we are so familiar with here.

For example, all of the old glorious / impossible architecture could be from the last time the sun and moon were above our current known section of the larger realm. Granted that would have been many thousands of years ago under the ~25k great year model. However, it would have been frozen in time as the sun and moon would have moved on to the other sections of the realm in between. Partially explaining why the old population is nowhere to be found and many other aspects of the mud flooded buildings all over the show.

Questions for those smarter than me:

1) Do the northern / southern celestial hemispheres make sense in Ewaranon’s model? Or does perspective make this a mute point anyways?

2) Does the position of the North Star / Polaris make sense in his model when viewed from the outside areas in our known plane in the Southern Hemisphere?

Keep in mind the map includes the sunken continent Lumeria on our known section/plane - so doesn’t immediately register that it’s similar to the FE maps most of us are familiar with.


----------



## sandokhan (May 30, 2021)

Skydog said:


> 1) Do the northern / southern celestial hemispheres make sense in Ewaranon’s model? Or does perspective make this a mute point anyways?
> 
> 2) Does the position of the North Star / Polaris make sense in his model when viewed from the outside areas in our known plane in the Southern Hemisphere?



If you want to make sense of Ewaranon's FE model, you must find out what map he is using. Is it the unipolar or the bipolar map?


----------



## veeall (May 30, 2021)

Starman said:


> Had a full moon eclipse last night in Hawaii.  Dark and brooding moon it was. Dark blood red.
> 
> Am wondering about an explanation for lunar and solar eclipses in the FE model.  It appears that globalists use some kind of orbital mechanical calculations to accurately forecast eclipses into the future.  That is amazing on the face of it.  How is that done??
> 
> ...



Here, some insight into periodicity of the eclipses and all. The gears of heaven, if true.
https://archive.org/details/alex_gl...en__is_the_earth_a_globe.o/page/n265/mode/2up


----------



## FarewellAngelina (May 30, 2021)

veeall said:


> I've read somewhere from the internet that a nautical mile was originally an unfixed unit of a minute of a degree of latitude, measured relating to the North Star using navigational sextant. Wikipedia explains that latitudes are measured in relation to the center of the globe which makes them all equal, but i cannot imagine how a navigator could practically find the center of the earth for determining the latitude.
> 
> So do our latitudes as given by GPS coincide with the readings of a sextant with the North Star? Googl brings up the definite yes answer, but it couldn't be true if the world isn't a globe. Or maybe latitudes coincide, while actual distances between them differ, ie how the cover-up would be achieved, what data is forged? The factor of 1/800 doesn't seem much, has anyone calculated how far the North Star has to be to produce such difference, assuming the earth to be flat?
> 
> ...


Like that definition of latitude - not come across that before - fits in with FE ok . Wikipedia is basically a poile of shoite when it comes to science . There is a group who call themselves "Guerilla skeptics" who believe it is their right to alter any info which disagrees with the mainstream globe con. 
That Cassinis measurements have never been refuted speaks volumes to me. Now we have latitude defined from the centre of earth according ti wiki - had to smile at that one.

  Cassini mapped France at the bequest of King Louis the parasite around 1650's if I recall correctly . Surveyed from Paris to Brest ,E to W and found the distance  about 20% less than thought at the time . Shrunk the old parasites domain .

He mapped all his survey results onto a map painted onto the floor of a tower at the French Academy . As he went blind later c1700 his map was then copied - called the Cassini/Nolin planisphere.


Nolin was a globe advocate and he altered the lines of latitude to suit his globe model - latitude lengthening toward the N pole . Usual globe treachery imo . 

I'd like to see the Gleason map with latitudes taken from the N pole and lengthening southward.  Is there anyone out there that can do this.

It's difficult to get the whole story in one place but these three books give a good account between them 
Full Meridian of Glory - Murdin
The Mapmakers Wife - Whitaker
Smoot's Ear - forget the author.

All written by mainstream science believers but give a good view of the science involved and the subterfuge too.

It is straight forward to account for elevation in plane survey  , starting from a measured level baseline .


----------



## Jd755 (May 30, 2021)

uk_qanon on twitter till mid summer last year when he got banned.


​
aka ewaranon who recently pulled everything save his instagram account

https://www.instagram.com/ewar.anon/


Well some character using the handle Rebel Lyon 369 is busy uploading ewaranon videos.



https://www.bitchute.com/channel/HuL4x2ulPtIH/




His logo and one from some other entity. But is probably just a coincidence





I'll leave this here.



​


----------



## Skydog (May 30, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> If you want to make sense of Ewaranon's FE model, you must find out what map he is using. Is it the unipolar or the bipolar map?


What the difference between the uni vs bi-polar map?


----------



## sandokhan (May 31, 2021)

You have northern circumpolar star trails, southern circumpolar star trails, and regular star trails. Only the bipolar map can describe these features on a flat surface of the Earth. The unipolar map was introduced by users who did not understand (some 12 years ago) the issues involved (namely, that there are TWO sets of circumpolar star trails).

If Ewaranon is using the unipolar map, then his model will encounter great difficulties in properly explaining the solar precession, which is crucial to understanding how FET relates to the new chronology of history.


----------



## wise (May 31, 2021)

According to the claims, the rocket lands back to a platform in the ocean. Now we will scientifically examine the accuracy of this claim.






It has caught my attention while watching the video, I am sure it caught the attention of many of you; the rocket did not come vertically, it had an angle. This can be demonstrated as follows, depending on the angle with the vertical:





As the rocket rises, it can be directed in the direction it will go. This is because the movement depends on the motor power. Speed is low during landing and engine power is intended to balance gravity. Therefore, engine power should have an angle to compensate for gravity. Lets try to make a solution. The problem is here:





here, the force provided by the engine power and the gravitational force must be equal or approximately equal in order to achieve a constant and decreasing rate of descent.

We define To the motor power (Fe) and the vertical component (Fev) of the motor power;

It should be; Fev = Fg

Fev= Fe . cos α

herefrom:

Fe. cos α = Fg.

The weight of Falcoln9 rocket is approximately 1900kgs.

Hence;

Fg = 1900kgs >

angle of inclination at the time the photo was taken :

Alpha= 20 degrees as follow;





So:

engines must apply the following force for a smooth landing:

Fe x cos α = Fg

so;

Fe = Fg / cos α = 1900kg / cos 20° = 1900 / 0,94= 2021 kgs.

that is, the engine must exert a force equivalent to 2021 kg to balance gravity.

In this case, we will have to calculate the horizontal components, since the vertical component forces will be balanced. I called it as F(h)





F(h) = Fe x sin α = 2021kgs x sin 20 = 691kgs.

we see that this force is not balanced. this force causes the rocket to spin under normal conditions.





Although I take the wind from opposite direction here, it will not prevent the spin movement. The reason for this is that the wind acts all along the rocket, but the component of the motor that causes the spin movement acts from a single point.

As a result, the rocket will spin and fall during such a non-vertical landing attempt. This physical evidence proves that this landing is not real.





Rockets also lift vertically during their first launch. After a while, their direction changes undesirably by wind and other factors. however, then the routers step in and slowly correct this error. a rocket does not have the technology to correct such a sharp angle in such a short time, and such a local and sudden wind situation cannot be predicted to correct the rocket's direction.

Conclusion: This landing movement does not comply with the laws of physics, it does not comply with natural flow of the life. but can be created as a simulation, Fake and cgi; or cgi and fake, or any or both of them.

Ellon Musk, his followers and NASA have trolled the world by this claim.

MUSK is failed!


----------



## grav (May 31, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> TWO sets of circumpolar star trails).



Can you expand on this?
It seems to me that Polaris woud be the central point in the dome.
I do understand that northern and southern views of star trails are different, but wouldn't that be a matter of perception? specifically, the perspective of the observer on the plane. Not unlike how two people located miles apart point to the end of a rainbow.

Cartography is another weird trick of establishment science. Here are maps of Mercator and Peters, which show hugely differing sizes of continents. 
https://www.google.com/search?clien...eters+projection+map&aqs=mobile-gws-lite..0l5

Regarding the Musk rockets landing butt-first in the middle of nowhere.
I don't think I have ever seen the hoax played on teevee. Maybe once, but the freemasons are aware that if enough people see it enough times, they may smell the rat who plays footsies with Nasa.

The silly rocket tube landing was obviously done by playing the video in reverse. 
No telling how big the thing is, or its construction materials. Aluminum and plastic, probably. It's been suggested also that we could be looking at a balloon being lifted by a helicopter, then fast forwarded to look like the launch of a real heavy rocket.


----------



## sandokhan (May 31, 2021)

grav said:


> It seems to me that Polaris woud be the central point in the dome.



You are forgetting about Sigma Octantis.



> Sigma Octantis is the southern pole star, whose counterpart is Polaris, the current North Star. To an observer in the southern hemisphere, Sigma Octantis appears almost motionless and all the other stars in the Southern sky appear to rotate around it.



A unipolar map cannot handle the southern circumpolar star trails.

http://www.kabraham.co.uk/images/STARTRAILS.jpg
http://imgur.com/IeBwbHl.png
The sun does rise and set, something most FE also forget.






That's the Black Sun passing in front of the Sun during a solar eclipse (while the Moon will pass behind the Sun).


----------



## veeall (May 31, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> You are forgetting about Sigma Octantis.


But is it right to say that the earth between or under the startrails of Polaris and Sigma Octantis can be of any shape and it won't change the scenery in the sky? Thus, the mere existence of the pole star in south doesn't disprove FE, pertaining more to the shape and mechanics of heavenly 'sphere' rather than earth.

Also, it would be interesting to take a look into Milky Way. Is the straightened up photo of the Milky Way, advertised as a 'galaxy' really 360˚ view of the Milky Way around the earth or rather a 180˚ degree panorama? Is there a place on the globe where, in the night sky, the Milky Way is glowing all around the horizons circle? I know there are pics claiming this, even though not full 360˚ panos, but ... It could be that it's actually the arch of the Milky Way still standing straight up, as in the north, just barely visible from behind the vanishing point at the horizon.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jun 1, 2021)

Has anyone actually stood beneath true north pole  and true south pole on the supposed globe and time lapsed those star trails around the pole stars?


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 1, 2021)

In the bipolar model, the North Pole has never actually been discovered.


The Hollow Earth



> It is well known that the North and South Magnetic Poles do not coincide with the geographical poles, as they should were the Earth a solid sphere, convex at its poles. The reason why the magnetic and geographical poles don't coincide is because, while the magnetic pole lies along the rim of the polar opening.
> 
> In support of the above conception regarding the magnetic pole being situated in the rim of the polar opening, Palmer refers to the following facts: Between each magnetic pole around the Earth pass magnetic meridians. In contrast with geographical meridians, which measure longitude, the magnetic meridians move from east to west and back again. The difference between the geographical meridians, or true north and south, and the direction in which a magnetic compass points, or the magnetic meridian of the place, is called the declination. The first observation made was in London in 1580 and showed an easterly declination of 11 degrees. In 1815 the declination reached 24. 3 degrees westerly maximum. This makes a difference of 35. 3 degrees change in 235 years, which is equal to 2,118 miles. Now if we make a circle around the Pole, with a radius of 1,059 miles, so that it is 2,118 miles in diameter, this would represent the rim of the polar opening along which, in this case, the North Magnetic Pole traveled from one point to its diametrically opposite point on the circle, 2,118 miles away, in 235 years.



According to Marshall Gardner, the rim of the polar opening, which is the true magnetic pole, is a large circle 1,400 miles in diameter.

No one has ever discovered either the North or the South Pole:

The Hollow Earth


No one has managed to travel inside this large circle which measures some 1,400 miles in diameter.

The orbits of most the northern circumpolar stars are inside this large right cylinder.

No one has ever visited this area to actually verify that the Polaris will be observed at an exact 90 degree angle overhead.

This is how the northern star trails looks like from Alaska:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5Wu7MrTp3EE/maxresdefault.jpg

https://i1.wp.com/ianajohnson.com/w.../Long-Island-Star-Trails-2.jpg?resize=474,317

Observed from the equator they look like this:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pXL3yIY5fFQ/maxresdefault.jpg

The difference in view is due to the existence of multiple indices of atmospheric refraction of the ether.
Los Cielos del Ecuador, From Southern Pole to Northern Pole

Here is the latest and most extraordinary research done on star trails to date, including this stunning picture which completely confirms the FE model I have been proposing here all along, two poles, northern and southern circumpolar star paths and regular star orbits:

http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/SGU-From-pole-to-pole-PE-half-1200-cp9.jpg

Note also the divergent path of the stars at the equator (angular distance between stars varies; this could not happen on a spherical earth).

http://www.eso.org/public/archives/images/screen/paranal-trail-ut1-4.jpg

Star Trails Of The Celestial Equator by Luis Argerich

IBM Almaden Research Center Star Trails

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0712/2007_09_14-orion_vanGorp800.jpg


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jun 1, 2021)

I asked the question because this link http://www.kabraham.co.uk/images/STARTRAILS.jpg shows "what you would see if you were standing under the pole stars according to globe model.

I like that info on the North pole's magnetic dip pole length . This makes me think that Polaris might not be at the actual centre of the  arctic region but maybe it manifests in the torus magnetic field that rings around the arctic . Polaris would still appear as true north wherever you viewed from outside the torus pole - what would we see inside that magnetic field ring?

Is Polaris the inner hollow earth sun?

That the earths magnetic dipole field is fictional is mentioned here Magnetic Poles

The southern magnetic pole ( southern magnetic anomaly ) is placed at 64S  135E , but we cant check that since we are excluded entry .  I suspect that south pole extends around Antarctica  - the outer ring of the torus .

Sheds new light on the Land beyond the poles . Interesting stuff


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 1, 2021)

If the earth were solid throughout, the geomagnetic pole would coincide with the earth's rotational axis.

The fact that the Earth's magnetic field has a major NON DIPOLAR contribution which cannot be explained by modern science, especially in the view of the only accepted hypothesis, the dynamo theory.

The non dipolar feature is explained ONLY by HE and FE.

Since HE can be ruled out immediately due to the fact that there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth, we are left with FE.

Certainly it relates to the FE model, since it is the only one which can explain why the geographical and the magnetic poles do not coincide.

The RE cannot invoke the shape of the globe (geoid) since then we can remind them of the distribution of the continents paradox.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jun 1, 2021)

There is no doubt that we inhabit a plane . No survey has ever found curvature . The poles are hidden from us.

What lies beneath our plane .?  We can only speculate . I do know from experience that it gets hotter as you descend .


----------



## grav (Jun 1, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> The fact that the Earth's magnetic field has a major NON DIPOLAR contribution which cannot be explained by modern science, especially in the view of the only accepted hypothesis, the dynamo theory.



Here is my problem (besides my obvious lack of understanding of how batteries work).

The sun rolls around inside the dome, right? 
Where do the stars reside? 
multiple domes?

Your equator dual star trails requires that we look at real world applications of how batteries generate electromagnetism.

Could it instead be a matter of perspective?  The sun's annual path is the same in both hemispheres, right?
But the FE sun's dome is not a perfect bowl shape, as the picture below suggests. It's more like a hat with a brim, which image I cannot find right now, thanks again to the cancel culture at Google. I have posted it here before.
The search continues.

In addition, as the DITRH video showed on the last page, when a glass of water is moved in front of two arrows, the arrows change direction.

Last, the sun's dark twin, Rahu/Ketu/Nibiru mentioned earlier -- is what? What function does it serve in the dynamo's torus?


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 1, 2021)

Two domes. The first separates the Sun/stars/Moon/Black Sun/Shadow Moon from our atmosphere. The second dome marks the boundary of our universe.

What is magnetism? Two streams of particles (magnetic monopoles): NORTH-SOUTH but also SOUTH-NORTH.

The Black Sun emits the laevorotatory subquarks (emissive magnetic monopoles) also called Vril/Udana.

The Shadow Moon releases the dextrorotatory subquarks (receptive magnetic monopoles, electrons, gravitons) also called Apana.

Here is the most extraordinary finding concerning the electrogravitational field of the Earth:

Advanced Flat Earth Theory (part I)

Advanced Flat Earth Theory (part II)






Advanced Flat Earth Theory (magnetricity)


----------



## grav (Jun 1, 2021)

sandokhan said:


> Two domes. The first separates the Sun/stars/Moon/Black Sun/Shadow Moon from our atmosphere. The second dome marks the boundary of our universe.
> 
> What is magnetism? Two streams of particles (magnetic monopoles): NORTH-SOUTH but also SOUTH-NORTH.
> 
> ...



Once again I will complain about jargon.
I appreciate simplicity and plain language.
While I also appreciate your contributions, I have problems grasping the two poles and magnetricity.
 For insrance, "dextrorotativity" and "subquarks" do not advance our understanding of advanced FE. You would gain more interest in the FES site if you avoided technical vocabuary and summarized main points coherently.

Memes and images help tremendously. The images above are from yout link.
I meant to place them at the bottom of this post. So much for my own coherence.

By the way, I have had several problems posting since the last update.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 1, 2021)

grav said:


> Memes and images help tremendously.


That is why I included so many images from Spintronics which feature the North-South and South-North streams of particles (let's call them magnetic monopoles).

Fact: a magnet has a CENTER, and TWO POLES. Analogy: center of the Earth (somewhere near to the sea of Marmara), and two poles as seen on the global Piri Reis map:


----------



## E.Bearclaw (Jun 1, 2021)

Anyone ever noticed on the classic magnet, it is shaped like a *U*. And with the *S* and the *N* for South and North you get a nice anagram of our favourite orb in the sky.


----------



## grav (Jun 2, 2021)

earth :: a global map of wind, weather, and ocean conditions

Null School used to show an azimuthal-equidistant projection of weather.
When FEers started to use it, the AE option was removed.
I now have to apply the CE projection to put wind, water, other features into motion.


----------



## grav (Jun 2, 2021)

Bi-Polar Model

The *Bi-Polar Model* is a model of the earth which was devised by the Universal Zetetic Society, the precursor to the Flat Earth Society, in the early 1900's following claims of further exploration of Antarctica and discovery of the South Pole. This model features two poles and an Antarctic continent which exists in standard contexts. An 'Ice Wall' still exists in this model, but it is not Antarctica. It is assumed that beyond the rays of the sun the waters will naturally freeze.

The existence of a South Pole has been long theorized. Prior to Samuel Rowbotham's _Earth Not a Globe_, the Flat Earth model had multiple poles (See: _The Anti-Newtonian_). It is thought that Rowbotham simplified the matter to one pole in his work due to the lack of direct evidence at the time for additional poles. The Bi-Polar Model reverts to the original concepts of multiple poles.
 - - - - 
Since Sandokhan introduced the magnetic model of dual sky trails, I have been doing my best to understand this bifurcated perspective. 
As is often the case, language struggles to describe optics.
Researchers have not, unfortunately, been able to provide a simplified animation of how the whole sky system operates. Flat Earth Crush, for example, presents a very good video which concentrates on disproving how the globe fails to address related topics. We already know GE is a bust. 

Sorry, Sandokhan, your illustrations do not suffice, especially that map which implies that Antarctica is a continent separate from the actual ice wall. So here we go again   looking for a FE map we can all agree on.
I apologize if I come across as a complaining dunce. 
My goal is always to understand a concept well enough to be able to explain it to a globehead dunce.

Many flatearthers are downright hostile to The Flat Earth Society, I think because of the gravity issue. Eric Dubay also triggered FEers on his site a few years ago.
And then we have your typical ego trips and hardheadness that crop up when facts are almost impossible to find.


----------



## The Illuminator (Jun 2, 2021)

What a fantastic, informative thread. Loved reading it from start to finish. I've made so many more research threads tangent to what's been discussed. Just wanted to say thanks everyone.


----------



## 6079SmithW (Jun 2, 2021)

grav said:


> Bi-Polar Model
> 
> The *Bi-Polar Model* is a model of the earth which was devised by the Universal Zetetic Society, the precursor to the Flat Earth Society, in the early 1900's following claims of further exploration of Antarctica and discovery of the South Pole. This model features two poles and an Antarctic continent which exists in standard contexts. An 'Ice Wall' still exists in this model, but it is not Antarctica. It is assumed that beyond the rays of the sun the waters will naturally freeze.
> 
> ...


I don't see any reason to shoe horn in a second pole. 

There is one magnetic pole, you can test this yourself with a compass.

At no point does your compass reverse to accommodate the second magnetic pole, because.... It doesn't exist


----------



## fega72 (Jun 2, 2021)

6079SmithW said:


> I don't see any reason to shoe horn in a second pole.
> 
> There is one magnetic pole, you can test this yourself with a compass.
> 
> At no point does your compass reverse to accommodate the second magnetic pole, because.... It doesn't exist


A compass will never revers, because the south pole of the compass (magnet) will always point to the North Pole and never ever will point to the South Pole even if it is exist. Or can we say the north pole of the compass always point to the South Pole?


----------



## WashYourWorld (Jun 3, 2021)

The Balls Out Physics series by Brian Mullin is by far the best Ball Earth physics debunking I have come accross.
Brian's Channels are no longer available, but the videos have been reuploaded by many users.

Please tell me what you think of his explanations.  Please post any similar video explaining Flat Earth physics in this thread.

The serie is composed of :
Ball's Out Physics: Episode 1.0 - Planes Flying on a Spinning Ball​Ball's Out Physics: Episode 1.1 - A Spinning Atmosphere​Ball's Out Physics: Episode 1.2 - Flying Over the North Pole​Ball's Out Physics : Episode 2.0 - The Gravitational Constant​Ball's Out Physics: Episode 3.0 - Centripetal Force, Gravity, and the Sun​Ball's Out Physics: Episode 4.0 - The ISS, Satellites, and the Thermosphere​Ball's Out Physics: Episode 4.1 - Virgin Galactic, Telecom, and Thermal Radiation​Ball's Out Physics: Episode 5.0 - Propulsion in Space​Ball's Out Physics: Episode 5.1 - Propulsion in a Vacuum​Ball's Out Physics: Episode 5.2 - Conservation of Momentum in Space​


----------



## grav (Jun 3, 2021)

*My response to a Guest on another forum (Banned-Talk)* who posted this

Rockets hitting the dome

https://newtube.app/phiroc/9bvQqGU 

- - - - - -          
to which I replied:       

I couldn't find an image or meme with photos of rockets hitting the dome 
Remember, kids do NOT waste your time trying to research with Google. Google is the devil 

On Stolen History we are discussing southern star trails, which circle counter to northern ones.
It's a matter of perspective. And very hard to visualize. Some stars in the northern "hemisphere" are not visible in the southern "hemisphere" and vice versa.





Another problem we have is word use. We don't live on a sphere. We live on a plane, a flattish surface.
We use the azimuthal_equidistant map (Gleason) which has a circular shape.

What would be a better term to refer to the land between the North Pole and the equator? hemi-plane?
No, that's silly.
All I can come up with is this -- inner circle. Lands beyond the equator would be the outer circle, between the equator and the Antarctic.

Antarctica is also where the dome touches the earth.






You have to see a picture of how the dome reflects light to make sun dogs. Words just can't come close to illustrating the effect.
P-brane may be the best researcher who explains our position on perspective.


_View: https://youtu.be/m7aEZqA3Huk_



Gravity is density.


----------



## davtash (Jun 3, 2021)

WashYourWorld said:


> The Balls Out Physics series by Brian Mullin is by far the best Ball Earth physics debunking I have come accross.
> Brian's Channels are no longer available, but the videos have been reuploaded by many users.
> 
> Please tell me what you think of his explanations.  Please post any similar video explaining Flat Earth physics in this thread.
> ...


So how do we get access to these uploads


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 3, 2021)

davtash said:


> So how do we get access to these uploads


Use a search engine!
Ball's Out Physics: Episode 1.0 - Planes Flying on a Spinning Ball at DuckDuckGo


----------



## davtash (Jun 4, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Use a search engine!
> Ball's Out Physics: Episode 1.0 - Planes Flying on a Spinning Ball at DuckDuckGo


Thank you
Old age creeping in


kd-755 said:


> Use a search engine!
> Ball's Out Physics: Episode 1.0 - Planes Flying on a Spinning Ball at DuckDuckGo


videos easily found on you tube


----------



## grav (Jun 4, 2021)

How can we understand the stars if we don't even know how big our world.

Globe theory puts the diameter at ~ 8000 miles. gee, it`s a small world after all.
How wide is the US? ~2000 - 2500 miles?


[Image: maxresdefault.jpg]

....

[Image: zzzflatearthd645994bd83c2fb1a931d1e45af4256a.jpg]

I don't see a preview option since the site was updated.
How can we understand the stars if we don't even know how big our world.

Globe theory puts the diameter at ~ 8000 miles. gee, it`s a small world after all.
How wide is the US? ~2000 - 2500 miles?


[Image: maxresdefault.jpg]

....

[Image: zzzflatearthd645994bd83c2fb1a931d1e45af4256a.jpg]

I don't see a preview option since the site was updated.


----------



## grav (Jun 5, 2021)

What percentage of scientists are honest? How about journalists?

Astronomers, lol. Scientists, yeah, sure.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › PMC4796290


> Quote:Richard Feynman famously wrote "Science is the Belief in the Ignorance of the Experts". He meant, and explained that "science - a.k.a. research - is in the making, belongs to the (unknown, yet to be discovered) future, while expertise is based on the past, with in-built obsolescence".



haha, as if.
This reality thingie is all a big Disneyland party for a spoiled rotten stupidass kid (humans).
The f-masons lie, cheat, and rob us blind every damn day. And when they get caught with their britches down, they make fun of the truthers who expose their crimes.





How do y'all like that image ^? Oo, la la.
Someone is calling us anti-experts. Right on, brother!
I enjoy satire as much as the next cockeyed skeptic. Even when I am the target. Chuckle How did they know I want a degree in homeopathy? Which actually works, btw, unlike the pills the Pharma doctors give ya.   

Gravity is density.


----------



## Prolix (Jun 5, 2021)

grav said:


> What percentage of scientists are honest? How about journalists?
> 
> Astronomers, lol. Scientists, yeah, sure.
> 
> ...


Damn, I was about to look for a copy in WH Smiths.


----------



## grav (Jun 7, 2021)

I tend to wander off into the jungle of occulted (hidden) science, myth, and speculation.

Rothbard, my mentor of yore (Lunatics Outpost forum), is more down-to-earth. haha. I mean that figuratively and literally.

He is a downright dedicated specialist, whose videos clearly and irrefutably prove that there is no curve.
does the math in this Black Swan video, and he offers new formulas that arrive at the same drop from sight of the apparent horizon.


_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JGYfg8taZY4&feature=youtu.be_


2:03


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 7, 2021)

@grav What is the difference between apparent and geometric horizon?

He calculates the geometric horizon of RE. He measures the apparent horizon of RE. He then says that the geometric and the apparent horizon is not the same, which he uses as a proof that the geometric horizon of RE does not exist. 

This is faulty logic. 
If you want to reject the apparent horizon of RE, then you need to measure and calculate both. If the measurement of the apparent horizon does not match the calculated apparent horizon, then you can reject RE, but that is not what he does.


----------



## Silent Bob (Jun 7, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> @grav What is the difference between apparent and geometric horizon?
> 
> He calculates the geometric horizon of RE. He measures the apparent horizon of RE. He then says that the geometric and the apparent horizon is not the same, which he uses as a proof that the geometric horizon of RE does not exist.
> 
> ...



I don't get why you think this is faulty logic, seems pretty straight forward to me - we shouldn't be able to see further than the calculated geometric horizon, but clearly we can see much further. The geometric horizon has been calculated and compared to the measured one, which clearly don't match - what am I missing here? This is a simple case of comparing a model to reality and finding that the model doesn't agree with reality.


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 7, 2021)

Silent Bob said:


> I don't get why you think this is faulty logic, seems pretty straight forward to me - we shouldn't be able to see further than the calculated geometric horizon, but clearly we can see much further. The geometric horizon has been calculated and compared to the measured one, which clearly don't match - what am I missing here? This is a simple case of comparing a model to reality and finding that the model doesn't agree with reality.


We have a geometric horizon and an apparent horizon.
We can measure either the geometric horizon or the apparent horizon.
We can calculate either the geometric horizon or the apparent horizon.
In the video, he calculates the geometric, but measures the apparent, and it should come as no surprise that he see a difference between the two. 

If you want to calculate the apparent horizon, then you need to take into context other factors such as refraction. He does not do this.


----------



## Silent Bob (Jun 7, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> We have a geometric horizon and an apparent horizon.
> We can measure either the geometric horizon or the apparent horizon.
> We can calculate either the geometric horizon or the apparent horizon.
> In the video, he calculates the geometric, but measures the apparent, and it should come as no surprise that he see a difference between the two.
> ...



Ah, I see your confusion now. You can't measure the geometric horizon, you can only calculate it and you can't calculate the actual horizon, it has to be measured. The whole point is to compare the theoretical calculated horizon from the globe model with the actual reality that we see. So in this case the geometric horizon is the calculated, theoritcal value and the actual horizon is, as the name suggests, the actual horizon we see in reality. The actual horizon, when measured, should equal the theoretical one if the globe model is correct, which clearly it doesn't. 

As for refraction, this is the only explanation offered to try and explain this very well known discrepancy between what we should see under the globe model and what we actually see in reality. I have lost count of the times I have asked someone to explain how refraction could affect what we see in the way that it does, and I have never had a satisfactory response. This goes way back to the Bedford Flats experiment back in the 1800's. 

So, just to summarise the refraction argument. Normally refraction only occurs at the junction between two different materials, which we can see and measure by shining a light beam through a glass block. We see clearly that the direction of light changes, all fine so far. However, in all of our observations the light is not passing from one material into another, so standard refraction does not apply. So, then we get told about graded refractive index, which can occur within one medium, such as air, if their is a temperature differential. That shimmer we see on the road during a hot day is often used as an example. However, this argument is very hand wavy and has no real substance to back it up. First the refraction would be very small in these cases, not enough for us to see as far we do. Second, the graded refractive index caused by the temperature difference in air just above the water line would have to be just the right amount to match the curvature of the earth. In other words, in every single case where we see this effect the temperature difference between the air just above the water and the air just above that would have to be the same - does this seem likely? 

Overall the refraction argument really bores me now, if you want to quote this argument then you should be able to back it up - you would need to calculate and demonstrate what the temperature difference would need to be to create just the right refractive index, which in turn would create just the right change in direction of the light to perfectly match the curvature of the earth for however far you are able to see. It really is a far fetched theory, grasping at straws - prove me wrong!


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 7, 2021)

What we have here is a debunking of a strawman model. The video is debunking a RE model that no one uses. 

If you want to debunk refraction, then you need to measure refraction, so that you can correctly calculate the apparent horizon of the RE model. One way to do this would be to have different intervals of length, to see the curvature of the light. If there is no or insufficient curvature/refraction between the intervals, then your proof works.


----------



## Silent Bob (Jun 7, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> What we have here is a debunking of a strawman model. The video is debunking a RE model that no one uses.
> 
> If you want to debunk refraction, then you need to measure refraction, so that you can correctly calculate the apparent horizon of the RE model. One way to do this would be to have different intervals of length, to see the curvature of the light. If there is no or insufficient curvature/refraction between the intervals, then your proof works.



Now you've really lost me - are you saying that the equation to calculate curvature is a model that no one uses? If so then what model do they use for RE?

You can't debunk refraction, it's real as I explained in my previous post using the glass block illustration. Also the burden of proof here is on those that wish to use refraction as an explanation for why the earth looks flat when it should look curved, something that so far no one has done. Until someone comes up with a realistic mathematical explanation for how this is even possible then it is an argument which does not merit discussion for the reason I gave in my previous post. In your proposed experiment, how would you measure light refraction over these distances? what equipment would you need and how would you set it up?


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 7, 2021)

Yes, no one is saying that the geometric horizon is the same as the apparent horizon. The burden is not on me to prove anything. I'm merely pointing out that this video is flawed and intentionally so. He is trying to debunk a model that no one uses.


----------



## E_V_ (Jun 8, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> Yes, no one is saying that the geometric horizon is the same as the apparent horizon. The burden is not on me to prove anything. I'm merely pointing out that this video is flawed and intentionally so. He is trying to debunk a model that no one uses.


Which is the model that no one uses?


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 8, 2021)

E_V_ said:


> Which is the model that no one uses?


That the geometric horizon = apparent horizon.


----------



## grav (Jun 8, 2021)

Wiki:
*Terrestrial refraction*, sometimes called *geodetic refraction*, deals with the apparent angular position and measured distance of terrestrial bodies. It is of special concern for the production of precise maps and surveys.[24][25] Since the line of sight in terrestrial refraction passes near the earth's surface, the magnitude of refraction depends chiefly on the temperature gradient near the ground, which varies widely at different times of day, seasons of the year, the nature of the terrain, the state of the weather, and other factors.[26]
. . .
Although the straight line from your eye to a distant mountain might be blocked by a closer hill, the ray may curve enough to make the distant peak visible. A convenient method to analyze the effect of refraction on visibility is to consider an increased effective radius of the Earth _Reff_, given by[11]

..............

I contacted TC (Taboo Conspiracy) to ask him to address refraction in future videos.
As for the optical illusion called the horizon, Silent Bob has pretty well expained the problem with definitions. The globe model fails the math test. Therefore, the world is not a globe.

I don't know how many times we have to go down this unpleasant road.
FE researchers show time after time that distant objects are visible well beyond the fictitious curve. Not only do we see cities and drilling platforms whose distances are verifiablly measurable and mathematically impossible -- but we see even more land or water beyond that.

The horizon is actually the vanishing point of human optics, where all lines of convergence meet. Zoom lenses extend that range of vision.
Yes, water vapor does interfere with clarity. So far, I see no way to calculate the percentage of distortion.
But most models show that refraction bends light down, not up.
This works against the globe and favors the plane.

Lastly, the atmosphere itself can only exist over a motionless  surface, not one spinning 1000 mph and spiralling 66,600 mph. Globe defenders tell us that's due to "gravity drag" -- yes, gravity.

Gravity, refraction, relativity. These are the magic words that freemasons use to replace science with pseudoscience.


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 8, 2021)

grav said:


> Wiki:
> *Terrestrial refraction*, sometimes called *geodetic refraction*, deals with the apparent angular position and measured distance of terrestrial bodies. It is of special concern for the production of precise maps and surveys.[24][25] Since the line of sight in terrestrial refraction passes near the earth's surface, the magnitude of refraction depends chiefly on the temperature gradient near the ground, which varies widely at different times of day, seasons of the year, the nature of the terrain, the state of the weather, and other factors.[26]
> . . .
> Although the straight line from your eye to a distant mountain might be blocked by a closer hill, the ray may curve enough to make the distant peak visible. A convenient method to analyze the effect of refraction on visibility is to consider an increased effective radius of the Earth _Reff_, given by[11]
> ...


The globe model doesn't fail the math test, because you are calculating geometric horizon, not apparent horizon, but you are observing the apparent horizon. No wonder that your test fails if you compare the geometric horizon and the apparent horizon. No one thinks these should be the same. It is a strawman argument.

As for vanishing point of human optics. Please do a test and see if the horizon is at 90 degrees directly in the middle of the picture when you are at a height and when you are close to the ground. If the horizon is lower than the exact middle, then your model of perspective fails.


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 8, 2021)

Dear god.
The horizon is always dead level because contained liquid water always displays a level surface.  Neither  maths nor masons can make contained water bend.
The eyes have a cone shaped vision and the vanishing point is always slap bang in the dead centre of the cone.
These things are truths not opinions.

As I mentioned earlier why do people who know the earth is a ball bother with a thread labelled Flat Earth?
Are they trolling?
Are they just having a laugh?
Do they doubt themselves?
Do  they have some religious zeal to eliminate blasphemers?
worsaae
If you know the earth is a ball falling away from your position in every direction what is the gain from taking this thread in the direction you have?

Edit to correct typo.
Second edit to add a missing word; neither


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 8, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Dear god.
> The horizon is always dead level because contained liquid water always displays a level surface. Maths nor masons can make contained water bend.
> The eyes have a cone shaped vision and the vanishing point is always slap bang in the dead centre of the cone.
> These things are truths not opinions.
> ...


If it is always dead centre of the cone, then I suggest you take a picture that is 100% level to the ground from height of 1 meter and height of 10 meters. Show that the picture is 100% level and show that the horizon is straight in the middle of the picture with both heights. 

As for your last question. I saw a "debunking" that was clearly wrong.


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 8, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> If it is always dead centre of the cone,


There is no IF about it.
You can get your eyes to whatever height you want it makes no difference to what you see.
I assume you have done the precise experiment you suggest I do, care to share your results on here?

Stand in a long corridor and you will see the walls, floor and ceiling all converge on the centre of your vision and if the corridor is long enough you will not see the far end. Then walk to the far end of the corridor and you will discover, when you turn round the end you were stood at disappears. But I reckon you are already aware of this.
I cannot wait to see your photographs.

Edit to correct typo. The T and Y keys have stopped working!


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 8, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> There is no IF about it.
> You can get your eyes to whatever height you want it makes no difference to what you see.
> I assume you have done the precise experiment you suggest I do, care to share your results on here?
> 
> ...


I haven't done that experiment, but I have yet to see flat earthers do it. It would be an easy way to prove the RE model wrong.


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 8, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> I haven't done that experiment, but I have yet to see flat earthers do it. It would be an easy way to prove the RE model wrong.


Crack on then.


----------



## grav (Jun 9, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> I haven't done that experiment, but I have yet to see flat earthers do it. It would be an easy way to prove the RE model wrong.



Just how many experiments do you need to see?
How about this one?

3:34

_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=edlPGRQvw3g&feature=youtu.be_


Rothbard calls refraction a tool that globe propagandists employ to remove all evidence of giant bulges of earth curvature.
Here, bases of pylons are visible beyond what the math predicts. If the earth (water) curved down at that point, then the horizon beyond it would also be curved down and therefore invisible. But it isn't.

Globers will of course claim that different atmospheric conditions make the different locations rise and/or drop from sight.
Once again, globe belief is based on relativity. Here, it works. There, it doesnt. Unmeasureable, unverifiable, unprovable.

Like gravity. It is likewise selective, making ocean waters -- and air -- cling to a spinning ball, while allowing butterflies and clouds to float hither and thither and yon.


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 9, 2021)

grav said:


> Just how many experiments do you need to see?
> How about this one?
> 
> 3:34
> ...



I've seen this video. 

I want to see a video where they measure 90 degrees angle photo of the horizon and then I want to see that the horizon is directly in the middle. This at a low height and at a high height, ie 1 meter and 10 meter or something like this. 
It is a simple experiment to do and if it is below the middle, then we have a problem for FE. I don't know if it proofs RE. If it in the middle, then it is a problem for RE. I don't know if it proofs FE. 

I agree that refraction is a get out of jail freecard for RE, but those that do the experiments for FE, need to account for refraction because otherwise both camps will just sit yelling at each other. 

That said, RE has had 500 years of the best maths to fix any mistakes that it might present with observations, so it will be hard to disprove RE with observations.

A better approach would be to develop the FE model more, so that this model also corresponds to the observations.


----------



## fega72 (Jun 10, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> That said, RE has had 500 years of the best maths to fix any mistakes that it might present with observations, so it will be hard to disprove RE with observations.


If the 500 years was really 500 years how this "new idea" with RE was published? Without TV, phone, internet, education... Do  you think somehow all the best mathematicians knew each other and the communication went trough hand written letters waiting weeks for the reply? Or this is just happened in the past 100 years when the communication network was ready and the education (programming) network was available (compulsory) for everyone?


----------



## wise (Jun 10, 2021)

Whether or not the earth would be flat, you could not observe it because of visual problems. Because observing is a trigonometric funtion.

I have open a threat here to discuss some problems like this. If the subject will be approved, I will present here with arguments why you can't see a surface as flat but always curved like a fish eye camera image.

We see some objects flat and some not, but I have a working evidences forward that you never can see flat the flat objects.


----------



## Sigian (Jun 11, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Dear god.
> The horizon is always dead level because contained liquid water always displays a level surface. Neither maths nor masons can make contained water bend.
> The eyes have a cone shaped vision and the vanishing point is always slap bang in the dead centre of the cone.
> These things are truths not opinions.
> ...



Sorry there, but thought this was a thread on which other views could be discussed civilly so that views could be compared and answers found in regards to the FE model.  

Though maybe not always civil or civil sounding, there has been a bit of hostility both ways.

I view it all this way, there's experts in different fields, from tech to engineering and more, if things don't jive, then things don't work.  Being so many fields overlap so much more than people sometimes realize, means a lot of things must line up properly to function as intended.  

I dunno which model may be correct, others are more solidified in their opinion, I guess we may or may not ever find out.  Just would still like a solid reason to lie about this one way or another.


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 11, 2021)

Here is the OP where Grav laid it out.


grav said:


> I am new to this forum and don't see an active thread on flat earth. Is there any interest in the topic?
> SH's format is quite impressive. And imposing, to the point that navigating it is tricky for a simple mind like mine. Generic forums have become gross mockeries of their original designs, and so I am looking for a new home where I may spout my heresies, primarily the most basic hidden truth upon which all other distorted truths are based. The Infinite Plane of the Electric Universe.



One can deny the way their eyes work, the way contained water behaves, the level & plumb used for all built structures for as long as one wants. It doesn't change these facts one whit.
As you quoted one of my posts presumably as an example of the hostility you feel I will make it plain.
I have no idea whatsoeveratall what shape, if any earth has nor if it needs to have one.
The level plane is real its not a model. I laid the clear evidence out in the first line.
The concept of a ball shaped finite earth is a physical impossibility. It is a figment of imagination in the same way a corporation is.
I do not look a the ceiling to figure out what I am standing on.

The post you singled out was in response o worsaae's. Here it is in case you missed it.



Worsaae said:


> e globe model doesn't fail the math test, because you are calculating geometric horizon, not apparent horizon, but you are observing the apparent horizon. No wonder that your test fails if you compare the geometric horizon and the apparent horizon. No one thinks these should be the same. It is a strawman argument.
> 
> As for vanishing point of human optics. Please do a test and see if the horizon is at 90 degrees directly in the middle of the picture when you are at a height and when you are close to the ground. If the horizon is lower than the exact middle, then your model of perspective fails.



I am not getting any younger and am done with theorising quite frankly as none of them pass the physicality my senses serve up every waking moment.
Evidence of ice walls, domes, firmament, space, planets, what the luminaries are, balls, etc is all missing.  None appears in my daily lived life.
My frustration is I cannot come up with the path to finding out much more about this reality. Short of going on a long walk or voyage which entails leaving everyone I care about 'behind' and that is currently beyond me.
As much as I feel I need to know where I am I feel I need their company more.


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 11, 2021)

fega72 said:


> If the 500 years was really 500 years how this "new idea" with RE was published? Without TV, phone, internet, education... Do  you think somehow all the best mathematicians knew each other and the communication went trough hand written letters waiting weeks for the reply? Or this is just happened in the past 100 years when the communication network was ready and the education (programming) network was available (compulsory) for everyone?





kd-755 said:


> Here is the OP where Grav laid it out.
> 
> 
> One can deny the way their eyes work, the way contained water behaves, the level & plumb used for all built structures for as long as one wants. It doesn't change these facts one whit.
> ...


If you ever go to a mountain top, then take a picture of the horizon 90 degrees to the ground/water level. If the horizon is in the middle of the picture, then there you go. If it does not, then flat earth goes bye bye, unless there is a good theory to explain why observations don't match the flat earth model.

It is important that it is directly 90 degrees to water level. There is a reason why you don't see flat earthers do this test.


----------



## wise (Jun 11, 2021)

Looks like we'll continue from here. People don't understand why the earth is flat but sometimes it looks round and sometimes it looks flat. For example, in the sea it looks as if it is round, but in a stationary lake it usually appears flat. This is because the world is a simulation. The earth is flat and stable, but some functions in the simulation are adjusted so that the earth is round. This is a sign that the world program is copied from more than one program, that these imported programs belong to different worlds, and that some of these worlds are flat and some are round. Now I will give you examples that would be impossible to occur in a normal world, but very natural to occur in a simulation.






Now, in this photo, in a three-part view, we see a tree and landspace outside the window opposite. While your location here is fixed, the visual size of all sides of the image you see should be the same. The eye is oval in shape to see around you, and sees all objects angularly, then the brain converts these angles into length. Let's consider these angles now.




Now here, no matter where you turn your head, the angles of alpha, beta and gamma are always constant, they don't change as long as your point does not change. In other words, turning your head left and right does not affect the size of the images. This situation is theoretical, mathematical, scientific, suitable for the ordinary course of life, compatible with the rules of mind and physics.

But in the world, in practice this is not the case. There are many objections to this example below, but none of them is based on concrete evidence. You can do these experiments yourself. Even though your position is fixed, wherever you turn your head, that image is small, the parts that are out of focus are larger. This is usually the case. Now let's move on to our example. Look, I'll say it again, you might think of this as a camera error, but it's not like that. You can test this situation yourself with your own experiment.

Now, right now, we're going to take a random photo from google and do this experiment. The three-dimensional cameras used for google maps take 360-degree photos of everything around them. In this way, you can focus from one point to the surrounding area wherever you want.





This image is a church from Beykoz, the district where Jesus was crucified. There are two doors opposite, they look about the same size to each other.

We can mark it as follows. If you want, let's put a scale on it, let it be a scientific process.




The situation that occurs when we focus on the front while looking at the building. Compared Door sizes : 2,1/2,1=1 (same size)

Now, even though our position is the same, let's turn our heads a little to the right.





Now, since our position is the same, the angular magnitudes have not changed either. As in the visual drawing I explained above, alpha, beta and gamma should not have changed. That's how it would be in a real world. The ratio of the dimensions of the doors when we just measured them was 1, so they were of equal length. Let's re-measure now.





Compared Door sizes : 2,8/1,7=1,65

As I explained above, while the side to which we turn is shrinking, the other side has grown. There are 65% visual difference as of now.

If we turn to the left;




Compared Door sizes : 1,8/2,7=0,67

In stark contrast to the one above, this time the door on the right is larger.

If we return to the first explanation one more time:




Here, looking at alpha and beta together, looking at beta and gamma together, or looking at alpha, beta and gamma together does not change the magnitude of alpha, beta and gamma. Or rather, that's what it would be like in a normal world that operates by its own rules. But the example I gave now, you can reproduce these examples yourself, now you can do this for the items in front of you right now, and you can see that this is not the case, something is wrong.

See you later.


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 11, 2021)

Sigian
Do have a read through these threads.
SH Archive Replies - Is "Flat Earth" a PsyOp?
SH Archive - Is the Flat Earth conspiracy the conspiracy?
SH Archive - Questions About Flat Earth
SH Archive - Polish "Asstronaut" Admits Earth is Flat
How to logically prove a round Earth
SH Archive - The Concave Earth Discussion.

And an earlier post of mine.
Flat Earth


Worsaae said:


> There is a reason why you don't see flat earthers do this test.


There is a reason no-one does this 'test'.
Have you done the 1m , 10m test yet?
If so, pictures please.


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 11, 2021)

worsae
Here is a photo of mine where one can clearly see the ocean appears to be above the slagbank between me and it. I am stood on a hill looking straight out to sea. The slagbank is the land on the right running into mid image. It is a a higher elevation than the land at left which is actually an island and is further away from my position than the slagbank is. Just ignore the mid ground reservoir,  that reveals nothing about how our eyes work!
When I go back to the cemetery hill I will retake the shot looking down and looking up. Now about the 1m 10 test photo's! of yours.



From this post which has more photographs.
Flat Earth

Edit two to add
I just nipped outside and took these two images.
The first is with the camera on the ground so the lens centre is 1 inch off of the ground. The second is at a height of 51 inches (50 inches of wooden post and 1 inch from camera base to the lens centre.) I did not level them with a spirit level. The full size images were too big for upload so I used an imaging programme called nomacs to reduce their size.


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 11, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> worsae
> Here is a photo of mine where one can clearly see the ocean appears to be above the slagbank between me and it. I am stood on a hill looking straight out to sea. The slagbank is the land on the right running into mid image. It is a a higher elevation than the land at left which is actually an island and is further away from my position than the slagbank is. Just ignore the mid ground reservoir,  that reveals nothing about how our eyes work!
> When I go back to the cemetery hill I will retake the shot looking down and looking up. Now about the 1m 10 test photo's! of yours.
> 
> ...


If you can go to the hill and take a picture perpendicular to the water level, then it would be great. It is important that it is directly 90 degrees, because any slight difference will have a huge impact the farther away the horizon appears


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 11, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> If you can go to the hill and take a picture perpendicular to the water level, then it would be great. It is important that it is directly 90 degrees, because any slight difference will have a huge impact the farther away the horizon appears


I will when you post your 1m and 10m test photographs.


----------



## grav (Jun 11, 2021)

What is it with the 90° perpendicular perspective?
For short distances, that nicety might make a difference, but who gives a whoop when we have pics 50 miles and further.


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 11, 2021)

grav said:


> What is it with the 90° perpendicular perspective?
> For short distances, that nicety might make a difference, but who gives a whoop when we have pics 50 miles and further.View attachment 10765


You should give a whoop, because they would likely disprove or present a problem for the FE model.


----------



## grav (Jun 11, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> You should give a whoop, because they would likely disprove or present a problem for the FE model.



I see. A photo which displays a flat horizon at 65 miles is not perpendicular enough for you? 

That seems like a big enough whoop to present a yuuge priblem for the RE.


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 11, 2021)

grav said:


> I see. A photo which displays a flat horizon at 65 miles is not perpendicular enough for you?
> 
> That seems like a big enough whoop to present a yuuge priblem for the RE.


I don't understand your pictures. Are they perpendicular to water level? The bottom picture shows curvature? And it shows the horizon not directly in the middle of the picture.


----------



## grav (Jun 12, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> I don't understand your pictures. Are they perpendicular to water level? The bottom picture shows curvature? And it shows the horizon not directly in the middle of the picture.


I don't understand your misunderstanding.
One picture was taken in 1946, showing a flat horizon.

The other one was taken later, after Nasa (German Nazis) had confiscated all things scientific. That image presents a curvy green world, looking more like it was taken from an airplane at 5 miles of altitude. 

As for your insistence that we look at right angles to the water, knock yourself out showing us proof that your idea means a hill of beans.

My last post on your predeliction for perpendicularity.


----------



## Sigian (Jun 12, 2021)

Thank you KD, have read a few of them quite awhile ago when the original SH was in its glory.  Will have to check out the rest.  As for hostilities, wasn't talking about toward myself, just from my perspective seems some get mad or frustrated at times, but again, perspective is key there.

As for photos or videos, are you using a curvilinear or rectilinear lens?  Most wide angle rectilinear lenses make curved lines look straight, and vice versa.  I'm sure the fish eye lens is always in my mind seeing photos of the earth from space.

It is hard to decipher what photograph maybe using a certain lens to achieve a certain effect.  Though what we see with our own eyes thru their rods and cones are in question as well, as everyone does see things around them differently as well even in very small aspect sometimes.

Who is to say that we weren't made/created/evolved to see things a certain way and that's it.

Also wondering why TPTB and religion tried to stifle the heliocentric model for so long, just to decide hey, let's play along and stop burning heretics that believe this.  

Then again, that is just the story we are told, and that is why SH exists in the first place, to question history itself, if it happened the way we wrote it down, or if it was a myriad of lies told to subjugate others, and if so, why?  

Dunno if it will ever be figured out, nowadays the truth is a lie and lies are the truth, coming from the same place they always have, those in charge, no matter who it is.  Anything to keep people divided, maybe that's the key, who knows.

Though maybe the simulation theory does hold merit.  Remember they don't have to drill holes in your head for a brain scan, it can be read outside of your head, maybe there is more to everything than we think we can understand.


----------



## dreamtime (Jun 12, 2021)

This thread has now been locked, as the discussion revolves around the same topics endlessly, without us going anywhere. In the future, we might open this thread again, or create a new better moderated one to discuss flat earth.

This thread and the topic of flat earth, while interesting and certainly important, has invited some very strange characters to our site. It fuels my suspicion that flat earth is part of a sophisticated psy-op to denounce the truther community, and to make people stop seeing the obvious inconsistencies of the heliocentric model.

While the earth is probably stationary, the narrow focus on the exact shape of the realm is simply a distraction from the important questions.

The official flight paths alone are enough to destroy the flat earth paradigm, and the majority of people can easily understand this, so flat earth will always be mocked by the larger public. And that is because the arguments people bring forward to support flat earth are half-baked and easy to refute.

We now have a new thread with a new focus. Instead of promoting a belief system about the exact shape of the earth (which can only result in people attacking each other over minor things), we try to deconstruct the official narrative of heliocentrism: Deconstructing Heliocentrism and modern Physics

Logically, the fact that the accepted mainstream model is wrong, doesn't automatically lead to the earth being flat. It just means we are not living on a round spinning spaceship in a vast endless galaxy.

It means we are living _inside_ _something_.

I would be curious if there is a single coherent, rational and scientific explanation by people who are convinced of flat earth, when it comes to flight distances. Since there isn't a single coherent physical model of the flat earth, which could be used to falsifise it, at least there should be an explanation for flight paths.

But there is none imho. No one can explain why you can fly between Johannisburg and Perth non-stop in 10 hours, or why all flights curve in line with the curvature of the earth. Since flat earthers are so keen about direct observations, why has no one booked a flight between Perth and Johannisburg and documented the observation?

Even more fascinating is the stubbornness of the flat-earth people in repeating and spamming the web with their allegations, without providing actual clear arguments. There is simply no relevant data being produced by them. In conclusion, there is no theory available yet, only assumptions. Assumptions which turned out to be baseless.

So how can the fact that often a curve is not directly visible, be anymore than an interesting notion? It is certainly no proof for the earth being flat.

Creating Flight Plans for Flat Earth
A direct test of the flat earth model: flight times - creation.com

Even creationists come to the obvious conclusions, thinking logically.

The entire meme is a virus, I think it prevents a true scientific inquiry into the nature of our enclosed terrarium reality.

See here where I further write about the problems of flat earth.

Also:

I think every topic that gets big enough is turned into a movement managed by insiders from the secret cabal ruling us. Their primary goal is to create an image of reality and make people believe it's actually reality. Hypnosis. Inversion. They have hundreds of thousands of members. They have all the time, resources and money they need. Managing what the masses think is their day-to-day job, and it takes a lot of effort to keep the masses dumb. Turning things upside down is their game and purpose. They know where they live, they know who they are, and who we are. They know their history, and they know where they want to go. Everything that has been taken from us and makes us powerless, they still have. But what they don't have is the godly spark, which is why humanity will eventually wake up and win. They are merely shadows, vampires, parasites. They are fueled by their emptiness, and without us giving them power they won't exist. On some level they are us, and are dependent on us. The purpose of evil is in giving humanity the opportunity to overcome it. When humanity overcomes the desire to live in darkness, it will disappear.​​The problem isn't flat earth, although it shows all signs of a managed operation, but the inability of people to focus on the important aspects first. Which would be the fact that there is no evidence for heliocentrism. Apparently the masses aren't able to entertain the idea of heliocentrism being a lie without instantly substituting it with a new half-baked concept.​​Apparently people often need the concept of a flat-earth to realize that heliocentrism is false.​​The ridiculously low intellectual level of the discussion in flat-earth circles suggests it is dominated by a few government shills and an army of trolls who have too much time on their hands.​​By definition, the flat-earth movement will never be a threat, because it breaks the topic down to a very narrow view of what the opposite of heliocentrism could look like. The flat-earth meme is a very shallow concept, it's not a danger to the PTB.​​Although it contains one of the most important truths, that we live in an enclosed and relatively small realm. But this realization is overshadowed by the futile attempt to prove the flatness of everything.​​Everything could be so easy. Focus on deconstructing the heliocentric model first. That's the only threat to the powers that be.​​But the lie of heliocentrism is so engrained into the masses that people are not able to think about this. There is no topic which invites more cognitive dissonance. Although without realizing where we are and where we are not there is no way to go forward into a meaningful and peaceful life on earth. A ball earth planet racing through empty space is the anti-thesis to life itself, it's the perfect metaphor for darkness, and everyone who sincerely and without any doubt believes in it is attracted to darkness to a significant extent.​​**edit: unlocked after internal discussion*


----------



## grav (Jun 13, 2021)

Unlocked?
Well, I guess I should be pleased.

Here is a thread that says the surface we live on is flat. 
Flat refers to a vast irregular plane. Reasons include these:

Water lies flat (level). Oceans are water. Conclusion: oceans are flat.
Chicago and other distant targets are visible beyond a curve predicted by math.
Air pressure is obtained only in a closed system (p=m÷v) where particle mass is divided by volume. 
The presence and vacuum of space defy all gas laws, centrifugal force, and common sense.

Yet the Body Scientific continues to teach fake physics. 
Their chief spokesperson drops a microphone to demonstrate the "force" of gravity, while clouds weighing thousands of pounds of water float over his head.

I think these simple statements warrant consideration.
Yet people get offended and complain about the thread's very existence.

And so we get lectures and lessons in optics/perspective along a city street.
We also get helpful hints about how we are doing it all wrong, that we should deconstruct heliocentrism first, which, hello, did I not just do that a few paragraphs above?

FE has ruffled many feathers in this forum, one which putports to support skepticism of our modern model of reality.

Why people get all bent out of shape over the earth's shape beats the hell out of me. But many do, out of cognitive dissonance or self interest. 

I understand, vaguely, how difficult it must be to ride herd on a bunch of opinionated posters on a forum which covers a wide range of controversial topics. It's kind of like a big lecture hall where brilliant people and intellectually challenged individuals discuss big issues. Agents of discord infiltrate the crowd, sowing dissension and drama. ugh, drama.
Not a fan of drama. I prefer comedy. To misquote Proverbs, mirth turneth away wrath. 

Water is flat and not curvy, the air does not get dragged along by grabbity, and the spinny ball is a Disney fairy tale. I could go on but y'all get my point.


----------



## dreamtime (Jun 13, 2021)

grav said:


> We also get helpful hints about how we are doing it all wrong, that we should deconstruct heliocentrism first, which, hello, did I not just do that a few paragraphs above?



you aren't doing it all wrong, I never said that. I didn't even necessarily include you or other users of this forum when I talked about the flat-earth community, I was talking about the movement as a whole, not about you in particular. Maybe it touched something in you and you felt addressed, so you took it personally.

I explained why I think deconstructing heliocentrism should be separate from promoting a new construct of how the earth looks. It's two separate topics. Merging both together in the mind prevents us from finding more possibilities, and from seeing clearly what reality is not, before creating a new picture in the mind of what reality is.

That's why I consider it important to have a discussion that is exclusively for criticism of heliocentrism and standard accepted model of physics. It's a very good exercise - and something we also do in regards to history - looking at the official model and taking it apart. Afterwards, there is a creative void, an emptiness in the mind, and this is where all the magic happens. Maybe it could be helpful for you as well, separating both topics mentally - criticizing heliocentrism/mainstream physics and thinking about how the realm we live in really looks.

when you start with a prejudice (the earth isn't a globe, but it's flat), it's a discussion that has it's place, but it would be similar to when we talk about history while having in mind already a new construct of history.

I also wrote that I believe there is no proof for the earth being flat, and I also gave resources that make it possible to understand where I am coming from (including the link from creation.com). As I wrote before I do think that the earth is stationary. (My belief is in line with @wild heretic - the earth was flat until around 500 years ago, and since then it has become concave.


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 13, 2021)

grav said:


> Unlocked?
> Well, I guess I should be pleased.
> 
> Here is a thread that says the surface we live on is flat.
> ...


If the earth is flat, then the horizon always reaches the eye level, but is that the case when we get up high? I've seen evidence from globers that the horizon lowers as observer height increases, so I would like to see contrary evidence that it does not. I've never seen FE'ers address this empirical evidence.


----------



## grav (Jun 13, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> If the earth is flat, then the horizon always reaches the eye level, but is that the case when we get up high? I've seen evidence from globers that the horizon lowers as observer height increases, so I would like to see contrary evidence that it does not. I've never seen FE'ers address this empirical evidence.


The horizon rises to eye level only on a flat earth.
The higher you go, the more you see of the infinite plane. It's a blur of course, as the vanishing point compresses vast distances.

If earth were a finite ball, and you flew higher and higher above it, it would diminish in size. That only happens in sci-fi and Nasa rocket launches.
But I repeat myself.


dreamtime said:


> when you start with a prejudice (the earth isn't a globe, but it's flat), it's a discussion that has it's place


You don't see the irony here? 
To whom does prejudice refer? 
All of us FEers started out as globe believers who educated ourselves about basic physics and astronomy.
How about flat water, the selective force of gravity, visibility of targets around the curve, air pressure vs vacuum, other arguments that support the geocentric position?

I focus on specifics, laws of physics and optics, empirical evidence, repeatable experiments like videos which use maps and telescopic lenses to observe long distance targets.

How is that prejudice? 

As for the Concave Earth theory, I don't know. There should be a separate thread on it. The Wild Heretic is a smart guy. I just can't figure out where level water fits in, or what the math is to describe the surface of the inside of a sphere.


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 13, 2021)

grav said:


> As for the Concave Earth theory, I don't know. There should be a separate thread on it.


There is!
SH Archive - The Concave Earth Discussion.


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 13, 2021)

grav said:


> The horizon rises to eye level only on a flat earth.
> The higher you go, the more you see of the infinite plane. It's a blur of course, as the vanishing point compresses vast distances.
> 
> If earth were a finite ball, and you flew higher and higher above it, it would diminish in size. That only happens in sci-fi and Nasa rocket launches.
> ...


The horizon rises to eye level only on a flat earth.

40 pages and I have yet to see any empirical proof of that.


----------



## freygeist (Jun 13, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> The horizon rises to eye level only on a flat earth.
> 
> 40 pages and I have yet to see any empirical proof of that.



Maybe the following excerpt from Johannes Lang might give some insight on the subject:

_In order to get to know the problem from all sides as far as possible, lets do the following experiment in our minds, by thinking of a infinite plane:_

_


_​
_Our eye is 2 m above this plane. From the points A to H of the plane go light rays to our eye. Now we place at each point a surface
at right angles to the light ray going from the point to the eye. The height should be up to the light ray of the point.

We can readily see from the drawing that the eye at O the upper edge of each transverse lobe must stop at the lower one of the next. Each transverse surface therefore covers the piece of the plane, which lies between this transverse surface and the next one.
So the eye does not see the plane, but a wall.

Now we know that the eye perceives all angles that are less than one minute as a point. Consequently, it divides the image of the
Earth's surface into 29 099 points. (The whole distance from A to the horizon comprises 44 ° 59 ' == 29 099 '.) On the first meter there are 679 points. One sees it therefore very clearly in all details.
A single point in the eye covers however at the last visible part of our plane a distance of 3438 meters! It is the last half of the distance only as a single point seen. 
Even with an adjustment of the eye to the horizon the first point of the distance still covers a space of 1 millimeter. If one now considers that the first point is 1 millimeter and the last one 3438 meters - that is almost four million times (!) more - then one immediately understands the "curvature" of the plane. 
Because the eye does not distinguish the distant points any more and simply lays them together as a "wall" also know as "bowl".
The following drawing No. 3 1. shows the curvature as it appears in the eye._




_Everything that is on the plane "behind the horizon" and does not project beyond it is therefore invisible. The "wall" which these points form in our eye is just as "real" as the transverse surfaces on our drawing No. 30.
They cover just as reliably everything what lies behind the "vanishing point". They form the horizon, not any curvature. 
Because our "earth surface" in the above experiment was an (absolutely straight) plane._



As far as i understood him, he proved that the rising horizon can both occur within a flat or concave earth, but never with a convex earth.


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 13, 2021)

freygeist said:


> Maybe the following excerpt from Johannes Lang might give some insight on the subject:
> 
> _In order to get to know the problem from all sides as far as possible, lets do the following experiment in our minds, by thinking of a infinite plane:_
> 
> ...


Great post. However you will notice that the horizon meets the eye level on this picture. Even if you go to 1000 miles up, you will still see the horizon at eye level, because it is indifferent to the height of the observer. This will not happen with a round earth, which is why it is a simple experiment to do to prove if the eart is flat or not. Go to a mountain, take a picture perpendicular to the water level in a cup, then look to see if the horizon appears right in the middle of the photo. If it not dead in the middle, but slightly below the middle, then we have a problem that needs to be explained.


----------



## Myrrinda (Jun 13, 2021)

E.Bearclaw said:


> See below for a copy of The summary of Invisible Rainbow. I haven't uploaded to the book section myself, as I feel I have just kind of butted into this convo a little and wasn't sure it was my place - also it isn't the full book. It has relevance to many threads in this forum.


I have 8 more pages to read but things like this are why I read this thread and I'm glad people can post again! Even though (please don't judge) I'm one of those "I don't know and also don't really care"-shape earthers. Just sayin'.


----------



## grav (Jun 14, 2021)

_View: https://youtu.be/0DOsJvM5rC8_


----------



## Silent Bob (Jun 14, 2021)

grav said:


> _View: https://youtu.be/0DOsJvM5rC8_



I love these videos, always freaks me out a bit to see a blazing sun against a black sky - a sight most people would never get to see!

Talking of which, every high altitude video I've seen shows the sun in the same position, more or less horizontal to the camera - never directly above and never any lower or sinking below the earths surface. This one for instance, which is not an FE made video either! Wouldn't we expect a variety of sun positions for a RE? i.e. sometimes it should be directly above, sometimes going below horizon etc. Has anyone ever seen a high altitude video where the sun is positioned differently? This is a bit of smoking gun for me!


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnxvS9XFJnE_


Also this one, another that isn't FE inspired.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAlS70Onn2I&t=416s_


This one is very interesting, taken at night for a change - and lo and behold we can see stars! I thought you couldn't see stars in space according to NASA? Also not an FE made video.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkrIm0ZUyJY_


and more


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXP-va2t4D8_



_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5kRyQStPhU_


This comment from the guy who filmed it is interesting:

"I haven't had time to analyze video yet, but while viewing through the footage I notice something interesting. When the sun got close to stars it seemed to switch them off. It seemed as though the energy from the sun effected the light from the stars even when the stars were still in darkness. I will do a complete analysis of this video and upload my results on my next video."

The approach of the sun, which we can't see yet, creates a really nice blue plasma.


----------



## Starman (Jun 14, 2021)

grav said:


> _View: https://youtu.be/0DOsJvM5rC8_




Shouldn't we be able to see the earth falling away on all sides of our view, as in wrapping around the curvature of a sphere?  Surely there'd be a hint of such a phenomenon at the elevation of this ballon.  There is none.  We're looking across, not downwards.

OMFG the earth must be flat!  I've been lied to yet again!


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 14, 2021)

grav said:


> _View: https://youtu.be/0DOsJvM5rC8_



It doesn't show it's angle but if we assume that it is perpendicular to water level, then we would expect the horizon to be in the middle of the screen, but it is slightly below the middle of the screen. As far as my understanding goes, that wouldn't happen on a FE, but who knows?


----------



## E.Bearclaw (Jun 14, 2021)

Myrrinda said:


> I have 8 more pages to read but things like this are why I read this thread and I'm glad people can post again! Even though (please don't judge) I'm one of those "I don't know and also don't really care"-shape earthers. Just sayin'.


No worries and no judgement! Unfortunately the only copies of the full book seem to be behind a paywall. I have bought a copy and began reading it myself this weekend. It is a fairly weighty tome, but so far seems worth the time and money and seems very relevant to the days we are currently living in.


----------



## wise (Jun 14, 2021)

*Flat Earth Railway Experiment with Simulation*

In a real world, The size and shape of the objects around you are always the same, regardless of where you focus. As long as your position is fixed, the size and shape of the objects around you should be the same wherever you turn. I mean, in the real world it should be something like this:

*

*

This example is the same illustrative example I would give on issues like this. Whether you are looking at alpha and beta or beta and gamma, or alpha, beta and gamma, the magnitudes and ratios to each other of alpha, beta and gamma do not change. I mean, that's what it would be like in a real world. Now let's move on to the railroad experiment.

*Flat Earth Railway Experiment*

In the fake world, that is, in our world, when you look at the railroad from the accross side, the railroad always appears straight to the both of left and right. Like this:





You can see this by experimenting yourself. Look from across a railway and you'll see it this way. If you take a photo, it will still look like this.

For scientific purposes, let's measure the width of the rail on the right, middle and left, and check if they are the same or not.





this is similar to the example we saw before, when you look at an object from the opposite side, the dimensions are harmonious and straight. Here, alpha, beta and gamma angles are observed to be equal.

Here the two lines of railway are parallel to each other.

Lets turn to the right and check whether or not they are still parallel.





It is seemingly not parallel, but let's mark the measurements on it in order to doing a scientific study.

The measurement point on the left is gone, but our measurement points on the middle and right are still here, so we can measure them.





The two rail lines that were (approximately) parallel in the previous illustration are no longer parallel at all and the error rate is 70%.

What is the reason of this? This is because seeing is an arctangent function. This is the second order parabola.

If we approach the subject from another angle, the shape that we should see, which includes right, left and middle, should be something like this. -with scientific impression- :





And this is the shape we see when we look at the right, left and center in parts:




It is easy to understand why the brain estimates this way.
Our brain knows:
1- The train track is straight.
2- It gets narrower as it gets farther away.

There is no other way to make these two real together. The problem is that this happens with the camera as well. However, the camera is not the brain and does not interpret anything. But when you take a picture of the right, left and middle parts of the rail, does it perform the same process that the brain does? Did someone whisper into the camera that the train track is straight and narrows as it moves away?

The answer is very simple. The information given to the brain is the same as the information instantly coming to the camera, and that the train track is straight and narrows as it moves away. The camera takes a picture of the information as it comes to the camera. Actually, the camera doesn't take pictures. When you press the shutter button, the simulation visually sends you the (estimated) shape that should be in front of you at that moment. But this visual is not real at all.









The visuals presented to us in the world cannot convince me, they cannot convince anyone who is intelligent like me. For the reasons I mentioned above. It could only convince me if the image was a parabola. But for people with low education or low IQ who don't understand these calculations, the current situation is convincing and would not be convincing if the image were parabola. This shows that the world is not created for intelligent people, but for ignorant and low IQ people. In a way, this leads to the conclusion that me and those like me are not belong this world.

See you later on another "real" working.
*Flat Earth Light Experiments 1

Flat Earth Sunlight Shadow Experiment*

Whether flat or not, it casts a shadow on the other side of an object hit by the sun. The reason for this is that the sun reaches the places outside the object and the sunlight does not reach the other place where the object is in the middle. This is so in theory. But this theory does not work in actual life. In real life, the two-dimensional version of this works, but the third-dimensional version does not. I want to briefly show what I'm talking about graphically.





This is what it would looks like if the distance from the sun was comparable to the size of the object.

Since the sun is 150 million kilometers away from the earth in the globe earth model and 5 thousand miles away in the flat earth model, the shadow shape that will occur locally should be as follows:





Although there is an angle between the shadows in the first display, in practice, the very distant sun creates parallel shadows like this one. 

In the real world, because people know that the sun's shadow should fall on the other side of the object, I mean for ordinary people, the shadow always forms on the other side and angles between shadows. Let's examine it together whether or not happens like this.

I want to start to publish photos with this one:





This is the place Beykoz, where Jesus has been crucified mersilessly. This is a sight you see in many places. The window and the sunlight leaking from the mausoleum of the Jesus. This is how light usually leaks through the window. It is narrower near the window and spreads farther away. But this is a wrong way of reflection and the shape of the shadow. Because the sun's rays are parallel to each other, they should not form any angle. In other words, the two ends of the shadow should be parallel to each other. Here we see that the rays do not go parallel. We see that the position of the camera is centered on the bright region. Accordingly, we can measure the right and left of the bright place of the shadow. As we always do, we will measure again and determine the situation accordingly.





There has been an angle occurred here. Let me show you the situation more clearly.





Lets focus on it and check it by using "counting the paving stone" method, considering perspective mainly problems.

I present the focused image in a clean state so that you can make this measurement.





Don't think there is a trick here. I've done this measurement many times, I can do it many more times again, no problem. This is my, to it is easier to sharpen and measure the lines of paving stones.





We see that the illuminated area has increased from the size of 3 flagstones to the size of 3.5 flagstones.

This wasn't a very clear example here. I deliberately chose this example because from Beykoz, where Jesus crucified , now let's look for clearer examples.





This is a photo from Antalya. Take a good look at the direction of the shadows I've circled. It's like they cut the road vertically. Not exactly, look carefully, the one on the left is slightly to the left, the other is slightly to the right. There is a slight angle in between.





Now let's take the projection of the sun and lower it to the ground.





What do you see? Yes. As if the sun were at that exact spot on a two-dimensional screen, a shadow forms in the opposite direction. It is not compatible with the fact that the sun is 150 million kilometers away, but compatible with a shadow is formed with the sun on a two-dimensional screen.

New example:





Another image we are used to. Objects on the left are shaded to the left, and those on the right are shaded to the right. It seems to stem from perspective, but when examined in detail, we can see that it is not compatible with perspective. 

Another example:





Once again, when we face the sun, objects on the right are shadowed to the right and those on the left to the left. It seems to be compatible with the perspective, but when we look at it in detail, we see that it is not fully compatible as in other examples.

Now for the last time here we will lower the sun to the ground.





As we can clearly see, it is fully compatible with the two-dimensional model of the sun. But it is not compatible with the solar model 150 million kilometers away.

Here, it seems that those who set up the simulation took into account that people would think that this is due to perspective and that this situation is negligible regarding the formation of these shadows. It is seemingly they have not take into account wise examines it. 

See you later with the working of moonlight projective mistakes.


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 14, 2021)

Just a quick video.

_View: https://youtu.be/OMPS1Hqz4wM?t=218_​


----------



## grav (Jun 14, 2021)

I think I posted this before. It bears repeating.


_View: https://youtu.be/kZ1XkwF9HpQ_

4:11

DITRH makes great videos. Short, with captions that explain his major points.
This one shows a setting sun that fades away because its light cannot penetrate the thick armosphere.
In other words, the sun never sets; if all the water vapor in the air were sucked away, we might not ever have night.

Olbers's Paradox also makes that point about stars. With countless numbers of them in the night sky, their total effect should be constant daylight.


----------



## kulapono (Jun 15, 2021)

msw141 said:


> I think this is the primary gateway into the FE rabbit hole.  It boggles the mind that we accomplished so little in space during the 50 years since that initial 3 year span of successful moon landings despite the advancements in technology.  You can't help but be convinced that something is being covered up and eventually you make the connection that everything you were told about the nature of space and the solar system might be unreliable.   I'm not sure how people get into FE without that as a stepping stone.


     I like that 'primary gateway'. Doubt of NASA is the innocent gateway drug to the crystal meth of FE.
     I've read that back during the 'years of successful moon landings' that the computers then had the capacity of a smart phone today, if so, shouldn't we be all over the solar system now? I haven't really seen the benefits of all the zillions of dollars of research contributing to the fields of medicine, engineering, bettering our lives, stuff like that. I do remember as a child that there was this 'astronaut space food' that was tasty, little tubes of chocolate brownie made by General Mills if I recall correctly. Oh, and Tang, the powdered orange drink. Tasted like watery orange juice. Do any of you remember that? 
     I don't see any change at all; there were wars in the 1960's- we have wars today. Yes, but with better weapons. People around the world starving and dying from disease- check the box, yup we still have that. Live coverage of the ISS show astronauts floating around, women's hair askew, so I guess that hairspray doesn't work in zero gravity. Do underarm deodorants? Don't they do lab mice experiments also? OK. I seem to recall hearing or reading that some diseases the mice had went into remission in outer space. Good, let's go with that, no more chemo for you we're going to send you into orbit. That could be a benefit!
     Most of you are waaaay smarter than me, please and I am really asking for answers; what ways has 'space exploration' benefited humanity? Conquistadores brought back chocolate, Crusaders silk processing and spices, Raleigh brought tobacco, what did space exploration do?   
     I mean, something worthwhile had to come of it, right? Thank you in advance for your answers.


----------



## Citezenship (Jun 15, 2021)

kulapono said:


> I like that 'primary gateway'. Doubt of NASA is the innocent gateway drug to the crystal meth of FE.
> I've read that back during the 'years of successful moon landings' that the computers then had the capacity of a smart phone today, if so, shouldn't we be all over the solar system now? I haven't really seen the benefits of all the zillions of dollars of research contributing to the fields of medicine, engineering, bettering our lives, stuff like that. I do remember as a child that there was this 'astronaut space food' that was tasty, little tubes of chocolate brownie made by General Mills if I recall correctly. Oh, and Tang, the powdered orange drink. Tasted like watery orange juice. Do any of you remember that?
> I don't see any change at all; there were wars in the 1960's- we have wars today. Yes, but with better weapons. People around the world starving and dying from disease- check the box, yup we still have that. Live coverage of the ISS show astronauts floating around, women's hair askew, so I guess that hairspray doesn't work in zero gravity. Do underarm deodorants? Don't they do lab mice experiments also? OK. I seem to recall hearing or reading that some diseases the mice had went into remission in outer space. Good, let's go with that, no more chemo for you we're going to send you into orbit. That could be a benefit!
> Most of you are waaaay smarter than me, please and I am really asking for answers; what ways has 'space exploration' benefited humanity? Conquistadores brought back chocolate, Crusaders silk processing and spices, Raleigh brought tobacco, what did space exploration do?
> I mean, something worthwhile had to come of it, right? Thank you in advance for your answers.


The memory foam one always gets me, it needs "gravity" to work.


----------



## Starman (Jun 15, 2021)

grav said:


> I think I posted this before. It bears repeating.
> 
> 
> _View: https://youtu.be/kZ1XkwF9HpQ_
> ...




I went to see the DITRH video on the Youtube channel which is under the name "Flat Earth Sun, Moon & Zodiac Clock app"  It has 25k subscribers. I think this is David Weiss' channel because it references the app he is selling.

It is interesting to note that he has all of the original Ewaranon videos up on this channel.  He has the original 13 and also made a five hour video of the more recent series of seven (The Lost History of Flat Earth part FULL (1-7)).  This video has 137,000 views!  There are almost 2,000 comments since it was uploaded May 31. The comments are wonderful and congratulatory.

Ewaranon is turning into a phenomenon.  I have seen his videos mirrored elsewhere.  It is heartening to see that so many people are resonating with the subject matter.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ul0e6lw130_



Starman said:


> I went to see the DITRH video on the Youtube channel which is under the name "Flat Earth Sun, Moon & Zodiac Clock app"  It has 25k subscribers. I think this is David Weiss' channel because it references the app he is selling.
> 
> It is interesting to note that he has all of the original Ewaranon videos up on this channel.  He has the original 13 and also made a five hour video of the more recent series of seven (The Lost History of Flat Earth part FULL (1-7)).  This video has 137,000 views!  There are almost 2,000 comments since it was uploaded May 31. The comments are wonderful and congratulatory.
> 
> ...





I just found this comment from Ewaranon (dated a week ago) on his channel in the comment section.  It's in the video called, "Yes, this is the real Ewar channel.  He is replying to Bob at Globebusters about being interviewed:

*Ghostbuster Bob's comment:*

Hello, I was wondering if you would like to join us on the Globebusters show this coming Sunday at Noon Pacific / 3:00 PM Eastern / 7:00 PM UTC.  To say I am taken aback by your videos would be an understatement.  It seems you have unlocked the secrets of so many things we have covered on Globebusters over the last 6 years and we would love the opportunity to talk to you and get to know you a little better.  It has been a long time since I have been as impressed with a video series as I am with your work here and I would love the opportunity to have you join us this Sunday. Please let me know sir and thank you so much for your outstanding contribution to the truth seeking community. - Bob

*Ewaranon's response:*

_"Woah. I was not expecting to see a comment from you when coming on here today.   

Your channel, DITRH and Eric Dubay woke me up so long ago. Absolute heroes! And I'm forever grateful for it, thank you very much. I massively respect all the work you guys put in and without it so many would still be asleep. I'm really glad you enjoyed the videos. I never intended to make any videos but at the start of last year, with everything starting to kick off, I felt a sense of urgency to wake family and friends up. And they would never read or watch anything I sent them. So hence the videos. I've only partially succeeded but that's better than nothing right! I started LHFE last December and almost gave up on it around March when everyone started getting the shot but I thought nah keep going at least finish vol 1. They are just videos of me trying to make sense of everything I have learned from so many others and from my own research; to put things into a contextual framework for myself and others. I am so grateful for all you guys' hard work in shattering the globe deception, and to others like Jon Levi, UAP, Flat Fact and Stergios. Without any of you I would be rather lost.  

I would love to sit down with you all and discuss all of this stuff but unfortunately I want to remain anonymous and quiet for now. My accounts had a pretty hefty attack after releasing LHFE, with a certain group of people trying to find out my identity and which led to the accounts going down and YT shadow banning this new channel. It's all been a bit of a pain tbh. I'm going to be fairly quiet for a while and will focus on volume 2--it keeps me busy and volume 1 is really just the beginning of the whole story I am trying to tell, I've discovered some interesting things. If you guys are still interested after I release volume 2 then it may work. It would be really cool to chat, so many questions I'd love to ask you guys.  

Thanks again for the kind words about LHFE. I'm really chuffed you enjoyed it. And hopefully it is a useful aid in discussion, even if people disagree with what I've presented - I often find some of the best brain waves come from good discussion and debate.  All the best mate - keep shattering the globe!"_


----------



## wise (Jun 15, 2021)

As I have told before, I'll show you some moon fiction problems.

*Flat Earth Light Experiments 2

Globalist Moonlight Fiction Mistake*

In the globe-earth model, the sun's rays at a distance of 150 million kilometers reach the moon parallel to each other. To be seen from Earth as a full moon or even in other ways, some of these rays that reach all visible surfaces of the moon must be reflected back to Earth. However, this is impossible due to the position and shape of the moon. Only less than 0.1% of the moon can be seen. In the remaining thousand, 999 will never appear. So, in theory, that's how it is. Let's make this situation easier to understand with graphics.






We can say that rays coming from a very long distance no longer have an angle between them. In other words, there is a slight difference in angle, and this angle difference causes a bit more visibility than we mentioned. Here, the ideal notation without any angle difference between the sunrays will be used for a better understanding of the subject.





As we can easily see, in accordance with the rules of reflection, the rays coming to a sphere surface are reflected to the other way from the surface at the angle they come from and as a result are scattered around as the graphic above.

Here, the part of the moon that can be seen from the earth is the part that only the reflected rays reach. If the earth, moon, and distance between them were the same as in this representation, we would only be able to see this part of the moon:





If you notice, the rays reflected from the north of the moon reach the north of the earth, and the rays reflected from the south reach the south of the earth. So the visible part of the moon is not completely visible from anywhere in the world. You can only see a small portion of this illustrated portion of the moon from any location.

As a result, the moon can never appear as a full moon or crescent, or even as much of the moon as you can tell by its shape. That is, the rules of optics require it. Therefore, the image of the full moon or any phase in which the whole moon is visible is against the rules of mind and physics and the ordinary flow of life.





The work I have done here is reasonable, repeatable and easily testable. It is comprehensible and clear at a level that even a primary school graduate can understand. Despite this, "so-called" university graduates and "so-called" professors can say without shame that the earth and moon are round. To say that the earth is round, to say that the sun is 150 million kilometers away, that the light reflected from the moon is sunlight, must either have a mental problem or betray the science that it claims to represent.





We'll see you later with worse moonlight problems. Have a nice day.


----------



## grav (Jun 15, 2021)

wise said:


> "so-called" university graduates and "so-called" professors can say without shame that the earth and moon are round. To say that the earth is round, to say that the sun is 150 million kilometers away, that the light reflected from the moon is sunlight, must either have a mental problem or betray the science that it claims to represent.



No mental problems. You used the right word -- betray.
Why? various forms of persuasion, including threats.

To add to your light presentation, I will mention that I have many times seen the wrong portions of the moon illuminated vis-a-vis the sun. Full moons are never possible. As for why ordinary people never question authority, that one stumps me. I saw chemtrails galore yesterday over a store parking lot. No one else noticed. 

_ _ _ _  

btw, thanks to @dreamtime for unlocking the thread. I have higher expectations for this forum than I do your run-of-the-mill blab factories.

I don't mean to be ugly, butttt.... That's how Southern ladies preface an impending smartalecky comment.

I like this forum. Buttttt I cut my flat teeth on forums where shills, trolls, Nasa fanboys attacked me mercilessly. Endlessly. Maliciously.
Not here. It's ? too quiet. Since I guess, maybe, that I am addicted to a fight club kind of debate.
So I post on Flamewarriors. FW, which I tend to call fluff wits, or words to that effect.
They keep me on my toes. Sometimes, they say the darnedest things. Like today >>>

Quote from Holden 


> Quote:A curveball curves because the air sticks to it as it spins causing a higher pressure on one side of the baseball
> 
> the air sticks to the earth by gravity and spins with the earth because it is part of the earth
> air sticks to the earth.
> ...


 
ok.
makes perfect sense.
yep.

gravity drag is, I think, the official term to describe how the whole shebang moves in unison. Relativity speaking.
Grabbity also causes bendy water to cling to the spinny ball.

Grabbity makes all things possible.
Thanks.

But. As Detective Columbo always asks his clients, just one more thing, please.
Why do clouds get to do what they want, huh?

They don't fall down, go against the flow, generally act as if they are superior to air and grabbity drag.

Maybe if we looked at clouds from space, we could figure it out.


----------



## Prolix (Jun 15, 2021)

So Grav, do you have a parry to the position presented in the links dreamtime gave:

Creating Flight Plans for Flat Earth
A direct test of the flat earth model: flight times - creation.com

Like Lightseeker, I was under the impression FE-ers argued the reverse, that flight paths only made sense under the FE model.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jun 15, 2021)

You cannot form comparisons using two versions of the same globe map , which is what these two websites do . Not a true test. 

Fe map latitudes ( measured empirically from pole star elevation) are not compatible with Globe latitudes - apparently computed from the angle subtended to the assumed centre of the earth .

I put in flights from MAN uk to CAN mexico out of curiosity . That flight travels over Iceland , Greenland and down the east coast of America  - four members of my family have flown this at separate times . This is different to the great circle path which crosses the ocean west of Ireland . The website shows that as a straight path.

We need a proper FE map to do comparisons.


----------



## grav (Jun 16, 2021)

Prolix said:


> So Grav, do you have a parry to the position presented in the links dreamtime gave:
> 
> Creating Flight Plans for Flat Earth
> A direct test of the flat earth model: flight times - creation.com
> ...


haha, good one, Prolix.
............
This App lets you create a Flight Plan based on the Flat Earth Model.

*Note: This Flight Plans must not be used in real flights, because the plans produced by this App are not accurate, because the earth is not flat but a globe.
...........*


----------



## Prolix (Jun 16, 2021)

grav said:


> haha, good one, Prolix.





grav said:


> haha, good one, Prolix.


I'm not attempting to make a joke, but rather understand the conflicting positions on the flight path subject from those versed in FE (or against it). I don't seem to be getting anywhere so far.

Are they right on the basis of the assumed (wrong) FE model/map, yet can't be disproved on the basis of a lack of a working model/map?


----------



## space966 (Jun 16, 2021)

One chance to know more about Earth structure, is to question these people, who make races on yachts. They sometimes reach quite distant points.

