# Concave Earth Theory



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

There y'all go. A thread to discuss the concave earth shape without derailing other topics. I have no skin in the game, hence the brevity.





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





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


----------



## JWW427 (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: JWW427Date: 2019-10-08 17:56:16Reaction Score: 2


Square is my choice. I'm a cubism fan.
Whatever the shape, she's our home and we need to take care of her.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2019-10-08 18:25:10Reaction Score: 12




toybrandon said:


> ripvanwillie - I have questions about the concave model, but this isn't the place and I'm trying not to draw ire by derailing the thread, but could you maybe point us to where we can get more information? I haven't been able to find reliable, serious sources.


That is because there aren't any reliable sources, at least any that I can find. 
I've been researching it for over 20 years, and there used to be quite a bit on the internet. But now most of it has been googled. You can find all the flat earth info your brain can handle, but concave earth? Almost nothing. 
If you do a basic internet search you'll quickly find that we are given only two choices, the convex, spinning earth or a flat stationary earth. If you do find anything on a hollow earth it probably won't be the concave earth model, but a fanciful hollow planet with subterranean worlds not yet explored but still based on the convex earth model. Many novels have been written on this subject.
This is the classic fallacy of a false dichotomy. It seems the powers that be don't want us to know about the concave earth so they only show us two possibilities., both which are seriously flawed.

The first and only book ever written in English, as far as I can find, is The Cellular Cosmogony or the Earth a Concave Sphere, by Cyrus Teed (aka Koresh) and Ulysses Grant Morrow. The original came out in 1898, later versions have been edited. Teed gets all the credit for the idea, but his follower U.G. Morrow was in charge of the experiments.
The Cellular Cosmogony; Or, The Earth a Concave Sphere: Pt. I. The ...

More info here:
The hollow earth project

If you can read German there were some books written in the 20th century, but none have been translated to English so far as I can find.
Johannes Lang - Karl Neupert - Unser Wissen vom Sein : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Here is an old German webpage with some info:
Hollow earth theory, free energy, cosmos, satellite, moon, planets, astronomy, cellular cosmogony, astrophysics

The best experiments I've found have been the Tamrack mine shafts which proved by gravity and mathematics that we are on the inside, U.G. Morrow's rectilineator which used right angles, the FM radio tests of the 1930's which showed the earth can't be convex, and some visual tests done on canals and in large bodies of water which show an upward curve to water. And then there was Mostafa Abdelkader who proved in the early 1980's mathematically that the solar system works inside a hollow sphere, but his work is well hidden. 
And let's not forget all those old maps showing concave projections...


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: BantaDate: 2019-10-08 18:49:55Reaction Score: 1




ripvanwillie said:


> The best experiments I've found have been the Tamrack mine shafts which proved by gravity and mathematics that we are on the inside, U.G. Morrow's rectilineator which used right angles, the FM radio tests of the 1930's which showed the earth can't be convex, *and some visual tests done on canals and in large bodies of water which show an upward curve to water*. And then there was Mostafa Abdelkader who proved in the early 1980's mathematically that the solar system works inside a hollow sphere, but his work is well hidden.


This is easily my largest issue here... observations with modern equipment seem to indicate that either the Earth is curving away from us or optically appearing to do so, but I've never personally seen any photographic evidence that the Earth is rising up.

For what it's worth, I don't think anyone can determine the shape of our realm, as I don't think anyone has ever been high enough to do so and anything else is a projection of available data to fit whatever narrative you subscribe to. Mankind may not have been meant to perceive physical reality in its entirety or it may be structurally impossible to actually do so.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: zxcv0Date: 2019-10-08 21:36:36Reaction Score: 3




ripvanwillie said:


> I've been researching it for over 20 years, and there used to be quite a bit on the internet. But now most of it has been googled. You can find all the flat earth info your brain can handle, but concave earth? Almost nothing.
> If you do a basic internet search you'll quickly find that we are given only two choices, the convex, spinning earth or a flat stationary earth. If you do find anything on a hollow earth it probably won't be the concave earth model, but a fanciful hollow planet with subterranean worlds not yet explored but still based on the convex earth model. Many novels have been written on this subject.
> This is the classic fallacy of a false dichotomy. It seems the powers that be don't want us to know about the concave earth so they only show us two possibilities., both which are seriously flawed.