Also, discussion about Earth is hard, because it depends on point of view. Let's say, there's wooden stick, one end round, other - square. So one from one end will be shouting, that Earth is round, another - that's square. And both are right.


----------



## grav (Jun 16, 2021)

FarewellAngelina said:


> You cannot form comparisons using two versions of the same globe map , which is what these two websites do . Not a true test.
> 
> Fe map latitudes ( measured empirically from pole star elevation) are not compatible with Globe latitudes - apparently computed from the angle subtended to the assumed centre of the earth .
> 
> ...


1. FE uses the Gleason map as the best representation of our world. Is it accurate? Maybe it is, since the UN map shows the same placememt of continents.

2. I did not work with the flight plan app. I myself have flown from the southern US up to high latitudes, then down to Europe. This was before I knew about flat earth. But even then I wondered why I had to fly to Canada or airports that didn't seem necessary for refueling or to pick up passengers.

In fact, the Great Circle navigation route confused me when I first learned about it in elementary school. I couldn't see how it worked on a globe. In high school I had the same reaction to the Atom theory. 

And when we are told that the burden of proof lies with us, I am again perplexed: why is it that status quo science never proves bupkis? The Atom, the solar system, Covid, space rockets and satellites, all the other assumptions of orthodoxy, etc. -- get no scrutiny in the mainstream. 

It's the 'ipse dixit' authority. When the Control System says a thing, it must be taken as law. Can anyone prove that airplanes fly direcrly from Australia to South America or southern Africa? Why do they always make pit stops in the US or other out of the way airports? Again, who is in charge of aerospace and cartograohy and the media? Same people as people in charge of medicine, politics, all aspects of modern life.

Last, I have asked for 6 years for visual proof of the spinning globe. What is presented to us is Photoshopped. I've been banned before on generic forums for requesting uncut, unedited videos of rockets entering space.   

But I and other flatearthers have to disprove the ipse dixit reality as presented by the behemoth of Big Brother?


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jun 16, 2021)

Hi Grav , the Gleason map is just a flattened representation of the globe model . The latitude system shown on the Gleason map belongs to the globe model and derives its degrees from the angle subtended to the assumed centre of the earth . So it cannot represent a flat earth which has to have a latitude system based on stellar observation originating from the North star. 

Can't remember offhand but doesn't the UN map ( and other organisations) show the same land arrangements but not latitudes . 

Imo the distances given to Southern landmasses are probably not correct .

The flight from Manchester UK to Cancun that I mentioned is around 4800mls according to those websites and given as roughly a 9hr45 min flight. The people I know who flew that one all said the flight was around 11 hrs. None of them did that flight in under 10 hr 30 mins but that could be weather or such things .

Nothing is what it seems - that's my opinion and mainstream science looks more like a control system the more I read of this site .


----------



## grav (Jun 16, 2021)

FarewellAngelina said:


> it cannot represent a flat earth which has to have a latitude system based on stellar observation originating from the North star.



I get your first point but am not sure about observation of latitudes.
From the North Star we would still have distortion due to the cone of vision or optical compressiom or whatever @wise would call it.


----------



## Akanah (Jun 16, 2021)

If something is flat or not depends of its size. Little microorganisms would say the body is flat where they are living on.


----------



## Prolix (Jun 16, 2021)

grav said:


> And when we are told that the burden of proof lies with us, I am again perplexed: why is it that status quo science never proves bupkis? The Atom, the solar system, Covid, space rockets and satellites, all the other assumptions of orthodoxy, etc. -- get no scrutiny in the mainstream.
> 
> It's the 'ipse dixit' authority. When the Control System says a thing, it must be taken as law. Can anyone prove that airplanes fly direcrly from Australia to South America or southern Africa? Why do they always make pit stops in the US or other out of the way airports? Again, who is in charge of aerospace and cartograohy and the media? Same people as people in charge of medicine, politics, all aspects of modern life.
> 
> ...


There's no "burden of proof" intent involved, but I can see you have a residency on your cross to attend to, so I won't pursue the subject further.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jun 16, 2021)

grav said:


> I get your first point but am not sure about observation of latitudes.
> From the North Star we would still have distortion due to the cone of vision or optical compressiom or whatever @wise would call it.



That's true Grav - there will always be that atmospheric distortion - the further from the North pole the more you encounter as you look back.
Clear still nights needed - that's how they did it originally . I suppose if you repeated enough observations you could quantify any refraction/distortion to a degree. Pity we'll never know.


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 16, 2021)

FarewellAngelina said:


> That's true Grav - there will always be that atmospheric distortion - the further from the North pole the more you encounter as you look back.
> Clear still nights needed - that's how they did it originally . I suppose if you repeated enough observations you could quantify any refraction/distortion to a degree. Pity we'll never know.


I don't think that's what he meant, but rather you need to account for the perspective and the shape of our eyes and how it impacts what we see. 

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbQ7U5DGk5k_


----------



## grav (Jun 17, 2021)

Right you are, @Worsaae, as it is difficult to put optical effects into words.
From one viewpoint looking down and into the horizon, distant objects will become more and more compressed. You go to a lot of bother to show the limits of human eyesight to visualize huge areas of real estate.
Not my favorite discussion point, because of the complexities of perception.

But I can at least copy and  paste understandable text from a writer who combines history with geology and science. Real history? haha, on this forum? Real science? Velikovsky was a believer of the heliocentric model.
I've been reading Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision.
I have a hardcover edition and Kindle. It's available free on Internet Archives in different formats.
Imo, comets are the agents of world age resets. Antiquitech is a pimple on the little toe of cometary catastrophism.
Comets of "antiquity" upheavaled mountains, flooded the earth, and abolished the old sun and moon.
Velikovsky insists that one great comet became a planet. Venus, which erupted from the head of her father, Jupiter. 

A sample:
Full text of "Immanuel Velikovsky books - Worlds in Collision (1950), Earth in Upheaval (1955), Stargazers and Gravediggers (1983)"

Nations and tribes in many places of the globe, to the 
south, to the north, and to the west of Egypt, have old 
traditions about a cosmic catastrophe during which the 
sun did not shine; but in some parts of the world the tradi¬ 
tions maintain that the sun did not set for a period of time ' 
equal to a few days. 

Tribes of the Sudan to the south of Egypt refer in their 
tales to a time when the night would not come to an end. 7 - 

Kalevala, the epos of the Finns, tells of a time when 
hailstones of iron fell from the sky, and the sun and the ’ 
moon disappeared (were stolen from the sky) and did not 
appear again; in their stead, after a period of darkness, a 
new sun and a new moon were placed in the sky. 8 Caius 
Julius Solinus writes that “following the deluge which is 
reported to have occurred in the days of Ogyges, a heavy 
night spread over the globe.” 0 

In the manuscripts of Avila and Molina, who collected 
the traditions of the Indians of the New World, it is related 
that the sun did not appear for five days; a cosmic collision 
of stars preceded the cataclysm; people and animals tried to 
escape to mountain caves. “Scarcely had they reached 
there when the sea, breaking out of bounds following a 

T L. Frobenius, Dichten imd Denken im Sudan (1925), p. 38. 

* Kalevala (transl. J. M. Crawford, 1888), p. xiii. 

® Caius Julius Solinus, Polyhislor. French transl. by M. A. Agnant, 
1847, Chap, xi, reads: "a heavy night spread over the globe for nine 
consecutive days.” Other translators render: "nine consecutive 
months.” 


] 76 [ 


terrifying shock, began to rise on the Pacific coast. But as 
the sea rose, filling the valleys and the plains around, the 
mountain of Ancasmarca rose, too, like a ship on the 
waves. During the five days that this cataclysm lasted, 
the sun did not show its face and the earth remained in 
darkness.” 10 

Thus the traditions of the Peruvians describe a time when 
the sun did not appear for five days. In the upheaval, the 
earth changed its profile, and the sea fell upon the land. 11 

East of Egypt, in Babylonia, the eleventh tablet of the 
Epic of Gilgamesh [Gilgamish] refers* to the same events. 
From out the horizon rose a dark cloud and it rushed 
against the earth; the land was shriveled by the heat of the 
flames. “Desolation . . . stretched to heaven; all that was 
bright was turned into darkness. . . . Nor could a brother 
distinguish his brother. ... Six days ... the hurricane, 
deluge, and tempest continued sweeping the land . . . and 
all human back to its clay was returned.” 12


----------



## grav (Jun 17, 2021)

To continue with old world "myths" which speak of things that are impossible in modern science, we have this.

When the Earth was Moonless

. . . Velikovsky has discussed this same idea by noting that one of the most remote recollections of mankind is in regard to the period of Earth’s history when it was Moonless.  Velikovsky quotes everyone from Democritus and Anaxagoras to Aristotle and Apollonius of Rhodes to show that such a pre-Hellenic time existed.  Those humans living at the time were called Pelasgians, Proselenes (“before the Moon”), and Arcadians (pre-Danai and pre-Deukalion).  They were said to have dwelt in the mountains, fed on acorns, and lived as aborigines. [See below.]

Plutarch, Hippolytus, Censorinus, and a doubting Lucian wrote of pre-Lunar people, as did Ovid, who said that the Arcadians possessed their land before the birth of Jove, and were older than the Moon.  There are even Biblical references (Job 25:5 and Psalm 72:5) which allude to a Moonless Earth -- or at least can be so interpreted.  Finally, the memory of a Moonless Earth is contained in the oral traditions of such Indians as those of the Bogota highlands in the eastern Cordilleras of Columbia, i.e. according to tribesmen of Chibchas, “In the earliest times, when the moon was not yet in the heavens.”

The references to the aboriginal nature of the pre-Moon folk, and the fact they lived before “the birth of Jove” is particularly noteworthy.  While Velikovsky and those scholars suggesting a Moonless Earth time, have never made the apparent connection to Sumerian records and the Anunnaki, many of whom of the latter have a date of birth (or arrival in the environs of Earth) which would have occurred after the time of some of Earth’s original aborigines.  In fact, the time of a Moonless Earth might likely correspond to the time when Homo Erectus was roaming about the planet, dwelling in mountains, eating acorns, and becoming the archetype for future aborigines.  The possible assumption that the Arcadians were a civilization is without confirming evidence.  In addition, the habit of Sumerians to consider civilization and the world as an interchangeable term, does not eliminate an Arcadian “civilization” as being essentially an aboriginal one.  Meanwhile, all the histories tie together, all the pieces of the puzzle fit -- provided, of course, there is no recarving of the puzzles to make them fit in an incorrect position.

" " " " "

Did you catch that next to last sentence?

"In addition, the habit of Sumerians to consider civilization and the world as an interchangeable term. "


----------



## grav (Jun 18, 2021)

grav said:


> "In addition, the habit of Sumerians to consider civilization and the world as an interchangeable term. "


no response to this quotation?
At first blush, it suggests that the "world" is a construct made by or for humans.
Not a physical place, but a political and cutural realm.

Another interpretation may present this reality as a sim world, a computer program that reboots every so often. You know my theory on the means of deconstruction -- comets.

World ages would be caused by these resets. The Mayans proposed 4 previous ages, making this the 5th. Ovid and Hesiod spoke metaphorically, or maybe factually, of 4 previous ages: Gold. Silver, Bronze, Iron. What metal describes our current world? Sorry, plastic is not a metal.


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 18, 2021)

Got a quarter of an hour?

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qaqfivcL4Y_​


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 18, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Got a quarter of an hour?
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qaqfivcL4Y_​



That's interesting. 
What can explain that the horizon lowers when you go up?


----------



## grav (Jun 19, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Got a quarter of an hour?
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qaqfivcL4Y_​




As usual, explaining astronomy perception is like telling a color-blind person what red looks like.
The universe has too many moving parts. I went to Stellarium to see how to find Polaris. When I opened this page,
Stellarium Web Online Star Map
an odd image appeared in the top -- a crescent moon with stars in the dark side. Why would they do that?


Worsaae said:


> That's interesting.
> What can explain that the horizon lowers when you go up?


Lowers? Every video I've seen shows the horizon rising to eye level.
If earth were a ball, it would shink in size as altitude increases.


----------



## Kmbytt (Jun 20, 2021)

Skydog said:


> I’m pretty intrigued by Ewaranon’s clocklike version of the FE model given the source (our moon), the incorporation of the precession of the equinoxes, the Latin cross, nobility version of the crescent moon, temporary ice wall as well as many other SH aspects we are so familiar with here.
> 
> For example, all of the old glorious / impossible architecture could be from the last time the sun and moon were above our current known section of the larger realm. Granted that would have been many thousands of years ago under the ~25k great year model. However, it would have been frozen in time as the sun and moon would have moved on to the other sections of the realm in between. Partially explaining why the old population is nowhere to be found and many other aspects of the mud flooded buildings all over the show.
> 
> ...


Just learned about this yesterday from auto didactic. I am very interested


----------



## grav (Jun 22, 2021)

We had a storm tonight. Winds rocked the house and thunder rolled between the surface and the dome.
I'm not having good luck finding FE studies of how it all works -- the energy production of the earth battery.
When consensus science names things, they camouflage the true nature of weather and cosmology.
Examples --
dark matter = the ether/aether (dielectricity)
ionosphere = the dome/firmament
outer space = the Antarctic ice barrier

Not enough FE research and explication, in my opinion, of things: lightning, hurricanes, other surface conditions, much less why the crust is disrupted by volcanoes, sinkholes, earthquakes.

Obviously electrical forces. 

Schumann resonances - Wikipedia

This global electromagnetic resonance phenomenon is named after physicist Winfried Otto Schumann who predicted it mathematically in 1952. Schumann resonances occur because the space between the surface of the Earth and the conductive ionosphere acts as a closed waveguide. The limited dimensions of the Earth cause this waveguide to act as a resonant cavity for electromagnetic waves in the ELF band. The cavity is naturally excited by electric currents in lightning. Schumann resonances are the principal background in the part of the electromagnetic spectrum[2] from 3 Hz through 60 Hz,[3] and appear as distinct peaks at extremely low frequencies (ELF) around 7.83 Hz (fundamental), 14.3, 20.8, 27.3 and 33.8 Hz.[4]


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jun 22, 2021)

It would be hard to get funding to do FE research or any research with an anti-establishment slant -stick with the paradigm and you'll do all right . 
Schumann is another paperclip scientist doing what he was told to do , like paperclip Von Braun the rocket engineer who knew you couldn't get to the moon - made head of Nasa or some such thing. 

Seems the dome begins around 100km though .
It would be hard to get funding to do FE research or any research with an anti-establishment slant -stick with the paradigm and you'll do all right . 
Schumann is another paperclip scientist doing what he was told to do , like paperclip Von Braun the rocket engineer who knew you couldn't get to the moon - made head of Nasa or some such thing. 

Seems the dome begins around 100km though .


----------



## Sapioit (Jun 22, 2021)

There are a few videos which explains those things better than I can, but here's the outline of some of the content:


 All modern and historical maps we have are wrong. So we cannot find out where to go.
 Satellites are "weather balloons" launched from Arctica, Antarctica or from the sea.
 The sun and moon rotate around the magnetic north, and illuminate one quarter/quadrant of the world at a time.
 The moon is silver, and the Carrington event acted like a flash to imprint the world map on the moon. It looks more like an X-ray, and the two darkest points are the sun and the true magnetic north. 
 The north pole is a point, which rotates in a circle very slowly, and around which the moon and sun rotate in a circle every day.
 Pleiades is right above the true magnetic north, around which the compass' magnetic north rotates very slowly, and is the only star in the sky which remains stationary.
 Everything not illuminated by the sun ends up a frozen dark windless area. The sunlight heats the air to create wind currents.
 Moonlight actually cools down what it hits, while the sunlight heats up what it hits. 
 Just like holding a flashlight close to a table in a dark room, we illuminate an area but not the whole table, and from some parts of the table the flashlight's light is not visible.
 To get to the true magnetic north, you have to sail south, and to be able to use the star map for navigation.
 The closer to the true magnetic north you get, the more the compass will stop working.
 The south pole's arctic circle is heavily defended by the military of nations.
 The actual controllers of the world live in the true magnetic north, on a small continent split in a few parts.
 My addition: Historical evidence might be from a previous cycle. Flash freezing would preserve things intact under a layer of ice, and flash thawing would cause lots of water to displace soil and cause soil liquefaction and mud rivers.
 My addition: The stars in the sky might be actual settlements on the other side of the world, which live in complete darkness, and have to generate light without the use of a sun. Sunlight would still make the air in the middle be of lower density, so both sides would work similarly, from the point of view of the beings living there.

Relevant videos:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VogNiwwoSj4_



_View: https://odysee.com/@Autodidactic:3/Is-The-Moon-a-Map1:5_



_View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/QImI7ys7tYss/_


----------



## grav (Jun 22, 2021)

_View: https://youtu.be/5aIkNkbX_gQ_


Chicago is visible from across Lake Michgan.
The math (spherical trigonometry) predicting drop from sight makes this repeatable observation impossible.

Maybe defenders of heliocenfrism should pursue this discussion on the other thread.

I'd prefer this one to focus on advanced topics.
Our latest interest is the Electrc Universe operations of the cavity between the dome and the surface.
I know very little about batteries, dynamos, mechanics.
So far, I'm not finding resources that apply real world applications to FE cosmology -- specifically examining weather and comets.

. . . another view is one from religion and stories about advanced beings.
I'm not a believer, but I take biblical and mythical writings seriously.
The world, or the universe, is a creation. That does not mean God, a supernatural being. Enoch was one of the first-generation humans who lived extremely long lives. He claimed to have ridden up to the throne of God where he could see the earth and its working parts, the places where fallen angels were imprisoned, other mysterious things.
His descriptions of the portals are interestjng.



_View: https://youtu.be/R-Jpr3kGQXM_


----------



## Citezenship (Jun 22, 2021)

grav said:


> _View: https://youtu.be/5aIkNkbX_gQ_
> 
> 
> Chicago is visible from across Lake Michgan.
> ...




_View: https://youtu.be/2pDcv6g1FE0?t=1188_


----------



## E_V_ (Jun 22, 2021)

I just want to add Chicago is visible from the suburbs as well. One of the fun parts of living near the city growing up was seeing all the places you could still see Chicago from. Had nothing to do with flat earth. It’s just cool as a kid to see the city when you’re far away from it. To call it a mirage is silly. Just need a clear day and you can see the skyline from all sorts of far away places

When I saw that newscast calling it a mirage I wondered why they’d even bother making that excuse. Makes you think


----------



## AntiSoof (Jun 22, 2021)

Hi, my name is AntiSoof.
Not speaking English as  my mother tong.

I wish to add some thoughts of mine:


1. Maybe earth is ánd flat ánd a globe?
The earth may look like a globe with a flat plane. This globe has a speed 'upwards' in a very big circle. This  speed is the 'gravity'? So gravity don't exists, it is the speed of the globe. Maybe this globe is very huge. Lets say 10 times what is thought?
F.i. throw a ball in the air. The earth moves to the ball and we only thínk it is falling. (lol)
Thus we live on something thats like a big crater. Thats the plane. So flat earth maps can be, in a way, correct. ( But they forget the rest of the (huge) globe? )

I don't know much about this, but it can be a way to explain the gravity-problem.

2. An other way to explain gravity is ether. When and if ether moves inside earth, lets say, with the speed of light, it seems as if we move to earth (weight), but no, the surrounding ether moves and keeps us on the globe.
( Ether may be also the origin of matter. So, if ether moves to the center of the earth, it becomes matter. This is why the earth grows and is hot in the center where ether is converted into pure matter. )


----------



## grav (Jun 23, 2021)

Sapioit said:


> To get to the true magnetic north, you have to sail south, and to be able to use the star map for navigation.
> The closer to the true magnetic north you get, the more the compass will stop working.


I haven't had time to look at the map videos but agree with most of your points. 
I don't understand these 2 and would appreciate your context.
Magnetism is another area of the electric battery that we need to figure out.
Thanks.


----------



## grav (Jun 23, 2021)

What is the sun? a ball of fire that burns for millions of years?

The fact is, according to modern science, that two of the lightest elements in the periodic table undergo nuclear fusion and create gravity that holds 9 (or is it 8.5?) planets on the ecliptic plane. 
makes perfect sense, and Nasa has the maths to prove it. 

But then.
We have Eric Dollard who years ago said that if you doubt the sun science, you'll go to jail.
He also said back then that the sun was hollow, a transformer powered from an "interdimensional" software souce, and is dying.

In this video he experiments with cosmic induction generation (plasma aether).

_View: https://youtu.be/cVeJXBar-sQ_


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 23, 2021)

Well Worsaae must be too busy to come up with the goods so I had a bash myself.
The cemetery is over two miles away uphill from here so opted for a similar length walk on the level to get the images below.
The camera used was a Sony compact camera fixed to a wooden block by its tripod shoe and bolt. The block was checked for square with a square (bloody silly english language!) and was found to be true.
The block was levelled using a spirit level you can seen in the picture below from camera to horizon and from left to right.
Sadly in Picture 1 the camera moved as I pressed the shutter as the block was levelled with twigs and one must have moved.
I didn't realise it until my return however it is of no consequence as the level showed the camera was level from it to the horizon.
I have done nothing in post processing save using Nomacs 'save for web' function to reduce the image size.

Here are the three picture positions.



​The spirit level is where I took picture one.
The post is where I took picture two.
The path is where I took picture three

The base of the vegetation to the right is the level of the mud flat over which the tide floods at high spring tides. 



A side view showing the difference in height of all three positions and how far apart they are.



Picture one. This one is about three feet above the mud line.



Picture two. The post is six feet tall from the path using my height as the measure and the path is seven or eight feet above the first picture position.



Picture three. This one is the camera on the block on the ground on the path so is approx six feet lower than picture two and approx seven or eight feet higher than picture one


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 23, 2021)

Yes, I don't have much time for family, friends or personal research currently. At work we're usually busy before summer starts because of vacations, which puts our man power down.

Good pictures. 
The horizon is at 299-304 pixels in the first picture. 
The horizon is at 276-278 pixels in the second picture.
The horizon is at 297-305 pixels in the third picture.

In paint the pixels are counted from top down, so the horizon seems to go up, when we increase the height of the camera. 

That is unexpected to say the least. Concave earth? What's happening here?


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 23, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> That is unexpected to say the least. Concave earth? What's happening here?


Good to see you have  just enough free time to measure the pixel height of these images and throw concavity into the mix.
Cannot wait for your photos to confirm this concavity but seems due to your waking days being so busy  you won't be finding the time anytime soon. pity, que sera sera.

Just for shits n giggles here is a description of the pixel and its sizes.



> Pixels are the smallest result possible image elements on monitors that lined up with their respective colors pictures. The size of a Pixel is not determined as a lump sum, but depending on your setting.
> 
> For example, you can change the resolution of your screen and the size of each individual Pixel to adjust:
> You can switch around a resolution of 1920 x 1080 to 1080 x 720, decreases the total number of pixels while the screen size of course. Accordingly, the pixels grow.
> ...



source
The camera is a 12.1 megapixel camera.
Nomacs reduces the image size from 2592 x 1944 pixels to 800 X 600 using its 'save to web feature'.

I cannot account for the difference in the pixel counts between the photographs so therefore the island in the distance which forms the horizon is approximately three miles from the cameras viewpoints is prime facie evidence of a concavity....unless the land is rising on the island and the higher up the viewpoint of the camera gets the more of the rise it sees....but the ocean beyond it doesn't continue the upward curve as it is not visible in any of the image so therefore the earth must be a ball as if it were concave then it would rise up beyond the island.
But that explanation is just nonsense.

I would go back and do it again on a sunny day just in case the ocean horizon is simply obscured by the falling rain but frankly cannot be bothered.
You have the floor.


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 23, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Good to see you have  just enough free time to measure the pixel height of these images and throw concavity into the mix.
> Cannot wait for your photos to confirm this concavity but seems due to your waking days being so busy  you won't be finding the time anytime soon. pity, que sera sera.
> 
> Just for shits n giggles here is a description of the pixel and its sizes.
> ...


I cannot explain what we see on your photos. Normally I would say measurement error, because just a slight tilt will have a huge impact on the horizon. Maybe one of our perspective guys can figure this one out for us. 
I wouldn't say, at least for now, that we have good evidence for either the FE or the RE model.


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 23, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> Maybe one of our perspective guys can figure this one out for us.


What?
Here watch this I will make massive building, chimney and electricity pylon disappear simply as a result of the way our eyes work. It's magic.
All taken on the walk back all run through the nomacs image reduction process just like the others. Only difference is this time it is just me looking straight ahead using my inbuilt systems to level. With apologies to Grav for having to labour the point.














Gone!
Not really. Here it is as large as life!



The eyes have it.​


----------



## grav (Jun 23, 2021)

Pretty countryside, except for that very serious fence.
My favorite is the closeup of wildflowers.

The problem with land is its tendency to go up and down. Uneven hills and valleys can't be measured for our purposes -- unless we have a very long view, say a hundred miles or so. 
This is why we need to find bodies of water that can be pinpointed.
2 miles of lake or ocean should be easy enough to find for an experiment.
The 8xdxd formula is also easy enough to do in your  head.
8x2x2 = 32 inches.
Put a breadbox at the shoreline and try to photofraph it from the opposite bank, with your camera height also at the shoreline. 
If the breadbox is not visible, you have proof of the globe.
If it's visible, nope.

You think we might be living on the inside of a sphere?
Concave Earth confuses me totally. Mostly because water seeks its own level.
Does The Wild Heretic address this watery conundrum?


----------



## DampDevil (Jun 23, 2021)

maus said:


> Calling it 'heliocentric software' is disingenuous -- unless you've personally navigated the supposed globe with the app open to confirm so. Anyone who studies the stars and other objects can correctly map it to an app, but that doesn't confirm the shape of the realm. All of what you're seeing could easily be mapped in a dome, crater, or whatever. You don't know what we do or do not orbit because you've never left this realm.
> 
> Denial of round earth doesn't mean we know everything. It's the opposite. We know the heliocentric model is full of inconsistencies and so we think, examine, and discuss until new theories and new evidence comes about. You know as little as we do.


Well, of course. The app would not need a globe to work, assuming everything else is correct. Things I myself can validate in the night sky. thio, it woulöd still be heliocentric, since that only means the sun is in the middle.  
I find it kind of hard to discuss the flat earth without coming across like a total dick. Because I kind of think it is a huge stretch to think we live on a pancake or a "cosmic egg" while every other body in the solar system is spherical. Logic dictates we also live on a sphere and every ounce of evidence proves it. Flat earth has nothing.  Lunar eclipses exist, you can watch one happen. No straight edges there.


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 23, 2021)

DampDevil said:


> Well, of course. The app would not need a globe to work, assuming everything else is correct. Things I myself can validate in the night sky. thio, it woulöd still be heliocentric, since that only means the sun is in the middle.
> I find it kind of hard to discuss the flat earth without coming across like a total dick. Because I kind of think it is a huge stretch to think we live on a pancake or a "cosmic egg" while every other body in the solar system is spherical. Logic dictates we also live on a sphere and every ounce of evidence proves it. Flat earth has nothing.  Lunar eclipses exist, you can watch one happen. No straight edges there.


We have a flat earth thread here:
Flat Earth

You will see that I am not in favor of flat earth myself, but others are and they have valid arguments for their beliefs. You are also not qualified to discuss flat earth, so you might feel that you would come off as a total dick, but you shouldn't even have that discussion before you took the time to look into what the flat earth beliefs actually are.  
This thread is not for the discussion of flat earth, so I suggest taking your questions into the other thread. 

The best introduction is this video:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEaHjPF47_E_


----------



## Silent Bob (Jun 23, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> View attachment 10954​


You seem to have captured an 'Orb' in this picture


kd-755 said:


> ​


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 24, 2021)

grav said:


> The 8xdxd formula is also easy enough to do in your head.
> 8x2x2 = 32 inches.
> Put a breadbox at the shoreline and try to photofraph it from the opposite bank, with your camera height also at the shoreline.
> If the breadbox is not visible, you have proof of the globe.


Crack on then.


Silent Bob said:


> You seem to have captured an 'Orb' in this picture


It's just a rain drop. I was genuinely out in the rain on foot taking pretty pictures!


----------



## grav (Jun 24, 2021)

Crack on?
How many times should we do simple math?

Of all the proofs of earth's plane-ness, this one is the easiest to ascertain.
We see too far.
I don't travel to New Orleans often. Whenever I do, I can see the city from 20 to 30 miles away, if the weather permits. 

At home, I do the math, Google heights of buildings like the Superdome, and verify for myself that I witnessed a non-globe.

I've taken pictures, poor quality, have satisfied myself about geocentrism.
But I rely on dedicated researchers like Taboo Conspiracy to conduct more scientific analyses of long distance photographic evidence.

This is what confounds me about FE critics. They either ignore the evidence or defile logic with trivial matters.
 Like the tv weatherman who said the impossi-ball picture of Chicago from across Lake Michigan was a mirage.

It truly boggles the mind. 
I am reminded of the tribulations of Job, the biblical figure who was tested by God to verify Job's faith. His wife and children were killed, his life ruined. And, by God, Job still loved his Lord.

I say again, no scientist in his right mind really thinks earth is a wet spinning ball in a vacuum.
Posters here may agree with that assessment but have different theories about the true nature of reality.

Until I see evidence to the contrary, I will identify as a flatearther.
What say the rest of you?
p.s. I also think the flat earth is a figment of a computer sim-world program.


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 24, 2021)

grav said:


> But I rely on dedicated researchers like Taboo Conspiracy to conduct more scientific analyses of long distance photographic evidence.


Thanks. I'll leave it to the dedicated experts researchers too.
Edit to correct 'experts' to 'researchers'.


----------



## DampDevil (Jun 24, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> We have a flat earth thread here:
> Flat Earth
> 
> You will see that I am not in favor of flat earth myself, but others are and they have valid arguments for their beliefs. You are also not qualified to discuss flat earth, so you might feel that you would come off as a total dick, but you shouldn't even have that discussion before you took the time to look into what the flat earth beliefs actually are.
> ...



Consider lesson in respect and rules learned. ✌


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 24, 2021)

DampDevil said:


> Consider lesson in respect and rules learned. ✌


You're welcome. I hope you enjoyed the video.


----------



## DampDevil (Jun 25, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> You're welcome. I hope you enjoyed the video.


Yeah, I always find videos like these fascinating. 
I have seen most of these proofs before and I too can understand why someone would believe in FE. Also, I see we are in the correct thread now. Sweet transition  
Thing is, you can´t watch a video like this without looking up individual points and verify. A video like this wants you to believe. One must see both sides of the coin. Dubay sure would love to sell you his books. 
Like last night. 
I was looking at some old maps and decided to look up the kings portrayed on one of them. Trying to verify the dates and hence the map itself. Take nothing for granted, trust but verify even here on this forum. =)


----------



## Lightseeker (Jun 25, 2021)

DampDevil said:


> Yeah, I always find videos like these fascinating.
> I have seen most of these proofs before and I too can understand why someone would believe in FE. Also, I see we are in the correct thread now. Sweet transition
> Thing is, you can´t watch a video like this without looking up individual points and verify. A video like this wants you to believe. One must see both sides of the coin. Dubay sure would love to sell you his books.
> Like last night.
> I was looking at some old maps and decided to look up the kings portrayed on one of them. Trying to verify the dates and hence the map itself. Take nothing for granted, trust but verify even here on this forum. =)



Flat Earth isn't a profitable niche, at all. I doubt anyone is in it for the money. Not even Dubay.


----------



## Sigian (Jun 27, 2021)

grav said:


> Magnetism is another area of the electric battery that we need to figure out.



Diamagnetics are an interesting read, levitating water, frogs, and mice in a magnetic field.  One of those oddball aspects of science that was discovered then lost and rediscovered 50ish years later, odd that is.

I know you aren't a believer in the atom, but isn't it odd that the periodic table is laid out with fewest to most electrons, and seemingly those elements with little to none are lighter than air, than those with more.  

Diamagnetics points out that everything is magnetic, no matter what, with a great enough magnetic field you could levitate a human, though no idea what side effects that may entail.


----------



## grav (Jun 27, 2021)

Sigian said:


> Diamagnetics are an interesting read, levitating water, frogs, and mice in a magnetic field.  One of those oddball aspects of science that was discovered then lost and rediscovered 50ish years later, odd that is.
> 
> I know you aren't a believer in the atom, but isn't it odd that the periodic table is laid out with fewest to most electrons, and seemingly those elements with little to none are lighter than air, than those with more.
> 
> Diamagnetics points out that everything is magnetic, no matter what, with a great enough magnetic field you could levitate a human, though no idea what side effects that may entail.


One of the best posts I've ever read. My username indicates my great interest in this hidden field of science. The recent slew of UFO sightings in the news may indeed be Nasa anti-grav technology. When the media hypes a topic like this, you should smell a freemason agenda (which I think will be a fake alien invasion).

Yes, I never took to the Atom, or the electron shell and the empty space between it and the nucleus. The periodic table is based on some unknown (to us) quality of dielecteicity. There are alternatives to the one we learned in school . . .

alternative periodic tables - Google zoeken

The aether (which, I think, is how Eric Dollard spells the ether) is a solid volume of electromagnetism. What we call our world is a closed system which generates energy. It's basically a salt water battery. And its metals and elements can be manipulated, as you intimate when you levitate a human. How? by altering the electromagnetic density of matter.


----------



## Silent Bob (Jun 27, 2021)

Sigian said:


> Diamagnetics are an interesting read, levitating water, frogs, and mice in a magnetic field.  One of those oddball aspects of science that was discovered then lost and rediscovered 50ish years later, odd that is.



I used to run a levitation experiment as part of our physics open days: we had a train track constructed of magnets, positioned so poles were alternate around the track. A small piece of super conductor material was cooled using liquid nitrogen to take its temperature below the level needed for zero resistance, then it would levitate and with a little push it would travel around the magnet train track. It would carry on until its temperaure increased, which wasn't long since we were at room temperature, then it would sink onto the track as it warmed. Lasted maybe 20 - 30 secs before it needed cooling again. 

I used to use a gif of the levitating frog as part of the demo, the still shot is below. The next 2 pics show how the magnetic field bends around the super conductor when it is below the critical temperature. The final 2 pics show how the temperature affects resistance, and how this temperature is different for various materials. We need to find the materials which have this affect at, or near, room temperature - that would explain a lot!


----------



## Sigian (Jun 28, 2021)

Thank you, I know I have posted quite a few things that go against the grain, but there are so many things that always seem lost to science and then rediscovered only to be lost again.  Goudsmits observations about the electron spin always interested me personally.  

I have always been one to question the current theories, especially since past scientists have gone against the grain themselves.  Have studied physics quite a bit myself over the past 15 years, but not from your normal classroom setting.  I do believe in atoms, just do not think they are formed the way mainstream would have us believe, the electron itself has undergone so many changes from an orbiting object to now an electron cloud that exists at all points at the same time.  We channel this to create electricity using magnetics, and the AC motor basically reverses this process to power electric motors.  The aether makes so much more sense in that it is everywhere at all times, passing through everything, and we have only found one way to harness its so we have been told.  There is alot more to the world around us than we could ever imagine, and I believe Mr.Tesla himself knew of this.  

But the sad truth of it is that we may never know beyond what we are fed as truths, unless it is figured out by someone who gives a damn to pass this information to everyone instead of wanting to make a buck off of proprietary knowledge.  

Maybe a bad quote, but the truth us out there, just need to keep pressing the right button to get that truth to everyone.  While I may not agree with certain aspects of models describing how things work, I would rather know for sure, than to just speculate.  That is one of the biggest reasons that I originally started following KDs SH and now follow this new iteration of it.

May the truth be uncovered some day, so that this world can be made a better place for us all, not just those that have the wealth and power to deem what truths/lies should be common knowledge.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jun 28, 2021)

This is a video with interesting info about frozen oxygen - am assuming that's super cooled. Linked to the ice wall and the dome possibly.  
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bebl31yOO0_


----------



## Sigian (Jun 28, 2021)

On a side note, have been really into rotating magnetic fields lately.  Toroidal generators, how particles can become ionized losing electrons, such as running current thru aluminum foil so that it levitates.  Dunno, we think as the air around us as just air, when it in fact is a sort of fluid containing molecules itself, maybe not as dense as water, but static electricity builds from friction between molecules, which can cause ionization, causing otherwise heavier molecules such at water vapor to rise and create storm clouds.

Sorry, just so much rattles through my head sometimes, it's almost as if they put the answers in front of us, but tell us a different story as to how they really work.  Einstein was a good figurehead for that one...I mean cmon, relativity my ass.  We have already proven the speed of light is variable to a degree, I've read documentation of using sound that can travel close to the speed of light, and pure thought itself is faster.  

Ok, sorry, trying to stay inside the fringe here.


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 28, 2021)

History.
http://revue.elth.pub.ro/upload/292688art01Gerald.pdf


----------



## grav (Jun 28, 2021)

My post disappeared? something about a security issue???


Do I need to copy and save before I hit post reply?
I will try to recollect my thoughts. Damn.

While there is plenty of information about the sun's light, I've never found much about the moon. What is its wavelength, its aether composition, or whatever the science reveals?
To me, the sun is an incandescent light bulb, while the moon is more like a fluorescent bulb, or one of the other types that are supposed to use less energy or emit less heat -- LED, CFL, plasma lava lamps, etc.

Nasa still pushes the  crazy notion that the moon ball reflects sunlight, even lighting up completely during full moons, when the earth sits between the two objects. Ridiculous!
- - - - - -

Strange Moonlight | Science Mission Directorate

........ a few puzzling things:


*1.* Moonlight steals color from whatever it touches. Regard a rose. In full moonlight, the flower is brightly lit and even casts a shadow, but the red is gone, replaced by shades of gray. In fact, the whole landscape is that way. It's a bit like seeing the world through an old black and white TV set.


"Moon gardens" turn this 1950s-quality of moonlight to advantage. White or silver flowers that bloom at night are both fragrant and vivid beneath a full moon. Favorites include Four-O'clocks, Moonflower Vines, Angel's Trumpets—but seldom red roses.


​


​








*2.* If you stare at the gray landscape long enough, it turns blue. The best place to see this effect, called the "blueshift" or "Purkinje shift" after the 19th century scientist Johannes Purkinje who first described it, is in the countryside far from artificial lights. As your eyes become maximally dark adapted, the blue appears. Film producers often put a blue filter over the lens when filming night scenes to create a more natural feel, and artists add blue to paintings of nightscapes for the same reason. Yet if you look up at the full moon, it is certainly _not_ blue. (Note: Fine ash from volcanoes or forest fires can turn moons blue, but that's another story.)


*3.* Moonlight won't let you read. Open a book beneath the full moon. At first glance, the page seems bright enough. Yet when you try to make out the words, you can't. Moreover, if you stare too long at a word it might fade away. Moonlight not only blurs your vision but also makes a little blind spot. (Another note: As with all things human, there are exceptions. Some people have extra-sensitive cones or an extra helping of rods that do allow them to read in the brightest moonlight.)


This is all very strange. Moonlight, remember, is no more exotic than sunlight reflected from the dusty surface of the moon. The only difference is intensity: Moonlight is about 400,000 times fainter than direct sunlight.


----------



## Silent Bob (Jun 28, 2021)

After my post above about levitation this video popped up on my you tube recomended list today, very interesting - I've nevered heard of the concept of AC Gravity before, but hey why not as it is analgous with AC electricity.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS_rEzKdzBA_


As an aside, this comment from the above video gave me a chuckle

'I started reading a book on antigravity and I couldn't put it down'


----------



## grav (Jun 29, 2021)

Whatsup with all the recent UFO sightings in the news, Silent Bob?
Though I think aliens are real, these mysterious antigrav spaceships are most likely Illuminati devices. Gravity is a bs force, as the levitation scientists know. Apparently, density of  matter can be manipulated through several means.
Not new technology either, possibly "ancient " knowledge. Same ol' occulted business as usual, that for which this forum is  named.

SOUND, PHONONS, AND ANTI-GRAVITY - The Giza Death Star
gizadeathstar.com/.../sound-phonons-and-anti-gravity
Aug 23, 2018 · From Tibet, there are similar stories of the monks using chant and musical instruments (in most cases a large horn-like instrument) to move large heavy rocks. There are similar suggestive legends from South America and some indications of a similar tradition in Meso-America.

vibrations-and-gravity-knowledge-of-tibetan-monks - Notes on ...
sites.google.com/site/notesonphysics/...
vibrations-and-gravity-knowledge-of-tibetan-monks
 Excerpt from 'Anti-gravity and the World Grid' edited by D.H.Childress, ch.8, Acoustic levitation of stones by Bruce Cathie, pp. 213-217. A New Zealand scientist recently gave me an intriguing extract from an article published in a German magazine, relating to a demonstration of levitation in ...


----------



## Sigian (Jun 29, 2021)

I've seen a lot of toroidal shaped objects seemingly excavated throughout history.  With sometimes soundwave generation explanations given.  But isn't sound itself just simply very low frequency oscillating electrical waves?


----------



## Silent Bob (Jun 29, 2021)

grav said:


> Whatsup with all the recent UFO sightings in the news, Silent Bob?
> Though I think aliens are real, these mysterious antigrav spaceships are most likely Illuminati devices. Gravity is a bs force, as the levitation scientists know. Apparently, density of  matter can be manipulated through several means.
> Not new technology either, possibly "ancient " knowledge. Same ol' occulted business as usual, that for which this forum is  named.
> 
> ...



The recent main stream attention on UFO's is interesting, as usual it's not the truth they are telling us! I don't believe in Aliens as such, but do believe their are other life forms within our realm (i.e. not from space!). The UFO's could just as easily be human or other lifeform technology, if 'aliens' did come then I imagine they would come from land outside of the icewall?

On the ancient technology theory, this is backed up by Bob Lazaar who worked on 'alien' technology in area 51. He said that the UFO/craft he was trying to reverse engineer was actually found in an old archeological dig, which makes sense to me.

I have also read about the sound levitation used by ancients, I think there is probably some truth to this. This short clip shows how we are rediscovering this technology in modern times.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=669AcEBpdsY_


----------



## grav (Jun 29, 2021)

Silent Bob said:


> if 'aliens' did come then I imagine they would come from land outside of the icewall?


or through tunnels in the "hollow" earth.
It's also been proposed that there are portals in the dome, which could be ..... what? physical doors -- or Star Trek-like force fields which can be manipulated?

It sure seems like the Computer Age came along in a flash, as mankind went in a generation or two from horse and buggy to smart phones. Patrons of this site will of course laugh at the quaint notion that history as taught is worth a hill of beans.

One of the old gangster whistleblowers claimed to have seen and worked around ETs in underground military bases.

Milton William Cooper - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_William_Cooper
Milton William "Bill" Cooper (May 6, 1943 – November 5, 2001) was an American conspiracy theorist, radio broadcaster, and author known for his 1991 book Behold a Pale Horse, in which he warned of multiple global conspiracies, some involving extraterrestrial life.

......end quote

Regarding antigrav technology, I suppose we have, or were given, empirical science that makes such things possible, if you know how to alter the density of matter and otherwise rearrange the aether.


_View: https://youtu.be/7F6fT5p5oFk_


----------



## E_V_ (Jun 29, 2021)

Sigian said:


> I've seen a lot of toroidal shaped objects seemingly excavated throughout history.  With sometimes soundwave generation explanations given.  But isn't sound itself just simply very low frequency oscillating electrical waves?


Have you ever looked into Sonoluminescence? The part in the Bible that says Gods word created everything, IMO, may refer to sound creating matter. The waters above + sound = A suspended Earth in water.


_View: https://youtu.be/O9B3vzsZsr4_


----------



## Safranek (Jun 29, 2021)

Silent Bob said:


> He said that the UFO/craft he was trying to reverse engineer was actually found in an old archeological dig, which makes sense to me.



If this is true, it verifies the Vedas. Description of building such flying objects are very detailed in them.



grav said:


> Milton William "Bill" Cooper (May 6, 1943 – November 5, 2001) was an American conspiracy theorist, radio broadcaster, and author known for his 1991 book Behold a Pale Horse, in which he warned of multiple global conspiracies, some involving extraterrestrial life.



He was able to publish books, give talks on this subject for many years. However, when he switched his story and said that he suspected that his 'highly credible' sources may have been mind-control victims who were possibly feeding him false info for years, he died very suddenly in a confrontation with the law on his ranch under very suspicious circumstances.



E_V_ said:


> Have you ever looked into Sonoluminescence?



Yes, I think it certainly is a significant piece of the puzzle.


----------



## E_V_ (Jun 29, 2021)

Safranek said:


> He was able to publish books, give talks on this subject for many years. However, when he switched his story and said that he suspected that his 'highly credible' sources may have been mind-control victims who were possibly feeding him false info for years, he died very suddenly in a confrontation with the law on his ranch under very suspicious circumstances.


Yep. I’ve searched for the video long and hard, the one where he is sitting outside talking. In the video he says he no longer believes aliens are from space and that he was used to spread the alien narrative and other misinformation . He said he takes back all the aliens from  stuff and for this he would be killed

This gets me to thinking about two things

1 - He never took back his “craft emerging from water” story. So either he thinks aliens are from the waters below (and maybe above?) or man has the ability to create these craft. Maybe both

2 - The “aliens from space” story seems to be the holy grail for the writers of the script. As you said Bill covered all sorts of topics, why were “they” so quick to silence Bill once he figured out he was being used. Hard not to reckon that Project Blue Beam or something similar is the life’s work of these psychos

Aliens prove we aren’t in an enclosed system, right? Right????


----------



## Safranek (Jun 29, 2021)

Here's the link to the last interview queued up the the correct time (You're right, it wasn't easy to find, they don't want this info out there from someone like him.):


_View: https://youtu.be/BhfkZMaz5yg?t=2809_


and an excerpt from the Behold a Pale Horse interview which unfortunately sums up the sad state of affairs of our current predicament:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aANmjHzgf0Q_


Let's not get further away from the topic of the OP, there are other threads where this subject is more appropriate.


----------



## grav (Jun 29, 2021)

Safranek said:


> Let's not get further away from the topic of the OP, there are other threads where this subject is more appropriate.


I appreciate your desire to maintain topic integrity.
But in this case, I think that Cooper can answer some of our FE dome dilemmas.

You may be aware that I take seriously the myths that speak about gods and creation. The only way, at least for me, to get a handle on the wildly conflicting ideas is the computer program reality. Well, that is a definite dead end.

Gods and aliens and ETs are words that, in my opinion, refer to Advanced Beings on the Infinite Plane. My guess is something like the Gnostic tradition, with Gaia and Saturn and titans and all that jazz -- as code writers who built our sim worlds or participated as role players.

Bill Cooper, if I recall from years ago when first I read his pale horse, actually saw creatures who were not human. They had access to the areas outside our enclosed habitat, either in the DUMBs Cooper entered or the forbidden zones of the Antarctic.

Many other "alien" researchers have come along since Cooper was killed.
They are on the History Channel, for Pete's sake. Flat Earth will never see the light of day, nor will any exposure of Nasa and the space program. They hide the truth and teach the lies.

This image is kind of like my idea of the Infinite Plane, except that Admiral Byrd reported flying over unfrozen land and water in Antarctica. Can we trust him? He was a freemason, one of the elites who told us lies and truths at the same time.


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 29, 2021)

One of the ideas behind the globe deception is that they want to hide land. If we think we are on a globe and everything has been explored, then we turn our eyes towards space.  
The "you fall over the edge of the world" flat earth has the same motive.  
The "Ice wall all around us" flat earth has the same motive.


----------



## Prolix (Jun 29, 2021)

grav said:


> This image is kind of like my idea of the Infinite Plane...
> View attachment 11076


It _is_ quite suggestive...


----------



## Silent Bob (Jun 30, 2021)

grav said:


> This image is kind of like my idea of the Infinite Plane, except that Admiral Byrd reported flying over unfrozen land and water in Antarctica. Can we trust him? He was a freemason, one of the elites who told us lies and truths at the same time.
> View attachment 11076


This reminds me of the 'Wood between the Worlds' from C.S Lewis's Narnia books.

Wood Between the Worlds

A few interesting quotes from the link:

'The *Wood Between the Worlds* was the name given to a mysterious realm of portals that allowed magical travel between the worlds of Charn, Earth and Narnia, and numerous others.

It had the form of a quiet forest dotted with many wide pools of supposed water, each of which served as a portal to a different world.

It was used by Digory Kirke and Polly Plummer to visit the dying world of Charn, to transport Queen Jadis from Charn to Earth, and then take her, along with Frank, Strawberry and Andrew Ketterley, to Narnia on the day of its creation.

In order to use the portals, a person must be touching one of the magical rings created by Andrew Ketterley, Digory's magician uncle.  This will transport the user between the world and the wood via the ether.'

This story always struck me as being based on truth in some way, it was 40 years ago since I read the book and the wood between the worlds has alsways stuck with me!

This next bit reminds me of Golden Compass/His dark materials with it's mention of 'Dust'- in this reality we see parallel worlds above and below each other like a giant bar code. Also Charn reminds me of the world in Golden Compass, aswell as our old lost world from the past.





'The rings themselves were created from a magical dust, originally in the possession of Uncle Andrew's godmother. This powder had come, via the lost island of Atlantis, from the Wood itself. Thus, originally, the dust must have been used in travelling between worlds, and it is implied that in the past, travel from our world to others such as Charn, may have been more common. This offers explanation of how in "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe", Jadis is described by the beavers as descended from Adam's first wife Lilith (from Earth), whilst also being the last of the royal house of Charn.'

I find this bit interesting too:

'It is of note that this pool existed before Narnia had properly begun, whilst it was in the state of "dark and stillness before the dawn of time". When the world of Charn was destroyed, following the exit of its final living inhabitant, its pool in the Wood dried up into a grassy hollow. This suggests that any of the pools dries up after its world has met its end.

The Wood itself is not a 'world' in the sense of Charn, Earth, or Narnia. It is more like a nexus, a dimension that exists outside of all worlds, like a corridor from where anyone can access any of the portals. It is largely uninhabited, perhaps explained by the fact that continued presence there causes a general amnesia and sleepiness. This quality of the Wood may be present in order to prevent it being captured and held by any one race, thus only allowing its use as a portal.'

'The Wood's resistance to hostile parties may also be apparent in its toxic effect upon Jadis, who lost her strength and vitality when she entered it. The Wood is described as being very much alive, with having a large number of trees that grew so close together, with so many leaves that one could hardly see the sky. Despite this, though, there is a bright green light that shines through the leaves, creating a warm climate for the Wood. It is very quiet, with hardly any inhabitants, and no wind. You can apparently almost feel the tress growing, and there are pools everywhere, which the trees' roots drink up the water from.'

Could the pools be analagous to the portals at the poles? The wood also makes me think of the giant trees we used to have. I really feel like there is a message in this story relating to the true nature of our reality.

Also noticed this map of the Golden Compass version of Earth, similar to ours with subtle differences - look at the UK joined to Ireland, I wonder what made them think of that? Reminds me of the California Island map, which funnily enough is shown as an island. Recently there's been talk of how all our old maps are wrong due to them showing tropic of cancer/capricorn - what if these are maps of other worlds similar to ours but slightly different as in the Golden Compass example? (also just noticed Tartary on the map below, fancy that!)


----------



## Citezenship (Jul 1, 2021)

Hadn't seen this one before, just someone documenting a succession of coincidences.

666 DAYS IN SPACE - THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS​

_View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/UZPe0pF8LYll/_


----------



## grav (Jul 4, 2021)

_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gge-gNcdWpw_

~2:30
DITRH  (David Weiss) calmly lays out the idiotic claims of the  globe model.

Ask acquaintances how they "know" the earth is round.
Or dont, if you want to avoid a fight.


----------



## Apollonius (Jul 5, 2021)

grav said:


> _View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gge-gNcdWpw_
> 
> ~2:30
> DITRH  (David Weiss) calmly lays out the idiotic claims of the  globe model.
> ...



They know that the Earth is round because of:

Different star rotations on two hemispheres.
The same stars appearing from everywhere in the southern hemisphere. 
Tropics.
Flights
1-) We see different star rotations in both hemispheres of the Earth.





2-) If we look at toward the South at night in the southern hemisphere, we will see the exact same stars regardless of where we are. This observation is impossible if Earth is flat, and can only be explained if the Earth is a sphere.





3-) Flat Earthers claim that the tropic of Capricorn is larger than the tropic of Cancer.




4-) According to the Flat Earth map, flight times in the southern hemisphere should take longer than flight times in the northern hemisphere.


----------



## Justtheg (Jul 5, 2021)

apollonius said:


> They know that the Earth is round because of:
> 
> Different star rotations on two hemispheres.
> The same stars appearing from everywhere in the southern hemisphere.
> ...


Yes but you cannot explain on a globe why you can capture both rotations in a single frame. Start at the 2:00 mark for the astrophotography. 
_View: https://youtu.be/SA92ehsHnCg_


----------



## JohnDee (Jul 6, 2021)

I have looked through some of this thread, but it is quite long now.  So forgive me if my questions have already been addressed...

But there is something I feel like I have yet to see/hear from FE proponents.  Why is there never a discussion against the arguments made by both Ptolemy in _Almagest_ and Copernicus in his _De revolutionibus_... for the earth being spherical?  In both works the shape of the world is covered as the first premise(s) after the introduction.  

One major crux of the argument is that the sphere is the most perfect of shapes, and as the Celestial (heavenly) realm is an expression of Divine perfection, so the sphere must be the primal shape of Divine expression.  Considering the religious nature of some FE, I do not understand the contention they would have with such arguments, as they are theologically quite sound...


----------



## grav (Jul 6, 2021)

Justtheg said:


> Yes but you cannot explain on a globe why you can capture both rotations in a single frame. Start at the 2:00 mark for the astrophotography.
> _View: https://youtu.be/SA92ehsHnCg_





JohnDee said:


> I have looked through some of this thread, but it is quite long now.  So forgive me if my questions have already been addressed...
> 
> But there is something I feel like I have yet to see/hear from FE proponents.  Why is there never a discussion against the arguments made by both Ptolemy in _Almagest_ and Copernicus in his _De revolutionibus_... for the earth being spherical?  In both works the shape of the world is covered as the first premise(s) after the introduction.
> 
> One major crux of the argument is that the sphere is the most perfect of shapes, and as the Celestial (heavenly) realm is an expression of Divine perfection, so the sphere must be the primal shape of Divine expression.  Considering the religious nature of some FE, I do not understand the contention they would have with such arguments, as they are theologically quite sound...





apollonius said:


> know that the Earth is round because of:
> 
> Different star rotations on two hemispheres.
> The same stars appearing from everywhere in the southern hemisphere.
> ...


The first quote answers the last one about southern star trails.
The spinning whirling dervish of the globe model could never obtain the predictable patterns we see every night over millennia. Astronomers know this little stellar parallax failure.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in the stars, but in our perspective (to misquote the writer known as Shakespeare). Stand under a ceiling fan and observe the circular motions of the blades. Now move a mere 10 feet away and the circular motion is flattened. Another consideration is the glasslike dome's shape and the possibility of mutiple domes. FE Youtubers have presented videos to demonstrate this point of view, literally and figuratively. Other videos also produce ample evidence to show how verifiable airplane flights never travel from southernmost locations without making unnecessary stops in northern airports.

@apollonius has a habit of nitpicking FE without proving the ridiculous RE solar system. It is tiresome to see the same lame arguments trotted out again and again, especially those that depend on iffy sources (government agencies and religious texts).

Besides, facts of real physics should be our primary method to determine the world's shape. Water at rest is level. Spinning balls produce centrifugal force. Air can NOT sync speeds over a moving surface.  Chicago is visible from 50 miles.

So who gives a whoop about air travel and what Copernicus wrote (under threats of excommunication)?


----------



## grav (Jul 7, 2021)

Stolen History Part 2 - The Destruction of the Old World​


> dreamtime said:
> 
> Jung became rather convinced that the unconscious mind, whether by telepathy or in some other way is a common possession of the entire human race; but it is not only constituted of the experiences of this generation, we who interact in this world today, it includes the cumulative experiences of all generations past. This is more than just telepathy, but something which is brought down from generation to generation;​






> dreamtime said:





> According to biologist Rupert Sheldrake, collective memory is "inherent to nature" - living systems have a collective memory of all past experiences of the entire species, this memory exists in an invisible but real energy field.


.........................................

Thanks for the thread.

You hooked me with Velokovsky 

I see the race memory idea as a computer storage unit, changeable but never completely eraseable. It's the stuff of the Electric Universe and gnosticism, in which physical death releases the electric consciousness which then reports its experiences in the Akhashic Hall of Records.

In Flat Earth theory, that location is probably the dome. 
In the Electric Universe theory, possibly the motherboard or the computer hard drive.


----------



## Sigian (Jul 9, 2021)

grav said:


> Akhashic Hall of Records



Thank you, have been trying to dig that term out of my head for awhile now.  Do you believe that this is accessible by humanity?  Or is there terms to unlock this?  As I have come to see it as pretty much universal knowledge of everything.  

Also, you grav, are not a believer of the atom correct?  What do you believe when it comes to the makeup of basic matter?  Maybe it was said, I apologize.  So hydrogen and up the periodic table are false?  How do we cope and create today without this basic knowledge if it isn't real?  Again, just trying to see your side and sorry if you had already mentioned.  So many pages now, so much going on lately.


----------



## Justtheg (Jul 9, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> One common quote from Flat Earth videos is that NASA makes $52 million a day for what they are doing. This includes the pay of 17,000 workers and maintaining and operating equipment, facilities and other necessities. Then I had the thought for some Flat Earth believers they post NASA is leading them away from god and such nonsense.
> 
> I found this link.
> Top 15 Richest and most Successful Pastors In the World (We promise that #1 will shock you) - ETInside
> ...


One group of deceivers doesn't discount another group. 

The Vatican built a grand telescope called Lucifer. NASA lost the original telemetry and film data from the Apollo missions. Big Bang theory was invented (at least publicly) by a Catholic priest. NASA has been caught using CGI and stage wires. 

NASA is not a government agency, they're a part of the military. 

There's  Catholic, Jesuit, And the Jewish religious hierarchy working together in the field of deception.

Your average person Tithing is not corrupt in my opinion, only foolish of the normies who tithe to the mega churches who in turn use those funds to destroy morality. Tithing to a localized community church not connected to the establishment churches isn't corrupt at all, in my opinion, as long as the leadership isn't a pack of groveling deceptors. 

I assume most of these tithers are still asleep, better to wake them up to the lies.


----------



## grav (Jul 9, 2021)

Sigian said:


> Thank you, have been trying to dig that term out of my head for awhile now.  Do you believe that this is accessible by humanity?  Or is there terms to unlock this?  As I have come to see it as pretty much universal knowledge of everything.
> 
> Also, you grav, are not a believer of the atom correct?  What do you believe when it comes to the makeup of basic matter?  Maybe it was said, I apologize.  So hydrogen and up the periodic table are false?  How do we cope and create today without this basic knowledge if it isn't real?  Again, just trying to see your side and sorry if you had already mentioned.  So many pages now, so much going on lately.


Thank you for the questions. They persuade me to investigate more fully my own bumbling notions about the What, How, Why, and Who.

My best explanation for reality is the Electric Universe. I see it as a sea of electricity. Actually, dielectricity. Positive and negative charges arranged in multitudinous ways to form radiation, matter, consciousness. The periodic table is one useful way of arranging dielectric particles. The term "atom" may refer to one bundle of dielectrons, maybe?

I was not able to take religion seriously, even as a small child who attended a Lutheran Sunday School. But when I heard about gnosticism, I explored the belief systrm as an electric entity. Supposedly, we can access the Akasha though our pineal gland behind the third eye (of Dharmic religions/philosophies).

In other words, there are no empty spaces. There is no separation between physical objects, except in our puny human optics. Like a fish swims in the ocean, we exist in an expanse of dielectricity. The aether, which Einstein sought to dispel with his spell of relativity.

Who created our little spot in the aether? Gnosticism says it was Gaia. Who I see as a member (aeon) of an advanced race of beings the Pleroma). Sophia/Gaia  was the Earth Mother who created the computer model of our little pond in the Infinite Plane. Ancient myths, whatever that means, recount creation stories involving gods, titans, world ages whose remnants we now live on.

Videos and websites like this one have galloped into view lately. One theorist claims that 90% of all stones are petrified trees. Like the biblical story of Lot's wife who was turned to stone, we can expand on that account to include the bodies of miles-tall giants as the corpses of mountains. The reverse may also be true. After the Deluge, Deucalion and Pyrrha of Greek myth repopulated the world by throwing rocks over their shoulders. The rocks transformed into babies.
See Ovid's Metamorphoses.







Is this crazy compendium any less believable than the mystical religions and ridiculous theories of modern science? Like Big Bang and black holes and all the other mind control crapola of Big Brother?


----------



## Wanderer (Jul 9, 2021)

Justtheg said:


> One group of deceivers doesn't discount another group.
> 
> The Vatican built a grand telescope called Lucifer. NASA lost the original telemetry and film data from the Apollo missions. Big Bang theory was invented (at least publicly) by a Catholic priest. NASA has been caught using CGI and stage wires.
> 
> ...


Exactly. 

"Now ask yourself who is lying to you to get your money."

They ALL are.  The pitting of "science" against religion is another divide and conquer technique, and as with left vs. right politics, there is deception at both ends.  It is not as simple as "one or the other". We are left to dig through the weeds to find truth.


----------



## grav (Jul 16, 2021)

_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EFX_lNu49HI_


Sorry, I've neglected the thread lately.
This video is a killer, over 5 hours and hard to watch, being so long; my crappy 'satellite' internet buffers as much as it plays.


----------



## grav (Jul 16, 2021)

Video above:  Ewaranon finds all the broken pieces and glues them together.
I still haven't finished it, though. I hope he eventually offers the parts as separate videos. I need to re-watch some of the more fascinating segments.

Those magnificent buildings, star forts, arches, and sculptures have been so well hidden, sometimes in plain sight, that once you see the whole criminal enterprise, you have to wonder -- did humans ever have that level of knowledge and skill?

Yes, No, Dunno, but I'm a fan not only of Velikovsky but also Zechariah Sitchin, who wrote about the Anunnaki advanced beings who came to earth for their own selfish purposes. And when their miners (a third of the cohort) rebelled against the hard work of mining gold, one of the "gods" created a slave species. Adam.






Am I suggesting that the Anunnaki built those structures? or were humans less idiotic as your modern Homo ignoranus? What does Ewaranon think about this One More piece of the reality puzzle?


----------



## Silent Bob (Jul 17, 2021)

grav said:


> Video above:  Ewaranon finds all the broken pieces and glues them together.
> I still haven't finished it, though. I hope he eventually offers the parts as separate videos. I need to re-watch some of the more fascinating segments.



The seperate videos are on our Stolen History you tube channel 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_RslskBITukdOp4AD5dkHxWcy6FSlw2n_


----------



## grav (Jul 19, 2021)

_View: https://youtu.be/ev5NVfz2MLMhttps://youtu.be/ev5NVfz2MLM_



Busted! or a hint hint, looky looky?
a short video which shows a toy globe falling [down] from an ISS astro-not's hand.
I commented that it was not a mistake. The freemasons intentionally drop clues all the time.
It's their code of "honor"  -- which compels them to show us the unvarnished truth before they slap thick coats of varnish, misinformation, and assorted BS over it. The sheeple never see the arrogant effrontery of the f-masons.

Scientists, teachers, newspeople, and everyone with a lick of sense who sees these magick tricks -- has to know that we are being played for suckers.
Again and again and ad infin ad nauseum.


----------



## Sigian (Jul 20, 2021)

Thank you for the response Grav, been busy with work so haven't had time here.

I guess the electric universe does make quite a bit of sense with everything I have been researching lately.  Electrons seem to be key, and their rate/direction of spin.  The whole particle/wave duality does make sense along with superposition.  If the aether is nothing more than an mass of electrons that produce the electricity or vibrations depending on their frequencies/spin/pull whatever you want to call it, that create matter through pure frequency/vibrations, then maybe Nikolai Tesla had a better grasp on what is going on around us than anyone.  Electricity was his life.

Dunno, just a few thoughts.  I myself was raised Presbyterian for the longest time, till an aunt passed and my mother who was raised Irish Catholic said fuck it basically.  While not religious myself, closer to Agnostic, there are some teachings that come in the different religions, but seem to be basic morals that most cannot seem to care about.  The rest seem to be made up to help control the populace at the given time periods.  

Though makes you wonder,  why were old royal families expected to follow and keep their bloodlines intact?  

Sorry, going off topic.  Again, thanks for the response Grav.


----------



## grav (Jul 21, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> Wouldn't the best way to undebunk the globe be to produce more than one picture of the location taken on different in a variety of conditions?



How many photos of Chicago from across Lake Michigan would be a good number? Because there are many on the Google. Amazing, that globers never provide any evidence ever -- but nitpick the mountains of photos, laws of physics, spherical math, and logic that flatearthers present.

Unlike you, Sigian, I don't have a regular job, but I still don't have enough time to explore and learn what The Electric Universe is made of. And I joined a new forum.
Admin and posters at SiteScroll have been welcoming, even supporting my right to free speechify FE.
Maybe the tide has turned? Maybe independent thinkers are rising up and fighting back against the Illuminati.

Meantime, billionaires are flying into fake space. I hope to see truthers expose the ridiculous scams. They are so fakey. As usual, there are no uncut, seamless realistic videos of launch to space and then return to earth. They are all spliced segments which were probably produced in a movie studio days or months ahead of the alleged events.

I also want to see more research into the Electric Universe, including the role of the sun.
The Leak Project Youtuber of this video claims to be a glober. He is too smart, imo, to go along with that bs science.
I really hate his built-in ads, but I guess they pay his bills.

Anway, he examines the Schumann Resonance, which is the natural hertz "heartbeat" of earth. Why does it spike sometimes? Does the sun initiate the changes, or does it react to some short in the system? What causes sun spots? Why do comets appear and sometimes throw plasma fires to earth, like the Comet Biela devastation in the 1800s in the Midwest states? Does Nasa study these things? I'd bet the farm on that! Does Nasa have any answers? No doubt, but the whole enchilada? doubtful.





		
		Your browser does not support the video tag.


----------



## E_V_ (Jul 21, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> Here's a question I have to ask for people who have seen photos that support the flat earth. When pictures are shown showing Chicago, mountains, oil derricks are used to show the Earth is flat, but are debunked by people who support the globe. Wouldn't the best way to undebunk the globe be to produce more than one picture of the location taken on different in a variety of conditions?


You can see Chicago from across the lake on any clear day. There isn’t anything to debunk. You can see Chicago from the south suburbs as well. Especially down I57 heading north into the city

I live not far from NW Indiana and the dunes, maybe I’ll take a drive before summer is up to the beach and snap you all some pics


----------



## AthroposRex (Jul 21, 2021)

grav said:


> Video above:  Ewaranon finds all the broken pieces and glues them together.
> I still haven't finished it, though. I hope he eventually offers the parts as separate videos. I need to re-watch some of the more fascinating segments.
> 
> Those magnificent buildings, star forts, arches, and sculptures have been so well hidden, sometimes in plain sight, that once you see the whole criminal enterprise, you have to wonder -- did humans ever have that level of knowledge and skill?
> ...



If you search youtube for "LHFE" there are 8 parts iirc. May be easier on your internet. I personally thought the last 45 minutes were worth the whole thing. Everything regarding the geometry and true scale of the prague astronomical clock was pretty intriguing. The idea that our world is much bigger and the rest is frozen in ice due to our localized magnetic field and sun is interesting.


----------



## grav (Jul 21, 2021)

AthroposRex said:


> If you search youtube for "LHFE" there are 8 parts iirc. May be easier on your internet. I personally thought the last 45 minutes were worth the whole thing. Everything regarding the geometry and true scale of the prague astronomical clock was pretty intriguing. The idea that our world is much bigger and the rest is frozen in ice due to our localized magnetic field and sun is interesting.



Youtube has scrubbed his channel.
I think he's only on Bitchute now.

BitChute is a peer-to-peer social video platform.

This site includes other channels and separate episodes of Ewaranon's  long video, The Lost History of Flat Earth. I bookmarked the page, so that I can find the time to deal with my lousy "satellite" connection which buffers the video and beats up my little store of patience.

edit: the link looks odd but should work.


----------



## E_V_ (Jul 21, 2021)

grav said:


> Youtube has scrubbed his channel.
> I think he's only on Bitchute now.
> 
> BitChute is a peer-to-peer social video platform.
> ...


@spaceiswater


----------



## grav (Jul 22, 2021)

Yes, space is water.
The firmament is a solid structure. The Bible says it separated the waters from the waters. Fresh water above and saltwater below in oceans. Creation myths of "pagan" origin also speak of a watery cosmos.

On SiteScroll, admin Skyrison asked why "they" would hide the truth. Seriously? the same people (for lack of a better term) who want to inject everyone with nanoparticles with mRNA?

My answer was this:

We really need better images than this simplistic old one.





http://tse3.mm.bing.net/th/id/OIP.dMdoEc8DeL5eNyEewY-b1gHaFj?pid=ImgDet&dpr=2


People often ask, WHY would TPTB lie to us about the reality of our world?
As if they ever tell us the truth about anything 

I think the best answer is that they want their human slaves to stay on the reservation.
If intrepid explorers were allowed to travel past the Antarctic Circle (60° South), they might escape from the prison planeT of earth.
The Antarctic Treaty was voted into law in 1959, a year after NASA was created with former Nasa rocket scientists. Fleets of military ships prevent any independent travel into that Forbidden Zone of Antarctica.

The faux globe puts the kibosh on any unhappy campers who think there's no way off their spinning planet.
TPTB are lately dangling a shiny new hopium in front of our eyes, the illusion of travel to Mars and other sci-fi fairy tales.
Branson, Bezos, and Musk are now presenting ridiculous forays into space, 50 to 62 miles up. And people believe those silly flights of fancy.


----------



## Sigian (Jul 24, 2021)

grav said:


> Unlike you, Sigian, I don't have a regular job



It's anything but regular lol, I work for a bit, then have a vacation, then work for a bit etc.  I work for a national installation contractor that had me travelling all over with contracts from every supermarket, fast food, gas station and restaurant chain you could think of, even hospitals at times.  It's It's feast or famine job, I get to travel quite a bit, and get to meet new people all the time.  Was really busy last year, our main clients are chemical companies, so as you can imagine, everyone wanted hand sanitizer, was basically bathing in it while people were fighting over it.  

So the job is a bit different from your 9 to 5, gives me more time than others to really see things sometimes.  Did a job at a big college during early 2020 and I'll tell you what, if you have enough money it will buy you anything.

Still quite a few places I haven't had the chance to see and get pictures of, usually get one big job a year that let's me have a nice winter in the southern warm weather at least.   

Have met many people, with different views/beliefs, sometimes way out there theories.  Have met people with all kind of job backgrounds from rich to poor, from NASA to flea market sellers.  Have heard stories from them as well.   Just haven't quite made up my mind though, from things that I've read, to degrees earned, to personal experience, things don't quite add up is my best saying right now.  Electric Universe makes a lot of sense, but with being a 3 dimensional being in a 3 dimensional world, in a possible multidimensional universe, I just don't see things the same as most I guess.

Guess that's why I ask people like Grav a lot of questions, not to sway, but to learn more, if not to learn people's thought patterns, or maybe eventually something that can actually be pieced together and fit properly as to what the hell the human experience actually is.  

Knowledge is how we learn to not be ignorant, whether it be true knowledge or false, it still teaches us.  Just sucks nowadays that most that I meet get their knowledge from Facebook memes or YouTube videos because they cannot be bothered to pick up a book and read.  

Not pointing fingers at anyone here, just a generalization from real people I have met.  With the advent of radio, television, and now the internet, you gotta wonder if these weren't created to pacify and more easily subjugate those that have no time to do their own research due to having to work their asses off just to survive.  Life has become a pay to play game and it is getting worse while billionaires take flights into the upper atmosphere.  

Something big is happening right now, what exactly it is, I cannot say right now, but it will either get better or a hell of a lot worse.  Just make sure you all stay safe and don't follow the wrong path when things become evident.  Most people have a good heart, just that situations put them into a place that causes them to not do good.  

Sorry, not trying to sound ominous, just waiting to see what comes next, it shouldn't be long before some proofs are let out, too much going on to prevent that now.


----------



## The Giver (Jul 28, 2021)

grav said:


> Velikovsky was a believer of the heliocentric model.


According to surviving sources from different parts of the world, in the past planetary configuration was significantly different - celestial object referred to as "sun" - clearly distinguished as being different from the current one (e.g. Aztec stories about 5 eras, each ruled by a different sun) - stood immovable in the middle of the sky. Then planetary configuration changed, rearranging positions of celestial bodies - including Earth - into current heliocentric system. That is why many ancient sources contradict modern Heliocentrism.


grav said:


> Velikovsky insists that one great comet became a planet. Venus, which erupted from the head of her father, Jupiter.


There are surviving sources, which say it was the opposite - Jupiter came from Venus. For example Aztec "goddess" Cōātlīcue-(Venus) was impregnated when a "ball of feathers" (feathers=electricity - perhaps very large Ball Lightning or similar natural phenomena) "fell" on her, resulting in birth of Huītzilōpōchtli-(Jupiter). The phenomena of ball lightning has been witnessed, described and documented across centuries in many different parts of the world, yet still remains poorly understood. Image below shows how it might look like:




Similarly Egyptian "goddess" Isis-(Venus) was impregnated according to the translation of Egyptian coffin text by a "flash of lightning", resulting in birth of Horus-(Jupiter). Depicted below is Isis-(Venus) with her child Horus-(Jupiter) - in Christianity called Mary and Jesus.




According to surviving sources, Venus also ejected the great comet today most commonly known as the "Dragon", "serpent", "devil", "Satan" and many others in different cultures from all around the world. That comet was wreaking havoc until Jupiter "fought" with - interacted, often through electric discharges - the comet. For example in Book of Revelation the fight between Archangel Michael-(Jupiter) and the Satan or Dragon-(comet) described as the War in Heaven, or in Aztec story about fight between Huītzilōpōchtli-(Jupiter) and Coyolxāuhqui-(comet). It was the same event talked about in the "Eagle versus Serpent" thread. The comet was also inspiration for the famous Ouroboros symbol, as talked about in "The uroboro symbol, the serpent = dragon that eat the tail, the energy that is consumed and renewed" thread. Jupiter was also the source of the double-headed bird of prey symbol, as explained in the "Double-headed eagle: its meaning and origins" thread.

Religions are full of stories about the same exact celestial object being referred to as if they were different entities - often confusing people - e.g. stories about Archangel Michael and Jesus are based on the same exact celestial object-(Jupiter) - similar to "avatars" in Hinduism.


----------



## Starman (Jul 28, 2021)

grav said:


> People often ask, WHY would TPTB lie to us about the reality of our world?
> As if they ever tell us the truth about anything
> 
> I think the best answer is that they want their human slaves to stay on the reservation.
> ...



"As if they ever tell us the truth about anything "   

That's the operative statement right there.  You've got to be red pilled enough to recognize that, otherwise you're just not there yet.  People don't realize the nature of this realm, at the present time.  If you manage to look deeply enough, you'll see that all of this is a fabrication.  It takes a lifetime of sleuthing to figure this out.  In the meantime, you are half in and half out.  You still think that TPTB are trying in some way to help you out?  Forget about it!  

This is serious fucking business!  They are out to derail you from your spiritual path.  This is for all the marbles!  You are either dead or you're awake.  Time is getting short.  You better get your shit together.


----------



## grav (Jul 28, 2021)

Sigian said:


> Sorry, not trying to sound ominous, just waiting to see what comes next, it shouldn't be long before some proofs are let out, too much going on to prevent that now.



What comes next? Indeed, an ominous time ahead. I'm not going full doomsday, but............ it sure feels like the end times prophecies of the Bible and Ragnarok and Nostradamus.



Starman said:


> Time is getting short. You better get your shit together.



Failure to prepare is preparing to fail. Yeah, but how to fight the Empire's forces? They have DEW, 5g, super soldiers, and a vaccine that kills you or turns you into a zombie. I do prep some. Not for myself so much, but for any family members who might survive the first wave of whatever. I am a dog foster mom too. I worry about what will happen to them and other pets and of course the wild animals which will get caught in the  hellstorm of the coming apocalypse.



The Giver said:


> the past planetary configuration was significantly different - celestial object referred to as "sun" - clearly distinguished as being different from the current one (e.g. Aztec stories about 5 eras, each ruled by a different sun) - stood immovable in the middle of the sky. Then planetary configuration changed, rearranging positions of celestial bodies - including Earth - into current heliocentric system.


Saturn was, according to Greek myth, our first sun. Possibly the world age which cast a purple haze over everything. This site takes such ideas seriously, along with mudfloods, Tartaria, and very short eras of human history.

Velikovsky should have known better about heliocentrism if he thought that planets could war on each other without wrecking the alleged solar system. Carl Sagan and other Velikovsky critics mocked IV but knew very well that their spiraling helio model was a great joke. A tragicomedy.


----------



## Starman (Jul 29, 2021)

grav said:


> Velikovsky should have known better about heliocentrism if he thought that planets could war on each other without wrecking the alleged solar system. Carl Sagan and other Velikovsky critics mocked IV but knew very well that their spiraling helio model was a great joke. A tragicomedy.



Velikovsky was tasked (or tasked himself) with a very sexy myth driven narrative of the history of the solar system.  Just take ancient myths and give a physical correlation.  Add in an electric universe and presto, you've got a life long job of further cementing heliocentrism while adding the spice of wandering stars colliding (or near colliding) with each other.  It's enough to make your head spin around 3 times.

And nothing gets mentioned by him about flat earth theory or any of the more obvious physics based proofs that we don't live on a spinning ball. Why was that? Was he controlled opposition, protected and therefore able to stay employed at Princeton while he confounded the mainstream, but in the end was abandoned by his behind the scenes deep state supporters?  Velikovsky's rabbit hole is there, waiting for you to stumble into.  I did that for years, before I really looked at FE.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jul 29, 2021)

I like Velikovsky , clothhead that he was. Read his books in the 70'/80's . Reread recently once I'd realised the heliocentric model was  imaginary. His books make more sense through geocentric/geostatic/FE eyes . He did a good job of gathering the histories of various ancient peoples .


----------



## Silent Bob (Jul 29, 2021)

I read Velikovsky after watching 'Invasion of the body snatchers' - all the taken over humans (i.e. Aliens) greet each other by pointing out that Velikovsky is 'must reading' - interesting! Today it feels as though everyone who is jabbed/masked is one of these taken over humans, eerily similar. I'll have to read this next Star Maker


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9U5seoeVIM_


----------



## grav (Jul 30, 2021)

I like the Thunderbolts thinkers because the aether makes a helluva lot more sense than the atom theory. I also like @Akanah's biology-earth-embryo idea because it fits into the digital Gaia program -- knowledge which gnostics accessed in the Akasha. This process is achieved when the practitioner's pineal gland reaches through the aether to touch the dome.

As for Velikovsky, I appreciate his research into Coherent Catastrophism via comets.
. . . .

The Great Authority has spoken:
Immanuel Velikovsky - Wikipedia​en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Immanuel_...

Velikovsky pointed to alleged concordances in the accounts of many cultures, and proposed that they referred to the same real events. For instance, the memory ...
s work is frequently cited as a canonical example of pseudoscience and has been used as an example of the demarcation problem.[2]



Immanuel Velikovsky


Immanuel Velikovsky at the 1974 American Association for the Advancement of Science Conference in San FranciscoBorn10 June 1895
Vitebsk, Russian Empire (in present-day Belarus)Died17 November 1979 (aged 84)
Princeton, New JerseyAlma materMoscow State University

His books use comparative mythology and ancient literary sources (including the Old Testament) to argue that Earth suffered catastrophic close contacts with other planets (principally Venus and Mars) in ancient history. In positioning Velikovsky among catastrophists including Hans Bellamy, Ignatius Donnelly, and Johann Gottlieb Radlof [de],[3] the British astronomers Victor Clube and Bill Napier noted "... Velikovsky is not so much the first of the new catastrophists ...; he is the last in a line of traditional catastrophists going back to mediaeval times and probably earlier."[4] Velikovsky argued that electromagnetic effects play an important role in celestial mechanics. He also proposed a revised chronology for ancient Egypt, Greece, Israel, and other cultures of the ancient Near East. The revised chronology aimed at explaining the so-called "dark age" of the eastern Mediterranean (c. 1100–750 BC) and reconciling biblical history with mainstream archaeology and Egyptian chronology.


----------



## Sigian (Jul 31, 2021)

So hey, not trying to be too off topic, but I have a job next week at the Grand Lodge in MD, built in 1817 I believe, doing some installs, quite the different location from restaurants/supermarkets and fast food chains....anything I should be on the look out for?  

Sorry, not to derail, just an interesting location to say the least.  Finally leaving NC/SC (been here too long) to MD then PA then TN by the end of August.  Besides Virginia Tech, it's quite a different clientele than I am used to.


----------



## Sigian (Jul 31, 2021)

Oh sorry forgot to put the full name, but yes that one in Cockeysville.  Not one of the little brick buildings I see in every little town, it's pretty damn big.


----------



## space966 (Jul 31, 2021)

In Bible: Melachim II - II Kings - Chapter 7.2:
And the king's officer upon whose hand he would lean, answered the man of God, and said, 
"Behold, if the Lord makes windows in the sky, will this thing come about?" 
And he said, "Behold, you will see with your own eyes, but you shall not eat therefrom."

What in modern times we perceive as time zones, may be windows in the sky.
Many things depend on point of perception.
Let's say, you have friend on the moon & talk on the phone with him/her.
You ask: what form is moon? Your friend answers: flat.
You say: round.
Because you see more & from perspective.


----------



## grav (Aug 2, 2021)

Listen to all voices. Trust no one.
I say that a lot. But I often fail to check on sites that have ideas that may be pertinent to the earth's structure.

Flat Earth is a large part of the Whole Deception -- including but not limited to fake science, fake history, fake medicine, fake politics, fake news, fake entertainment.

Lots of fake ct on the internet too. Or at least mistaken ct.
I mentioned Nancy Lieder jokingly on Loop yesterday in a guest post. If you never heard of her, you should remedy that lack and occasionally check out her weekly newsletter,
ZetaTalk Newsletter

I rarely do, but my bad, I should read it more often. She of Nibiru fear porn fame, Nancy at least does a good job rounding up earth changes and events that might actually mean something.
This week she looks at earthquakes, the New Madrid Fault (which flooded the Mississippi River valley many years ago), and solar activity. She's not a bad writer, nor is she completely delusional. But. Little green men talk to her and she frets over Nibiru as the Wormwood destroyer.
Ah, Nibiru. Crazy ct, right? No. It is a phenomenon in the dome, in my opinion. A second sun, like a spare light bulb in your closet for when the old one burns out.

My guess, which I have stated before, is that earth is a saltwater battery which powers the dome which turns overhead. At irregular intervals, the clockwork mechanism shorts out and electrical discharges disrupt the dome and the earth itself. Earthquakes happen when (maybe) the sun's energy sputters. Comets insult the earth with plasma when the sun undergoes changes in frequency and vibration, possibly because it is getting old.
Eric Dollard, q.v., who studies the sun, says it is hollow, a capacitor/transformer, and dying.

What a pity we don't learn real science in our indoctrination camps (schools).


_View: https://youtu.be/gpAFVV-WxrM_


----------



## grav (Aug 4, 2021)

@sandokhan posted an excellent comment on his thread.
It jibes with a pet theory of mine. Here is my response to it. . . . . .

hmm. Excellent post. Links?

I think you know how I think comets are the agents of resets of world ages, as well as plagues on mankind.

The Black Death, for example, was hardly a pandemic caused by fleas on rats. It has been linked to the terrible Comet Negra in 1347.

https://georgebishopjr.com/2013/06/19/th...QF6BAgHEAI

I will follow up on this idea in another post.
I am not at all saying that Covid is a real disease. But influenza is. And other illnesses which seem to come out of nowhere. Could they be microorganisms that drop from cometary debris?

Let's drag Shakespeare, whoever he really was, back onto the stage.
"When beggars die there are no comets seen; the heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes.
Julius Caesar, II, 3. 31.

hmm, the heavens may blaze diseases.


----------



## Starman (Aug 4, 2021)

grav said:


> @sandokhan posted an excellent comment on his thread.
> It jibes with a pet theory of mine. Here is my response to it. . . . . .
> 
> hmm. Excellent post. Links?
> ...



In one of his videos, Ewaranon conjectured that comets are not bolides, but are punctures in the firmament, with the visible tail as a piercing of light.  He showed a time lapse of the stars rotating around the pole star and the 'comet' tail rotating in concert with the movement of the stars.  One would think that a comet trajectory would have its own path and not hang there in the sky following the uniform star paths.

In the same vein of thinking, meteorites fallen to the earth are remnants of the rocky firmament.  Perhaps a hole lets in some kind of microorganism nasties that the firmament normally protects us from.  Does the hole heal itself, otherwise you'd think the light through the hole would remain?

Whatever the reality, I agree that 'cometary' events do presage a biological downturn for human life. Maybe TPTB knows this is in store for us and wants to get rid of people slowly now, instead of all at once later when it will be too difficult to hold onto power if there is too big of a quick die-off.


----------



## grav (Aug 4, 2021)

I'm thinking about going to my niece's house for a day, just to use her high speed connection so that I can finish watching Ewaranon.
I have been fascinated by comets for many years. Any fresh information would make my day!

To continue the gist of my earlier post about comets and Covid, I have found this.

Actually, there is a goodly amount of internet info about "space" causing diseases. The book article below also mentions SARS, which is the parent of Covid.
The article examines pathogens as the culprits.

ok, seems possible, but we've also seen Electric Universe theories that blame illnesses on harmful ranges in the electromagnetic spectrum. Microwaves in countertop ovens and cell phones, for example, are harmful. Uranium is not, according to some nuclear engineers like Galen Winsor.
7.83 Hz, the Schumann Resonance, is often called earth's heartbeat. It is also our natural frequency which, when disturbed by the environment, throws our biology off balance.

Flatearthers think that "space" is the region between us and the dome. The dome itself is, I'm guessing, an inert glasslike material. It rotates in reaction to an energy production of earth's saltwater and metals. Mount Meru, at the North Pole, has long been proposed as the magnetic pole which transmits the power upward.
Electric systems are unpredictable. When there is a disturbance in the force, bad stuff happens.
Literature, even sci-fi fictions, give us many clues to the truth.
- - - - -
Anyway, here is one of several sources about disease and/or death from above.