That's exactly it. It's as plain as day once you see how it's been presented.


Banta said:


> This is easily my largest issue here... observations with modern equipment seem to indicate that either the Earth is curving away from us or optically appearing to do so, but I've never personally seen any photographic evidence that the Earth is rising up.
> 
> For what it's worth, I don't think anyone can determine the shape of our realm, as I don't think anyone has ever been high enough to do so and anything else is a projection of available data to fit whatever narrative you subscribe to. Mankind may not have been meant to perceive physical reality in its entirety or it may be structurally impossible to actually do so.


We've had amateur photographers send balloons 120,000 feet in the air. Every time they do, the horizon remains at eye level. In no model other than concave would this happen.

If the earth was convex round, or flat, the horizon would begin to sink lower than eye level. Even at 120,000 feet. Only on concave would it remain at eye level, which is exactly what we witness through cameras at 120,000 feet.

This 3-minute video shows examples of water that shouldn't be seen on a convex/flat earth:


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SearchingDate: 2019-10-08 22:16:17Reaction Score: 1




JWW427 said:


> Whatever the shape, she's our home and we need to take care of her.


I agree with George Carlin on this one. Not the mainstream timeline, but the rest tracks.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: BantaDate: 2019-10-08 23:13:32Reaction Score: 2




zxcv0 said:


> If the earth was convex round, or flat, the horizon would begin to sink lower than eye level. Even at 120,000 feet. Only on concave would it remain at eye level, which is exactly what we witness through cameras at 120,000 feet.


I'm not sure I agree that would be the case on a flat Earth nor do I accept that the horizon doesn't actually appear to get lower. I have seen videos that appears to show it lower and others that do not. 

And furthermore, wouldn't it imply that the concavity is occuring at the same rate as the limits of our vision (cameras in this case), meaning that the Earth realm is so properly proportioned as to create the illusion of flatness? Sounds a bit like a globe earth argument, frankly. 

Lack of evidence available on the internet doesn't necessarily mean suppression. I am actually routinely surprised by what information is available and this site is a testament to that. It would seem to me the goal is to create narratives so you don't have to hide as much information, which there are always logistical issues involved with that. 

It is just interesting to me that the globe earth and concave earth (and ice wall flat Earth) eliminate the possibility of additional land masses, unless you make them so large that you can't practically discern anything from even the longest distance observations. And of course, you really can't do that (make a bigger sphere) with the globe model at all without literally changing the whole universe.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: zxcv0Date: 2019-10-09 00:19:09Reaction Score: 1




Banta said:


> I'm not sure I agree that would be the case on a flat Earth nor do I accept that the horizon doesn't actually appear to get lower. I have seen videos that appears to show it lower and others that do not.


I would love to see an example of a horizon appearing lower than eye/camera level in support of the flat earth, so please I encourage you to post those videos. Having been a flat earth proponent for two years, I've yet to come across any evidence of this, but am open to new evidence.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: BantaDate: 2019-10-09 05:02:10Reaction Score: 0




zxcv0 said:


> I would love to see an example of a horizon appearing lower than eye/camera level in support of the flat earth


I will try and locate it, I recall a couple months ago a video that contended that on a flat Earth that you would see a lowered horizon (much like the concave claim) and there was supporting video evidence. It wasn't a channel I ordinarily watch, and with YouTube making (some) flat Earth videos hard to find, it may take a little bit

There are so many different atmospheric conditions that are highly variable that the position of the horizon (which is only where the ground and sky _apparently_ meet) can change by the moment. The only thing that's clear to me in the debate on the shape of the Earth is that nothing is really clear at all. Even describing it as having a shape at all may be dubious.