Diseases from Space - Wikipedia

Diseases from Space is a book published in 1979 that was authored by astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, where they propose that many of the most common diseases which afflict humanity, such as influenza, the common cold and whooping cough, have their origins in extraterrestrial sources. The two authors argue the case for outer space being the main source for these pathogens- or at least their causative agents.[1][2][3]




Diseases From Space


AuthorChandra Wickramasinghe, Fred HoyleCountryUnited KingdomLanguageEnglishGenreSpace medicinePublished1979ISBN978-0060119379LC ClassRC1137The claim connecting terrestrial disease and extraterrestrial pathogens was rejected by the scientific community.
Contents 

Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe spent over 20 years investigating the nature and composition of interstellar dust. Though many hypotheses regarding this dust had been postulated by various astronomers since the middle of the 19th century, all were found to be wanting as and when new data on the gas and dust clouds became available. Chandra Wickramasinghe proposed the existence of polymeric composition based on the molecule formaldehyde (H2CO).[4]

In 1974 Wickramasinghe first proposed the hypothesis that some dust in interstellar space was largely organic (containing carbon and nitrogen),[5][6] and followed this up with other research confirming the hypothesis.[7] Wickramasinghe also proposed and confirmed the existence of polymeric compounds based on the molecule formaldehyde (H2CO).[4] Fred Hoyle and Wickramasinghe later proposed the identification of bicyclic aromatic compounds from an analysis of the ultraviolet extinction absorption at 2175A.,[8] thus demonstrating the existence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon molecules in space.
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe went further and speculated that the overall spectroscopic data of cosmic dust and gas clouds also matched those for desiccated bacteria. This led them to conclude that diseases such as influenza and the common cold are incident from space and fall upon the Earth in what they term "pathogenic patches." Hoyle and Wickramasinghe viewed the process of evolution in a manner at variance with the standard Darwinian model. They speculated that genetic material in the form of incoming pathogens from the cosmos provided the mechanism for driving the evolutionary engine.[1][9] Hoyle died in 2001, and Wickramasinghe still advocates for these views and beliefs.
 Scientific consensusEdit
The claim connecting terrestrial disease and extraterrestrial pathogens was rejected and dismissed by the scientific community.[10] On 24 May 2003 The Lancet journal published a letter from Wickramasinghe,[11] jointly signed by Milton Wainwright and Jayant Narlikar, in which they speculate that the virus that causes severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) could be extraterrestrial in origin instead of originating from chickens.


----------



## grav (Aug 5, 2021)

Starman said:


> In one of his videos, Ewaranon conjectured that comets are not bolides, but are punctures in the firmament, with the visible tail as a piercing of light.  He showed a time lapse of the stars rotating around the pole star and the 'comet' tail rotating in concert with the movement of the stars.  One would think that a comet trajectory would have its own path and not hang there in the sky following the uniform star paths.



I watched that episode. The comet in his video, maybe Encke, looked like a bad scratch in a windshield. Not a crack that would let water in, but enough to let light come through. Encke returns every 3 years or so. 
Why don't we see all the comets all the time? Something to do with multiple layers of the dome or the way light powers the stars and other celestial objects?


----------



## The Green Dragon (Aug 13, 2021)

grav said:


> I am new to this forum and don't see an active thread on flat earth. Is there any interest in the topic?
> SH's format is quite impressive. And imposing, to the point that navigating it is tricky for a simple mind like mine. Generic forums have become gross mockeries of their original designs, and so I am looking for a new home where I may spout my heresies, primarily the most basic hidden truth upon which all other distorted truths are based. The Infinite Plane of the Electric Universe.
> 
> My overall guesstimate of reality is a computer program which is crashed and rebooted every 300 years or so.
> ...


Here is something for you to have a look at.


----------



## grav (Aug 13, 2021)

The Green Dragon said:


> Here is something for you to have a look at.View attachment 12119


You weren't just whistling Dixie whan you said there was somethimg to look at.

And as much as you did include in that list, there are many other globe faults that we have never touched on in this thread.

The biblical references may bother some people. Not me, though I am an atheist Christian who takes the Old Testament as an imperfect book of history.
Thanks.


----------



## Citezenship (Aug 16, 2021)

Anyone else spot anything wrong with this pic???





Source.  r/interestingasfuck - The power lines over Lake Pontchartrain in Louisiana illustrate very well that Earth is not flat


----------



## Jd755 (Aug 16, 2021)

Citezenship said:


> Anyone else spot anything wrong with this pic???


No seagulls?


----------



## grav (Aug 16, 2021)

Citezenship said:


> Anyone else spot anything wrong with this pic???
> 
> View attachment 12178
> 
> Source.  r/interestingasfuck - The power lines over Lake Pontchartrain in Louisiana illustrate very well that Earth is not flat



Oh, just stop pulling Auntie grav's leg. 

I've seen those power lines many times over the years driving between LaPlace and New Orlens.
Gee whiz, I still get car sick sometimes. That wacky vertical curve would've made me dizzy and giddy. No horizontal curve shows up.
The curve is of course an optical ilusion of the wide angle lens. Even if the globe curved 8 inches per mile squared, it would not look like that roller coaster ride.

I have observed, on the other hand, the Superdome in the distance as Mr. grav was drivng south over the spillway. I even did the math once. I tried to get the mile marker out of LaPlace, to find the distance to the Big Easy, now a vax-mandate city, plus the height of the building. From memory now, so don't quote me, but there should have been no way I could see rhe Superdome on a clear day at that distance.


----------



## Citezenship (Aug 16, 2021)

grav said:


> Oh, just stop pulling Auntie grav's leg.
> 
> I've seen those power lines many times over the years driving between LaPlace and New Orlens.
> Gee whiz, I still get car sick sometimes. That wacky vertical curve would've made me dizzy and giddy. No horizontal curve shows up.
> ...


Yes clearly a fake to me, 







The power lines are level yet the sea is not.



kd-755 said:


> No seagulls?


Haha, good spot.


----------



## Wil-I-am (Aug 16, 2021)

Those power lines look about as real as elon musk's roadster in fake space.


----------



## grav (Aug 16, 2021)

As long as we're being absurd . . .

Is our world any more absurd than it used to be? Or are some of us finally realizing that it's always been a dog and pony show.

Constant wars, rigged politics, fake history, fake medicine, fake science., fake food, fake everything.
I rememer an old Bugs Bunny, or Daffy Duck, cartoon where rockets landed right-side up on the moon.
And then. And then. By golly, they recreated that cartoon right smack dab here - - out in the open - - 
somewhere where you weren't invited  

 






How do you like the shadows of the rockets? nice touch, eh?


----------



## Citezenship (Aug 16, 2021)

grav said:


> Is our world any more absurd than it used to be? Or are some of us finally realizing that it's always been a dog and pony show.


I figured this a long time ago, or I should say my body always knew but my mind had been taught not to listen, took me a little while to tune back in, which required tuning out.


----------



## Starman (Aug 17, 2021)

grav said:


> As long as we're being absurd . . .
> 
> Is our world any more absurd than it used to be? Or are some of us finally realizing that it's always been a dog and pony show.
> 
> ...



I think our world today is way more absurd than it used to be.  There's more 'science' to fiddle with, more gadgets and tools to dazzle the masses.  We've lost our common sense and it's been replaced with technobabble.   

Granted, there were different religious narratives holding sway in the past, and many were equally suspect as 'scientism.'

The problem now is that there is a cult of intellectualism embedded in a literate society that easily fools itself with its own hubris.  We've dug a deeper hole for ourselves and can't get out.


----------



## Wil-I-am (Aug 17, 2021)

Pardon my absurd humor.  Since we know the controllers have tried to penetrate the firmament in the past with fishbowl glass ceiling stuff; what if they blew a hole through with a directed energy weapon in the recent past.  Since water is on the outside, a great deluge poured through the hole causing the mudflood and then resealed itself due to the firmament shell having self healing properties. Could the great rift in the Milky Way be the sealed hole?


----------



## Apollonius (Aug 17, 2021)

Citezenship said:


> Anyone else spot anything wrong with this pic???
> 
> View attachment 12178
> 
> Source.  r/interestingasfuck - The power lines over Lake Pontchartrain in Louisiana illustrate very well that Earth is not flat



This photo is very well explained in this video:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYkxsX1lzJs_


----------



## grav (Aug 17, 2021)

Wil-I-am said:


> Pardon my absurd humor.  Since we know the controllers have tried to penetrate the firmament in the past with fishbowl glass ceiling stuff; what if they blew a hole through with a directed energy weapon in the recent past.  Since water is on the outside, a great deluge poured through the hole causing the mudflood and then resealed itself due to the firmament shell having self healing properties. Could the great rift in the Milky Way be the sealed hole?



The Great Rift certainly looks like its name suggests.
As for self-healing, I've also wondered before about the mechanism having a built-in repair function.

You also mentioned the mudflood. My own guess is that it was one of several, but not the Deluge of "biblical" times.

As for Fishbowl, I think the controllers were really mapping out the dome's architecture. Estimates of distances to celestial lights start at 62 miles up to 3,000 miles or more. Perhaps the closest layer consists of noble gases that gather under solid metal-glass structures that we see in 7 heavens and other mythological "abodes of the gods."

In other words, the dome is probably indestructible, at least to the worst weapons humans can hurl at it. Could there be water between the multiple layers? How do "comet" holes pierce the bottom layer, as Ewaranon suggests? Why do pieces of the sky fall down as asteroids or bolides? What causes meteor showers, especially the periodic ones like the Perseids? How the heck have Fortean skyfalls rained down giant spider webs, black rain, and many other inexplicable objects over the centuries?

Nasa mos def has some ideas about all these mysteries. Their $52 million a day budget surely involves exploration of the dome, using sounding rockets or maybe zero-grav "spacecraft" and infrared binocular telescopes like LUCIFER.

They probably only need $1 million of that daily allowance to do the rest of their mission: to fake space for the sheeple audience. With Russia and China helping out, it's easy and cheap to produce H ollywood movie tricks like space walks and fake satellites.


----------



## Wil-I-am (Aug 17, 2021)

grav said:


> The Great Rift certainly looks like its name suggests.






I remember a speech where hillary was bragging about punching thousands of cracks in the glass ceiling.  I think the controllers are definitely mapping their fishbowl prison.  Also they are using every breakaway technology to try to break out.  Ewaranon showed the rocket gliding across the firmament underside like a wakeboard boat, demonstrating the first level to be gelatinous.  Past the gel is probably hard crystalline, so when nwo tries to break through pieces break off and rain down as meteors and then firmament regenerates.  Somewhere in the rift is the alleged center “nasa” galaxy where they claim is an anomalous force.


----------



## Akanah (Aug 17, 2021)

The elites should better not destroying the firmament. If Earth is a living beeing the firmament is their and our protective shield.
Maybe elites publiciting the idea of flat-earth with doom because of future authorizing for destruction of the firmament ?
But why is here panic because of the ozon-hole ? That is contradicting itself .


----------



## alltheleaves (Aug 17, 2021)

grav said:


> I'm thinking about going to my niece's house for a day, just to use her high speed connection so that I can finish watching Ewaranon.
> I have been fascinated by comets for many years. Any fresh information would make my day!
> 
> To continue the gist of my earlier post about comets and Covid, I have found this.
> ...


You can download all the Ewaranon here. 
_View: https://archive.org/details/hidden-history-of-earth_


If you want to download a youtube video, you can use YouTube Downloader - Download YouTube videos in MP3, MP4, 3GP | Y2mate.com but mind the popups. There are similar download sites. If you save at 360dpi it should be "good enough".


----------



## grav (Aug 31, 2021)

It's very irksome that flat earth people are bothering with the false flags going on lately, Covid and Afghazistan.
Brighteon is one of many outlets which do a good job of presenting good Intel about the vaccine and other Control System dark agendas.
So.
No news on the FE front.

Tartaria is picking up speed but I have come to the conclusion that, as the Ancient Aliens guys say, it was aliens.

Ida has given me the time to reflect on what I see as....
World Ages
1. gnostic and Greek myths about the Titans, giants, Sophia/Gaia
--- yuuge electric reset, EM discharges that gouged mountains and petrified all living matter
2. Anunnaki invasion from outside our domed home; these advanced beings possessed skills Tesla dreamed of; they spliced their dna with that of Bigfoot, the true Homo terrestrius, to create the feeble-minded lulus that now infest the world; the Anunnaki built the great cities and monuments
-- - the Great Deluge reset; the Anunnaki watched it from their flying machines
3. massive rebuilding and restoring, like what we see after hurricanes, but on a grand scale
- - - mudflood reset
4. The Anunnaki leaders decide that earth's specifc gravity is not healthy for their physics (physical bodies); they return to a retored Nibiru, leaving a beautiful Terran world behind for the puny humans, who immediately cut down all the trees and wildflowers and convert everything into yuppie ghettoes and wastelands.

Timeline from first spark to today - 2000 - 3000 years


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Aug 31, 2021)

grav said:


> It's very irksome that flat earth people are bothering with the false flags going on lately, Covid and Afghazistan.
> Brighteon is one of many outlets which do a good job of presenting good Intel about the vaccine and other Control System dark agendas.
> So.
> No news on the FE front.
> ...


The trouble is Grav , that earth being flat is reality , and for all the rest - the world is but a stage . You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead , said a genius.


----------



## usselo (Sep 1, 2021)

grav said:


> My best explanation for reality is the Electric Universe. I see it as a sea of electricity. Actually, dielectricity. Positive and negative charges arranged in multitudinous ways to form radiation, matter, consciousness. The periodic table is one useful way of arranging dielectric particles. The term "atom" may refer to one bundle of dielectrons, maybe?



I don't know if the attached html file will help with the ether and dialectricity discussion or not. It's an English translation of Rybnikov Yuri Stepanovich's 'Vserod' table at http://vserod.com/tables/2d/.

It shows the elements arranged as Mendeleev arranged them: by electrical qualities and with two elements before Hydrogen. I think Rybnikov claimed 'Vserod' is the gaseous element called ether.

This link will give you a Google-translated English version of the site. However, some of the downloads don't work when you hi them through Google translate.


----------



## grav (Sep 1, 2021)

^ Us vs Them (the normies)
I always heard that you can lead a jackass to water but you can't make him take a bath. 

^The ether/aether reference is very interesting. I will have to read that. Thanks.
---------
I just posted this at Banned.Talk, a generic forum with an uneasy future. It's easy to copy and pasted text and images here.
::::::::
we exist in a simulation.
If we can plug our consciousness into the computer code which defines reality, we can manipulate matter and memory.

No one has touched my Anunnaki reference. It is always disappointing to see the lack of confidence of posters to critique me or to express new ideas and interpretations. Links are nice, but not in isolation.
Posting is, or should be, public speaking. Grab my attention, make your point, defend your position, make a graceful exit. Does it take time, effort? Well, there's your problem, lady ;(

My point: that a non-Terran species entered our domed home and created us and built the wonders of the world. 
This is old school ct. And almost never does it appear on any forum. How come why not? VL, what say you? T A?

Newish topic -- how does a thinking being access the computer code? Is it possible to be Neo, the hero of The Matrix? Or the user in the old sci-if movie Tron?

dunno. The image below shows one of the Anunnaki holding a device and a pine cone - which resembles the pineal gland at the base of the brain, which is also the position of the third eye of Hindu mysticism. 

Yes, the silly Indian system that gives us a wild religion-philosophy with the blue elephant god and flying carpets. And which may be a source of misunderstood history and Electric Universe physics.
TMI, I know. So I will not drag David Wilcock into the source field investigation. Way too much TMI.

At least please consider how the pineal gland may be compared to a plug-in on an electric cord (which is how my house and Internet are working now).

My hypothesis-->
Our electric systems exist in an ocean of electromagnetism. 
Our pineal gland, if uncorrupted by a toxic environment, can access the matrix.


----------



## grav (Sep 3, 2021)

This would make a funny gif.
lol


_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tvB0mdkrG3Q_


Images Credit: NASA, Galileo Project


----------



## otl2021 (Sep 5, 2021)

grav said:


> This would make a funny gif.
> lol
> 
> 
> ...



Funny... yes...





Sticky clouds... lol.


----------



## grav (Sep 5, 2021)

Now why didn't I think of that description?
 I like adjectives and nouns that end in -y

sticky clouds
spinny ball
bendy water
grabbity
sync-y air (a variation of sticky)
curvy level (earth's crust is level at an equidistance from the melty core of the globe)

No doubt there are other -y words that describe the goofy, silly, fakey fairy tale of the vortex-y solar system.

Thanks for the gift of the gif!!!


----------



## Citezenship (Sep 5, 2021)

grav said:


> Our pineal gland, if uncorrupted by a toxic environment, can access the matrix.


Psychedelics and other forms of disassociation can grant access the "mainframe", for want of a better expression.

When you are in this space you get to see the same geometric shapes that are expressed throughout both the natural and fabricated(built) realms, although i have never been able to interact, only observe.


----------



## Starman (Sep 6, 2021)

...was reflecting on my recent hospital health crisis with covid and remember being in my oxygen saturated ICU room. When I first got there, they ramped up the oxygen through nose tubes as well.  

I could feel the oxygen contributing to a kind of cool, slimy atmosphere.  It was like taking a bath.  It also affected my state of mind and I felt I was in an alien environment that was not my home.  I didn't like it.

Later on it really hit home that we are living in this most amazing terrarium that is perfectly designed for us.  We don't stress about the composition of gases we live in.  Clearly we are protected and encapsulated by this dome world.  

It's likely other species used to live here, or walked around in space suits that protected their bodies.

My experience has increased my satisfaction of walking around on this amazing earth.  How fortunate we can walk around naked and call this our home.


----------



## grav (Sep 6, 2021)

Starman said:


> ...was reflecting on my recent hospital health crisis with covid and remember being in my oxygen saturated ICU room. When I first got there, they ramped up the oxygen through nose tubes as well.
> 
> I could feel the oxygen contributing to a kind of cool, slimy atmosphere.  It was like taking a bath.  It also affected my state of mind and I felt I was in an alien environment that was not my home.  I didn't like it.
> 
> ...


I wondered where you had gone.
ugh, in a hospital ICU. I hope you've completely recovered from your illness.
Your oxygen experience is so odd. You called it alien. and slimy. yikes.
I've always heard that we need more oxygen, that it can heal what ails you.
Deep breathing exercises are very beneficial, in my experience.

But I do know that we are poorly adapted to earth's own physiology.
For one, our sinuses are stupid. Mine surely are, as ragweed pollen is making me miserable this year. In the past, my allergies have led to bronchitis or pneumonia, which I suspect is the real deal of Covid.
Our skeletons are also poorly adapted to earth's specific gravity (density).
And we are prone to many other ailments. Overall a puny specimen.

Lloyd Pye, deceased, made a convincing case that we are a badly designed creature. I agree. We are, in many regards, an alien species who does not fit into the ecosystem.


----------



## grav (Sep 14, 2021)

If you watch the video below, do so with weary scepticism.
The Thunderbirds pretend to believe in the solar system.
They take ancient myths about cosmogy seriously. As did Velikovsky, who wrote an amazing book, Worlds in Collision, about the comet Venus as the agent of earth being upheaveld in biblical times.


_View: https://youtu.be/hpJP8z0T7Uw_


Supposedly, the comet becme a planet which settled into a peaceful orbit after repeatedly insulting the earth and earthlings with rains of burning naptha and cessation of gravity. Mountains fell apart, land rose into the air, all manner of destruction ensued. And floods.



The gods of Egypt and Sumeria were blamed. and honored. And books and hieroglyphs were written to make us think such and so. Just like today, with computers and churnalists who regurgitate Establishment dogma.

What really happened?
An electric overload, imo. Some malfunction, or maybe a scheduled reset of the electric battery composed of saltwater and soil minerals, under a glasslike dome, all making a perpetual motion machine.

What effect do chemtrails and deforestation have on the clockwork?
mmmmmm.maybe a radical geo-engineered habitat?
Some people propose an altered world, more suitable for alien life forms.
I'm not one of them.
I think Nasa wonks know that our sun is dying. In that case, we'd have days of darkness and a new world age.
Before our present sun, the world was moonless. The year consisted of 10 months of exactly 30 days each.
That was how long ago?
6000 years?
or a few hundred?


----------



## NigeWz (Sep 15, 2021)

Having been away from this site for a while, I decided to come back as see what's going on. Your article (above) inspired me to come in from a different angle with what I have been researching lately. This has to do with Annunaki, Flat-Earth, the whole lot of it.
Whilst this may seem crazy on first reading, I really don't think it is.
What if this realm is a simulation / movie / V.R 'game'?
Furthermore, what if it's a copy of the original 'game'?
It would explain all of the (so-called) Tartarian architecture (which we clearly could not build today), along with every other 'rabbit-hole' we care to explore. What if this copy was only done around 500 years ago?

Genesis 1:2 states, 'and the earth was without form, and void'. Yet in the original Hebrew text, the word 'was' is actually 'became / came to pass'.
The ONLY other time you see these words in the O.T is in Jeremiah 4:23, and there's a clear connection there. Then we're told that man was 'created' in Gen 1:27, but if that's true, then who was Jeremiah, and who built the cities that he speaks of?

Further, if you had a friend called 'Jeremiah', then you would likely call him 'Jerry'. What were the Germans known as during the (faked) wars?
Check out Gen 1:28 where the 'god' of the 'BuyBull' tells creation 1:27 to go out and 'subdue' the earth and to 'reign' over it.
I find the number connection here very interesting too (1,2,7). Pearl Harbour happened on 12.7, and the three towers on 9/11 were 1,2 and 7.
Nothing to see here, right?
Then the Adam & Eve 'creation' is in Gen 2:7

We all know by now that the word 'ment' means 'mind'. Government = To rule / govern the mind.
If we apply that same thought to ALL words ending with 'ment', then what is the 'firmament'? Could it just mean 'a firm mind'?

If Tesla existed, and he was correct, then everything is frequency, vibration, etc., which brings us into the topic of music. The word 'stone' is featured quite heavily in the BuyBull.
Then we had bands such as 'The Rolling Stones' playing ROCK music. A rock is, of course, a stone. The word 'stone' is an anagram of 'notes', and notes are frequency.

We KNOW that 'mind-control' is how the scum get away with all the stuff they do. You only need to look at the lie-rus nonsense to know it's all in the mind. Then there's MK Ultra, Tavistock, CIA, etc., which all concentrate on mind-control.

What if we are simply characters (avatars) in some kind of Virtual Reality game, and our 'higher-self' is the 'player'?
That would make our 'higher-self' our individual 'god', while we are the 'dog' in the game?
If you haven't watched the movie 'Free Guy' (2021), then please do.
I have been talking about this topic for the last 2 years at least, then 'they' bring out a movie that's telling the same story.


----------



## grav (Sep 15, 2021)

NigeWz said:


> If you haven't watched the movie 'Free Guy'


I'll have to check that out. I don't keep up with movies and tv shows.

Who has time to keep up with all the new information coming out now?
I still haven't finished watching all of Ewaranon's videos and now have this new one to sort out. 
Talk about a yuuge can of ct worms! The aether, Tartaria the white federation, free energy, parasites turning powerhouses into churches, living water. But it's not flat earth. Well, who has all the answers?

I'm not even halfway into it and have to take mental health breaks every 15 minutes or so. 


_View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/PTO0NvcDDLzl/_


----------



## Citezenship (Sep 15, 2021)

NigeWz said:


> Having been away from this site for a while, I decided to come back as see what's going on. Your article (above) inspired me to come in from a different angle with what I have been researching lately. This has to do with Annunaki, Flat-Earth, the whole lot of it.
> Whilst this may seem crazy on first reading, I really don't think it is.
> What if this realm is a simulation / movie / V.R 'game'?
> Furthermore, what if it's a copy of the original 'game'?
> ...


I have said on this forum before that the story of creation reads like a brief for a digital representation of reality right down to the numbered parameters matching the verses and such.

It would also explain a few phenomena such as the double slit experiment and even the manadala effect, imagine if there are multiples(you would not run just a single simulation) that all shared the same server and were just snapshots of the same reality, much like when we do backups on our personal computers we would select a snapshot of when we wanted.

The sim theory also relates to the shape and why our eyes lead us to think things are there when they are not such as the horizon, at this point I am open to all theory's that offer more than the current dogma at least.


----------



## NigeWz (Sep 16, 2021)

grav said:


> I'll have to check that out. I don't keep up with movies and tv shows.
> 
> Who has time to keep up with all the new information coming out now?
> I still haven't finished watching all of Ewaranon's videos and now have this new one to sort out.
> ...



If you want to make life easy, then go to my Bitch-Ute channel (TheDevilsPlayground), and you'll find Ewaranon in parts 1-13, and many of them are 30-40 mins. Easy to work through them. Free Guy move is 100% 'spill-the-beans'. Also, check out my most recent podcast with Anmarie Uber on my YT channel 'The Devil's Playground 2'. It's all there, my friend. Easy to digest too.


Citezenship said:


> I have said on this forum before that the story of creation reads like a brief for a digital representation of reality right down to the numbered parameters matching the verses and such.
> 
> It would also explain a few phenomena such as the double slit experiment and even the manadala effect, imagine if there are multiples(you would not run just a single simulation) that all shared the same server and were just snapshots of the same reality, much like when we do backups on our personal computers we would select a snapshot of when we wanted.
> 
> The sim theory also relates to the shape and why our eyes lead us to think things are there when they are not such as the horizon, at this point I am open to all theory's that offer more than the current dogma at least.


I totally agree with you. The double-slit experiment is enough to show us that this 'reality' is not 'real'. The SIM theory runs deeeeeep, but Logan on 'Decode Your Reality' YT channel has proven it time and time again. Watch his podcast called 'How to Decode Yourself' and take notes. Then follow his instructions. You will be blown-away like never before.  I decoded myself and it was a complete mind-f*ck. Absolutely 100% our lives are scripted, and we're living in a 'movie-script'. Enjoy, my friend.


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 16, 2021)

NigeWz said:


> I decoded myself and it was a complete mind-f*ck


What did you find your self to be, if you don't mind me asking?


----------



## NigeWz (Sep 16, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> What did you find your self to be, if you don't mind me asking?


It's not about that. It's about PROVING that your life is pre-scripted prior to your birth. You inherit your family name, but your 'given' names are chosen well in advance of your birth. It's really worth the time to check it out.


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 16, 2021)

NigeWz said:


> It's not about that. It's about PROVING that your life is pre-scripted prior to your birth. You inherit your family name, but your 'given' names are chosen well in advance of your birth. It's really worth the time to check it out.


what do you accept as proof?
Reason for asking is my dives into stolen history have revealed the evidence for all aspects of history is very ropey and I cannot identify what evidence looks like let alone proof.
As you have clearly have an acceptable form of proof could you share?
If too personal I fully understand.


----------



## NigeWz (Sep 16, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> what do you accept as proof?
> Reason for asking is my dives into stolen history have revealed the evidence for all aspects of history is very ropey and I cannot identify what evidence looks like let alone proof.
> As you have clearly have an acceptable form of proof could you share?
> If too personal I fully understand.


Sure. My birthday is October 1 (10.1) which = 11
In English Gematria, my first name = 11
My first and second name = 11
My full name = 11
My first child was born on 11.11
I got married on the 29th and my second son was born on 29th (2+9 = 11)
First house we bought was #119
Split up after 29 years (there are loads more examples I could give you)
The house that I grew up in was #2 (1+1=2), and the full address, including postcode reduces to 11.
The family's landline phone number was 74047 (11 11)

Let's move on........
One of the layers of decoding that Logan uses is Phi (1.61), which is the 'fibonacci sequence / golden ratio'
If I add 161 days to my date of birth, it becomes March 11
If I subtract 161 days, I get April 23

March 11 is the 70th day of the year (71st in a leap year)
October 1st is the 274th day of the year (275 in a leap year)
April 23 is the 113th day of the year (114 in a leap year)

Add up the numbers 70 + 274 + 113 = 457, and 4+5+7 = 16
Add three extra days (leap years), and 457 + 3 = 460, and 4+6 = 10 (or 1)
That gives me 161

1+6+1 = 8
My birth-date card is 8 of diamonds
In Chaldean numerology, my first name is 8
My first and second name = 8
My full name = 8

So now I have an 8 and an 11 decoded
8 + 11 = 19
My full date of birth adds up to 19
My initials, in Chaldean = 19
October 1st is 1 day and 9 months into the year
In Tarot, 19 is the 'Sun' card, and I was born on a Sunday.
19 is the 8th prime number.

It's interesting that the word 'battery' is 19 in Chaldean, and we are all 'batteries' being harvested for our energy.

I'll go one more for you. This part is all about re-incarnation.

In the string-of-pi, the number 19 appears at the 37th decimal place
37 appears at the 46th decimal place
46 appears at the 19th decimal place..........round-and-round we go, until we figure out how to get OFF the 'merry-go-round'.
It's also no coincidence that 19, 37, and 46 each add up to 10, and 10 reduces to 1. There's my birthday again (10.1)
In Chaldean, 'Man' = 10

The explanation I have given here does not even scratch the proverbial surface. Once you use the string-of-pi as well as the Periodic Table within your own personal dates and numbers etc., then you just keep getting more and more confirmation as you pull back the layers.

I hope this response encourages people to check out how to decode themselves. Once you do, then the topic of history almost becomes a moot point.
Happy decoding.
Check this (5 mins)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haGDT5JRB_s_


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 16, 2021)

Thank you.
For comparison.
My birthdate 9/8 = 8 (APOLOGIES cocked this up. its 9/10= 1)
In English Gematria, my first name = 258 _(which reduces to 6)_
My first and second name = 723 _(which reduces to 3)_
My full name = 1122 _(which reduces to 6)_
My first child was born on 4/6= (4+6=10)
I got married on the 5th and my second son was born on 25th (2+5 = 7)

English Germatria calculator used English, Hebrew and Simple Gematria Calculator Values

The house that I grew up in was #198 (1+9+8=9), and the full address, including postcode reduces to 5.

Fascinating.

Apologies to grav for wandering off but there it is.


----------



## NigeWz (Sep 16, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Thank you.
> For comparison.
> My birthdate 9/8 = 8
> In English Gematria, my first name = 258 _(which reduces to 6)_
> ...


Watch the video I mentioned (How to Decode Yourself. The YT channel is 'Decode Your Reality') and go the full distance. You'll be amazed, bro.


----------



## Safranek (Sep 16, 2021)

@NigeWz  I suggest starting a separate thread on this topic and we can move the off-topic posts to that thread.


----------



## NigeWz (Sep 16, 2021)

Safranek said:


> @NigeWz  I suggest starting a separate thread on this topic and we can move the off-topic posts to that thread.


sure. I  was just answering a question. I will start a new post tomorrow


----------



## grav (Sep 16, 2021)

Safranek said:


> @NigeWz  I suggest starting a separate thread on this topic and we can move the off-topic posts to that thread.



lol. not sure if is off-topic though, as my prime directive is to decipher the computer code of flat reality. I don't do gematria or numerology, but someone told me my "number" is 1. Which I don't get because I am the 3rd child born on the 3rd day of the 3rd month. 333. Maybe a freemason code. 

Very Matrix-y stuff. We have seen many other movies over the years that hint of our reality being a virtual existence. Tron, Dark City, the newest one with Ryan Reynolds who learns he is a character in a sim world game.
No movies about a flat earth, however.
Well, there was the Simpsons episode where someone cracked the glass dome and water flooded down.

Other than that, the entertainment industry floods us with space bs. Star Trek, Star Wars, ooldles of other yarns about humans exploring strange new worlds. out . there . Mr. Spock. 

Speaking of space fakery, SpaceX  (haha, X means cancel), Nasa and pals are turning it into a tourist destination. Plunk down a million dolares and you can fly on a modified airplane a few dozen miles up, then arc back down to earth.
I wish I could embed the video which shows the curvy launch path.


SpaceX launches new era of space tourism amid billionaire space race


----------



## Safranek (Sep 16, 2021)

grav said:


> lol. not sure if is off-topic though, as my prime directive is to decipher the computer code of flat reality. I don't do gematria or numerology, but someone told me my "number" is 1. Which I don't get because I am the 3rd child born on the 3rd day of the 3rd month. 333. Maybe a freemason code.
> 
> Very Matrix-y stuff. We have seen many other movies over the years that hint of our reality being a virtual existence. Tron, Dark City, the newest one with Ryan Reynolds who learns he is a character in a sim world game.
> No movies about a flat earth, however.
> ...


Ok. Your thread, your call.


----------



## NigeWz (Sep 17, 2021)

grav said:


> lol. not sure if is off-topic though, as my prime directive is to decipher the computer code of flat reality. I don't do gematria or numerology, but someone told me my "number" is 1. Which I don't get because I am the 3rd child born on the 3rd day of the 3rd month. 333. Maybe a freemason code.
> 
> Very Matrix-y stuff. We have seen many other movies over the years that hint of our reality being a virtual existence. Tron, Dark City, the newest one with Ryan Reynolds who learns he is a character in a sim world game.
> No movies about a flat earth, however.
> ...


This is just my opinion, but I strongly suggest that you do NOT ignore Gematria and Numerology. They form a HUGE part of this coded reality we are forced to endure. I saw an awesome Meme the other day. It said, 'The Earth is not flat, nor is it a globe; It's F*CKED!' When you stop to consider the hologram theory, or that it's a simulation, then the shape doesn't matter. As for me, water doesn't curve, so we ain't living on no spinning ball. 'Global' = 'Glow-Ball'.


----------



## otl2021 (Sep 17, 2021)

NigeWz said:


> This is just my opinion, but I strongly suggest that you do NOT ignore Gematria and Numerology. They form a HUGE part of this coded reality we are forced to endure.


Their numbers from their story:
--Earth curves .666 feet in one mile
--Earth is tilted 66.6 degrees
--Earth's circumference is 600x6x6 Nautical Miles
--Earth travels at approximately 66.6 thousand mph around the sun
--The arctic circle begins at 66.6° N
--The antarctic circle begins at 66.6° S
--Moon's diameter = 2160 or 6 x 6 x 60

And I don't get how this is even a debate anymore. The figures are in. Water does not ever become convex on the outside of its container.


----------



## grav (Sep 17, 2021)

NigeWz said:


> This is just my opinion, but I strongly suggest that you do NOT ignore Gematria and Numerology.


Thanks. I do not ignore the coded truths. I just don't have the time to explore them fully. I've said before that our reality is a computer program.

It takes all my free time to study flat earth and Tartaria.The Aether II video took me days to watch in its enrirety.
I couldn't read the fine print in many photos, but after a while, I gave up and let the horses run.
I don't see the video on this page, should probably post it again.
I'm to the point now that I view FE as a sub-set of the  destruction of the Tartarian Empire. Once again, I will scribble down my impressions of Flat Earth Tartaria.

I'd really like to see what y'all think, your own conclusions and guesses.

Sorry, Anunnaki haters, but I have not given up on the alien angle.
I also find computer games to be another clue in the reality glue.
When I googled Aether II, I got this......->

About 306,000 search results
www.curseforge.com › minecraft › mc-mods
The Aether II - Mods - Minecraft - CurseForge
May 19, 2020 · The Aether II is the sequel to the highly popular dimension mod "The Aether", set in a hostile paradise miles up in the clouds, the Aether is an entirely different world from what regular players are used to, filled with fantastic creatures and mysterious structures, the Aether is a world brimming with life and history.

aether.fandom.com › wiki › The_Aether_II
The Aether II: Genesis of the Void - Aether Wiki
The Aether II: Genesis of the Void or The Aether II is the sequel to The Aether mod, and is set primarily in the Aether dimension. The mod is a complete redo of the original mod and includes a

<-........
Nothing new under the sun, eh? Dungeons and Dragons, Zelda, War of Empires, etc. In yo' face, earthlings!
And beaucouos of movies about faux reality -- Matrix, Dark City, Tron, etc..

How about a summary? or
Rough guesses. Do not quote me or expect that I really hold with these wild surmises.

. Advanced Beings of the Pleroma (Gaia, Saturn, et al.) constructed our world. 1000 years ago, maybe Saturnian Cosmology

. It was destroyed and petrified. World Age resets. Smaller creatures roamed the plane.

. Aliens from another plane invaded and genetically modified one large humanoid, Homo terrestis. With the help of these new humans, the alien Anunnaki built the Tartarian empire. 500 years ago

. The Anunnaki squabbled over power. They fought each other. Another factor moved in -- the Demiurge and his Archons, non-physical beings similar to AI Terminators. They envied the Anunnaki and humans for their creativity and emotional capacities. The Archons feed parasitically on energetic loosh when they persuade humans to commit evil. **The devil made me do it** Humanity resets, mudfloods, plasma weapons which melt granite and forests..

. Archon-influenced Anunnaki war against the Scythian/Tartar/Aryan federation and annihilate billions of people. The final blow was ???? 1920 - 1950.

. Takeover is complete. Anunnaki survivors and their human comrades get out of Dodge completely or hold up in Hyporborea, possibly Antarctica.

If you dispute my history and timeline specs, fine. But provide your own.

That means, explain human origins, dna, pisspoor physiology, which is not suited for earth's climate and density. Because, imo, the naked ape which evolved in an Ice Age is just plain stupid.


----------



## NigeWz (Sep 18, 2021)

grav said:


> Thanks. I do not ignore the coded truths. I just don't have the time to explore them fully. I've said before that our reality is a computer program.
> 
> It takes all my free time to study flat earth and Tartaria.The Aether II video took me days to watch in its enrirety.
> I couldn't read the fine print in many photos, but after a while, I gave up and let the horses run.
> ...


Your theory is as good as any others I have read. I totally agree on your timeline regarding 500 years ago, but I kinda think that we live in a copied (& pasted) realm, and that only goes back around 500 years.


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 18, 2021)

grav said:


> I'd really like to see what y'all think,


It all came into being when you did.


----------



## NigeWz (Sep 18, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> It all came into being when you did.


Eggs Actly !


----------



## nineholes (Sep 18, 2021)

Freedom. If you do not have it you would try to break free, not all but a few. You would have to study the walls the doors, the way the system works. SH is a good forum. But what is freedom ? That you are free to do whatever you want ? You can do that right now, right here.  That you can be anything you want ? I guess you would want have just one type of personality or set of archetypes after a while and have the thrill to discover the others around you. That you know everything ? You might enjoy to solve a crossword while you are doing it, but after you are done you are looking forward to solving the next one. If you never run out of crosswords how long before you get bored doing them ? Or start to look for the last, biggest, deepest, hardest crossword ?  That you are happy forever ? I guess that could get boring, too. Suffering has it's perks as well. Same with the freedom to see or experience anything. Sex with every type of woman ? Beaches, mountains, cities, colors, tastes, emotional states .....  Being a freedom fighter for a few lives would make you try to be a dictator for once in a while. I guess the only way to make it more interesting is to loose consciousness. Which could only be temporary as well ..... but you would try to make it last as long as you can. Telling a soul whatever he wants to hear and send him back for another life. To wake up to a dream. From this viewpoint this simulation is great. It has anything you can ask for. However I for one want to get out simply because I feel it's time. The closest I came to the key is a set of numbers. A number is just a symbol. It does not have a meaning if it doesn't have something paired to it. 2 apples, 5 feelings, 0 numbers, 1000 ways to go. I want to find out what could be paired to this set of numbers. A geometric pattern ? A location ? That's my best guess. The number comes from Jason Breshears. 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jtUsjvNjXQ2178_

The eternal loop. I discovered another number that is connected to that set but I lack the mathematical talent to find the other ones that could show a pattern. If you have interest I explain the number set in detail.  I want to find out what connected to these numbers and if what connected to it could be changed .... " what you are not changing, you are also choosing" - I saw it on some FB quote that was attributed to Bruce Lee


----------



## Just (Sep 18, 2021)

nineholes said:


> Freedom. If you do not have it you would try to break free, not all but a few. You would have to study the walls the doors, the way the system works. SH is a good forum. But what is freedom ? That you are free to do whatever you want ? You can do that right now, right here.  That you can be anything you want ? I guess you would want have just one type of personality or set of archetypes after a while and have the thrill to discover the others around you. That you know everything ? You might enjoy to solve a crossword while you are doing it, but after you are done you are looking forward to solving the next one. If you never run out of crosswords how long before you get bored doing them ? Or start to look for the last, biggest, deepest, hardest crossword ?  That you are happy forever ? I guess that could get boring, too. Suffering has it's perks as well. Same with the freedom to see or experience anything. Sex with every type of woman ? Beaches, mountains, cities, colors, tastes, emotional states .....  Being a freedom fighter for a few lives would make you try to be a dictator for once in a while. I guess the only way to make it more interesting is to loose consciousness. Which could only be temporary as well ..... but you would try to make it last as long as you can. Telling a soul whatever he wants to hear and send him back for another life. To wake up to a dream. From this viewpoint this simulation is great. It has anything you can ask for. However I for one want to get out simply because I feel it's time. The closest I came to the key is a set of numbers. A number is just a symbol. It does not have a meaning if it doesn't have something paired to it. 2 apples, 5 feelings, 0 numbers, 1000 ways to go. I want to find out what could be paired to this set of numbers. A geometric pattern ? A location ? That's my best guess. The number comes from Jason Breshears.
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jtUsjvNjXQ2178_
> 
> The eternal loop. I discovered another number that is connected to that set but I lack the mathematical talent to find the other ones that could show a pattern. If you have interest I explain the number set in detail.  I want to find out what connected to these numbers and if what connected to it could be changed .... " what you are not changing, you are also choosing" - I saw it on some FB quote that was attributed to Bruce Lee



I tried googling the two numbers 2178 and 8712 adding ‘bible’ : the first number came up as the Song of Solomon (in gematria?) and the reversed number came up as the denial of Christ (in a bible theme dictionary). May well be a coincidence but who knows?


Just said:


> I tried googling the two numbers 2178 and 8712 adding ‘bible’ : the first number came up as the Song of Solomon (in gematria?) and the reversed number came up as the denial of Christ (in a bible theme dictionary). May well be a coincidence but who knows?


And Bagh (2178) means God in Persian as in the city Baghdad which means given (dad) by god.


----------



## grav (Sep 18, 2021)

Let's not get too far from the thread topic, to comply with SH policy's.
We all pretty much agree that reality is a simulation, that a computer code has written our history and everything else.

In other words, I realize we should reconnect with the strict definition of flat earth science. Laws of physics, empirical evidence, observations, optics, measurements, other "down-to-earth" analyses of the physical structures of the world and its dome.

But for now, we are in a phase that goes into the numbers or symbols that are arranged in ways that create the sim world program.
Our brains are plugged into this source code, which makes us see what we construe as reality.
Gematria is still considered esoterica. Ok, but I find this interesting when I googled 'flat earth' on a gematria site.

321 gematria - Yahoo Search Results
*In The Beginning*in Jewish Gematria equals: *321*:i9n400t100h8e50b2e5g7i9n40n40i9n40g7


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 18, 2021)

grav said:


> We all pretty much agree that reality is a simulation, that a computer code has written our history and everything else.


Err no!
When I said it comes into being when you do, that's it. 

I don't know what it is where it is why it is or anything else about it. I am the sole point of perception in my reality.


----------



## nineholes (Sep 18, 2021)

grav said:


> I'm to the point now that I view FE as a sub-set of the destruction of the Tartarian Empire. Once again, I will scribble down my impressions of Flat Earth Tartaria.
> 
> I'd really like to see what y'all think, your own conclusions and guesses.


To hide all the Tartaria stuff they had to delete the timelogs and everything else ( emotional imprints, holographic fields, etc., ) from the collective unconscious. Written history and facts are easy to prove or disprove. Our power of creativity, which imho powers this construct can only be tempered with to a certain degree, otherwise the weil lifts up. So fragments of Tartarian memory from the unconscious surfaced in a form of art - Steampunk. That's my guess. There are a million ways to get lost or find some kind of "truth" and make a conclusion. Think about the amount of energy you put into it. It just makes it more solid. There is no truth here. In this world the majority of people think in associations and they are sleepwalking through life, step by step. They are probably awake to some degree for a few  minutes in a lifetime. The evil ones, the controllers, the PTB or whatever you wanna call them think in absolutes, I am sure you observed the effects of that in your daily life. The very few who have some spiritual powers and serving a perceived greater good with best intentions can never convey a conceivable wisdom without resorting to use paradoxes. Using metaphors is a step taken to avoid running into the eventual paradox.  So as you can see, the game is fixed and by finding out the ways how it's fixed will not get somebody out of it. That would be my "conclusion". I guess my previous post should have started sometime after this conclusion. Sorry about that and I hope I did not go too far


----------



## otl2021 (Sep 18, 2021)

grav said:


> Let's not get too far from the thread topic, to comply with SH policy's.
> We all pretty much agree that reality is a simulation, that a computer code has written our history and everything else.


This whole thread is off topic. And I, for one, do not agree with the idea that reality is a simulation, nor that a computer code has written our history and everything else.
LOL

This is the most censored topic, period. It is because when this truth gets free, we change everything. From our schools to everything else that is tied into these lies... it all changes.

Even here, there's a thread asking if FE is a psyop? I went on there to show everyone that, no, their explosion that created everything inside their imagined vacuum space is the psyop.

I was responded to by a mod who stated:


trismegistus said:


> We already have a thread on FE found here Flat Earth
> 
> Please keep all pro FE related content there, this thread is a discussion revolving around the FE movement as a psy-op (which, even if there is some merit to the arguments for FE, can still be a psyop nonetheless). Any further off topic posts in here may be removed or the thread may be locked.



But, this isn't even a flat earth thread! And how can a thread be started, requesting specific opinions, yet only allow for one side of the story?

Earth can not be a plane and psyop... sorry.

That said, I guess I'll throw my posts over here so folks can judge for themselves whether the Earth curves anywhere near what they say and whether water becomes convex on its surface.

Has there been a FE thread here that focused specifically on the evidence?


otl2021 said:


> Sorry for my last attempt. Please allow me to try again.
> 
> 
> That is the psyop!
> ...


----------



## NigeWz (Sep 19, 2021)

otl2021 said:


> This whole thread is off topic. And I, for one, do not agree with the idea that reality is a simulation, nor that a computer code has written our history and everything else.
> LOL
> 
> This is the most censored topic, period. It is because when this truth gets free, we change everything. From our schools to everything else that is tied into these lies... it all changes.
> ...


Not only is this realm a simulation, it's provably so. Pop over to 'Decode Your Reality' YT channel, and watch 'Prison Planet Decoded'


----------



## nineholes (Sep 19, 2021)

Just said:


> I tried googling the two numbers 2178 and 8712 adding ‘bible’ : the first number came up as the Song of Solomon (in gematria?) and the reversed number came up as the denial of Christ (in a bible theme dictionary). May well be a coincidence but who knows?
> 
> And Bagh (2178) means God in Persian as in the city Baghdad which means given (dad) by god.


When you do the calculations starting with 2178 and deduct the reflection or the opposite of that number, the sequence is as follows : 2178, 8712, -6534, -2178, 6534, 4356, 2178
All numbers collapse the zero when the holographic reflection or opposite is deducted from them. Except 2178. As you can see it folds back into itself and forms an eternal loop.
What I discovered is that there are numbers that also do not collapse to zero because in the process of deduction they run into those seven numbers I described above. If you do it with 4510 it will run into 4356 and will fall into the eternal loop. If we could see the others numbers connected to that sequence the same way as 4510 does, that would allow us to try to construct a geometric pattern and look at the abstract expressed on a piece of paper. That would be my first guess, what would happen to your mind when you look at a pattern like that. If that doesn't work I would do it in 3D and stand in it. It's a mind-soul-DNA game. Trying to rationalize it by adding everyday meaning to those numbers would be more like solving a crossword or a puzzle where the solution would only leed to another crossword or puzzle. You cannot solve a crossword that YOU are creating constantly at every second of your life. But you can stop playing and look at it.


kd-755 said:


> I am the sole point of perception in my reality.


True. When you become what you perceive, including your thoughts and the voices in your head I would say the egg has fully hatched. If you would want to be an egg again in this life, you'd have to experience just perception and nothing else. A kind of death so to speak and be reborn again, in a new way - for if you do that in one life time it cannot be the same for the second time.


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 19, 2021)

nineholes said:


> True. When you become what you perceive, including your thoughts and the voices in your head I would say the egg has fully hatched. If you would want to be an egg again in this life, you'd have to experience just perception and nothing else. A kind of death so to speak and be reborn again, in a new way - for if you do that in one life time it cannot be the same for the second time.


You seem to have missed the point


> I don't know what it is where it is why it is or anything else about it.



Or are you describing your own beliefs there?



otl2021 said:


> Has there been a FE thread here that focused specifically on the evidence?


Oh I don't know you could use the site search. Toolbar top of your screen, the button is on the right hand side and bears the word "search". Don't be lazy.
If you don't find one and you have "the evidence" of whatever shape the earth is or why it needs to have one then start your own thread and lay out your evidence and research and any testing you have done to arrive at your position of knowing what shape the earth is.

Edit to add
I just remembered I have already done the search and posted the links the search threw up back up the thread a fair aways. Perhaps going to the op and reading through the whole thread from there would be a good start point to find it.


Second edit to add this.


NigeWz said:


> Watch the video I mentioned (How to Decode Yourself. The YT channel is 'Decode Your Reality') and go the full distance. You'll be amazed, bro.


I watched and listened to decode the reality and then did some digging into the bloke doing the speaking.
I spent a whole quarter hour looking into the name behind the Decode Your Reality Yuotube channel which was created in 2018.
This is what I found.

https://www.youtube.com/c/DecodeYourReality/about

Which led me to this;

Cosmic Sugar – BECOME A BETTER YOU

Which contains this;



> I personally believe that whatever created this reality creates through us.  Because of this notion, the Artificial Intelligence mankind is and has been building  through computers and technology is an extension of the Creator of this reality. The Creator of this reality would own and operate the Artificial Intelligence. What makes this Intelligence ‘Artificial’ is because it was created by Human Beings. Yet since Human Beings are already scripted into the software of Life, whatever we create was designed by the Creator of this reality.



He believes.



> I personally believe that whatever created this reality creates through us.



He has decoded his reality and he BELIEVES.

Moving on he has a linkedin profile

https://www.linkedin.com/in/logan-jayson-piette-b891a980

Which contains this;



> LOGAN JAYSON PIETTE
> Meta-Physician at BrainBodySoul
> Los Angeles Metropolitan Area
> 242 connections



Which led to this;

Life-Coding – Brain Body Soul

And for just $899 you will get "The Keys to Your Kingdom"





Which led to this;

Login • Instagram



> Logan Jayson Piette
> Custom made Art Design meets Philosophical Quotations.
> Freelance designer ♡ Graphic Designer | Editor



So he tells you how to decode your programmed life on the youtube and flogs the keys for big bucks off of youtube.
At least uk_quanon and his very long video series he made to "wake his family up" didn't attempt to flog anything to anyone.

Another edit to add. 
If this is the same chap here is his early youtube channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnZmeml9dAph-7KdK4qNMPg/videos


----------



## NigeWz (Sep 19, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> You seem to have missed the point
> 
> 
> Or are you describing your own beliefs there?
> ...


I know Logan personally, and I tend not to make judgements on what people sell / don't sell. I totally agree with you regarding Ewaranon, but maybe he has a regular job, lol? If people want to pay $899 for something, then that is their business. I guess if they don't feel they are getting value for money, then they can take that up with him. I spend countless hours researching and making presentations for my YT channel, and I am not interested in selling / monetizing simply because I have a 'job' that provides me income. If that wasn't the case then I guess I would have to look at other ways of finding $$. I take your point though, and thanks for the response / links.


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 19, 2021)

So thanks to Logan Jayson Piette and Nigewz I found the document linked below and include the screenshot and yes it is pertient to flat earth so certain parties will be pleased about that and yes it is mathematics which may be doubly pleasing to some so here is the short journey I took. Twenty five minutes or so this time.

Logan features a lot of stuff from a chap called Santos Bonnacci. He came to my attention donkeys years ago through my journey we are told is life.
Here is Santo's youtube channel; https://www.youtube.com/c/MrAstrotheology_Universal_Truth_School/community

Which I found through his website; Welcome to the Universal Truth School Website of Santos Bonacci | Universal Truth School




Here is the podcast he did on Bitchute; 
_View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/fbvqFsKD85He/_


And in the comments on that podcast there I found this link https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88104main_H-1391.pdf

From which I downloaded the pdf and shot for the conclusion because I have had more days than are still to come and am not fluent in mathematics.


----------



## grav (Sep 19, 2021)

trismegistus said:
We already have a thread on FE found here Flat Earth

Please keep all pro FE related content there, this thread is a discussion revolving around the FE movement as a psy-op (which, even if there is some merit to the arguments for FE, can still be a psyop nonetheless). Any further off topic posts in here may be removed or the thread may be locked.

....
Wait. what ?
Only one side of a debate is to be presented in a thread?

I realize that the sim world and Gematria code are not prima facie evidence of the obviously flat and motionless world.

But if they are pigeon-holed into separate threads, at least in my case, they would not get the attention they deserve. Yeah, it's a messy melange of material facts and curious speculation.

I appreciate admin's preference for threads that focus on clearly defined topics. Too much time spent on possibly related ideas may derail continuity or discourage some readers.

I myself prefer to talk about what we can observe and prove.
If posters want to do the numberolohy and symbology, okey dokey, but please tie them in to flatology.


----------



## NigeWz (Sep 19, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> So thanks to Logan Jayson Piette and Nigewz I found the document linked below and include the screenshot and yes it is pertient to flat earth so certain parties will be pleased about that and yes it is mathematics which may be doubly pleasing to some so here is the short journey I took. Twenty five minutes or so this time.
> 
> Logan features a lot of stuff from a chap called Santos Bonnacci. He came to my attention donkeys years ago through my journey we are told is life.
> Here is Santo's youtube channel; https://www.youtube.com/c/MrAstrotheology_Universal_Truth_School/community
> ...



Gonna all put it to 'bed' tomorrow. Will post link here as soon as it's uploaded to YT.  It really is a 'night night'


----------



## dreamtime (Sep 19, 2021)

grav said:


> Only one side of a debate is to be presented in a thread?



The thread is primarily about the meta-level (arguments for or against flat earth as psy-op), not about arguing for or against flat-earth specificially. this is simply about focusing on specific aspects in a given thread.


----------



## nineholes (Sep 19, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> You seem to have missed the point


I think I did. Sorry about that.


kd-755 said:


> Or are you describing your own beliefs there?


I think I was. It doesn't belong really here.


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 19, 2021)

nineholes said:


> I think I was


Thank you.


----------



## grav (Sep 20, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> how do the tides work on the flat earth?


Mainstream science trots out tides as the result of the moon's gravity.
a silly feeemason invention, grabbity.

FE sees the moon as an electromagnetic effect in the dome.
Since we are composed of electricity and water, we react to the light of the moon (radiation).
Some people don't sleep well during the full moon. Wolves howl at it.
Moonlight is cooler than moonshade. Sunlght positive and healthy; moonlight is negative and unhealthy.

But what causes high tides?

Ocean Tides on Flat Earth Explained
Proof of the Close Flat Earth Sun

Water Is naturally diamagnetic, which means it repels a magnetic field. It creates a magnetic field in opposition to an externally applied magnetic field. The close sun is a positive electromagnetic energy repelling the water in the ocean, creating low tides and and the moon is a negative electromagnetic energy causing high tides. They work together like a perfectly designed machine.


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 20, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> My follow up question is how do the tides work on the flat earth?


Care to share  any explanation you have of how they do whatever it is you think they work do with any shape of earth?


grav said:


> Wait. what ?
> Only one side of a debate is to be presented in a thread?


You appear to be mis-reading. This thread is the thread for the psyop discussion SH Archive - Is "Flat Earth" a PsyOp?
The one I am typing in is your flat earth theory exploration.
All sides of debate relevant to the OP topic are presented in the relevant thread, it seems to me.



NigeWz said:


> Gonna all put it to 'bed' tomorrow. Will post link here as soon as it's uploaded to YT. It really is a 'night night'


Why youtube?
Is it easier to make a video than type what you have to say in this thread?

Edit to correct wordage.


----------



## otl2021 (Sep 20, 2021)

NigeWz said:


> Not only is this realm a simulation, it's provably so. Pop over to 'Decode Your Reality' YT channel, and watch 'Prison Planet Decoded'


"Provably?"

I'm guessing we have different ideas of what is meant by 'proof.'

This is from the the thread asking is FE is a psyop. The one we are not allowed to discuss or share uncomfortable truths that come off as pro-FE and point to the actual psyop being the disney/masonic space fantasy.


_View: https://youtu.be/7KYfodwnHAI_


If you have yet to see this, it's a must see. Keep in mind, based on their math and the dimensions they have given us for our spinning-water-rock, *that laser should have been hidden below nearly 180 feet of the Earth.*

We see it plane as day. Direct hit, in fact!

Water does not, and never has, become convex on the outside of any object, let alone a spinning, orbiting, wobbling sphere. 

Never even mind one that is traveling in multiple directions simultaneously, at speeds that exceed the speed that sound travels at by many, many times.

Heliocentrism, with spheres in orbit, that came from an explosion which in turn  created humanity is THE PSYOP.


----------



## grav (Sep 24, 2021)

Our world is demonstrably flat, as laser experiments prove.
Water seeks its own level, also proving that oceans must lie inside a plane.

Atmospheric gases prove that a dome above the surface prevents air from escaping into a false region called outer space. Air pressure is the mass of oxygen and other gases divided by the volume.

In other words, air must be confined in a container, like a tank of composed air to fill your car's tires.
The idea of a total vacuum called outer space defines logic and laws of physics.

We can't see the dome because of atmospheric interference.
But at night, telescopes and cameras with special lenses show can us the lights that are embedded in the dome. We may also see the Dark Rift, which looks like the seam of a welded plate.

The whole effect has the appearance of a curved ceiling which rotates around us. In this beautiful short video we see shooting stars, or meteors.
Like comets, they are probably light effects from pockmarks in the glasslike dome, similar to scratches and dings in a car's windshield.


_View: https://youtu.be/tLC6Sy8f06s_


----------



## trismegistus (Sep 24, 2021)

grav said:


> In this beautiful short video we see shooting stars, or meteors.
> Like comets, they are probably light effects from pockmarks in the glasslike dome, similar to scratches and dings in a car's windshield.


What then in your opinion are the objects in the sky that do manage to break into our sky and strike on earth? 


_View: https://youtu.be/fBLjB5qavxY_


----------



## Referent (Sep 24, 2021)

The laser experiments are very interesting and pretty convincing.  One thing I wonder if any people have done as part of their laser experiments, would be to calculate an estimate of the beam "dispersion/spread" at the measured distance, then measure the amount of laser light at different locations within the "beam", to show that yes the beam is spreading, but that no the beam's spread (diameter at that distance) is not the reason for "seeing/recording" the laser source from the opposite end of the lake still.

I ask about this because, putting aside the sheer magnitude of Earth "height/curvature" to be overcome, the experiments might be misinterpreted by some as assuming that laser beams begin and end as focused dots.  However, all amateur lasers I've ever read about or purchased do indeed have a "spread"; something like 10 inches at 100 yards, to make up an example.

Would it even be possible to sprinkle fine powder in the air at night, and use sensitive photography to show where the beam's "dot/diameter" ends at such great distances (miles across a lake)?  If the _shape_ and _center_ of the beam at the "target" could be measured, that would be very interesting, too. The center ought to be slightly above the surface of the lake (or, rather, the height the laser is off the lake).

The point would be, again, putting aside visual observations with zoom lenses and just focusing on the laser experiments, to show that indeed the laser is traveling parallel to the lake.  (People may attempt to explain even this away, but I don't buy an air or gravity based diffraction theory just yet.)

I've seen a lot of the laser experiment videos.  Wondering if anyone can point to the most rigorously documented ones, which might account for the beam "spread" (other than simply saying that the sheer height of globe that the beam should be hidden below exceeds the beam spread at the distance).


----------



## otl2021 (Sep 25, 2021)

trismegistus said:


> What then in your opinion are the objects in the sky that do manage to break into our sky and strike on earth?
> 
> 
> _View: https://youtu.be/fBLjB5qavxY_



Break into our sky and strike on earth? Like, from outer space? 

Have you video of that? I have never seen any. 

They always look like what you showed, at almost identical angles. The similar trajectories and the fact that they attribute craters to their strikes with no legitimate debris, coupled with how they are always here within our atmosphere, makes me think military psyop.



Referent said:


> The laser experiments are very interesting and pretty convincing.  One thing I wonder if any people have done as part of their laser experiments, would be to calculate an estimate of the beam "dispersion/spread" at the measured distance, then measure the amount of laser light at different locations within the "beam", to show that yes the beam is spreading, but that no the beam's spread (diameter at that distance) is not the reason for "seeing/recording" the laser source from the opposite end of the lake still.
> 
> I ask about this because, putting aside the sheer magnitude of Earth "height/curvature" to be overcome, the experiments might be misinterpreted by some as assuming that laser beams begin and end as focused dots.  However, all amateur lasers I've ever read about or purchased do indeed have a "spread"; something like 10 inches at 100 yards, to make up an example.
> 
> ...


The spread does not matter if a physical, geometric barrier exists. Based on their own narrative, these photons are leaving at 'light speed' from just a few feet above the water and at least some are entering the camera on the other side positioned at very nearly the same exact height.

We are looking at drop heights of several story buildings!

As far as refraction, it is very real, but only very rarely does what the globe's narrative pushers claim. In fact refraction and poor visibility in general, along with how perspective works, is why we do not see even farther. It is also why it is so difficult to see how the sun and the moon actually 'set.' But, for another time.

Anyways, I have a feeling that these laser tests will be confirmed shortly and the FACT that water does not display convexity on its surface will be obvious for all to see...
11thousandfeet.com – 11 thousand feet

Force the Line


----------



## trismegistus (Sep 25, 2021)

otl2021 said:


> Break into our sky and strike on earth? Like, from outer space?
> 
> Have you video of that? I have never seen any.
> 
> They always look like what you showed, at almost identical angles. The similar trajectories and the fact that they attribute craters to their strikes with no legitimate debris, coupled with how they are always here within our atmosphere, makes me think military psyop.


Anecdotally - I have seen one of these “green fireballs” back in 2018. I watched it penetrate the clouds, so whatever it was it was fairly close to the ground. It went from small green streak to massive green ball (like a second sun), back down to a streak - almost like it _pulsed_ in the sky.

I was in a car, so I didn’t hear anything. I also did not hear it land. I caught some local news reports and others did see it and catch it on various hunting or security cameras. No one figured out where it landed, if it did. There is hundreds and hundreds of miles of forest out here it could have landed in. Debris, if it exists, could take years of rigorous searching to find out here.

I don’t want to take this thread off topic, so let me bring it back.

What I saw was an object that was very close to earth. It doesn’t mean it came from space, or that it necessarily landed. What is the flat earth cosmological explanation for this phenomenon? Volcanic ejecta? Plasma? I know you mentioned that you believed they were scratches on a dome but unless the dome is right behind the cloud line (this happened at around 1600ft above sea level - clouds are relatively close to the ground here) I don’t see that as a solution.

Edit: this is a camera that caught the event I described above - although it only caught the “pulse” light, not the object itself. If I had to guess this camera was at least 20 miles away from where I saw it. 


_View: https://youtu.be/3xXrJIleW64_


----------



## grav (Sep 25, 2021)

otl2021 said:


> Anyways, I have a feeling that these laser tests will be confirmed shortly and the FACT that water does not display convexity on its surface will be obvious for all to see...


Confirmed? by whom? Flatarthers have been conducting long range laser and optical experimnts for years. National Geographic actually cheated a few years ago  when they made an episode for tv to prove the curve.





trismegistus said:


> What then in your opinion are the objects in the sky that do manage to break into our sky and strike on earth?



My lazy.
I meant to edit that post and was interrupted and forgot to do my due diligence.

Isn't The Wild Heretic a member here. or a mod?
He is a Concave Earther with a terific website. One of the best articles in it is his essay, "There Is Glass in the Sky."

He contends, or suggests, that yellow quarztlike chunks of rocks found in the Libyan desert may be pieces of the dome. Possibly. I think they could be the result of DEW wars in the "distant" past. Or else natural deposits created by "ancient" plasma discharges -- as proposd by the Electric Universe Thunderbirds thinkers.

A sizeable rock the color of the blue sky has also been found in Africa.

I was careless in my earlier post when I did not address the Chicken Little syndrome. The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Because, yes, as Charles Fort documented in his "Book of the Damned," inexplicable objects have rained down on earth over the last century. 

The Body Scientific puts us in a bind when they define sky phenomena. 
Meteors, meteorites, asteroids, and comets.
While I appreciate FE researchers for proving that the land and watr are level, I fault them for neglecting the sky. 

The straight line flashes are, as I surmised previously, the light effects caused by imperfections in the dome. Ewaranon first brought that theory to our attention. I have a hard time calling them meteors or comets, since these terms belong to pseudoscience. We don't have FE vocabulary to properly name these events.

How to distinguish them from natural skyfalls or manmade missiles?
That needs looking into. Amateur astronomers with telescopes might be able to see the difference.


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 26, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> Doesn't the dome idea fly in face of the idea there are lands outside of Antarctica?





grav said:


> Atmospheric gases prove that a dome above the surface prevents air from escaping into a false region called outer space. Air pressure is the mass of oxygen and other gases divided by the volume.
> 
> In other words, air must be confined in a container, like a tank of composed air to fill your car's tires.
> The idea of a total vacuum called outer space defines logic and laws of physics.
> ...



The dome we cannot see or interact with in anyway let alone know anything about it least of all its dimensions due apparently to the atmosphere within the dome interfering with our vision. 
It cannot be an atmosphere without the dome as we do not know if there is anything on the other side of the dome. Or possibly we live in a bubble of air that got trapped in the glass which formed by some unknown and it seems unrepeatable process god knows when with no way out to any other possible bubbles within the glass. 

Lets face it we know next to sod all about this physical realms limits or if it has any. All we have is endless speculation and the truth the plane we walk on is level as the behaviour of contained water and the way our eyes and brain work reveal.
The only way I can see to figure out what if anything is beyond any physical boundary be it real or imagined is to set off and go find out for myself. 
Sad thing is I can invent a 100 good reasons why I don't take that first step towards this goal and it seems most are in the same boat.


----------



## otl2021 (Sep 26, 2021)

trismegistus said:


> What I saw was an object that was very close to earth. It doesn’t mean it came from space, or that it necessarily landed. What is the flat earth cosmological explanation for this phenomenon?


Not sure there is some commonly agreed upon answer to anything, except, yeah, it didn't come from space, lol.

Or a 'FE community." I think today, this FE awakening is happening on an individual basis. Today we have the benefit of seeing many of the 'shills' called out. And I think that many FEers have been activists prior, and are aware of how easy it is for movements of any real size to be co-opted, separated, divided... and finally conquered.

There are a lot of bright folks out there, and hopefully, we wont be fooled again.



grav said:


> Confirmed? by whom? Flatarthers have been conducting long range laser and optical experimnts for years. National Geographic actually cheated a few years ago when they made an episode for tv to prove the curve.


I know about about the NG fiasco, lol. Fun times! And I am talking about confirmation by a separate experiment that removes the very possibility of refraction or any of the other globe-trotted claims being factors..

I posted two of these experiments. You should have a look.



mega1000 said:


> Doesn't the dome idea fly in face of the idea there are lands outside of Antarctica?


No. We don't even know where or if a dome might even begin. Or if there exists a dome at all.

All we know is that we wake up and breathe each day. Because of this fact, we know we exist in a closed system. Air pressure exists. Air pressure cannot exist without a container, as air pressure is determined by the amount of force that the gas produces when it strikes the container.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Sep 26, 2021)

Mullins force the line experiment - well thought out .

11,000 feet bungee  cord would sag under its own weight wouldn't it


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 26, 2021)

otl2021 said:


> air pressure is determined by the amount of force that the gas produces when it strikes the container.


So by that statement of fact if there is no container to push against the air simply keeps on going then?
What is doing the pushing upwards/outwards to the container?
If air pressure is created by a force (currently unknown) pushing air against a container then at some distance from the container itself there must be some sort of pushback or equilibrium surely.
The pressure of liquid water on the bottom of the ocean is much more than the pressure on the air above the liquid water and yet the air bubble released from the bottom of the ocean somehow, by means unknown, is able to overcome the water pressure and rise up above the level surface of the water and in your statement of fact join the air above and continue until it hits a container wall.
Quite how the air can somehow travel in the opposite direction and find itself under a colossal pressure of the liquid water is a mystery to behold.

Using mainstream ideas of how things work simply leads to adopting whichever mainstream explanation or law or rule or whatever fits the belief held in the speculators mind it seems. Rejecting the mainstream and just observing and experiencing thinking for oneself will shed light on things but given most of us on here have decades of mainstream educational indoctrination to lay aside it may take a while.

Edit to add missing word.


----------



## Akanah (Sep 27, 2021)

Mainstream science and the science of the electric universe are definitely dead for me this year. 
Thinking for yourself is always worthwhile.


----------



## grav (Sep 27, 2021)

Akanah said:


> Mainstream science and the science of the electric universe are definitely dead for me this year.
> Thinking for yourself is always worthwhile.


I wish mainstream science would die, but no ;(
It's like a bad Halloween movie with a monster that just . can't . be . killed .

Why is the Electric Universe dead for you? because the EU think tankers are hypocrites? because they still pretend that earth is a spinny ball in a spinny solar system?

well, hmm, yeah. It's hard to justify that cowardice.
But their ideas about how mountains and odd geology were formed may be worthwhile.

My husband likes old cowboy movies and tv shows like The Lone Ranger. yee haw! Giddy up. Heigh ho, Silver!

Their plots and acting are probably better than your modern entertainment drek, but what I find interesting is the beautiful western scenery. Some of the mountains and hills look like pyramids or the petrified remnants of giant trees (mesas).
Thr EU Thunderbirds propose that plasma downthrusts created those fascinatung rock formations.

Actually, I think they're right.
But plasma is something that we associate with the ionized gases in light bulbs.

Comets are supposed to be space rocks with tails.
Oh, for Pete's sake.
Comet Biela, around 100 years ago, burned up Chicago and much of the US Midwest. It was compared to a whirlwind of fire. Glass and granite melted, many people and wild animals and livestock perished in fhe catastrophe.

Where did it come from? An ejection of solar plasma?
From the dome??? as I have previously thought?
Could it, as well as other destructive comets in "history" books, have been a Directed Energy Weapon?

And who had that advanced technology?
This is when Tartaria and Ancient Alien theories creep into FE theory.
I don't know. I'd like to find a name to describe the whole ball of wax. In a computer program, anything is possible.


----------



## otl2021 (Sep 27, 2021)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Mullins force the line experiment - well thought out .


I agree and am a huge fan. However, a) it is expensive. We are looking at 100s of 1000s of dollars. And b) the machining has to be perfect. I am not saying that it couldn't be machined, because it certainly can. But who or what company, is actually going to do this? Or who can we trust? In other words, if the machining is off just slightly, the entire experiment fails and that money is gone.



FarewellAngelina said:


> 11,000 feet bungee cord would sag under its own weight wouldn't it


Yes, the catenary, right? I've been discussing this on physics forums. Here is where we are:

What I don't understand is this.

This is clearly possible:








When I see that, I see a straight line. I don't see the catenary. Is it still there, but so small that it can not be seen or is that a straight line?

And if that is a straight line, then theoretically is it possible to do the same thing over longer distances.

And if it is theoretically possible to do that over a long distance, is there a way to demonstrate this in reality?

And if the bungee cord does not have the tensile strength to mass ratio to achieve this, would anyone know of a material strong enough and light enough to accomplish my goal of creating a straight line over distance?

Or is that simply a mathematical impossibility regardless of the mass to tensile strength ratio?

Or am I looking at this all wrong still?


----------



## grav (Sep 27, 2021)

Why would it be necessary to use one single line? Why not pick a shallow lake and stick measuring rods in it?

I also found a new video about Antarctica.
From, to my surprise, Info Wars. Alex Jones's site?
I didn't know they were into flat earth.

It's 10 minutes long and discusses the azimuthal-equidistance map and the strange history of Antarctica. Before WW2 the Nazis had established at least one base there, around 1939. Admiral Byrd was involved in an expedition, Operation Fishbowl, and reported his findings in a televised broadcast. 

He died shortly after that, soon followed by the the creation of NASA (with Nazi "Paperclip" scientists) and the Antarctic Treaty.
I remind those of you who follow the Tartaria theory that this timeframe has been pointed out as the reset of our age.
1958.



_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YO7-9k0HRiM_


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Sep 27, 2021)

otl2021 said:


> I agree and am a huge fan. However, a) it is expensive. We are looking at 100s of 1000s of dollars. And b) the machining has to be perfect. I am not saying that it couldn't be machined, because it certainly can. But who or what company, is actually going to do this? Or who can we trust? In other words, if the machining is off just slightly, the entire experiment fails and that money is gone.
> 
> 
> Yes, the catenary, right? I've been discussing this on physics forums. Here is where we are:
> ...


Yeah - your looking at it wrong . Scientists theorise and can(and do) produce any old mathematical shite to prop up their imaginary scenarios . Mullins is an engineer I believe , and his experiment involves precision engineering aligned with precision optics if I recall correctly , no theory . 

I don't think you can run a bungee or a catenary wire over 11000km without a sag.

Surveyors do not account for earth curvature over areas of 100sq mile - there is none .

Geodesy, which is not a science , is the art of mapping level survey onto a globe using mathematical techniques in order to prop up the globe deception/theory , mainly used to produce those nice spherical drinks cabinets  . Gonna open mine up now and grab a bedtime tot.


----------



## otl2021 (Sep 30, 2021)

grav said:


> Why would it be necessary to use one single line? Why not pick a shallow lake and stick measuring rods in it?


To what end? What would this tell us?



FarewellAngelina said:


> Yeah - your looking at it wrong . Scientists theorise and can(and do) produce any old mathematical shite to prop up their imaginary scenarios . Mullins is an engineer I believe , and his experiment involves precision engineering aligned with precision optics if I recall correctly , no theory .


No theory, indeed, but there's no optics to consider, just two rails attached to columns.

One rail is designed to be one continuous straight line. This is insured by the initial section being leveled with a spirit level, with the rest attached using brackets that connect the steel sections to each other at a perfect 180 degrees. *This is the forced line.*

The other rail is simply made using a spirit level across the entire length.

If the world is a plane and gravity is made up, than the two rails will be parallel.

If the world is a sphere as modern astronomy claims, then the top rail will eventually touch the bottom, or forced rail. And as people drive by, they will literally be able to see this for themselves.

The project is estimated to cost in the 100s of 1000s of dollars. And again, the machining and the build must be perfect.



FarewellAngelina said:


> I don't think you can run a bungee or a catenary wire over 11000km without a sag.


Yes, we were out sciencing and confirmed this. We are now looking at other materials, but the idea of removing the catenary entirely over such a length is not possible, regardless of force.

I am now thinking of using a line with the same density as water and doing this just under the water level. This saves tremendous problems, but may create new ones. Let me know what you think.



kd-755 said:


> So by that statement of fact if there is no container to push against the air simply keeps on going then?


No.



kd-755 said:


> What is doing the pushing upwards/outwards to the container?


Particles, matter, substance... call it what you will.



kd-755 said:


> If air pressure is created by a force (currently unknown) pushing air against a container then at some distance from the container itself there must be some sort of pushback or equilibrium surely.


?



kd-755 said:


> The pressure of liquid water on the bottom of the ocean is much more than the pressure on the air above the liquid water and yet the air bubble released from the bottom of the ocean somehow, by means unknown, is able to overcome the water pressure and rise up above the level surface of the water and in your statement of fact join the air above and continue until it hits a container wall.


These things are not unknown. Air is less dense than water, so it will rise. Water, like raindrops, will fall through air because they are more dense than the air.

The air bubble stops rising at the point where it reaches equilibrium with its environment.



kd-755 said:


> Quite how the air can somehow travel in the opposite direction and find itself under a colossal pressure of the liquid water is a mystery to behold.


No air bubbles are ever moving through water in a downwards direction. They only rise. As the story goes, Archimedes figured this all out a couple 1000 years ago. Regardless, this is still true today.



kd-755 said:


> Using mainstream ideas of how things work simply leads to adopting whichever mainstream explanation or law or rule or whatever fits the belief held in the speculators mind it seems. Rejecting the mainstream and just observing and experiencing thinking for oneself will shed light on things but given most of us on here have decades of mainstream educational indoctrination to lay aside it may take a while.


I stay with observable, testable, and repeatable.

Be good, y'all


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 30, 2021)

otl2021 said:


> One rail is designed to be one continuous straight line. This is insured by the initial section being leveled with a spirit level,


What is used to calibrate the spirit level?



> kd-755 said:
> So by that statement of fact if there is no container to push against the air simply keeps on going then?





otl2021 said:


> No


Well what would happen to the air without the container?



> kd-755 said:
> What is doing the pushing upwards/outwards to the container?





otl2021 said:


> Particles, matter, substance... call it what you will.


Does that mean that you like me have no idea what is actually doing the pushing?
No evidence of it?




> kd-755 said:
> If air pressure is created by a force (currently unknown) pushing air against a container then at some distance from the container itself there must be some sort of pushback or equilibrium surely.





otl2021 said:


> ?



I was once an apprentice on a marine plumbing test squad. The job was to fill pipelines with either air or water then pressurise them to find any leaks. Two gauges were put on the system. One right at the point were the pump that did the pressurising was located and the other ar the furthest possible point from the former. Once the pressure was built up to two and a  half times operating pressure the inlet valve was closed and the pump end gauge was monitored for any pressure drop which would indicate a leak.
If it didn't drop the pipeline was walked and eyeballed as much as could be done, it was on an aircraft carrier so often the pipeline disappeared from view, until we got to the other gauge. There was always a slight maybe two o four psi difference in the two gauges readings.
This could of course mean the gauges were not calibrated equally although being a naval shipyard there was an entire calibration laboratory which was staffed by people who were very good at doing what they did.
I never could figure out why this differential existed but being young it left my mind the instant I left the test squad.
Point is pressure is not created by the container but by the source of the push.
In example above the source of the pressure in the pipeline system is an pump be it an air pump or an air-hydro pump. The pressure across the container (the pipeline) is not the same ergo which suggests to me there is something is going on at the extremity of the container that is not covered in conventional thinking.



> kd-755 said:
> The pressure of liquid water on the bottom of the ocean is much more than the pressure on the air above the liquid water and yet the air bubble released from the bottom of the ocean somehow, by means unknown, is able to overcome the water pressure and rise up above the level surface of the water and in your statement of fact join the air above and continue until it hits a container wall.





otl2021 said:


> These things are not unknown. Air is less dense than water, so it will rise. Water, like raindrops, will fall through air because they are more dense than the air.
> 
> The air bubble stops rising at the point where it reaches equilibrium with its environment.


The density explanation does seem to 'hold water' so to speak however the air is in reality water in vapour form or gaseous form as it is termed by science. It only changes to liquid water  when it has something to condense on. Steam from a kettle will form droplets when it hits a cold surface otherwise it just vanishes from sight into the surrounding water vapour.
There is no difference in the density of the water vapour that hits the window or goes into the air yet it is clearly behaves differently.

Air in a trompe and waterfalls  is carried downwards within the liquid water in bubble form. In the case of the trompe the air/water mixture then travels horizontally where the air leaves the water and rides along the top of the horizontal pipe (just as the compressed air rode on the top of the compressed air lines in the shipyard when they filled with water, which was fairly frequently as a machine compressing air makes wet air a trompe makes dry air) and is collected in a chamber. The water also rises so far up into the chamber and this height is determined by the placement of the outlet in relation to the inlet.  It is the water that provides the pressure to the air.
The air is dry because the water does not create heat in this process whereas all machine compressors are heat producers.

I think the terms density and pressure are used with gay abandon by the scientific world to give credence to things they presume and assume.
An air bubble at the bottom of the ocean has never been checked for its actual pressure. It may well be at atmospheric pressure as it is termed which would lend credence to the rise through 'density' to 'equilibrium' but equally it might be at a greater pressure than the surrounding liquid water. Though how such a bubble at atmospheric pressure was able to exist under the immense pressure of the surrounding liquid water I know not.
An air bubble in water is either being pushed out of the water by something possibly the liquid water or the pressure of the liquid water where it meets the water vapour/air bubble is reduced by something I no not and it is this behaviour that allows the bubble to move upwards through the liquid.
Water at +4 degrees centigrade can transport sodden log within it as Viktor Schauberger discovered through building log flumes which maintained a centripetal spiralling inner core of +4 degrees water within them. As the water warms it moves to the side of the flume and is vented and replaced by incoming stream water at the correct temperature.
I'm sure though have never tested it temperature of the air has as big a part to play in an air bubbles movement through water as anything else. Quite why water vapour is able to exist as a bubble inside liquid water and liquid water is able to exist inside water vapour is a mystery to behold. As mysterious as ice holding liquid and vapour within itself. Only changing the state of the liquid not the vapour!



> kd-755 said:
> Quite how the air can somehow travel in the opposite direction and find itself under a colossal pressure of the liquid water is a mystery to behold.





otl2021 said:


> No air bubbles are ever moving through water in a downwards direction. They only rise. As the story goes, Archimedes figured this all out a couple 1000 years ago. Regardless, this is still true today.


See the above and research trompes.

Edit to add missing words.


----------



## otl2021 (Sep 30, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> What is used to calibrate the spirit level?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Absent of extemporaneous variables, anything less dense than the medium it resides in will rise until it reaches something of equal or greater density than itself, and then it will stop.

Absent of extemporaneous variables, anything more dense than the medium it resides in will sink until it reaches something of equal or greater density than itself,  and then it will stop.

This is what we observe 100% of the time. And it really is that simple.

Think of the examples you provided and think on that. The conclusion does not change.


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 30, 2021)

otl2021 said:


> Absent of extemporaneous variables, anything less dense than the medium it resides in will rise until it reaches something of equal or greater density than itself, and then it will stop.
> 
> Absent of extemporaneous variables, anything more dense than the medium it resides in will sink until it reaches something of equal or greater density than itself, and then it will stop.
> 
> This is what we observe 100% of the time. And it really is that simple.


Research trompes. I might have mentioned that already and I note you either missed or ignored the "what is used to calibrate a spirit level".
The answer is the level that is the property of contained water as viewed using our eyes.
Acceptance of this demonstrable, repeatable truth is all that is required  to realise this place is at least a level plane and every human endeavour is built to this truth.
The dimensions and shape of this level plane or any limits it may have cannot and never have been defined and maybe just maybe that is because their definition is of no use to us in our lived life. We do not seem to have the sensory equipment to figure it out thus we engage in endless speculations and polarising arguments. Seems a bit daft quite honestly.


----------



## grav (Oct 1, 2021)

Flat Earth is easy to prove.
Besides direct observation of long range targets, we have laws of physics of air, water, centrifugal force, others.
This video uses the sextant as another proof.


_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LPnmAiUuiSI_



~14 minutes
The video demonstrates how stars can only be sighted from a flat horizon.
If the globe curved 8 inches per mile squared, you could not get a level x-axis to get a right angle to triangulate.

Furthermore, the video shows that the stars are also aligned in a celestial plane.
NOT a dome. Our eyesight will naturally perceive the sky as a dome.

Aha!
I guess 'firmament' is the best term then. or sky plane? Not a hemispheric round dome.
It does not curve down to Antarctica.

Let's now see what may be the best overview.
 We have the Infinite Plane as our earth, above which is another plane which is glasslike.
We have, in other words, layers of planes. A stack of pancakes, through which a magnetic center (North Pole) energizes the sky plane.
The appearance is similar to a turntable on a record player.
The bottom of the equipment does not move, just the turntable with a vinyl record on it.
Interesting.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Oct 1, 2021)

Like the video about the sextant but I'm not sure about that statement about the firmament being a flat plane - would like to have seen the maths behind that claim .

The angular velocities of the stars would be constant on a rotating dome but would have to vary if it was a rotating plain that gives the impression of a dome to our vision. The  implication being that the star true velocity would slow down as they approach zenith from the east and speed up as they pass and recede to the west . Hope that makes sense.

I could be wrong but that's how it seems to me , why I'd a liked a look at the sums.


----------



## grav (Oct 2, 2021)

On top of Flat Earth and Tartaria -- which sounds like a cool country song -- other new ct's have poppd up lately. Including red mercury as a component of free aether energy. And now we have the flat sky and trompes, which sounds like another Tartarian energy device/water feature.

First, I understand how water behaves but not why. 
The flat sky? I was hoping someone would explain how stars would behave on a rotating plane.
The closest my little brain can come to visualizing the sky wheel is to think of it as an infinite ceiling fan. The ones at the furthest ends would move faster. Is that what we see? 
This seems like it should be easy to nail down the math.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Oct 2, 2021)

Yep - a flat sky is hard to visualize which is where the maths would help.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp6UkqIwVfk_


Don't think we would see circular star trails if the sky was a plane. Wouldn't the trails be closer together between Polaris and the horizon?


----------



## otl2021 (Oct 2, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Research trompes. I might have mentioned that already and I note you either missed or ignored the "what is used to calibrate a spirit level".


You did, I checked it out and if you can explain what I missed, I'm all ears. They seem to work EXACTLY as would be predicted. And turn it upside down. Turn the screw if necessary.



FarewellAngelina said:


> Like the video about the sextant...


The same measurements have been made with sextants for centuries. The problem is that we really don't know what or where the sun is, how light works, etc..



grav said:


> The closest my little brain can come to visualizing the sky wheel is to think of it as an infinite ceiling fan. The ones at the furthest ends would move faster. Is that what we see?


Yes. Choose a star except for Polaris and point your camera at it. Do not move your camera and look again after 23 hours and 56 minutes. The same star will be in the same place. This how a sidereal day is defined.






The fact that our solar days are 24 hours tells us that we do not move and that the stars, both fixed and wandering, as the sun and the moon, are moving above us... just as it appears.


----------



## Jd755 (Oct 2, 2021)

otl2021 said:


> You did, I checked it out and if you can explain what I missed, I'm all ears. They seem to work EXACTLY as would be predicted. And turn it upside down. Turn the screw if necessary.


You said


otl2021 said:


> anything less dense than the medium it resides in will rise until it reaches something of equal or greater density than itself, and then it will stop.


Air which is less dense that water does not rise up against a falling column of water despite the different densities of the two.
Air lift pumps transport water in the opposite direction.
A simple air pump from a koi pond or large aquarium can easily lift contained water upwards for 12 feet or so using the bubbles it creates. The finer the bubble the greater the volume that can be lifted.
The water despite being more dense than the air rises. The exact opposite to what goes on in a trompe.

These things are repeatable, observable and go against your claim.

How did we get to this. Oh yes



otl2021 said:


> Air pressure cannot exist without a container, as air pressure is determined by the amount of force that the gas produces when it strikes the container.


To which I replied.


kd-755 said:


> The pressure of liquid water on the bottom of the ocean is much more than the pressure on the air above the liquid water and yet the air bubble released from the bottom of the ocean somehow, by means unknown, is able to overcome the water pressure and rise up above the level surface of the water and in your statement of fact join the air above and continue until it hits a container wall.
> Quite how the air can somehow travel in the opposite direction and find itself under a colossal pressure of the liquid water is a mystery to behold.


To which you replied.


otl2021 said:


> These things are not unknown. Air is less dense than water, so it will rise. Water, like raindrops, will fall through air because they are more dense than the air.



Just to keep in mind what this is all about.

So I've provided examples of how it is the push force that is doing the pushing that provides pressure not a container and shown things less dense than others can and do move in the opposite direction to what . Water density in steam and liquid is equal as it is the exact same substance unless of course they are in reality different substances despite appearances and behaviour.
Whatever is pushing the water vapour upwards and the liquid water downwards and visa versa at the same instant it isn't known.

Point is until there is a push force brought into play nothing moves.

Our bodies are living proof that air does not always rise through water and water does not always fall through air.  They move through each other as they are being pushed by something we have no comprehension of and are not looking for. All we have as I mentioned earlier is endless speculation within the confines of accepted published stated ad nauseum scientific 'norms'.

This dome idea seems to be based in lights we see over our heads with our visual apparatus.
When we look straight ahead in a long straight corridor the walls floor and ceiling all seem to come to a vanishing point right int the middle of our vision. We know this isn't actually true as we have just walked down this corridor and it is perfectly level.
If we lie on the floor and do the same looking ahead and we have a friend walk away from our position they will appear to disappear feet first. We again establish this is not actually happening as we can simply stand up and their feet come back into view.

Well fine we have all heard it all before. However when we stand or sit and look straight out to the horizon on a clear day we see the sky appear to meet the ocean in the exact same manner as the ceiling and floor of the corridor meet at the vanishing point but as the eyes are only constrained by their physical limit not the artificial limit of the corridor walls we do not see the 'sides' of our vision converging on the same vanishing point thus we are able to see a level horizon quite clearly and with complete accuracy whereas in the confines of the corridor we cannot.

If we then raise our eyes to look at the sky with no horizon to guide us we have now lost three points of the compass so too speak. The walls of the corridor are missing and now the floor (ocean) is missing so based on just the ceiling the brain delivers an image of a curving sky as this is all the eyes and it have to go on.
I have been inside some large as in very high buildings in my time and the exact same thing happens when I raise my head to look at the roof.

For this reason I feel  whatever the sky is and all bets are on as far as I am concerned it is not a dome. The dome shape lives only within the limitations of my eyes and brain and I feel sure they have been further limited by the constant 'education' they have and are still being pummelled with over many decades.

Edit to add missing word and add;
This is the image our brains  build from our binocular eyes input. It is also the image each eye delivers its just the brain that filters out our noses and delivers a single image we can use.


The eyes and brain do this for good reason. We are visual level dwellers and we need to know where level is as we orient ourselves to level.


----------



## otl2021 (Oct 2, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> You said
> 
> Air which is less dense that water does not rise up against a falling column of water despite the different densities of the two.
> Air lift pumps transport water in the opposite direction.
> ...


Not sure if you are playing games here... I hope not, but you purposely snipped my quote to make your point.

You left out:
*Absent of extemporaneous variables*

What you are missing here is the fact that you have a denser material (the water) which is now acting as an upper barrier, pushing the less dense material (the air) downwards. This will increase the pressure as it is being pushed to smaller area, around a corner, until finally it is released upwards, the first chance it gets, where it collects by rising through the water that was pushing down, but is now moving horizontally in a confined space, and then equalizing with a medium of equivalent density.

Submarines work exactly because of this principle. More air to water, less density, go up. Less air to water, more density, go down.

Again, these things are repeatable, observable, and are true 100% of the time.


----------



## Jd755 (Oct 2, 2021)

otl2021 said:


> Absent of extemporaneous variables


Apologies. Fat finger copy paste.

You seem to be avoiding the truth that water in all its forms has to have the same density unless it is in reality three different substances ergo steam/water vapour goes up into the cooler water vapour surrounding it and at the same time liquid water is coming down in the opposite direction.

As I said I have no idea what is pushing this stuff around other than my observations showing me something as in a push is the source of all motion I have ever looked into.
In the case of the trompe and the air lift pump we are seeing the exact same mechanism in play as we see when it rains on a hot pavement. Something is pushing both forms of this liquid in directions opposite to each other.
Same goes for all density layers that appear to exist. Something is pushing them apart yet is able to keep them in an equilibrium.
A simple one is oil and water. Oil appears to float on liquid water and the air (water vapour)  appears to float on the oil and yet the air (water vapour) and liquid water are the same substance so to my eyes if no-one else's something else is going on as the oil does not continue upwards to sit on top of the water vapour.

If less dense materials always rise in more dense materials then we should just be breathing in water vapour. Perhaps we are and the other gases said to make up our atmosphere are trapped by the turbulence within the air so they cannot take their rightful place in the density hierarchy somewhere way above our heads.
All gases or liquids as they are produced should rise to take their place save for those which are 'denser' than water vapour which should rise from the surface of the water and land then push the water vapour up beyond our noses but this does not happen.

Methane  should rise up through liquid water as soon as it is produced but it sometimes doesn't it often sits in large bubbles within the water seemingly neither being pushed upwards downwards or sideways. Methane that is produced on land rises into the water vapour that surrounds it and can be tapped off and vented or burnt as a fuel so how can a gas with an apparent density that allows it to easily pass through the water vapour not pass through the liquid water with the same ease, I know not.
It is said that large methane bubbles coming to the surface of the ocean  can create conditions which can sink ships and if it escapes the ocean it can down planes. The claim in  both cases it it alters the density of the liquid or the water vapour but the reality is it replaces the water and the water vapour temporarily.

Carbon dioxide should not be available for plants to use as food if density layering is a thing. It is a lower density than water vapour so should rise up above it and not be available to plants other than when it is passing through the region of the water vapour the plant is growing in.

Trees lift liquid water to their leaves using bubbles of carbon dioxide within their veins. This is an air pump in action. The carbon dioxide should not be able to do this as it is less dense than liquid water yet somehow this push force is able to deliver the less dense to move the more dense to a place where density layering states it should not go.

Whatever this pushing force is it really is miraculous.

Edit to fix typo


----------



## AntiSoof (Oct 2, 2021)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Yep - a flat sky is hard to visualize which is where the maths would help.
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp6UkqIwVfk_
> ...



In Holland the sky rotates clockwise.  I do not understand why the sky in the video is rotating anti-clockwise. Anyone?


----------



## otl2021 (Oct 3, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Apologies. Fat finger copy paste.


Lol, apology not accepted... you are still ignoring the part you left out.

*Absent of extemporaneous variables*

Every example you give adds something to the equation. Bio/elec/chem, whatever... that is not part of the discussion.  You are searching for something that isn't there.

This isn't even that confusing of a thing, imho.

Find just one thing less dense than its medium that sinks in that medium, unassisted.

Find just one thing more dense than its medium that rises in that medium, unassisted.

Like I said, observable, repeatable, 100% of the time.


And to get back to our beautiful flat earth... I love this one! Visibility of over 1000 miles confirmed from an airplane with infrared filter.


_View: https://youtu.be/ujBBLYHBsQY_


His gps altitude indicator read 28,500 feet, but let's use their 35,000 for the sake of argument.

--Distance to the horizon = 229.3 Miles
--Drop over 1000 miles = 125.632 miles = 663337.65 feet
--The bulge height between the two points > 31 miles!


​


AntiSoof said:


> In Holland the sky rotates clockwise.  I do not understand why the sky in the video is rotating anti-clockwise. Anyone?


Can you take a vid and post it here?

Peace


----------



## Jd755 (Oct 3, 2021)

Fair enough you have the floor.


----------



## AntiSoof (Oct 4, 2021)

otl2021 said:


> Lol, apology not accepted... you are still ignoring the part you left out.
> 
> *Absent of extemporaneous variables*
> 
> ...



I did make a number of photo's, and I will look for them. Not sure if I still have them.


----------



## Citezenship (Oct 4, 2021)

Interesting pdf, I don't claim to understand it but i thought the name was a little off.


----------



## grav (Oct 4, 2021)

otl2021 said:


> You did, I checked it out and if you can explain what I missed, I'm all ears. They seem to work EXACTLY as would be predicted. And turn it upside down. Turn the screw if necessary.
> 
> 
> The same measurements have been made with sextants for centuries. The problem is that we really don't know what or where the sun is, how light works, etc..
> ...



I was hoping to return here after a day consorting with Covid muggles to find simplified answers to trompes and the flat sky. I still don't see anything dumbed down enough for me.  

I'm also not sure what the disagreement is concerning the push-pull "force" of water density. @sandokhan has presented math and jargon to justify how electromagnetism makes water behave, particularly with air pressure. His arguments are wordy, but not persuasive. When equations with more than 2 alphabetic constants are applied, that kind of trips my wires. But I would like to see a clean mathematical formula with things we can measure. like verifiable gas laws explaining how water is drawn up into a pipe without mechanical equipment. 

The flat sky seems to becoming more popular in FE circles than the old dome model. Your image suggests that stars on the outer bands of the skywheel move faster than the ones more directly overhead. 
While that observation would be true for both models, it seems more likely on a plane surface. 

As someone has noted, perspective (location and angle of observation) alter the shapes of the star trails. Videos which I've watched over the years  have always focused on the sky dome. 


These are important matters for us defenders of geocentrism.
I appreciate all the thought that some posters have put into the science of both topics.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Oct 4, 2021)

About the video of star trails I posted earlier . 

The camera points at the pole star - if that was a sky plane then that plane would have to be perpendicular to the camera to produce those circular star trails ,thus the camera would have to be directly beneath the circle of rotation of the plain of stars . Directly under the pole star would be the only place on earth where you could see circular star trails.

I've been trying to find out where the scientific basis for the statement " our eye is sphere so our field of vision is a sphere" - I can't find that. I've seen the little drawings of an eyeball on x,y axes surrounded by a bigger sphere and all math angles and what not.The human eye is not limited by distance. 

Off the physics forum Quora thing -3 different explanations.

1. We see a dome cos spacetime is curved.
2. It's an illusion . 
3. Our atmosphere is curved so we are looking through a lens in effect. 

The point about the camera is that it sees what we see . We might be fooled by any the three bozo explanations but not the camera.

I see no evidence anywhere that the dome is actually a plane.


----------



## otl2021 (Oct 5, 2021)

AntiSoof said:


> In Holland the sky rotates clockwise.  I do not understand why the sky in the video is rotating anti-clockwise. Anyone?


Do the stars rise in the east and set in the west? The rest is perspective:


----------



## AntiSoof (Oct 5, 2021)

otl2021 said:


> Do the stars rise in the east and set in the west? The rest is perspective:


Please excuse me.
I believe I was mistaken as to my perceived rotation.


----------



## space966 (Oct 6, 2021)

Read some book or article how longitude was determined. It was determined with clock. So it is not earth rotation, but time movement.


----------



## Blue Ice (Oct 6, 2021)

grav said:


> FE is not incompatible with CE, Concave Earth.
> The Ygdrassil tree of Norse myth, the Cosmic Egg, the Mundane Shell, and other images of other ancient cosmologies are all quite similar.
> https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.N8WMrm2RjhpPsMraYFiLYQHaEb&pid=Api&H=95&W=160&P=0
> 
> ...


I have been


grav said:


> FE is not incompatible with CE, Concave Earth.
> The Ygdrassil tree of Norse myth, the Cosmic Egg, the Mundane Shell, and other images of other ancient cosmologies are all quite similar.
> https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.N8WMrm2RjhpPsMraYFiLYQHaEb&pid=Api&H=95&W=160&P=0
> 
> ...


Apropos the electric torus. I have been wondering what the underlying mechanism of the rootating sun is. Why does it keep moving? Why does its trajectory expand and contract? Why is the time for each rotation constant so that it moves slower when it’s at the Tropic of Cancer and quicker when it’s at the Tropic of Capricorn? It occurred to me that something like an electric torus might be the underlying model. Still don’t know the details. But we can imagine something like a funnel, you know, something like those funnels along which surface you send a coin spinning until it reaches the hole at the center. Some electric force makes the sun spiral along the walls of this imaginary funnel and then reverses and pushes its back. It spiral down and up between the two tropic limits. The point is that the angular momentom of this movement is constant, like if you imagine an imaginary axis at an angle to the surface rotating and creating an imaginary funnel wall, and the sun sliding up and doen along this axis as it rotates. Then it would appear moving faster when it’s higher up and slower when it’s lower down. It’s because the angular momentum is the same. It’s the walls of the funnel as a whole that are spinning, not the sun independently by itself. What this doesn’t explain though is why it’s the hottest when you’re on the equator.
I noticed how they no longer show flight paths on planes, which they did even a few yesrs sgo.


----------



## Jd755 (Oct 8, 2021)

A PDF worth the read is here SH Archive - New ebook I wrote regarding the history (and space) deception, and what it all means

A quote from within;



> Maths is, conveniently, the only science that doesn’t rely on actual evidence.
> 
> They   pursue   parallel   universes   for   which   there   is   no   evidence   while   rejecting   parallel theories with plenty. They insist that ten-dimensional worlds exist while ignoring any multi-dimensional arguments that don’t fit their narrative.
> There can always be maths for any trick, but it is still a trick regardless.


----------



## Blue Ice (Oct 8, 2021)

A suspicion at the intersection of the flat earth and pandemic topics struck me. I would be interested in your feedback. What are the two countries that have the most draconian lockdown laws? Canada and Australia. You can't even cross from province to province - weird! No? Why these two specifically? It struck me that Canada and Australia are the most distorted territories on the flat earth map. Canada is really small. Australia is long and thin. Are there any Australians here? Please weigh in. According to my sources, it has always been very difficult to cross Australia east to west by car. It is divided vertically by so called rabbit fences, ostensibly not to let rabbits through, which you can't cross. There is, conveniently, a big "desert" in the middle. The times zones are super weird. I've never seen anything like it. They cut into each other; they vary by half hour intervals - very irregular and suspicious. There us a testimony I read by tourists who hired a car to cross Australia east to west. They eventually gave up. The GPS signal was inaccurate. They would end up accidentally driving into private land, and rangers would come to escort them out, and so on. There's if I understood correctly no major straight highway crossing Australia east to west that one could conveniently take. As for Canada, it's the other problem, it's too small. I don't know whether people often cross it east to west or whether there's a major east-west highway far north, where people would notice the discrepancy in size. So you know where I am going with this. At the time when people are beginning to wake up about the shape of the earth, it's awfully convenient to have lockdowns that would make it impossible to cross the most compromised territories with the car, which has an odometer, and so you can see how far you've travelled. As for Scandinavian countries and New Zealand, which are also far north and south, these countries are long, thin, and run north to south. They are not as distorted by the east-west distortion.


----------



## space966 (Oct 8, 2021)

Hm, flight over Antarctica


----------



## Blue Ice (Oct 9, 2021)

space966 said:


> Hm, flight over Antarctica


They are trying very hard now.


----------



## Moüssë (Oct 9, 2021)

space966 said:


> Hm, flight over Antarctica


Was that a flight around the perimeter?


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Oct 9, 2021)

Blue Ice said:


> It’s the walls of the funnel as a whole that are spinning, not the sun independently by itself. What this doesn’t explain though is why it’s the hottest when you’re on the equator.
> I noticed how they no longer show flight paths on planes, which they did even a few yesrs sgo.


The Northern Tropic is the hottest place - it's where all the hot dry deserts are . Southern tropic has the cool dry deserts. The equator is warmer than the Southern tropic .


----------



## space966 (Oct 9, 2021)

Moüssë said:


> Was that a flight around the perimeter?


By the shore, I think, nobody flew across Antarctica, yet.


----------



## Blue Ice (Oct 9, 2021)

FarewellAngelina said:


> The Northern Tropic is the hottest place - it's where all the hot dry deserts are . Southern tropic has the cool dry deserts. The equator is warmer than the Southern tropic .


Then it would be in line with the Northern Tropic lying underneath the lowest/closest position of the sun. I knew that south of the equater the weather is colder than north of the equator, but I didn’t know that the hottest weather is along the north tropic rather than the equator itself.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Oct 9, 2021)

Blue Ice said:


> Then it would be in line with the Northern Tropic lying underneath the lowest/closest position of the sun. I knew that south of the equater the weather is colder than north of the equator, but I didn’t know that the hottest weather is along the north tropic rather than the equator itself.


Yes it's not shouted from the rooftops for obvious reasons - consistent with FE and a local sun .


----------



## otl2021 (Oct 9, 2021)

My wife was telling me, how when flat earth clicked for her, she had seen a picture of the a horizon, but followed by the same horizon, just upside down. And this just made sense to her. 

I know many feel they have actually seen the curve, some say from the beach, others from planes, but we know that that just isn't so.

Anyways... just made this... enjoy... and show your friends <wink>


----------



## Blue Ice (Oct 9, 2021)

From 24-25 kilometers away, standing maybe 1 meter higher than the water surface.


----------



## Blue Ice (Oct 13, 2021)

Very interesting! Thank you.
Very interesting! Thank you.


----------



## grav (Oct 15, 2021)

I deleted an entire post after many efforts to clean up repetitions resulting from a messgae: oops, server error; try to post later. Then, notihing would delete.


----------



## Referent (Oct 15, 2021)

Since internet rumors claim that Rob Skiba has moved into a new phase of existence, in tribute, I'd like to thank him for such contributions as the following talks:

Testing the Globe,
Debunking of the Top Ten Reasons Why We (allegedly) Know the Earth is Round, and
Debunking Flat Earth 101.


----------



## sceppy (Oct 16, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> So by that statement of fact if there is no container to push against the air simply keeps on going then?


Think of air as stacked.


kd-755 said:


> What is doing the pushing upwards/outwards to the container?


The stacking of atmosphere will create a natural dense mass at the bottom and becoming less dense with each layer on top.


kd-755 said:


> If air pressure is created by a force (currently unknown) pushing air against a container then at some distance from the container itself there must be some sort of pushback or equilibrium surely.


The push back is all due to the resistance of each layer against the layer above, all the way to the deck.


kd-755 said:


> The pressure of liquid water on the bottom of the ocean is much more than the pressure on the air above the liquid water and yet the air bubble released from the bottom of the ocean somehow, by means unknown, is able to overcome the water pressure and rise up above the level surface of the water and in your statement of fact join the air above and continue until it hits a container wall.



Any air bubble would be only released from something that could not be crushed so readily, until it obviously does which releases that air bubble.
Once that air bubble is released it is the water crushing which pushes up the air, not the air itself.


kd-755 said:


> Quite how the air can somehow travel in the opposite direction and find itself under a colossal pressure of the liquid water is a mystery to behold.


If I was to drop a heavy metal object into the water with just a small amount of air trapped within it, the metal would overcome the water resistance immediately until it was submerged from which the water itself forms a crush back onto the metal but can only crush it down, not up.
As it gets crushed down the metal gets compressed that little bit more depending on the depth of water and amount of dense mass of  that water pressure.
Eventually the metal will either hit a barrier (sea bed or other) and either hold the minute amount of now more compressed air or it will be breached of it, in which case that air will be immediately crushed against but not down as it is not denser than the pressure of water it is already in, so it gets crushed up, just like a helium balloon would in atmosphere.


----------



## space966 (Oct 16, 2021)

Electro-magnetic earth/solar system/universe theory is interesting and may be true. Let's say you drop several drops of water into strong magnetic field, it will retain round form and will be held by unknown force for observer.
Rain drops always have round form.


----------



## Blue Ice (Oct 16, 2021)

Another thought. Are there any people here who are well-read in the classical realist novels of the 19th century? I started thinking, and I can’t remember off hand any reference to the spinning globe earth. A lot of references to chemistry, tp biology, to geology, to the physics of engines, to evolution and natural selection. But I can’t remember any mentions of the shape of the earth until the literature of later periods. What about Newton? Is Newton mentioned? Various chemists are mentionréd, but I don’t remember Newton being mentioned. My memory might be wrong, please help me out.


----------



## space966 (Oct 16, 2021)

@Blue Ice No, they don't mention. I remember only one novel, action goes in Russia about year 1915. One hero points to the sky, and says to another man: Did you know, that some of these stars not exist, we see only light from them.


----------



## Blue Ice (Oct 16, 2021)

space966 said:


> @Blue Ice No, they don't mention. I remember only one novel, action goes in Russia about year 1915. One hero points to the sky, and says to another man: Did you know, that some of these stars not exist, we see only light from them.


That’s interesting! Yes, in 1915 you can already see that the heliocentric model is mentioned in literature.


----------



## grav (Oct 19, 2021)

Before I heard of flat earth, I was into the heresy of Coherent Catastrophism, which was itself a prototype of theories of world age resets.
Worlds in Collision was published in 1950. Mainstream science dealt harshly with its writer, Immanuel Velikovsky.

IV was a friend of the plagiarist pseudoscientist Einstein. Not a flatearther at all.

Velikovsky collected biblical and pagan myths of the Great Flood and the great reset of earth, which he claimed was caused by the comet Venus.
Yes, comet. 

We can admire Velikovsky's scholarship without buying his conclusions.
This excerpt from his book may be the most scary scenario of a previous world in collision. The sky fell in ancient times. The sky is the dome. Firmament.



........

https://www.bibliotecapleyades…encia_velikovsky06_03.htm



THE COLLAPSED SKY



The rain of meteorites and fire from the sky, the clouds of dust of exogenous origin that drifted low, and the displacement of the world quarters created the impression that the sky had collapsed.



The ancient people of Mexico referred to a world age that came to its end when the sky collapsed and darkness enshrouded the world.



Strabo relates, in the name of Ptolemaeus, the son of Lagus, a general of Alexander and founder of the Egyptian dynasty called by his name, that the Celti who lived on the shores of the Adriatic were asked by Alexander what it was they most feared, to which they replied that they feared no one, but only that the sky might collapse.



The Chinese refer to the collapse of the sky which took place when the mountains fell. Because mountains fell or were leveled at the same time when the sky was displaced, ancient peoples, not only the Chinese, thought that mountains support the sky.



"The earth trembled, and the heavens dropped...the mountains melted," says the Song of Deborah. "The earth shook, the heavens also dropped at the presence of God: even Sinai itself was moved," says the psalmist.



The tribes of Samoa in their legends refer to a catastrophe when "in days of old the heavens fell down." The heavens or the clouds were so low that the people could not stand erect without touching them.



The Finns tell in their "Kalevala" that the support of the sky gave way and then a spark of fire kindled a new sun and a new moon. The Lapps make offerings accompanied by the prayer that the sky should not lose its support and fall down. The Eskimos of Greenland are afraid that the support of the sky may fail and the sky fall down and kill all human beings; a darkening of the sun and the moon will precede such a catastrophe.



The primitives of Africa, in eastern as well as western provinces of the continent, tell about the collapse of sky in the past. The Ovaherero tribesmen say that many years ago "the Greats of the sky" (Eyuru) let the sky fall on the earth; almost all the people were killed, only a few remained alive. The tribes of Kanga and Loanga also have a tradition of the collapse of the sky which annihilated the human race. The Wanyoro in Unyoro likewise relate that the sky fell on the earth and killed everybody: the god Kagra threw the firmament upon the earth to destroy mankind.



The tradition of the Cashinaua, the aborigines of western Brazil, is narrated as follows:



"The lightnings flashed and the thunders roared terribly and all were afraid. Then the heaven burst and the fragments fell down and killed everything and everybody. Heaven and earth changed places. Nothing that had life was left upon the earth."



In this tradition are included the same elements: the lightnings and thunderings, "the bursting of heaven," the fall of meteorites. About the change of places between heaven and earth there is more to say, and I shall not postpone the subject for long."......


----------



## Just (Oct 19, 2021)

grav said:


> Before I heard of flat earth, I was into the heresy of Coherent Catastrophism, which was itself a prototype of theories of world age resets.
> Worlds in Collision was published in 1950. Mainstream science dealt harshly with its writer, Immanuel Velikovsky.
> 
> IV was a friend of the plagiarist pseudoscientist Einstein. Not a flatearther at all.
> ...


Are snow globes a reminder of this?  I always wondered why someone came up with such a strange idea.


----------



## space966 (Oct 19, 2021)

Though this maybe important. From the end of 19th century and in the 20th appears Christian (Catholic) official liturgy painting: father God holds in his hand sphere, which represents Earth.


----------



## Blue Ice (Oct 19, 2021)

Asked a Joycean today whether Joyce mentioned the gepcentric model or planetary motion or Newton in his fiction. She thought not, at least she couldn’t remember. It’s intersting because he was very interested in science and mentioned a lit of science in Finnegans Wake. I dom’t know about you, felliw forum participants, but I find it mighty peculiar. The scientific model that gives the most food for imagination, and not mentioned.


----------



## grav (Oct 24, 2021)

Joyce wrote more about the individual, modern culture and mores, while Orwell thought more about the Control System whose Big Brother has become large and in charge of the world of today.

a pertinent  excerpt from 1984,
PART THREE excerpted from the book 1984 by George Orwell 


O'Brien silenced him by a movement of the hand. "We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull. You will learn-by degrees, Winston. There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation-anything. I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wished to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it. You must get rid of those nineteenth century ideas about the laws of nature. We make the laws of nature.". . . . 
"But the whole universe is outside us. Look at the stars! Some of them are a million light-years away. They are out of our reach forever." 
"What are the stars?" said O'Brien indifferently. "They are bits of fire a few kilometers away. We could reach them if we wanted to. Or we could blot them out. The earth is the center of the universe. The sun and the stars go round it.". . . . When we navigate the ocean, or when we predict an eclipse, we often find it convenient to assume that the earth goes round the sun and that the stars are millions upon millions of kilometers away. But what of it? Do you suppose it is beyond us to produce a dual system of astronomy? The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them. Do you suppose our mathematicians are unequal to that? Have you forgotten doublethink?"
So far, so one has changed my mind.

Quote from: grav on *Today* at 03:32:32 pm


>


----------



## Blue Ice (Oct 24, 2021)

Oh, what a great quotation from Bernard Shaw. Thanks so much for that. That’s what I’ve been saying too. The whole system of education and cultural indoctrination is to get us to distrust our reason, senses and intuition. To ”disarm” us. When we can’t trust our natural thoughts and feelings, we become vulnerable to being made into zombies. I am noticing an unusually high percentage of people these days who have lost all capacity for independent thought.

”Gigantic and microscopic” - so true, so true.


----------



## grav (Oct 26, 2021)

"lost all capacity for independent thought"
Instead of "lost," I might use the words "robbed of" --
to explain how government agencies have dumbed down the peeps.
Show this to friends and families to test the presence of functioning brain cells.  





1. clouds don't move during the 5-hour transit

2. size of the US is wrong -- at 3000 miles wide, it should be 3/8th the diameter of the blue sphere (8000 miles)

3. moon is 2-dimensionally flat and does not rotate clockwise as advertised by Nasa

4. moon travels in a straight line while the EPIC "geostationary" satellite maintained an amazing fixed position

5. earth exhibits a curious pareidolia in the appearance of an angry clown with one eye closed and the other one open and baleful (the dark object off the coast of California)

Overall, a slipshod product, its many glaring peculiarities a test of human discernment.


----------



## Blue Ice (Oct 26, 2021)

Where’s it from?


----------



## grav (Oct 27, 2021)

Blue Ice said:


> Where’s it from?


The lunar transit?
That one was from
July 16, 2015

Reprocessed images and movie of the transit of the moon in front of the full sunlit disk of Earth captured by NASA’s Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) on board NOAA’s Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) on July 16, 2015. The transit lasted from 16:30 EDT to 20:10 EDT. Since DSCOVR is not exactly on the Sun-Earth line, this event is not a solar eclipse.
View the Images​Watch the Video​- - - - -

It and other Nasa Discover transits are profiled at Galleries

A shamelss display of cartoons presented as science.


----------



## Blue Ice (Oct 27, 2021)

Thank you!


----------



## grav (Oct 29, 2021)

So-called science articles are now reporting "magnetic tunnels of radio waves in the sky."
Tunnels? hmm, where have I heard that word before? Oh, yeah.
Now I remember. me.
This conversation is from a tiny forum called Godlike Lunatics.

Quote from: Rain Man on October 27, 2021, 10:44:13 am


> Offhand, I'd say this appears to be a large load of horseshit. What do you think?
> 
> A magnetic tunnel of radio waves surrounds Earth - Strange Sounds



Or,
are the radio waves real phenomena in the dome?






This diagram is not unlike the Flat Earth representation of how the sun and moon move from season to season.
The sun and other luminaries aren't radio waves, though.
But the principal is the same. I've compared the ropy effect before to tunnels or channels physically embedded in the dome. Perhaps it's not a physical structure, but more of an electromagnetic pattern, mmm, something like a laser or other light beam.











Report to moderator 

 67.142.112.6
Gravity is density


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Oct 29, 2021)

Like that representation of the Analemma - nice post that Grav


----------



## E_V_ (Oct 29, 2021)

Safranek said:


> Here's the link to the last interview queued up the the correct time (You're right, it wasn't easy to find, they don't want this info out there from someone like him.):
> 
> 
> _View: https://youtu.be/BhfkZMaz5yg?t=2809_
> ...



Just wanted to point out the video of a man saying aliens don’t exist has been scrubbed. Lol


----------



## Blue Ice (Oct 29, 2021)

OMG, that's basically my model! Don't mean it in any kind of a delusion of grandeur way. I didn't have any math or physical forces worked out. It was just a very general, qualitative guess. But essentially I intuited the same thing. Haha. This just goes to show we need to listen to our intuition.


----------



## alltheleaves (Oct 29, 2021)

E_V_ said:


> Just wanted to point out the video of a man saying aliens don’t exist has been scrubbed. Lol


Hopefully posters backup videos by downloading them before posting them.

_Messengers of Deception_ by Valle is available in the usual places and lays out various aspects of "aliens dont exist as mainstream pitches it to us".

In the flat or big flat. They could be coming from the extra land (tierra/terra). Even as nearby as Antarctica. Or from another level. Or plane.


----------



## Researcher (Oct 30, 2021)

I am not sure these were reviewed before in the past archives (if so delete these)- the 2018 Electrical Magnetic Orb theory - layers of a flat earth.​The "nORB Theory" SHORT HD 3D (Part 1-3) Here are a few.​
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iigUBjf4-pc_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH44AfehEdY_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeNcApKqWKU&t=0s_

They have some nice visuals.


----------



## Mortal (Oct 30, 2021)

So maybe someone should setup a wallet and start a project to build an ultra-light weight plane powered by solar cells, a subscription for a satellite connection and off we go! Team should exist of 4 people, 2 sane people and 2 insane people.
Or 2 planes and 2 teams, 1 camp 1 plane.

Enter the GPS way points, go to South-Africa, launch the plane from South-Africa and either the plane dips into the void, hits a wall or maybe South-America comes into view after a while.

That will end all the blah-blah ( Gretta) once and for all I guess.


----------



## alltheleaves (Oct 30, 2021)

Mortal said:


> So maybe someone should setup a wallet and start a project to build an ultra-light weight plane powered by solar cells, a subscription for a satellite connection and off we go! Team should exist of 4 people, 2 sane people and 2 insane people.
> Or 2 planes and 2 teams, 1 camp 1 plane.
> 
> Enter the GPS way points, go to South-Africa, launch the plane from South-Africa and either the plane dips into the void, hits a wall or maybe South-America comes into view after a while.
> ...


In all this time no one has done. Fly over the north pole....yes. But no South.

Antarctic Treaty....need permission to fly below Latitude 60.

Antarctic Treaty System - Wikipedia

The Antarctic Treaty | NSF - National Science Foundation


----------



## Mortal (Oct 31, 2021)

alltheleaves said:


> In all this time no one has done. Fly over the north pole....yes. But no South.
> 
> Antarctic Treaty....need permission to fly below Latitude 60.
> 
> ...


What I read from your reply is that you have the view that the people are serving the government. I also apply that outside my home but the governments only real task is serving the people (1).

Just say the other day a movie about such a plane:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYeYZpBE51I_


"Illegal to launch from my country!!" some will say. Sure. if you are a lemming: apply. Otherwise hire a boat and row, row, row your boat into International water. And launch 10+ and let the timer send 1 picture/location every hour.

(1):
Treaties, laws, names, money, and software all do not exist: we made it up. Like usury.
Your IRL name doesn't exist, neither does 'alltheleaves', it's all made up, talked about and put on paper (or in a computer in a database (let the big CME come!)). Show me software IRL... you can't.
Another possibility is to take a boat and a lot of fluidly dino's called diesel?! Simply follow the shores of Antartica. And film it as proof (evidence?), like in the movie Contact except people will see the shore instead of grey noise.

Round Earth: the boat will go xxxx nautical miles, film the trip and be at the same spot (shortest and least amount of diesel, 10GB SD card filled).
Flat Earth: the boat will go xxxxx nautical miles, film the trip and be at the same spot (longest and most amount of diesel, 10 PB SD card filled).


----------



## Mortal (Oct 31, 2021)

I typed the following in another reply:

_Another possibility is to take a boat and a lot of fluidly dino's called diesel?! Simply follow the shores of Antartica. And film it as proof (evidence?), like in the movie Contact except people will see the shore instead of grey noise.

Round Earth: the boat will go xxxx nautical miles, film the trip and be at the same spot (shortest and least amount of diesel, 10GB SD card filled).
Flat Earth: the boat will go xxxxx nautical miles, film the trip and be at the same spot (longest and most amount of diesel, 10 PB SD card filled)._

 and left a few spaces above as I knew it would be merged. But the spaces have been lost and can't edit. Sorry for the mess...
.
.
Edit: the following just came in my simple grey mass:

Saw some video's on youtube about monsterwaves or roquewaves or <forgot the name, after searching: freak wave> If someone would make a trip the person should watch out for those waves as they seem to appear suddenly. Researching further I found that they sometimes come in 3. That was/is called 'The 3 sisters'. 3 waves, 1 short, 1 big, 1 short.
I projected that to the thingie Zeus is pictured with. The staff with the 3 spikes, maybe that is a reference to monsterwaves?

Found it!! Some waves measured off the shore of South-Africa reached ~50 meters in hight.
'3 sisters' @ 7:40
Highest waves @ 12:00
.

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ylOpbW1H-I_


Coffee!!


----------



## alltheleaves (Oct 31, 2021)

Mortal said:


> I typed the following in another reply:
> 
> _Another possibility is to take a boat and a lot of fluidly dino's called diesel?! Simply follow the shores of Antartica. And film it as proof (evidence?), like in the movie Contact except people will see the shore instead of grey noise.
> 
> ...


Extensive project on circumnavigation.

Rick Potvin's Virtual Circumnavigation of Antarctica to Decide if Earth is Global or Flat


----------



## Mortal (Oct 31, 2021)

alltheleaves said:


> Extensive project on circumnavigation.
> 
> Rick Potvin's Virtual Circumnavigation of Antarctica to Decide if Earth is Global or Flat


Thanks, will grab a coffee and read that!


----------



## grav (Nov 1, 2021)

Well, um, Antarctica.
Does anyone really think tptb would allow anyone to explore and collect evidence for the . . . whatever is there?
The dome ?

This is the only video I can find of Jarle Andhoy's real story. His Berserker sailboat went where the UN declared a forbidden zone, around the same time that Nasa was created.

Yes, journeys to frozen seas are inherently dangerous.
But, let's just say that the authorities take a dim view of anyone who breaks the rules. In the open ocean???

In other words, we see a frozen pyramid in the video, a yuuge sun circle, other suggestive sights. The YTer struggles with words that express his true intent -- to say that um, er, uh, enter the Forbidden Zone at your own risk. There be soldiers there. with guns. Proof? haha, as if.


_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dAjQrq8EX2w_


----------



## Mortal (Nov 1, 2021)

Can't edit my former post but I should have typed Poseidon and if referring to the 'harpoon' in his hand, maybe the harpoon in his hand with the 3 sharpies on top represent 3 freak waves (small, big, small).


----------



## David Glenney (Nov 2, 2021)

@Mortal I think it's called a trident?  The Devil carries one sometimes, too...


----------



## Cebeij (Nov 7, 2021)

grav said:


> Well, um, Antarctica.
> Does anyone really think tptb would allow anyone to explore and collect evidence for the . . . whatever is there?
> The dome ?
> 
> ...



that video was REAAAAALLY difficult to follow. 

Its seems that TPTB have no interest in entertaining anyone wanting to use their freewill and explore the potential outer reaches of the flat earth theory. And might do anything in their powers to keep those that wish to seek out the truth from finding it.


----------



## grav (Nov 7, 2021)

The ptb seriously prohibit any independent exploration below 60°S latitude.
The UN (NWO) supposedly protects fish and seals and penguins there, while humans are permitted to wipe out tuna and elephants elsewhere.

Google Opration High Jump and Nazi bases in Antarctica to see what the elites are really hiding down under.

Dcades ago, Admiral Byrd said there was land byond the South Pole. Again, Google the interview he did before he died, in which we see a giant azimuthal-equidistant map behind him, clearly showing the Antarctic as the icy rim of the flat earth.

. . .
I usually avoid posting videos on this thread, as YouTubers continue to make waaay too overlong hangouts and chitchat, instead of clearly focused proofs of the geocentric model.
This 4-minute video below is more about Alternate History than it is about flat earth. Administration frowns on overlapping topics, but I tend to see such expositions as inter-related. Everything the Control Systm tells us is a lie. Tartaria, Covid and vaccines, the economy, the fake news, etc.
I still think the most hidden truth is Flat Earth.



_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kDWHwlPDKGw_


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 7, 2021)

The making of Antarctica


----------



## Just (Nov 7, 2021)

grav said:


> The ptb seriously prohibit any independent exploration below 60°S latitude.
> The UN (NWO) supposedly protects fish and seals and penguins there, while humans are permitted to wipe out tuna and elephants elsewhere.
> 
> Google Opration High Jump and Nazi bases in Antarctica to see what the elites are really hiding down under.
> ...



The Prague clock model of FE in the Ewaranon lost history video really resonates with me.


----------



## rajus (Nov 9, 2021)

Hello so I used to be a flat earther and I would like to share my conclusion about Flat earth. So when I firstly discovered flat earth it was very appealing to me as it showed me the Earth from a different viewpoint and I found it beautiful. I discovered it when I watched a David Weiss video. From there I watched all the Ewaranon videos alongside many other videos there are and I couldn't image I would ever believe in the Heliocentric model ever again.
However recently I started to doubt flat earth. Firstly, the Heliocentric model is much much simpler than the FE model. You don't need to have so many different rules in order to explain natural phenomenona in Heliocentric model than you need in the FE model. Some of these phenomenona can be comets, day and night cycle, the Moon, stars or tides. And as it usually is, simpler solutions are usually the correct ones.
I also don't like about FE its size, many flat earthers say than the Heliocentric model is like a prison but I actually find it much more open than FE and FE actually feels like a prison.
And lastly, the biggest issue I had with FE is the fact that there are many videos on the internet about it. If the elites wanted us so much to believe in the Heliocentric model, why would they even allow FE videos to exist? And you can't say that they are censored, sure, when you search "Flat earth" on Youtube you will get only videos that debunk it, but there still are big channels such as Eric Dubay's channel who has many videos on FE available.
So now I believe that the entire Flat earth idea was actually created by the evil that rules this world. Why? I am not really sure. Perhaps it's purpose is to make us, people who want to know the truth, look like idiots to others and to lead us further away from the Truth. Or it has some deeper meaning to them. Whatever the reason is, I no longer believe in it. Now I am a fan of the Expanding Earth theory ;-)


----------



## dreamtime (Nov 9, 2021)

rajus said:


> Hello so I used to be a flat earther and I would like to share my conclusion about Flat earth. So when I firstly discovered flat earth it was very appealing to me as it showed me the Earth from a different viewpoint and I found it beautiful. I discovered it when I watched a David Weiss video. From there I watched all the Ewaranon videos alongside many other videos there are and I couldn't image I would ever believe in the Heliocentric model ever again.
> However recently I started to doubt flat earth. Firstly, the Heliocentric model is much much simpler than the FE model. You don't need to have so many different rules in order to explain natural phenomenona in Heliocentric model than you need in the FE model. Some of these phenomenona can be comets, day and night cycle, the Moon, stars or tides. And as it usually is, simpler solutions are usually the correct ones.
> I also don't like about FE its size, many flat earthers say than the Heliocentric model is like a prison but I actually find it much more open than FE and FE actually feels like a prison.
> And lastly, the biggest issue I had with FE is the fact that there are many videos on the internet about it. If the elites wanted us so much to believe in the Heliocentric model, why would they even allow FE videos to exist? And you can't say that they are censored, sure, when you search "Flat earth" on Youtube you will get only videos that debunk it, but there still are big channels such as Eric Dubay's channel who has many videos on FE available.
> So now I believe that the entire Flat earth idea was actually created by the evil that rules this world. Why? I am not really sure. Perhaps it's purpose is to make us, people who want to know the truth, look like idiots to others and to lead us further away from the Truth. Or it has some deeper meaning to them. Whatever the reason is, I no longer believe in it. Now I am a fan of the Expanding Earth theory ;-)



Next, start looking into concave earth and things may start to fall into place.


----------



## Just (Nov 10, 2021)

rajus said:


> Hello so I used to be a flat earther and I would like to share my conclusion about Flat earth. So when I firstly discovered flat earth it was very appealing to me as it showed me the Earth from a different viewpoint and I found it beautiful. I discovered it when I watched a David Weiss video. From there I watched all the Ewaranon videos alongside many other videos there are and I couldn't image I would ever believe in the Heliocentric model ever again.
> However recently I started to doubt flat earth. Firstly, the Heliocentric model is much much simpler than the FE model. You don't need to have so many different rules in order to explain natural phenomenona in Heliocentric model than you need in the FE model. Some of these phenomenona can be comets, day and night cycle, the Moon, stars or tides. And as it usually is, simpler solutions are usually the correct ones.
> I also don't like about FE its size, many flat earthers say than the Heliocentric model is like a prison but I actually find it much more open than FE and FE actually feels like a prison.
> And lastly, the biggest issue I had with FE is the fact that there are many videos on the internet about it. If the elites wanted us so much to believe in the Heliocentric model, why would they even allow FE videos to exist? And you can't say that they are censored, sure, when you search "Flat earth" on Youtube you will get only videos that debunk it, but there still are big channels such as Eric Dubay's channel who has many videos on FE available.
> So now I believe that the entire Flat earth idea was actually created by the evil that rules this world. Why? I am not really sure. Perhaps it's purpose is to make us, people who want to know the truth, look like idiots to others and to lead us further away from the Truth. Or it has some deeper meaning to them. Whatever the reason is, I no longer believe in it. Now I am a fan of the Expanding Earth theory ;-)


On the contrary, everything that is dismissed as conspiracy theories is far more likely to be true. If it was just idiotic nonsense, why would the heliocentric proponents get so enraged by it and look so terrified that anyone would suggest it? But obviously this is just my opinion and while being very sure that we have never left this earth and will never be able to, I feel the shape of the earth is less certain. This could be a simulated world. Whatever it is, considerable effort is going into us never finding out.


----------



## fega72 (Nov 10, 2021)

rajus said:


> Hello so I used to be a flat earther and I would like to share my conclusion about Flat earth. So when I firstly discovered flat earth it was very appealing to me as it showed me the Earth from a different viewpoint and I found it beautiful. I discovered it when I watched a David Weiss video. From there I watched all the Ewaranon videos alongside many other videos there are and I couldn't image I would ever believe in the Heliocentric model ever again.
> However recently I started to doubt flat earth. Firstly, the Heliocentric model is much much simpler than the FE model. You don't need to have so many different rules in order to explain natural phenomenona in Heliocentric model than you need in the FE model. Some of these phenomenona can be comets, day and night cycle, the Moon, stars or tides. And as it usually is, simpler solutions are usually the correct ones.
> I also don't like about FE its size, many flat earthers say than the Heliocentric model is like a prison but I actually find it much more open than FE and FE actually feels like a prison.
> And lastly, the biggest issue I had with FE is the fact that there are many videos on the internet about it. If the elites wanted us so much to believe in the Heliocentric model, why would they even allow FE videos to exist? And you can't say that they are censored, sure, when you search "Flat earth" on Youtube you will get only videos that debunk it, but there still are big channels such as Eric Dubay's channel who has many videos on FE available.
> So now I believe that the entire Flat earth idea was actually created by the evil that rules this world. Why? I am not really sure. Perhaps it's purpose is to make us, people who want to know the truth, look like idiots to others and to lead us further away from the Truth. Or it has some deeper meaning to them. Whatever the reason is, I no longer believe in it. Now I am a fan of the Expanding Earth theory ;-)


If you like simpler models then - how much simpler keeping the atmosphere around a spinning ball in vacuum, then under a dome?


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 10, 2021)

rajus said:


> I no longer believe in it. Now I am a fan of the Expanding Earth theory


There is the problem with this whole earth shape fandango. Not unique to the poster but in my experience the problem within everyone who believes.

We can believe in the words of another or we can observe reality through our inbuilt sensory array and see how it behaves.

_*Top tip*_; figure out how the geometry of the eye works before observing anything.

There is a concave earth thread on here Concave Earth Theory
Bit weird to see an admin.mod on here sending people to another persons site who is also a mod on here and missing this one but there it is.

Edit to fix typo


----------



## grav (Nov 10, 2021)

FE is easy to explain.
It is an accretion disk in a torus called the Universe. aka the Cosmic Egg.
CE, to me, is the torus.
But.
Sorry, CEers, but still water is as level as it gets.
When I read that the inside of the CE earth curves upwards, which requires oceans to curve all along the cave wall, I give up, unable to figure out how that happens -- in my understanding of the physics of liquid water at rest.

The Suez Canal is level along a datum line for 100 miles.
Only possible on a flat x-axis.
Earth is a domed puddle inside the Infnite Plane.


----------



## Apollonius (Nov 10, 2021)

grav said:


> FE is easy to explain.
> It is an accretion disk in a torus called the Universe. aka the Cosmic Egg.
> CE, to me, is the torus.
> But.
> ...


We've already said goodbye to Flat Earth, thanks to the Sigma Octantis star.






Also, there is no such thing as Flat Earth map. What is known as the Flat Earth map is the Azimuthal Equidistant projection. It is a spherical Concave Earth projection centered at the north pole. 





For more information on the Azimuthal Equidistant projection.


----------



## grav (Nov 11, 2021)

Of course FE uses the AE map. NullSchool took that projection option down when FEers started using it to prove their arguments.

As for southern stars, we have issues with distances from observer location, angle of perspective, and vanishing point.


_View: https://youtu.be/kpaFizGUJg8_


Anti-flatearthers think that this optical obfuscation will confuse newbies.
Not even.
Globers never address the fact that constellations have not changed in 6,000 years. This is impossible if stellar parallax is not observed as it should in as little as a few months. Globers also ignore Olbers's paradox, water seeking its own level, air syncing speeds with a spinning, gyrating ball,  a level datum line along the Suez Canal, visibility of targets beyond the curve. many other proofs, as well as the lack of a real photograph of the alleged blue marble globe.



https://i.pinimg.com/736x/28/a9/64/28a964287b5c0add086ab8e32a00a9ff.jpg

The Cosmic Egg, the universal torus which Concave Earth theory views in the whole.
We FEers acknowledge the wholeness, except that we inspect the smaller world inside the central accretion disk.
William Blake called it the Mundane Shell.


----------



## Fexus (Nov 12, 2021)

grav said:


> Of course FE uses the AE map. NullSchool took that projection option down when FEers started using it to prove their arguments.
> 
> As for southern stars, we have issues with distances from observer location, angle of perspective, and vanishing point.
> 
> ...



There don't seem to be many similarities but I immediately had to think about this thread when I saw that egg-model:
Kulibin's egg-shaped clock presented to Catherine II in 1769 

May I ask what (you think) lies outside of the egg? The graphic you posted shows some glden ratio spirals, graphs, fractals and symbols but what do they mean? Are these geometries the keys to the greater universe? Does it mean that, once we understand this secret, we will break out of the egg and evolve further outside of this protective shell? Does it represent (spiritual) liberation?



> Globers never address the fact that constellations have not changed in 6,000 years.


I have to admit, this is something I ignored for a long time too. Funnily enough, it was Dr. Stone (which is a "hell yeah, sciene!" kinda anime) that made me realize this for the first time. The protagonist was turned into stone for 2000 years and noticed a shift in the constellation of the stars afterwards. Following this logic, the zodiac signs that we inherited from old cultures (2000+ years) should be different today.

Personally, I don't think the globe is real but I had some difficulties with flat earth. This egg model makes the idea of flat earth a lot more romantic and mysterious.


----------



## Whitewave (Nov 12, 2021)

Some mornings I wake up and see both the sun and moon in the sky at the same time. What does the other side of the world see?


----------



## grav (Nov 12, 2021)

What lives outside the cosmic egg?
Why should there be an outside? This is the problem we have with space and time. And infinity. We have been trained to "think" in terms of limits, duality, this or that. Gray areas refuse to be captured.

Everybody makes videos now to explain the mystery of life.
Clif High recently made one recently, an insipid piece of groupthink mixed with modern angst or whatver the heck is going on in the newz.

Clif never talks about astronomy, but in this episode he says the sun is a metal ball. Oh, fps.
Tell that to Eric Dollard, who says the sun is hollow, a transformer of energy from another dimension, and, oh by the way, it's dying.

Tesla, if he even existed in Tartaria, said the secrets to the universe require an understanding of 3, 6, and 9.
Does Nasa know the significance of those numbers? I doubt it.

But they may be able to use cymatics to achieve anti-gravity aircraft.

All this stuff, and Saturn too, are presented in this video, ~13:30.


_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=87acxwXVs38&feature=emb_imp_woyt_


What about Clif's reference to plasma tubes? which I have previously guessed transport light though channels in the dome, which may be what Dollard calls earth's envelope.

At any rate, I may need to amend my alt history timeline guesstimate to put Saturn (6th planet) as the first world age.
Earth is 3rd, Pluto 9th. Positions of motherboard circuitry? or not.

So while it's fresh in my mind,
Saturn, Anunnaki-Atlantis-Hyperborea,Tartaria, America, NW0. I hope not.


----------



## fega72 (Nov 12, 2021)

Whitewave said:


> Some mornings I wake up and see both the sun and moon in the sky at the same time. What does the other side of the world see?


Nothing. Without light sources they are in the darkness.


----------



## veeall (Nov 14, 2021)

Few days ago there were half moon very low at the horizon in Norway, with shadow pointing to eleven or twelve ie almost vertical relating to ground. Still there was no sunlight nor even a lighted up portion of the sky, as sunset has been about 3 hours earlier, it was dark as at night. The lighted part of the moon pointed to the area where there was no sun.

The schema:

.......... D - the moon
________________ - earh
................................................. O - the sun is set

A simple test to check whether the huge distance to the sun and/or reflectivity of the moon is true:
at half moon with both the moon and the sun visible at daytime, raise a small ball up to the air next to the moon and check if shadow on the ball aligns with that on the moon. If they are not always identical the discrepancies had to be explained away - whether its an illusion, or is the sun closer or has the moon its own illumination or something else.


----------



## Fexus (Nov 14, 2021)

grav said:


> What lives outside the cosmic egg?
> Why should there be an outside? This is the problem we have with space and time. And infinity. We have been trained to "think" in terms of limits, duality, this or that. Gray areas refuse to be captured.
> 
> Everybody makes videos now to explain the mystery of life.
> ...




When Eric Dollard says "from another dimension" he means counterspace which is what he calls the aether. He just makes it sound extremely ludicrous because he never explains what he is talking about. I think he just kinda hates everybody.

But I have to say that I don't really understand that first bit of your comment. Are you saying that the egg itself could be infinite so there wouldn't have to be an outside? This would mean that the egg-shape is symbolic, metaphorical or representative of something else.


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 14, 2021)

How its done.

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4OVgXKEjGE_​


----------



## grav (Nov 15, 2021)

_View: https://youtu.be/gXwyh60JN7E_



Terra firma is motionless


----------



## grav (Nov 16, 2021)

_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O3xJ6i7ZRGw_


We were warned 50 years ago of the NWO agenda to fool us with "space"  fear porn.
The Russians again? what are they up to now? They always seem happy to be the bad boy, the great enemy.

It's all a professional wrestler match. They carry on like they hate each other, throw chairs, trash talk, drive monster trucks, act like durn fools.
Nah. the UN is the boss/slaveowner who writes the scripts for their minions and the human morons.


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 17, 2021)

grav said:


> We were warned 50 years ago of the NWO agenda to fool us with "space" fear porn.


I was 11 so apologies for missing said warning. I had my attention on other things.


----------



## 6079SmithW (Nov 17, 2021)

I got woken up to it by a video on Google video, can you believe it? How times have changed


----------



## Prolix (Nov 17, 2021)

Time's Best Inventions of 2021 includes "A More Accurate World Map":



> To accurately capture Earth on a flat surface “while keeping visual distortions at a minimum” requires writing a complicated Python code. ORFE Professor Robert Vanderbei wrote the code to create a re-imagined world map. His collaboration with Princeton University Professor Richard Gott III and David Goldberg, professor at Drexel University, “resulted in the most accurate flat map ever made.”



So there you go. The most accurate flat map ever made. The actual map is double-sided, however, thanks to those clever Princeton Astrophysicists. 



> “Our map is actually more like the globe than other flat maps,” Gott said. “To see all of the globe, you have to rotate it; to see all of our new map, you simply have to flip it over.”



They're full of ideas:



> The map can be printed front-and-back on a single magazine page, ready for the reader to cut out. The three cartographers imagine printing their maps on cardboard or plastic and then stacking them like records, to be stored together in a box or slipped inside the covers of textbooks.



I can see a licensing deal with Weetabix on the, er, horizon.

Time's well-known for its predictive programming in covers, of course.


----------



## grav (Nov 18, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> I was 11 so apologies for missing said warning. I had my attention on other things.


aww, you poor baby.
You must also have missed the assassination of JFK and other pre-kd events. Oh, we landed on the moon too, when you were in diapers. Remember, remember, the 5th of November. D'oh!
You missed that warning also too.

. . . . 

I would rather post this in a separate reply, but  know the system will merge it with the earlier one.

In this short video, Jeranism reprises his complaint about the Azimuthal-Equidistant map being removed from NullSchool options.
But if you want to see wind, ocean currents, other weather patterns, go to their EARTH menu at the bottom left of the screen and pick the CE projection. It's still a distortion of the true earth, yet the best of the options that are offered.


_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JdM9h6CYqMU_


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 18, 2021)

grav said:


> aww, you poor baby.
> You must also have missed the assassination of JFK and other pre-kd events. Oh, we landed on the moon too, when you were in diapers. Remember, remember, the 5th of November. D'oh!
> You missed that warning also too.


No good with maths but I left nappies behind when I was 3 according to me mammy and watched the moon landings live on B&W telly box.


----------



## Justtheg (Nov 25, 2021)

veeall said:


> Few days ago there were half moon very low at the horizon in Norway, with shadow pointing to eleven or twelve ie almost vertical relating to ground. Still there was no sunlight nor even a lighted up portion of the sky, as sunset has been about 3 hours earlier, it was dark as at night. The lighted part of the moon pointed to the area where there was no sun.
> 
> The schema:
> 
> ...


Question, have you personally ever seen the actual sun itself for 24 hours where you are in Norway?


----------



## veeall (Nov 25, 2021)

It's not that much north.

I personally don't doubt the 24-hour sun of the North, in springtime/early summer you can see how the night becomes shorter and shorter to the point there's only twilight at night for few hours, if the same summertime phenomena is seen in equivalent Southern latitudes then it would indicate that there are polar day in Antarctic too.

Further north you go the lighter (and shorter) the summer nights become, we call them 'white nights' in Estonia though they are darker there than here.


----------



## Justtheg (Nov 26, 2021)

veeall said:


> It's not that much north.
> 
> I personally don't doubt the 24-hour sun of the North, in springtime/early summer you can see how the night becomes shorter and shorter to the point there's only twilight at night for few hours, if the same summertime phenomena is seen in equivalent Southern latitudes then it would indicate that there are polar day in Antarctic too.
> 
> Further north you go the lighter (and shorter) the summer nights become, we call them 'white nights' in Estonia though they are darker there than here.


Thanks for your reply. I understand the civil twilight as it's called in Alaska, however just  wanted to ask directly whether the actual sun could be seen anywhere for 24 hours.

So far, despite a few videos (which may not be 100% authentic) nobody I have asked including people I have called have told me they actually have seen the sun in the sky for 24 hours. 

It may be that the 24 hour sun is not actually true and that indeed the sun does rise and set no matter where you are on earth.

I am also quite certain the AE map is not correct either. If you were at the equator during the equinox the sun rises and sets at a perfect 90° and 270°, this does not agree with the AE map whatsoever.

Thanks for your reply.


----------



## grav (Nov 26, 2021)

_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lv_dcW1WrMo&feature=emb_imp_woyt_


----------



## JohnNada (Nov 26, 2021)

grav said:


> _View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lv_dcW1WrMo&feature=emb_imp_woyt_



Seems about as legit as all of the other NASA sponsored videos...


----------



## grav (Nov 27, 2021)

_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iZs8ZTgWkD0&ebc=ANyPxKqmI-NeM-vjascJxG3nSNVOMni4qtTKrrR83H-1JU4uclypnAGXiZRA__InrjZgnyuMjEnNsfxSKV3l38Ot7WcQqXYLvQ&feature=emb_imp_woyt_




is a mirror of Eric Dubay's video about eclipses.
Dubay contends that the Hindu god Rahu-Ketu "eats" the light from the self-luminous moon. 

The myth symblizes the basic FE theory which proposes that the moon is a translucent disk, somehow connected in or near the dome.
A second disk, which is sometimes called the black sun, is another object in the sky.
When it appears far from the sun, some people (like Nancy Lieder of Zeta Talk) call it Nibiru.
When the moon travels behind the object, we see predicted eclipses.
Dubay also disproves heliocentrism when he quotes astronomers who have observed both the sun and moon visible above the horizon during eclipses.


----------



## Apollonius (Nov 27, 2021)

grav said:


> > "The Cosmic Egg, the universal torus which Concave Earth theory views in the whole.
> We FEers acknowledge the wholeness, except that we inspect the smaller world inside the central accretion disk.
> William Blake called it the Mundane Shell."





> _Milton_, Plate 17 [19], (E 110)
> "But Miltons Human Shadow continu'd journeying above
> The rocky masses of The *Mundane Shell*; in the Lands
> Of Edom & Aram & Moab & Midian & Amalek.
> ...


Yeah, you're right, William Blake said how well we live in a shell.


----------



## space966 (Nov 28, 2021)

Also, not sure, that continents look like it's shown on official map.


----------



## grav (Nov 29, 2021)

space966 said:


> Also, not sure, that continents look like it's shown on official map.



Which official map?
The Gleason azimuthal-equidistant map, which I have on my livng room wall, is what flatearthers generally accept as the best model of continents.

This video addresses the UN map and the lengths to which the NWO protects the Anarctic ice wall from nosy explorers. It's an immense area. Ocean buoys, battleships, and fighter jets quickly detect intruders and scramble to turn back civilians who dare to penetrate the no-go zone.
Why? to protect pengins and ice?



_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I89GosJ0whU_


----------



## Apollonius (Nov 29, 2021)

grav said:


> Which official map?
> The Gleason azimuthal-equidistant map, which I have on my livng room wall, is what flatearthers generally accept as the best model of continents.
> 
> This video addresses the UN map and the lengths to which the NWO protects the Anarctic ice wall from nosy explorers. It's an immense area. Ocean buoys, battleships, and fighter jets quickly detect intruders and scramble to turn back civilians who dare to penetrate the no-go zone.
> ...



How do you explain lunar eclipses in the Flat Earth model without using silly arguments like Rahu and Ketu?


----------



## grav (Dec 2, 2021)

Apollonius said:


> How do you explain lunar eclipses in the Flat Earth model without using silly arguments like Rahu and Ketu?


nope.
The sun's dark twin has been photogrqphd many a time over the years

It makes a lot better sense than the silly lineup of sun, earth, and moon.
which, by the way, can not create the shadow, as the video shows.

And then there's the little problem of eclipses happening when the sun and moon are both visible above the horizon.


----------



## otl2021 (Dec 3, 2021)

Here ya go... too funny!

_View: https://youtu.be/fHycpD3S6uo_


Gigantic mistake or simple and obvious truth in plain site? 

Amazingly enough, the above clip is from the world famous Sesame Street television series. Sesame has been beloved by young children and their parents (for its educational value) alike since first airing in English on November 10, 1969. In addition to the 52 seasons that this show has been running, by its 50th anniversary in 2019, the show has aired in 70 different languages. 

According to IMDB, the above clip is from episode 11 of season 49. The title was "Honk If You Love Libraries" and it first aired on January 26, 2018. IMDB describes the episode thusly: "Librarian Grover helps Nina and Elmo find the books they need while looking through the different sections of the library." 

Which brought us here, to the fiction section of the Sesame Street library, where we learn, according to the librarian, "Fiction means it's a made up story." 

Just wow. 

The original episode is linked from IMDB here: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9678744/ (hbo max subscription required) 

And the segment can be viewed here on good ol' youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2Ftk...


----------



## Apollonius (Dec 3, 2021)

grav said:


> nope.
> The sun's dark twin has been photogrqphd many a time over the years
> 
> It makes a lot better sense than the silly lineup of sun, earth, and moon.
> ...


What evidence is there that the Sun has a dark twin?


----------



## otl2021 (Dec 3, 2021)

Apollonius said:


> What evidence is there that the Sun has a dark twin?


What evidence is there that a total eclipse is *even possible* while both objects, sun and moon, are visible ABOVE the horizon?


----------



## grav (Dec 3, 2021)

My definition of modern "science": bs disguisd as health food.
Many's the time I've seen butterflies feasting on dog doodoo.
What's good for them is not for us. And we get a steady diet of bs these days. 

What does it take to be a paid government scientist?
Oftentimes it is the willingness to lie, pretend, shuck and jive, do a song and dance for The Man. Some people shill for free. Which I don't get.
 mebbe you really can't fix stupid.,
I mean..... this poppycock???

The Selenelion Or Horizontal Lunar Eclipse - Solar Eclipse​

https://www.astronomyclub.xyz › solar-eclipse-2 › the-selenelion-or-horizontal-lunar-eclipse.html
Such an observation is known as a "selenelion." astronomer William Sinton permanently recorded one from the Mauna Kea Observatory in Hawaii. That brings us to the present. A few days before the lunar eclipse on January 9, 2001, I realized that a selenelion might be seen from Adelaide in South Australia, where I had lived for some years.


----------



## space966 (Dec 5, 2021)

Backward solar eclipse in Antarctica


----------



## grav (Dec 10, 2021)

A poster on another forum said that people can't learn about flat earth and other stolen truths because we're too busy "learning their lingo."

Wiser words were never written.
"Their" lingo, their science, their math, their history, their whole fake knowledge base. Their. Not ours.
Since I doubt that humans were ever clever enough to understand the truth, I conclude that smarter entities put their mindwarpers to the task of fixing the books.

I'm saying that Galileo and Einstein and all the geniuses in between, whether real humans or fictional characters, received instructions: How to bamboozle brains and bowlderize, befuddle, and build back better, Brandon.
how? BS, of course.

Specifically, astronomy. The braniacs in charge of deceiving humans about their flat and stationary world invented a confusing and boring system using false mathematical constants. Precession, elliptical plane, lots of other jargon and gibberish.

I'm re-posting this video from Seeker's thread which collects Ewaranon's works. It presents the case that heliocentrism is a brilliant criminal scheme.
As usual, I appreciate his attention to detail and fine graphics. But I'm only able to watch his videos in short segments. I'm only half way through this one and am now taking a mental health break. 

This is why people can't discuss flat earth. Because they have no clue, none, zip, zero -- to explain why they "believe" they live on a spinning ball inside a total vacuum.
Science and math have been distorted to the point that your average Homo ignoranus can't, or won't, try to understand how their world operates.
Another example, Covid vaccines. Because how come, why? Because the teevee says the science says so.


_View: https://youtu.be/POt9tT0GBnA_


You may have to click and go to Youtube to watch it.


----------



## Justtheg (Dec 13, 2021)

Apollonius said:


> What evidence is there that the Sun has a dark twin?


None except for a few claims by the "Globebusters" and their clan. 

I would also like to share a totally different theory that combines simulation theory and flat earth, as well as debunking the AE map and model.

They consider it a purely biblical cosmology, and they believe that the AE map pushers are all disinformation agents.

Awake Souls
YouTube (debunking AE map hangout):

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upuX1dAsd-E_


Odyssey Channel
Awake Souls

Telegram Group
Reality Check Chat

Their map:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1att3OxemIh-_v8wDjEmlizG2-2Tq20WW/view


----------



## grav (Dec 14, 2021)

Justtheg said:


> They consider it a purely biblical cosmology, and they believe that the AE map pushers are all disinformation agents.



I am watching fewer and fewer of the videos put out by the globebusters.
Almost none, actually. I do like your use of 'clan' to describe their fellow academicians. What we see is, in my opinion, an unhealthy devolution of the whole process of discovery. 

Jeranism is leading the pack now. The infighting is inexcusable. The cute cartoons and special effects degrade serious discussions. Sloughing off biblical and mythological references makes no sense. 

The last one, for instance. 2-hour videos???? What the hell? Who do they think they are? Esteemed intellectuals having daily teleconferences? or uppity a-holes who gang up in cool kid cliques?

I am a reader, anyhow, too old for FE moviolas.
Videos are crucial tools of instruction, of course. Up to a point. But they should be short and sharply focused. But no. We get these interminable, rambling and often mean gab fests that I find unbearable.
Example: the AE map. Why is it wrong? 
Another: asteroids or whatever you call bolides -- what are they and how do they differ from comets? 
The globebusters may have good intel but their delivery drives me away.

I am not sying the self-proclaimed leaders of the FE movement are psyop agents. Or am I? I used to like DITRH. Now, not so much.
I don't know what's going on now. But I don't like it. 
Maybe I'm too old school. I used to teach composition. Clear communication needs simple explication. 
Introduce your main idea.
Support your thesis with convincing evidence, facts, photos, logic.
Restate your main point/s in a smartly-composed conclusion. Exit gracefully.


----------



## Just (Dec 14, 2021)

grav said:


> I am watching fewer and fewer of the videos put out by the globebusters.
> Almost none, actually. I do like your use of 'clan' to describe their fellow academicians. What we see is, in my opinion, an unhealthy devolution of the whole process of discovery.
> 
> Jeranism is leading the pack now. The infighting is inexcusable. The cute cartoons and special effects degrade serious discussions. Sloughing off biblical and mythological references makes no sense.
> ...


Like everything else in this scam-driven world, disinformation is being used to muddy the waters till we don’t know what is real anymore. Many if not most of the FE ‘truthers’ are liars but that doesn’t mean FE isn’t a real thing. If they’re so desperate to put out disinformation, it kind of confirms that what they’re trying to confuse us about is true, in my opinion. Truth is the biggest casualty in the info war we’re currently in. Trust your instinct and if something sounds like garbage it probably is.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Dec 15, 2021)

grav said:


> I am watching fewer and fewer of the videos put out by the globebusters.
> Almost none, actually. I do like your use of 'clan' to describe their fellow academicians. What we see is, in my opinion, an unhealthy devolution of the whole process of discovery.
> 
> Jeranism is leading the pack now. The infighting is inexcusable. The cute cartoons and special effects degrade serious discussions. Sloughing off biblical and mythological references makes no sense.
> ...


Why the AE map is not a flat earth map.

The separation between lines of latitude increases in distance towards the North Pole on that AE projection. A flat earth map should show the distance shortening between lines of latitude proceeding North , latitude a measure of angle to the north pole star .  

The equator should not be the centre circle of the plane on an FE map - it is the mid point between the tropics which in turn mark the limits of the suns journey. The equator does not split the world in two . That's just a requirement of heliocentric theory.

My opinion is that the AE map is just part of the disinformation peddled by TPTB to muddy the waters. It's why we have globe believers quoting flight path nonsense and other such nonsense . For me it falls into the "hidden in plain sight" category so loved by the idiots in power.  It may not be totally wrong but it ain't right.

Hope that makes sense Grav


----------



## otl2021 (Dec 15, 2021)

The above map is the closest representation of or world that we know of. How do we know this?

Two words: Emergency Landings!


_View: https://youtu.be/EIaYzgvr4Ww_



A few years back, genius, Eddie Alencar, published "16 Emergency Landings."

https://www.flatearthresearch.com/w...EWoQBPw7PjIT6q0rXqGRAdztCiYU8kK8zb5j-WDsGBIWc

More here:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC7ScUgzfo4_


And here:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVP8-mcpook_


If you consider the above, you will realize that pilots use the above map or something extremely similar, and never a globe or anything close to that.

As far as the shills and the division.... whatever. The truth is there for anyone who wants it.


----------



## grav (Dec 18, 2021)

I accept the Azimulthal-Equidistant (Gleason) projection as the best map we currently have. Maybe it displays the northern "hemisphere" correctly. Beyond the equator, not so much.

There are no FE cartographers and no consensus about the sizes and shapes of continents and oceans. Latitude and longitude lines are clever manipulations of geography that do not work on a flat map.

In other words, we are no closer now to a true world representation than we were 10 years ago. All the old maps resemble each other, including the land mass we now call the Arctic Circle.

No links for now.
But I dd watch Jake the As*hole's video from a few days ago. Two people in the southern hemisphere used compasses that pointed to the sun setting south-southwest. Which means what? The sun's true path defies the overhead circle of current ideas of geocentrism? or else our flat world view is way out of whack?

 I do have one link. Vibes of Cosmos tracks the moon and sees its craters and topography as a reflection of the earth. Basically, a plasma effect that echoes earth's portion of the infnite plane.


_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fXm83QKoND8_


----------



## Watcher369 (Dec 19, 2021)

How about the FLAT out proof being pushed alongside other illuminati symbols in the biggest kids game to hit the gaming industry. From start to finish your draw will drop.... 
_View: https://youtu.be/5Rasl5UwwNY_


----------



## otl2021 (Dec 19, 2021)

grav said:


> I accept the Azimulthal-Equidistant (Gleason) projection as the best map we currently have. Maybe it displays the northern "hemisphere" correctly. Beyond the equator, not so much.


There is one simple truth here. None of us know exactly what this place looks like as none of us have been high enough to see it, let alone photograph it.

That said, Gleason's painstaking work should not be forgotten. The man documents, along with many others, how *consistently *ships in the "southern hemisphere" were *miles off their reckoning.*

All made up? No actual journals of the narrative's most esteemed captains exist? And none are what they are claimed to be?

In just the last few years, the narrative has changed again, as our world is now described as a spear-shaped, oblate spheroid with the "southern hemisphere," now larger than her northern counterpart. They know that the latitudes below the equator are far larger than their northern counterparts.



grav said:


> There are no FE cartographers and no consensus about the sizes and shapes of continents and oceans. Latitude and longitude lines are clever manipulations of geography that do not work on a flat map.


What I can be sure of from my research is that a) Gleason was a "FE cartographer," b) regardless of consensus that will never be allowed to occur, his map, patented as a time-piece, is still to this day as accurate as it was in 1892, and c) the latitudes and longitudes on that map are what today's gps is based off of... what they built their globe from... or something quite similar.

Now, I gotta ask... do you see anything resembling our known world reflected in the moon?


----------



## grav (Dec 21, 2021)

otl2021 said:


> Now, I gotta ask... do you see anything resembling our known world reflected in the moon?


I think the Vibes of Cosmos Youtuber has said that it's not so much a reflection as a reproduction of the original design. Maybe a computer code set the dimensions and construction, kind of  like a  laser printer that makes copies from the template. 
Our world is the beat-up damaged-goods mess we or others have made it. 
Our Garden of Eden has become a garbage dump.
Atlantis is gone, beautiful swamps have turned into Walmart parking  lots, people have turned their backs on Nature. We have terraformed our terrain for unworthy purposes, in my opinion.

Anyway, to your question, no. I don't see the Gleason map on the moon.


----------



## space966 (Dec 21, 2021)

It may appear, that earth don't have form, it's timeline.


----------



## grav (Dec 22, 2021)

space966 said:


> It may appear, that earth don't have form, it's timeline.



I reckon it's a computer program. We are live action role players in a rebootable sim world.

The earth does have form, in the sense that the software specifies picky details like gravity and centrifugal force.
The Control System shows us the truth in movies: Tron (1982), Dark City (1998), Avatar (2009).
And of course The Matrix (1999).
There really is no spoon.


----------



## Justtheg (Dec 31, 2021)

otl2021 said:


> There is one simple truth here. None of us know exactly what this place looks like as none of us have been high enough to see it, let alone photograph it.
> 
> That said, Gleason's painstaking work should not be forgotten. The man documents, along with many others, how *consistently *ships in the "southern hemisphere" were *miles off their reckoning.*
> 
> ...



In the AE map and model the sun would have to be constantly hooking to the right, would rise in the north east and set in the north west in northern hemisphere. 

Does that occur? 

Awake Souls points out facts that occur during the equinox the sun rising at a perfect 90° and setting at a perfect 270° no matter where on earth you are. 

Only possible in a simulation? Their map has the sun reappearing on the other side like in the game asteroids, there is no definitive moment it reappears it is based on the individual observer. 

Below is their stereographic map.


----------



## 6079SmithW (Dec 31, 2021)

I'm currently visiting my girlfriend, they have the TV on for her little girl, (I know) and currently some garbage on to indoctrinate the kids into believing the heliocentric garbage. 

At this point, we know the powers in the world lie to us, so if they are so desperately trying to brainwash kids into believing the heliocentric model, that should be enough evidence for us that the model is a lie. 

Flat as a pancake. I am thinking more and more it's a flat simulated realm. Hence some of the strange things that happen with the sun. Like the sun is being rendered by each of our bio computers. Just like the sun in a computer game is being rendered seperately by each player in the game. 

While we won't agree on the details, for god's sake we don't need to, we only need to agree that the mainstream model is false


----------



## Lightseeker (Dec 31, 2021)

I wanted to share some interesting comment I heard from some Youtuber (yeah, I know).

"Since the world is shaped by our beliefs, it doesn't make sense to wonder what the shape of the Earth is. Those who believe it to be a sphere will be quick to see a curve in the horizon, and believe anything that is shown to them by NASA. Those who believe it to be flat never see a curve in the horizon, and don't believe anything that NASA shows."

Not that I agree with this, since I believe in Earth being a flat plane, and land to be beyond the edge. Still an interesting take.


----------



## grav (Jan 3, 2022)

Botany becomes geology.


_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o63U3_wj634_


What caused the petrification?
Even in a computer program, a physical reaction must result from an outside force. The Electric Universe thinkers suggest a plasma event.


----------



## alltheleaves (Jan 3, 2022)

grav said:


> I am watching fewer and fewer of the videos put out by the globebusters.
> Almost none, actually. I do like your use of 'clan' to describe their fellow academicians. What we see is, in my opinion, an unhealthy devolution of the whole process of discovery.
> 
> Jeranism is leading the pack now. The infighting is inexcusable. The cute cartoons and special effects degrade serious discussions. Sloughing off biblical and mythological references makes no sense.
> ...


The plot was lost long before we were born. Oldsters become aware of it early or late. By late, its too late.

Smokey God is a good read. Meeting the inner earth gods. Clink the link. Not the image. For access to pdfs of fe books.


_View: https://archive.org/details/hidden-history-of-earth_


----------



## AllegedlyDave (Jan 6, 2022)

Fortuna Fled said:


> *7 ways you can easily prove that the Earth is not flat*
> Posted Sunday 24 May 2020 10:00 by Mimi Launder in tech
> UPVOTE
> 
> ...


1. Perspective tells us that the further away an object is, the lower it appears to us, until it disappears behind out vanishing point (This is related to the angular resolution limit of our eyes of 0.02 degrees) so, whereas Polaris will appear overhead at the north pole, the further south one travels, the lower in the sky it appears until it disappears altogether.  The same occurs with all of the stars, so each observer has a personal dome of stars depending on their position on earth.

2. If Eratosthenes actually existed and it was actually possible for him to conduct such an experiment then it should be noted that he would get EXACTLY the same results on a flat earth, if the sun was small and close (3100 miles high and 34 miles across).
Eratosthenes calculations also depend on the rays of the sun coming down parallel, as they would with a sun 93 million miles away, however that is not consistent with observation, where we see diverging sun rays through broken cloud or a distorted shadow of a plane on thin cloud below it.  Diverging sun rays are consistent with a sun that is small and close.

3. That point of view assumes that either Newtonian or Einsteinian conceptions of "Gravity" are correct.  Neither of them are.  Both theories depend on mass, either creating some strange attractive force or warping of some strange imaginary SpaceTime, however, a simple thought experiment disproves the theory that mass is a factor of the tendency of things to fall when you let go of them.
Put an empty gas bottle (let's say it weighs a pound) on a scale and zero out its weight, then fill it with 10lbs of Helium, now if we compare the gas bottle with an 11 pound iron weight then they would act in exactly the same way.  Now evacuate the Helium into a balloon, the same number of Helium atoms (it's mass) remains the same in the balloon as in the gas bottle, it's mass has not changed, only its density has, the size and shape of its container is the only variable.
So now, if we compare the balloon containing 10lbs of Helium with a 10lb Iron weight, the balloon goes up and the Iron weight goes down, proving that the tendency for things to fall has NOTHING to do with mass, thus invalidating Newton and Einstein  (Don't bother trying to argue this, I've stumped Astrophysicists, Particle Physicists and PhD students with that one)

4. There are no planes the fly over the "South Pole", no one has ever circumnavigated the "globe" North-to-South, those who have claimed to have done so are proved fraudulent when you examine their flight routes.  Even those who say they have crossed the South Pole on foot such as Colin O'Brady, if you examine their routes and trace it on a flat earth map you'll find that all they did was walk a way inland then back out to a point a little way across the circumference such that Mr. O'Brady started his journey from Chile and flew directly back to Chile rather than via New Zealand.

5. I explain timezones here:  
_View: https://youtu.be/4QPNzMElKBo?t=311_

The sun doesn't just rotate over the equator, it does a spiralling motion between the tropics, that is, it performs an epicycle with its center on the equator and its diameter is the distance between the tropics.

6. Again assumptions based on a myth that we somehow know what is "at the core" even though the most anyone has ever drilled into it is 8 miles.   It is also well known that iron loses magnetism when it is heated (
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2ZLqd3Px_8_
) so please explain how a molten Iron core can produce a magnetic field.

7. How come when cranes are left inactive, their cables do not start swinging in accordance with the earths supposed motion, also explain the Allias Effect, where pendulums reverse during a solar eclipse.  When you examine the pendulums used to illustrate the Foucault effect you will find that they are driven electromagnetically to keep them swinging... THEY DO NOT SWING ON THEIR OWN.

Now show us 7 proofs that the Earth is a ball.


----------



## grav (Jan 6, 2022)

AllegedlyDave said:


> Now show us 7 proofs that the Earth is a ball


Outstanding deconstruction of that simple-minded list of heliocentric excuses. 

But look at the effort it takes to clarify each point.
This is why Freemasonry works so well in the "real" world.
People understand words like "look" and "grab" -- and have no aptitude for critical thinking.

This situation is why we have Covid mandates and other nonsense that people accept, because the teevee does such a superb job of dumbing down the masses.
Your arguments are, unfortunately,  based on logic and empirical evidence.

For example, the freemasons say that gravity is a force.
The offer no proof. Plenty of failures too, like clouds and smoke which defy gravity.
But to disprove it, by explaining specific gravity as the ratio of densities of particlesof adjacent substances .........
BORING. 

Is it possible to break a lifetime of indoctrination, to un-do cognitive dissonance, to wake up the zombies who greatly outnumber us?
And who Trust Authority?
E=mc^2
Now that's  cool. Total bs, but that's how we roll here in this damfool reality.

Sorry to be so negative this morning, but some days it's  hard to see any way out of the current quagmire.


----------



## Just (Jan 6, 2022)

grav said:


> Outstanding deconstruction of that simple-minded list of heliocentric excuses.
> 
> But look at the effort it takes to clarify each point.
> This is why Freemasonry works so well in the "real" world.
> ...


The simplest proof that the earth is a globe would be to show an undoctored image from ‘space’ - not a composite, cut and paste job. It’s never been done. The earth to moon ratio is 1:4. Why did the images of the earth from the moon surface (allegedly) show a size comparable to the moon from earth image. 4 times bigger would look huge! And one of the first astronauts described earth as looking so small and remote from the moon. It really wouldn’t. This is what Michael Collins said about it:

"The Earth appears 'fragile,' above all else. I don't know why, but it does.
"As we walk its surface, it seems solid and substantial enough, almost infinite as it extends flatly in all direction. But from space there is no hint of ruggedness to it; smooth as a billiard ball, it seems delicately poised in its circular journey around the Sun, and above all it seems fragile." Mmm.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jan 6, 2022)

Just said:


> This is what Michael Collins said about it:
> 
> "The Earth appears 'fragile,' above all else. I don't know why, but it does.
> "As we walk its surface, it seems solid and substantial enough, almost infinite as it extends flatly in all direction. But from space there is no hint of ruggedness to it; smooth as a billiard ball, it seems delicately poised in its circular journey around the Sun, and above all it seems fragile." Mmm.


The guy didn't go to the moon . Learnt his lines and acted his part . Phtt.


----------



## Blackdiamond (Jan 6, 2022)

What do you guys think about the difrrences in gravity / buoyancy that is meassured around the magnetosphere / plain we inhabit?


----------



## Just (Jan 6, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> The guy didn't go to the moon . Learnt his lines and acted his part . Phtt.


Of course he didn’t- I realise all of the footage and comments were fake but I find it interesting what he said - it’s very telling to see how the fakery is woven together to drop clues: an infinite flat plane is how he described the way earth seems from our perception.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jan 7, 2022)

Just said:


> Of course he didn’t- I realise all of the footage and comments were fake but I find it interesting what he said - it’s very telling to see how the fakery is woven together to drop clues: an infinite flat plane is how he described the way earth seems from our perception.


Hiding the truth in plane sight . Nasaspeak with forked tongue.    Most people ignore the part where truth is told but accept the nonsense instead . It's an occult thing form me - more sad than interesting.

Coincidently watched a discovery science thingy about mishaps in space - Collins was in that doing a space walk to repair a space station. He remarked that the deep black of space was overwhelming , no stars behind him visible in the cameras . Then hurriedly added that the sun blanks them out - next we have a shot of the sunlit space station and astronut with a starry background.  


Blackdiamond said:


> What do you guys think about the difrrences in gravity / buoyancy that is meassured around the magnetosphere / plain we inhabit?


Mainstream gravity is pure fiction. Nothing could hang around up there - satellites , space stations and whatnot if mainstream gravitational theory was fact - only a constant acceleration would keep an object afloat or in orbit. Gravity pulls to the centre of earth , not it's surface and pulls with constant force according to the inverse square law. Falling constantly around the curve of the globe to produce an orbit is impossible - that's why a science fiction writer came up with that rubbish.

There is no magnetosphere - there is a toroidal magnetic field . Allied with change in density/bouyancy I think this could explain what we see as gravity.


----------



## alltheleaves (Jan 7, 2022)

Official nasa image.


----------



## veeall (Jan 7, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Falling constantly around the curve of the globe to produce an orbit is impossible - that's why a science fiction writer came up with that rubbish.


Yeah, shouldn't such falling object to constantly speed up with the rate of the free-falling acceleration? 

Free Falling Object Motion


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jan 7, 2022)

Yes it should .

Gravity Acceleration by Altitude

This calculator gives the value of g against altitude

Projection from elevation (height, distance, duration) Calculator

This one gives you the freefall time for an object against altitude .

Playing around with these you can see that anything in freefall at 400km altitude will fall to earth in minutes , unless accelerated. #i do recall checking out Sputnik one - that first satellite only flew for a few minutes if I recall correctly . 

Newtonian gravity is a con.


----------



## luddite (Jan 9, 2022)

Gravity has at its core a constant 2 way communication and instantaneous energy transmission between each atom and every other atom in existence. The computing power required for each atom to know the effect of all other gravitational pulls from all atoms in existence at all times is ludicrous. Obviously it's stupid but also it ignores that the atom can magically ignore its own gravitational effect on its own electrons.


----------



## 6079SmithW (Jan 9, 2022)

Found on telegram. 

No other info was attached. 

Looks like an old map with some mysterious continent


----------



## luddite (Jan 9, 2022)

6079SmithW said:


> Found on telegram.
> 
> No other info was attached.
> 
> ...


Interesting. Australia looks pretty messed up in that map.


----------



## Knowncitizen (Jan 10, 2022)

6079SmithW said:


> Found on telegram.
> 
> No other info was attached.
> 
> ...


It looks like a blow up of greenland (Groen Land, as marked) and Frisland (the now vanished island). The Artic circle and meridian line are marked. There is also a thread on here about greenland not being covered in snow and having those two sea channels severing the south of the island.


----------



## alltheleaves (Jan 11, 2022)

6079SmithW said:


> Found on telegram.
> 
> No other info was attached.
> 
> ...


Could be Hapis and Gemina, situated beyond the ice wall.


----------



## luddite (Jan 11, 2022)

Knowncitizen said:


> looks like a blow up of greenland (Groen Land, as marked) and Frisland (the now vanished island)


A new thread on that topic points towards Frisland sinking. “Survivors of the Great Tsunami” by Alewyn Raubenheimer (1/2)


----------



## Rick64 (Jan 12, 2022)

Lightseeker said:


> "Basically the Gleason map"
> 
> Does the Gleason map suggest endless ice beyond Antarctica?
> 
> ...



The Gleason map does not show anything beyond Antarctica but speculative maps do, particularly one from Tibet I'll have to track down. More important than that Tibetan map however are the latest hypotheses formulated by "godgevlamste" on youtube. -Rick


----------



## Lightseeker (Jan 12, 2022)

Rick64 said:


> The Gleason map does not show anything beyond Antarctica but speculative maps do, particularly one from Tibet I'll have to track down. More important than that Tibetan map however are the latest hypotheses formulated by "godgevlamste" on youtube. -Rick



The Tibetan map is obviously a fake, as it shows the proportion of continents as they would appear on modern maps.


----------



## grav (Jan 12, 2022)

Besides our Stolen History, we have stolen geology.

Tartaria was, in my opinion
. a civilization in a previous reset
. of the computer program
. of the flat earth.

The original computer code was the age of the Titans, the aeons whose gigundous avatars became Mother Earth, Father Sky, assorted Greek gods and their offspring.

Botany was also big back then. Trees were a mile or more in diameter and dozens of miles high.
Before a plasma event that petrified living matter, both flesh and plants, someone cut down the giant trees, leaving stumps with flat tops.
Where did the wood go?

This link shows results for giant petrified tree stumps.
q=wayki+no+trees+flat&t=ipad at DuckDuckGo
This image is from a WaykiWayki blog.


----------



## space966 (Jan 14, 2022)

@AllegedlyDave How did you determined height position of the sun, with triangulation?


----------



## Prolix (Jan 14, 2022)

This sequence from the most recent Asterix book (_Asterix and the Griffin_) amused me:




It also mentions the ice wall:





And, following charioteer Coronavirus several books back, there are more topical concerns:


----------



## Citezenship (Jan 14, 2022)

Prolix said:


> This sequence from the most recent Asterix book (_Asterix and the Griffin_) amused me:
> 
> View attachment 18567
> It also mentions the ice wall:
> ...


Ice walls and winter is coming, someone is reading my thoughts, the world mind I should guess...


----------



## chessquaker (Jan 15, 2022)

Geometry and Angles of Observation - a simple repeatable test that demonstrates conclusively we live on a flat plain.  Watch this video here. ( This geometric proof also shows that the sun is local to our atmosphere, not far away as we are told.)  Once you understand this test, it will become crystal clear that we are not living on a ball, sphere or oblate spheroid.