----------



## toybrandon (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: toybrandonDate: 2019-10-09 16:24:50Reaction Score: 2




zxcv0 said:


> That's exactly it. It's as plain as day once you see how it's been presented.
> 
> 
> We've had amateur photographers send balloons 120,000 feet in the air. Every time they do, the horizon remains at eye level. In no model other than concave would this happen.
> ...



Having been neck deep in flat earth investigation for the last couple of years, I do not believe it is possible to prove the shape of the earth optically - certainly not with any camera. Don't get me wrong, I have seen many, many videos and photos that point to a flat earth. I have also seen photos and videos that look like there is curvature drop. In either case, the other side has plausible arguments and no definitive conclusion can be drawn. For example, the globe works beautifully on the model. But, when you compare real world observations of objects at distances that should be hidden by curvature according to their own calculations, globe believers will blame refraction. While this argument is almost ludicrous in some cases, I know of no way to disprove that what we are seeing is not due to refraction.

That said, I have never heard the argument regarding the horizon dropping away on a flat earth. Why would the horizon sink below eye level on a flat earth?


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: zxcv0Date: 2019-10-09 22:03:38Reaction Score: 1




toybrandon said:


> That said, I have never heard the argument regarding the horizon dropping away on a flat earth. Why would the horizon sink below eye level on a flat earth?


You're right, since some flat earth proponents argue for an ice wall that could extend into infinity, the horizon wouldn't sink. I guess I was talking about a model with defined boundaries; that would sink as you rose because there would be a finite amount of land to converge at the vanishing point. This is a major problem of the convex model.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: BantaDate: 2019-10-10 23:09:53Reaction Score: 1




zxcv0 said:


> You're right, since some flat earth proponents argue for an ice wall that could extend into infinity, the horizon wouldn't sink. I guess I was talking about a model with defined boundaries; that would sink as you rose because there would be a finite amount of land to converge at the vanishing point.


I don't think anyone or anything can see far enough for a finite amount of land to come into play. With aids, the furthest someone can see is a few hundred miles in any direction. 

I still can't find the video arguing that the horizon does and would go down on a flat Earth, but again, I'm not sure I agree with the premise anyway. My larger point was it is very difficult to even discern whether the horizon changes with altitude anyway... There are enough flat Earth debunk videos out there which claim to show it lowering, but then there are reasonable arguments on why the effect is localized or, in the case of the video I can't find, there is a reason related to the optical limit and atmospheric effects that would cause the horizon to appear lower.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SchismDate: 2019-10-17 21:49:30Reaction Score: 2




ripvanwillie said:


> I think you are asking why we don't look up and see the other side of the earth; China, for example. The simple answer is we can only see things which are illuminated and relatively close. We just don't have the ability to see that far. We can only see detail for a short distance then we only see points of light. Regardless of whether one believes the distances claimed, we can't see beyond the stars. The only objects in space we can view clearly is the sun and moon. Everything beyond is created by artists. The best optical telescopes can't even give us a good, clear picture of mars.
> And when looking along the horizon, particles in the air limit our vision even more significantly. But there have been experiments showing visual evidence of an upward curve.
> There is evidence; visual, audible, and mathematical, that supports the concave earth model.
> I don't think the concave earth theory is a part of our stolen history, but it might be. There are certainly a large number of world maps from the 16th century on with concave projection lines.


_@ripvanwillie_, my response is to your reply from this thread here -

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

Many are aware already, but for those who aren't, this thread spun out of the tail end of the thread above.

Regarding why one cannot look accross the horizon with decent magnification and/or a decent telescope and not see for example - China, or anywhere else that is thousands of miles away - idk about that. Seems more speculative than anything else to me. Where's the proof for your thoughts?