Proving the Sun Rotates Over a Flat Earth - Must See Evidence by Corey Kell

I will try to explain below to help you follow the proof in the video.  The key to understanding the proof is to remember that the horizontal plane is always the reference when you measure an angle of elevation.   This is how Sextants work.

If you put your finger on the highest point on a resting ball (Point A), every other spot on that ball (Point B) is at a lower elevation relative to your initial point. The surface of the ball anywhere else falls below your elevation at Point A as you move away from that high point because of the curvature of that ball.  This Geometric Fact means that we can conduct a geometric experiment to validate the claim that we live on a round earth by using the Sun as the object of observation.

We can measure our angles of observation at two points and arrive at triangulation.  (You can readily compensate for any terrain issues or conduct the test at sea if needed and still arrive at a repeatable accurate result.  )  Remember, the sum of the angles of a triangle can never exceed 180 degrees.  Your triangle would have three points, the Sun, Point A and Point B.

Proving the Sun Rotates Over a Flat Earth - Must See Evidence by Corey Kell

If you have trouble understanding the video, read my crude explanation below and then watch the video again.

1. Essentially, the sun moves above us each day and from your observation point below, traces a 180 degree arc in the sky.  NASA tells us that this is because the earth is rotating every 24 hours.

2. One quarter of this motion, 45 degrees, is the change in the angle of observation that you would have when the sun has covered a quarter  (1/4th) of it's motion during daytime.  That is, in three hours, the angle of observation would have changed by 45 degrees on a flat plain.  On a flat earth.

2a.  When the sun is directly above you, your angle of observation is 90 degrees.  You are looking straight up, your reference point is your horizontal adjacent.  We will use this as the reference point.  Your horizontal adjacent will the reference elevation for this experiment.

2b. Three hours later, the angle of observation would have changed by 45 degrees on a flat plain.  On a flat earth.  12 hours divided by 4 is three hours.  180 degrees divided by 4 is 45.  We will use a second point some distance away that corresponds to where the sun would be directly overhead the observer (at 90 degrees angle of observation) in 3 hours as the second measurement/experiment point.    Let's call this point B.

3.  So now, we have two points on the earth, our Reference Point A (see 2a) and our Experiment/Test Point B (see 2b).

3a.  We would measure about a 45 degree change in the angle of observation of the Sun if you are on a flat earth  at Point B.

4.  If you really live on a round earth, your angle of observation must be less than 45 degrees if you are at Point B.   This is because  the highest point on the round earth-ball to observe the Sun is the original reference point.  If you put your finger on the highest point on a resting ball, every other spot is at a lower elevation.  The ground falls away because of the curvature of that ball.
Thus, the horizontal adjacent at the Reference Point (Point A) would be higher than your elevation at Point B when you measure the angle of observation.  We always use the horizontal at Point A as the reference elevation to complete the triangulation.

5.  This means that when you measure the angle of observation of the Sun at Point B, you must ALSO add the degrees representing the change in elevation from the reference horizontal elevation of (Point A).  On a flat earth, we would add zero or some negligible amount if there is a local hill/ valley present but there is no other difference in reference horizontal elevation.   On a round ball, the change in reference horizontal elevation would be significant and can be easily derived per this table of expected curvature.


Result:   The results of this experiment demonstrate conclusively that we live on a flat earth.   The measurements of the angles of observation never align with the expected curvature of the ball earth.   Because there is no curvature.  Instead, the results continually exceed 90 degrees (failed test) when you do the math for an earth with curvature.  (Measured Angle of Observation of the Sun + Change in Elevation).   If we truly lived on a ball, the angle of observation would shrink extremely rapidly as you move away from Point A and the parts of the world that would be in darkness would be much much greater than what we actually observe!!

We have been deceived by a sleight of hand because they never account for the change in *elevation* between Point A and Point B when discussing this.  They assume a flat earth implicitly in their globe calculations by ONLY taking the angle of observation at Point B and not adding the changes in elevation that would occur on a curved ball.   Again, this explains why the framework of "a Flat Non-rotating earth" is declared in the attached NASA document.

In fact, the experiment allows us to also show that the Sun is near and local by the process of triangulation-- explaining why we see corpuscular sun rays when the sun breaks through a cloud cover.

A second and humorous video explains the same matter here
Earth Has Finally Been Proven Flat!


----------



## chessquaker (Jan 18, 2022)

*Geometry and Angles of Observation* -
1) Some angle of observation experiment *results* (as described above) are documented here.  *https://flatearthintel.com/*





2) *Simple Observation of a Light Source* that is close to the clouds, NOT far away.  The immutable laws of Triangulation help us here.

We see this often without realizing what it means!  See how the light rays fan out at wide varying angles pointing back to a common center??  *Corpuscular rays *like these prove the NASA narrative is false and the Sun is not millions of miles away.

By applying Triangulation, we realize that* the light source is nearby*, not far away.  The top of this triangle is not 150 million kilometres (93 million miles) away.

Geometry tells us that if the light source were far way at the dizzying distance that NASA claims, the light rays coming through relatively close-together holes in the cloud cover such as these would be near parallel , not fanning out at divergent angles like we see.

We should not and absolutely would not see angles like these from a light source that is 150 million kms away !!!!  The distance between the holes is infinitesimal relative to the massive distance to the light source (top of the triangle) for there to be perceptible angles of such magnitude.  No.  This is proof before our very eyes that the Sun is local and close to the flat earth.

This is repeated very easily at home in the dark:  Use a torchlight or candle held at different distances from small holes poked into a cardboard barrier.  The light rays poking through the cardboard cloud barrier will spread out in inverse correlation to the distance of the light source to the barrier.


----------



## grav (Jan 19, 2022)

https://flatearthintel.com

That is some outstanding field research.
It also make us realize that scientists and the military know the flat truth.

I can't imagine how so many people are willing to participate in the heliocentric lie. Do science teachers not know that the globe model breaks all the laws of physics?

And when I see how news reporters spout Covid lies, and politicians force mandates, and people happily take nasal swabs and experimental drugs in their arms -- it's all so vastly disappointing.

Liars, con artists, chemtrail pilots, Big Pharms sales reps, police enforcing illegal rules. And the sheeple eat it up??


----------



## Akanah (Jan 19, 2022)

Just because simplified models like the flat earth or a spherical earth work well in practice, they do not have to represent the true shape of the earth. I still believe that Flat Earth is a psyop.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jan 19, 2022)

Akanah said:


> Just because simplified models like the flat earth or a spherical earth work well in practice, they do not have to represent the true shape of the earth. I still believe that Flat Earth is a psyop.


In what way does a spherical earth work well . Heliocentric model is the psyop .


----------



## grav (Jan 19, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> In what way does a spherical earth work well . Heliocentric model is the psyop .


The helio model can predict sun angles and a few other things. But only because freemasone know how to take advantage of irrelevant picky details. Mostly, they falsify the data. The force of gravity, the speed of light, dark matter, etc. ad infinitum.

The technical word for their methodology is BS.
Which term, by the way,  disparages a real and useful material. Cattle manure is a good fertilizer, whereas modern science has rotted into hocus pocus flimflammery.

To say that FE is a psyop? despite all the evidence we have collected?
Water is level, air pressure requires a volume, targets like Chicago being visible on the other side of the curve?

It is true that we can't nail down the sky and the layers of earth below 7.5 miles. because..........
The freemasons do not play fair.
They have information they do not share.
Antarctica is their hidden lair.


----------



## chessquaker (Jan 19, 2022)

We can believe anything and as children we believed almost anything we were told without critical analysis.  The geometry of the earth is a fact of life, not subject to belief or mainstream psychological operations like ridicule and censorship.  We can readily apply mathematics and geometry and measure things.   Either the water on the oceans are curved or they are not.  If they are curved, then we have evidence of curvature.  If they are not curved, the Earth is not a ball.  The results must stand on their merit, not on belief.  

A great resource --  lacking belief but having empirical tests and logical experiments -- is entitled, *Zetetic Astronomy.*
https://www.globalgreyebooks.com/eb...onomy/zetetic-astronomy-earth-not-a-globe.pdf

*The Bedford Experiments* (page 15)

The Bedford Canal is over 20 miles long.

If we set 6 flags *over water*, 1 mile apart from each other, we arrive at a total of 6 miles.  See previous posts for the table of expected drop in elevation after 6 miles on a globe earth of 24 feet.    Given the stated circumference of the Earth in the hypothesis, we must realize this drop of 24 feet after 6 miles on water.  Otherwise, the premise is false.

This image shows us what the hypothesis of a ball earth of stated circumference must yield for the hypothesis to be true.  24 feet drop after 6 miles!  




*RESULT*: the measurements of the experiment show no such drop of 24 feet.  The result of the experiment *invalidates* the globe earth hypothesis. 

This experiment has been repeated countless times even by naive observers who are able to see distant cities at great distances over water bodies -- cities that are 30 miles away and should be 600 feet below the horizon on a curved ball.  Likewise, we are able to bring ships back into view with telescopes that were said to have disappeared over the horizon to the naked eye and are several miles away.  Figure 4 shows the result of the experiment.  The result confirms the premise : namely, the earth is flat and not curved like a sphere.


----------



## Akanah (Jan 19, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> In what way does a spherical earth work well . Heliocentric model is the psyop .


For everyday things, the model of a spherical earth and the model of a flat earth work quite well. I just find it amusing that we are in the same forum and you flat-earthers apparently only cavort in the flat-earth thread instead of thinking outside the box. I have already occupied myself with other earth form theories like e.g. moon crater earth, concave earth, plasma-electric earth and naturally a living earth. I wonder why you insist so on a flat earth form. If the earth should be flat then... who has created it or how she has originated and how she moves in the space?


----------



## Knowncitizen (Jan 19, 2022)

There is no space or movment of our realm. The stars and (wandering stars) planets rotate around the north star.


Akanah said:


> For everyday things, the model of a spherical earth and the model of a flat earth work quite well. I just find it amusing that we are in the same forum and you flat-earthers apparently only cavort in the flat-earth thread instead of thinking outside the box. I have already occupied myself with other earth form theories like e.g. moon crater earth, concave earth, plasma-electric earth and naturally a living earth. I wonder why you insist so on a flat earth form. If the earth should be flat then... who has created it or how she has originated and how she moves in the space?


----------



## Akanah (Jan 19, 2022)

Knowncitizen said:


> There is no space or movment of our realm. The stars and (wandering stars) planets rotate around the north star.


And where should the earth be fixed or lying around ? And who or what created them ?


----------



## Knowncitizen (Jan 19, 2022)

Akanah said:


> And where should the earth be fixed or lying around ? And who or what created them ?


good questions


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jan 19, 2022)

Akanah said:


> For everyday things, the model of a spherical earth and the model of a flat earth work quite well. I just find it amusing that we are in the same forum and you flat-earthers apparently only cavort in the flat-earth thread instead of thinking outside the box. I have already occupied myself with other earth form theories like e.g. moon crater earth, concave earth, plasma-electric earth and naturally a living earth. I wonder why you insist so on a flat earth form. If the earth should be flat then... who has created it or how she has originated and how she moves in the space?


Flat earth does not exclude moon crater earth , plasma earth or a living earth . 

The fact that buildings are erected perpendicular to the horizontal plane and parallel to each other rules out for me concave or fkn globe model . I could be wrong since our plane could be just a small part of a gigantic globe . Perhaps you can provide some FE shattering evidence that will change my views , claiming psyop makes you sound like a gatekeeper .

So which everyday things fit the globe model ? I don't find the "psyop" thing amusing - it's a fkn annoying lazy accusation that may upset people a tad and it's most used by folk who are unable to provide contrary evidence.


----------



## Daniel (Jan 19, 2022)

Akanah said:


> And where should the earth be fixed or lying around ? And who or what created them ?


But the exact same questions apply no matter what shape you believe the Earth to be. Filling up the area around the Earth with trillions of stars doesn't change the fact that there always has to be something "beyond thd edge".
Likewise, in my opinion, "the Big Bang" may be the single silliest explanation there is for anything.
So, we are left with the same questions either way.


----------



## chessquaker (Jan 19, 2022)

The Big Bang Theory is also almost word for word lifted from the Kaballah.  They just changed some words.  Matter coming from nothing.  Imagine that.

We don't need to know who created the earth to be able to take measurements and uncover falsehoods.  None of these results support concavity, convexity, or sphere-ism.

However, if someone has evidence of concavity, please provide it.  We are seeking the Truth.  This is the place to share.

The level of detail from the Old World (which was advanced technologically) differs from the primitive tool-less stories we are told.  In addition to modern tests,  ancient texts and uncanny ancient maps may offer more truth than our modern day NASA CGI and maps.  Several old world cosmologies describe a flat stationary earth with trees, animals and humans orders of magnitude larger than we are today.


----------



## grav (Jan 20, 2022)

Akanah said:


> only cavort in the flat-earth thread instead of thinking outside the box. I have already occupied myself with other earth form theories like e.g. moon crater earth, concave earth, plasma-electric earth and naturally a living earth. I wonder why you insist so on a flat earth form.


I will continue to cavort inside the box which has a flat x-axis bottom and which is stationary.
Is the box sitting inside a plasma torus with curved sides?
Is the box a reflection off a dome in the sky?
Is the box . . . da da, daaah......alive?

Maybe, probably, whatever. 
All posters on this thread have likely explored all these ideas, and more. Like the sim world, a take-off of gnosticism in which we are aeons of the Pleroma who take avatar flesh suits to role play in a computer game. 

That's my guess. But the computer code has set parameters that are immutable. Water is flat, the horizon rises to eye level, and all the many physical proofs offered by Eric Dubay and Samuel Rowbotham and many others. 
So excuuuuse us cavorters if we think flat earth suits our purposes.


----------



## chessquaker (Jan 21, 2022)

*Viewing Mercury and Venus at night would be impossible *if the Earth revolved around the Sun.





As shown above, *Night Time *occurs when we are facing away from the Sun.  Viewers on the other side of the ball earth would be seeing the Sun in the sky.  We would be in darkness because of our direction.

In the Heliocentric model, there are some objects that are permanently *between us *and the Sun. * Mercury and Venus *have orbits that put them between us and the Sun whether it is day or night.   They are the Inner Planets.  We don't see them during the day because the light of the Sun drowns out most objects in the day time sky, we are told.

When we look in the night Sky, we should see only those planets that are NOT between the Earth and the Sun.  We would see those planets that are farther away from the Sun than Earth is supposed to be in the heliocentric model.







However, this is not the case.  At night, when you are facing away from the Sun (that should be shining on the other side of the ball earth), we can still see the inner planets.  Amateur and "expert" astronomers alike see the inner planets in the night sky and post images of their sightings.

This would be impossible if those inner planets were really between us and the Sun.  (See previous posts I made about angles of observation on a ball earth.)




*MicroWave Transmission networks  *

Private networks and commercial networks (including some hedge funds) make use of point-to-point transmission of microwaves.  These devices are aimed at each other as shown in the diagram below and do not bounce things off the ionosphere (i.e. firmament).

Here is a device that transmits to a second device 25km away in a horizontal line.

That would be impossible on a ball earth :   after 25 km, you would realize over 77 feet of drop in elevation below the horizon.

(The same principle is demonstrated by *LightHouses *which can often be seen at  ridiculous distances over water.  No curvature)


----------



## MrrSmithh (Jan 26, 2022)

Referent said:


> The laser experiments are very interesting and pretty convincing.  One thing I wonder if any people have done as part of their laser experiments, would be to calculate an estimate of the beam "dispersion/spread" at the measured distance, then measure the amount of laser light at different locations within the "beam", to show that yes the beam is spreading, but that no the beam's spread (diameter at that distance) is not the reason for "seeing/recording" the laser source from the opposite end of the lake still.
> 
> I ask about this because, putting aside the sheer magnitude of Earth "height/curvature" to be overcome, the experiments might be misinterpreted by some as assuming that laser beams begin and end as focused dots.  However, all amateur lasers I've ever read about or purchased do indeed have a "spread"; something like 10 inches at 100 yards, to make up an example.
> 
> ...


Is your job to poo poo everything that doesn’t fit your narrative,  ( FE is a pysop ) to cast doubt. Or in general what would convince you? I’m not being sarcastic, I’m not smart enough, college drop out, totally embarrassed to admit this, but, math is a foreign language to me. I’m just fully awake and red pilled. Like everyone I’m here searching for the truth. ( my first time here)


----------



## chessquaker (Jan 26, 2022)

chessquaker said:


> *Geometry and Angles of Observation* -
> Flat Earth


Further to my post above, the ancients tried to tell us in many of their writings about the local sun, triangulation, corpuscular rays and geometrical evidence of the same.  Take a fresh look at this.  It is showing us local sun triangulation with corpuscular rays !!


----------



## grav (Jan 28, 2022)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...ante_Domenico_di_Michelino_Duomo_Florence.jpg


Wiki
The Divine Comedy, Dante Alighieri





Dante shown holding a copy of the _Divine Comedy_, next to the entrance to Hell, the seven terraces of Mount Purgatory and the city of Florence, with the spheres of Heaven above, in Domenico di Michelino's 1465 fresco


----------



## Blackdiamond (Jan 28, 2022)

Is there a group who believes in ~ expantion  contracting in a wave pattern earth?


----------



## otl2021 (Jan 29, 2022)

Was another entire page that included this video deleted:

_View: https://youtu.be/W5MUivg4XZw_


?


----------



## Daniel (Jan 29, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> Was another entire page that included this video deleted:
> 
> _View: https://youtu.be/W5MUivg4XZw_
> 
> ...



Sorry.
A new user was insulting other posters. I was the one who reported him, and it looks like other stuff got deleted as well...


----------



## grav (Jan 29, 2022)

What happened? a whole page disappeared?
.............


_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MRFMJMfYYRQ_

Vibes of Cosmos presents ideas which are always odd and thought-provoking, but not easy to grasp. 
Basically, in my puny comprehension, Vibes contends that we exist in an aether with a plasma lighting system.
He says the moon's a reflection (or a mirror of the earth), including lands beyond Antarica.
Also, the sun is a pilot light that causes noble gases in the atmosphere to illuminate and give us daylight


grav said:


> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...ante_Domenico_di_Michelino_Duomo_Florence.jpg
> 
> 
> Wiki
> ...



I am quoting my own post to review this intriguing painting on a new page.
We have all probably seen the Dante illustration years ago, way before we ever heard of hidden history, the so-calledTartarian empire, and of course flat earth.

The 7 heavens are obvious now. The griffon flag emblem now stands out, which before had meant nothing to me. The domed roof appears to be collecting aetheric energy.
The tall arch/wall structure on the left, however, seems to have no function. 

I expect other threads have looked at this painter, or other "medieval" art clues to our occulted past.


----------



## Blackdiamond (Jan 29, 2022)

grav said:


> What happened? a whole page disappeared?
> .............
> 
> 
> ...




The crescent moon in center over the tower surely have some meaning too?


----------



## chessquaker (Jan 29, 2022)

Thanks for your video of the *Moonlight secrets*.

Here's my current understanding of this fascinating Plasma phenomenon we call the Moon.

*The Black Sun *(Nazi Vril Society/Freemasons refer to this)  represents the source of heat deep beneath the ground under us.

The controllers tell us it is a superheated iron core but I believe it is much more.  This roving hot technology is a source of intense heat and thus infra-red and other forms of radiation.  It releases vast amount of X-rays (and possibly exotic energy forms) that come up through the ground under our feet as well as the ground under the seas.  The X-rays are reflected back down by the crystalline firmament above us and focused onto a layer of gas in the atmosphere where the corresponding gases (mostly Argon, I believe) are excited by the focused x-rays into a Plasma.   (Plasma glows according to the corresponding gas it is made of.)    That's why we have the color of the moon that we see.

The continents of the earth appear on the plasma moon because of the relative difference in the intensity of the X-rays coming up through the seas compared to the X-rays coming up from the ground we live on.  This contrast, captured in plasma, gives us our map of the continents in the known world, (The Bharata-Varsha, as the Mahabharata calls it) as well as the closest continents in our vicinity that the controllers hide from us.

There is additional land beyond what our moon map shows because the plasma effect is local to where we are ---  we are in a very small part of the larger plane of the full earth, the massive flat plane millions of miles across that the Mahabharata calls  the "Bhu Mandallah".

I  believe there is a lot to learn from ancient writings that survived the resets of the past, as these may contain truths that are not included in our current world view.


----------



## chessquaker (Jan 31, 2022)

Here's a video mapping the territories on the moon map to our known countries and continents.

_View: https://rumble.com/vr8git-moon-map-world.html_


----------



## grav (Jan 31, 2022)

I've seen a video with footage from the 60s in which a scientist states unequivocally that the moon is a plasma phenomenon. I expect tptb rushed him off the stage, one way or another.

The moon mirror, I admit,  is a difficult idea to conceptualize.
The Dark Sun is a new piece of the puzzle.

Very few FT researchers are exploring topics like this.
I am not accusing them of subterfuge. To me, it's laziness. and ego.
Most of them, including the Globebusters,  e.g., make videos that have a 2-minute intro, loud music or frivolous and extraneous material, and a scattergun approach to what should be a serious attention to a single thesis. So they keep re-inventing the wheel. 
I don't want to be entertained. I want to be educated.


----------



## Just (Jan 31, 2022)

grav said:


> I've seen a video with footage from the 60s in which a scientist states unequivocally that the moon is a plasma phenomenon. I expect tptb rushed him off the stage, one way or another.
> 
> The moon mirror, I admit,  is a difficult idea to conceptualize.
> The Dark Sun is a new piece of the puzzle.
> ...


A lot of the FE videos are disinformation and are put out there to subtly discredit the whole topic. This is the issue that TPTB are doing everything they can to discredit. They are basically terrified it will gain ground because it’s the one thing that will show their money-grabbing fake-space programme for what it is and will bring about the end of their deceit and corruption (or another reset whichever comes first!).


----------



## David Glenney (Jan 31, 2022)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhIwZuPGfss_


Yet while posturing about a total revolution in science, he maintained that atomic theory was legit, Earth was definitely globey (like the wandering stars) and experiences cataclysmic pole shifts.  I made the mistake of looking at some Reddit comments about this clip.  It was equally as disheartening to me as they indicate the flat-earther comments on youtube was to them.  Mostly they rely on the famed homeless tweaker shelter landing and other shenanigans to disprove any plasma / non-physical moon concepts.  One pointed out that you can see craters on the moon, thus it is a rock.  Not a bad point, but I wonder about their perpendicularity.

I remember in astronomy class, when the professor explained the synchronous orbit of the moon, that it supposedly rotates once every orbit?  Hence it "appears" not to be rotating and we always see the same face.  I suppose if it orbited but didn't rotate at all we'd see all of it over a month.  But it is rotating at the exact right rate so that it appears not to be spinning...  How convenient.  Used to spin a lot faster, _millions of years ago_.  I forget how they know that.

Anybody know what moon-mirror theorists say about the cratery spots?


----------



## grav (Jan 31, 2022)

David Glenney said:


> he maintained that atomic theory was legit, Earth was definitely globey (like the wandering stars



Thanks for retrieving that curious video.

You may be the only person I've ever known who took an astronomy class.
Do you think the professor really believed the crock of stuff he was teaching?
Because you never know if academicians truly understand their field of "expertise" -- or if their brains don't let them realize that they are spreading lies.

Not unlike news "reporters" who have thrown objectivity out the window and are now  shamless hussies who hustle for their political bosses.

As for flat earth proponents who seem to be stuck in the past.......hard to say if some are disinfo agents or self-deluded useful idiots. I almost never watch the YT videos that show up in my subscriptions. 

The FE community has never gotten its act together. Not that I have a clue about how to organize and develop a united front to effectively inform the public.
The Illuminati, on the other hand, have done a great job herding the sheeple.
I call our species Homo ignoranus (a tweak on Velikovsky's Homo ignoramus).
It is all so easy to brainwash the masses into doing their bidding. 
How can we expect to undo the globe indoctrination when people continue to inject themselves with an experimental, untested drug?

I am not exactly a doom junkie, but this current  mess-- Covid and Ukraine and shortages, etc.-- does not seem to be a reset that H ignoranus will be able to avoid.


----------



## space966 (Feb 3, 2022)

Though found one mention of Earth form in older literature. Russian writer Leo Tolstoy (1828 - 1910) in some book or magazine article read, that Earth is round, he said: nonsense, Earth is flat.
(Found it in memoirs of Russian writer Ivan Bunin (1870 - 1953))


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 10, 2022)

Knowncitizen said:


> There is no space or movment of our realm. The stars and (wandering stars) planets rotate around the north star.


I guess the Sigma Octantis star, which can only be seen from the southern hemisphere, does not exist in your imaginary Earth.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 10, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> I guess the Sigma Octantis star, which can only be seen from the southern hemisphere, does not exist in your imaginary Earth.


It barely exists in yours.


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 10, 2022)

kd-755 said:


> It barely exists in yours.
> 
> View attachment 19590​


However, this does not prove that the star does not exist.

Sigma Octantis is apparently motionless, just like the star Polaris, and southern hemisphere observers see southern hemisphere stars orbiting Sigma Octantis.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNiNJC3UHIo_


The reason why the stellar rotations in the two different hemispheres are opposite is because the celestial sphere as known as firmament spins on its axis west to east, causing the stars in the northern hemisphere to appear rotating counterclockwise, the stars in the equator to appear rotating straight, and the stars in the southern hemisphere to appear rotating clockwise.


----------



## ClaudiusPtolemaeus (Feb 11, 2022)

There are many ways to prove the Earth is a sphere. It can only be thought of us a distraction, at worst an intentional red herring, to draw people towards Flat Earth theory and away from other conspiracies that need researching.

Every other planet in our solar system, which anyone can view with a telescope and some knowledge of astronomy, is spherical.

The sunrise and sunset times around the world. Timing and spatial predictions of lunar and solar eclipses. Movement of constellations through the night sky over the course of a year. Milankovitch cycles. Flight paths.

NASA might be a joke, but it's also extremely underfunded, and would be a terrible conspiracy to make a few bucks to devise such an inept and pathetic organization to leach a few bucks from the US government.

Finding examples of people believing the Earth is flat is not evidence that the Earth is flat. It is evidence that people believe the Earth is flat.


----------



## Gabriel (Feb 11, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> However, this does not prove that the star does not exist.
> 
> Sigma Octantis is apparently motionless, just like the star Polaris, and southern hemisphere observers see southern hemisphere stars orbiting Sigma Octantis.
> 
> ...



Sorry if this was addressed already: If I lived on the equator, would I be able to photograph parts of both a north and south star trail? 

As an aside, I have believed the Earth is flat for about 2-3 years, and find it fascinating how some churches dance around the issue.  I remember when I found this book about flat Earth Cosmology written by “Cosmas Indicapleudes” in 550 AD, by a Greek monk living in Egypt, (but found and released around 1846) and showed it to Coptic Christians and they had a meltdown when they saw it.  One of the oldest books about the “stereoma” in their own coptic language, why the horror?  Who says that only those who spin at 1000 mph can ascend to heaven?  I will stop ranting shortly, but one of the hardest concepts for me was wondering where exactly we were ascending to if we were on a globe?

I would think that  most  people in this forum probably agree that there is a Fabian Socialist Agenda for a NWO.  Irrespective of the true model,  since I lack evidence of the definitive cosmology, I am reluctant to adopt a model that facilitates this NWO.  

One other perspective, if you have kids in the USA, as I do, you notice that they are targeted with the globe, aliens, rocket ships, dinos etc… Since popular culture and mass media target  kids spending tons of money  to keep kids engaged with media -  of all the things they could brainwash kids with the focus on things like naming pets Pluto and toys Buzz Lightyear etc. - and this has been constant beginning with Jules Verne who invented the idea to fly into space.  

At any rate, If it weren’t for people debating the FE, I would not be aware of how vitally important it is to the point that Baptist preschools of all places explain the solar system to a 3 year old. But what interests me most is how things got this way, where 60 year old women felt the need to explain how orbits work in a church to a 3 year old.  There are many more bizarre examples like this.  Anyway, my apologies if I repeated anything in this thread… it’s a long one.


ClaudiusPtolemaeus said:


> Every other planet in our solar system, which anyone can view with a telescope and some knowledge of astronomy, is spherical.


I would need a reference for this one, as to how a telescope proves sphericity.  Having “knowledge of astronomy” is not a proof in it of itself because astronomy (and other disciplines) operate on fundamental assumptions already discussed here.

While I have to review how flight paths prove sphericity when 90+% of flights concetrate on the northern hemisphere,  I certainly would like to dispute the popular statement that NASA is underfunded.  NASA is organized crime in the way that they make new consultants millionaires everytime they contract outside.   They spend tax dollars, thats it.  

Last,


ClaudiusPtolemaeus said:


> Finding examples of people believing the Earth is flat is not evidence that the Earth is flat. It is evidence that people believe the Earth is flat.


I hope I proved that believing in a globe isn’t an achievement, because it is agenda no. 1 in the targeted western upbringing of children.  And that is not proof of a spinning globe.  

If I were to argue, let’s just say, against heliocentrism, I would do so because I have found even “great” scientists manufacture  arguments in the vain attempts to prove their belief system.

Einstein: “But all experiments have shown that electro-magnetic and optical phenomena, relatively to the Earth as the body of reference, are not influenced by the translational velocity of the Earth.  The most important of those experiments are those if Michelson and Morley, which I shall assume are known.  The validity of the principle of special relativity can therefore hardly be doubted.”  Page 29 Special Relativity.  

Einstein and others assume the Earth as a Globe as scientific fact, allowing them to prove that the earth doesn’t spin.  Most people do not argue for geocentrism, so they must reconcile these fallacious arguments and ignorance of basic physics history in developing a cosmology of theirs.

Einstein: Life and Times page 110: “ For there seemed to be only three alternstives.  The first was the at the Earth was standing still, which meant scuttling the whole Copernican theory and was unthinkable”.

Stephen Hawking, the Grand Design, page 31-42 “So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican System? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true.  As in the case of our normal view versus the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming the earth or the sun to be at rest.” 

Einstein has admitted that Ether drift “appears decisive” p. 58, general relativity.

Since the globe theory relies on the big bang theory,  numerous foundational contradictions are revealed in the books of all of the great scientists of the fields of astrophysics.  For example,  Hawking in a brief history of time admits that the universe is far younger  “…It was quite a surprise, therefore, to find that most galaxies appear red shifted…” p.39

George Ellis (who had coauthored with Hawking), stated in scientific american, 273(4), 1995:55 “People need to be aware that there id a range of models that could explain the observations.  For instance, I can construct [for] you a spherically symmetric universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.  you can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models.  A lot of cosmologytries to hide that.”

I dont know if you ever read what George Ellis admitted there but he is basically stating that modern astrophysics is not as scientific as you think-  right in their peer reviewed journal.  

Having seen that paper,  and all of these admissions from the fathers of this cosmology,  how could one not be a skeptic?

and there are so many more physics authors who have to quietly admit the flaws and fallacies in logic-  in their books and in random statements that go unnoticed.

“Cosmic microwaves Show The Earth Is The Center of The Universe”. See Sungenis, R.   Geocentrism 101, pp. 189-195, re. schwarz et al.,  , “Is the low-l microwave background cosmic?” (2004), “Since the dipole axis lies so close to the equinoxes, this may be viewed as an alignment with the equinoxes”.

“…In other words, if a line were drawn connecting the center points of the universe, it would cross the Earth’s equator.” P. 193. Sungenis

Thanks for hanging through this long reply, but as you can see, I don’t have to craft my own arguments for you to try to disprove,  all I have to do is cite physicists who have created your cosmology, and you can see that even the physicists cannot agree on their own model that everyone takes for granted.  

The Earth appears as the center of the cosmological microwave background radiation, see Kothari et al.(2013, “Dipole Anisotropy in flux density and source count…”)  In other words, “the universe is physically divided in two hemisphere’s along the Earth’s equator” (cf. Sungenis p. 197) 

How is that possible?  So for me, I can follow the papers and say, there is much more going on than this globe model that they want everyone ti believe in.  

I leave you with the title by Ashok K. Singa in 2013 ,”Is there a violation of the Copernican Principle in Radio Sky?”

He says, “There is certainly a cause for worry.  Is there a breakdown of the Copernican Principle as things seen in two regions of sky divided purely by a coordinate system based on earth’s orientation in space, shows a very large anisotropy in source distribution?”


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 11, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> I guess the Sigma Octantis star, which can only be seen from the southern hemisphere, does not exist in your imaginary Earth.


There are no star trails around any 'southern' star. And seeing anything even resembling the trails we see around the stationary Polaris in the 'southern hemisphere' is not possible, let alone from Auckland, South Africa and Ushaia simultaneously.

An aspect of the heliocentric psyop that all too often is overlooked, is what it does to our understanding of perspective. As long as you can understand that ALL parallel lines converge at a single point, the idea that the stars move in some opposite and impossible direction is easily understood.

It's all observer perspective:


----------



## grav (Feb 11, 2022)

Lately, I find myself saying that Flat Earth is easy to prove.
Water seeks its own level in oceans, still air is really motionless and not rotating 1000 mph, Suez Canal is level along a datum line over 100 miles, distant targets which are visible despite the alleged bulge with a drop from sight of 8 inches times miles squared.

Any one of these basic facts of physics should persuade a critical thinker to throw heliocentrism into the shredder.
Perhaps the best proof of the deception is the lack of any unedited photographs of the spinning ball in a vacuum.

I wish I could embed this gif, but the image icon does not work for me. 

Far Side lunar transit,  2015


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 11, 2022)

LOL and welcome! I'm bored and have a few questions for ya.



ClaudiusPtolemaeus said:


> There are many ways to prove the Earth is a sphere. It can only be thought of us a distraction, at worst an intentional red herring, to draw people towards Flat Earth theory and away from other conspiracies that need researching.


Exposing the fact that our Earth is not a globe blows the whole thing wide open, no?



ClaudiusPtolemaeus said:


> Every other planet in our solar system, which anyone can view with a telescope and some knowledge of astronomy, is spherical.


Can you take this quick quiz and be honest?

_View: https://youtu.be/n-mZmYICNIM_




ClaudiusPtolemaeus said:


> The sunrise and sunset times around the world. Timing and spatial predictions of lunar and solar eclipses. Movement of constellations through the night sky over the course of a year. Milankovitch cycles. Flight paths.


The sunrise and sunset times around the world are predicted perfectly on Gleason's 1892 map of our known plane that was even patented as a time calculator. Additionally, the time zones make perfect sense unlike the time zones we see on their globe, ok?

Timing and spatial predictions of lunar and solar eclipses were known for long before freemasons gave us Copernicus, Galileo and Newton. Beyond that, eclipses make no sense the way heliocentrism explains them. 
--"Totals" with both the sun and moon visible above the horizon
--"Totals" that turn the moon orange
--Heliocentricism maintains that light rays from the sun must be moving towards us as parallel lines. Simultaneously, they explain the umbra, penumbra and the smaller shadow cast by the larger object like this:

Do those rays look they are parallelol?

Movement of constellations through the night sky over the course of a year. 
*Constellations in our night sky certainly do NOT help your case!*
--Ursa Majo (near Polaris) can be seen from 90 degrees North out to 30 degrees South latitude.
--Vulpecula can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude out to 55 degrees South.
--Taurus, Pisces and Leo can be seen from 90 degrees North out to 65 degrees South.
--Aquarius and Libra can be seen from 65 degrees North out to 90 degrees South.
--Virgo is visible from 80 degrees North out to 80 degrees South.
--Orion can be seen from 85 degrees North out to 75 degrees South.

Regardless of any tilt or inclination, this cannot happen on a ball, true?

And then we have:

^^^^^The above pic of the star trails around Polaris was taken from *7.9425° S*, 112.9530° E!

Milankovitch cycles = LOL


Flight paths work perfectly over the Gleason map as shown by pretty much every emergency landing that has been made available. None of them make sense on a ball, while they are all nearly perfect on Gleason's map.

And speaking of impossible plane flights over spinning rocks. Riddle me this... globetardism requires great circle routes having many flights fly somewhere near the north pole (while never flying near the south pole that does not exist). If you understand these great circle routes which are illustrated nicely on any flight radar sites, then you would understand what happens when these planes cross the supposed axis of rotation. And if you understand that, you understand tha planes cannot do that, fair?



ClaudiusPtolemaeus said:


> NASA might be a joke, but it's also extremely underfunded,...


I'm out, bro. Their daily is up to like 63 million per day. It seems to me that only a freemason would say such a thing. The money they have stolen could have fed the world.

Be well


----------



## ClaudiusPtolemaeus (Feb 11, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> LOL and welcome! I'm bored and have a few questions for ya.
> 
> 
> Exposing the fact that our Earth is not a globe blows the whole thing wide open, no?
> ...



Happy to engage with you as I am a noob to the topic, but can we agree to ditch the sassy tone and condescension?

Most of what you said does not make sense to me. Half formed ideas that are not enough for me to understand the points you are making. Probably you are assuming I am further along in my understanding of this topic than I actually am.

The time zones on the globe make sense to me. I cannot make sense of time zones on a flat Earth with the sun rotating above it.

NASA budget is, what, 0.5% of federal budget now?

And yes, everyone who think the Earth is a globe is a free mason. I barely even know what free masons are. Like I said, I'm new here.

Current mathematical models of the solar system can predict lunar and solar eclipses, both when and where they would occur. A model that has predictive power is usually a good model (unlike, say, global warming models).

Would like more information on:
1. Can't make sense of this:


> Riddle me this... globetardism requires great circle routes having many flights fly somewhere near the north pole (while never flying near the south pole that does not exist). If you understand these great circle routes which are illustrated nicely on any flight radar sites, then you would understand what happens when these planes cross the supposed axis of rotation. And if you understand that, you understand tha planes cannot do that, fair?


2. What does this photo prove? And can I verify the provenance of it?


> The above pic of the star trails around Polaris was taken from *7.9425° S*, 112.9530° E!


3. Can you provide me more reading on this:


> Do those rays look they are parallelol?



I have been working with the standard scientific model of the solar system for years without issue, so these apparent issues you take with it are new to me. I am not dismissing you — I am saying I'd like to understand them before writing them off or accepting them.

Fair?


----------



## trismegistus (Feb 11, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> Riddle me this... *globetardism* requires great circle routes having many flights fly somewhere near the north pole (while never flying near the south pole that does not exist).



Regardless of your stance on earth shape, this type of language is not only a poor way of communicating a point, but is also one of the reasons that people (like myself) get so turned off by this debate. While I understand that many FE researchers have a chip on their shoulder from how their research is handled by the general population, there is no room on this site for this kind of approach.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 11, 2022)

trismegistus said:


> Regardless of your stance on earth shape, this type of language is not only a poor way of communicating a point, but is also one of the reasons that people (like myself) get so turned off by this debate. While I understand that many FE researchers have a chip on their shoulder from how their research is handled by the general population, there is no room on this site for this kind of approach.


Right. My bad. Sorry... should have wrote globe model, but I have seen this guy before. If you want to ban me, have at it. I will say I love this place and am in no way trying to disrespect what you have here.



ClaudiusPtolemaeus said:


> Happy to engage with you as I am a noob to the topic, but can we agree to ditch the sassy tone and condescension?


Look, you come on here claiming to be some scientist with the top five freemason shell game arguments, while at the same time act as if you are clueless to this debate. So far, I don't believe you at all. Your response - or non-responses - to my actual questions tell the story.

I'll try again.

Does exposing the fact that our Earth is not a globe blows the whole thing wide open?

Were you able to distinguish from that video which was a sphere and which was not?

Did you look at time zones presented on a globe and also on Gleason's map/time calculator?

Your claim of constellations in our sky was clearly debunked, fair?

Polaris being visible, let alone several degrees above the horizon from 8 degrees south is impossible in your world, true?

Have you looked up the emergency landings? 

And since you came on here claiming to be some scientist, how can you not see the obvious problem with flying a plane over the axis of rotation above a spinning rock (with attached atmosphere)?

And then you come back with some percentage of our budget instead of understanding that we could feed the world for far less than nasa's daily. 

They are a fraud. they have done nothing.

Just RIDICULOUS... and a freemasonic talking point since, well, nasa!

So...


ClaudiusPtolemaeus said:


> Fair?


I'll give ya one more try... let's see if fair, fair?


----------



## Liberated Collective (Feb 11, 2022)

grav said:


> I am new to this forum and don't see an active thread on flat earth. Is there any interest in the topic?
> SH's format is quite impressive. And imposing, to the point that navigating it is tricky for a simple mind like mine. Generic forums have become gross mockeries of their original designs, and so I am looking for a new home where I may spout my heresies, primarily the most basic hidden truth upon which all other distorted truths are based. The Infinite Plane of the Electric Universe.
> 
> My overall guesstimate of reality is a computer program which is crashed and rebooted every 300 years or so.
> ...


What I know is we arent on a globe, I know the moon rotates 360 degrees over our head. Thing is, once one realizes the amount of deception going on to continue the ideology of a evolved man from chance, everything falls apart, same with the puppet show going on "in space". Now I am battling the lies of a paleontologist because of their denial of mud fossils being fossils when I have many obvious ones. smh. This realm is so decieved


----------



## ClaudiusPtolemaeus (Feb 11, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> Right. My bad. Sorry... should have wrote globe model, but I have seen this guy before. If you want to ban me, have at it. I will say I love this place and am in no way trying to disrespect what you have here.
> 
> 
> Look, you come on here claiming to be some scientist with the top five freemason shell game arguments, while at the same time act as if you are clueless to this debate. So far, I don't believe you at all. Your response - or non-responses - to my actual questions tell the story.
> ...


Dude. I was literally raised an atheist and went through university and grad school in the sciences.

Forgive me if I'm not keeping up.

You've given me some interesting things to think about and research further, but your bad faith attacks and hostility do not encourage me to engage with you.

Thank you and be well.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 11, 2022)

ClaudiusPtolemaeus said:


> Dude. I was literally raised an atheist and went through university and grad school in the sciences.
> 
> Forgive me if I'm not keeping up.
> 
> ...


Dude, who mentioned atheism? And:


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 12, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> Dude, who mentioned atheism? And:
> View attachment 19622


You're not doing science, you just want to add meaning to your delusions.








These two flights make _absolutely_ no sense on the Flat Earth map.

Because there is a distance of 11300 kilometers between Santiago and Sydney, and 5550 kilometers between New York and London. So it's twice the distance.

But since the southern hemisphere is distorted on the Flat Earth map, the distances and time between the southern hemisphere and the northern hemisphere sound ridiculous.





As can be seen here, the Santiago-Sydney flight on the Flat Earth map is supposed *to take around 40 hours*, whereas in reality it takes a 14-hour direct flight.

Also, the claim that "the surface of the water is *ALWAYS* flat" is nonsense.





Water has an *upward* meniscus, while mercury has a downward meniscus.


----------



## Daniel (Feb 12, 2022)

Why would planes fly the curved route instead of the direct route of a straight line?
Edit: Plus, it has been demonstrated that airlines(or rather the ones who control their flight routes) have lied about flight paths.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 12, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> You're not doing science, you just want to add meaning to your delusions.


Hmmmm (possible pot/kettle situation)

The first flight that makes no sense to you:





Apollonius said:


> As can be seen here, the Santiago-Sydney flight on the Flat Earth map is supposed *to take around 40 hours...*


Freemasons are all over the internet are posting these crazy lies. I recommend in addition to finally researching the emergency landings, both on a globe and on Gleason's, that you research jet streams on both as well. 

40 hours is silly and your map with that crazy curved route makes no sense, but for someone trying to muddy the waters, let's say.

Every direct flight taken by passengers with compasses shows the same thing... *and makes the beloved globe impossible.*

Beyond that, this flight many times does not fly. Mechanical problems or even jet stream problems are known as many times this flight, when it actually leaves, will arrive hours late.

Beyond that, the vast majority of these flights, but for this flight and a couple others, ALL CONNECT SOMEWHERE NORTH OF THE EQUATOR!

But the best part? I challenge you right now to go use any flight tracking software you chose, and show us just one of these mythical flights from takeoff to landing.

Just one!

Your meniscus point is another freemason tactic to distract and waste peoples time. We are not talking about turned up edges in minute containers.

We are talking about large bodies of water. Left undisturbed, water will always lie flat on its surface.

This has been shown time and time again:

Again... think arc height over such distances... and think back to those funny mirrors at the fair that still make you giggle.

Research up... and be well.


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 12, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> Hmmmm (possible pot/kettle situation)
> 
> The first flight that makes no sense to you:
> View attachment 19642
> ...


Well, I'll ask you one last question: How does a *lunar eclipse* happen on Flat Earth?


----------



## Gabriel (Feb 12, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> Well, I'll ask you one last question: How does a *lunar eclipse* happen on Flat Earth?


If I might chime in, I have some points to raise, and I certainly wouldn't want to fall into the same situation that many do and cling to a new model, without any degree of certainty, falling into the same trap as before.

I don't think anyone has proven how a lunar eclipse happens.  Several points related to the moon:  1- A selenelion is unexplained: when the sun and moon are both visible and 180 degrees apart during this lunar eclipse, which cannot be dismissed away by the explanation that it is a simple matter of light refraction. 2- The fortunate circumstance that the moon is the same apparent size as the sun.  But is it?  From my understanding the distance to the sun began as an estimate to fit the model, which is not the best way to conduct science.  The same goes for the moon.  3 - The synchronized orbit and spin of the moon:  Does it really spin once approximately every 27 days and orbit the Earth at the same time, such that nobody has seen the other side?  4 - Also there is no elliptical orbit, except it was proposed that the moon began to orbit when it was brought into proximity. ie., it fell into a circular orbit, despite not having the same mass.  If it does not have the same mass, so then why wouldn't the orbit be elliptical like the Earth's?  How long does it take to develop this pattern in orbit? I think all of these things are conjectural.

I will digress from your question for a bit: if the moon were observed through an unknown diffraction medium, such as solid oxygen (present at very cold temperatures) which is apparently blue and with magnetic properties (in the lab), how is it easier 100 years ago to speculate that there was an invisible layer of ions that reflect radiowaves and not a solid crystal?  Only because of fear of ostracism I think.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 12, 2022)

Sandokhan's Link and Post Collection



> How does a lunar eclipse happen in the context of heliocentrism? Because no one can explain it.
> 
> _I don't think anyone has proven how a lunar eclipse happens._
> 
> ...



Edit Sorry forgot the quote tags.


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 12, 2022)

kd-755 said:


> Sandokhan's Link and Post Collection
> 
> How does a lunar eclipse happen in the context of heliocentrism? Because no one can explain it.
> 
> ...


There is no such thing as Rahu/Ketu.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 12, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> There is no such thing as Rahu/Ketu.


Not my words head over to sandokans thread and tell him that. Don't be lazy!


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 12, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> Well, I'll ask you one last question: How does a *lunar eclipse* happen on Flat Earth?


Sure, but I have answered many and I really need to know how you can believe that airplanes, that are claimed to fly in our attached atmosphere, can fly over a "pole."

Can you help me here?


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 12, 2022)

kd-755 said:


> Not my words head over to sandokans thread and tell him that. Don't be lazy!


Is someone saying this by copy/pasting someone else's post?


otl2021 said:


> Sure, but I have answered many and I really need to know how you can believe that airplanes, that are claimed to fly in our attached atmosphere, can fly over a "pole."
> 
> Can you help me here?


Even though you didn't answer my question, I'm answering your question.

There is a polar vortex and a magnetic mountain at the poles, so planes can't fly over the poles.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 12, 2022)

Do keep up there.Sandokhan is sandboxed in his own thread so unless you go there you will never read his replies to stuff you post here. He is responding to you over there so buckle up and enjoy the ride, he takes no prisoners but he is really nice about it!



sandokhan said:


> _There is no such thing as Rahu/Ketu._
> 
> Then, by all means, explain the Allais effect.
> 
> ...


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 12, 2022)

kd-755 said:


> Do keep up there.Sandokhan is sandboxed in his own thread so unless you go there you will never read his replies to stuff you post here. He is responding to you over there so buckle up and enjoy the ride, he takes no prisoners but he is really nice about it!


Thank you, I still choose to stay here.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 12, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> Thank you, I still choose to stay here.


Please yourself.


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Feb 13, 2022)

The biggest issue with "Flat Earth"  is actual demonstration that the physical realm called "Earth" is indeed flat as proposed in any AE projection.   It is widely known that there is no AE projection that matches the physical navigation of Earth; because each and every single version of "Flat" Earth requires 2 different sized tropics.   One, larger in scale than the other. (By a massive amount as well)  Just as you would expect a smaller inner diameter on a record, than you would from looking at the outside of the record.

That being said; Earth is physically navigated each and every day by all sorts of sea faring vessels.  Fishermen, Merchant Ships, Shipping Container ships, Military vessels,  You get the idea.   Sailors have been navigating Earths' seas for hundreds of years; and their oldest tool of choice is Celestial Navigation. 

So, I ask you; If sailors can use Celestial Navigation today to demonstrate that the Tropics are of equal sizes... and we know in reality that the tropics are equal sizes...

Why hasn't any "Flat Earther" in the last 6 years collaborated to conduct an expedition/cruise around the tropics?  This would be quite the improvement over making false presumptions over what  you "think" you see in the sky.   Would surely be a better contribution to mankind rather than mucking it up with the likes of Logan Paul at the "Flat Earth Conferences"

There is no such thing as "Advanced Flat Earth Theory"  While the tropics are navigated every day, and they are the same size.

Not only that; but just as the inside of a record moves faster than the outside of the record,  The Luminaries above us would have to drastically increase and decrease in speed as they covered their transit over "Flat" Earth.

My greatest congratulations for those who have discovered the lie of Heliocentrism!   This is a challenging thing to tackle!  However, my greatest condolences to the cursory mind who gave up on reality in favor of theology.


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 13, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> The biggest issue with "Flat Earth"  is actual demonstration that the physical realm called "Earth" is indeed flat as proposed in any AE projection.   It is widely known that there is no AE projection that matches the physical navigation of Earth; because each and every single version of "Flat" Earth requires 2 different sized tropics.   One, larger in scale than the other. (By a massive amount as well)  Just as you would expect a smaller inner diameter on a record, than you would from looking at the outside of the record.
> 
> That being said; Earth is physically navigated each and every day by all sorts of sea faring vessels.  Fishermen, Merchant Ships, Shipping Container ships, Military vessels,  You get the idea.   Sailors have been navigating Earths' seas for hundreds of years; and their oldest tool of choice is Celestial Navigation.
> 
> ...


They keep changing the map, but they don't understand that the maps they use are actually projections of the Globe Earth.

Due to the distortions in the projections, a lot of errors occur. Constellations, flight paths and times, tropic distances etc.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 13, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> The biggest issue with "Flat Earth"  is actual demonstration that the physical realm called "Earth" is indeed flat as proposed in any AE projection.   It is widely known that there is no AE projection that matches the physical navigation of Earth; because each and every single version of "Flat" Earth requires 2 different sized tropics.   One, larger in scale than the other. (By a massive amount as well)  Just as you would expect a smaller inner diameter on a record, than you would from looking at the outside of the record.
> 
> That being said; Earth is physically navigated each and every day by all sorts of sea faring vessels.  Fishermen, Merchant Ships, Shipping Container ships, Military vessels,  You get the idea.   Sailors have been navigating Earths' seas for hundreds of years; and their oldest tool of choice is Celestial Navigation.
> 
> ...


Can you provide a single proof that 60 degrees north and 60 degrees south are anywhere near the same distance?

How about 45 north and south?

30 perhaps?

Thanks



Apollonius said:


> Due to the distortions in the projections, a lot of errors occur. Constellations, flight paths and times, tropic distances etc.


I literally, just yesterday, showed you how wrong you were.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 13, 2022)

Appollonius a question if I may make so bold.
You know the earth to have a shape which you know is a three dimensional ball. This seems to be a fair assessment based on your postings here in this thread.
So why do you come into this thread, is it to have a laugh, show off, ridicule or something else?

Genuinely interested.


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Feb 13, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> Can you provide a single proof that 60 degrees north and 60 degrees south are anywhere near the same distance?
> 
> How about 45 north and south?
> 
> ...


I'm still waiting on the "Flat Earthers" to demonstrate that the physical, mechanical navigation techniques used for the last... 500+ years are incorrect, however the tropics are still navigated as if they are 2 bodies of equal distance.

Can you demonstrate the tropics are infact different sizes?   (I think we both already know that answer.)  Because if you can, then we can easily go through hundreds of years of captains logs, and point out "hey, they had to have double the supplies in order to travel this distance; and therfore we can demonstrate that they were lying!"

Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that IN REALITY,  the tropics are equal in size.   Unless you can prove that they aren't, which no flat earther has done in the last 6 years, despite their good intentions. 

Questioning the rug I stand on, after I've pulled the rug out from under you, doesn't make your rug appear back under neath your feet any faster.  However, questioning the quality of the rug you were standing on, is how you got started in "Flat" Earth to begin with.  Have you bothered to question the size of the tropics?   How they are navigated as equally sized bodies?   

If so, why is it flat earthers can't demonstrate that in reality they are 2 different sizes?    Is it because.... In reality, they aren't?   


I also noticed you didn't even bother to discuss my point about the luminaries above us and their REQUIRED increase in acceleration/deceleration over the transit of "Flat Earth."  Is this because, in reality we know it doesn't work that way?  The Eye is only good for Appearance.


kd-755 said:


> Appollonius a question if I may make so bold.
> You know the earth to have a shape which you know is a three dimensional ball. This seems to be a fair assessment based on your postings here in this thread.
> So why do you come into this thread, is it to have a laugh, show off, ridicule or something else?
> 
> Genuinely interested.


I'm sure he'll answer this, but I'll go ahead and reply anyway.

Because we know you guys have discovered "the lie."  But what you haven't discovered yet, is "The truth."  And while you are doing the best you can to pursue "The truth"  you are failing yourselves in your pursuits because you have forsaken reality for what your eye and appearance tells you. 

Reality, is a physically navigable thing.    Do you not find it odd that there is no phsycial navigational proof for "flat earth" other than airplane routes?   Do you not find it odd that literally, the only form of navigation to work with the AE projection is Flight?   Occam's razor always applies.   There is a reason the apparent horizon is always rising to eye level.  Flat things don't rise physically or mechanically.


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 13, 2022)

kd-755 said:


> Appollonius a question if I may make so bold.
> You know the earth to have a shape which you know is a three dimensional ball. This seems to be a fair assessment based on your postings here in this thread.
> So why do you come into this thread, is it to have a laugh, show off, ridicule or something else?
> 
> Genuinely interested.


I'm here to show you believe in something nonsense, and don't worry I'll always be here.



otl2021 said:


> I literally, just yesterday, showed you how wrong you were.


You didn't show me anything, and you didn't even debunk a single one of my arguments.

If you want to deceive yourself, go ahead, but if you want to know the truth, open your mind and listen to other ideas.


----------



## Blackdiamond (Feb 13, 2022)

60 degree N and 60 degree S could be equal distance on a flat earth?


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 13, 2022)

Appolonius thank you for your answer. It is appreciated. You do know this forum is primarily a forum about historical things so do you have anything historical to add to this thread in regards the earth shape theories?

Edit to add.
Sorry I missed your assumption in your reply. Just for clarity do not believe in any earth shape theory nor do I know if it has or needs one.


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 13, 2022)

Blackdiamond said:


> 60 degree N and 60 degree S could be equal distance on a flat earth?


If we just take the Mercator projection as a Flat Earth map, the answer to your question is yes.


----------



## Blackdiamond (Feb 13, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> If we just take the Mercator projection as a Flat Earth map, the answer to your question is yes.
> 
> View attachment 19672



Im sure fairly it isnt a square. Not exactly what i meant. The proportion could be wrong on your idea of a flat earth, making the south longer distance. Anyway, im not a flat earther, speedy guy on YT steered me away from it all. Im content with the idea it is expanding and the opposit, like a pulse / wave, dont know about shape. 
It would be historical if it turned out to be flat though.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 13, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> I'm still waiting on the "Flat Earthers" to demonstrate that the physical, mechanical navigation techniques used for the last... 500+ years are incorrect, however the tropics are still navigated as if they are 2 bodies of equal distance.
> 
> Can you demonstrate the tropics are infact different sizes? (I think we both already know that answer.) Because if you can, then we can easily go through hundreds of years of captains logs, and point out "hey, they had to have double the supplies in order to travel this distance; and therfore we can demonstrate that they were lying!"


OK, concession noted.

That said, I have looked at these questions and the historical narrative from recorded journals from explorers like Cook, Clark and others reveal several problems with your idea that there are two approximately equal hemispheres. These journals show them constantly off their reckoning by miles, and the further "south" they would travel, the worse it would get. They were literally crashing into the southern tip of Africa when sailing at night. And these men are certainly some of the best to ever do it.

I mean when Cook tried to sail around Antarctica, he spent something like 3 years and 70,000 in his vain attempt. And in all that time he found no way to pass through that wall of ice?



GandalfTheGreen said:


> Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that IN REALITY, the tropics are equal in size. Unless you can prove that they aren't, which no flat earther has done in the last 6 years, despite their good intentions.


The sun moves faster on her journey towards our winter solstice which is why we observe 15 degrees of her arc per hour.



GandalfTheGreen said:


> Questioning the rug I stand on, after I've pulled the rug out from under you, doesn't make your rug appear back under neath your feet any faster. However, questioning the quality of the rug you were standing on, is how you got started in "Flat" Earth to begin with. Have you bothered to question the size of the tropics? How they are navigated as equally sized bodies?


See above.



GandalfTheGreen said:


> If so, why is it flat earthers can't demonstrate that in reality they are 2 different sizes? Is it because.... In reality, they aren't?


See above.



GandalfTheGreen said:


> I also noticed you didn't even bother to discuss my point about the luminaries above us and their REQUIRED increase in acceleration/deceleration over the transit of "Flat Earth." Is this because, in reality we know it doesn't work that way? The Eye is only good for Appearance.


Look at any star trail and slow it down. The stars move faster the further away they are from Polaris. It's like a fan blade. And it's perfect. And our sidereal days are based on each one them returning to the position they maintained approximately 23 hours and 56 minutes previously. The fact that people attribute this AND ALSO our 24 hour solar days to the exact same thing, Earth's imagined axial rotation, is all you need to know.



GandalfTheGreen said:


> Reality, is a physically navigable thing. Do you not find it odd that there is no phsycial navigational proof for "flat earth" other than airplane routes?


What are you saying? Have you looked at all the documented emergency landings and have you seen what happens when we lay them over the Gleason's map? But except for airplane routes? Are you kidding?

I have a little more time, so I'd like to touch on your silly meme.
--Continents out of proportion... please show us their true proportions.
--The supposed nonstop flights were just handled a page ago.
--17 hour southern solstice has to do with how light works and the difference between a light source like the sun and visible light.
--The position of the sun works perfectly on Gleason's map which is why it was patented as a time calculator.
--90-270 path?
--I just showed Polaris (still several degrees above the horizon) from almost 8 degrees south.
--I showed that there is no opposite spinning stars beyond the equator. I showed that it is perspective based on the observers direction.

Now, when you're done ignoring all that, and If both of those models are incorrect, *what model, if I may ask, do you subscribe to?*


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Feb 13, 2022)

OK, concession noted.

The apparent failure of "Flat" Earthers to demonstrate that their belief does not reflect reality is not a concession on my part, it's a flaw of their intentions.   Impossible/Improbably questions will be answered by solutions of the same quality.  The "Flat" earth's community cannot establish that it's belief, it's paradigm, it's mechanical; physical surface is what they claim it to be; no matter what form, simply because the form is flawed.   I've already agreed that there's a reason why the maps "Flat" Earthers choose work for flight only.  Hence, my statement "OTHER THAN FLIGHT" in my last reply.  Do airplanes physically fly on the surface of the earth?  If So, I'd like to see your pilots license and credentials, because I'm quite sure they fly over it, not on it. 

"Cooks Voyage" 

You mean the voyage of Captain James Cook?   Who was sponsored by Edward Cornwallis?  The Worshipful Master of the Freemasonic lodge at Halifax?   (Which Cornwallis funded)

Are you aware that there have been people in modern times who have circumnavigated Antarctica, and were able to do it with much smaller vessels, and much less equipment, and much less funding than Cook's Masonic sponsored voyage?   

"I mean when Cook tried to sail around Antarctica, he spent something like 3 years and 70,000 in his vain attempt. And in all that time he found no way to pass through that wall of ice?"   

Well, when you use people who provide you half truth, with half lie as a source of complete truth, (Secret Societies) things tend to get complicated.  Simplicity is the name of the game.  In 2018 a ship christened by the name Katharis II 72 days to circumnavigate Antarctica below the 60th parallel.  An amazing feet indeed!  This crew was able to do it in 15x's the time!   You would think, that if the maps below the 60'th parallel were created to scale to navigate the sea, that the crews using them would be able to circumnavigate Antarctica in an appropriate fashion.   It appears that they do, in fact, work as they should!

Perhaps Captain Cook was using a AE projection, something that doesn't represent the mechanical, physical, on the surface of the earth navigation.  Further more, why is it that he's the only person that took 3 years to circumnavigate Antarctica?

Clearly, the best people to ever circumnavigate Antarctica,  are the people who were able to do it in 2018, in only 72 days.   Not some voyage funded by the pillars of freemasonry.

Sailing Antarctica: Record-breaking voyage around the southern continent


"Now, when you're done ignoring all that, and If both of those models are incorrect, *what model, if I may ask, do you subscribe to?"

The One that Works. *


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 13, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> OK, concession noted.
> 
> The apparent failure of "Flat" Earthers to demonstrate that their belief does not reflect reality is not a concession on my part, it's a flaw of their intentions.   Impossible/Improbably questions will be answered by solutions of the same quality.  The "Flat" earth's community cannot establish that it's belief, it's paradigm, it's mechanical; physical surface is what they claim it to be; no matter what form, simply because the form is flawed.   I've already agreed that there's a reason why the maps "Flat" Earthers choose work for flight only.  Hence, my statement "OTHER THAN FLIGHT" in my last reply.  Do airplanes physically fly on the surface of the earth?  If So, I'd like to see your pilots license and credentials, because I'm quite sure they fly over it, not on it.
> 
> ...


No, your concession was your inability to provide just one proof that the parallels above and below the equator of equal values are even close to the same distances.

Cook was certainly not the only explorer to note these things. And the masonic money behind him, whether real or imagined, does not necessarily change his journal entries.

No one has ever circumnavigated Antarctica, as no continent exists on the bottom of a ball. Freemason lies... all of them.

*Which model works for you?*


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 13, 2022)

On the Flat Earth, the Sun does not rise for days even though it is _*3 times closer*_ to the city of Murmansk, while cities in New Zealand and Chile, which are somehow tens of thousands of kilometers away, experience about *16 hours of daylight*.

Thus, we are putting the final nail in Flat Earth's coffin


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Feb 13, 2022)

--Continents out of proportion... please show us their true proportions.  (Can't be done with your own map buddy, and I've made 0 claim that the heliocentric globe is accurate.  Only that that physical navigation on the surface of earth, is different than navigation by air for a reason.
--The supposed nonstop flights were just handled a page ago. 
--17 hour southern solstice has to do with how light works and the difference between a light source like the sun and visible light.
--The position of the sun works perfectly on Gleason's map which is why it was patented as a time calculator.
--90-270 path?
--I just showed Polaris (still several degrees above the horizon) from almost 8 degrees south.
--I showed that there is no opposite spinning stars beyond the equator. I showed that it is perspective based on the observers direction.


otl2021 said:


> No, your concession was your inability to provide just one proof that the parallels above and below the equator of equal values are even close to the same distances.
> 
> Cook was certainly not the only explorer to note these things. And the masonic money behind him, whether real or imagined, does not necessarily change his journal entries.
> 
> ...




Just one?  Sure.   Open up your preferred navigation software, go to a place where you have two land masses on either side of the equator, that will be symmetrically opposite of each other along their respective latitudes.  For the Example I will provide for you here, seeing as you said I only need ONE, I'll use the 120th Meridian East, And 30 degrees north of the equator, along with 30 degrees south of the equator.  This will land you one point in China, with another point in Australia.    Each point is an approximate 2100 miles from the equator.  For the sake of simplicity for the cognitive ability of "Flat" earthers, I advice you use the points where the lat/long lines directly intersect each other because we'll be touching on the lines of convergence and divergence as we continue to grow this thread.  The points that I used in this example should land you Near the Fuyang district in China, and near Mount Manning nature reserve in Australia.  

The model that works, is the one that was introduced by Plato.   It resurfaced again in the 1800's in another similar form, and again in the 1940's under the regime of Adolf Hitler.  Endospheric Earth, Cellular Earth,  "Con"cave Earth,  Earth Id Est,  I.E. :  Inverse Earth.    The reason why both heliocentrism, and flat earth, are an illusion.  Occam's razor, which has always applied, points this out.  And the more a person decides to dedicate time to the topic, the more they learn how foolish they were believing in "Flat"  Earth.

It's not a coincidence that the worlds oldest form of navigation, science, and religion all have to do with the Celestial Sphere.

You want to stand by the archaic voyage of a man that took 3 years to circumnavigate a continent that was done in 2018 in 72 days.  

"nobody"  Set the world record, and they did it without nearly the funds/resources as the Cook voyage, which was infact funded by the freemasons.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 13, 2022)

Could you supply a link to the 2018 voyage please?


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Feb 13, 2022)

Polish yacht Katharsis II eyeing Hobart as Antarctic triumph nears end

Here's a link. 

the map of the journey shows most of the journey outside of the arctic circle touching 70 degrees south four times before heading back out .

Not so impressive.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 13, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Polish yacht Katharsis II eyeing Hobart as Antarctic triumph nears end
> 
> Here's a link.
> 
> ...


Thank you. I found his website from your link. Strona główna Eng


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Feb 13, 2022)

Thanks for that . Looking at the route map and the other data on that website it doesn't look like a Loop of Antarctica beneath 60 degrees at all. Why not circumnavigate the farkin continent?


GandalfTheGreen said:


> It's not a coincidence that the worlds oldest form of navigation, science, and religion all have to do with the Celestial Sphere.
> 
> You want to stand by the archaic voyage of a man that took 3 years to circumnavigate a continent that was done in 2018 in 72 days.


That is not a circumnavigation of the continent , it's only close for about 30% of the time.

Also the celestial sphere is up in the sky - nothing to do with what's down here .


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 13, 2022)

Frankly the Polish chaps claim is as dodgy as Cooks journals to my eye. Cannot yet find anything about the lead up to this journey not even sponsors or companies taking credit for supply but they did manage to film themselves on the voyages.
The site is hosted and copyrighted, lapsed though it is, by a Polish media company.

Seems some other folks beat them to it by a good few years.



> Since 1959 this family has cruised over 170,000 miles. Notable voyages include the first Antarctic circumnavigation, the first windward (east to west) circumnavigation south of all continents, and a circumnavigation via the canals


1972 Blue Water Medal to DR. ROBERT L., NANCY, & REID GRIFFITH aboard Awahnee | Cruising Club of America


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Feb 13, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Polish yacht Katharsis II eyeing Hobart as Antarctic triumph nears end
> 
> Here's a link.
> 
> ...


Not so impressive except that it totally destroys the argument that it takes 3 years to circumnavigate Antarctica; when it was done quidem in 72 days.  With a smaller vessel, and a smaller crew, less supplies, and less funding.   The most important part about the entire thing is that it totally and utterly destroys your paradigm that demands that one tropic be larger than the other.    This is why there is no working FE paradigm.  It's against Intelligent Design in and of itself.


kd-755 said:


> Frankly the Polish chaps claim is as dodgy as Cooks journals to my eye. Cannot yet find anything about the lead up to this journey not even sponsors or companies taking credit for supply but they did manage to film themselves on the voyages.
> The site is hosted and copyrighted, lapsed though it is, by a Polish media company.
> 
> Seems some other folks beat them to it by a good few years.
> ...


Using anecdotal logical fallacy to dismiss evidence does not mean that your opinion is more valid than anyone else trying to form their own their opinion.  By "polish media company" you mean; documented in the "Guinness World Book of Records?"


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Feb 13, 2022)

The whole thing about the Southern " hemisphere " is a myth . Anyone can check degrees of latitude in the North by simply measuring the degrees to the pole star. You can extrapolate on a line of longitude southwards using the zenith positions of rotating stars in relation to North star as far south as you need to find any degree of latitude . This has been known since ancient times and is the true scientific method  for mapping the earth .

Giovanni Cassini mapped this way across France in the 17thC . He found degrees of latitude lengthened Southward. The equator is not at 0 degrees from the Pole star . Nick de laCaille ,mapping by the stars in the 18thC south of the equator found that his results supported those of Cassini .

The earths 23.4, or 66.6 degree tilt depending on which point you measure from , giving the 66.6 degree to both arctic and antarctic circles is just masonic/satanic crap.  As pointed out by Eustace Mullins in that download I was reading -thanks Dreamtime.

This method of mapping will also remove the mythical refraction - refraction requires a physical boundary or surface of separation between two contacting substances to occur. 

Light may bend in the atmosphere but will not refract - we don't know much about light.


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Feb 13, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Thanks for that . Looking at the route map and the other data on that website it doesn't look like a Loop of Antarctica beneath 60 degrees at all. Why not circumnavigate the farkin continent?
> 
> That is not a circumnavigation of the continent , it's only close for about 30% of the time.
> 
> Also the celestial sphere is up in the sky - nothing to do with what's down here .


Thanks for admitting there is a Celestial Sphere, we'll be touching that here in a moment as well.   As far as "close"  that isn't what is clearly demonstrated.  What is clearly demonstrated is that the Katharis II performed physical, mechanical navigation over the surface of the earth by boat, entirely, and utterly destroys the 1772 voyage of James cook.  

Back to the Celestial Sphere.  This is the reason that the polar stars spin opposite of eachother.    You might be familiar with the term Atlas?  It has been popularized phonetically to be a book of maps used to travel.  A "Road Atlas."     

Some may be familiar that he carried something upon his back?  Something called a "Celestial Sphere."   Something the Ancients have been using for navigation, worship, and science for thousands of years.   Something being plainly hidden from you in plain sight to this day.


FarewellAngelina said:


> The whole thing about the Southern " hemisphere " is a myth . Anyone can check degrees of latitude in the North by simply measuring the degrees to the pole star. You can extrapolate on a line of longitude southwards using the zenith positions of rotating stars in relation to North star as far south as you need to find any degree of latitude . This has been known since ancient times and is the true scientific method  for mapping the earth .
> 
> Giovanni Cassini mapped this way across France in the 17thC . He found degrees of latitude lengthened Southward. The equator is not at 0 degrees from the Pole star . Nick de laCaille ,mapping by the stars in the 18thC south of the equator found that his results supported those of Cassini .
> 
> ...


"Flat" Earthers lack knowledge of Light, but Water as well.  Something I'm sure we'll touch on as we discuss the Celestial Sphere now that it has finally come into Focus.


"The earths 23.4, or 66.6 degree tilt depending on which point you measure from , giving the 66.6 degree to both arctic and antarctic circles is just masonic/satanic crap."

Yet.... You stand by a voyage from the 1700's funded by freemasons, over people who did it during a modern day and age and much less funding.

None the less... No flat earther has ever demonstrated that the tropic of Capricorn is in fact what it would have to be for their paradigm to work.  Nor have they ever attempted to do such a thing.


Perhaps you can extrapolate to me how Cassini's mapping of France, (A country roughly 4,000KM wide) is some how relevant, or more superior to either Cook's voyage, (Of 3 years, and a claimed 70,000 antarctic circumference) or the Katharis II's voyage?

And let me get this straight, you admit that a Celestial Sphere is required for the Navigation of earth by sea, yet you claim there is no such thing as the southern hemisphere?   

As  per the usual, the truth of the nature of the problem, is right in front of your face, and you refuse to see it.  The whole gig is hiding intelligent design.  "Flat" Earth is far from intelligent design.


----------



## El Forastero (Feb 14, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> I'm still waiting on the "Flat Earthers" to demonstrate that the physical, mechanical navigation techniques used for the last... 500+ years are incorrect, however the tropics are still navigated as if they are 2 bodies of equal distance.
> 
> Reality, is a physically navigable thing.    Do you not find it odd that there is no phsycial navigational proof for "flat earth" other than airplane routes?   Do you not find it odd that literally, the only form of navigation to work with the AE projection is Flight?   Occam's razor always applies.   There is a reason the apparent horizon is always rising to eye level.  Flat things don't rise physically or mechanically.



How can the Earth be navigated at all if not for a flat, stationary, plane beneath our feet?

Euclidean geometry proves the reality. You cannot use trigonometry with a curved adjacent.

There is no proof of a physical curve and the radius will NEVER be measured, because it is a figment of the imagination.


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Feb 14, 2022)

El Forastero said:


> How can the Earth be navigated at all if not for a flat, stationary, plane beneath our feet?
> 
> Euclidean geometry proves the reality. You cannot use trigonometry with a curved adjacent.
> 
> There is no proof of a physical curve and the radius will NEVER be measured, because it is a figment of the imagination.


Let's see a flat earther use a AE projection to navigate the seas in the southern  hemisphere;  I'll gladly help you do so if you're willing to fund the voyage, I could use the vacation.    The reality is that the tropics are the same size.  Please refer to the attached image.    Also, in terms of Curvature,  what kind of curvature are you trying to measure?  Judging from the arguments laid out before hand isochronus curvature? (Not serious but I am curious.) 

Please refer to above links of the Katharis II for an updated, less than 3 year circumnavigation of Antarctica.


----------



## El Forastero (Feb 14, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> Let's see a flat earther use a AE projection to navigate the seas in the southern  hemisphere;  I'll gladly help you do so if you're willing to fund the voyage, I could use the vacation.    The reality is that the tropics are the same size.  Please refer to the attached image.    Also, in terms of Curvature,  what kind of curvature are you trying to measure?  Judging from the arguments laid out before hand isochronus curvature? (Not serious but I am curious.)
> 
> Please refer to above links of the Katharis II for an updated, less than 3 year circumnavigation of Antarctica.



It doesn't matter what projection you use. I claim no model or projection.

Celestial navigation, using a sextant, would not be possible AT ALL if the Earth was a sphere.


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Feb 14, 2022)

El Forastero said:


> It doesn't matter what projection you use. I claim no model or projection.
> 
> Celestial navigation, using a sextant, would not be possible AT ALL if the Earth was a sphere.


Tell that to the hundreds of millions of sailors who have navigated earth with a sextant using a CELESTIAL SPHERE, and navigating the earth PHYSICALLY, on the SURFACE as if it was a globe.  

I've stated before there is an explanation for alot of the idiosyncrasies of the "Flat" Earth.  Just have to go through them with what is evident in reality.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 14, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> The model that works, is the one that was introduced by Plato. It resurfaced again in the 1800's in another similar form, and again in the 1940's under the regime of Adolf Hitler. Endospheric Earth, Cellular Earth, "Con"cave Earth, Earth Id Est, I.E. : Inverse Earth.


Does the surface of large bodies of still water ever become convex or concave in your world?

When observing parallel with the ground, does the horizon/vanishing point ever appear anywhere else but eye-level when viewed from any height in your world?

Thanks




kd-755 said:


> Frankly the Polish chaps claim is as dodgy as Cooks journals to my eye.


Cook is hardly the only explorer to document the problems with navigating the "southern hemisphere." 

It seems that by the mid 1800s, they ramped up and began really pushing the heliocentric nonsense on everyday families. I can imagine it being much like sexulization of our children over the past decades, which today in many cases, includes mutilating our children's genitals being a good thing. And just like today there was backlash. And the backlash to heliocentrism has been documented in many books from many authors of the time. 

It wasn't like one of two ships with drunk captains were crashing into Capetown. There are an amazing number of these cases documented. The same for the mileage and the time that it would take to sail along both the coasts of Africa, and also South America. And the story was always the same. The farther "south" one would sail, the more their daily reckoning would be off.

And it takes longer to drive across Brazil than America (and no, it's not because of their shitty roads). I found that odd.

We don't know what this place is, and I know there aren't many Alex Gleason fans here, but the man was certainly on to something.


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Feb 14, 2022)

El Forastero said:


> It doesn't matter what projection you use. I claim no model or projection.
> 
> Celestial navigation, using a sextant, would not be possible AT ALL if the Earth was a sphere.


If it doesn't matter.... than why do you not claim one yourself?   Because you know that your paradigm is incorrect. While you know your previous paradigm was also fraudulent, you do not have a prototype that can mimic reality, then you are not truly observing reality; But rather Illusion instead.  As we all should know by now.... Horizon is always Apparent.


otl2021 said:


> Does the surface of large bodies of still water ever become convex or concave in your world?
> 
> When observing parallel with the ground, does the horizon/vanishing point ever appear anywhere else but eye-level when viewed from any height in your world?
> 
> ...


Water (ALL of it) is diamagnetic.  This seems to be a property of water that the "Flat" Earthers have either purposely ignored, or ignorantly found no reason to investigate further.  That being said, due to the diamagnetic property of water, ALL of it, reacts in accordance as it should, to the Celestial Sphere.  Combine that fact along with a horizon that is apparent only, the circumnavigation of Antarctica in 2018 in 72 days, Atlas (The Titan)  Who carried the Celestial Sphere on his back, the propagation of light through an atmosphere filled with gaseous amalgam (Many of which are Nobel gases, and reactant to EMF) and a little bit of Occam's Razor.... the sharp mind should see why "Flat" Earth fails by now.

But I digress....there is much more to discuss.  Any dedicated "Flat" Earther who claims the Sextant doesn't work with a sphere, should take a sextant, and their preferred illusion of reality, and attempt a circumnavigation of the tropics to demonstrate their genius.   If not, they should take a back seat; because the ancient peoples knew exactly what earth was, and there is no plausible way that every single captain of every single sailing vessel has been faking their mileage and supplies in their captains log through history. 

 The Tropics, are Equal in size. Anyone who dares to challenge that, should sail them themselves.  There is One way to pull of the lie that is heliocentrism; and "Flat"  Earth,  is NOT the "final answer."


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Feb 14, 2022)

Atlas the titan did not carry the Celestial sphere on his shoulders , he held up the vault of the sky , and that is in one version of the legend . He stood at the edge of the earth and held up the sky. Another version of the legend of the golden apples has Hercules slaying the dragon Ladon and took the apples - nothing to do with Atlas apart from him being the father of the Hesperides.
     According to your logic a book of star constellations should be called an Atlas and so a book of maps should be a Map Book.

The celestial sphere may well exist but no man has ever seen this celestial sphere but only that portion that rotates over our plain .

The placing of the celestial sphere onto the shoulders of a Titan is a recent innovation to support the illusion of a globe .

Have a look at a Map Book and you will also find that France is about 650+ miles across up and down.

Which Map Book gave you your 4,000km ?


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 14, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> I have a little more time, so I'd like to touch on your silly meme.





FarewellAngelina said:


> The whole thing about the Southern " hemisphere " is a myth .


 



On the Flat Earth, the Sun does not rise for days even though it is *3 times closer* to the city of Murmansk, while cities in New Zealand and Chile, which are somehow *tens of thousands of kilometers away, experience about 16 hours of daylight.*

Can you explain to me how this is possible on the Flat Earth model?


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Feb 14, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Atlas the titan did not carry the Celestial sphere on his shoulders , he held up the vault of the sky , and that is in one version of the legend . He stood at the edge of the earth and held up the sky. Another version of the legend of the golden apples has Hercules slaying the dragon Ladon and took the apples - nothing to do with Atlas apart from him being the father of the Hesperides.
> According to your logic a book of star constellations should be called an Atlas and so a book of maps should be a Map Book.
> 
> The celestial sphere may well exist but no man has ever seen this celestial sphere but only that portion that rotates over our plain .
> ...


Thank you for joining to our conversation and adding your contribution.

In regards to the rotating celestial sphere above our heads, you'll find that the more you research into it, it's rotation, the timing of stars, the more spherical it is.   That being said, As for seeing only a portion, Need I remind you it's 2022 and people can livestream and share data.  This WAS one of the fundamental aspects of "Flat" Earth. (Not that it's truly necessary at this point, because people all over the world have already demonstrated that the farther north, or the farther south you go, the more concentric star trails are.)  

The point that you entirely missed about atlas, is that the "MODERNIZED" version of him pictures him holding a globe, where as the ANCIENT version of him he is depicted holding a CELESTIAL SPHERE.   There are many ancient artifacts demonstrating this.   The NASA Meatball, is the Celestial Sphere.

For your sake, I'll correct you on your presumption of my "logic."   In Modern times, an Atlas, is a book used to navigate the surface of the Earth; and In Modern times, the Titan, Atlas (Who was banned to Tartary) is the one who holds Earth.   In Ancient times, Atlas held a Celestial Sphere.   Earth was, and has always been Terra Sancta.


Apollonius said:


> View attachment 19716
> 
> On the Flat Earth, the Sun does not rise for days even though it is *3 times closer* to the city of Murmansk, while cities in New Zealand and Chile, which are somehow *tens of thousands of kilometers away, experience about 16 hours of daylight.*
> 
> Can you explain to me how this is possible on the Flat Earth model?


How many days?


FarewellAngelina said:


> Atlas the titan did not carry the Celestial sphere on his shoulders , he held up the vault of the sky , and that is in one version of the legend . He stood at the edge of the earth and held up the sky. Another version of the legend of the golden apples has Hercules slaying the dragon Ladon and took the apples - nothing to do with Atlas apart from him being the father of the Hesperides.
> According to your logic a book of star constellations should be called an Atlas and so a book of maps should be a Map Book.
> 
> The celestial sphere may well exist but no man has ever seen this celestial sphere but only that portion that rotates over our plain .
> ...


Can you post a picture of Atlas holding the "vault?"  I'd like to see that.  Never have.  Loads of painting/sculptures of him specifically holding a celestial sphere, prior to Mercator's incorporation of it.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Feb 14, 2022)

Any links to photos of ancient statues of Atlas holding up a celestial sphere? Pre say 1600

Mercator coined the term "Atlas" for a book of maps in1585 - his own work . The title page has an image of Titan holding up a terrestial globe , not a celestial sphere and not the sky as the myth tells.

Before him Ortelius published a book of maps entitled "Theatrum Orbis Terrarum" 1570 . That translates to "Theatre of the circular/round/disc world".   https://www.wordsense.eu/orbis/

So another stolen history clue in all that .


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Feb 14, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Any links to photos of ancient statues of Atlas holding up a celestial sphere? Pre say 1600
> 
> Mercator coined the term "Atlas" for a book of maps in1585 - his own work . The title page has an image of Titan holding up a terrestial globe , not a celestial sphere and not the sky as the myth tells.
> 
> ...


It's not really a clue.  It's pretty obvious.   The Celestial Sphere is inside of the Terrestrial sphere.   "Terrestrial Orb"  Also you're asking for a citation for something pre 1600, and then providing it directly to yourself in the very next line.  Here is a screenshot of an artifact that predates both of the dates requested.

Here is a link to the Farnese Atlas the oldest known statue of the celestial sphere being bore by atlas. (1562)
Here is a link to a amphorisokos  C6th B.C.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 14, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> Water (ALL of it) is diamagnetic. This seems to be a property of water that the "Flat" Earthers have either purposely ignored, or ignorantly found no reason to investigate further. That being said, due to the diamagnetic property of water, ALL of it, reacts in accordance as it should, to the Celestial Sphere.


I can't tell if this is another concession or you're just going for pure avoidance, but I am honestly trying to give your model a shot. Will you please answer these simple questions?

Does the surface of large bodies of still water ever become convex or concave in your world?

When observing parallel with the ground, does the horizon/vanishing point ever appear anywhere else but eye-level when viewed from any height in your world?

Thanks


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Feb 14, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> I can't tell if this is another concession or you're just going for pure avoidance, but I am honestly trying to give your model a shot. Will you please answer these simple questions?
> 
> Does the surface of large bodies of still water ever become convex or concave in your world?
> 
> ...


I've already provided you as much detail necessary for you to understand the forces at play.  All water is diamagnetic. This does not need repetition.

 The Truth is indeed stranger than fiction.  The observable horizon is an apparent non-geophysical illusion.  Hence you can see over the alleged curvature of the convex earth.    Interestingly enough, if you were to lie down flat upon the surface of the earth, and view out as far as you could into the horizon, you'll find that the more you zoom OUT the more your camera has to be angled UP.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Feb 14, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> It's not really a clue.  It's pretty obvious.   The Celestial Sphere is inside of the Terrestrial sphere.   "Terrestrial Orb"  Also you're asking for a citation for something pre 1600, and then providing it directly to yourself in the very next line.  Here is a screenshot of an artifact that predates both of the dates requested.
> 
> Here is a link to the Farnese Atlas the oldest known statue of the celestial sphere being bore by atlas. (1562)
> Here is a link to a amphorisokos  C6th B.C.


The dating of the Farnese statue is controversial and remains uncertain - even wiki here  Farnese Atlas - Wikipedia 

The statue is thought to be (not known to be) a 2nd C roman copy of a Greek statue . 

So Atlas holds up the sky in the 6th bc, no sphere depicted there  - and the source is the vatican


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Feb 14, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> The dating of the Farnese statue is controversial and remains uncertain - even wiki here  Farnese Atlas - Wikipedia
> 
> The statue is thought to be (not known to be) a 2nd C roman copy of a Greek statue .
> 
> So Atlas holds up the sky in the 6th bc, no sphere depicted there  - and the source is the vatican


I guess you're going to completely ignore the fact that a spinning sphere solves the entire issue of star trails, and navigation from within the earth.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Feb 14, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> I guess you're going to completely ignore the fact that a spinning sphere solves the entire issue of star trails, and navigation from within the earth.


Farnese atlas statue -found in mid sixteenth C in Rome apparently - brought to Naples end of 18th century . Fabrication of history in action it seems.

The Rebel God's Punishment: The Farnese Atlas

 Your "facts" seem seem not be .


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 14, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> I've already provided you as much detail necessary for you to understand the forces at play. All water is diamagnetic. This does not need repetition.


I'll assume concession at this point, while also noting complete avoidance to such a simple question. I will also note that this is a well known technique to stifle legitimate discussion.



GandalfTheGreen said:


> The Truth is indeed stranger than fiction.  The observable horizon is an apparent non-geophysical illusion.  Hence you can see over the alleged curvature of the convex earth.    Interestingly enough, if you were to lie down flat upon the surface of the earth, and view out as far as you could into the horizon, you'll find that the more you zoom OUT the more your camera has to be angled UP.


What convex Earth, seriously, and can you please post the original video from where you grabbed that grainy shot?

Thanks


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 14, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> I'll assume concession at this point, while also noting complete avoidance to such a simple question. I will also note that this is a well known technique to stifle legitimate discussion.
> 
> 
> What convex Earth, seriously, and can you please post the original video from where you grabbed that grainy shot?
> ...


The "Convex Earth" is the model of the Earth that mainstream science offers and everyone believes in. The reason why it is called convex is the claim that we live on the outer surface, not the inner surface.

Also, I still have not received an answer to my question.


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Feb 14, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> I'll assume concession at this point, while also noting complete avoidance to such a simple question. I will also note that this is a well known technique to stifle legitimate discussion.
> 
> 
> What convex Earth, seriously, and can you please post the original video from where you grabbed that grainy shot?
> ...


That's the main issue with "Flat" Earthers, you've done nothing but made false assumptions this whole time.  It's not that I'm avoiding the question, it's that you are avoiding the answer.

Water, is Diamagnetic.


FarewellAngelina said:


> Farnese atlas statue -found in mid sixteenth C in Rome apparently - brought to Naples end of 18th century . Fabrication of history in action it seems.
> 
> The Rebel God's Punishment: The Farnese Atlas
> 
> Your "facts" seem seem not be .


"The marble statue is 185 centimeters tall (approximately seven feet) and is thought to date back to the 2nd century BC, although it probably was inspired by an older original."

Still waiting for the whole "Fabrication of history in action"


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Feb 14, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> That's the main issue with "Flat" Earthers, you've done nothing but made false assumptions this whole time.  It's not that I'm avoiding the question, it's that you are avoiding the answer.
> 
> Water, is Diamagnetic.
> 
> ...


The use of the words "thought to date back to " reveals how weak your "facts" are. 

The statue was acquired by Cardinal Alessandro Farnese in 1562 . Vatican again. Says so in this link. Doesn't say from whom.

Farnese Atlas - Wikipedia

Click on his name in this link and scroll down to the section titled " Legacy as collector and patron" . You will see that 
"In the Palazzo Farnese the best sculptors worked under his eye, to restore fragments of antiquities as complete sculptures, with great scholarly care" 

I'll link that for you too.

Alessandro Farnese (cardinal) - Wikipedia

The statue has to be regarded as a fraud. He told the sculptors what he wanted and they obliged .


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Feb 14, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> The use of the words "thought to date back to " reveals how weak your "facts" are.
> 
> The statue was acquired by Cardinal Alessandro Farnese in 1562 . Vatican again. Says so in this link. Doesn't say from whom.
> 
> ...





FarewellAngelina said:


> Farnese atlas statue -found in mid sixteenth C in Rome apparently - brought to Naples end of 18th century . Fabrication of history in action it seems.
> 
> The Rebel God's Punishment: The Farnese Atlas
> 
> Your "facts" seem seem not be .


It's not the statue that matters.  It's the concept of the Celestial Sphere itself, something recognized in this thread by several "Flat" Earthers.  You have not proven the statue is infact a fraud, you're only casting shadow because that's literally the only thing you can do at this point.

Regardless of who made what statue, the "Celestial Sphere" Is a concept that predates the Farnese Atlas by over 2000 years; with it's earliest mention from Anaximenes.  It was also adopted and used by Pythagorus, Plato, and Aristotle.

Infact, the concept of the celestial sphere still remains relevant to this day, Because it is still used for navigation, the keeping of times and seasons, and astrology.  

You can scream "Fraud" all you'd like; The Freemasons know damn well it exists.   They're partly responsible for the cover up of it.


FarewellAngelina said:


> The use of the words "thought to date back to " reveals how weak your "facts" are.
> 
> The statue was acquired by Cardinal Alessandro Farnese in 1562 . Vatican again. Says so in this link. Doesn't say from whom.
> 
> ...


"He told the sculptors what he wanted and they obliged."  Welcome to art 101.


----------



## El Forastero (Feb 15, 2022)

Obfuscation will not save you from accepting the natural laws around you.


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Feb 15, 2022)

El Forastero said:


> Obfuscation will not save you from accepting the natural laws around you.


The Natural Laws around us....  Diamagnetic Water,   a Celestial Sphere,   Physical Navigation of the Oceans....   These are all things that DAMN the "Flat" Earth theory. 

And point to INTELLIGENT DESIGN.


GandalfTheGreen said:


> The Natural Laws around us....  Diamagnetic Water,   a Celestial Sphere,   Physical Navigation of the Oceans....   These are all things that DAMN the "Flat" Earth theory.
> 
> And point to INTELLIGENT DESIGN.


Let's not forget the 2018 Circumnavigation of Antarctica in 72 days.    You guys sit back, seethe, and scream "fraud"  like you folks love to do....  Yet you won't go navigate the tropics yourself?

I forgot... I'm trying to bringforth a model that promotes intelligent design, to people who'd rather scream "I don't need a model"  rather than learn how they got duped into believing a version of reality which is based upon the very thing used to deceive you in the first place..... Your eyes.

Let's not forget, literally the only "evidences" that the "Flat" earth actually have.... are eye and light oriented.   You've never taken a physical measurement of earth... If you had, you'd of figured it all out by now.

Water is Diamagnetic.   Any "Flat" Earther that literally humbles them self, and gets Flat, and Level with the Earth, will understand, why it's not so "Flat" after all. 

Occam's Razor always applies lads.    You should take a better look at old maps.


El Forastero said:


> Yes, if you take even the slightest look at it, and you strive to be honest with yourself and your own senses and mind, then the truth becomes patently obvious.
> 
> The majority of people who ridicule this have never even taken the slightest look at it. Their ego won't let them.


Facts.    This is why you refuse to accept, as the majority of "Flat" Earthers do, that you live INSIDE of Earth.    They literally just Inversed Reality. 

Occam's Razor.     Now would be a good time to start looking at old maps.  (Unless you guys finally got a FE one that works)


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Feb 15, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> Regardless of who made what statue, the "Celestial Sphere" Is a concept that predates the Farnese Atlas by over 2000 years; with it's earliest mention from Anaximenes.  It was also adopted and used by Pythagorus, Plato, and Aristotle.


Surely you are aware that Anaximenes believed that earth was a flat disk beneath a dome . The stars were similar to nails stuck in a transparent shell . 

You could have looked that up in Wiki. I don't know whether to laugh or cry .


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 15, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Surely you are aware that Anaximenes believed that earth was a flat disk beneath a dome . The stars were similar to nails stuck in a transparent shell .
> 
> You could have looked that up in Wiki. I don't know whether to laugh or cry .


If you're too ignorant to answer a question, please stop yelling at other people.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Feb 15, 2022)

I've read this exchange between GandalfThe Green and others and truly don't understand what you are arguing about.

You say 'Water is diamagnetic,' I agree; so what?  To what question would 'Water is diamagnetic' be a meaningful answer?

You say all actual measurements refute the flat earth theory. However there are thousands of examples of things being photographed at distances which mean they should be invisible behind the horizon if the Earth was a ball of approx 5500 miles diameter with a curvature of 8" per mile squared.

Please explain what the concave Earth theory looks like.  I can't see any concave curvature.  I'm willing to accept in principle that We might be living inside the Earth in some sense, how would I visualise that?  I can easily visualise both the spinning ball and plane disc models.

I'd like to know more about the 2018 circumnavigation of Antarctica, especially to see the route.


----------



## trismegistus (Feb 15, 2022)

While no rules are being explicitly broken, this thread for the last few pages have been quite heated, with many logical fallacies on both sides ultimately reducing this conversation from a discussion to a “you’re wrong and stupid/no you’re wrong and stupid” slugfest, with some occasional good points thrown in. 

Last time this occurred we temporarily locked the FE thread for some time in order to catch up on moderation or to let things cool off a bit before it spun even more out of control. So I kindly ask before further action is taken to remind everyone participating in this thread: 

Treat others as you want to be treated 

We are here to learn and grow, not accuse each other of not knowing “The Truth” which if you’ve been around here long enough, you know is a trap in and of itself

Criticize the points being made, and stand your ground if you feel it right to do so, but criticizing others is not tolerated.

I don’t care if you’re a brand new account, a long time poster, a patron, etc, that is not taken into account regarding removing offtopic or inappropriate posts.

Consider taking a break from this discussion and spend your time reading through the hundreds of other very interesting threads.

While I understand that FE is a very popular topic, the staff at SH are often conflicted as to whether or not it is worth it to have the discussion of it on our forum. This has nothing to do with the ideas of FE, but more so the amount of work that goes into moderating these discussions, which spin out of control far quicker than any other discussion on the site by a wide margin. Whether this is a concerted effort or merely because both sides are too stubborn to see the other side as having any merit, is hardly the point.

The reality is the behavior of those participating in this thread is what _earns _the ability to continue this discussion. 

Consider this post as the staffs final attempt to intervene in a way that does not involve locking the thread or temporarily/permanently banning accounts.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 15, 2022)

The the real map of the route Tracking


----------



## Quiahuitl (Feb 15, 2022)

kd-755 said:


> The the real map of the route Tracking


Thanks - however I can't interpret what I'm seeing here, it looks like two routes superimposed.


----------



## E.Bearclaw (Feb 15, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> I've read this exchange between GandalfThe Green and others and truly don't understand what you are arguing about.
> 
> You say 'Water is diamagnetic,' I agree; so what?  To what question would 'Water is diamagnetic' be a meaningful answer?
> 
> ...


You can watch a nice little documentary on it. 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKuCxflDj8Y_


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 15, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> Thanks - however I can't interpret what I'm seeing here, it looks like two routes superimposed.


No me neither but it is the route plot that got the skipper his Guineas book of records certificate.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Feb 15, 2022)

So here's a historical perspective...
I was taught a very specific story about Christopher Columbus when I was at school.  The story is that everyone believed the Earth was flat and along came Columbus who was determined to prove the earth was round by sailing all the way round and arriving in India.  However no-one knew there was a whole extra continent in the way which no-one had heard of before. That's how Columbus discovered America and also the reason why the natives are called 'Indians,' because Columbus thought he had arrived in India.

Furthermore when Galileo proposed the Earth was round he was threatened with execution by the Medieval Catholic Church, and forced to recant his heresy.  

These two stories have been part of popular culture for a long time, they have even featured in songs and so on.

However there appears to be a concerted attempt to re-write this history by saying that we have always believed the Earth was round since Hipparchus in 500BC.  If you search flat earth on youtube, the top two results are from the Guardian and National Geographic, both boldly stating this completely new narrative.  I've also seen clips of a game show hosted by Stephen Fry with a question how long have people believed the Earth was round and the answer given as 2500 years, which is a lot different to what I was taught at school.

I was taught that there was a brief period in the late classical Greek era when they believed the Earth was round but that both the Roman Empire and the Medieval Church believed the Earth was flat so humans have collectively believed in the flat Earth for much longer than the round Earth, which only came back in with Galileo just over 300 years ago.


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 15, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> I was taught that there was a brief period in the late classical Greek era when they believed the Earth was round but that both the Roman Empire and the Medieval Church believed the Earth was flat so humans have collectively believed in the flat Earth for much longer than the round Earth, which only came back in with Galileo just over 300 years ago.


No, the ancients believed that we live inside the Earth.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 15, 2022)

E.Bearclaw said:


> You can watch a nice little documentary on it.
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKuCxflDj8Y_



Thank you. I watched it right through and it was quite a journey. There were two landmarks both islands on their journey and that was it. Ice wind snow very rough seas aplenty and surprisingly to me there was a helmsman stood out in the open through the entire journey.
Unlike Pen Hadows failure of a trip into Arctic waters in 2018 or 17 where he took the trip in a pair of ice strengthened yachts this Katharis II yacht is not ice strengthened which also surprised me.

Once out of sight of land the crew relied totally on electronic and mechanical devices to establish positions. At no point in the documentary did Antarctica appear but they were not concerned with finding Antarctica they were racing against the clock/calendar around it so perhaps it is a tad ingenuous to expect the so called continent to get a look in. With that said they did spend days in the lee of icebergs of varying sizes.

Not sure what to make of it quite honestly. One thing it does not do is provide a scrap of evidence that Antarctica the continent exists.
And cue....


----------



## Quiahuitl (Feb 15, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> No, the ancients believed that we live inside the Earth.


I should have said - for most of recorded history people believed the Earth was flat.

I'm not sure what ancients you are referring to.  The underworlds are part of many traditional belief systems but they operate concurrently with our physical presence on the surface of the earth - part of our soul or dreaming body is said to be trapped in the underworlds.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 15, 2022)

Nobody has ever sailed around an island that does not exist...

The circumnavigation of Antarctica is a clear hoax, just slightly above average space agency level.

That is all.


----------



## eitea (Feb 15, 2022)

When it comes to seeing Earth's shape, first need to comprehend that it cannot be seen directly. What is seen is not matter, but pictures formed from info that is transferred with socalled light, via eyes and nervous system to some inner working that filters out stuff and then forms "sensible" picture. What is seen is not "outside" of human body, nor "inside" in common sense, but rather more inside than common "inside". And what "sees" that picture is rather that socalled inner eye.

Cannot see matter, nor even light itself. And so material-physical shape of Earth, whatever "Earth" is, cannot be measured by these "common" ways.

Nearly everyone tends to assume that light is "straight" and has some "speed". Wrong. Light is a field, similar to magnetic field, but with different qualities. And fields are instant, no traveling nor speed. And fields are toroidal and circular and other such not at all straight stuff about them. Field within it has qualities, directions or vectors and as such what can be sort of regarded as "straight", but they do not manifest material-physically as straight, and they are not material-physical themselves.

Light curves less than does Earth's general surface. And this curving of both causes so-to-say natural illusions, when viewed with eyes and under assumption that that is what actually is, that as if were convex or even straight. Also, as magnetic fields are affected by other fields or influences and so change their behavior, their spread and other qualities, so does light - which mekes determinig Earth's shape, eye based and modern immensely stupid understanding based, that much more confusing to find out how it all really is.

Convex is impossible, and flat is ridiculous and so obviously impossible. There is always some sort of center working, and stuff around it. Less suitable are forced to be around, are forced toward "outside", and so form heavier layers around lighter core. Though this "core" rather not in common sense of core, but one that has many possibilities about it, possibiblities that can get very "weird".

Human body has organs and stuff, which in turn have cells and stuff. Smaller whole ones making up bigger whole ones, which make up yet bigger ones, and so forth. In this sense there is sort of some "convex" world, but which is "outside", like on skin; but life-activity itself is always inside, meaning under skin. And if activity is on some outer surface, then need to consider bigger whole to which that skin level is like lowest level or something like.

There may even be immensely large "flat" areas. But those are only those areas.

Socalled gravity... that as determining shapes of worlds... Gets "weird" also, because socalled gravity does not need to have a "round" source.

Those who keep themselves stuck to modern understandings, base their opinions on them, will never come closer to finding out how it all actually is.

Everything modern is garbage. Everything. So if any of your opinions are based on modern understanding, then you are wrong. I suppose then could also say there are various degrees of wrong, and so some are less wrong than others. Need to become ever less wrong, and then there will be a "tipping point" after which more right than wrong.
Modern way is immensely severely limited, many essential and simple things cannot even be explained using modern languages, modern words and wordings. I've tried... not possible. Also thoughtforms that are straight and simple, but to put present them in worded form, would take thousands, and even then would not be accurate enough.
Need to look at thoughtforms and meanings directly, as they are, as "abstract" forms and such that you simply comprehend immediately as you see them. But not modern words and definitions. If you base your "thinking" on words and definitions, then you are not thinking. Words and definitions are only necessary when descibing into words that which is internally being looked at.

This material-physical world has material-physical ways of conveying intentions and such, then there is "thoughtform" world, and also next one "above" it, and so on. It gets rather varied and diverse. Thoughtforms can be described using words, stuff of above thoughtforms can be described using thoughtforms, but those above thoguhtforms cannot be described in words in any practically usable and acutally meaningful ways.
Also consider worlds that are so-to-say below material-physical, including in your own body.

"Truth is stranger than fiction" merely because modern imagination is immensely rotted and pathetic, because is stuck to modern languages-words and understanding.

Need to be honest to self, so to be able to be honest to others. Not honest to others, then not honest to self either. Cannot find truth if not honest.


----------



## E.Bearclaw (Feb 15, 2022)

kd-755 said:


> Thank you. I watched it right through and it was quite a journey. There were two landmarks both islands on their journey and that was it. Ice wind snow very rough seas aplenty and surprisingly to me there was a helmsman stood out in the open through the entire journey.
> Unlike Pen Hadows failure of a trip into Arctic waters in 2018 or 17 where he took the trip in a pair of ice strengthened yachts this Katharis II yacht is not ice strengthened which also surprised me.
> 
> Once out of sight of land the crew relied totally on electronic and mechanical devices to establish positions. At no point in the documentary did Antarctica appear but they were not concerned with finding Antarctica they were racing against the clock/calendar around it so perhaps it is a tad ingenuous to expect the so called continent to get a look in. With that said they did spend days in the lee of icebergs of varying sizes.
> ...


Yeah I wanted to say that I had barely seen Antarctica, but hadn't watched it in enough detail yet to commit to that statement.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 15, 2022)

eitea said:


> Convex is impossible, and flat is ridiculous and so obviously impossible.


Does the surface of large bodies of still water ever become convex or concave in your world?

Thanks


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 15, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> Does the surface of large bodies of still water ever become convex or concave in your world?
> 
> Thanks






Why can't you answer this, or are you worried that your Flat Earth will collapse?


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 15, 2022)

E.Bearclaw said:


> Yeah I wanted to say that I had barely seen Antarctica, but hadn't watched it in enough detail yet to commit to that statement.


They are shown setting off from Capetown and arriving in Hobart. Other than that the only land in that video is two islands both snow/ice covered whose names escape me. One has a needle stack of rock just off its coast, literally just off its coast they called a monolith. Found it on wikiwaki
The Monolith (Antarctica) - Wikipedia


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 15, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> Why can't you answer this, or are you worried that your Flat Earth will collapse?


No, not at all. It's that I don't argue with memes. 

Now, if you could provide video evidence of this claim, then we could discuss it, fair enough?

Now you go... does the surface of large bodies of still water ever become convex or concave in your world?

Why can't you answer this, or are you worried that your inside of sphere Earth will collapse? Am I doing this right?


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 15, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> No, not at all. It's that I don't argue with memes.
> 
> Now, if you could provide video evidence of this claim, then we could discuss it, fair enough?
> 
> ...


It's sad that people like you who don't understand astronomy even comment on astronomy.

You have no knowledge, so you and people like you can be easily deceived.

Keep discussing the so-called Flat Earth nonsense among yourselves, my own model of the universe (based on the Concave Earth) continues to spread rapidly.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 15, 2022)

Quiahutil here is a previous discussion about the concave easrth theory. 
Concave Earth Theory


----------



## Quiahuitl (Feb 15, 2022)

kd-755 said:


> Quiahutil here is a previous discussion about the concave easrth theory.
> Concave Earth Theory


'Startrails at the equator' is very interesting!

This was intended to be a separate post but combined automatically -
My recollection is that the main reason for the adoption of the Copernican model was because it explained the movement of the planets better than the Ptolomaic model.  I can accept that on faith.

However there are a few things I've never been able to understand.  For example I live in the UK and went to Australia one winter and was puzzled why Orion appeared the same way up in the sky. I still have no answer for that - although I do now understand why Orion appears in the sky during October to March in both Northern and Southern hemispheres.

Meanwhile the Moon appears a different way up in Mexico compared to the UK.


----------



## chessquaker (Feb 15, 2022)

Let's stay on topic and build on previous posts.  Let's minimize posts that do not contribute to the topic as it will make the thread difficult to navigate for newcomers.

In addition to empirical daily observation, several proofs of the earth being flat have been offered in this thread if you genuinely seek to understand and debate.  Start by reviewing those proofs and then explaining how they do not work.   Share with us why and where they are wrong.

Here are the ones I posted :  there are many excellent proofs and observations by others in the thread if you go back further.
Flat Earth
Flat Earth
Flat Earth
Flat Earth

_"I'm still waiting on the "Flat Earthers" to demonstrate.." xyz._
There is no point in asking for yet another proof of Flat Earth if you overlook what has already been provided in the thread as this will lead to an eternal "moving of the goal post" interaction and just clog up the thread with posts that do not genuinely contribute to the topic.  Posting diagrams of mercury in a test tube is not a contribution to, or refutation of, the universal property of water finding its level.  Similarly, the budget of NASA is not a proof of anything. 

If you believe the earth is convex, concave or even torroidal, simply lay out your proof and rationale so others may review it and see if it makes sense to them.  You can provide it here or in a thread for Concave Earth (as Ghost has done).


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 15, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> It's sad that people like you who don't understand astronomy even comment on astronomy.


Ok, please help me here:




And I will admit to not being any kind of expert astronomer, but that right there is just basic math, friend.


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 16, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> Ok, please help me here:
> 
> View attachment 19769
> 
> And I will admit to not being any kind of expert astronomer, but that right there is just basic math, friend.


The sun is small and local.

My Concave Earth Post


----------



## Quiahuitl (Feb 16, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> The sun is small and local.
> 
> My Concave Earth Post


The sun being small and local explains crepuscular sunlight.  If the sun was, say, 3km up then it would explain why we often see rays of sunlight coming through clouds at widely diverging angles.  This crepuscular sunlight appears to refute the idea that the sun is 93 million miles away.

However you can also see crepuscular sunlight through trees.  That would indicate that the sun was floating just above the tops of the trees.


otl2021 said:


> Ok, please help me here:
> 
> View attachment 19769
> 
> And I will admit to not being any kind of expert astronomer, but that right there is just basic math, friend.


This data appears to validate the spherical earth model perfectly.  

The Earth's circumference is 24,000 miles.  4000/24000 = 1/6.
Multiply by 360 to get degrees gives exactly 60.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 16, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> The sun being small and local explains crepuscular sunlight.  If the sun was, say, 3km up then it would explain why we often see rays of sunlight coming through clouds at widely diverging angles.  This crepuscular sunlight appears to refute the idea that the sun is 93 million miles away.
> 
> However you can also see crepuscular sunlight through trees.  That would indicate that the sun was floating just above the tops of the trees.
> 
> ...


What came first the equation or the ball idea?
Who has measured said circumference and how did they do it?


----------



## eitea (Feb 16, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> The Earth's circumference is 24,000 miles.  4000/24000 = 1/6.
> Multiply by 360 to get degrees gives exactly 60.


That rather is Sun's visible lightfield circumference? But not of Earth's surface.
Because Sun moves in circles, probably, relative to Earth's surface. And Earth does not move. So Earth is far bigger.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 16, 2022)

How sad to see someone who has a lot to offer respond to a pair of questions with a laughing emoji. 

Surely the information I asked about must be at the very base of every circular earth theory and therefore well known, tested and easily demonstrated or else everything that is stuck on an unknown is just hot air.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Feb 16, 2022)

kd-755 said:


> What came first the equation or the ball idea?
> Who has measured said circumference and how did they do it?



The ball idea came first because it is a model.  That's how scientific modelling works, by proposing models then testing them against observable reality.  No scientific model is possible without an initial act of faith.  For example unless you believe atoms exist, you can't prove they exist.  However, once you've assumed matter is made of atoms you can then demonstrate many natural phenomena that are best explained by atoms for example the periodic table.

Likewise with Earth you can assume it is a ball in which case the observation of the azimuthal angle of the sun from opposite sides of the Atlantic at the same time makes perfect sense if the ball is 24000 miles in circumference. So that particular real world data validates the model. However if you assumed the Earth was flat you could instead use that data to calculate the altitude of the sun, which would be about 3000 miles in this case.  (sin(60) x 4000 miles = 3464.

However you can observe crepuscular sunlight through trees which indicates the sun is only just above the height of the trees.

The crepuscular sunlight is not explained by either flat or ball models.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 16, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> The ball idea came first because it is a model.  That's how scientific modelling works, by proposing models then testing them against observable reality.  No scientific model is possible without an initial act of faith.  For example unless you believe atoms exist, you can't prove they exist.  However, once you've assumed matter is made of atoms you can then demonstrate many natural phenomena that are best explained by atoms for example the periodic table.
> 
> Likewise with Earth you can assume it is a ball in which case the observation of the azimuthal angle of the sun from opposite sides of the Atlantic at the same time makes perfect sense if the ball is 24000 miles in circumference. So that particular real world data validates the model. However if you assumed the Earth was flat you could instead use that data to calculate the altitude of the sun, which would be about 3000 miles in this case.  (sin(60) x 4000 miles = 3464.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your reply. It was as I was expecting..


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 16, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> This data appears to validate the spherical earth model perfectly.


What sphere? We already have eliminated that possibility multiple times and in multiple ways.



I have shown this problem before using boats leaving for opposite shores across just ten miles on beautiful Lake Tahoe:


----------



## Silent Bob (Feb 16, 2022)

I've just see this great video posted by Captain Kirk of an old interview conducted by well known atronomer Patrick Moor with a Flat earther. Even though he disagrees, as expected, he conducts the interview with respect and actually allows the guy to talk - shame today's TV scientists aren't like this anymore! 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MFuKxvMWFk_


----------



## Citezenship (Feb 16, 2022)

Silent Bob said:


> I've just see this great video posted by Captain Kirk of an old interview conducted by well known atronomer Patrick Moor with a Flat earther. Even though he disagrees, as expected, he conducts the interview with respect and actually allows the guy to talk - shame today's TV scientists aren't like this anymore!
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MFuKxvMWFk_



I thought that turning towards the children to solve complex scientific phenomona was a modern thing.

I do often wonder if being at the south pole witha compass if it would point strait down.

Whilst at a friends for christmas his little boy got an orienteering compass as a gift and thought to put on my mobile phone app with the compass to check if the two were equal or there about, the next thought was to place the compass onto the sceen of the phone, this made the compass vere off angle by 90d in the clockwise direction, i don't know what that means other than the magnetic field caused buy the phone but felt like it meant something.


----------



## chessquaker (Feb 16, 2022)

*"you can also see crepuscular sunlight through trees. That would indicate that the sun was floating just above the tops of the trees."*

It does not matter that the barrier is a tree or a cloud.  The barrier is not the issue. 

The angle of the rays allows triangulation back to the source.  Also, the distance of the source is not "just above" the tree or subject to guesswork.  

Triangulation is a geometric proof of the local sun.  Triangulation allows us to determine the distance as the proof explains.  The angles and the distance between the reference points on the ground are all you need to compute the distance of the local sun and to see that the Sun is not millions of miles away.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Feb 16, 2022)

chessquaker said:


> *"you can also see crepuscular sunlight through trees. That would indicate that the sun was floating just above the tops of the trees."*
> 
> It does not matter that the barrier is a tree or a cloud.  The barrier is not the issue.
> 
> ...




Triangulate the rays in these images and it appears the sun is just a few hundred feet away.


----------



## eitea (Feb 16, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> Triangulate the rays in these images and it appears the sun is just a few hundred feet away.


Possibly, likely probably, might be so in fact, that as light crosses so-to-say biome borders, then that border area or "gate" area acts as if true source for that light, and sort of makes light spread again. Similar to how tree branches branch out ever more. And so actual true sun, whatever it is, could perhaps be behind many different layers of worldly elemental or biomic levels, each taking what is suitable to theirs and rest of light passing onward to lower or thicker levels. Which hints at "Earth's" size... very very big. Modern map of Earth being only some tiny bit of whole.
Each layer or level also having their own so-to-say base color or tone, and source of light having something to do with "DNA" of this world... Meaning various qualities and aspects that translate into various colors and tones and qualities of light.
And lots more to this angle of approach, to trying to figure things out.
Certainly not flat... And concave alone is not enough, but is a good "beginning point" to begin figuring out. Because inside not outside, and if outside then that outside is in far bigger inside.
Our world as whole, not only this "Earth map" area, is one massive living being. Or perhaps was in case someone high up died long ago, and parasites and such began infesting resulting rotting body that is rather far beyond modern understanding god level.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Feb 17, 2022)

What empirical proof do you have that enables you to say "Certainly not flat" ?

Why do you say "concave alone is not enough, but is a good "beginning point" to begin figuring out" ?


----------



## eitea (Feb 17, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> What empirical proof do you have that enables you to say "Certainly not flat" ?
> 
> Why do you say "concave alone is not enough, but is a good "beginning point" to begin figuring out" ?


Empiricism is not all that is.
Primarily genuine logic, more so that true empiricism cannot be directly viewed, but only comprehended internally.
Very few people are capable of genuine logic, or perhaps more precisely able to look and see logicality rather than mere thinking. Most simply regurgitate what they have put into their brains memory and combine those statistical cold and unchanging points so create newer cold and unchanging pictures that essentially are those same statistical points they already have in their memory; who generally are also stuck to modern understandings that so prevent genuine logical ability to ever be achieved.

It's not so much that what I have to show that certainly is not flat. But rather what do flatters have to show that it is flat? They don't have anything to show that Earth is flat, only claims based on emptiness and wrong assumptions and delusions.
Concavity in turn has actual experimental proofs that clearly hint at Earth being concave. But if taken into account more facts and logical possibilities and impossibilities, that hint at something yet further, greater, then rather becomes obvious that "concavity" alone is not enough.

Flatters have done that much as to prove convex false. And by doing this they by default try to assert that since is not convex, then must be flat. Flatters deny themselves anything other than flat. They are fanatical cultists.
Simply because something is proven to be false, while researching something else, proving false that something does not make right that something else. That something else also has yet to be proven. Or might also prove to be yet another lie, as it has.
Convex has been proven to be false. Flat has not been proven to be true, and taking into consideration many facts and logical points that make flat evidently impossible, rather clearly shows flat is also false.

Flatearthism is simply another fanatical cult.

When I were to begin writing out reasons I've come to, I've found, that would be at least around 10 000 word long text, if not longer. Probably longer, and goes beyond concavity and beyond what is regarded as "god" level. Goes beyond because need to know and so find reasons for why is as is and not some other way.

I do not cram details into brain memory, nor do I keep some links to some texts and research, nor other such cold and unchanging statistical stuff. It is not about hoarding exterior statistical "facts" and "data" so to simply shove them into others faces when talking about some topics. It is about growing personal inner knowledge and ability to see. I grow inner knowledge, ability to see so-to-say logical landscape. Logicality is connectedness and relativeness, patterns and forms and tones and such "abstract" stuff, that cannot be empirically shown, and yet have clear undeniable meanings and reasons. Comprehension happens inside, not outside. What more knowledge I gain, that much more powerfully and expansively and deeper I come to see.
Flatters keep running around exterior stuff, stuff someone else shoved before their sight. They keep bringing before their vision stuff they have already seen. They follow, but do not comprehend. They do not advance themselves, they instead try to find excuses to flatearthism, as do any cultists whose beliefs are "challenged". And they search for "challengers", and then begin endless arguings, as is common to fanatical cultists.

It's fine if someone has just found that something is wrong with official version, and so came to flat. But why keep self stuck to flat that after some honest reasearch and thinking is obviously yet another lie?
Why go from being stuck to some lies, to being stuck to other lies? From same to same. From primary to alternative. Meaning of alternative is "same general outcome as that of primary". From victim of lies to victim of lies.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Feb 17, 2022)

I was a professional scientific researcher for many years so naturally I've believed in the Copernican (round ball) model all my life. As a child I read many books about astronomy.  90% of what Flat Earthers say is garbage.

A few years ago I came across the Bedford Levels experiment and it appears that there is a lot of evidence that it is impossible to directly measure the curvature of the Earth, which is said to be 8" per mile squared.  That is _very interesting_.

There are thousands of photos of things too far away to be visible over the horizon, for example the Chicago skyline photographed from the other side of the great lake; ships at one end of the Suez canal photographed from the other end. I will put more info at the bottom of this post.

Short of doing one of these experiments myself, there is no way for me to be absolutely certain that this information is true.  However these types of experiments are relatively easy to do, I've done far more complicated/expensive experiments myself.  It seems to me that if these types of experiment gave the desired outcome (i.e. validated the assumed curvature of the Earth), then they would appear in every school text book.  Yet they do not.  I have not seen these types of experiment referred to anywhere in the conventional scientific canon.  I've spent enough hours looking into this to satisfy myself that this type of data is really good evidence that the Earth is flat.  This is _very interesting_.

Another experiment which would easily prove the spinning ball model, but which no-one has ever done, is the centrifugal force measurement.  An object at the equator, which is moving at 1500MPH due to the rotation of the Earth, would be subject to an upwards centrifugal force equal to 0.3% of its mass.  There's a wiki article on this.  If you took a very accurate set of scales and weighed an object at or near the North pole then again at the equator, you should be able to measure a 0.3% difference in its weight.  Again this is an easy experiment to do and I'm surprised no-one has done it since it would prove the spinning ball model very easily.  Again, I can only assume that it does not give the desired result, that's why we don't hear about it.

I realise that there are some proposed models of how the Sun and Moon move around on a flat disk, and I don't understand these models well enough to critique them.  However it seems to me that the movements of the planets and the stars are much better described by the Copernican model than by any Flat Earth model I've so far seen. Thanks to an earlier post in this thread, I've seen star trails at the equator, which looks really hard to explain with the Flat Earth model. 

Antarctica is very interesting.  For a start it's protected by the entire world's militaries and no civilian is allowed past the 60th parallel on pain of death. An earlier post claimed there was a circumnavigation of the continent completed in 2018 in 70-something days.  However a fellow contributor took the time to watch the video and determined that at no point in this circumnavigation was the Antarctic ice wall visible.  

Let us be clear - the only circumnavigation of Antarctica that would debunk the Flat Earth is one in which the ice wall is visible the entire time.  If the Earth was round this would be a few thousand miles, if flat tens of thousands of miles. To my knowledge no-one has ever done this, or if they have the outcome has not been published.  For those who don't know, Admiral Byrd led a US Navy exploration of Antarctica in the 1950s and he is on record as saying 'There is an entire continent the size of America beyond Antarctica.'

REFERENCES

From Wiki-
Weight of an object at the poles and on the equator​If an object is weighed with a simple spring balance at one of the Earth's poles, there are two forces acting on the object: the Earth's gravity, which acts in a downward direction, and the equal and opposite restoring force in the spring, acting upward. Since the object is stationary and not accelerating, there is no net force acting on the object and the force from the spring is equal in magnitude to the force of gravity on the object. In this case, the balance shows the value of the force of gravity on the object.

When the same object is weighed on the equator, the same two real forces act upon the object. However, the object is moving in a circular path as the Earth rotates and therefore experiencing a centripetal acceleration. When considered in an inertial frame (that is to say, one that is not rotating with the Earth), the non-zero acceleration means that force of gravity will not balance with the force from the spring. In order to have a net centripetal force, the magnitude of the restoring force of the spring must be less than the magnitude of force of gravity. Less restoring force in the spring is reflected on the scale as less weight — about 0.3% less at the equator than at the poles.[11] In the Earth reference frame (in which the object being weighed is at rest), the object does not appear to be accelerating, however the two real forces, gravity and the force from the spring, are the same magnitude and do not balance. The centrifugal force must be included to make the sum of the forces be zero to match the apparent lack of acceleration.

*Note:* _In fact, the observed weight difference is more — about 0.53%. Earth's gravity is a bit stronger at the poles than at the equator, because the Earth is not a perfect sphere, so an object at the poles is slightly closer to the center of the Earth than one at the equator; this effect combines with the centrifugal force to produce the observed weight difference._[12]


CURVATURE OF EARTH

Assuming the Earth is a sphere with a circumference of 24,000 miles you can calculate the curvature with simple maths.  

Take the distance between object and observer in miles, square it and multiply by 8 and you get the height difference in inches due to curvature.  So if something is one mile away there is 8" of curvature.  Two miles gives 32" and so on. 

At 3 miles the curvature is 6 feet.  If you and a friend go to somewhere level like a long stretch of beach, a railway track bed, a canal, a salt flats, you should have trouble seeing each other if you are more than 3 miles apart and you should not be able to see each other at all if you are 6 miles apart. And that would be the same using a telescope, since you would both be behind the Earth's curvature in the eyes of the other.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Feb 17, 2022)

I would say 99% of mainstream astronomy is garbage . The cornerstones of astronomy theory are globe earth and light about which we know little and whose speed has never been measured. All astronomy observations obtained within globe theory show earth to be the centre of what is termed the cosmos. 

It's a fallacy to say that FErs know nothing about astronomy or science or experiment . The Copernican model introduced no new observation to the Brahes' geocentric model based on empirical observation. Basing a model on an assumptions of a rotating earth is not scienctific.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Feb 17, 2022)

I tend to agree with you about mainstream astronomy.  It seems like a self-reinforcing set of assumptions to me - we know the universe is expanding because of the red shift, we know that stars with more red shift are further away because we know the universe is expanding. None of that was accepted as fact until relatively recently.  I believe it's true to say that the Astronomer Royal Edmund Halley in the 1950s did not believe in the Big Bang or the expanding universe.

Since we live on Earth, we have no option but to observe the cosmos from here. We can't directly measure the rotation of the Earth, so we have no way of knowing if we are stationary and the Sky spinning round or the other way round. We can only deduce that from other observable phenomena.

My understanding is that Copernicus died before Tycho Brae was born, and that it was Galileo who used Brae's observations to prove Copernicus' model.  This story has been repeated in thousand of books and it's what I was taught at school in the 70s, however the powers that should not be seem to be trying to erase this from our history and claim that mankind has believed in the Copernican model since 2000 years before Copernicus was born.

All scientific models are based on assumptions. It is literally impossible to do Science without assumptions.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Feb 17, 2022)

Fred Hoyle another one - thought the background cosmic radiation was nothing to do with a big bang. His idea - it was evidence of the constant creation of matter as I recall it. Steady state theory.

The trouble with stellar red shift is that it requires that light has a velocity. Read a book by  Oxford Professor R. Dingle in the early seventies . He thought that light had limitless or no velocity and that any change in wavelength was transmitted instantly , what is called redshift had nothing to do with distance or age of galaxies. The guy was an advocate for Special and General relativity until he realised it was a silly theory full of paradoxes. 

Yes you are right about Copernicus and Brahe but wasn't it Kepler that stole Brahes data and came up with his "Laws" - there was no new data after Brahe that proved heliocentricity. Why can't we directly measure rotation from earth?

The assumption that we live in a heliocentric system has never been proven. Speed of light has never been measured. At some point you have to verify your original assumptions by experiment - any theory that's built on top of unproven assumption is not science .Several experiments have failed to find rotation and none have been done to verify curvature as far as I'm aware.

If we cant measure rotation directly then how can we produce a scientifically based model based on nothing but imagination?


----------



## eitea (Feb 17, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> there is a lot of evidence that it is impossible to directly measure the curvature of the Earth


Can anything be genuinely directly measured...? Rather not.
As Earth's shape is regarded as material-physical in quality, but everything we can see is due to light, via light, and not material-physical directly. All measurements are done by aid of light and eyesight. Measured are pictures formed by aid of light and eyesight.
All measurements are based on seeming pictures formed due to light carrying info that somewhere deeper within us form into pictures we see. Measured are essentially pictures, but not Earth itself. So this means all so-to-say scientific measurements, are actually measurements of illusions. And comparing pictures with pictures, and deciding which picture is more real than that other as real picture. All while not taking into account reasons and workings that make and allow and enable stuff to seem as they seem, causes that make those pictures be as they are and seem.

So people who talk about "facts" and want "facts"... Can never get true genuine facts. Because doing pictorial-based tests and experiments, cannot really prove anything other than such pictures can be formed.
But can get very close to factual states of being, via use of logic. So essentially logic is the only way to make certain of anything, as close to "certain" as can get with ways and means available to our present Earthly state of being and working.

With minimalistic ways maximalistic results. Least effort to get highest richness. Anyone who goes into "scientific" deep detail and complex functions and laws and whatever such, without having any general working model to stand for all those details, is on wrong path and with bad results. Whatever model anyone has, must be many times remade into more correct one, so much that first and say some fifth version may seemingly have no relation to each other - done similar myself, to my own versions, many times over, and not only shape of Earth but other topics as well, and certainly will do so again and again and so forth, every time becoming more correct.
Model is something general, overall qualities. Short and simple. That is logical, and through logic can easily be extended to immense accurate detail. General model that stands for all and explains all, which by using logic can be extended into showing details as to why all is and works as does. None of this can be acquired by merely observing and comparing pictures formed before personal sight, nor by assuming those comparison states to be "what truly and only is", beause this way can only get stuff left out from other pictures, stuff that can be seen pictorially and as such are not causes nor true state of being of whatever is attempted to observe.

Whatever someone is looking at, does not actually see that whatever. Seen is essentially only some illusion originating from that whatever, via light that "carries" influence or info from that something.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 17, 2022)

eitea said:


> Can anything be genuinely directly measured...? Rather not.
> As Earth's shape is regarded as material-physical in quality, but everything we can see is due to light, via light, and not material-physical directly. All measurements are done by aid of light and eyesight.


Not only can Earth's curvature be directly measured (regardless of light), there is a group of engineers who right now are working on bringing Brian Mullin's project, to do just this, to fruition.

Force the Line

Basically, it is just a matter of constructing a structure capable of supporting to lines (or rails). One line is the forced straight line. This is accomplished by connecting each section by bracket that would force the 180 degree connection, thus guaranteeing a perfectly straight line over the entire distance.

On top of that line, another is constructed. This line has each section formed by using a spirit level. It's that simple.

For clarity, if the Earth is a globe as described with gravity moving everything towards the center of a ball (including the bubble in spirit levels), the line on top will show this by eventually curving down towards the forced straight line.

If however, both lines remain parallel over the entire distance, well, then, as we all already know, the Earth is a plane as it will be proven that gravity does not move anything to the center of a ball that does not exist.

This might help to visualize the experiment:


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Feb 17, 2022)

I remember Mullins' series of videos - they were good .  Force the line done as he suggests would be nice to see . 

Do you know if this group is carrying out their own version or sticking to Brians idea?


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Feb 18, 2022)

eitea said:


> Can anything be genuinely directly measured...? Rather not.
> As Earth's shape is regarded as material-physical in quality, but everything we can see is due to light, via light, and not material-physical directly. All measurements are done by aid of light and eyesight. Measured are pictures formed by aid of light and eyesight.
> All measurements are based on seeming pictures formed due to light carrying info that somewhere deeper within us form into pictures we see. Measured are essentially pictures, but not Earth itself. So this means all so-to-say scientific measurements, are actually measurements of illusions. And comparing pictures with pictures, and deciding which picture is more real than that other as real picture. All while not taking into account reasons and workings that make and allow and enable stuff to seem as they seem, causes that make those pictures be as they are and seem.
> 
> ...


I agree nothing can be measured accurately - every measurement made of some thing will differ . That is well known . All measures are approximations and we have various degrees of accuracy.

You avoid the questions I asked by turning to philosophy , Kant' s ideas ,from the Critique of Reason I believe , or the old Greek cave idea, can't remember his name . Perhaps you should start a thread.

Also you said earlier that "Concavity in turn has actual experimental proofs that clearly hint at Earth being concave."

Evidence and clues hint at things . Proofs are not hints. What are these proofs that hint at things?


----------



## eitea (Feb 18, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> You avoid the questions I asked by turning to philosophy , Kant' s ideas ,from the Critique of Reason I believe , or the old Greek cave idea, can't remember his name . Perhaps you should start a thread.
> 
> Also you said earlier that "Concavity in turn has actual experimental proofs that clearly hint at Earth being concave."
> 
> Evidence and clues hint at things . Proofs are not hints. What are these proofs that hint at things?


I do not avoid questions. It is about honesty to self, and in turn to others, that must first be fulfilled, before going onward with reasearch, and during research, and when asking questions and answering them. Honesty is what almost all people neglect and violate severely. If there is lack of honesty in question asked, then answer to that question must first address that lack of honesty, because due to lack of honesty that question is not justified. Asking questions based on lack of honesty, is as if attempt to force answering side to lie, to admit lies into him- or herself, as if attempt to make other one do evil, to make other one socalled "sin" or "debt of life", and so less worthy of life and more worthy of evil.

I did not, do not, will not, ever, turn to other peoples opinions and present them as my own. There is no Kant's or whoever else's opinions in my sayings and writings. Nor will ever be, unless specifically pointed that "this is written by this or that person" or simply that by someone else. I haven't even read those works, and most likely never will. I do not parrot, nor ever will, someone else's as my own. I offer my own genuine, as should every person their own genuine, because if not then nothing ever can truly advance onward because there's nearly only copy-pasting of that which already has been found out.

Proofs can and are also hints, and both also hint at yet further something. What one proof is to someone, same can be something very dfferent to someone else or even not anything at all. It's about personal acquired knowledge and understandings, and who how much has, how broad and deep they go - those with less will comprehend less, and so might not get presented meanings at all and mistranslate severely.

With lack of honesty as basis, cannot get further with anything, except wrong and bad and evil. This obviously applies to all topics, not only Earth's shape one - look at official version, how highly detailed they've gone, and nearly or all of it is garbage. Why is flatearthism so big "hit", because there's severe lack of honesty about those who further it.
Purpose of flatearthism is to replace ballearthism, so evil ones could still hold high positions among people. This applies to all other areas and topics as well - they, evil ones, make their own cults with dogmas that seem as if true and correct, so to trap people and so keep themselves as "leaders". So when modernism "falls", they are still in leading positions. These rotten roots and branches must be cut off and destroyed, one of which is flatearthism - which can only be done if honesty is as basis of self, and so of all thoughts and actions and research and questions and answers.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 18, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> I remember Mullins' series of videos - they were good .  Force the line done as he suggests would be nice to see .
> 
> Do you know if this group is carrying out their own version or sticking to Brians idea?


They seem to be going for pretty much exactly what Mullin suggested.

And they seem good:





eitea said:


> What one proof is to someone, same can be something very dfferent to someone else or even not anything at all.


Do you know what all these one to one perfect reflections prove?


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Feb 18, 2022)

eitea said:


> I do not avoid questions. It is about honesty to self, and in turn to others, that must first be fulfilled, before going onward with reasearch, and during research, and when asking questions and answering them. Honesty is what almost all people neglect and violate severely. If there is lack of honesty in question asked, then answer to that question must first address that lack of honesty, because due to lack of honesty that question is not justified. Asking questions based on lack of honesty, is as if attempt to force answering side to lie, to admit lies into him- or herself, as if attempt to make other one do evil, to make other one socalled "sin" or "debt of life", and so less worthy of life and more worthy of evil.
> 
> I did not, do not, will not, ever, turn to other peoples opinions and present them as my own. There is no Kant's or whoever else's opinions in my sayings and writings. Nor will ever be, unless specifically pointed that "this is written by this or that person" or simply that by someone else. I haven't even read those works, and most likely never will. I do not parrot, nor ever will, someone else's as my own. I offer my own genuine, as should every person their own genuine, because if not then nothing ever can truly advance onward because there's nearly only copy-pasting of that which already has been found out.
> 
> ...


Please provide links to the actual experimental proofs that hint at earths concavity. This is an honest request.


----------



## John Galt (Feb 18, 2022)

Lately, I've been trying to understand hard truths about the Sun and the Moon in the context of both flat and round models. With the sun, I am most confused by its ability to generate Vitamin D in humans, and heal a number of problems. I think this is very overlooked when we discuss what the sun is and where is comes from. How can this object/reflection/ball/etc produce (or spur the production of) such an essential to life vitamin in humans? It amazes me.

On the flip side of the coin, the moon is fascinating in a creepy way. There are many strange studies and anecdotes about the effects of moonlight on various things. The one I found the strangest was that raw meat left in direct moonlight would putrefy faster than raw meat in the shade of moonlight. I will have to find the source, but it is wild. I'm sure everyone has their share of full moon stories as well.

I bring this up because I haven't seen this discussed much in the context of flat earth and it is really interesting. Any thoughts? Apologies if this has been mentioned and I missed it. I've read almost every page in this thread but not all.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 18, 2022)

John Galt said:


> Lately, I've been trying to understand hard truths about the Sun and the Moon in the context of both flat and round models. With the sun, I am most confused by its ability to generate Vitamin D in humans, and heal a number of problems. I think this is very overlooked when we discuss what the sun is and where is comes from. How can this object/reflection/ball/etc produce (or spur the production of) such an essential to life vitamin in humans? It amazes me.
> 
> On the flip side of the coin, the moon is fascinating in a creepy way. There are many strange studies and anecdotes about the effects of moonlight on various things. The one I found the strangest was that raw meat left in direct moonlight would putrefy faster than raw meat in the shade of moonlight. I will have to find the source, but it is wild. I'm sure everyone has their share of full moon stories as well.
> 
> I bring this up because I haven't seen this discussed much in the context of flat earth and it is really interesting. Any thoughts? Apologies if this has been mentioned and I missed it. I've read almost every page in this thread but not all.


The moon's light is her own:

_View: https://youtu.be/sAHmKujsbCQ_


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 18, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> The moon's light is her own:
> 
> _View: https://youtu.be/sAHmKujsbCQ_



No, the Moon doesn't have her own light.


----------



## chessquaker (Feb 18, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> Triangulate the rays in these images and it appears the sun is just a few hundred feet away.
> 
> View attachment 19804View attachment 19805



Thank you for this observation.  There is a considerable instructional value in this specific example and thus in the response I am giving below so please review carefully.

*Short answer*: the distance of the local sun to be computed is the distance from the ground *directly below* the sun, not from your vantage point in the pictures.  Your vantage point in the pictures and the rays projecting to you at the point have introduced *Perspective.  *If you watch the Sun setting behind a forest, first the Sun is just above the trees, then it falls *below* the treetops, and then it eventually touches the ground itself.

*Long answer*:
The pictures provided do not show that the Sun is just above the trees.  Yes, if you naively triangulate from these images without adjusting for perspective, the Sun seems extremely close to the ground.   If you triangulate from where you are to a Sun that is far away* horizontally*, it will appear to be very close to the horizon.. that is, just above or even right on the ground.

When you observe the sun that is far away, it will appear *closer to the horizon/ground* from your location because of *Perspective*.  This is the same reason we have sunset and sunrise.   The Sun that is setting is not touching the ground: it just appears that way to you because you are some distance from the local Sun *horizontally, *not just *vertically*. 

*Perspective* and *Horizontal Distance* from your location to the place where the Sun is directly overhead must be factored in when using the pictures you provided.  Somewhere in the distance though, it will be directly overhead at a 90 degree frame of reference (point X).  It is at that place (point X) where perspective is not an issue that we will be able to measure the true distance of the Sun from the ground, not from your location.

Triangulation occurs in a *2-Dimensional framework*: all reference points would be in one dimension... as on a flat sheet of paper.   In your pictures, you need to adjust your calculations to account for for your vertical distance (*depth*) from the point where the Sun is directly overhead.

If the foregoing is not adequately clear, let me rephrase:
The best way to think about this is to imagine the airborne object is directly overhead at a 90-degree angle of observation when computing the distance.  In other words, the distance of the sun is to be computed as being the distance from the ground *directly below* the sun. Because the sun may not be overhead where you are (see the pictures you provided), the triangulation is not to be computed using your location as the frame of reference.  *The corpuscular rays to be selected should be the ones along the same dimension where the Sun is overhead, not the ones projecting into a 3-Dimensional frame to reach you.*

In short, don't use corpuscular rays that are stretching out across the third dimension of horizontal distance from the Sun to your location.  Use corpuscular rays that are in the same 2-Dimension framework as the Sun.

If you want to use the *3-D framework*, (your pictures as is)  then you have to adjust your calculations for perspective-- i.e., you must factor in the third dimension : your *horizontal distance* to that distant place where the Sun is directly overhead.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Feb 18, 2022)

Thanks for taking the time to write this, I will study it carefully.

However I think I already know where I'm going to end up.

Maybe you can help me with this, I've discussed this with an astrophysics professor and still don't understand.

When you can see the Moon and the Sun both high in the Sky, the Moon is generally around half full (Gibbous). Something always looks wrong to me.

In my way of seeing, the axis of the Moon's phase should always be at right angles to the Sun.  And yet it rarely is. 

My astrophysics professor friend says that proves the Copernican model, and my problem is I'm not thinking in 3D.

However I think the Moon's phase axis should always be orthogonal to the Sun, and I can't understand what my friend is saying.


Apollonius said:


> No, the Moon doesn't have her own light.


My understanding is the accepted laws of Physics say that all energy comes from the Sun, and both the Earth and the Moon are lifeless balls of rock. So it should always be colder in shade than in direct Sunlight, unless there is a local heat source.

In the case of the Moon, it reflects Sunlight onto the lifeless ball of rock upon which we live, and therefore the same should apply - it should be cooler in the shade of the Moonlight, unless there is a local heat source. 

We've seen the opposite demonstrated by experiment and measurement.  There are several possible explanations, the Moon has its own form of light; the Earth is a local heat source; or something else is happening. And/or something else is happening...


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 18, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> In the case of the Moon, it reflects Sunlight onto the lifeless ball of rock upon which we live, and therefore the same should apply - it should be cooler in the shade of the Moonlight, unless there is a local heat source.


The Sun, Moon, and other planets are also hollow.

At the center there is a Central Sun, most likely made of plasma. The Sun transmits the energy it receives from the Central Sun to the Earth.

This is the Empyrean heaven that Dante in The Divine Comedy seek to convey to his readers.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 18, 2022)

Meet John Cleves Symmes jnr John Cleves Symmes Jr. - Wikipedia


​


> ​Origins of Symmes's theoryEdit​Writing in August 1817 to his stepson, Anthony Lockwood, Symmes for the first time stated that "I infer that all planets and globes are hollow".[22] But Symmes' theory was far from unprecedented. While the idea of polar openings leading into a Hollow Earth was Symmes's innovation, the concept of a Hollow Earth had an intellectual pedigree dating back to the 17th century and Edmond Halley.[23] Halley proposed his Hollow Earth theory as an explanation for the different locations of the geographic and magnetic poles of the Earth. While Halley's contemporaries found the geomagnetic data he had gathered to be of interest, his proposal of a Hollow Earth was never widely accepted. The theory remained dear to Halley; he chose to have his final portrait (as Astronomer Royal) painted depicting him holding a drawing of the Earth's interior as a set of concentric spheres.[16] Some scholars have proposed that Symmes may have learned of Halley's Hollow Earth via Cotton Mather's book, _The Christian Philosopher,_ a popular survey of science as natural theology.[13][24]
> 
> Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler has often been claimed as a proponent of a Hollow Earth theory. The version of the Hollow Earth theory ascribed to Euler lacked the concentric spheres of Halley's proposal, but added the element of an interior sun.[16] But Euler may never have actually suggested any such thing; Euler scholar, C. Edward Sandifer, has examined Euler's writings and found no evidence for any such belief.[25]
> 
> Whether or not Euler ever proposed a Hollow Earth, Symmes and some of his contemporaries certainly thought Euler had. In an 1824 exchanges of newspaper letters with Symmes, D. Preston implied that Symmes theory was not original, and cited both Halley and Euler as earlier examples.[1] Symmes himself insisted that he had not known of Hollow Earth proposals of Halley and Euler at the time he conceived his theory, and that he had only learned of their works much later.[1][12] Symmes disciple, James McBride, promoting and explain Symmes theory in his book, _Symmes's Theory of Concentric Spheres_ (1826), cited Euler as an earlier proponent of a similar theory.[26]



Has there been a reincarnation?


----------



## eitea (Feb 18, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Please provide links to the actual experimental proofs that hint at earths concavity. This is an honest request.


Not at all honest request.
Because you are asking me to do what is yours alone to do for you. It is not due to my neglect that you are not aware of such experiments and tests and logicalities, nor due to my neglect your disability to comprehend. And if you are aware of them, then why ask for them? I don't keep some list of links, nor will I ever; I take out info contained, advance myself accordingly, and then move on.
I don't cram info into my brains memory, I grow knowledge. Two very different things.

But certainly such links and other websites for info, have been provided in this forum in appropriate threads... or use search engines...
I am never going to do your research for you. If you want them, then go ahead and do what is yours to do, only yours and no one else's.
What I know, does not come from asking others to give me. I don't even remember ever asking anyone anywhere to give me some links to some "proofs". If someone says something, I do my own research and thinking. I don't ask for links, ever.

If I have something to say, it is not so to copy-paste links to some strangers' opinions and works, but to give my own. You cannot get my personal from anyone other than me. Does same apply to you, or do you personally not have anything personal, and instead only opinions and works of other people?


----------



## TommelBommel (Feb 19, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> The Sun, Moon, and other planets are also hollow.
> 
> At the center there is a Central Source, most likely made of plasma. The Sun transmits the energy it receives from the Central Source to the Earth.
> 
> ...


I would be interested to know, why you think you "know"?

so far there is not a single piece of evidence for a flat earth or concave earth. I find both theories very interesting. There are only observable and experimentally visible phenomena that indicate that the general theory about the nature of the earth is nonsensical.
but there is no single "evidence" that can be used as "exclusive to a theory".

whoever claims here that he knows how the shape of earth is, deceives himself...


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 19, 2022)

TommelBommel said:


> so far there is not a single piece of evidence for a flat earth...


Have you read the thread? Not a single piece?

What maps do pilots use? Or, maybe they use a globe?


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 19, 2022)

NY to Seoul? Honestly?


----------



## eitea (Feb 19, 2022)

Convex or flat or concave... Why focus on only these qualities, on superficialities, and assume there is only one "Earth-determining" quality? As if all other qualities that make Earth Earth, are not worth any attention nor mention nor thought...?
And why limit focus only to Earth? Earth is merely one tiny something in some far larger world and working. Need to begin comprehending that other stuff that also is and influences Earth's being. Earth is not on its own alone, nor due to its own alone.
How stupid this dominating mentality is... Only Earth and only flat, or only convex or only whatever other only one quality... And totally stuck to this mentality... As if some child desperately fighting against growing up.
So how about stopping that nonsense and grow up a lot? Being and staying stuck never gets anyone anywhere...

Convex crap, because wrong. Flat crap, because wrong. Essentially both are wrong because they cannot lead to anything further. They are stuck and keep stuck those who keep themselves stuck to them. They do not and cannot hint at so-to-say causal and elementary principles that could actually stand for reasons why Earth is as is. To come to know why Earth is as is, and to first of course at all find out how Earth actually is, need to begin looking further than only Earth.
Concave in contrast to convex and flat, has in this regard lots of logicality to it. There are many similar examples throughout nature and life and basic working of whatever, that have their sustaining life-activity within, inner life that makes up bigger whole - which are so-to-say "concave" in nature. Concave in this regard points and directs toward those "beyond Earth stuff", because fits very well to how natural organisms and nature works, and so so-to-say naturally directs toward causal and elementary principles and qualities and workings. If to go this way, toward "beyond Earth", which is rather easy to do from viewpoint of concave, but not convex nor flat, then will find out logicalities and possibilities that show clearly that "concavity" alone is evidently not enough and rather only as a possibility, and it gets varied and rich and "weird" while at same everything becomes more clear and certain.
Cannot advance if keeping self stuck to some only one quality.

Whatever one, is always due to coworking of many other qualities and aspects. Need to look at all them, as one and as separate and as coworking. Need to do whole, not rip at some few qualities.

Flatearthism began when? And no actual progress... Simple copy-pasting same stuff over and over, and trying to find where can fit those same stuff so to try to excuse and justify those same stuff. That's not research nor progress.

Like plane flights... So what? There are many ways to fool people regarding plane flight paths, and so also many ways to explain away. Does not need to be flat to make it "logical", there are other ways as well to explain why. So which one is correct? Want to know what some of those others are? Then think some... broaden your view, by a lot. Many ways to make seem something that it actually is not. And usually there are many ways actively in use as well, making it all more confusing. It's about having people fool themselves and keep themselves fooled - success, if you only focus on some one or few qualities, out of very very many that make whole what that whole is.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 19, 2022)

eitea said:


> Flat crap, because wrong.




Law of reflection is a law for a reason!


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 19, 2022)

eitea said:


> Concave in contrast to convex and flat, has in this regard lots of logicality to it.


Large bodies of standing water NEVER display concavity, nor convexity on their surface. 
*See: Law of Reflection... compare plane mirrors with sphere mirrors
*





eitea said:


> Flatearthism began when?


Since we first looked at our world, really. I mean throughout history and across cultures:


Can you tell which one is the psyop?



eitea said:


> Like plane flights... So what?


So what that 90+% of long distance "southern hemisphere" flights fly across the equator and through the "northern hemisphere?"

But again, what is most disconcerting here is that no one seems to care that these planes, flying purported 'great circle routes' are supposedly crossing the axis of rotation!


----------



## TommelBommel (Feb 19, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> Have you read the thread? Not a single piece?
> 
> What maps do pilots use? Or, maybe they use a globe?
> 
> ...


no man, this is not a proof to show what shape the earth has. this flight route examples disproof the current model of our earth - 
but it is still not a proof, that we live on a flat earth.
in order to provide proof of the nature of the earth, you must be able to reconcile all measurable and visible phenomena within one model. And then there must be no contradictions, all phenomena must have a cause in the model.

and regarding your question: "Have you read the thread? Not a single piece?"

i dont need to read the whole thread, since im on this topic since many years. Im aware and know about all arguments, flat earth, concave earth.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 19, 2022)

TommelBommel said:


> no man, this is not a proof to show what shape the earth has. this flight route examples disproof the current model of our earth -
> but it is still not a proof, that we live on a flat earth.


But you asked for evidence in claiming there was none. It does not prove flat, but i can continue to show everyone which maps pilots use.





TommelBommel said:


> i dont need to read the whole thread, since im on this topic since many years.


I cannot believe you have read and understood the law of reflection, known and dissected emergency landings..
and I am quite sure that you have not read into my continued badgering on the nonsense of 'great circle routes,' as flying an aircraft over, or supposedly crossing the axis of rotation is not possible!


----------



## TommelBommel (Feb 19, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> But you asked for evidence in claiming there was none. It does not prove flat, but i can continue to show everyone which maps pilots use.
> 
> View attachment 19870
> 
> ...


I don't think you are able to follow what I'm saying. I don't feel like discussing this with you any further, you're on a completely different level.

It's like i said: there isn't a single piece of evidence for the existence of a flat earth.

What we have is evidence, observable phenomena, experiments, that disproves the current mainstream model of a round earth flying through the universe.


Apollonius said:


> The Sun, Moon, and other planets are also hollow.
> 
> At the center there is a Central Source, most likely made of plasma. The Sun transmits the energy it receives from the Central Source to the Earth.
> 
> ...


you are spreading fantasies here. because everything you can't prove is pure fantasy.


----------



## chessquaker (Feb 20, 2022)

eitea said:


> _I don't cram info into my brains memory, I grow knowledge. Two very different things._



You cannot advance knowledge without providing proofs, examples and arguments.  You are responding to information and proof provided in the thread but, when asked politely, you refuse to provide links to what you are putting forward.  That is not how to dispute or advance a claim scientifically.  Everyone comes to knowledge by sharing information with others.



eitea said:


> _I am never going to do your research for you. If you want them, then go ahead and do what is yours to do, only yours and no one else's._


If this is your approach, then you should not respond to a discussion board.  Discussion boards necessitate sharing of individual research in a _collective_ space.  i.e. Giving links, putting forth our premises, logical reasoning and conclusions for others to review.

TommelBommel:
_"in order to provide proof of the nature of the earth, you must be able to reconcile all measurable and visible phenomena within one model."   
"Im aware and know about all arguments, flat earth, concave earth."_

"The earth is flat" is not the same thing as "The Flat Earth Model".  You are equating the threshold of a Fact to that of a Model ( a collection of facts and coherent working process to explain phenomena).  That is not the standard that a claim of Fact is required to meet.

Truth-seeking (the Scientific process) is a syllogistic process.  The Fact is the output of a logical proposition.  *If A, then B.  If not A, then not B.  *There is no denying this.  (Without syllogism, you only have religious dogma).

As we seek to understand our world, we must make sure our beliefs are based on the outputs of logical propositions.  When I tried to debunk Flat Earth after 40 years as a ball-man, this scientific process led me to proof after proof showing me that my previous beliefs were wrong. My understanding changed as a logical consequence.

The discipline of Logic tells us that you can determine the falsity of objective claims *without*** an all-encompassing infinite model.  That's because certain claims are central to the overall argument, especially with complex systems like the Earth where you have various phenomena from weather; tides & water bodies, airborne light sources of different sizes, shapes and intensities; life forms; shifting geology; electromagnetism, etc.

** If
   (a)    you know the underlying premises to a larger claim; and
   (b)    you can identify an underlying premise that is an absolute requisite for the larger claim
Then,
    (c)  you can verify the truth of the larger claim by proving or disproving that requisite underlying premise.

When it comes to Earth being a Ball , you can find the truth with this experiment:  *Is there curvature? *
The answer you get via tests of the hypothesis will yield proof that can settle the larger question of Sphericity.  Without Sphericity,  the entire larger NASA heliocentric narrative crumbles.  So, yes, proofs have been provided.  Empirical, demonstrable proof that the earth is Flat.

*Fact : *All Balls possess curvature.                        *Hypothesis : *The Earth too is a Ball.  
                            For the _Hypothesis_ to move into the category of Truth/Fact, the Earth must exhibit measurable _curvature_.
*                                                                  Experiment*:  Test and Measure for _curvature_.

*Experiment Valid Outcomes:*  1) Curvature was measured; therefore, Earth is a Ball. *If A, then B. 
* 2) Measurements show no Curvature; therefore, Earth is Flat. * If not A, then not B.  *

In short, proofs have been provided that there is no curvature.  Either you can demonstrate how the proofs are wrong in some way, or you must conclude that models of reality that require curvature in order to work are wrong.

*Validity of Models*
Models are correctly built from gathering sound conclusions together and postulating hypotheses for any remaining gaps.  For a model to remain valid, it must contain *a)* Facts and/or *b)* only those working hypotheses/theories (waiting to become facts) that i) have not been falsified by empirical experimentation; ii) are not presented as facts pending proof; and, iii) do not contradict central facts.

Because the Earth is a very complex system, there are several aspects of the Earth model that we cannot devise empirical experiments for.  This much is undeniable.  But, complexity of the System does not mean that the demonstrable Truths within the Flat Earth Model should be overlooked.

Thus, the Flat Earth model can be both valid and incomplete.


----------



## eitea (Feb 20, 2022)

chessquaker said:


> You cannot advance knowledge without providing proofs, examples and arguments.


All "proofs" are someone's opinions. What determines how correct they are, is logic. Logic is based on honesty. Logic itself is relativity, how something is in relation to something else and why, and so what that something is and why.
I am responding to others' opinions and comments, that are too naive and wrong in relation to what this all is supposed to be about, according to claims made. Personally, my own "view of all", is rather advanced compared to anything I've read; compared to what I've seen others' say theirs is, mine goes beyond and is not stuck but still growing, and subject to immediate change when I find something more correct. What I see many others do, is being stuck with no actual progress, and themselves not able to see it.
Of course there are trolls and shills too, who've learned how to troll and shill, essentially do it as a job; here in this forum too - it is obvious. Comments and "opinions" these "people" provide, are with intent and goal to "guide" progression to falsities and delusions and to keep people stuck at them. They manipulate with peoples understandings, try to put bad and wrong meanings into their minds, try to incite bad ideas and directions about whatever topics, usually flavored with enough "passion" and "truthfulness" and "politeness" (but not honesty) to fool easily.


chessquaker said:


> You are responding to information and proof provided in the thread but, when asked politely, you refuse to provide links to what you are putting forward.  That is not how to dispute or advance a claim scientifically. Everyone comes to knowledge by sharing information with others.


Politeness or honesty? Both can be imitated. If evidently not honest, then how is that polite? Or you think politeness is "acting honest" when actually is not, so to not say to other "screw you!" or worse?
When it comes to research and testing and such, then honesty is needed, not politeness.
Politeness is essentially same as politics. Polite and politic... words are nearly same as well. I do not do politics, nor ever will. There is no place for politics in genuine science of any kind. Unless "science of politics", which is essentially science of politeness.

I have not "refused", not in any way you are trying to assert. Don't try to put meanings into my mind, that do not belong there! It's what some certain type of evil people do... or people fooled by those evil people.

I do share info. And not only info, but also understandings and directions, which are more important than info itself.
Info alone is essentially statistics. Cold and unchanging and uncaring, always same no matter what - another way of saying "lack of honesty".
Info alone is rather totally useless, usefulness comes forth when logic is applied, when directions of view accompanied by according knowledge (not info) and understandings.
Only kind of info that is genuinely mine to share, is that which originates from my knowledge and my logical ability, both presented in worded form thus as informational. Meaning if I comment on info brought forth by someone, I give my own opinions about it, my own understandings and directions of view. I do not give links to some yet other stranger's opinions, so to try to "prove false" or "prove true", because by doing such nonsense nothing can ever progress.
And should I bring forth somene's work, links and stuff, then I provide my own opinions regarding it. It is fine to bring someone else's, some stranger's opinions about it, as means of showing possibilities and probabilities and other angles - but do not keep yourself stuck to those while never giving any of your own personal.


chessquaker said:


> If this is your approach, then you should not respond to a discussion board.  Discussion boards necessitate sharing of individual research in a _collective_ space.  i.e. Giving links, putting forth our premises, logical reasoning and conclusions for others to review.


Discussion means providing own personal opinions, not copy-pasting opinions of strangers.
Discussion is not where you only copy-paste someone else's as "proof" or "disproof". Such someone else's is that person's personal - or not, in case they are merely following some "rules" or "laws" or examples given by some yet other people, and so never have formed their own personal.
Lots of links to others' works and opinions have been provided in this thread, but very few seem to comprehend what is actually going on here... Is this thread about finding out truth, or to merely promote a campaign/cult?
If something has already been provided, and there isn't enough to show it to genuinely be "absolutely true", then why try to keep on arguing over it, same opinions over and over and over endlessly, so to try to force others into believing it to be "absolute truth"? Curious goals some people have...


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 20, 2022)

TommelBommel said:


> you are spreading fantasies here. because everything you can't prove is pure fantasy.


I am here to disprove people like you and Flat Earthers.

Few people on this forum know what Earth really is, but they don't have time to deal with people like you.


chessquaker said:


> Thus, the Flat Earth model can be both valid and incomplete.


Flat Earth is invalid and I don't know why people still believe in this joke.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 20, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> I am here to disprove people like you and Flat Earthers.


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 20, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> View attachment 19885


This disproves literally nothing!

Emergency landings only look ridiculous as long as you view them through the Mercator projection. If you see on the three-dimensional globe, you will understand why they stopped by Alaska and not the USA.

And I repeat, there is no such thing as a Flat Earth map! You are using an already *existing projection of the spherical Earth* and trying to debunk the spherical Earth with it?

You said you don't respond to memes in your previous posts, but I'm responding to your posts out of respect for you.

I'm waiting for a response from you and other Flat Earthers to this too, but to date (2.20.2022) no Flat Earther has been able to respond to this, on this forum or anywhere else.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 20, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> Emergency landings only look ridiculous as long as you view them through the Mercator projection. If you see on the three-dimensional globe, you will understand why they stopped by Alaska and not the USA.






Apollonius said:


> I'm waiting for a response from you...


You had your response. I suggested to provide evidence of what your meme is trying to claim.

Just because you can make a meme, does not mean that the meme is representing our objective reality. You need to prove your claims, sir.

I hope you can at least agree with me there.

peace


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 20, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> View attachment 19887
> 
> 
> You had your response. I suggested to provide evidence of what your meme is trying to claim.
> ...


Yes, I made sure once again that I've disproved Flat Earth with your answer.




(Two flights on the Mercator projection)




(Two flights on the 3D globe)




The reason why they landed at Ted Steven Anchorage International Airport instead of landing by Los Angeles International Airport is the distance of 3500 kilometers.


----------



## Blue Ice (Feb 20, 2022)

grav said:


> I am new to this forum and don't see an active thread on flat earth. Is there any interest in the topic?
> SH's format is quite impressive. And imposing, to the point that navigating it is tricky for a simple mind like mine. Generic forums have become gross mockeries of their original designs, and so I am looking for a new home where I may spout my heresies, primarily the most basic hidden truth upon which all other distorted truths are based. The Infinite Plane of the Electric Universe.
> 
> My overall guesstimate of reality is a computer program which is crashed and rebooted every 300 years or so.
> ...


Sorry, where does the attached image come from?


----------



## TommelBommel (Feb 20, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> I am here to disprove people like you and Flat Earthers.
> 
> Few people on this forum know what Earth really is, but they don't have time to deal with people like you.
> 
> Flat Earth is invalid and I don't know why people still believe in this joke.


How you wanna disprove me I didn't even come up with a theory. 

What I would like to say to you and the readers of the forum is, that it is nonsensical to simply claim something.
If you have a brilliant idea, or if you have a intresting question, if you know something valuable - then share it. 
But to simply state that (as example) "the moon is hollow" ...is in fact kindergarden level.

The way you argue here is unfortunately useless. Too bad, because you would certainly be able to contribute something actually constructive.


Apollonius said:


> I am here to disprove people like you and Flat Earthers.
> 
> Few people on this forum know what Earth really is, but they don't have time to deal with people like you.
> 
> Flat Earth is invalid and I don't know why people still believe in this joke.


  ...and btw, How do you want to know what I know or don't know?
I know pretty much all theses of the Flat Earth movement, the Concanve Earth movement and some more.
I believe that most of those who are in this forum have already heard and read a lot.

You should act constructively before you discredit others because you are legitimately criticized,  - or simply remain silent.


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 20, 2022)

TommelBommel said:


> You should act constructively before you discredit others because you are legitimately criticized,  - or simply remain silent.


I will never be silent. I'll keep debunking all the nonsense.


----------



## TommelBommel (Feb 21, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> I will never be silent. I'll keep debunking all the nonsense.


Okay good, but contribute something good please


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 21, 2022)

Another emergency landing showing exactly which maps pilots use:


----------



## Akanah (Feb 21, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> Since we first looked at our world, really. I mean throughout history and across cultures:
> View attachment 19869
> 
> Can you tell which one is the psyop?


If the ancient peoples were still together in a great empire, it would explain why they also had a world view. Nowadays there is also only one world view that is favored.
By the way @dreamtime had already once referred to the fact that the earth could have been flat in former times and could have changed later. I believe in it that the earth has changed.
Why must the earth be flat nowadays only because it was perhaps in former times ? In the biology a unicellular organism is also at the beginning rather disk-shaped until it changes later to a spherical concave/convex blastocyst and still later into a higher biological form. And even if the earth would have been a disc-shaped spaceship in former times, it could have received a new other form by some catastrophe from the outside.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 21, 2022)

Akanah said:


> Why must the earth be flat nowadays only because it was perhaps in former times ?


Don't miss the point. It isn't that the earth must be flat nowadays only because it was perhaps in former time. 

The point is that large bodies of standing water will never become concave or convex on their surface... ever.

And if you have been reading along, you would already know which maps our pilots use.

Here is another documented emergency landing, mapped on both the supposed globe and on Gleason's map of our known plane:

Yes?


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 21, 2022)

Akanah said:


> And even if the earth would have been a disc-shaped spaceship...


The Earth does not move. It never has. The idea that Earth is a spaceship is a psyop... like the rest of the space-porn we find ourselves inundated with.

The Earth stands still while our stars do this:


And our "planets," once known as our wandering stars do this:


This is what we have observed throughout at least the time that men have looked to the sky.

And this simple, verifiable reality can never be explained by heliocentrism, let alone if we were to live on the inside of a sphere, magically stuck to the walls.


----------



## Fexus (Feb 22, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> The Earth does not move. It never has. The idea that Earth is a spaceship is a psyop... like the rest of the space-porn we find ourselves inundated with.
> 
> The Earth stands still while our stars do this:
> View attachment 19897
> ...


Woah! Those orbits look super cool! Is there an explanation or theory as to why they do that? What are the planets made of?


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Feb 22, 2022)

Those orbit are observations of the planetary orbits as viewed from the stationary earth . These epicycles (or mandela) , as they are known, were observed and tracked over time and led Tycho Brahe to form his geocentric model. A good introduction.
Life and Times of Tycho Brahe

Planets beyond Saturn were not known to him. 

Don't know what they are made of but my telescopes tell me they are not spheres reflecting the suns' light.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Feb 22, 2022)

The pictures of the planets are pretty, but what are they?  Others have said they represent the planets' orbits, how?

Are they a projection from above the plane of the ecliptic?

Or to ask a different way, how would I go about reproducing those diagrams?


----------



## Big_Boss (Feb 22, 2022)

I think many of use as flat earth believers are doing it wrong. The problem is that flat earth theory is rather "new" in the sense to it has gained fame in the last few years. To have good arguments, is to have enough knowledge about it. However, if one is being blocked to go to the north pole or Antarctica, it is fishy to begin with. I mean i have read/watched about the dark sun, all we have is findings in the history, but we have no factual evidence to say...aha..here you go!..Why? Because we aren't allowed to go to the north pole to find it our selves. Besides this, we do not have billions and trillions of dollars to do these investigations.

However if i watch some flat earth-debunk videos, what is being used is the common narrative and thus driving many of use to debunk a spherical earth based on THEIR science. We cannot debunk their spherical earth, because we have not enough knowledge to explain our own theory. Flat earth believers do not say how the universe is, because we haven't even left the earth (ie glass ceiling). Could it be that other planets are spherical, but only earth as the land it self is flat? It could be, we do not know. Could it be that there is water above the glass ceiling? Well if we look at camera footage, it does look like it. 

The best advice is to not argue with them. Why? They try to turn things around and make you debunk their theory. We come to the point that some things we cannot explain. Why? Because we do not have the knowledge how in reality it is with a flat earth. However this advice, i know that there are enough of flat earth believers, that burn inside to want to debate. I would advice you to turn things around. Let them debunk OUR findings. The deceit of NASA, the camera footage of the starts and planets, the freemasons and what until now has been unearthed about them and what they are doing and other satanic things going on with people in power etc. etc.. Let them try to debunk these things first. Flat earth will find its place automatically. If they say, why would they create such a great conspiracy. tell them.."you tell me", but if we look at the evidence it is clearly that they indeed are creating such great conspiracy. This makes much much much more sense. Sometimes to arrive at the truth another path needed to be taken. Arriving at the truth there is not only one way, there are multiple angles one can use to arrive at it.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Feb 22, 2022)

Don't those regular epicycles in the orbits of all planets as seen from earth debunk the heliocentric model? That and the never changing starfield led Brahe to conclude that globe earth at the centre of his system must be stationary.

There is no scientific evidence for the heliocentric model that I'm aware of. The heliocentric model was introduced as being "nicer", not because of any new observation.


----------



## Akanah (Feb 22, 2022)

I do not consider this thread as a person who believes in a spherical earth, because I have found my own earth theory. 
I am only not so sure whether in this thread really people write who believe in flat earth or whether only people write here who want to divert necessarily from other alternative earth forms.
Since the flat earth topic became so popular a few years ago, I can't help but think of a psy-op. It seems to me that there is an organization that wants humanity to believe in a flat earth in the future. And I wonder why they want that. Maybe it has to do with the wearing of covid masks and the accompanying lack of oxygen. Maybe the humanity should become dumbed down and the concept of flat earth would be the only concept that people with oxygen deficiency could still easily understand and accept ?


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 22, 2022)

RE: Wandering Stars (cont.) - THIS CAN NOT HAPPEN ON THE OUTSIDE OF A SPHERE, LET ALONE THE INSIDE OF ONE, lol.


----------



## Big_Boss (Feb 22, 2022)

Akanah said:


> I do not consider this thread as a person who believes in a spherical earth, because I have found my own earth theory.
> I am only not so sure whether in this thread really people write who believe in flat earth or whether only people write here who want to divert necessarily from other alternative earth forms.
> Since the flat earth topic became so popular a few years ago, I can't help but think of a psy-op. It seems to me that there is an organization that wants humanity to believe in a flat earth in the future. And I wonder why they want that. Maybe it has to do with the wearing of covid masks and the accompanying lack of oxygen. Maybe the humanity should become dumbed down and the concept of flat earth would be the only concept that people with oxygen deficiency could still easily understand and accept ?


That it could be a psy-op that could also be, who knows. However despite one believing in the flat earth, hollow earth or whatever. What binds us all, is that we all know that the current narrative of our history is full of lies or at least "victors decide what history is". I think because of this which binds us, we treat each other with respect, just how usually civilized people do and act. While in reality the media would make you hate me and me hating you just because we disagree on one thing.


----------



## TommelBommel (Feb 22, 2022)

Akanah said:


> I do not consider this thread as a person who believes in a spherical earth, because I have found my own earth theory.
> I am only not so sure whether in this thread really people write who believe in flat earth or whether only people write here who want to divert necessarily from other alternative earth forms.
> Since the flat earth topic became so popular a few years ago, I can't help but think of a psy-op. It seems to me that there is an organization that wants humanity to believe in a flat earth in the future. And I wonder why they want that. Maybe it has to do with the wearing of covid masks and the accompanying lack of oxygen. Maybe the humanity should become dumbed down and the concept of flat earth would be the only concept that people with oxygen deficiency could still easily understand and accept ?


"I can't help but think of a psy-op." sometimes i have the same feeling. 

It's almost more logical that we live in a concave earth (as weird it sounds) but many phenomena can be explained there. So far I haven't found any blatant contradictions with this concave earth model. I mean with contradictions; phenomena that are neither explained by the mainstream model of earth, nor in flat earth.


Big_Boss said:


> What binds us all, is that we all know that the current narrative of our history is full of lies or at least "victors decide what history is".


Yes that is true. 
It's amazing, how the well-known world view is pulled away under your feet, once you start investigating.

Of course, for those who started with this awakening, after Eric Dubai's publications, which made legitimate criticism of the current worldview accessible to everyone, the first obvious solution (that we live on a flat earth) was the most welcome. It is very easy to have something explained to you on an silver tablet, and not to invest much energy in research. 

It is a mammoth task for each individual, although very few will be able to keep on track and to keep a clear mind during all their own research.Just the untruths, partial truths, delusions, cover-ups and erasures of historical events is breathtaking enough. 

Beeing honest...who has enough time to deal with all these topics in detail and then also to question the general perception of the nature of our world? It costs energy and time. Both is very limited available for the individuals.


----------



## The Illuminator (Feb 23, 2022)

Great read guys. My two pennies. We have been lied to for eons. Why believe anything the MSM say ever again?

I do not know the shape of our realm. What I do know its not the heliocentric version that our so called masters shove down our throat from birth.


----------



## Big_Boss (Feb 23, 2022)

TommelBommel said:


> Beeing honest...who has enough time to deal with all these topics in detail and then also to question the general perception of the nature of our world? It costs energy and time. Both is very limited available for the individuals.



Before the time we worked for money, people would work in the fields. Their bodies would do the work, their minds would ponder over things, it would digest the things he had heard multiple times over again, before concluding if what he heard or seen is true.

Then came the time that people would work for money. The husband would work, his body would work in a factory, but his mind would still ponder to a certain extend about what he had heard/seen and come up with his own conclusion. What he worked for, he could provide himself and his whole family. The woman until then still had you could say, an easy life when it came to prevent her mind being busy with nonsense. Then came the age that she also had to work just so she and her husband could have a enough money.

Now we are at the age of what you said, "Who has enough time to deal with all these topics in detail.....". As if it was made by design so we would not think for ourselves, just because we don't have enough time for it. Many people when they get off from work, they fill their minds with posion called tv. If that is not the case, they blindly wander with countless catvideos on youtube. If that is not the case, fake news is keeping them in a cage not providing any source or evidence for their fake news article. Just narrative. I am rather alone in my circles when it comes to reading things, questioning things etc. while others in my circles are too busy with their children, wives/girlfriends, trying to get rich.

I am in IT and things have even turned. The technology in the past 2-3 years doesn't even exist anymore. Why? Because everything is in the so called cloud. The applications one needs to approach you must use a webbrowser, thus every update of the application is automatically pushed. You as a system administrator don't have a say in it anymore. Thus as an IT person i keep going back to learn the basics, because the basics they are just changing for really no good reason. I say often its change because of changing, not because of innovation. With this you will NEVER become an expert in your field, because you keep going back to the basics. They rob you of your time and prevent you from having time to spare and investigate.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 23, 2022)

TommelBommel said:


> ...*It's almost more logical that we live in a concave earth (as weird it sounds) but many phenomena can be explained there.* So far *I haven't found any blatant contradictions with this concave earth model.*


Please explain how we stick to the interior of a sphere, while knowing full well that we are standing vertically.

Please explain why the surface of standing water never becomes concave.

Please explain how horizons NEVER appear above eye-level, when viewed at 90 degrees from any altitude, parallel with our ground.

Where is Polaris?

Your opinions are all good, but as you requested of another:


TommelBommel said:


> Okay good, but contribute something good please


----------



## Quiahuitl (Feb 23, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> And our "planets," once known as our wandering stars do this:
> View attachment 19898


Please explain how these drawings are produced, what are we looking at here?

I assume this is a projection of the planets from above the plane of the ecliptic?

Please talk me through the process by which you observe the planets in the sky and convert that information into these drawings?


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 23, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> Please explain how these drawings are produced, what are we looking at here?


We simply track the movements of the lights in the sky, directly above our plane,  that you believe are planets. 



Quiahuitl said:


> I assume this is a projection of the planets from above the plane of the ecliptic?


There is no ecliptic or great circles as I have already shown. 

That is pure fantasy that requires us to be living on the outside of a spinning-water/gas/rock.



Quiahuitl said:


> Please talk me through the process by which you observe the planets in the sky and convert that information into these drawings?


See above... quite simple... was done long before the telescope...


----------



## Quiahuitl (Feb 23, 2022)

The ecliptic is the plane in which the planets orbit the sun.  The Earth's spin is at an angle to that.

So the ecliptic is the plane on which those diagrams are drawn.

If you look directly at the planets in the sky, they do not describe the motions illustrated in the pictures.  Since the plants are all moving in the same plane, and we are in that plane too, they appear to describe linear trajectories, oscillating side to side.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 23, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> The ecliptic is the plane in which the planets orbit the sun. The Earth's spin is at an angle to that.
> 
> So the ecliptic is the plane on which those diagrams are drawn.
> 
> If you look directly at the planets in the sky, they do not describe the motions illustrated in the pictures. Since the plants are all moving in the same plane, and we are in that plane too, they appear to describe linear trajectories, oscillating side to side.


All that is provable hogwash... and based in lies.

What we see is real. What they say is not. 

Those perfectly symmetrical patterns is simply what happens right above us, right around Polaris, just like our stars.

You have been what freemasons call hoodwinked.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Feb 23, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> All that is provable hogwash... and based in lies.
> 
> What we see is real. What they say is not.
> 
> ...



Let's assume the Earth is stationary.  All the stars spin round once a day.  The planets do too, however they also move very slowly compared to the fixed stars.  So my question is what is the path described by any particular planet when viewed against the background of the fixed stars?

And my answer is that the planets do not move round in pretty patterns like you have described when viewed directly from our vantage point here on the Earth, which you may assume is flat and stationary if you like.

The planets always appear to be in a narrow band in the sky.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 23, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> Let's assume the Earth is stationary.


OK, seems reasonable as everyone, left to their own senses and intellect, would come to that very conclusion.



Quiahuitl said:


> All the stars spin round once a day.


Look.
I've been through this too. You jump on a thread without even taking the time to understand the topic. What you have just described is yet another proof that your spinning-water/gas/rock does not exist.

Every star will return in about 23 hours and 56 minutes to exactly where it began. We call this a sidereal day.

The solar day of course is about 24 hours.

The hoops heliocentrism must jump through to make both of these observed parts of reality, an effect of the same cause (ie: us spinning) is ridiculous to even watch play out.



Quiahuitl said:


> So my question is what is the path described by any particular planet when viewed against the background of the fixed stars?


Exactly this... with Polaris dead center:


----------



## Quiahuitl (Feb 23, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> Exactly this... with Polaris dead center:



Are you saying that if I look directly at polaris and take a photo of the position of Venus at the same time every night, it will describe this pattern over a period of 8 years?  