I'm a lot like you in the sense that I believe there are known truths and untruths, and a lot of grey in-between. I also agree with you that people lie. Intentionally or not, a lie is a lie = not the truth.

If the earth is truly concave, one would think there would be a permenantly bright area above the horizon that would vary depending on ones location. I've never found that to be the case in my observations.

Also, under magnification, I've never noticed any city's, lights, etc, (zoomable and/or with magnification) that aren't so far away on the horizon either. In all my days using telescopes, magnification, etc, I've never seen anything of the sorts on the horizon from ground level. Sitting on a mountain top, or on a tall ship, tall building, etc - of course you can.




toybrandon said:


> That's fantastic that you are out there doing your own observations! I would be interested in seeing your results.
> 
> However, the distortion of distant objects through the atmosphere is a well established fact. I don't think that is even in question. Even at distances or heights that would be visible on any model, atmospheric conditions will occlude objects on the horizon. This Skunk Bay time-lapse demonstrates some of the effects that have been observed (I skipped the intro to avoid the music):
> 
> ...



_@toybrandon_, I do not dispute that there is a lot of atmospheric distortion along the horizon. I feel I made that clear in my original post, and I assume you understood me correctly. Atmospheric distortion will vary day to day, night to night, season to season, etc. It's certainly not a given as there are many variables to it. The video you posted from skunk bay is just that. It's a video from one day, one moment, one place, etc. The same conditions will not be identical day after day, etc.

I watched, observed, etc, exactly what I'm talking about for over ~30 days while I was taking observations back in August, and September. It's quite amazing what the atmosphere is capable of doing. Temperature, humidity, etc, all come into play. I know what I observed, and I am specifically talking about on the horizon during the daylight, especially over water. Apparitions, distortions, disappearing acts, etc, I seen a lot of strange stuff. I was there long enough to see a variety of conditions, and it helped me to understand some things better.

I did not take photographs, or video that I would feel comfortable posting here, or on YouTube, etc. In all honesty, one needs more, and/or better equipment than I had to be doing stuff like that. Hopefully I make it back there one day, and have some better equipment such as having the ability to record video in the day or night that is equal in quality. I had two pairs of binoculars, one pair were star gazers, and one very high quality gen3 night vision unit. I wish I had brought a 5" or better, long tube refractor telescope. I needed it to proceed further with my observations and/or investigation.

The night I read your above quote about stars on the horizon, I walked outside, and looked east, and was easily able to observe the main stars in the Orion constellation rising directly on the horizon in the east. I was in Montana while conducting the majority of my observations if that is relevant somehow.

While I was at the reservoir making observations for ~30 days/nights, I remember a night when my sister asked - where are the Pleiades? She said, I seen them last night, where are they now? Why can't I see them? I got my gen3 night vision out, and there they were, right on the horizon, and unobservable with the naked eye due to atmospheric haze and/or distortion. They were very low on the east horizon.

I will stop here for now.

I've seen some folks on this site, and elsewhere talking about individual perspective, individual perception, etc. I don't wish to go there with anyone. A black bird is a black bird. A dove is a dove. A cardinal is a cardinal, and so on. Black, white, and red. Unless one is borderline blind, or even color blind - I digress. In all honesty, if we are going to veer off into individual perception, what individual's perceive with their own two eyes as fact. If everyone is seeing different things that are clearly black, white, and red - it seems pretty pointless to debate our findings in pursuit of the truth when everyone's truth is their own truth.

Edited...


----------



## Curious (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: CuriousDate: 2019-10-19 14:38:16Reaction Score: 0


One more world model for the concavers, consists of 17 series, every worth seeing!


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: zxcv0Date: 2019-10-20 03:44:34Reaction Score: 0




Schism said:


> If the earth is truly concave, one would think there would be a permenantly bright area above the horizon that would vary depending on ones location. I've never found that to be the case in my observations.


Could you expand on this?


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SchismDate: 2019-10-20 16:46:33Reaction Score: 3




zxcv0 said:


> Could you expand on this?


Sure, not a problem - I will do my best to stay on topic.

It's really easy, or at least I thought my quote would be easily understood by the majority of readers. Perhaps many of you don't get out much - or perhaps you do, and never noticed. IDK.

Have you ever been out in the country on a dark night, and looked towards a city, or even looking towards an array of bright lights, and seen the glow extending far into the atmosphere, but could not see the actual city itself? When it comes to city's, generally speaking, you do not notice a single light source - you notice all light sources emitting from the city all at once. Again, I'd guess you noticed the light (glow) extended high into the atmosphere at some point in your observations.

Seems to me that the more humidity there is, and perhaps the colder it is (dew point is relevant to temperature and humidity), the more a city will glow from a distance at night. The height of the glow will vary depending on many variables, and is definitely noticeable throughout the seasons and/or year.

I spent half of my life living in the rural outskirts of the biggest city in Montana. There were other smaller city's, and towns around me too. My father got me into astronomy, the cosmos, comets, satellites, UFO's, telescopes, and so on around the age of ~12. I have been observing the glows of city's, towns, and other sources of light pollution from a young age - to present.

All that said, if the earth is concave, one should be able to see city's, towns, individual bright light sources, light pollution, and so on even further away.

Example - If the earth is concave, and you live in Billings Montana, you should be able to see the glow of Miles City MT, Sydney MT, Sheridan WY, Cody WY, Bismarck ND, Rapid City SD, and on, and on - infinitely - depending on current atmospheric conditions. Keep in mind that the area of the US I spent ~half my life in - is generally very dry, has very low humidity, and gets a lot of nearly cloud free days and nights (on average). If the earth was concave, the random atmospheric conditions should be in your favor at some point to observe the glows of distant city's often enough from many places on earth.

If you live in a rural area on let's say - the east coast of the US, you should be able to see exactly what you asked me to elaborate on. That part of the country is very densely populated, and for the most part, it has a serious light pollution problem.

Keep in mind, not only have I traveled by air from Florida to Montana many times, and took multiple routes, I have drove it many times too. I took multiple routes driving too. I just completed a ~8500 mile road trip from Florida to Montana - veering off on many exploratory missions to see, witness, etc, the country as I pleased. On my way back, I headed east from Montana all the way to Illinois, Indiana, and so on. There are a ton of huge city's on the east along the route I took. I observed none of what I should've seen if the earth was concave. I drove east to west across Missouri on my initial trip west. St Louis is on the east side of the state - a massive city. I certainly could not see the glow of Kansas City on the far west side of the state- another massive city - as I traveled at night in-between them.

Regarding seeing city's that are thousands of miles away - that should happen even more frequently if you are looking for them (assuming the earth is concave). At that point, you would not be making observations directly on the horizon where the atmosphere is the most dense, and has more haze and/or distortion on a daily average.









Night Satellite Photos | Earth, U.S., Europe, Asia, World

Night Earth

View from space:  US city lights | EarthSky.org

Many people do not trust anything that comes from NASA, satellite images, ISS imagery, fish eye lens's, wide angle lens's, among other things. Yet, waki pedia is used here as reference for pretty much everything all the time. In all honesty - for the most part, I do trust waki up to a certain point. It really depends on the subject matter. Regarding dates and timelines - given what I have become aware of to consider - I take them with a grain of salt.

As far as that goes, many put a lot of stock in, and/or trust, and/or beleive the content of YouTube video/s, and various content creators - from people they have never even meet, that already have their own preconceived ideas, ideologies, etc, and are diligently trying to push and/or prove their point/s with video/s that have misleading compelling narratives that disregard the facts, and/or fail to mention some important information for the viewer to be aware of.

I have never seen anything that suggested what the radius of the supposed concave earth may be. Whatever the case, anything concave, convex, or spherical - has a radius. The radius of our upper most atmosphere has a radius, and if the earth is a sphere, or convex, the upper atmosphere limit radius would have less of a curve than at ground level.