So when Venus is in the circle at the outside edge of this diagram, I will see it near the horizon, and when it is at one of the apexes near the centre I will see it close to Polaris?


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Feb 23, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> Let's assume the Earth is stationary.  All the stars spin round once a day.  The planets do too, however they also move very slowly compared to the fixed stars.  So my question is what is the path described by any particular planet when viewed against the background of the fixed stars?
> 
> And my answer is that the planets do not move round in pretty patterns like you have described when viewed directly from our vantage point here on the Earth, which you may assume is flat and stationary if you like.
> 
> The planets always appear to be in a narrow band in the sky.


The planets do move round in these pretty patterns . All planets exhibit retrograde motions at regular intervals during their orbits when observed from earth. These intervals are regular as clockwork so to speak . When mapped over time - this has been done throughout history- the result is the mandela that have been shown previously ,along with their periods measured in earth years.

To get those full Mandela requires many years of observation but we know this happens and it's why we can predict planetary positions many years ahead.

The planets sun and moon travel a path across the background of the starry sky - the Zodiac  - all at differing
 rates.

Forgot to put in the link

Early astronomical observations

Good introduction


----------



## TommelBommel (Feb 23, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> Please explain how we stick to the interior of a sphere, while knowing full well that we are standing vertically.
> 
> Please explain why the surface of standing water never becomes concave.
> 
> ...


I'm not here to enlighten others.
Everyone is responsible for himself.
I am not a prophet, not an omniscient and i´m not a walking encyclopedia.



otl2021 said:


> Your opinions are all good, but as you requested of another:


I simply told him in this case, that he should contribute something constructive rather than discrediting others.
He also came up with claims like: the moon is hollow…anyone who claims something concrete like this without justifying it in any way,
is discrediting himself.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 23, 2022)

TommelBommel said:


> I'm not here to enlighten others.
> Everyone is responsible for himself.
> I am not a prophet, not an omniscient and i´m not a walking encyclopedia.
> 
> ...


You made two gigantic claims:


TommelBommel said:


> *It's almost more logical that we live in a concave earth (as weird it sounds) but many phenomena can be explained there.* So far *I haven't found any blatant contradictions with this concave earth model.*


I am simply trying to understand how you see the phenomena as explained and how you have seen no blatant contradictions. Seems reasonable, no?

In other words, here are questions that you should have already asked yourself before claiming that a concave Earth makes ant sense at all:

Please explain how we stick to the interior of a sphere, while knowing full well that we are standing vertically.

Please explain why the surface of standing water never becomes concave.

Please explain how horizons NEVER appear above eye-level, when viewed at 90 degrees from any altitude, parallel with our ground.

Where is Polaris?

Hopefully another of the brand new posters who have come to this thread with concave beliefs might finally answer; if you can't.




FarewellAngelina said:


> All *planets *exhibit retrograde motions at regular intervals during their *orbits *when observed from earth.


Can you define what you mean here by "planets" and by "orbits?"

tyvm in advance.


TommelBommel said:


> I mean with contradictions; phenomena that are neither explained by the mainstream model of earth, nor in flat earth.


What contradictions and what phenomena are you having difficulty with? And what flat Earth model are you considering?

Thanks


----------



## TommelBommel (Feb 23, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> I am simply trying to understand how you see the phenomena as explained and how you have seen no blatant contradictions. Seems reasonable, no?


I can understand that you are hungry for knowledge.

Your questions alone show me that you have not yet dealt with the topic.
e.g. the question about Polaris...
in contrast to the flat earth, convex earth, - the northern and southern star trails are explained in a logical and simple way within the most believable models, which i have found so far.

But just do yourself a favor and just do some research. you won't be able to avoid it if you're interested.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 23, 2022)

TommelBommel said:


> the northern and *southern star* trails are explained in a logical and simple way within the most believable models, which i have found so far.


"Southern star trails" do not exist! 

*Please, please, please show us that they do and end this!*

All I have seen are easily proven fakes. The so-called southern star trails, as I have shown here previously, are a matter of perspective and the viewers angle to/from Polaris. 



TommelBommel said:


> But just do yourself a favor and just do some research....


K, after you get back on the whole southern star mess, where should I start on the avoided questions (not just by you, but all of team concave)?

Please explain how we stick to the interior of a sphere, while knowing full well that we are standing vertically.

Please explain why the surface of standing water never becomes concave.

Please explain how horizons NEVER appear above eye-level, when viewed at 90 degrees from any altitude, parallel with our ground.

I tried the Teed stuff, but his explanations were lacking, let alone:



Got anything else to help me along with my research?


----------



## TommelBommel (Feb 23, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> "Southern star trails" do not exist!
> 
> *Please, please, please show us that they do and end this!*



_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNiNJC3UHIo_



otl2021 said:


> Please explain how we stick to the interior of a sphere,


So listen.
I will never claim to know what the shape of the earth looks like.
I'm far too insignificant and far too lazy for that to justify such a statement here.

I contend that all of these curious observable phenomena on earth, that cannot be explained by the mainstream model of the earth are partly explained by the flat earth theory. But only partially and in some cases far too complicated and hyper-theoretical, fantastic.

To your question: who says that we stick?
Officially, it's gravity. So a downward force.
In other words: pull...but it could also simply be a push.


otl2021 said:


> Please explain why the surface of standing water never becomes concave.


I have a good day..so let me reply:

How do you know that the water surface is not concave?
1. Because you can see too far with a telescope?
2. Because "common sense" says that water in large masses always seems to be flat?



otl2021 said:


> Please explain how horizons NEVER appear above eye-level, when viewed at 90 degrees from any altitude, parallel with our ground.


An interesting question.
I tell you this:
With a convex earth as well as with a flat earth,
the horizon would inevitably be below eye level with a certain distance.
Inevitably!
- Here and older description how it supposed to look like on an concave earth.
............But do yourself a favor and do your own research.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Feb 23, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> Can you define what you mean here by "planets" and by "orbits?"
> 
> tyvm in advance.


Planets - beneath the vault of the sky , easy to differentiate from the twinkly rotating stars . The orbit of a planet ,I assume, is the return of that planet to the starting point of its journey across the Zodiac . Hard to find a scientific definition for that . The sun takes a year to do that . Maybe I should look into astrology for the answer.

Hope that clears it for you.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 24, 2022)

Fexus said:


> Woah! Those orbits look super cool! Is there an explanation or theory as to why they do that?


In Mathematics, specifically trigonometry, what we are seeing are either epitrochoids/epicycloids or hypotrochoids/hypocycloids. As most of us know, these patterns are created by tracing a fixed point inside a circle around either the inside or outside of another fixed circle.


Humanistic Mathematics Network Journal - Issue 19 Article 7
3-1-1999
Spirograph® Math

University of North Carolina, Wilmington...
https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1328&context=hmnj


_View: https://youtu.be/68FmcZxv1H4_




Fexus said:


> What are the planets made of?


There are others here that enjoy this type of speculation. I see lights that move mathematically, with perfect symmetry, and I know that the way modern astronomy describes these objects in our world is antithetical to what we all observe.




FarewellAngelina said:


> Planets - beneath the vault of the sky , easy to differentiate from the twinkly rotating stars . The orbit of a planet ,I assume, is the return of that planet to the starting point of its journey across the Zodiac . Hard to find a scientific definition for that . The sun takes a year to do that . Maybe I should look into astrology for the answer.
> 
> Hope that clears it for you.


Yes, thank-you; I've been on this "words have meaning/words are important kick," lol.


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Feb 25, 2022)

TommelBommel said:


> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNiNJC3UHIo_
> 
> 
> So listen.
> ...



Excellent post!   A couple of things more to add.....

Tropics of Cancer, and Capricorn are the same size.  And the Flat Earth community has never, ever demonstrated them to be different sizes at all, let alone the Tropic of Capricorn to be nearly double the size of the Tropic of Cancer.   Further more;  ships traveling in these regions can be viewed online, and clearly there is no distance manipulation within the tropic region.  

For such people to claim "Star Trails don't exist" Why don't you go navigate using the Celestial sphere around the tropics, and demonstrate once and for all that they are 2 diffferent sizes?


In addition to the point of water and it's possibility to concavity;  the solution is simple, and kills 2 birds with one stone.    Dynamic Compression of the Aether combined with the fact that water is naturally diamagnetic.  Every, single, drop.  For those of the flat earth community who do not yet know what diamagnetism is; congratulations, you've discovered a new property of water other than "It's flat!" 

Flat Earth demands a reality that has yet to be proven... 2 different sized tropics.   

The obvious, simplest, most ironic and entertaining solution to the lie of heliocentrism,  is that you live in an inside out version of the world you are taught about. (Inverse Earth, a more appropriate title than "Concave") Proofs: Tropics that are the same size, a horizon that rises to eye level, water that is diamagnetic,  Aether instead of Gravity, actual physically measured curvature in 2 different locations from 2 independent teams over a span of 150 years ... oh and one more thing.... Still deceiving you about the thing you should know most about.


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 25, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> OK, seems reasonable as everyone, left to their own senses and intellect, would come to that very conclusion.
> 
> 
> Look.
> ...


Stop proving Flat Earth through geocentric system arguments!


----------



## TommelBommel (Feb 27, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> Tropics of Cancer, and Capricorn are the same size.


..the measurement of land and sea areas is wrong and incorrect. i that´s one core "explanation" from flat earthers for the different tropic sizes. In addition, the sun rotates faster in the southern hemisphere in order to cover the greater distance with the same rotation speed of 24h/d.


GandalfTheGreen said:


> distance manipulation within the tropic region


...but that's exactly what the "core" flat earthers poignantly claim. It is claimed that due to the invention of GPS by the us military, that there is no confidence in the official real distances from A to B. 
GPS is manipulated in such a way, that people never really know where they are. (The exception here is, of course, the northern hemisphere) But, as is well known, there is no GPS over the oceans in particular.
So you can actually hardly prove what the real distances between continents look like and you can tell any story if you want, if you interpret a earth model to fit an thesis.
- I agree, its absurd.


GandalfTheGreen said:


> Why don't you go navigate using the Celestial sphere around the tropics, and demonstrate once and for all that they are 2 diffferent sizes?


But how would you really proof, that both tropics have the same circumference?


GandalfTheGreen said:


> actual physically measured curvature in 2 different locations from 2 independent teams over a span of 150 years


What do you mean by that?


GandalfTheGreen said:


> Still deceiving you about the thing you should know most about.


What do you mean by that?


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 27, 2022)

TommelBommel said:


> In addition, the sun rotates faster in the southern hemisphere in order to cover the greater distance with the same rotation speed of 24h/d.



Study up, friend.


----------



## TommelBommel (Feb 27, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> Study up, friend.


what do you want to tell me?
I know the entire flat earth community. I know all pictures, videos and i know exactly what their arguments are. Unfortunately, I have a problem with the fact that many assumptions are "made to support" the thesis that we live on a flat earth.

and your GIF doesn't even begin to affect the criticism i have for the community.
I criticize in my comment above, that there is no evidence whatsoever that the sun rotates faster in the southern hemisphere than in the northern.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 28, 2022)

TommelBommel said:


> what do you want to tell me?


I am willing to learn and actually study what has been posted.



TommelBommel said:


> I know the entire flat earth community. I know all pictures, videos and i know exactly what their arguments are.


This is clearly and simply not true.



TommelBommel said:


> I have a problem with the fact that many assumptions are "made to support" the thesis that we live on a flat earth.


Name these assumptions... and please keep them congruent with objective and demonstrable reality.



TommelBommel said:


> and your GIF doesn't even begin to affect the criticism i have for the community.


It DEMONSTRATES a very simple fact. 

For the sun to maintain her 15 degree arc per hour, she *must* accelerate as she moves away from our northern center and decelerate as she moves nearer. This, itself, debunks the entirety of heliocentrism, let alone the sticking to the inside of a sphere nonsense.



TommelBommel said:


> I criticize in my comment above, that there is no evidence whatsoever that the sun rotates faster in the southern hemisphere than in the northern.


Which is exactly what was shown. You just did not understand it!


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Feb 28, 2022)

Magnetic field of a ring magnet   - 

https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/warehouse/v1.0/publiccontent/fbf2ced7-443a-42da-b09f-060f51d66d7d

https://img.search.brave.com/51hLE-...GlDeTQxYjBqQjFD/MnlFbWszV0pRQUFB/QSZwaWQ9QXBp

Is there a null point at the center of a ring magnet? 

Thoughts about earths magnetic field.

Antarctica could be the source of earths ring magnetic field. North pole would be the null point. South pole is everywhere/anywhere along the rim of Antarctica.  Telluric currents circle Antarctica producing the magnetic field which would govern the motion of the sun giving it a constant angular velocity. 

It is known that compasses don't work near or below the South magnetic pole at 64 S

How Do Compasses Tell Which Way Is North at the South Pole?

Reversal of the telluric currents would cause the pole shifts which are recorded on rocks.


----------



## grav (Mar 1, 2022)

odd, I received no notifications of these last posts and thought no action was going on in the thread.

I will depart from recent looks at down-to-earth points to make a major detour -- some readers may want to ignore it since this post consists of wild speculations that connect geocentrism with ideas about Tartaria and other mysteries.

The globe is so dumb, actually goofy. Then why did I believe that idiotic psyop so damn long?

The truth is trickling out, finally. Maybe that's what triggered the reset, which is in phase 2.
The natives are getting restless, learning too much Truth.
Time to round up the doggies, cull the herd, let the End begin.

Covid, Ukraine, the other idiotic and endless psyops pale in comparison to Flat Earth, imo.
............

I've been reading this book again, Ragnarok: The Age of Fire and Gravel, by a Minnesota politician Ignatius L. Donnelly . In one part, the author looks at Genesis.

Genesis 1

King James Version, public domain

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:

.... my questions and concerns...
First, the OT God was probably an Anunnaki Advanced Being who was not the real creator. Gnostic and Sumerian writings speak of a pantheon of creators, including Gaia, Jupiter, others who I think were computer coders who wrote themselves into the original earth program. They were the Titans whose avatar bodies became mountains.

Sorry to jump around, but I now circle back from pagan myth to the the religious myth, Genesis.
The waters would be the mysterious fluid of the aether. When it was illuminated, the liquid aether allowed life to begin (living waters).
The sun and moon were embedded in the firmament for a different, more mundane, purpose.

God instructed HIS? human creations to multiply and "replenish" the earth.

It sounds like the biblical Creation was a reset.
Anatoly Fomenco and other statisticians contend that the Old Testament was written after the NT.

My guess: in the first human creation, Jesus and other perfect archetypes existed in a garden of Eden.
But then, Anunnaki Igigi mated with women and bore giants and spoiled the world -- which was destroyed with fire and gravel of Ragnarok. This reset was accomplished with plasma weapons, not comets or other astronomy nonsense.

And now is when a new earth is reconstructed and replenished. Atlantis is wiped out and Tartaria is built.
And then, the Anunnaki culled the herd again with a flood.


----------



## grav (Mar 2, 2022)

https://dcer237tfveol.cloudfront.ne...U0DvKzMlQDa3Rv6enMo3VBp3yo0ZcNuLGCqW9BZ-1wcpw




This Mardi Gras sun dog was photographed yesterday in Zachary, Louisiana.
I thought the "sun halo" only happened when ice crystals magically make rainbows in frigid temperatures.
But, no.

Quote

Weather Talk: Sun dogs can happen in summer
Probably the biggest difference between the two is that a rainbow usually signals an end to the rain, while a sundog often means that rain, or snow is on the way.


Good for me.

We are in a drought and could use the rain.
I've been planting seeds. And a sassafras tree


Sun doggies are obviously reflections off the dome.


----------



## chessquaker (Mar 2, 2022)

grav said:


> The globe is so dumb, actually goofy. Then why did I believe that idiotic psyop so damn long?
> 
> Genesis 1
> 
> ...


You are so right:  They start programming us before we gain the faculty of critical thought.. right from kindergarten.  That's why the globe lie is so hard to shed or see through.  It's like being born into a specific religion.

The KJV actually says Let US make man in OUR own image and OUR likeness... explicitly referring to a plurality of creators.  The Old Testament and some other ancient texts appear to be works from the old world, before the most recent resets.


----------



## David Glenney (Mar 3, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> To get those full Mandela requires many years of observation but we know this happens and it's why we can predict planetary positions many years ahead.


***Mandala, I think you meant?


----------



## Tudor (Mar 4, 2022)

BTW on flat earth map, Russia blocking it's aerospace looks even worse.


----------



## otl2021 (Mar 5, 2022)

Tudor said:


> BTW on flat earth map, Russia blocking it's aerospace looks even worse.


How's that?

Anyways, it always cracks me up when they're mixing their psyops.


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Mar 9, 2022)

chessquaker said:


> You are so right:  They start programming us before we gain the faculty of critical thought.. right from kindergarten.  That's why the globe lie is so hard to shed or see through.  It's like being born into a specific religion.
> 
> The KJV actually says Let US make man in OUR own image and OUR likeness... explicitly referring to a plurality of creators.  The Old Testament and some other ancient texts appear to be works from the old world, before the most recent resets.


As Much as I whole hardheartedly agree that the Heliocentric model is a gargantuan comedy at best;   I can't agree that FE is "Intelligent Design."


----------



## grav (Mar 9, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> As Much as I whole hardheartedly agree that the Heliocentric model is a gargantuan comedy at best;   I can't agree that FE is "Intelligent Design."



Can you expand on that last remark - intelligent design?

My own guesstimate is that we live in a computer program designed by immature beings of the Pleroma (a gnostic belief system) . The creators started out as godlike role players who gave birth to other Titans. Myths were written to confuse us with facts being transmuted into fiction, fairy tales, religions. We ourselves may indeed be fractals of the Pleroma. 

That said, flat earth, or geocentrism, can easily be determined as the computer code in which we exist. When we apply laws of physics, math, and photographic evidence, we arrive at the rather dull conclusion that our world is an irregular stationary plane.

The humans who live, more or less, on the Infinite Plane, show little evidence of intelligent design. It is also highly doubtful that modern Homo ignoranus was part of the original fauna and flora of the original design. Lloyd Pye contended that we are a gmo hybrid, whose name I sumbit should be Homo terrestris. Not Bigfoot.


----------



## Apollonius (Mar 9, 2022)

Flat Earth does not have a map. It is not a map introduced to people as a Flat Earth map, but a projection of the spherical Earth.






You can make projections as you wish from the website below, and you can even market your projection as a "Flat Earth" map to people who have little knowledge on this subject.

World Map Generator

Regards, to all genuine questioning people.


----------



## E.Bearclaw (Mar 9, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> How's that?
> 
> Anyways, it always cracks me up when they're mixing their psyops.


they should stick to the psyop du jour just to avoid confusion


----------



## Just (Mar 9, 2022)

grav said:


> Can you expand on that last remark - intelligent design?
> 
> My own guesstimate is that we live in a computer program designed by immature beings of the Pleroma (a gnostic belief system) . The creators started out as godlike role players who gave birth to other Titans. Myths were written to confuse us with facts being transmuted into fiction, fairy tales, religions. We ourselves may indeed be fractals of the Pleroma.
> 
> ...


And this is exactly what the cabal want us to think- that whatever the reality of our existence we are worth nothing and are ignorant dullards. It helps them to keep us compliant. Of course our ignorance is inevitable given that they have brainwashed us into believing their lies about our history and who we are. The truth will emerge - we can already begin to glimpse the truth. Their dark rule is almost over.


----------



## grav (Mar 10, 2022)

Just said:


> Their dark rule is almost over.



fingers crossed ...
but how?

Are the "dark rulers" in total control? Are there "beings" out there who oppose them and assist us?

Please bear with me as I pull seemingly unrelated ideas into this conversation.

As much as I appreciate this forum, I do most of my musings on a tiny site with an unfortunate name, Godlike Lunatics.
RM, an old school critical thinker, came up with a remarkable posts which I quote here:

《《《Flat Earth and Nasa Lies
Maybe reality isn't changing, but our perceptions of it are. With a little help from our "friends." What influences perception?

* Changes in the electromagnetic spectrum: They tweaked it, for the worse. Alters brainwaves.

* Changes in earth's resonant frequency: They tweaked it, for the worse. Alters brainwaves.

* Diminished oxygen content in the air we breathe: They tweaked it, for the worse. Alters brainwaves

* The resonant frequency of music: They tweaked it, for the worse. Alters brainwaves.

* Nutrition and essential minerals: They tweaked it, for the worse. Our soil and food are devoid of essential nutrients. Alters brainwaves.

* Changes in water purity: They tweaked it, for the worse. Poisoned water supply. Alters brainwaves.

* Changes in healthcare: They tweaked it, for the worse. Alters brainwaves.

* Availability of knowledge: No availability; only propaganda, which alters brainwaves.

This is a partial list; there are many other brainwave-altering tweaks in progress. You get the idea. It is possible that reality goes on whether we can perceive it or not.


The result of the tweaks: the rise of homo ignoranus》》》

My reply:
What a great list! one of the best posts I've ever seen.
It transcends this thread, which itself is a foundational concept of the search for truth.

The first 2 changes, of the electromagnetic spectrum and earth's resonant frequency, rightly top your list.
but why?
Why terraform an entire ecosystem, just to control your slave species?
Then, the interlopers rub salt into our wounds by blaming us for climate change, deforestation,  never-ending wars, etc.

Cui Bono? Who stands to benefit from this whole earth degradation?
Humans? the Queen, Rothschild, other Illuminati and their minions? hardly

Zecharia Sitchin, exegete of Anunnaki chronicles, thought that when newcomers from Nibiru told Enki that he had aged tremendously in his time spent on Outpost Earth, he and the other original team members decided that the "vibes" of our world were not good for their health.
Perhaps that concern led to the abandonment of their great cities and star forts.
Not the whole push, but the majority of them may have gone through the tunnels back to their home world, after it had been repaired with gold and other minerals they stole from this world.

I realize this is all conjecture.
ZS was unaware of the Electric Universe science that we have discovered only recently.
And then, Putin shows up on our radar. In Ukraine, once a part of the Tartarian empire,
which used free energy from the aether,
which was a beneficial form of electricity,
until Tesla or Edison or the NWO gave us the grid in the early1900s.
and 5g.
and what would happen if an EMP took out the grid?


----------



## Just (Mar 10, 2022)

grav said:


> fingers crossed ...
> but how?
> 
> Are the "dark rulers" in total control? Are there "beings" out there who oppose them and assist us?
> ...


My guess is we’re in a simulation, there is no ‘space travel’ and the edge of this reality is the firmament above a flat earth. The point of the simulation, which many of us have lived through countless times before, is to defeat the darker side of humanity - cruelty / greed / arrogance / jealousy. The psychopathic elites are NCPs (as are all except 144,000 players). Losing the game means we have to start over again. The point is to show you’ve overcome these deadly sins sufficiently to move up to the next level. I like this idea because it feels right to me and it gives a point to existence which otherwise feels a bit lacking in purpose in my opinion.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Mar 10, 2022)

Can we please get back on topic.

The Earth is surely an object which is small enough to be fully comprehended with the human mind, and it is either a flat stationary disk, or a spinning ball in a state of permanent freefall though an empty vacuum.


----------



## otl2021 (Mar 10, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> Can we please get back on topic.
> 
> The Earth is surely an object which is small enough to be fully comprehended with the human mind, and it is either a flat stationary disk, or a spinning ball in a state of permanent freefall though an empty vacuum.


----------



## El Forastero (Mar 11, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> Flat Earth does not have a map. It is not a map introduced to people as a Flat Earth map, but a projection of the spherical Earth.



A "projection of the spherical Earth" which was measured flat in the first place in order to get that projection?

Hmmm...seems like someone is being dishonest.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Mar 11, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> Flat Earth does not have a map. It is not a map introduced to people as a Flat Earth map, but a projection of the spherical Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is it possible on this site to take the AE representation of the globe and alter the latitudes to fit an FE model ?


----------



## Quiahuitl (Mar 11, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> View attachment 20506



The airplane routes are very interesting.  First we have to acknowledge that anyone can cherry-pick examples to suit the argument they are trying to make.  To get conclusive proof, you would need to spend thousands of hours analysing every route.

A few years ago I spent a few days searching on the web for direct flights between Australia and South Africa.  I didn't find a single one.  Every route stopped off in the Northern hemisphere at a point that made close to a straight line on the Gleason map.

It's hard to do this research now, because a lot of planes are not flying.


----------



## Daniel (Mar 11, 2022)

It's funny looking back with new knowledge. I can remember people I know flying from South Africa to Australia, via somewhere like Qatar or Hong Kong, and not understanding it.
Or another person I know flew from South Africa to Canada. Via London. I wondered at the time why the refuelling/stop wasn't somewhere like Miami instead.
It now seems obvious


----------



## Apollonius (Mar 11, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Is it possible on this site to take the AE representation of the globe and alter the latitudes to fit an FE model ?


As I said, there is no such thing as a Flat Earth map.




This is a projection of the spherical Earth, with all the continents appearing in a single photographic frame. The patent also belongs to Alexander Gleason. 

Patent of Gleason


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Mar 11, 2022)

So I take it you're saying it is not possible to adjust the degrees of latitude on any of these globe earth projections .


----------



## Apollonius (Mar 11, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> So I take it you're saying it is not possible to adjust the degrees of latitude on any of these globe earth projections .


No, I am saying the opposite, such a thing is not possible on the Flat Earth because calculations are made based on the spherical projection.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Mar 11, 2022)

Sorry , I can't understand what you are saying - where are you going with this ? You seem to want to see an FE map based on a sequence of maps all offering differing viewpoints of a globe model which is derived from geodesy - the application of spherical geometry to flat survey.


----------



## Apollonius (Mar 11, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Sorry , I can't understand what you are saying - where are you going with this ? You seem to want to see an FE map based on a sequence of maps all offering differing viewpoints of a globe model which is derived from geodesy - the application of spherical geometry to flat survey.


I'm saying there is no such thing as a Flat Earth map.


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Mar 12, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Sorry , I can't understand what you are saying - where are you going with this ? You seem to want to see an FE map based on a sequence of maps all offering differing viewpoints of a globe model which is derived from geodesy - the application of spherical geometry to flat survey.


Personally, I stopped looking for a flat earth map when I realized it's far simpler to consider that Earth has just been inverted. This is the very nature of the reality we live in every day, and it's all around us.  

Inverted Earth.  Some folks call it "Concave"   I call it Inverted because it is what it is. That is the logic of the situation.  This topic is like FE in the way that the more you invest  into studying it, the more interesting it gets. 

Only it actually works in reality, unlike every/any flat earth map.

Also, I don't know who told you that Geodesy that was mapping over a sphere... because that's not in any definition I've seen.

Geodesy- Definition


----------



## dreamtime (Mar 14, 2022)

If you want to participate in this thread, please be aware of the guidelines, especially:


This is a research forum with the clear purpose of sharing knowledge, not a group chat. The signal-to-noise ratio should be as high as possible. Noise is everything that doesn't add information value to the discussion, or derails it.
Be polite, and respectful. We all can sense when things go in the wrong direction. Diffuse the situation instead of provoking your fellow debater.
Ignore trolls. Report questionable posts to moderators.


Repeatedly posting images without explanation is considered low effort, and doesn't add much value. Attacking others over their opinions, instead of focusing on the argument, is against the guidelines as well.

I am surprised that there are many here who seem to believe they have the right and duty to convince others of their opinions, and can't accept that not everyone shares their beliefs.

I also suggest that members who prefer the concave earth model (@Apollonius, @GandalfTheGreen) go to the concave earth thread instead. It's good to have different perspectives, but this doesn't help when the discussions devolve into "Here is why I am right and you are wrong". There are enough places on the web where people argue for the sake of it. Share you knowledge in an appropriate thread so that others can profit from your knowledge, instead of attacking people with different beliefs.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Mar 14, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> Personally, I stopped looking for a flat earth map when I realized it's far simpler to consider that Earth has just been inverted. This is the very nature of the reality we live in every day, and it's all around us.
> 
> Inverted Earth.  Some folks call it "Concave"   I call it Inverted because it is what it is. That is the logic of the situation.  This topic is like FE in the way that the more you invest  into studying it, the more interesting it gets.
> 
> ...


Your describes geodesy as a branch of applied maths. Let's look at the application.

From "Elementary Surveying" by A.L. Higgins D.Sc. 3d edition 1946. 

Introduction includes the following : 

"Surveying is divided primarily into (1) Geodetical Surveying and (2) Plane Surveying . In geodesy the earth is considered a sphere , and in plane surveying a plane , the approximation being within the permissible limits of error for areas up to about 100 square miles. The former
involves a knowledge of spherical trigonometry, and the latter of plane trigonometry."

Plane language from a qualified surveyor telling us that geodesy  requires that spherical geometry be applied to plane survey in order that the earth may be considered a sphere .

Also if no curvature ,convex or concave , is found over 100 square miles then it's a fair conclusion that the earth is a flat plane.

There's less bs in those old books


----------



## otl2021 (Mar 16, 2022)

I have been asked to repost some images with more explanation as apparently the point was not clear. There are two very different ideas in play with this topic. In one scenario, *plane*s fly around a sphere as depicted by google Earth, and in the other, *plane*s are flying over something very close to Gleason's 1892 masterpiece.

The point of these images is to show that pilots never use a globe for their routes; they use something very close to Gleason's 1892 masterpiece.

This can be seen with many regular flights, but emergency landings, when life is in danger, tells the truest story. In the following example, you will see that the pilot was forced to land over 1000 miles from what should have been his route if we lived on the google Earth model, but was directly in line with the map that Alex Gleason left us in 1892.

Background
On March 1st, of 2016, Russia's Tass reported that:
*Lufhansa’s aircraft en route from Shanghai to Munich made an emergency landing at Russia's Krasnoyark airport due to the need of emergency medical care for a 9-year-old girl*
https://tass.com/society/859847?utm...m_campaign=google.com&utm_referrer=google.com

Let's look at what this actually means by comparing the routes over the globe and also over Gleason's.




I think it is obvious that no pilot would fly so far off course when a 9-year-old girl's life is in danger. And I also think it is clear that he didn't.

I hope that was clear. And I apologize for any confusion.


----------



## John Galt (Mar 16, 2022)

Something I've been thinking about lately is satellites. Do we have any serious evidence that they orbit? Are they just objects/relays suspended by weather balloons? Maybe there just isn't anything up there.

Interested in this board's thoughts on satellites. It's a big piece of the puzzle I don't see mentioned much.


----------



## Jd755 (Mar 16, 2022)

John Galt said:


> Something I've been thinking about lately is satellites. Do we have any serious evidence that they orbit? Are they just objects/relays suspended by weather balloons? Maybe there just isn't anything up there.
> 
> Interested in this board's thoughts on satellites. It's a big piece of the puzzle I don't see mentioned much.


Here you go. Search results for query: Satellites


----------



## chessquaker (Mar 19, 2022)

Don't you just love the moon?  Fascinating !  Flight paths accurately superimposed over the moon map.
Flights


----------



## cheep (Mar 21, 2022)

Thought this was interesting 

Polar express: How airlines are plotting a new route to Asia


----------



## DavidMalcolmCurrie (Mar 21, 2022)

veeall said:


> If the Earth was flat, everyone would be able to see the same constellations.
> 
> 
> These are all bogus claims.


I began researching this subject at "200 proofs the earth is not a spinning ball", that's what got me started researching this about five years ago, and I've done hundreds of hours of research since then, mostly watching videos on the subject.  I believe in the Holy Bible AS IT WAS WRITTEN (although interpretations can vary), and that includes Hebrew cosmology.  I would ask those who think they live on a spinning ball to watch the "200 proofs" video, and tell me where he was wrong...?


----------



## otl2021 (Mar 21, 2022)

veeall said:


> If the Earth was flat, everyone would be able to see the same constellations.



I posted this previously. It's funny you quoted that.

*Constellations in our night sky certainly do NOT help your (the globes) case!*
--Ursa Majo (near Polaris) can be seen from 90 degrees North out to 30 degrees South latitude.
--Vulpecula can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude out to 55 degrees South.
--Taurus, Pisces and Leo can be seen from 90 degrees North out to 65 degrees South.
--Aquarius and Libra can be seen from 65 degrees North out to 90 degrees South.
--Virgo is visible from 80 degrees North out to 80 degrees South.
--Orion can be seen from 85 degrees North out to 75 degrees South.

Regardless of any tilt or inclination, this cannot happen on a ball, true?

And then we have:

^^^^^The above pic of the star trails around Polaris was taken from *7.9425° S*, 112.9530° E!


----------



## grav (Mar 29, 2022)

Constellations are clear proofs, or should be, of that big thing in the sky which has not changed appreciably over 6000 alleged years. Average earthlings pay no attention to such things, but astronomers and science teachers who preach heliocentrism are all liars, every last one. They are agents of the Control System that keeps us vaxxed, vexed, and vastly ignorant.

 Here are more science "facts" -- and a personal observation about local vs global authorities. 
.....................

Local meteorologists predict windy weather tomorrow for my neck of the woods.
Gusts of 40+ MPH will be blowing stuff around. Bird feeders, chimes, lawn chairs. Arabi (New Orleans) got a tornado last week, an EF3, 136-165 MPH.

But wait! I forgot to factor in the spinning earth's speeds, as presented by global authorities:

earth's speed, as it rotates, revolves around the sun, and moves through the universe in 6 different directions (the following details were copied from 
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/0...Earth.html
. 69,361 MPH Spin and Orbit
. 43,200 MPH Towards Lambda Herculis
. 15,624 MPH Perpendicular to Galactic Plane
. 446,400 MPH Orbiting the Galactic Center {or Galactic Spin Rate}
-------------------

whew! thank goodness grabbity holds the air down, and we don't feel all those speeds. because we have to factor in relatibbity.
ooh. Now it all makes sense. Religion, politics, science.


----------



## otl2021 (Apr 1, 2022)

grav said:


> But wait! I forgot to factor in the spinning earth's speeds, as presented by global authorities:
> 
> earth's speed, as it rotates, revolves around the sun, and moves through the universe in 6 different directions (the following details were copied from
> http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/0...Earth.html
> ...


And remember, all that is flying towards "the great attractor" at around 1.5 MILLION MPH!


While back here in objective reality:


----------



## Quiahuitl (Apr 1, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> *Constellations in our night sky certainly do NOT help your (the globes) case!*
> --Ursa Majo (near Polaris) can be seen from 90 degrees North out to 30 degrees South latitude.
> --Vulpecula can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude out to 55 degrees South.
> --Taurus, Pisces and Leo can be seen from 90 degrees North out to 65 degrees South.
> ...



If you are standing on the surface of a sphere, you can look towards the horizon in any direction and you can also look directly up into the Sky.  This photo is exactly what you would expect to see if you were standing on the equator of the globe and looking directly North.  What you can't see in this photo is what is happening directly above the camera.  That is shown in this video which was posted by another contributor further up the thread.

Watch from 2:20 onwards and you will see what is missing from the photo above; namely, that if you look upwards instead of pointing the camera towards Polaris, you do not see stars moving in circles, they appear to move in straight lines as if on the inside of a cylinder.  This information was also posted by someone else further up the thread under the heading 'Startrails at the equator.'




At the start of the video the camera is in the Northern hemisphere looking towards Polaris and you can see the stars rotating anticlockwise. At the end of the video the camera is in the Southern hemisphere and you can see the stars rotating clockwise.  This movement of the stars is exactly consistent with the Earth being a spinning ball.


----------



## otl2021 (Apr 1, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> If you are standing on the surface of a sphere, you can look towards the horizon in any direction and you can also look directly up into the Sky.  This photo is exactly what you would expect to see if you were standing on the equator of the globe and looking directly North.  What you can't see in this photo is what is happening directly above the camera.  That is shown in this video which was posted by another contributor further up the thread.
> 
> Watch from 2:20 onwards and you will see what is missing from the photo above; namely, that if you look upwards instead of pointing the camera towards Polaris, you do not see stars moving in circles, they appear to move in straight lines as if on the inside of a cylinder.  This information was also posted by someone else further up the thread under the heading 'Startrails at the equator.'
> 
> ...



I explained this already. And you do not have to be on the equator to see this. This happens because of the way perspective works and the direction the camera is facing. 

There are no star trails around any 'southern' star. And seeing anything even resembling the trails we see around the stationary Polaris in the 'southern hemisphere' is not possible, let alone from Auckland, South Africa and Ushaia simultaneously.

An aspect of the heliocentric psyop that all too often is overlooked, is what it does to our understanding of perspective. As long as you can understand that ALL parallel lines converge at a single point, the idea that the stars move in some opposite and impossible direction is easily understood.

It's all observer perspective:


Also, we know that there's a difference of a few minutes between how long the stars take to return to where they began, and for the sun to do the same. And we know this proves that they cannot attribute both, the star trails around Polaris, and also the sun's rising and setting to the same phenomenon (imagined axial rotation).

Food for thought.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Apr 1, 2022)

What is the graphic you have presented to us?  Is it a computer simulation?


----------



## grav (Apr 4, 2022)

But the sheeple have lost what minuscule critical thinking skills they once had. if any.
The globe spins 1000 mph, yet the starry night sky appears motionless?

Some flatearthers think there will be an awakening. I don't see how.
The ptb work hard to keep us, as David Icke describes, dumb, drugged,and docile. 

Flat Earth is really a puddle in the Infinite Plane.
Other puddle worlds exist outside our Antarctic border.
No flights are possible over Antarctica, such as between southern tips of Africa and South America.
 
The image is of course speculation about what lies beyond the ice wall.

Another video, which I have managed to lose  :-\  suggests that the Moon reflects more of the Infinite Plane.
Not Vibes of Cosmos? ?
Has anyone seen it? about Mu and Atlantis visible outside the Antarctic ice shelf?


Some FEers think the NWO agents of deception will fake a flight to justify the fake icy continent at the bottom of the spinning ball


_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wEgsS95Qknw_


----------



## Akanah (Apr 4, 2022)

According to my earth-models, the distance between Perth and Buenos Aires would only be a "short stumble."
There is not much you can do wrong or fake. As long as people can fly only within the air atmosphere and not far above it through the water-sky, one does not get to see the true shape of the earth by such a flight.


----------



## grav (Apr 5, 2022)

from a GLP thread,





...


----------



## Quiahuitl (Apr 6, 2022)

grav said:


> Some FEers think the NWO agents of deception will fake a flight to justify the fake icy continent at the bottom of the spinning ball
> 
> 
> _View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wEgsS95Qknw_




The video you have posted shows the face of a well known youtuber who is an experienced commercial pilot and also has millions of views on youtube.  He's a recognised expert on commercial aviation.

However he has nothing to do with this video.  This video is intentionally deceptive. 

If you're going to call other people liars and stupid, etc, it's best not to promote false information yourself.

I've done my own research into flights in the Southern hemisphere, and I can confirm that I was not able to find any direct flights between Australia and South Africa, even after spending many hours searching on websites like cheapflights, kayak, skyscanner etc.


----------



## grav (Apr 6, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> This video is intentionally deceptive.
> 
> If you're going to call other people liars and stupid, etc, it's best not to promote false information yourself.


how so?
Please specify where the video violates ethics.
Also, your language accuses me of calumny and, even worse,  bad manners.
Admin frowns on such behavior. if you are reprimanded, it will not be because I reported you. 

At least you admit that southern-hemisphere flights are unobtainable.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Apr 6, 2022)

Grav - I haven't 'Admitted' anything, because I'm approaching this subject with an open mind.

I've looked into the aircraft routes and it seems to me there are no direct flights within the southern hemisphere, so that constitutes evidence that the Copernican ('Spinning ball') model is wrong.  Or that there is something else going on that we don't know about.

The video you've shared is unethical because it is using the image of a renowned expert on commercial aviation to promote a message which is nothing to do with him.

I expect you didn't know that when you posted the video. Maybe I should have expressed myself differently to make it clear my problem was with whoever made the video.


----------



## otl2021 (Apr 6, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> What is the graphic you have presented to us? Is it a computer simulation?


I got it awhile back. I believe it was from Skiba who came to flat Earth with a background in graphics. Iirc, you are looking at two time-lapse series of shots, from two different vantage points in two different directions. 

When looking north at Polaris, we see the counter-clockwise spin and from the second vantage point several degrees east, we see the circles straighten out and then seemingly s[pin the opposite way. I believe that he then used his computer to 'splice' the images together to show this.

The main thing is that no matter where you are, the stars appear in the east and disappear to the west.


----------



## TommelBommel (Apr 6, 2022)

grav said:


> from a GLP thread,
> 
> View attachment 21326View attachment 21326
> 
> ...


Its a nice idea - but its fantasy. I havent seen any proof so far.


----------



## grav (Apr 7, 2022)

TommelBommel said:


> Its a nice idea - but its fantasy. I havent seen any proof so far.


unproven does not mean fantasy.
The globe is an outright fantasy, a complete fiction. a fraud. fable. a fake 
and other f-words

Image exceeds set limits. Click to view full size image



1. Curvature. Spherical trigonometry dictates that the globe should exhibit a curve of 8 inches per mile squared. No experiments on land or water have ever proven this math to be accurate. On the contrary, with proper telephoto lenses, objects can be detected far beyond the expected curvature. Example: Photos of Chicago from across Lake Michigan.

2. Atmosphere vs space vacuum. Space theoretically begins 62 miles above the earth’s surface, at the Karman Line. The laws of physics say that a vacuum can not exist next to an atmosphere. Without a barrier to separate the two areas, the atmosphere would instantly escape into the hard vacuum of space. Example: open a tank of compressed air; the oxygen or other gases inside the tank will rush outside to achieve equilibrium of air pressure. A vacuum cannot exist next to the atmosphere.

3. Water. Liquid water always seeks its own level. Gravity, which is really the function of density (weight) of objects over distances, cannot cause oceans to curve around the globe. Sea level must be consistent throughout the world. Water, in other words, can not curve. Example: the Pacific Ocean, sea level.

4. Centrifugal force. If earth rotated at 1000 mph at the equator, nothing could withstand being thrown off of it along a curved or tangential path. Gravity is said to be the weakest force in the universe. It is, under any circumstances, unable to overcome the extreme speed of rotation. Gravity is actually the ratio of densities of adjacent objects, such as the density of water compared to that of air.. Examples include insects, clouds, smoke, other low density-objects which rise above the earth despite the alleged gravity and centrifugal force. Example: merry-go-rounds.

5. Authorities.  Professionals in many fields --pilots, engineers, surveyors, gunners, artillerymen, radar operators, etc. -- do not account for curvature in any manner. Example: surveyors never adjust for earth curvature when they design canals, causeway bridges, railroad lines.

6 Moon and sun. Both objects appear to the eye to be the same size, though the moon is around 238,000 miles away and the sun is 93 million miles distant. Sunlight beams deny the claim that rays enter earth’s atmosphere in parallel beams. Using simple geometry, one can determine that the triangular pattern results in a distance of only 3000 miles above. The moon emits a cooling light which illuminates only the clouds which are near it, not those that are further away. Example: sunlight beaming rays through clouds (crepuscular rays) form a triangle with a base of less than 8,000 miles miles

7. Constellations. Star patterns have not altered appreciably in human history. Considering speeds of celestial objects which travel billions of miles per year in multiple directions, as well as earth’s own rotation, revolution around the sun, following the sun through the universe, we should observe some changes in as little as 6 months (stellar parallax). But no such changes have been seen in 6000 years. Example: Orion, Polaris  in the same locations for millennia.

8. Airplane travel. Flights to and from countries in the southern hemisphere always pass over countries in the north, even though they could refuel in places along a direct route. When plotted on the flat earth map, the planes show that they follow a straight line. Example: flights between South America, Africa, Australia.. 

9. No Sensation of movement. If earth actually rotated and revolved around the sun at 67,000 mph, we should hear sonic booms and be swept away by winds far beyond hurricane strength.       Examples: quiet, calm days, east-to-west winds

10. Photographs of earth from space. There are no legitimate pictures or videos of earth.  All pictorial evidence is computer-generated, as are almost all photos of celestial objects. NASA even says that these photographs were created to “match people’s expectations.”  

Other evidence includes fakery from space agencies, including the ISS and the Space Shuttle, further supports the argument that our ideas about space are entirely faked.


----------



## Liberated Collective (Apr 7, 2022)

grav said:


> I am new to this forum and don't see an active thread on flat earth. Is there any interest in the topic?
> SH's format is quite impressive. And imposing, to the point that navigating it is tricky for a simple mind like mine. Generic forums have become gross mockeries of their original designs, and so I am looking for a new home where I may spout my heresies, primarily the most basic hidden truth upon which all other distorted truths are based. The Infinite Plane of the Electric Universe.
> 
> My overall guesstimate of reality is a computer program which is crashed and rebooted every 300 years or so.
> ...


I like to say non globe earth, because we know its not a globe, that is for sure. (We are in a natural light holography,) 

I am sitting on literally tons (lol) of proof of biogeology,  extinct animals, from pieces to some whole structures, but from my research now, I am fairly certain there are no "rocks", everything seems to have biological origin, its mind blowing....


TommelBommel said:


> Its a nice idea - but its fantasy. I havent seen any proof so far.


That isnt exactly the best representation that he gave you, moon is absolutely plasma and absolutely an image of our larger earth.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Apr 7, 2022)

This is a great post. Strong arguments, well written. There is little in here I can find fault with.




grav said:


> 1. Curvature. Spherical trigonometry dictates that the globe should exhibit a curve of 8 inches per mile squared. No experiments on land or water have ever proven this math to be accurate. On the contrary, with proper telephoto lenses, objects can be detected far beyond the expected curvature. Example: Photos of Chicago from across Lake Michigan.



This is very strong evidence the Earth is flat.  The alternative explanation is that light does not behave as conventional science dictates, i.e. does not travel in straight lines.




grav said:


> 2. Atmosphere vs space vacuum.


Tesla believed in the steady state theory, and so did Edmund Halley and several other renowned 20th century scientists and astronomers.  The universe is full of Aether, and it is only near Earth that is converted to Air. Earth creates its own atmosphere.  You can make Gravity part of this theory or say it is irrelevant.




grav said:


> 4. Centrifugal force.


The Earth is big and rotates slowly, once every 24 hours.  So the centrifugal force is very small, equivalent to about 0.3% of the mass of the object.  You would need to have very good scales to measure this, but theoretically you could measure up to a 0.3% difference in weight of the same object near the equator or near the poles. It would probably cost around ten grand to test this.




grav said:


> 5. Authorities.  Professionals in many fields --pilots, engineers, surveyors, gunners, artillerymen, radar operators, etc. -- do not account for curvature in any manner. Example: surveyors never adjust for earth curvature when they design canals, causeway bridges, railroad lines.


The problem is to get them to say this on the record.  I've seen videos of several airline pilots saying they think the Earth is flat.




grav said:


> 6 Moon and sun. Both objects appear to the eye to be the same size, though the moon is around 238,000 miles away and the sun is 93 million miles distant. Sunlight beams deny the claim that rays enter earth’s atmosphere in parallel beams. Using simple geometry, one can determine that the triangular pattern results in a distance of only 3000 miles above. The moon emits a cooling light which illuminates only the clouds which are near it, not those that are further away. Example: sunlight beaming rays through clouds (crepuscular rays) form a triangle with a base of less than 8,000 miles miles


I think there is much more going on with the Sun and Moon that we don't understand. Again, it's possible light itself is not what modern science tells us.



grav said:


> 7. Constellations. Star patterns have not altered appreciably in human history. Considering speeds of celestial objects which travel billions of miles per year in multiple directions, as well as earth’s own rotation, revolution around the sun, following the sun through the universe, we should observe some changes in as little as 6 months (stellar parallax). But no such changes have been seen in 6000 years. Example: Orion, Polaris  in the same locations for millennia.


The conventional science says the stars are incredibly far away which is why they do not appear to move.
Solar parallax has been measured by astronomers for hundreds of years.  Using conventional telescopes the parallax distance of hundreds of stars was successfully measured long ago.  Modern science claims that with the Hubble telescope it is possible to measure the parallax of billions of stars. 




grav said:


> 8. Airplane travel. Flights to and from countries in the southern hemisphere always pass over countries in the north, even though they could refuel in places along a direct route. When plotted on the flat earth map, the planes show that they follow a straight line. Example: flights between South America, Africa, Australia..


I have confirmed this with my own research.



grav said:


> 9. No Sensation of movement. If earth actually rotated and revolved around the sun at 67,000 mph, we should hear sonic booms and be swept away by winds far beyond hurricane strength.       Examples: quiet, calm days, east-to-west winds


Yes. It's hard to believe we are moving at a thousand MPH, or that we get completely still air very often in most parts of the world.  If you imagine that the Earth is a ball spinning at around 1000MPH at the equator, while the surrounding 'Space' is still, then you would expect to see a velocity gradient in the atmosphere. In other words, for every mile or so you travel upwards, you would expect the air to be moving in the opposite direction to the supposed rotational speed.
In fact the opposite is the case.  The Earth rotates West to East (so the Sun appears to move East to West) while the jetstream at 5/6 miles altitude moves at over a hundred miles per hour faster in the same direction.




grav said:


> 10. Photographs of earth from space. There are no legitimate pictures or videos of earth.  All pictorial evidence is computer-generated, as are almost all photos of celestial objects. NASA even says that these photographs were created to “match people’s expectations.”


A lot of the moon landing photos are fake.  However that does not prove that all of them are fake or that the moon landings never happened.


----------



## inthefade (Apr 7, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> A lot of the moon landing photos are fake. However that does not prove that all of them are fake or that the moon landings never happened.


Burden of proof is on NASA. They need to prove they went to the moon first. All the Apollo film and photography are fake (not taken on the moon). At this point I'm not convinced the moon is even a solid object that could be landed on.


----------



## otl2021 (Apr 7, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> This is very strong evidence the Earth is flat. The alternative explanation is that light does not behave as conventional science dictates, *i.e. does not travel in straight lines.*


And this would place far too many 'observations' that have become 'facts,' and that must hold true for heliocentrism to exist, into complete disarray.



Quiahuitl said:


> Tesla believed in the steady state theory, and so did Edmund Halley and several other renowned 20th century scientists and astronomers. The universe is full of Aether, and it is only near Earth that is converted to Air. Earth creates its own atmosphere. You can make Gravity part of this theory or say it is irrelevant.


Irrelevant to his point that a vacuum cannot exist next to a pressurized system. And this is regardless of 'gradient.'



Quiahuitl said:


> The Earth is big and rotates slowly, once every 24 hours. So the centrifugal force is very small, equivalent to about 0.3% of the mass of the object. You would need to have very good scales to measure this, but theoretically you could measure up to a 0.3% difference in weight of the same object near the equator or near the poles. It would probably cost around ten grand to test this.


This is purely a nasa shill argument to muddy the waters. Every single thing, on every single point on the equator must be traveling at *over a quarter of a mile per second! *The weight and friction required for these objects to remain in place is 'astronomical.' 

No human, animal or building for that matter could withstand such a force. The idea that any mathematical speculation makes this possible is more ridiculous.

In addition, we are told that the equator is some 13 miles longer than the central line of longitude. We are told this is because of the centrifugal force. We are told, ultimately, that a force that can move our Earth miles, cannot move water, buildings, animals, or humans.



Quiahuitl said:


> The problem is to get them to say this on the record. I've seen videos of several airline pilots saying they think the Earth is flat.




_View: https://youtu.be/YQnLw_OWPZk_

That is not a problem. Above, an hour and a half of experts in their fields explaining this very clearly.



Quiahuitl said:


> The conventional science says the stars are incredibly far away which is why they do not appear to move.
> Solar parallax has been measured by astronomers for hundreds of years. Using conventional telescopes the parallax distance of hundreds of stars was successfully measured long ago. Modern science claims that with the Hubble telescope it is possible to measure the parallax of billions of stars.


It should be required for all students to go to their backyards, mount a steel pole set in cement, and to that mount a 1/4 inch diameter tube pointed directly at Polaris. For the rest of their families' lives, Polaris will be there.



Quiahuitl said:


> A lot of the moon landing photos are fake. However that does not prove that all of them are fake or that the moon landings never happened.


men landed on the moon, the then none would be fake.


That is an actual nasa photo of what took the bad actors to the moon.



inthefade said:


> Burden of proof is on NASA.


Yes.


----------



## Liberated Collective (Apr 8, 2022)

Oh, I forgot, You can prove to yourself the moon doesent rotate around the earth, rather does clockwise circles overhead. Get the moon As early as possible, and take a picture so you can see a lil detail. Take one picture every two hours until it sets. Observe your images, you'll notice the moon is rotating clockwise as it traverses the sky overhead, a hair under 15 degrees an hour. That's 360 degrees in 24 hours. You'll notice as moon rotates clockwise on its face, the shadows never move whatsoever, and if it was moving around us, as we moved around sun, there would be a lot of changes in the stationary light shining to the earth moon. Give it a try,


----------



## Quiahuitl (Apr 8, 2022)

Liberated Collective said:


> Oh, I forgot, You can prove to yourself the moon doesent rotate around the earth, rather does clockwise circles overhead. Get the moon As early as possible, and take a picture so you can see a lil detail. Take one picture every two hours until it sets. Observe your images, you'll notice the moon is rotating clockwise as it traverses the sky overhead, a hair under 15 degrees an hour. That's 360 degrees in 24 hours. You'll notice as moon rotates clockwise on its face, the shadows never move whatsoever, and if it was moving around us, as we moved around sun, there would be a lot of changes in the stationary light shining to the earth moon. Give it a try,



Have you actually done this yourself?


----------



## Liberated Collective (Apr 8, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> Have you actually done this yourself?


I wouldnt recommend something I havent done myself for one thing, YES. All the time.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Apr 8, 2022)

Liberated Collective said:


> I wouldnt recommend something I havent done myself for one thing, YES. All the time.



OK, good.  I shall give this a try.  I've never noticed any pattern in the rotation of the moon apart from it looks a different way up in Mexico compared to the UK where I live.

Can you clarify why it rotates a 'hair under' 15 degrees per hour?  Because 15 x 24 is 360 so if it's rotating slightly less than 15 degrees per hour then it must be rotating slightly less than 360 degrees per day.  So if you looked at it the same time every day it would appear to be rotating slowly anticlockwise?


----------



## Liberated Collective (Apr 8, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> OK, good.  I shall give this a try.  I've never noticed any pattern in the rotation of the moon apart from it looks a different way up in Mexico compared to the UK where I live.
> 
> Can you clarify why it rotates a 'hair under' 15 degrees per hour?  Because 15 x 24 is 360 so if it's rotating slightly less than 15 degrees per hour then it must be rotating slightly less than 360 degrees per day.  So if you looked at it the same time every day it would appear to be rotating slowly anticlockwise?


I say a hair under 15 because the moon and Sun although should be clocklike, at some point there was something that happened that gave the sun its analemma, and so the sun and moon are slightly out of sync, you know what Im saying now? They dont rise and set at the same rtime everyday, they slowly change, hence it cant be exactly 15.,,,

Youre last question, I would say that is a correct the aNTiclockwise thing... Yes so mexico and uk can prob see moon at the same time, take picture at same time both places, itll look like it rotated, because it does cartwheels in the sky


----------



## Quiahuitl (Apr 8, 2022)

Liberated Collective said:


> I say a hair under 15 because the moon and Sun although should be clocklike, at some point there was something that happened that gave the sun its analemma, and so the sun and moon are slightly out of sync, you know what Im saying now?



I didn't know what 'Analemma' meant so I looked it up.  It is the path that the sun describes in the sky when photographed at the same time every day.  Here is a set from Stanford university which are all taken from Greece and I'm baffled why they would look different from different positions within one small country. They are taken at different times to be fair.






Stanford SOLAR Center - Viewing and Understanding the Analemma


----------



## Liberated Collective (Apr 8, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> I didn't know what 'Analemma' meant so I looked it up.  It is the path that the sun describes in the sky when photographed at the same time every day.  Here is a set from Stanford university which are all taken from Greece and I'm baffled why they would look different from different positions within one small country. They are taken at different times to be fair.
> 
> 
> View attachment 21477
> ...


Because the earth is flat my friend. The sun travels from the norther tropic to the southern tropic in a sin wave pattern and back to make the whole year, Everything makes a million times more sense when you use the common sense nature model, mother earth isnt complex, she's simplex, but not complex. The globe deceivers give us impossible numbers to deter us from learning the intricacies of our reality. The analemma is actually decreasing meaning that it is slowly getting back to normal after some sort of man made cataclysm.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Apr 10, 2022)

The Copernican model explains why the face of the Moon appears to rotate with the passage of time.

This sketch shows the spherical Earth with the North pole at the top.  The stick figure is at latitude 51 degrees (
London).  Assuming you could be hovering in space at a point in line with the equator, then this is what you would see during a twelve hour period.  You can see that the stick figure has rotated by 78 degrees.  2 x (90-51) = 78

So the Copernican model predicts that someone observing the Moon over a twelve hour period from latitude 51 (London) would see the Moon rotate by 78 degrees.





The Copernican model also predicts that the rate of rotation of the Moon's face would not be consistent throughout the night.  The Moon would appear to rotate faster in the middle of the night and slower at either end of the night.

Furthermore the Copernican model predicts that the Moon's face would not appear to rotate at all if you were at latitude zero, on the equator.

Liberated Collective has suggested that the Moon's face should rotate the same speed as the hour hand on a clock, performing one complete rotation every 24 hours.  I'm assuming on a flat disk model of the Earth this also means the rate of rotation of the Moon's face would be the same at every point on the Earth.

So we can test the models by measuring the rate of rotation of the Moon's face at different latitudes. If it appears to rotate at the same rate at all latitudes, that would support the flat disk model.  If it rotates at different speeds at different latitudes that would support the Copernican model.


----------



## Liberated Collective (Apr 10, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> The Copernican model explains why the face of the Moon appears to rotate with the passage of time.
> 
> This sketch shows the spherical Earth with the North pole at the top.  The stick figure is at latitude 51 degrees (
> London).  Assuming you could be hovering in space at a point in line with the equator, then this is what you would see during a twelve hour period.  You can see that the stick figure has rotated by 78 degrees.  2 x (90-51) = 78
> ...


Lol, there is absolutely no way , impossible, that no shadows would change on the moon if its moving around the earth and sun, move any object in existencve in relation to a flashlight, what happens? Shadows change. They expect us to not critically think, they expect us to be that dumbed down we wouldnt think about shadows changing on its face. Just, so insane we dont think about reality as far as how nature works, and just view it through the lens of the pseudoscientists


----------



## Quiahuitl (Apr 10, 2022)

Liberated Collective said:


> Lol, there is absolutely no way , impossible, that no shadows would change on the moon if its moving around the earth and sun, move any object in existencve in relation to a flashlight, what happens? Shadows change. They expect us to not critically think, they expect us to be that dumbed down we wouldnt think about shadows changing on its face. Just, so insane we dont think about reality as far as how nature works, and just view it through the lens of the pseudoscientists



I don't understand what you mean by shadows on the Moon?  As far as I can see the way the Moon looks changes all the time and I have no way of knowing if that's due to atmospheric conditions or the Moon itself.


----------



## Liberated Collective (Apr 10, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> I don't understand what you mean by shadows on the Moon?  As far as I can see the way the Moon looks changes all the time and I have no way of knowing if that's due to atmospheric conditions or the Moon itself.


The moon doesnt change my friend, not throughout an evening,... each phase changes some shadows, but within each phase shadows stay exactly the same no matter where in relation to sun it is. thats what I am saying. The shadows don't change within each phaSE, it simply rotates overhead.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Apr 10, 2022)

Liberated Collective said:


> The moon doesnt change my friend, not throughout an evening,... each phase changes some shadows, but within each phase shadows stay exactly the same no matter where in relation to sun it is. thats what I am saying. The shadows don't change within each phaSE, it simply rotates overhead.



OK.

So do you think the Moon's face rotates once every 24 hours?  Corresponding to 15 degrees of rotation per hour?


----------



## Liberated Collective (Apr 10, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> OK.
> 
> So do you think the Moon's face rotates once every 24 hours?  Corresponding to 15 degrees of rotation per hour?


Well, its not a perfect 15 or 24, because of the problem I already mentioned, the moon lags slightly, but its very close yes. For informational purposes: Not technically. For Practical Purposes: Yes.


----------



## otl2021 (Apr 10, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> The Copernican model explains why the face of the Moon appears to rotate with the passage of time.
> 
> This sketch shows the spherical Earth with the North pole at the top.  The stick figure is at latitude 51 degrees (
> London).  Assuming you could be hovering in space at a point in line with the equator, then this is what you would see during a twelve hour period.  You can see that the stick figure has rotated by 78 degrees.  2 x (90-51) = 78
> ...


The Copernican model is stupid. It makes no sense. It has been falsified several times  in several ways since they first tried it.

And I cannot fathom how you are still coming on here with the spinning spheres stuff. Why? If you have proof spinning balls exist, that's one thing. But, pretending they do to support your belief system should be done in private. 
Jmpo.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Apr 10, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> The Copernican model is stupid. It makes no sense. It has been falsified several times  in several ways since they first tried it.
> 
> And I cannot fathom how you are still coming on here with the spinning spheres stuff. Why? If you have proof spinning balls exist, that's one thing. But, pretending they do to support your belief system should be done in private.
> Jmpo.



Please read my posts more carefully before responding,


----------



## grav (Apr 11, 2022)

The moon's rotation still stumps me.
If it is embedded in the dome, why would it move at all? especially is we accept the theory that the moon is a reflection of the infinite plane.

This idea assumes a single dome. That is, a physical layer in which stars are fixed.
The free ranging lights that are called planets move independently of the other luminaries. Does each one have its own "dome" or does it move in another fashion -- electrically?
The 7 heavens of legend may refer to multiple structures and, of course, the proverbial glass ceiling.

You would think that photographic evidence would  be all over the internet, whether videos or animated gifs of 24 hours of lunar rotation. Wrong.
Almost every search I've made results in silly cartoons or horizontal rotations, which of course are flimflams perpetrated by Nasa operatives.




Edit: I neglected to say that I think it's possible for stars, planets, and the sun to have their own circuits of passage inside the dome.
Kind of like a highway with multiple lanes with varying speed limits and directions, tunnels, overpasses, and off-ramps.


----------



## Daniel (Apr 11, 2022)

Neither the Earth nor the Moon can be moving at a constant speed. If the Sun, Earth and Moon are all moving, and the Earth revolves around the Sun, and the Moon revolves around the Earth

then the Earth has to be moving faster than the Sun, and the Moon has to be moving faster than the Earth.
Plus, in order to have Earth days of 24 hours, Earth years of 365.25 days, and exact lunar cycles, both the Earth and the Moon would need to speed up and slow down their movements accordingly, while both always keeping ahead of the Sun.


----------



## grav (Apr 11, 2022)

Daniel said:


> Neither the Earth nor the Moon can be moving at a constant speed. If the Sun, Earth and Moon are all moving, and the Earth revolves around the Sun, and the Moon revolves around the Earth
> 
> then the Earth has to be moving faster than the Sun, and the Moon has to be moving faster than the Earth.
> Plus, in order to have Earth days of 24 hours, Earth years of 365.25 days, and exact lunar cycles, both the Earth and the Moon would need to speed up and slow down their movements accordingly, while both always keeping ahead of the Sun.


I think you posted before I finished editing my earlier comments about my multiple confusions.
Years ago a flat earth team mapped the sun's location over a year by plotting its  position at the exact same time of day.
This is its map. 





After a half century, people still think man went to the moon.
in this,




 the lunar module that 2 astro-nots lived in.
It also, as you remember, rockets up, up, and off the moon 
to return the brave spacemen to the rocket ship and their home planet.

 

Wiki:
"Main article: Apollo 11

Eagle was launched with command module Columbia on July 16, 1969 atop a Saturn V launch vehicle from Launch Complex 39A, and entered Earth orbit 12 minutes later.

Eagle entered lunar orbit on July 19, 1969. On July 20, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin entered into the LM and separated it from Command module Columbia.

Eagle was landed at 20:17:40 UTC on July 20, 1969 with 216 pounds (98 kg) of usable fuel remaining.

After the lunar surface operations, Armstrong and Aldrin returned to the Lunar Module Eagle on July 21, 1969.

At 17:54:00 UTC, they lifted off in Eagle's ascent stage to rejoin Michael Collins aboard Columbia in lunar orbit.

After the crew re-boarded Columbia, the Eagle was abandoned in lunar orbit. Although its ultimate fate remains unknown, some calculations by the physicist James Meador published in 2021 showed that Eagle could theoretically still be in lunar orbit.[3]"


----------



## inthefade (Apr 11, 2022)

grav said:


> Years ago a flat earth team mapped the sun's location over a year by plotting its position at the exact same time of day.
> This is its map.


Can you post the video/site for this team? I am interested in the process. Thank you.


----------



## Septimus (Apr 11, 2022)

grav said:


> You would think that photographic evidence would be all over the internet, whether videos or animated gifs of 24 hours of lunar rotation. Wrong.



It is incredulous that NASA has done zero photographic work of this kind in the last seven years since Flat Earth theory exploded. What have they been doing since then? Wouldn't it prove how great exercisers of science they are if they took timelapse photos of the sun and moon from cities across the "globe" and display them side-by-side? 

Certainly the trillions they steal from taxpayer dollars would cover such a small endeavor. But no, their scientists are too good for the scientific method, and they rather pay off Youtube influencers to tell everyone how stupid flat earthers are.

I don't know why people are still debating this topic on the forum when there are mountains of evidence against the heliocentric theory. The work has been done already for you. Do you need CNN and FOX to tell you that NASA is lying before you believe? We should be spending our time documenting astrological movements all over the world throughout the year as well as charting trips to the alleged ice wall.


----------



## otl2021 (Apr 11, 2022)

grav said:


> You would think that photographic evidence would be all over the internet, whether videos or animated gifs of 24 hours of lunar rotation.


LOL at rotating spheres and they really need to point one their satellites  at some road in Auckland and show us this....


----------



## grav (Apr 11, 2022)

inthefade said:


> Can you post the video/site for this team? I am interested in the process. Thank you.


I haven't been able to find that video in many years.
Dr. Zach, later DecimalZ, and the FECORE team plotted the sun's position every day on a software program.
The team moved on to new projects, principally laser experiments. 

2 comments/opinions
1. FE YTers are breaking no new ground. I am subscribed to dozens of FE channels and almost never see one worth watching.
2. Google and other search engines have erased much evidence that was easily accessible from 2015 to around 2019. Then, the NWO sent agents to disrupt the flow of knowledge.
Flat Earth is, without a doubt, the most censored topic on the internet.


----------



## Akanah (Apr 12, 2022)

A clear argument against a spherical earth is the strange pattern of thinking of the natural scientific people to have to imprint a spherical shape on all objects which are too small to recognize them in the microscope or which are too big to recognize them in the whole. Everything what exists between these size scales has mostly a biological form.


----------



## grav (Apr 13, 2022)

The Atom theory is the same lame construct as the solar system -- a shiny central ball around which other balls orbit. Not unlike moths which fly around the night light on Grandma's back porch.

For proof of dancing balls of atoms and planets we have _______?.... zero.
zilch. nada. animated cartoons by government stooges pretending to be real scientists.

I used to get a kick out of watching Nathan Thompson ambush space physicists and ask them to explain air pressure inside a vacuum. 
He still has a YT channel, but..but..tptb did to his videos what Hillary did to her emails.


_View: https://youtu.be/cHBSd18nIuw_


----------



## Akanah (Apr 13, 2022)

grav said:


> The Atom theory is the same lame construct as the solar system -- a shiny central ball around which other balls orbit. Not unlike moths which fly around the night light on Grandma's back porch.
> 
> For proof of dancing balls of atoms and planets we have _______?.... zero.
> zilch. nada. animated cartoons by government stooges pretending to be real scientists.
> ...



That's sad and funny at the same time. At school, we were able to watch a foam-negro-kiss being pulled apart in a vacuum bell jar.
I had also wondered how planets could float around in a vacuum without having to expand to the edge of the universe. A vacuum just doesn't make sense. The Thunderbolts Project people believe in a plasma space instead of a vacuum. I myself believe in a water and air space.


----------



## grav (Apr 13, 2022)

The Thunderbolts straddle the truth by pretending to support the space bs.
They don't want to be seen as nutty heretics, and so they try to nudge consensus closer to the plasma aether. I agree with you about the waters above our air space. 

Another forum reminded me today about the Schumann Resonance.
Space Observing System | Данные комплексного мониторинга в г.Томске
Here is the latest.


My point:
Earth is a closed system, a saltwater battery.
"Flat Earth" is actually the accretion disk (Infinite plane) inside the electric torus field of the universe.
It has a natural frequency that was well-understood, and protected, before the last reset.

Around a century ago, the Schumann Resonance was intentionally corrupted, in my opinion, as a way to keep the sheeple sickly and stupid.
The human collaborators who aid and abet the current agenda will also inherit the electric winds of trouble.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Apr 13, 2022)

*Cycles of the Moon* - introduction for beginners

(I count myself as a beginner)

1) The Phases of the Moon; also called the Lunar Synodic Cycle.  Takes around 29.5 days.  Defined as the time from the same phase to the next occurrence of the same phase as seen from Earth.

2) The Anomalistic cycle - the Moon appears bigger and smaller.  The Copernican model says it gets closer and further away. This cycle take around a month too, but not exactly the same as the Synodic cycle.  You might see a large New Moon one month, followed by a tiny Full Moon the same month; a few months later you might be seeing large Gibbous moons and the other phases smaller; a few months later still you have a month with a tiny New Moon followed by a huge Full Moon.  I think it takes a few years for this to work all the way round.

3) The Draconic Cycle - the Moon appears higher and lower in the Sky (as viewed from Northern latitudes). This is described in the Copernican model as behaving a lot like a plate spinning on a table, at the point where the raised edge is only an inch or so off the table.  This is also a cycle of around a month, so if the New Moon is high in the Sky, the Full Moon must be low and vice versa.  After several months you would notice the Gibbous moon high in the Sky, then eventually the Full Moon highest.  I'm not sure how long this takes to go round a full loop, my best guess is a few years.

4) The Cycle of Saros is exactly 223 synodic months, i.e. 223 times the well-known Phases of the Moon.
You can accurately predict eclipses with this. Every Solar and/or Lunar eclipse will occur again exactly 223 synodic months into the future.  That's 18 x 12 synodic months plus 7.  

It's the only number in any of the Moon's cycles I am aware of which is exactly a whole (integer) number.




Saros (astronomy) - Wikipedia



This image presented by Grav is said to be a map of the Moon's movements over a flat plane.  

This is a CGI.  I'm not saying it's _wrong_, I'm just saying it is literally a Computer Generated Image.

As you say, the trick would be to get lots of people all over the Earth to take accurate measurements of the position size phase and orientation of the Moon at the same time from different positions, and amass all that data together.


----------



## grav (Apr 14, 2022)

Not the moon. The sun.

Memory fails, but I thought it would have been possible to plot the sun's position from one location, similar to how the analemma is observed fom a single observation post.
Of course it is a cgi product.

It represents the sun's path over a year as it traverses inside the dome.


----------



## Akanah (Apr 14, 2022)

Yesterday I watched the new documentary about Elon Musk's Spaxe X called "Return to space".
I had the impression that in reality the astronauts would not have flown up 400 km above the earth, because small lakes on the earth could still be seen clearly. Probably the ISS is only a maximum of 50 km or so above the earth and they actually represent the curvature of the earth with a fisheye lens so that it is not noticeable. So I mean that the astronauts are still in such a deep atmospheric layer that you can't see a cocave or convex curvature of the Earth yet, if necessary. In my opinion, the Earth is probably just way too big for the astronauts to really get very far, and I doubt the feasibility of Elon Musk's Mars mission.
And then they showed again videos of the Apollo mission where I had to smile about the fact that the astronauts on the moon were translucent like holograms.


----------



## grav (Apr 14, 2022)

Akanah said:


> Probably the ISS is only a maximum of 50 km or so above the earth



Probably the ISS is a movie studio in Star City, Moscow.

or a movie set in Houston.
but.
. a solar-powered tin can vrooming around at 17,000 mph in a complete vacuum?

not

^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>>>>>>

The following post is (should be) separate from the one above.
A formatting flaw, in my opinion. If I wanted to edit a previous post, I would do so.
. . . . . . . .

~33:33

_View: https://youtu.be/NxYs7-dYnPU_


JTolan MEDIA
How I Measured the Distance to the Celestial Dome

Apr 10, 2022
Increasing the positional and angular accuracy with a theodolite has revealed a most shocking truth.
________________

This YTer is known for his infrared photography of targets at very long range. Infrared lenses removes refraction from atmospheric clutter.
In this video he triangulates the distance to the dome.
3943 miles, which is 16 miles off the radius of the globe.
That figure does not measure the thickness of the total firmament.
Space, the Final Frontier, starts at the Karman line, ~ 62 mile
Can we interpret that claim as a clue? since the Nasa freemasons pride themselves on their sharing the true truth, somewhere in the haystack of fake facts of science.

Let's ask the Google: how many heavens are there?

https://climate.nasa.gov › news › earths-atmosphere-a-...

Search for: How many layers of atmosphere are there?

What are the 7 layers of atmosphere?

The 7 Layers in Order

Exosphere.
Ionosphere.
Thermosphere.
Mesosphere.
Ozone Layer.
Stratosphere.
Troposphere.
Earth's Surface.


The 7 Layers the Earth's Atmosphere by Hailey Hammonds - Prezi


----------



## AntiSoof (Apr 15, 2022)

DavidMalcolmCurrie said:


> I began researching this subject at "200 proofs the earth is not a spinning ball", that's what got me started researching this about five years ago, and I've done hundreds of hours of research since then, mostly watching videos on the subject.  I believe in the Holy Bible AS IT WAS WRITTEN (although interpretations can vary), and that includes Hebrew cosmology.  I would ask those who think they live on a spinning ball to watch the "200 proofs" video, and tell me where he was wrong...?


I didn't see much that was right.


grav said:


> 3. Water. Liquid water always seeks its own level. Gravity, which is really the function of density (weight) of objects over distances, cannot cause oceans to curve around the globe. Sea level must be consistent throughout the world. Water, in other words, can not curve. Example: the Pacific Ocean, sea level.


Water is not flat. It does level. On a 3-D globe as it does.
There are several reasons for the gradual distribution of the water. i.a. the air pressure, gravity and probably the 4th state of the water. Indeed, gravity does not exist. That's probably an atomic force. Everything seeks its level. Water is 1 kg/l in weight, seeks equilibrium with other matter. What you call density. Seems correct to me.


----------



## fega72 (Apr 15, 2022)

AntiSoof said:


> Maybe water does not want to be flat, water wants to be as evenly distributed as possible (over the earth). Among other things, the air pressure ensures that distribution. Moreover, the 4th form of water may contribute to this phenomenon. Plus the 'gravity', that also plays a role. For these kinds of problems one has to think 3-D.


Luckily laser lights decided to fallow that evenly distributed water surface and not going in strait lines. And the atmosphere decided to stay around the globe and ignore the vacuum's force so we have air pressure to push the water around the curved surface, and the water can ignore the centrifugal force and sticks to the globe, even if it evaporate it will fall back to the surface at some point. The gravity is strong enough to keep the atmosphere around the globe but it is too weak to make the moon fall. etc...


----------



## AntiSoof (Apr 15, 2022)

fega72 said:


> Luckily laser lights decided to fallow that evenly distributed water surface and not going in strait lines. And the atmosphere decided to stay around the globe and ignore the vacuum's force so we have air pressure to push the water around the curved surface, and the water can ignore the centrifugal force and sticks to the globe, even if it evaporate it will fall back to the surface at some point. The gravity is strong enough to keep the atmosphere around the globe but it is too weak to make the moon fall. etc...



I haven't seen any honest conclusive evidence of those lasers yet. Moreover, light could bend slightly with the curvature of the earth and so it seems to be so.

Oops, I believe I misread you. Or did I not?
Why do you write "vacuum's force"? Vavuum is not a force. It is zero pressure.
I myself am a proponent of the ether theory. The field in which everything takes place. And I think everything is an expression of energy in motion. Matter seems to me to be energy in condensed form, immensely small movements of waves in the immense ether field. Protons, for example, seem to me to be pure energy in very small waves, so do neurtrons and electrons. Light seems to me like a wave in the ether field. Heat is a wave in that field. Everything is tiny waves, as explained in quantum mechanics. That seems to me to be the most obvious explanation. The structure of the movement of those quantum particles is a great insight. Everything seems to be energy. A dance in the infinite background field of the universe's ultra-fine mesh. A web that communicates timeless probably. This theory also seems to explain the shape of the earth to some extent. It's because it's the best it can be. That's all.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Apr 15, 2022)

grav said:


> Probably the ISS is a movie studio in Star City, Moscow.
> 
> or a movie set in Houston.
> but.
> ...



Thanks for posting that video Grav , it is most interesting and suggests to me that this distance to the starry vault has been known for at least few hundred years . 

It 's a fine piece of work by the lad carrying out the survey . 

If you take those survey results and fit them to the globe model , in which all incoming starlight rays are parallel owing to those fantastic distances to the stars then the angle which the separated theodolites subtend to the centre of a globe earth must give that same value for the radius of the imaginary globe. 

Hope that makes sense. 

So in my opinion this has been known ever since the early surveys carried out by Brahe , Cassini and the other proper scientists of the time . Explains why the blob was supposed to be around 8000 miles diameter and eventually this was refined as optical instruments improved. 

TPTB have once again inverted the truth .


----------



## grav (Apr 16, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Explains why the blob was supposed to be around 8000 miles diameter and eventually this was refined as optical instruments improved.


Are you saying the dome, or firmament, is 8000 miles deep?
If so, I'd halve that number, to between 3000 and 4000 miles. 

The bottom layer, in my guesstimate, begins at 62 miles of altitude, the Karman line.
Above that are transparent layers of "glass" ceilings in which luminaries reside, either fixed or moving.

The outermost layer would be ~3000+ miles, which JTOLAN and other researchers have concluded, by triangulation to stars.

Above that is what? The waters, as Bible and myths have chronicled.


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Apr 16, 2022)

Distance traveled, divided by time spent traveling is equal to the speed of travel.   If you travel for 1 hour, and travel 100 miles in that hour, you have traveled 100 miles/hour.

Assuming that you do not follow the heliocentric model; which requires the Earth to be passing infront of the sun, we can consider the following: The sun is traveling over the earth.

Not only is it doing exactly that, but it is consistent in it's travel. At a rate of about 1040 miles an hour, the sun travels about 24,960 miles a day.  Just 40 miles shy of the 25,000 mile circumference of Earth, that was calculated by Cyrus Teed back in the mid 1800's.

Proponents of the Flat Earth demonstrate that the sun travels over the face of earth in a circular motion, however it moves inward and outward during the year.    

If this is to be an assumed physical representation of our reality; than then sun MUST increase it's speed as it travels over the southern hemisphere, which is consistently depicted as nearly double the diameter of the northern hemisphere in every depiction of Flat Earth.

The acute issue with this concept is that we do not experience an increase of the sun's speed at the rate it would be physically required to travel across a tropical zone that is twice the size of it's sister tropic zone.   

TL;DR   F.E. Doesn't work because the sun would literally have to double in speed to travel over the tropic of capricorn, and both tropics get equal amounts of sunlight every year.  D=T/S.    We know the distance of the tropics is equal.  Shipping routes world wide demonstrate this, and have for hundreds of years.   I highly encourage any Flat Earther to consider navigating the tropics by sea in order to demonstrate their belief as fact.  (Or Fiction)


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Apr 16, 2022)

grav said:


> Are you saying the dome, or firmament, is 8000 miles deep?
> If so, I'd halve that number, to between 3000 and 4000 miles.
> 
> The bottom layer, in my guesstimate, begins at 62 miles of altitude, the Karman line.
> ...


To clarify , no-one has ever measured any curvature or carried out anything other than planar survey of some parts of the earth surface .  Yet we are told the earth has a supposed radius of around 3950mls .

jTOLAN and others has surveyed the distance to the stars giving a resulting distance roughly the same .Good work by jTOLAN and the others. 

The 8000 mile earth diameter figure was always bandied  around from so-called ancient times according to mainstream .

I think that figure must have come from early triangulations . We are told that the early astronomers thought that the stars are far far away their incoming lightrays parallel etc. All rubbish. 

Am of the opinion now that past astronomers also used trigonometric techniques to survey the distance to the stars (Euclidean geometry has been around for a long time) . They also new the world was flat . Their results would have given the distance to the stardome as being around the 4000 mile mark same as todays. 

The deception carried out by the bozos in control was to pretend this 4000miles was actually the radius of earth rather than the distance to the vault of the stars. Hence the 8000ml diameter of the earth. 

Have the distances to any planets been triangulated would you know?


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Apr 16, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> To clarify , no-one has ever measured any curvature or carried out anything other than planar survey of some parts of the earth surface .  Yet we are told the earth has a supposed radius of around 3950mls .
> 
> jTOLAN and others has surveyed the distance to the stars giving a resulting distance roughly the same .Good work by jTOLAN and the others.
> 
> ...


Curvature was actually measured twice that I am aware of.  Once with a mechanical device, back in the 1800's; and the 2nd time was much more recent, in Brighton Colorado.

However I favor the original measuring procedure as conducted by Cyrus Teed, and Ulysses G Morrow, and I am a large proponent of Brian Mullin's "Force the Line" Experiment.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Apr 16, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> Distance traveled, divided by time spent traveling is equal to the speed of travel.   If you travel for 1 hour, and travel 100 miles in that hour, you have traveled 100 miles/hour.
> 
> Assuming that you do not follow the heliocentric model; which requires the Earth to be passing infront of the sun, we can consider the following: The sun is traveling over the earth.
> 
> ...


We are talking about the distance to the stars and the dome . The nature of the sun is unknown.

Can you provide details of these measurements of curvature you allude to?


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Apr 16, 2022)

I most certainly can.

Please enjoy this fabulous post by one of the Admins here, Dreamtime.  

Dreamtimes FEcore post.

This is for the attachment that I've already posted above, where FE core acknowledges through measurement that the surface of the earth is Inverse what we are taught.  (Which easily explains the navigation, observation, and celestial issues of FE)


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Apr 16, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> I most certainly can.
> 
> Please enjoy this fabulous post by one of the Admins here, Dreamtime.
> 
> ...


FE core are not known to me as flat earthers - they are skilled in the art of deception. Hence the use of an imaginary horizontal line - their words not mine- used in their "scientific survey" to force the level . 

All they really need to do is to carry out the Brian Mullins "Force the Line " experiment which does not rely on imaginary scenarios. But they won't because they are not interested in the truth.


----------



## EUAFU (Apr 16, 2022)

Fortuna Fled said:


> *7 ways you can easily prove that the Earth is not flat*
> Posted Sunday 24 May 2020 10:00 by Mimi Launder in tech
> UPVOTE
> 
> ...


If this is the evidence that the Earth is a globe, then the Flat Earth theory makes much more sense. 
The arguments in this post are pretty weak, the premises that try to support them are even childish. 
What do you mean that people should see all the stars if the Earth were flat? That is if the stars were billions of miles away. If they are closer the answer is no. 

When did they prove that something called Gravity exists? That's right. Another false premise.

Same for the Earth's supposed iron core. 

In short, these earth-globe proofs are weak to say the least.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Apr 16, 2022)

EUAFU said:


> If this is the evidence that the Earth is a globe, then the Flat Earth theory makes much more sense.



The only evidence the Earth is a globe is the Copernican model and the photos from space.  We know a lot of the space photos are fake.  I am speaking up for the Copernican model, I think it holds up quite well. I shall post more on the rotation of the Moon's face soon. 



EUAFU said:


> The arguments in this post are pretty weak, the premises that try to support them are even childish.



There's only one thing worse than arguing with Flat Earthers and trying to convince them the Earth is round; that's arguing with people who believe the Earth is round and trying to convince them there is _lots of good evidence the Earth is flat._ 




EUAFU said:


> What do you mean that people should see all the stars if the Earth were flat? That is if the stars were billions of miles away. If they are closer the answer is no.



Every 'Primitive' civilisation believed the fixed stars were inside the moving stars.  This includes the ancient Greeks from whom we derive the majority of our philosophy, geometry, mathematics and so on. The Toltecs believed that Venus ('Quetzalcoatl') was inside the fixed stars and all other moving stars outside.




EUAFU said:


> When did they prove that something called Gravity exists? That's right. Another false premise.



You misunderstand where the conventional Science is with regard to Gravity.  No-one has claimed to understand it.  It is an observable fact that things fall, so there must be some force pulling things downwards, and we have put a label on it.

Gravity is said to occur instantaneously.  Most things cannot propagate very quickly, including Sound, Heat, Vibration, Nuclear explosion, Light, Radio waves, etc... But Gravity is said to propagate across infinitely large distances instantaneously. Conventional scientists are constantly looking for a Gravity wave or a Gravity particle, and have so far failed in spite of the incredible budgets they've been awarded. 






EUAFU said:


> Same for the Earth's supposed iron core.



I'm not sure there is any evidence for this apart from the Earth's magnetic field.  I'm guessing that someone took the strength of the field and worked backwards to assume there was an iron core. Which is said to be molten, under tremendous pressure and moving rapidly.





EUAFU said:


> In short, these earth-globe proofs are weak to say the least.




Apart from the Copernican model of the movements of the Sun, Moon, Stars and Planets, about which I will be posting more soon.

The Copernican model does not say the Earth is round; it says _If We assume the Earth is a spinning ball then we can very well explain the movements of the Sun, Moon, Stars and Planets._ 

The conventional narrative says that Copernicus lived in the 1500s and had the idea; that Galileo lived in the late 1600s and was the public face of it. 

Tycho Brae was the only one who had accurate enough measurements of the positions of the planets, sustained over a long enough period of time, to make any proper discussion possible. He believed that the Sun orbited the Earth, and the Planets orbited the Sun.  This is the Tychonic model which has been comprehensively rejected by everyone for three centuries now!


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Apr 16, 2022)

I would say the Heliocentric model has been forced upon us rather than the Tychonic model being comprehensively rejected by everyone. The heliocentric model does not stand up to scrutiny , perhaps because it uses the spinning ball assumption as its basis.


----------



## otl2021 (Apr 17, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> I am speaking up for the Copernican model, I think it holds up quite well. I shall post more on the rotation of the Moon's face soon.


The Copernican model is totally impossible. 

And the rotation of the Moon's face is as relevant to a discussion regarding our Earth's shape as discussing billiard balls is in helping us determine the shape of the table.


----------



## AntiSoof (Apr 17, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> The only evidence the Earth is a globe is the Copernican model and the photos from space.  We know a lot of the space photos are fake.  I am speaking up for the Copernican model, I think it holds up quite well. I shall post more on the rotation of the Moon's face soon.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What if gravity takes place in the erher? Each 'particle' (packet of energy in the form of a wave field) would then dance on the web of the ether. The atoms and photons, for example, are pure energy, which because of their specific form of motion have their special aspects? Why does one not think so? Because of the inability to measure the ether, then indirectly? 
So gravity could be a movement in the ether field, perhaps comparable to magnetism or light, but of a different order. It indicates also the 'position' of the wave 'particle' because it occupies that place, and if it 'fits' better somewhere otherwise, then it goes there.
Excuse my language if it seems strainge to you. I am Dutch


----------



## otl2021 (Apr 17, 2022)

AntiSoof said:


> What if gravity takes place in the erher? Each 'particle' (packet of energy in the form of a wave field) would then dance on the web of the ether. The atoms and photons, for example, are pure energy, which because of their specific form of motion have their special aspects? Why does one not think so? Because of the inability to measure the ether, then indirectly?
> So gravity could be a movement in the ether field, perhaps comparable to magnetism or light, but of a different order. It indicates also the 'position' of the wave 'particle' because it occupies that place, and if it 'fits' better somewhere otherwise, then it goes there.
> Excuse my language if it seems strainge to you. I am Dutch


What gravity?


----------



## grav (Apr 17, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> I would say the Heliocentric model has been forced upon us rather than the Tychonic model being comprehensively rejected by everyone. The heliocentric model does not stand up to scrutiny , perhaps because it uses the spinning ball assumption as its basis.



You make an excellent point.
Though you don't point specifically to the FIC (Freemasons In Charge) as the architects of our false reality, you clearly expose their idiotic model as a deliberate scheme to keep humans happily ignorant. 

I maintain that astronomers and astrophysicists all collude with this diabolical plot. 
No way can any educated scientist go along with the foolish speeds and behaviors of the space balls. Because they're all balls. The Brits would say bollocks. The sun and stars, planets, moon -- all balls, all in motion, all hocus pocus.
 Keep your eye on the ball, children.

- end rant -
- begin Electric Universe

The closest we have to honest scientists are, maybe, who knows, the Thunderbolts, physicists who propose electromagnetism as the only true force.
But even they will not deny the modern balls-in-space nonsense. Fear is a great motivator, don't you know.

The Concave Earth Theory? I see it as an inside-out view of the Cosmic Egg, which itself is an electric torus in which earth sits embedded in the accretion disk at mid-point, perhaps one of multtiple Infinite Planes.


----------



## AntiSoof (Apr 17, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> What gravity?


What gravity? Well, the power that, according to my theory, resides in the atoms. A 'kinetic' force. Compare a stone that you lift. Why does it fall when you let go of it? Because you put that kinetic energy into it by lifting it. And so weight seems to be like a force in an object relative to other objects or air, water. But the 'connection' between those atoms in one object with another object may exist in the field. And since that field permeates everything and is extremely small, it cannot be measured. One cannot measure oneself with oneself (the meter). For the meter exists and is in the same field as the thing to be measured. The smallest, according to some, turns out to be the ultra-fine web of pure energy. (Zero point?) That seems to be quite a lot of energy, but so fine and so small that it cannot be measured or observed. That gravity.


----------



## ThomasVonDerBosch (Apr 18, 2022)

My first post here and very happy to find this forum.

I had a friend tell me, "The earth is flat and I can prove it!" My immediate response was,"Whatever your smoking, stop!! " lol

We have a beginners telescope at the cottage in Waubashene Ontario.  I mounted it in the water approx. 16"-18" out of the water and looked out 15kms. I could see a cormorant sunning himself and water lapping on the rock he was perched on approx. the same height out of the water as my telescope. 

The battleship Bismarck could accurately hurl a shell to a distance of 30kms using only optical rangefinders. The Hood could not. An observable fact given the outcome of their meeting.

Line of sight can be distorted by heat shimmer, clouds, smoke, particulate in the air etc., however on a clear calm day when the water is cooler than the air with no heat shimmer you can see an extraordinarily far distance. 

Less dense gases float right up to the firmament. As the suns waves begin to vibrate these gases they glow blue! Same principal as neon lights. 

You can't see the sun from the other side of the "disc" at night because of all the particulate, humidity, clouds etc between yourself and the sun. 

Observations in the desert where the clearest line of sight is available show the sun gets smaller as it goes away from the observer not down.

All observations that seem to show the sun going below the horizon are from the refraction of light from the heat, humidity, clouds or particulate in the atmosphere. Hence no two examples of this are exactly the same as the likelihood of these being exactly the same is slim. Note  the brilliant sunsets on a hazy day. 

Using time lapse photography it is easy to see the sun and moon are visibly smaller at their dawn/dusk times than at their noon(in case of the sun) positions. 

Observing Mars or stars through a telescope we see a constantly moving ball of light. Hard to describe this. Plasma ball of light?

I have given up on all sources of information save my own observances.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Apr 18, 2022)

TOLTEC COSMOLOGY

'Toltec' means those who figured it all out.  The Toltecs described 13 heavens, starting with heaven on Earth, where we reside; the first heaven.

The second heaven:  the Moon, the winds and the clouds.  I've personally witnessed the Moon interacting with clouds.

The third heaven: the Sun, Venus and the Pleiades

The fourth heaven: the fixed stars.

The fifth heaven: the moving stars and comets.

The sixth heaven: the place where matter and energy mix.   

After that you have the dream of the Moon, the dream of the Sun, the dream of your own personal star, the collective womb, the four Tezcatlipocah, Mr and Mrs Two, the One energy.  These are all energetic realms that can be accessed via Astral travel.

The Sun is called Tonatiuh in the Nahuatl language which means directing heat.  The 'Tonal' is famous from Castenedas writings, however the correct Nahuatl word is 'Tonalli' meaning the product of heat.  Tona is the verb to create heat.  Tonalli means all of the following things - the conscious mind; your destiny; your day of birth; daylight; summer; day. Everything that is made possible by the Sun.

Venus has several names. When it appears in the morning it is called Quetzalcoatl which means something like Christ consciousness - the realisation of your highest destiny.  When it appears in the evening it is called Xololtl which is your companion in the underworlds.


----------



## EUAFU (Apr 19, 2022)

AntiSoof said:


> What gravity? Well, the power that, according to my theory, resides in the atoms. A 'kinetic' force. Compare a stone that you lift. Why does it fall when you let go of it? Because you put that kinetic energy into it by lifting it. And so weight seems to be like a force in an object relative to other objects or air, water. But the 'connection' between those atoms in one object with another object may exist in the field. And since that field permeates everything and is extremely small, it cannot be measured. One cannot measure oneself with oneself (the meter). For the meter exists and is in the same field as the thing to be measured. The smallest, according to some, turns out to be the ultra-fine web of pure energy. (Zero point?) That seems to be quite a lot of energy, but so fine and so small that it cannot be measured or observed. That gravity.


The stone falls because it is denser than air. If it were less dense it would float on air. This is what happens. 

Oil floats on water because it is less dense. There is no gravity.


----------



## AntiSoof (Apr 19, 2022)

EUAFU said:


> The stone falls because it is denser than air. If it were less dense it would float on air. This is what happens.
> 
> Oil floats on water because it is less dense. There is no gravity.


When you call it density, you should also describe what density is. One says: 1 : the quantity per unit volume, unit area, or unit length: as. a : the mass of a substance per unit volume. b : the distribution of a quantity (as mass, electricity, or energy) per unit usually of space. Now my question: what causes the density? It seems to me the same as what is called gravity. And indeed gravity/density itself I can't find either. Or, (so) it must, as I stated, be in the matter itself. So you don't find it outside of matter.


----------



## grav (Apr 20, 2022)

AntiSoof said:


> what causes the density?


electromagnetism, which expresses itself as the wholeness of the aether: radiation, matter, consciousness.
Everything is electricity, or dielectricity: positively charged ions and negatively charged electrons.

The Atom is a theory, with a shape the same as the ludicrous solar system.
The arom bomb is therefore a hoax, Nagasaki and Hiroshima being fire-bombed with conventional weapons.

When dielectric particles form matter in dense arrangements we have solids. Looser densities form liquids, gases, and plasma.
Specific gravity is the ratio of densities of adjacent substances.
Mist rising above a warming lake. Clouds floating above a heavier layer of air. Some people float in water. Some people sink.

I am a sinker. My sister-in-law is a floater. She bobs like a cork while I struggle to keep my head above water. My username, Auntie grav, fits her better than it does me


----------



## otl2021 (Apr 20, 2022)

AntiSoof said:


> What gravity? Well, the power that, according to my theory, resides in the atoms.


What's an atom?


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Apr 20, 2022)

grav said:


> electromagnetism, which expresses itself as the wholeness of the aether: radiation, matter, consciousness.
> Everything is electricity, or dielectricity: positively charged ions and negatively charged electrons.
> 
> The Atom is a theory, with a shape the same as the ludicrous solar system.
> ...


Your sister in law is obviously a witch. Sorry


----------



## nacho (Apr 20, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Your sister in law is obviously a witch. Sorry


Who are you that is so wise in the ways of science?


----------



## AntiSoof (Apr 20, 2022)

grav said:


> electromagnetism, which expresses itself as the wholeness of the aether: radiation, matter, consciousness.
> Everything is electricity, or dielectricity: positively charged ions and negatively charged electrons.
> 
> The Atom is a theory, with a shape the same as the ludicrous solar system.
> ...


And what causes electromagnetism?

( Btw, consiousness is an expression of electromagnetism? )


----------



## grav (Apr 20, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Your sister in law is obviously a witch. Sorry


lol
She's just fluffy. and religious.
I don't mean to be ugly, but ---- (a favorite Southern saying that permits bluntness) -- the sweet old thing has excess fat cells. Muscle is denser than fat.
Not making this up. When my son took a swimming class, his coach had the students jump in the pool on day 1, with arms and legs still. To determine body density: sinker or floater.

As for what creates the electromagnetic aether:
a computer program? a butterfly's dream? only the Akashic dome knows fou sure.
It's like asking where God came from.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Apr 21, 2022)

nacho said:


> Who are you that is so wise in the ways of science?


I love that film - all time favourite. 

All a bit of topic but I couldn't resist.


----------



## EUAFU (Apr 23, 2022)

AntiSoof said:


> When you call it density, you should also describe what density is. One says: 1 : the quantity per unit volume, unit area, or unit length: as. a : the mass of a substance per unit volume. b : the distribution of a quantity (as mass, electricity, or energy) per unit usually of space. Now my question: what causes the density? It seems to me the same as what is called gravity. And indeed gravity/density itself I can't find either. Or, (so) it must, as I stated, be in the matter itself. So you don't find it outside of matter.


What causes density is the agglomeration of matter, that is, the greater or lesser amount of atoms per unit of space.


----------



## Apollonius (Apr 25, 2022)

EUAFU said:


> The stone falls because it is denser than air. If it were less dense it would float on air. This is what happens.
> 
> Oil floats on water because it is less dense. There is no gravity.


That doesn't explain why the Moon, Sun, and other planets don't fall to ground.

If density was the cause of the objects falling to the ground, the Moon and other celestial bodies would fall to the Earth because the Moon and other celestial bodies are denser than air.


----------



## fega72 (Apr 25, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> ... because the Moon and other celestial bodies are denser than air.


How you know that?


----------



## inthefade (Apr 25, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> That doesn't explain why the Moon, Sun, and other planets don't fall to ground.
> 
> If density was the cause of the objects falling to the ground, the Moon and other celestial bodies would fall to the Earth because the Moon and other celestial bodies are denser than air.


You're assuming the celestial bodies have density. Can you prove this?


----------



## EUAFU (Apr 25, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> That doesn't explain why the Moon, Sun, and other planets don't fall to ground.
> 
> If density was the cause of the objects falling to the ground, the Moon and other celestial bodies would fall to the Earth because the Moon and other celestial bodies are denser than air.


I don't know if the Moon is more or less dense than air. I only state what I can prove. And what I do know is that denser bodies fall relative to atmospheric air and float if they are less dense. The same goes for water. This is speaking of normal conditions, because on this planet we live on there are many exceptions to everything. Density exists and can be measured, while gravity is just a theory and cannot be measured.  It may be that the Moon floats because it is less dense in relation to its surroundings and it is said to be outside our atmosphere. That is if we are kind enough to believe that the Moon is what they say it is. I really doubt that the Moon and Sun are what they say they are. This week I saw images of a "ufo" the size of the Earth, with completely right angles, near the Sun. Images taken by the SOHO probe. Maybe the solar flares take on a shape of rectangles and squares, but I doubt it. Or you will see the Sun is not what they say it is.


----------



## grav (Apr 25, 2022)

The Moon?
A huge rock that floats overhead? that does not fall down to earth's gravity? that creates tides in oceans but does not make ripples in ponds?
And it is sometimes transparent.
Yesterday, for example, the top left limb was white while the rest of it was the same blue as the sky. Flags of several countries depict the moon as a  crescent with a star in it.

It is, obviously, a plasma feature in the dome.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Apr 26, 2022)

grav said:


> The Moon?
> A huge rock that floats overhead? that does not fall down to earth's gravity? that creates tides in oceans but does not make ripples in ponds?
> And it is sometimes transparent.
> Yesterday, for example, the top left limb was white while the rest of it was the same blue as the sky. Flags of several countries depict the moon as a crescent with a star in it.



You should get a Nikon P900 and capture those moments. I've seen clouds interacting with the Moon but sadly didn't have a camera to hand.

BTW I saw a clip the other day of Buzz Aldrin saying he didn't go to the Moon.


----------



## grav (Apr 27, 2022)

I post on a few other forums. Very few.
The gatekeepers who destroy our knowledge of history also lie, cheat, and steal true science, while keeping us bound and gagged.
It is astounding that so many people collude with the Control System. Shills and trolls abound where people once discussed ideas in public arenas.
Internet forums, in particular, have been infiltrated with these traitors. They ban and censor YouTube accounts, Facebook and Twitter users, and many social media outlets. News reporters are guilty of every crime in the journalism textbooks. Well, you all know how it is.
I get back at the dirty b@stards now and again with snarky truths directed at the perps.
I wrote the following to globe pretenders on a ridiculous site where I was slumming -- whose name does not deserve to be mentioned on a serious platform like this.. 
. . . . . 


still no comprehension of density?
because $$$$$
?
job security?
fear?

all of the above.
check, check, and check

Just say it out loud, boys:
"I live on a ball that spins 1000 miles per hour."
"The ball spins faster than a jet plane flies."

"Water sticks to the spinning ball."
"A total vacuum surrounds the wet spinning ball."

Say it.
Out loud. In public. Where friends and family hear you.
or
In the middle of Walmart, in the pharmacy dept.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Apr 27, 2022)

Ha ha!

I tried this with my friend the other day.  He has a degree in astrophysics and We've discussed lots of interesting stuff over the many years I've known him.

'Stand up, face East and tell me you believe you are travelling at well over the speed of sound' I told him.  Obviously he wouldn't do it.


----------



## grav (Apr 27, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> Ha ha!
> 
> I tried this with my friend the other day.  He has a degree in astrophysics and We've discussed lots of interesting stuff over the many years I've known him.
> 
> 'Stand up, face East and tell me you believe you are travelling at well over the speed of sound' I told him.  Obviously he wouldn't do it.


But, but, how do people who know better go along with the dog and pony show?
Like the astro-nots who blather on tv about living in a pressurized tin can surrounded by a total vacuum??

Elon Musk, our hero, will save us from Twitter malfeasance. Rly? Him? The man who put a car in orbit. Not that long ago.


_View: https://youtu.be/XG4HNDJT4bU_


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Apr 30, 2022)

Would any Flat Earthers care to explain how Pole Shifts work if there's only "one" pole?   The rest of us in the Cellular Earth/Inverse Earth/Concave Earth camp are highly interested in this, because apparently every time a pole shift happens, there are massive cataclysms? 

So how do pole shifts work on a mono-pole based reality?


----------



## fega72 (Apr 30, 2022)

The main stream scientist telling us, when a pole shift happens, there are massive cataclysms. So the pole shift never happened. 
I hope this is an easy explanation


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Apr 30, 2022)

fega72 said:


> The main stream scientist telling us, when a pole shift happens, there are massive cataclysms. So the pole shift never happened.
> I hope this is an easy explanation


Well, I've been told that the Tropic of Capricorn is larger than the Tropic of Cancer, but it's not.   There has never been any evidence provided from any member of the flat earth community to demonstrate such a thing.  

However, navigators world wide discuss, and demonstrate magnetic declination all the time; as it is a continuous problem.  

So, as with the Tropics issue, the best answer from the FE camp, is "Mainstream said it, so it's obviously a lie."  

Magnetic pole shift, is an actual navigation issue.     (As is the Tropic of Capricorn in the "Flat"  earth.)


----------



## Akanah (Apr 30, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> Would any Flat Earthers care to explain how Pole Shifts work if there's only "one" pole?   The rest of us in the Cellular Earth/Inverse Earth/Concave Earth camp are highly interested in this, because apparently every time a pole shift happens, there are massive cataclysms?
> 
> So how do pole shifts work on a mono-pole based reality?


Perhaps a pole was simply set arbitrarily. And since I believe that the earth can grow, the pole could shift each time due to a growth spurt.


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Apr 30, 2022)

Akanah said:


> Perhaps a pole was simply set arbitrarily. And since I believe that the earth can grow, the pole could shift each time due to a growth spurt.


I've only seen a "virtual" monopole magnet.   One that is created using magnetic shielding.    Has there ever been a naturally occurring monopole magnet in history?   

If not, than how does a paradigm of reality that assumes only one magnetic pole gain any credence if it's not demonstrable in nature?


----------



## inthefade (Apr 30, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> I've only seen a "virtual" monopole magnet.   One that is created using magnetic shielding.    Has there ever been a naturally occurring monopole magnet in history?
> 
> If not, than how does a paradigm of reality that assumes only one magnetic pole gain any credence if it's not demonstrable in nature?



Why can't this realm be flat and also have 2 poles?


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Apr 30, 2022)

inthefade said:


> Why can't this realm be flat and also have 2 poles?


Please refer to my above statements about the tropics.  If you can demonstrate that there are two poles, I would very much enjoy such an explanation.   Especially if you can demonstrate how that would work in a physical, navigable reality.


----------



## fega72 (Apr 30, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> Well, I've been told that the Tropic of Capricorn is larger than the Tropic of Cancer, but it's not.   There has never been any evidence provided from any member of the flat earth community to demonstrate such a thing.
> 
> However, navigators world wide discuss, and demonstrate magnetic declination all the time; as it is a continuous problem.
> 
> ...



There is no pole shifting. Navigation will be impossible if the North and South Pole just changing back and forth. 
Also there is no evidence the two Tropics are the same. 
Nasa's computer generated images are not accepted as proof of anything.


----------



## otl2021 (Apr 30, 2022)

Pole shifts are fake news. Coriolis is fake news. The tropics of cancer and capricorn being the same size is fake news.

Living inside an egg makes no sense in any way as it explains absolutely no real life observations. That whole thing is a freemason troll job.

?


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Apr 30, 2022)

Let me explain this to as clearly as I possibly can.

The term "tropics" is a term used to accept and understand that certain regions of Earth have more direct sunlight, being the sun being in that region more directly at certain times of year.   A "Sub-solar point"  meaning that the sun is directly over head.  At it's strongest.   These tropical zones have the same amount of sunlight both above, and below the equator.

These tropical zones have the same amount of sunlight BOTH ABOVE, and BELOW the equator.  This is literally impossible on any form of planar earth geometry no matter what way you try to spin it.    On any shape other than a globe, or an inverted globe, this is not possible.


I welcome the Flat Earth explanation for this phenomena:

Lahaina Noon - Wikipedia


otl2021 said:


> Pole shifts are fake news. Coriolis is fake news. The tropics of cancer and capricorn being the same size is fake news.
> 
> Living inside an egg makes no sense in any way as it explains absolutely no real life observations. That whole thing is a freemason troll job.


I just want to inform you, that if your only basis for reality is observation; and observation is merely a tool of the eye, and the eye is merely the tool of an illusion....

You can lead people to knowledge, but you can't make them think.   The tropics are navigated every day, daily by every class of sea faring vessel, and the only defense you have when they display their logs, and their data is "IT'S FAKE, IT'S FRAUDULENT"

Shipmap.org 

As if every single sailor or merchant who ever sailed the southern hemisphere was writing fraudulent logs, and continue to due so today.


To deny them; is nothing more than utter cope; because you have a fractured understanding of a beautiful reality that you willingly choose to deny.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Apr 30, 2022)

grav said:


> The Atom is a theory, with a shape the same as the ludicrous solar system.
> The arom bomb is therefore a hoax, Nagasaki and Hiroshima being fire-bombed with conventional weapons.



There is an alternative theory of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs which may interest you.

In order to create those bombs they had to destroy entire mountains to obtain thousands of tons of uranium ore, then transport that ore long distances.

Then they had to pulverise the ore and heat it to 2000C 3600F to extract the uranium. Most of the uranium is so-called 238, which is not fissile.  So they had to again heat it to nearly 4000F and spin it in centrifuges at tens of thousands of RPM in order to extract the less than 1% of uranium 235.  Eventually they obtained a few pounds of this material.

When they set off the nuclear bombs in Japan, the total energy released was more or less the same as the total amount of energy they had put into the process.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Apr 30, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> Let me explain this to as clearly as I possibly can.
> 
> The term "tropics" is a term used to accept and understand that certain regions of Earth have more direct sunlight, being the sun being in that region more directly at certain times of year.   A "Sub-solar point"  meaning that the sun is directly over head.  At it's strongest.   These tropical zones have the same amount of sunlight both above, and below the equator.
> 
> ...


You are mistaken regarding the tropics . 

The hot dry deserts are centred around the Northern tropic . 

The equatorial ran forests are centred around the .......equator

The cool dry deserts are centred around the Southern tropic. 

Progressivley cooler the farther away from the North Pole as each increases in length and thus the suns energy is dissipated accordingley over the greater distances southward. So the tropics receive the same amount of energy from the sun but asits spread over a greater area as it moves South.


Entirely consistent with a flat earth and local sun travelling at constant angular velocity. No-one has measured the tropics with a tape measure.

Compasses. Not saying the video was not OK but if you have no access to a map then the way to set your compass up is by visual alignment to the North star when visible and adjustment of the ring bezel accordingley for magnetic North .


----------



## Quiahuitl (Apr 30, 2022)

Antarctica is much colder at comparable latitudes compared to the North Pole.  This doesn't necessarily prove Flat Earth, but it does demonstrate there is something very wrong with our current understanding.

The current idea is that the Sun heats the Earth, which is a ball spinning on a wobbly axis so that the Northern and Southern Hemispheres are pointed towards the Sun every other six months.  The current idea also says that the Earth is a lifeless ball of rock and its only energy is provided by the Sun.

Let's put that into context.  The most powerful electrical devices available to normal humans are 15kW = electric kettles, bar fires etc.  The energy of the Sun is said to be equivalent to one of those every metre.  So if you laid out a grid of one metre squares, there would be a kettle boiling in every one of those squares. That's how much energy the Sun provides us.

 You could argue that the energy is created right here on Earth. The Sun may be more of a catalyst in the process than a source.  The conventional narrative says the Sun is creating billions of times more energy than that, and pissing it away into the vacuum of empty space, with only a tiny fraction of it reaching us here on Earth.

Is the Sun stupid?





GandalfTheGreen said:


> You can lead people to knowledge, but you can't make them think.   The tropics are navigated every day, daily by every class of sea faring vessel, and the only defense you have when they display their logs, and their data is "IT'S FAKE, IT'S FRAUDULENT"
> 
> Shipmap.org



This is a wonderful animated presentation of little points of light representing ships moving about on a map of the Earth.

However it does not look right to me.  I was under the impression there is such a thing as the North Atlantic Gyre.  There are ocean currents moving at up to 8MPH from West to East in the North of the Atlantic. Every sailor knows to travel from England to America you first sail South along the coast of Africa until you have gone far enough to catch the Westerly prevailing winds and ocean currents of the Southern part of the North Atlantic Gyre (the screaming 60s).  When you go back from the US to England, you go straight across. 

I don't see anything like that in this representation.  There are spots of light moving equally rapidly left to right as right to left in the North Atlantic.  Given the prevailing winds and currents, I can't believe this representation is accurate.  Ships sailing right to left should be going much slower than ships going left to right (in the North Atlantic US/UK route).


----------



## inthefade (Apr 30, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> Please refer to my above statements about the tropics.  If you can demonstrate that there are two poles, I would very much enjoy such an explanation.   Especially if you can demonstrate how that would work in a physical, navigable reality.



I never said there are or are not 2 poles. I said why couldn't it have 2 poles and be flat.

I do know with 100% certainty, from my own eyes, that there is no observable curve.


----------



## grav (May 1, 2022)

Direct flights in the southern hemi"sphere" don't happen; they take circuitious stops in northern latitudes.
On flat earth maps they make much better sense.


----------



## Apollonius (May 1, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> Pole shifts are fake news. Coriolis is fake news. The tropics of cancer and capricorn being the same size is fake news.
> 
> Living inside an egg makes no sense in any way as it explains absolutely no real life observations. That whole thing is a freemason troll job.


It's our fault we expect Flat Earthers to understand this.



grav said:


> View attachment 22097
> 
> Direct flights in the southern hemi"sphere" don't happen; they take circuitious stops in northern latitudes.
> On flat earth maps they make much better sense.


You Flat Earthers still haven't realized that the Azimuthal Equidistant projection is a spherical Earth projection, because Flat Earthers don't want to accept the truth.

Can any Flat Earther show me how the shadow of Mount Rainier is formed in the Flat Earth model at sunset without denying Mount Rainier?


----------



## otl2021 (May 1, 2022)

Three horizons... the one on top is around 20 miles.


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (May 1, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> View attachment 22111
> 
> Three horizons... the one on top is around 20 miles.




Wow, Thank you for this.   Three Horizons?   Each one with entirely different elevations?   Truly amazing.   Very interesting how that the Horizon itself, is only an apparition?    A border between land and sky and nothing more.   It is not a geometric horizon by any means.  Very interesting, how in every single photo, the horizon RISES?





You could say, it "Rises to eye level"  ?    How in the world do flat things rise?



inthefade said:


> I never said there are or are not 2 poles. I said why couldn't it have 2 poles and be flat.
> 
> I do know with 100% certainty, from my own eyes, that there is no observable curve.


You could use my eyes, and not "observe" the curve.   The whole point of the FE experience, is to humble thyself, and learn more about where you live.  Ironically enough, if you get "FLAT AND LEVEL" with the SURFACE of the Earth, you can literally UNDERSTAND, why you don't "see" a curve.

It's called "intelligent design" for a reason.   There is none in FE.   There is mechanical, physical measurement of Earths Curvature.






Quiahuitl said:


> Antarctica is much colder at comparable latitudes compared to the North Pole.  This doesn't necessarily prove Flat Earth, but it does demonstrate there is something very wrong with our current understanding.
> 
> The current idea is that the Sun heats the Earth, which is a ball spinning on a wobbly axis so that the Northern and Southern Hemispheres are pointed towards the Sun every other six months.  The current idea also says that the Earth is a lifeless ball of rock and its only energy is provided by the Sun.
> 
> ...




Very interesting claim about Antarctica's climate.  I'm surprised this information is even released due to how enigmatic Antarctica is from the understandings of Flat Earthers.   Where was this information sourced from?  Surely not form a government agency you'd just as soon deny?

In addition to Antarctica being colder,  Has anyone bothered to take into consideration the STARK differences in elevation between the two points?   You'll find that the higher you go, the colder it gets; Antarctica happens to be the highest elevated continent on the face of the earth.   So it doesn't require much guesswork as to why the Arctic isn't as cold as the Antarctic.

If I was going to argue that that the energy that produces the heat from earth, comes from earth, I'd have to substantiate that claim with something more than "may be".  Actual evidences for an earth that produces it's own heat would be nice.  (Not that I believe the heliocentric hullabaloo, because I don''t)

Excellent point about the Gyre's!  Nice to see some flat earthers who are aware of the ancient methods used to navigate Earth.  The North Atlantic Gyre is only 1 of 5 however; so after I go through and discuss this one, I'd love to hear from a flat earthers perspective how the other 5 work, and how they are physically generated by the environment of Earth. 

When I began to review the data from the animated presentation; I realized this wasn't a map, but rather a compilation of routes that had been taken over the course of a few years.   Regardless, There's a couple things that need to be pointed out.  Firstly, it being 2022, we don't rely on wind power anymore for sailing, so it's no longer necessary to run down the coast of Africa to catch the screaming 60's before making the jump across the pond.    This is why you don't see modern vessels trailing down the coast of africa to catch wind they don't need for their diesel propelled vessels.

However; they DO use the North Atlantic Gyre for travel, as you had previously suggested.





I did my best to match the below image, with the above image, that way you can visualize that we still used the E->W route across the top of the Northern Gyre. (Something I've personally done on deployment while standing watch at the helm)





The "Red Ring" That I drew is to designate the area of the North Atlantic Gyre.  As you can clearly see, there still is a deadzone as depicted in the image that I posted above this one.

Now that we've established that Cargo Ships, and Container vessels, as well as other warships do not require the Gyre on their way BACK, because they aren't propelled by wind; it's still obvious that they use the N.A.G. to go FROM North America to the Iberian Peninsula.


All of that being said, if there's no such thing as the "coriolis effect" on the "flat" earth, how are gyres formed to begin with?   And can you please demonstrate navigation in the southern hemisphere using the Gyre's on ANY .... ANY flat earth projection?

The entire concept of the gyre's and physical navigation of the sea warrants a globe.


Live, Active map of vessels sailing, note that none of their routes would be applicable on a FE map. Feel free to take your time and match them to a AE map to prove me wrong.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (May 1, 2022)

The AE map is not an FE map - it is a flat distorted representation of the imaginary globe so its farkin obvious you wont be able to match anything up . Gobal longitudes and latitudes have to be distorted to map them on to a plane .

The AE uses the imaginary concept of  latitudes below 64 degrees South . 

Earths magnetic southern pole 64 S is almost at the limits of our plane. 

The Antractic climate is far colder than the Arctic since it receives less of the suns energy - reasons given in the explanation for your misunderstanding of the tropics in my previous post.


----------



## fega72 (May 1, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> Wow, Thank you for this.   Three Horizons?   Each one with entirely different elevations?   Truly amazing.   Very interesting how that the Horizon itself, is only an apparition?    A border between land and sky and nothing more.   It is not a geometric horizon by any means.  Very interesting, how in every single photo, the horizon RISES?
> 
> View attachment 22122
> 
> ...


1, we are living on a globe, where the border between land and sky is an infinite straight line...
2, if the camera is 3.78 miles away at 6" high you only can see the shore line above the boats on a globe where the curvature is 8" / miles (30.24" in this case)...


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (May 1, 2022)

fega72 said:


> 1, we are living on a globe, where the border between land and sky is an infinite straight line...
> 2, if the camera is 3.78 miles away at 6" high you only can see the shore line above the boats on a globe where the curvature is 8" / miles (30.24" in this case)...


Your own math, for globe curvature, debunks you. 

8 inches per mile squared of curve, per mile. Nearly 4 miles. You're literally looking UP, as you look OUT. This is demonstrated over and over again through hundreds of hours of footage on This playlist. As I'm trying to demonstrate to the "flat earthers" Things that are "flat" do not rise.


FarewellAngelina said:


> The AE map is not an FE map - it is a flat distorted representation of the imaginary globe so its farkin obvious you wont be able to match anything up . Gobal longitudes and latitudes have to be distorted to map them on to a plane .
> 
> The AE uses the imaginary concept of  latitudes below 64 degrees South .
> 
> ...



Thank you for making my obvious point, that much more obvious.   You literally traded an imagined reality, for a reality that requires even more imagination; and lacks in even more rational and empirical evidence.

"I see"  Is literally the FOUNDATION for illusion.  Your imagination shrouds your logic.

 "imaginary globe"  --->  "The AE uses the imaginary concept of  latitudes below 64 degrees South ." 

This is a rather pronounced demonstration how one illusion is chosen over another, when both are false. You literally traded a half lie, for a half lie, a masonic Hegelian dialectic, but feel free to ignore modern navigation, and the ACTIVELY TRAVELING SHIPS for your half baked fantasy of reality.

Clearly, (as per the usual in your case )  You didn't bother reading my points about elevation and colder climate, and the FACT that Antarctica is the continent with the highest elevation.   (hence, why it's colder)

You have a well known habit of cherry picking useless information and clinging to it as if it was factual. (Like a AE map that doesn't work) Feel free to explain how the southern magnetic pole works on your own admitted imaginary concept of reality.   I have more than enough time to endure such a nonsensical discussion; as well as evidence to clearly verify how incorrect your concept of reality is.

If there was any valid evidence that earth is indeed a flat plane, it would of been produced years ago.  (6 years running, 0 proof of empirical navigation)

"What I see" doesn't hold a candle to "what is real." 

Especially when you can't provide ANY evidence AT ALL, that SHIPS, that physically navigate over the SURFACE of the Earth, travel in routes that are RELEVANT to the IMAGINED AE projection you grasp so tightly as "truth."

If it was truth, it would be empirically replicated by the navigational systems of these vessels.

My most sincere apologies, that I'm not in the slightest bit remorseful that you are entirely wrong; and have provided absolutely ZERO evidence that ANY form of the imaginary AE projection can be used to navigate the oceans.  Should you, or ANY flat earther for that matter ACTUALLY provide evidence that displays such, I would GLADLY concede this discussion, and establish you as correct.   However it should be considered in the last 6 years, there hasn't been ONE flat earth expedition to demonstrate their beliefs. 

  Projecting that I am "misunderstood" about the FACTS I've presented about Antarctic; while you FAIL to produce ANY system of navigation that demonstrates that the jest of the AE presentation is in fact reality, only further exhibits the lack of understanding you have when it comes to ocean navigation, climate, and the tropics.

Let me guess..... Thousands of vessels around the world are actively lying about their navigation... so they can hide your imaginary illusion?

Active ships <----- I implore ANY flat earthers to demonstrate which (if any) of these ships are using routes that are in the "southern hemisphere" that match ANY assumed routes for their IMAGINARY AE projection.


----------



## Akanah (May 1, 2022)

Here the question was asked why Antarctica is colder than the Arctic.
Without necessarily referring to my idea of a biological earth, I can at least paraphrase the answer; Antarctica has a much larger area than the Arctic and simply needs much longer to thaw. And it is as certain as the amen in the church that Arctic and Antarctic will soon be ice-free in the future. 
But this has nothing to do with man-made global warming, but with the earth's own heat which increases.


----------



## grav (May 1, 2022)

The horizon mos def rises to the eye of the beholder who himself rises in altitude. And it's  always flat. Deniers will please  provide proof of the opposite.
Not only that, the sun appears larger when seen from high altitude title aircraft and balloons.

As for the moon, scientists who are not subjects of the Control System have known for decades that it emits a plasma radiation, similar to how ionized gases in a light bulb illuminate an area.

The video below is, I think, 7 years old.
Photographers have made many videos of the curious lunar wave.. It is a moving line of disturbance, as if a hologram is being refreshed, or possibly a fluorescent light effect is travelling in a big Las eggs casino sign.

_View: https://youtu.be/pwRd14bJ0Q8_


Best guess for now
-- a transparent dome, or multiple layers of domes, embedded with channels that produce light effects.
The sun’s EM spectrum is well known. The moon's is not, and it certainly is different from that of the sun's.
And scientists who have access to true science know that they participate in the fraud.


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (May 1, 2022)

grav said:


> The horizon mos def rises to the eye of the beholder who himself rises in altitude. And it's  always flat. Deniers will please we provide proof of the opposite.
> Not only that, the sun appears larger when seen from high altitude title aircraft and balloons.
> 
> As for the moon, scientists who are not subjects of the Control System have known for decades that it emits a plasma radiation, similar to how ionized gases in a light bulb illuminate an area.
> ...



Do the opposite, get flat and level, and the horizon still rises to your eye.


Indeed, sun and moon are both plasma.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (May 1, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> Thank you for making my obvious point, that much more obvious.   You literally traded an imagined reality, for a reality that requires even more imagination; and lacks in even more rational and empirical evidence.


Really? What Scale exists for imaginary things??!!

What was your obvious point for that link challenging FErs to plot that data on to an imaginary AE map?


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (May 1, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Really? What Scale exists for imaginary things??!!
> 
> What was your obvious point for that link challenging FErs to plot that data on to an imaginary AE map?


That you can't.  Because FE isn't real.

The "scale" is evident in reality.    Reality is based much more than "observation"   because you literally only see 1% of the entire spectrum.

Basing your entire reality on an apparition is a sure fire way to look pretty goofy when someone takes your fantasy into heavy consideration, and then rips it apart for the illusion that it is.

I can "imagine" that I live on a flat plane all I'd like.    Until it's physically demonstrated; that's literally all it will ever be.   Your imagination.


FarewellAngelina said:


> Polish yacht Katharsis II eyeing Hobart as Antarctic triumph nears end
> 
> Here's a link.
> 
> ...


What's impressive, is that in your imagined version of reality, the calculated distance traveled would by MUCH, MUCH more.    Yet, it's not. At all, not even CLOSE.  Infact, there has never been any proof at all, that the distances proposed in the imaginary flat earth paradigm can reflect reality.

Not one.




FarewellAngelina said:


> Thanks for that . Looking at the route map and the other data on that website it doesn't look like a Loop of Antarctica beneath 60 degrees at all. Why not circumnavigate the farkin continent?
> 
> That is not a circumnavigation of the continent , it's only close for about 30% of the time.
> 
> Also the celestial sphere is up in the sky - nothing to do with what's down here .



Except for the FACT, that everything contained within it has a HISTORICAL context with mankind.  You should check the book: "The Secret Life of Plants"   A wonderful book that clearly demonstrates how life on earth is effected by what is contained within the celestial sphere.  (As above, so below, as within so without;  This isn't anything new.)

ISBN # 0-06-014326-6


FarewellAngelina said:


> The use of the words "thought to date back to " reveals how weak your "facts" are.
> 
> The statue was acquired by Cardinal Alessandro Farnese in 1562 . Vatican again. Says so in this link. Doesn't say from whom.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately for you; the "farnese atlas"  is far from the oldest version of Atlas. Doesn't matter, because the older you go back, the more obvious it is that they switched the celestial sphere, for earth.

Ancient Representations of Atlas

"The Farnese Atlas is a 2nd-century Roman marble copy of a Hellenistic sculpture of Atlas kneeling with the celestial spheres, not a globe, weighing heavily on his shoulders. It is the oldest extant statue of the Titan of Greek mythology, who is represented in earlier vase-painting, and more important, the oldest known representation of the celestial sphere."  ---- From your own source.

Admitting it's a copy of an original, does nothing to defraud the original.  Which is my entire point; that originally, it was a Celestial sphere.

The thing that is paraded infront of your eyes on the NASA logo.

_*I have now been locked out of this thread.  
*_
*Best of luck to those who fell for illusion number 2 to actually prove it's more than just an illusion.*


----------



## dreamtime (May 1, 2022)

@GandalfTheGreen banned from this thread permanently for ignoring my original request to not use this thread to attack the FE model. He was repeatedly asked to share his knowledge about concave earth in the concave earth thread, instead of attacking others over their views here.


----------



## Apollonius (May 1, 2022)

dreamtime said:


> @GandalfTheGreen banned from this thread permanently for ignoring my original request to not use this thread to attack the FE model. He was repeatedly asked to share his knowledge about concave earth in the concave earth thread, instead of attacking others over their views here.


I hope you ban Flat Earthers who come to the Concave Earth topic.


----------



## grav (May 2, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> I can "imagine" that I live on a flat plane all I'd like. Until it's physically demonstrated; that's literally all it will ever be. Your imagination.



I'm sorry to see posters banned, but .......... he'll be back. Somehow.

I do not post in the CE thread. To me, it's not that different from FE except for the surface of the accretion disk in the Universal Torus.
aka the Cosmic Egg.

FEers have presented plenty of "physical demonstrations" of the flat horizon since at least 2015.
German rocket engineers were the first to see die flache erde, back in 1946, after TPTB imported them to the US in Operation Paperclip.


_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=48&v=xAIXnatdZzo&feature=emb_logo_


----------



## dreamtime (May 2, 2022)

Akanah said:


> Let's face it; Most people who want to discuss the shape of the earth post in this thread here. Flat-Earthers don't show up in threads of the Conakve Earth or my Embryo Earth thread. This is the only thread where people can discuss at all. Maybe you should open another extra thread where all earth models may be discussed, because otherwise it all runs very one-sided.



Everyone can use this thread to ask critical questions about FE, as long as it's respectful. We just need to keep it balanced and welcoming here.


----------



## Akanah (May 2, 2022)

grav said:


> I'm sorry to see posters banned, but .......... he'll be back. Somehow.
> 
> I do not post in the CE thread. To me, it's not that different from FE except for the surface of the accretion disk in the Universal Torus.
> aka the Cosmic Egg.
> ...




The video shows well how huge the earth actually is, so that at this height you cannot see any concave or convex curvature of the earth.
For an artificial curvature of the earth, a fisheye lens or the fake video of the moon landing must always be used.
The trembling of the earth is interesting in the video.


----------



## Demosophist (May 2, 2022)

With a sufficiently powerful telescope I should be able to see NYC. However, I haven't actually tried that for a couple of reasons. 1. I don't have a sufficiently powerful telescope; and 2. I don't want to see NYC anyway.


----------



## grav (May 2, 2022)

Demosophist said:


> With a sufficiently powerful telescope I should be able to see NYC. However, I haven't actually tried that for a couple of reasons. 1. I don't have a sufficiently powerful telescope; and 2. I don't want to see NYC anyway.



You have an interesting username. 
I'm not sure, however, where you stand on the surface -- flat or curved?
I stand flat.
Like you, I have no monster telescope, but I would like to see any city hundreds of miles away.
Infrared camera lenses are the best way to penetrate atmospheric conditions, like postal workers who are deterred by "neither snow nor _rain_ nor heat nor _gloom_ of night."

JTolen has presented several videos showing photographed targets that should be hidden by the curve. 8xdxd, according to true math, spherical trigonometry.
8 inches of drop per mile squared. 


_View: https://youtu.be/ujBBLYHBsQY_


----------



## Quiahuitl (May 2, 2022)

The formula of 8 inches per mile squared is only valid over smaller distances.

You can use Pythagoras theorem. The square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides.

I'm using 5500 miles as the diameter.  Rocket altitude 65 miles so the visible horizon would be

Square root (5565*5565 - 5500*5500 )  = 848 miles.

DISCLAIMER - I'm not saying the Earth is curved; I'm saying if it _was_ curved, this is how you would calculate the visible horizon.


----------



## inthefade (May 2, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> The formula of 8 inches per mile squared is only valid over smaller distances.
> 
> You can use Pythagoras theorem. The square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides.
> 
> ...


Wouldn't your diagram be a diameter of 11000 and a radius of 5500?


----------



## Quiahuitl (May 2, 2022)

inthefade said:


> Wouldn't your diagram be a diameter of 11000 and a radius of 5500?



Diameter 11,000 radius 5500:  yes, correct.  Note - the drawing is not to scale.


----------



## inthefade (May 2, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> Note - the drawing is not to scale.


Thank you, I was not sure.


----------



## chessquaker (May 3, 2022)

Wow!  Would you look at the Sun!  And the clouds above it.  The truth is before our eyes.


----------



## grav (May 4, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> Diameter 11,000 radius 5500:  yes, correct.  Note - the drawing is not to scale.


But the globe is 8,000 miles in diameter, radius 4,000.
The 8xdxd formula is simple to use, up to about  quarter of the circumference. After that point, it is useless, as the curve winds back on itself.
Globers and Concavers have yet to show us their curves.

The premier authority on space, NASA, shows us cgi images.
Even then, their utter contempt for human gullibility is apparent in cartoons that contradict logic.





Tinker Bell is alive and well and lives rent-free in the minds of the sheeple.


----------



## Depswah (May 4, 2022)

grav said:


> But the globe is 8,000 miles in diameter, radius 4,000.
> The 8xdxd formula is simple to use, up to about  quarter of the circumference. After that point, it is useless, as the curve winds back on itself.
> Globers and Concavers have yet to show us their curves.
> 
> ...


NASA Admits We Never Went to the Moon – Forbidden Knowledge TV 
I find this short vid to be relevant to your post and interesting of how NASA could possibly have taken a photo of Earth, from the Moon.


----------



## AntiSoof (May 7, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> It's our fault we expect Flat Earthers to understand this.
> 
> 
> You Flat Earthers still haven't realized that the Azimuthal Equidistant projection is a spherical Earth projection, because Flat Earthers don't want to accept the truth.
> ...


Oh, only now do I see what you mean! You mean the sun is not at the same height. That's not what flat earthers say. It is hard to get. But after 3 days i got it. 
If the sun stayed at the same height, that mountain could never be lit from below.


----------



## grav (May 7, 2022)

This is how science says we earthlings move through space


----------



## QuakerTheOat (May 7, 2022)

grav said:


> View attachment 22288
> This is how science says we earthlings move through space


You forgot to add Polaris to the mix. It's really the icing on the cake.


----------



## grav (May 9, 2022)

QuakerTheOat said:


> You forgot to add Polaris to the mix. It's really the icing on the cake.



Polaris, like all stars, should be a blur at best, considering the insanely outrageous speeds of Planet Earth.




Astronomy Authority would have us believe we live on a carnival ride, the Tilt-a-Whirl.
Not only is that idea ludicrous on steroids, our carnival ride is mounted on a roller coaster, or a bullet train that rockets through a total vacuum at mind-numbing speeds.

rotation, 1000 mph
orbit, 66,600 mph
solar system, 5 million mph

And yet, to add insult to Injury, the North Star is always smack dab where it always has been, as well as all the constellations, century after century, despite the egregiously goofy trajectories that allegedly move stars billions and billions of miles each year.

idiotic
asinine
dumber than a box of moon rocks
nuttier than a squirrel's supper.
ridonkeyluss

ok, I have run out of adjectives to describe the hornswoglle.


----------



## Safranek (May 10, 2022)

Here's a reply from Sandokhan to your comment (He's unable to reply to this thread due to being 'sandboxed' into his own private thread):

Sandokhan's Link and Post Collection

If you wish to reply to his comment, please do so in his thread.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (May 10, 2022)

AntiSoof said:


> Oh, only now do I see what you mean! You mean the sun is not at the same height. That's not what flat earthers say. It is hard to get. But after 3 days i got it.
> If the sun stayed at the same height, that mountain could never be lit from below.


Yes it could. Aren't the suns rays subject to atmospheric conditions? We have various optical effects caused by differing temperatures/densities in atmospheric layers

Optical Phenomena

Where is the suns position in that photo? Hard to make that out.


----------



## grav (May 10, 2022)

Safranek said:


> Here's a reply from Sandokhan to your comment (He's unable to reply to this thread due to being 'sandboxed' into his own private thread):
> 
> Sandokhan's Link and Post Collection
> 
> If you wish to reply to his comment, please do so in his thread.


Thanks.
I don’t wish to disobey administration's thread requirements.
In fact, I appreciate the decision that requires posters to stick to a topic's thesis.

But in this case, Sandokhan reminds us that we flatearthers have to deal with the "math" and "science" that the Control System uses as the alibi of their false model.



> sandokhan said:
> Both Kepler's first law and the fact that the geometrical shape of the movement of the solar system towards the star Vega must a be a helix, cannot be true at the same time.


We take different paths to arrive at the same destination.

The Atom theory is a miniaturized solar system.
In both models, a central object exerts a gravitational field around which other objects orbit in elliptical patterns.

The creators of both fictitious and unproven theories used, as FarewellAngelina has pointed out, another fiction, the c constant to represent the speed of light.

The whole tangled ball of lies can never be pulled straight as long as C is allowed to justify the false math. We also must recognize many other assumptions that are just like criminals who testify in favor of other criminals. In our case, the Atom, gravity, space-time, fictional constants, Vega.

All these hypothetical ideas were constructed to deny the luminiferous aether.
. . . 

Speaking of luminous, we have full moons.
This was meant to be a new post. 




Can anyone explain this pic?

Where is the sun?

And how does the moon shine, from limb to limb to limb?


----------



## QuakerTheOat (May 10, 2022)

Safranek said:


> Here's a reply from Sandokhan to your comment (He's unable to reply to this thread due to being 'sandboxed' into his own private thread):
> 
> Sandokhan's Link and Post Collection
> 
> If you wish to reply to his comment, please do so in his thread.


I've read some of his 'work'. I really wish I could post in off-topic forums. *sigh* maybe someday if I'm on my best behavior I'll get to. I'm... not holding my breath, lol.


----------



## AntiSoof (May 11, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Yes it could. Aren't the suns rays subject to atmospheric conditions? We have various optical effects caused by differing temperatures/densities in atmospheric layers
> 
> Optical Phenomena
> 
> Where is the suns position in that photo? Hard to make that out.


You are right, FarewellAngelina.
Fata Morgana;  "When the temperature inversion is not even, you may see a Fata Morgana. This could be caused by several layers of warm and cold air that cause a combination of superior and inferior mirages.".
The phenomenon of the mirage could thus explain some photos where objects below the horizon are nevertheless visible. (And the other way around.)


----------



## QuakerTheOat (May 11, 2022)

grav said:


> View attachment 22466
> 
> Can anyone explain this pic?


Yes. It's 'shopped. Download the pic, and zoom in - you'll find a lot of what appear to be edits and corrections around the moon. These edits and corrections could also be 'attributed' to atmospheric conditions - except that there are many that occur at right angles, and those can't really be attributed to anything except an edit.


----------



## grav (May 11, 2022)

QuakerTheOat said:


> Yes. It's 'shopped. Download the pic, and zoom in - you'll find a lot of what appear to be edits and corrections around the moon. These edits and corrections could also be 'attributed' to atmospheric conditions - except that there are many that occur at right angles, and those can't really be attributed to anything except an edit.



Well, yes, maybe, but not what I was pointing out, haphazardly.
I picked a pretty pic of a full moon, hoping someone would point out that full moons are impossible 100% of the time.

Because the sun has gone down.
That is, the sky is dark because the globe has come between the sun and the moon, blocking the light and preventing the alleged reflection effect.
The only way the entire moon ball could be illuminated is when it sits exactly opposite the sun. Which is, obviously, where the fat globe is situated.

If some sunlight were shining from the sun onto one side (limb) of the moon, we could see a crescent portion lit up, or more. But not the entire surface.


----------



## veeall (May 11, 2022)

I have seen this version of the impossible sight few hours after sunset at winter in the nordic.




​


----------



## superstar (May 12, 2022)

I also had seen this type of moon once after sunset. What amazed me its gigantic size which after few hours became normal. The distance of moon from earth does not change of any significance in few hours.


----------



## grav (May 12, 2022)

Gandalf is enjoying this thread tremendously. Good on him.
I wish I could say that the moon rock amuses me, but...
that would be a lie.
Really? a 2000-mile-wide rock floats over our heads at night, and sometimes in broad daylight.
But it does not crash into earth because the sun exerts gravity that keeps it locked in a Goldilocks zone, at juuuuust the right spot in perpetual orbit.

It is, obviously, a self-illuminating light effect, similar to the sun. In a structure we call the dome. Other light effects in the dome are called stars and planets.

Besides faking space travel, NASA  routinely concocts fanciful photos of these celestial sights, including Mars.

Lately, an image from  Nasa has popped up on discussion boards. This particular humdinger "accidentally" shows a mysterious door in a Martian hill.
To which I replied on one forum:
............



Nasa budget, $24 billion
Aid to Ukraine, $53 billion
Bridge repair on my road, $zilch

edit: here is a better resolution of the image.


----------



## Quiahuitl (May 12, 2022)

veeall said:


> I have seen this version of the impossible sight few hours after sunset at winter in the nordic.
> 
> View attachment 22511
> ​



Please say what latitude?

I have observed this kind of behaviour for many years, I even invested in camera gear to try and document it.

It often seems to me that the angle of the light/dark axis line across the Moon's face is not at the correct orientation compared to where the Sun is.  In the case of this photo, the Sun has just set to the right, so you would expect that light/dark line to be tilting slightly right.  Instead, it's tilting about five degrees left. (I'm not sure if the given photo is exactly what was seen, or just a representation).

I was observing the Sun and Moon a few days ago when there was a waxing half Moon and both of them were a similar height in the sky, maybe 30 degrees elevation.  So the Sun was directly over to the right from the Moon.  Approximately 90 degrees of azimuth between them.  I would expect the Moon's bright/dark line to be more or less vertical under those conditions, but it was tilted to the left by 45 degrees.


----------



## QuakerTheOat (May 13, 2022)

Here's a link to my personal favorite picture of mars. Taken by the 'curiosity rover'. On Mars. :
https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/694114main_Watkins-2-pia16204_full.jpg

and if you zoom in on the lower left... you see this furry little alien rat. 

I can almost read it's thoughts... Ah yes - there they are: 'The goyim know! shut it all down!'


----------



## mifletzet (May 13, 2022)

> Robert Sungenis, a Geocentrist, but strong anti-Flat Earther, invites you to his September Colorado conference!





> *God Created a
> Geocentric World
> in Six Literal Days
> 
> ...


----------



## QuakerTheOat (May 13, 2022)

*Sponsored by:
Queen of the Apostles Mission Association*

This tells me everything I need to know.


----------



## chessquaker (May 13, 2022)

This mind-bending video by GlobeBusters shows you several geographical features that drive the truth home.  I have cued it so you can see the next six minutes full of various shots and images.

It works.. just click on the link that begins with View , not the image

Please please.. please watch this video.  You will see anti-gravity experiments, a guy blowing out candles* just by pointing at them* without touching them and various applications of the real physics that we are not taught in school.  



_View: https://youtu.be/gLSCYEuzQYQ?list=TLPQMTEwNTIwMjJrjP8kpJSdOg&t=190_


----------



## Quiahuitl (May 13, 2022)

chessquaker said:


> I have cued it so you can see the next six minutes full of various shots and images.



Can you write down the time stamp please?


----------



## mifletzet (May 13, 2022)

Sungenis, a Geocentric globist, set out to refute Geocentric flat-earthism, but found it was not so easy, being compelled to write a 1000 page book "Flat Earth, Flat Wrong"!


----------



## chessquaker (May 13, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> Can you write down the time stamp please?


3:09  for a couple of images and 1:51:50 for the beginning of the electrostatic gradient anti-gravity and gravity discussions.


chessquaker said:


> 3:09  for a couple of images and 1:51:50 for the beginning of the electrostatic gradient anti-gravity and gravity discussions.


1:49:30 for where the gravity discussion begins.  the experiments are at 2:13:00
if you want to see the electrostatic gradient experiments alone.. here is the much shorter source video


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbrNVbDYxiE_


----------



## QuakerTheOat (May 14, 2022)

If you want to see some more FE information, check out this thread

What you will find is that several of the posters here post the exact same things there, some have the same name, and even have the same conversations with 'each other', which means - let's face it - this is a containment thread. 

Welcome to the land of the psyop.


----------



## Just (May 14, 2022)

QuakerTheOat said:


> If you want to see some more FE information, check out this thread
> 
> What you will find is that several of the posters here post the exact same things there, some have the same name, and even have the same conversations with 'each other', which means - let's face it - this is a containment thread.
> 
> Welcome to the land of the psyop.


I suspected as much. I first came across this on a sceptics site where whole groups of posters would engage in banter which was quite clearly one person with a day job and different names having an argument with himself. It became so tedious that a lot of real posters left which was the aim I guess. But it does have a kind of fascination when you know what’s going on to see what their agenda of the day happens to be. There’s something to learn from what you’re being steered away from - quite clearly all FE thinking is anathema to them and has to be made as nonsensical and counterintuitive as possible to drive the herd in the opposite direction. The mistake they’ve made is to make it so obvious that the herd are no longer listening to anything but their own intuition and the gig is up.


----------



## Quiahuitl (May 14, 2022)

Nearly everybody on this site seems genuine to me.  Genuine in their own strange ways 

To go back to the actual topic, we know the Earth is flat because we can prove it via direct measurements and observations, especially over large expanses of water.  There are thousands and thousands of examples of this.  

However, the movements of the Sun, Moon, Stars and Planets are all very well explained by the so-called Copernican model. It's fair enough to call this the 'Spinning ball model' if you like.  Actually Copernicus thought the planets orbited in circles, it wasn't until a hundred years later that Kepler said the orbits are elliptical.  Galileo lived at the same time as Kepler and Tycho Brahe.  Brahe had a nice life and plenty of funding and spent his whole life studying the positions of the planets and so on. He was the only guy with accurate enough measurements to be able to prove Galileo and Kepler's models.  Brahe himself believed the Earth was stationary, the Sun and Moon orbit around the Earth and the Planets orbit around the Sun.  

You can take all the information contained in the Copernican model and flip it around so that the Earth is stationary if you like.  Even Einstein agrees with this.  That's how you get diagrams like this motion of Venus relative to the Earth.





You can flip it around so the Sky is rotating around every 23 hours and 56 minutes, and the Sun goes around every 24 hours.  You can map out all the movements of the Planets to produce maps similar to the movements of Venus.

The only thing that makes it appear we are on a globe is the fact that the Sky appears to rotate clockwise in the Northern hemisphere, and anticlockwise in the Southern hemisphere, which is exactly consistent with the spinning ball.  Or with the Earth being a stationary ball and the Sky spinning round.

I've been talking to my two Astrophysics contacts and trying to understand the spinning ball model better.  There are several things about it that can be proven via observation.  For example I posted earlier how the apparent clockwise rotation of the Moon's face as seen from Northern latitudes can be explained by the model.  Under the spinning ball model, the Moon would appear to rock back and forth like a pendulum, rather than rotating at a constant rate.  This could be proven by observation, for example by getting a Nikon P900 and taking a photo of the Moon every 20 minutes all through the night.

The other issue is why the light/dark axis of the Moon does not appear to be pointing in the correct orientation compared to where the Sun is.  I do not fully understand this, however my friend kindly explained the basic maths of it to me yesterday, and when I have time I will work through that fully.  Both my contacts assure me this will give more proof of the spinning ball model.

As far as I can see, the Earth is both flat and round at the same time, and we humans are not smart enough to truly understand what is going on. As Tesla said, the Earth is not an object, it is an infinite realm with no edges.


----------



## grav (May 14, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> As far as I can see, the Earth is both flat and round at the same time


'Round' can also refer to a flat disk, as the Gleason azimuthal-equidistant map represents.
But a globe can't be flat, so there's that.

As for the true nature of the thread's posters, I find them to be honest brokers of their own interpretations of the world's true nature.
I just don't see disrupters here, nothing compared to generic forums which often mock or ban flat earth discussions.

Yesterday, on one small forum, I mentioned something that this forum discourages -- departing from the main topic. But I thought it was relevant. Myth.
Specifically, the notion of world ages, with the first being the Golden Age, which proposes Saturn as a behemoth structure casting a dim purplish haze.
Actually, believe it or not, the Electric Universe Thunderbolts physicists do go along with the premise of Saturn as earth's first sun. They are not flatearthers, at least not in public.
I'm inclined to agree about Saturn, as I suspect the creators of our computer Matrix realm were immature teenagers who liked purple and exciting adventures.

Well, was I derailing just now? by defiling unity and coherence and going down a side road into a CT jungle (which might irk some people who expect straight science)?

Why, oh why,  must we adhere to proper rules of debate and logic, when the Control System gets away with murder, both figurative and liberal?
Here is official proof of the round globe sphere in a vacuum.
It's hard to not roll your eyes when you see this doofy dealio.

http://i2.wp.com/www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif?resize=985,554

Seriously
lol#2 ? ?

With Nasa's budget, you'd expect a more realistic rendering.

It's as if an astro-not's schoolchild got Photoshop for Christmas, then made this for a school project.

And how about that moon? Do you even need Photoshop for that?


----------



## Jd755 (May 14, 2022)

Balls always appear as a flat disc in our vision always always always without fail.
Face it we are not equipped to determine the shape of anything of scale. We are equipped to go wandering about though but we don't we sit and exchange pleasantries on the internet.
Yes we are that daft.


----------



## Quiahuitl (May 14, 2022)

I used to be deeply invested in the space program for reasons I don't want to share on a public forum.  It's been difficult for me to accept that the Moon landing was faked.  However I've now seen so many examples of obvious fakery that it's hard to ignore.  Also I saw a video clip recently of Buzz Aldrin telling a small child that he didn't go to the Moon, so that's that as far as I'm concerned.

I love myths.  The only person I've previously heard talk about Saturn was once a second sun is David Icke.  

I've studied the American native myths via the Toltecs and the Hopi.  I intend to write a post on this someday.  The Hopi count four ages (we are in the fourth, transitioning into the fifth) and the Mexicans talk about five previous ages currently transitioning into the sixth Sun. Both sets of myths align quite well.  The Toltecs talk about how the previous cycle was ended by flood (like every civilisation on Earth) and the one before that by Ice. The age before that was ended by fire.  And so on, I will look into my notes and write this up properly one day.

The book of the Hopi talks about a golden age of abundance when Man needed to do nothing because everything he needed was readily available  and all the Earth was fertile and abundant, a paradise.  Man could talk to the animals, who were His main teachers.  In the second world, all these perfect conditions continued, however Man developed specialisation, so each person had a specific role within society.

In both sets of myths there came a time when Man became disconnected from Nature and lost the ability to communicate with the animals.  Man became obsessed with power and eventually destroyed himself.  It's analogous to the Tower of Babel story. That would be at least two cycles ago.  The Mexican calendar has cycles of 13 days, 260 days, 365.25 days, 52 years, 6500 years and 26000 years.

Each cycle of 6500 years is called a 'Sun' and given a name like the Jaguar Sun, which was the cycle before last.  We are currently exiting the Tecpatl Sun and entering the Quetzalcoatl Sun.  I've forgotten the name of the Sun in between the Jaguar Sun and the Tecpatl Sun, that was the one that ended with flood. The great pyramids were said to be built during the Jaguar Sun, i.e. from 13000 - 19500 years ago.  

I don't have the name of the cycle before the Jaguar Sun (I will look it up) but the world was said to be ruled by giants then.  So that's over 20,000 years ago, according to the Toltec tradition.


----------



## dreamtime (May 15, 2022)

QuakerTheOat said:


> which means - let's face it - this is a containment thread.



It means that there are some very prolific FE posters out there who seem to be in every forum imaginable - from davidicke.com over the usual FE forums to godlikeproductions. Everything beyond that is speculation.

This is a reminder to prolific FE posters like @otl2021, @FarewellAngelina and @grav and others that

a) you should not copy paste stuff here that you wrote elsewhere.
b) There are enough places that focus on FE on the web, please keep in mind the specific purpose of this forum

This thread should be reserved for genuine discussion between members trying to make sense of FE concepts.


----------



## grav (May 15, 2022)

dreamtime said:


> you should not copy paste stuff here that you wrote elsewhere.
> b) There are enough places that focus on FE on the web, please keep in mind the specific purpose of this forum


Copy/paste is not allowed, why?
Copyright issues? In which forums claim ownership of material that posters write? The legal ramifications of this common practiced are cloudy, in my opinion.
I see no reason we cannot repeat our own words.

As for FE-friendly sites, they are becoming scarcer than hen's teeth.

Also unsure of what the "specific purpose" of this forum.

I'll probably be deleting my account anyway. 
Flat earth is not welcome here.
When admin is against you, move on.


----------



## dreamtime (May 15, 2022)

grav said:


> Copy/paste is not allowed, why?



It's not disallowed per se, but it leaves the impression of bot-like and spammy behavior, if it happens in excess.


----------



## Safranek (May 15, 2022)

grav said:


> Flat earth is not welcome here.


That statement is false. All research concerning the realm we live in now, and historically is and has always been welcome. The criteria to consider is whether you are posting NEW info, thoughts or ideas, or just regurgitating the same arguments which have been around for some years now.

There are those who sincerely question the idea due to first exposure, and they can read through the many ideas already posted in this and the other thread.

We have threads on concave earth, hollow earth and flat earth and the only problem with these threads is that they create believers, as in a religion, despite the fact that none can be outright proven due to the obvious constraints on travel and the lack of available truthful information among others.

A thread has a purpose to offer ideas, initiate research and discuss findings intelligently. When this is no longer happening, the thread loses its purpose.


----------



## Quiahuitl (May 16, 2022)

THE STOLEN HISTORY OF FLAT EARTH

There is an an attempt going on right now to rewrite the history of Flat Earth!

Over the last few years, I've noticed some messaging within social media, television etc which is all saying that Mankind has believed the Earth was a spinning ball since Hipparchus 2500 years ago.  This flies in the face of everything I was taught at school. It negates the Medieval Catholic Church teaching that the world was flat, and also negates the story of Galileo being forced to recant his globe Earth heresy on pain of execution.  

If you search for 'Flat Earth' on YT, the second result is from the Guardian
Flat Earth rising: meet the people casting aside 2,500 years of science​
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4kM5zwxThE&ab_channel=TheGuardian_


It's gone now, but the top result last time I checked was a similar piece from National Geographic.  Both these pieces say that 'Scientists' have always believed the Earth was Round since 2500 years ago. I've also seen video clips on YT of a recent television quiz show in which quizmaster Stephen Fry asked the question 'How long have people believed the Earth was round?'  The answer given was 2500 years.  So it seems there is messaging being placed to create this new narrative.  

I was always taught that the ancient Greeks believed the Earth was round from about 500BC until their civilisation was eclipsed by the Romans, but then the Roman Empire and the Medieval Catholic Church both believed the Earth was flat for more than 1600 years until Galileo came along and 'Proved' the Heliocentric model.  Galileo was threatened with being burnt at the stake if he did not recant.  So he withdrew from public life and it wasn't until the 1700s, after Galileo had died, that the modern Heliocentric model became widely accepted.  That's what I was taught. 

When I was at school, I was taught a very specific narrative about Columbus, and so was everyone of my generation. The narrative is

1) In 1492, everyone believed the Earth was flat, and if you sailed too far, you would fall off the edge.

2) Columbus set out to prove everyone wrong by sailing around the world.  

3) He expected to arrive in India, but accidentally discovered America instead.  This is why we call Native Americans 'Indians' to this day. 

To understand how widespread this narrative was, watch this YT clip from 1967 in which a woman sings 'They all laughed at Christopher Columbus, when he said the world was round' - Fast forward to 4 minutes to see this song.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhrHzuGZyB8&ab_channel=MrDjango1953_


----------



## Daniel (May 16, 2022)

I can remember being told that belief in the flat Earth was still commonplace in the 19th century, and the change to belief in the globe was one of the enlightenments of the 19th century.
Then later, as you said, people in 16th/17th century were burnt at the stake for the heresy of saying the Earth is not flat.
And now, we are told that belief in a flat Earth started as a 19th century psyop.


----------



## Akanah (May 16, 2022)

Is the worldview of people related to what they spend most of their free time doing ? When people look at flat screens a lot today, they seem to believe in flat earth. If people program a lot, they seem to believe in matrix earth and if people play a lot of games with balls or spheres in their spare time, they seem to believe in a spherical earth. When people are out in nature a lot in their free time, they seem to believe in a living earth.


----------



## dreamtime (May 16, 2022)

Akanah said:


> Is the worldview of people related to what they spend most of their free time doing ? When people look at flat screens a lot today, they seem to believe in flat earth. If people program a lot, they seem to believe in matrix earth and if people play a lot of games with balls or spheres in their spare time, they seem to believe in a spherical earth. When people are out in nature a lot in their free time, they seem to believe in a living earth.



I am happy that we skipped cathode ray earth due to the invention of flat screens.

But actually, you make an excellent point. People are affected by their environment a great deal, and it's no coincidence that the idea of a computer matrix came up after the invention of computers. The basic idea of the matrix is just a reflection of the way we interact with the world. Of course the general concept may still be valid (us living in some kind of material illusion), but the picture people tend to have about this is heavily tainted with modern technology.

The concept of a living, breathing earth may actually be the most constructive one for going forward, since it changes the way humans interact with each other, and could be a good foundation for healthy communities. People can't accept the fact that the earth is stationary, so a living earth is the only thing that still works today, but it doesn't come close to the power of seeing the earth as stationary.

I think that's one if the reasons that geocentrism (the basic idea that the earth is the center of the human experience, and the center of a godly creation) is so healthy. Of course the reason it's so healthy is likely because it's simply true, but not only that, it also changes everything for us about how we see the world and interact with each other. It's actually the only way to build a sustainable society I think. It is the foundation of human life.

Heliocentrism on the other hand is only possible in a world where people have lost any meaningful connection to themselves.


----------



## Quiahuitl (May 16, 2022)

Actually, nearly everyone believes the Earth is stationary.  See Grav's spinning ball challenge - next time you are in your favourite pub with your mates, say out loud 'We are moving at a thousand MPH in an Easterly direction.'  Nobody is willing to do this, even people with degrees in Astrophysics.  That's because it's absolutely absurd.  

It's not until you mention the Flat/Ball Earth aspect that people might start to say 'Well we must be moving at 1000MPH because Science.' 

The Toltecs called the Biosphere, the environment on the Earth's surface in which we live, 'The first heaven.'  I like that.


----------



## Apollonius (May 16, 2022)

dreamtime said:


> People can't accept the fact that the earth is stationary, so a living earth is the only thing that still works today, but it doesn't come close to the power of seeing the earth as stationary.


Because in the stationary Earth nothing works. Also, it is a completely ridiculous idea to think that the entire universe (galaxies, nebulae, stars, etc.) revolves around the Earth.


dreamtime said:


> I think that's one if the reasons that geocentrism (the basic idea that the earth is the center of the human experience, and the center of a godly creation) is so healthy.


What a great idea geo/egocentrism to deceive people with God in the Abrahamic religions.


dreamtime said:


> Heliocentrism on the other hand is only possible in a world where people have lost any meaningful connection to themselves.


It varies from person to person. Geocentrism (not God in Abrahamic religions) makes God unimportant.

What makes human beings and beings in other realms important is not heliocentrism, but that we live in a big brain.


----------



## dreamtime (May 16, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> Because in the stationary Earth nothing works.



I include the concave earth into the stationary eartth. Why should I have written it otherwise? You know I prefer the concave earth model.


----------



## Apollonius (May 16, 2022)

dreamtime said:


> I include the concave earth into the stationary eartth. Why should I have written it otherwise? You know I prefer the concave earth model.


I also included the Concave Earth.

A view that is no different from the Flat Earth, the Concave Earth hypothesis.



Daniel said:


> Astronomy like the kind that NASA tells us is real?


Astronomy has existed before NASA.

Yes, the heliocentric astronomical system is working correctly. But people who have nothing to do with astronomy make absurd claims.




After Aristotle questioned why the shadow on the Moon was circular during a lunar eclipse and concluded that this could only be possible on the spherical Earth, Flat Earth has been ignored by the scientific community for 2,000 years.

If you believe in mythological nonsense like Rahu/Ketu, which has no scientific basis, it is your own decision.


----------



## Akanah (May 16, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> After Aristotle questioned why the shadow on the Moon was circular during a lunar eclipse and concluded that this could only be possible on the spherical Earth, Flat Earth has been ignored by the scientific community for 2,000 years.



But if the moon could be a partial reflection of the earth itself, the shadow of the moon would still not indicate a spherical shape of the earth.


----------



## Apollonius (May 16, 2022)

Akanah said:


> But if the moon could be a partial reflection of the earth itself, the shadow of the moon would still not indicate a spherical shape of the earth.


The Moon is not reflection of the Earth itself. It is moon of the Earth.


----------



## fega72 (May 16, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> Because in the stationary Earth nothing works. Also, it is a completely ridiculous idea to think that the entire universe (galaxies, nebulae, stars, etc.) revolves around the Earth.


I agree with you, it is a ridiculous idea to think the Earth is flat but all the other celestial bodies are spheres.


----------



## Apollonius (May 16, 2022)

fega72 said:


> I agree with you, it is a ridiculous idea to think the Earth is flat but all the other celestial bodies are spheres.


No, the Globe Earth cannot be proved by such logic.

Does the fact that the balls on the pool table are spherical indicates that the pool table must also be spherical?


----------



## fega72 (May 16, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> No, the Globe Earth cannot be proved by such logic.
> 
> Does the fact that the balls on the pool table are spherical indicates that the pool table must also be spherical?
> 
> View attachment 22646


I mean if the Earth is flat and stationary then the stars and planets are not spherical celestial bodies but something else.


----------



## Apollonius (May 16, 2022)

fega72 said:


> I mean if the Earth is flat and stationary then the stars and planets are not spherical celestial bodies but something else.


We know that planets are spherical by how they reflect light.

Phases of Venus:





Phases of Mars:





The apparent diameter of Mars, Venus, or any other planet changes according to their proximity to Earth. Planets appear larger during retrograde.

The phases of the Moon:


----------



## FarewellAngelina (May 16, 2022)

Venus is at its brightest at is smallest crescent phase. Those CGI don't show that.

Looking through a telescope at the planets doesn't really show a spherical body - I see evenly lit discs .


----------



## Daniel (May 16, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Venus is at its brightest at is smallest crescent phase. Those CGI don't show that.
> 
> Looking through a telescope at the planets doesn't really show a spherical body - I see evenly lit discs .


Yes. The planets only look that way in NASA footage, Hollywood movies, and comic books.

If anyone looks at the planets for themselves with a telescope, they look nothing like the "photos"(cartoons?) that we see courtesy of NASA.


----------



## Apollonius (May 16, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Venus is at its brightest at is smallest crescent phase. Those CGI don't show that.
> 
> Looking through a telescope at the planets doesn't really show a spherical body - I see evenly lit discs .


Go learn some optics, here you can only convince uninformed people like yourself.



Daniel said:


> Yes. The planets only look that way in NASA footage, Hollywood movies, and comic books.
> 
> If anyone looks at the planets for themselves with a telescope, they look nothing like the "photos"(cartoons?) that we see courtesy of NASA.


No, we can observe Mars properly when viewed with a telescope.

Here is an example:





The photo was taken from Çanakkale using the Celestron Nexstar 8SE telescope and the Zwo Asi 120mm camera.


----------



## fega72 (May 16, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> We know that planets are spherical by how they reflect light.


Maybe you know that I think differently.


----------



## Apollonius (May 16, 2022)

fega72 said:


> Maybe you know that, I think differently.


Those who deal with science don't care what you think.

Because you Flat Earthers don't know anything. All you do is drool around with the Flat Earth "evidence" you get from different places.

If you don't have a telescope, you can go to your nearest observatory. Inform the attendant there that you want to observe the planets.


----------



## fega72 (May 16, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> Those who deal with science don't care what you think.
> 
> Because you Flat Earthers don't know anything. All you do is drool around with the Flat Earth "evidence" you get from different places.
> 
> If you don't have a telescope, you can go to your nearest observatory. Inform the attendant there that you want to observe the planets.


So are you here to educate us? I think a globe Earth topic would be a better place to spread your knowledge...


----------



## Apollonius (May 16, 2022)

fega72 said:


> So are you here to educate us? I think a globe Earth topic would be a better place to spread your knowledge...


Yes, I am.


----------



## trismegistus (May 16, 2022)

There has been a lot of disrespectful behavior in this thread regardless of our multiple warnings.

There is a way to have a discussion on these topics, but treating each other like we’re uninformed idiots who need to be treated like children is never the way to approach it.

We’ve tried restricting access for certain users to this thread, we’ve tried discussing behavior privately with users, we’ve even locked this thread in certain cases.  So far our attempts at moderating the discussion in this particular thread has fallen on deaf ears.

So I will say it again: if you can’t make your points without feeling the need to insult others intelligence, your input is not welcome in this thread or on this site.


----------



## Apollonius (May 16, 2022)

trismegistus said:


> There has been a lot of disrespectful behavior in this thread regardless of our multiple warnings.
> 
> There is a way to have a discussion on these topics, but treating each other like we’re uninformed idiots who need to be treated like children is never the way to approach it.
> 
> ...


Spreading misinformation on the forum is worse than calling someone "uninformed".

I'm just saying the right thing, but Flat Earthers prefer laughing emojis rather than presenting proper arguments.

_"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi_


----------



## trismegistus (May 16, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> Spreading misinformation on the forum is worse than calling someone "uninformed".
> 
> I'm just saying the right thing, but Flat Earthers prefer laughing emojis rather than presenting proper arguments.
> 
> _"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi_



Let your arguments stand for themselves, then. There is no reason to attack the users intelligence regardless of how you feel. Not only does it go against our forum rules but it also delegitimizes your own claims. Your arguments are stronger when the conversation doesn’t spiral into “who is the bigger idiot” as much of this thread seems to be.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (May 16, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> Go learn some optics, here you can only convince uninformed people like yourself.
> 
> 
> No, we can observe Mars properly when viewed with a telescope.
> ...


Zwo cameras use stacking software to produce images like that. You see a disc looking through a scope . Where did you get the image from?


----------



## Apollonius (May 16, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Zwo cameras use stacking software to produce images like that. You see a disc looking through a scope . Where did you get the image from?





Do you mean these images?


----------



## FarewellAngelina (May 16, 2022)

No. The one you originally posted .


----------



## Apollonius (May 16, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> No. The one you originally posted .


It seems clear that planets have a spherical shape, as evidenced by their phases.

From the phases of the Moon, we can observe that the Moon has a spherical shape and receives its light from a different light source, namely the Sun.


----------



## trismegistus (May 16, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> Go learn some optics, here you can only convince uninformed people like yourself.
> 
> 
> No, we can observe Mars properly when viewed with a telescope.
> ...


 I believe this is the image @FarewellAngelina is referring to


----------



## Safranek (May 17, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> It seems clear that planets have a spherical shape, as evidenced by their phases.
> 
> From the phases of the Moon, we can observe that the Moon has a spherical shape and receives its light from a different light source, namely the Sun.


Yes it does seem so, but many of us already know that things are not always as they seem. In your second sentence you should also have added 'the Moon *seems* to have' accordingly.

While I sometimes enjoy reading people convincingly asserting their beliefs (when presenting new, solidly founded and convincing ideas concerning them) regarding the realm we all live in, I will stay on the fence on this issue as I prefer knowing as opposed to believing. 

I'm open to all ideas, but what I have a problem with most of all regarding the concave and globe models is demonstrable evidence how we can 'stick' to either the inside or outside of a sphere. In the globe model, add motion. I find it strange that critical thinkers skip over this one glaring issue. (Please don't respond to this with a hypothetical explanation as we have enough of those already, wait until you have demonstrable proof.)

Its not entirely useless to talk about what things seem to be like as at least its a starting point but I find getting on-board with any of this difficult in the face of the obviously missing proofs.

What's wrong with not taking a side until you can actually assert knowledge and abstain from asserting a belief in a (presently) improvable theory?


----------



## superstar (May 17, 2022)

spinning and super fast moving earth can explain the movements of stars which are trillions of miles away but cannot explain the movements of aeroplanes which are just few miles above it and we have to assume earth as stationary flat plane to explain their movements. Isn't that funny..


----------



## Seeker (May 18, 2022)

There are far too many pages here for me to sit down and read them all, so I apologize if somebody has already raised this point - but I thought I would share an observation I made in another topic:

What actually happens when the sun sets?


----------



## veeall (May 18, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> Please say what latitude?
> 
> I have observed this kind of behaviour for many years, I even invested in camera gear to try and document it.
> 
> ...


The picture i posted was just an illustration, i have no picture of it. I saw the moon low at the horizon, with shadow of the moon phase pointing to about 23 o'clock, obviously sun should have been above the horizon for this configuration to have happened, but instead the sun was set few hours before and sky was pitch black. I observed this in Norway in Tjøtta (from vikipedya 65.8226°N 12.4284°E), probably around Christmas season.

I think any discrepancy from the accepted model should be more obvious whenever the moon is very low at the horison at night, the lighted part of both full moon and, even better, of the half moon should point to the light-source, if the sun is already set then it takes some mind-bending to explain it.

I plan to keep my eyes open for these occurrences.


----------



## Silent Bob (May 18, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> Those who deal with science don't care what you think.



I wish people like you would stop claiming to be a spokesman for all scientists, it really is annoying. Scientists are a diverse group of people with vastly different views and we argue with each other all the time. You would know this if you were a scientist yourself. 

You should take note of this well respected scientist who is no stranger to astronomy (Patrick Moore, The Sky at night) and perhaps adopt his approach to discussing ideas you find strange. If he can be this respectful, why can't you?


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MFuKxvMWFk_



Quiahuitl said:


> When I was at school, I was taught a very specific narrative about Columbus, and so was everyone of my generation. The narrative is
> 
> 1) In 1492, everyone believed the Earth was flat, and if you sailed too far, you would fall off the edge.
> 
> ...


This almost feels like a Mandela effect for me, I clearly remember being taught the same three points. I was at school in the UK late 70's/80's, how about you? Curious to see how wide spread this lesson was!


----------



## Shadow11 (May 18, 2022)

Those who are interested in the topic of flat earth- have you seen "vibes of cosmos" channel on YouTube? Or Ewar Anon on bitchute? I'm wondering other like minded people's thoughts.


grav said:


> But the sheeple have lost what minuscule critical thinking skills they once had. if any.
> The globe spins 1000 mph, yet the starry night sky appears motionless?
> 
> Some flatearthers think there will be an awakening. I don't see how.
> ...



 I have seen it. I came here looking to see if others have. Have you seen ewar anon on bitchute?


----------



## superstar (May 19, 2022)

Great video @Silent Bob 

Space agencies proved pushing nonsense through their so obvious fake methods and now only a blind man can believe them. once they are out of equation, now everything make sense except mainstream narrative.


----------



## Thax (May 19, 2022)

As a retired Canadian Military, I once had the opportunity to spend time with some Russian forces in Croatia of all places. They were a special division and their patch was the flat earth. We chatted through broken English and I asked about the patch. The response I got was that it represents the truth of our Earth. He said he couldn't say anything in particular, but he mentioned that it is much much larger than you think and consists of more land than you know.


----------



## luddite (May 19, 2022)

Silent Bob said:


> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MFuKxvMWFk_


Brilliant find.  Very enjoyable and thought provoking. 

After my chemistry degree was over I did a short summer nights cosmology  course with Mt Burnett Observatory - Dandenongs, Victoria 15 years before it was community run.  It was a university telescope then and was used for these small courses. I got my money back after they wouldn't let us move, aim, focus anywhere except the tiniest part of the night sky. We begged. We pleaded. We left assuming that the dodgy TV monitor that was showing the view from the viewfinder was nothing more than a vhs tape. The entire experience was lame. It helped push this little brain washed scientist into some alternative thinking which has never stopped.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (May 19, 2022)

I live within walking distance of the local county amateur astronomy society . Paid a visit to the observatory during an open day event . Was shown a room underneath the main telescope where all the viewing takes place . Apparently one sits in front of the screen and remotely directs the scope from a keyboard and look at the grainy screen.

 I asked to see the scope but was informed the thing was out of action - faulty camera - but I was shown around it. Fit an eyepiece I suggested . No can do, said the guide , we don't use those. The faulty part had been sent back to America for repair - Yale university, if I recall correctly.

Makes me wonder - is astronomy a controlled field of study now? 

All images we are fed are CGI it appears. Cameras that take thousands of images and then a select few are stacked to give a desired image, manufactured by a software system.


----------



## luddite (May 19, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Makes me wonder - is astronomy a controlled field of study now?


Yes. Highly likely.



FarewellAngelina said:


> All images we are fed are CGI it appears. Cameras that take thousands of images and then a select few are stacked to give a desired image, manufactured by a software system.


Sounds about right.

All experiments of chemistry equations, molecular interactions and physics are conducted in software for the last 30 years.


----------



## Silent Bob (May 19, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Makes me wonder - is astronomy a controlled field of study now?
> 
> All images we are fed are CGI it appears. Cameras that take thousands of images and then a select few are stacked to give a desired image, manufactured by a software system.



I think the main/most powerful telescopes will be controlled, but on the flip side there are so many amateur astronomers out there with their own telescopes aswell.

I keep wondering about the last guy in the video I posted, making his own telescope with extra lens which he claimed showed a lot more than an astronomers telescope. I want to look further into that when I have time, especially how he overcame the light loss. Patrick mentioned this and it was acknowledged but it also didn't seem to be a problem for him. Often what we see during experiments does not fit with our theory, I wonder if the theoretical light loss is much higher than the actual loss?


----------



## Safranek (May 19, 2022)

Silent Bob said:


> I keep wondering about the last guy in the video I posted, making his own telescope with extra lens which he claimed showed a lot more than an astronomers telescope.


I immediately wondered the same. The idea that 'modern' telescopes are purposely built 'crippled' suggests a massive conspiracy, as I refuse to believe that those who design them are not aware of their shortcomings. I'm curious what you find out.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (May 19, 2022)

Silent Bob said:


> I think the main/most powerful telescopes will be controlled, but on the flip side there are so many amateur astronomers out there with their own telescopes aswell.
> 
> I keep wondering about the last guy in the video I posted, making his own telescope with extra lens which he claimed showed a lot more than an astronomers telescope. I want to look further into that when I have time, especially how he overcame the light loss. Patrick mentioned this and it was acknowledged but it also didn't seem to be a problem for him. Often what we see during experiments does not fit with our theory, I wonder if the theoretical light loss is much higher than the actual loss?


After that experience I bought two telescopes , a 6" refractor and a 4" reflector. Never see anything other than discs when looking at the planets although alot will depend on atmospheric conditions I suppose.

I also was told that optical telescopes and microscopes vary only in focal length , they're basically the same instrument. Sort of begs the question of what are we looking at in the starfield.


----------



## Worsaae (May 19, 2022)

Silent Bob said:


> I wish people like you would stop claiming to be a spokesman for all scientists, it really is annoying. Scientists are a diverse group of people with vastly different views and we argue with each other all the time. You would know this if you were a scientist yourself.
> 
> You should take note of this well respected scientist who is no stranger to astronomy (Patrick Moore, The Sky at night) and perhaps adopt his approach to discussing ideas you find strange. If he can be this respectful, why can't you?
> 
> ...



I was taught the exact same thing in Denmark but I was born later than that


----------



## Whateverittakes (May 20, 2022)

Shadow11 said:


> Those who are interested in the topic of flat earth- have you seen "vibes of cosmos" channel on YouTube? Or Ewar Anon on bitchute? I'm wondering other like minded people's thoughts.
> 
> I have seen it. I came here looking to see if others have. Have you seen ewar anon on bitchute?



There's a whole thread on Ewars videos

New Ewaranon video

His videos are well known here. Though most the thread is arguing about whether he is controlled op but it's at least agreed his videos are very well put together and he seems to have a lot of interesting ideas about the sun and shape of the earth I have not seen anywhere else.

I find the idea of a giant, flat clock face earth fascinating. The north poles movement would also be explained well by this model.


----------



## Shadow11 (May 20, 2022)

Whateverittakes said:


> There's a whole thread on Ewars videos
> 
> New Ewaranon video
> 
> His videos are well known here. Though most the thread is arguing about whether he is controlled op but it's at least agreed his videos are very well put together and he seems to have a lot of interesting ideas about the sun and shape of the earth I have not seen anywhere else.



Thanks- yeah I started to find all that out as the days went. 
I was intrigued by the connection he made with flat earth and the reset. I guess I'm just interested in what others think. The biblical route or annunaki route etc. 

I thought the videos were good. It explains most of what flat earths know and he presented it  probably how he believes and sees the world. Just like I'd probably bring a whole bunch of Norse references. 

But other people's views open up or can add to your current view so I don't mind when people have different theories. And it would be cool to see other like minded ideas.


----------