I also keep seeing the mathematical formula for how much curvature/radius the earth should have at ground level, and people take that formula and run with it in any direction they please. The formula is just a basic formula. It does not apply to what one is going to see in real time at any given location. There are to many variables to run with the formula, and call bunk on it every chance they get. There are to many variables to consider, and constant changes in elevation is probably the biggest one. How many surveyors do you see online whistleblowing that the earth is not what we've been told it is? Airline pilots? Military pilot's? And so on. I digress.

The videos I keep seeing from balloons on YouTube don't prove much of anything regarding their goal of supposedly educating people. The ISS is in an higher orbit than these balloons, and the radius observed is noticeable, but apparently it's not what many expected to see.

Earth radius - Wikipedia

Earth - Wikipedia

Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia

Atmospheric Depth versus the radius of the earth - numerical example




zxcv0 said:


> This 3-minute video shows examples of water that shouldn't be seen on a convex/flat earth


Regarding the video you posted, I found it interesting, yet misleading myself. I found the narrator to be pushing his ideology, and leaving out facts for the viewing audience to be aware of, and/or at least consider.

The narrator never brought up elastic water tension. Please do your own search on the subject, and please make your own long term, real time observations.

Surface tension - Wikipedia

I personally seen this phenomenon back in August and September. I seen enough to know it's real, but not enough to know everything about it. On calm, clear, glassy lake days, it was most noticeable. Anyone that says water will always be flat at any distance is full of it. Anyone can make a video and say - see, I told you so - and many will believe it.

In my observations, the "bulge" varied depending on the distance from my observation point - to land across the water - which varied in miles - depending on where and/or what I was looking at across the water (land on the other side).

_@ripvanwillie_, posted some commentary, some pictures, and a video in the thread this thread spun out of. I figured I'd post that video here, and leave it for you the reader to do your own research, and take that content take into consideration as well. The video is not fake. There are countless others just like it to be seen and watched. You will find that kind of content in mainstream sites, amateur photographer sites, blogs, and so on. There is no disputing the legitimacy of the videos, photos, and/or the phenomenon. And I have to mention, obviously there are people out there that will twist the videos, pictures, and phenomenon into something that fits their ideologies, perception, and/or agenda.


Los Cielos del Ecuador, From Southern Pole to Northern Pole

Star Trails Photography: The Definitive Guide (2019) | PhotoPills

I'm going to stop here for now.

I do not claim to know everything about the realm we live in, and/or on. If I had to answer at gunpoint, I'd guess we live in a simulation of sorts, perhaps a holographic universe. IDK

As _@ripvanwillie_ posted - I do understand a lot of what fuels many people's minds to look for alternative explanations as to the true shape of our earth - etc. TPTB have lied, twisted, and/or withheld the truth about so much - I get it.

To each their own. I do not wish to be the next person who gets told - this forum is not for you. Furthermore - I am not a shill either.


----------



## toybrandon (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: toybrandonDate: 2019-10-21 15:14:49Reaction Score: 1




Schism said:


> _@ripvanwillie_, my response is to your reply from this thread here -
> 
> Stars, Galaxies, Planets: how do we know what they are?
> 
> ...


Perhaps you can see the stars that are on the horizon because they are not as far away as we have been told. You are assuming that you are seeing past the entirety of the lower atmosphere and out into space (I assume this is your assertion). What if you are seeing to the limit of our vision (aided or unaided) and that is where the star is?


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SchismDate: 2019-10-21 20:14:23Reaction Score: 2




toybrandon said:


> Perhaps you can see the stars that are on the horizon because they are not as far away as we have been told. You are assuming that you are seeing past the entirety of the lower atmosphere and out into space (I assume this is your assertion). What if you are seeing to the limit of our vision (aided or unaided) and that is where the star is?


Hey _@toybrandon_

I'm not sure how to answer your thoughts with any certainty at the moment. I haven't thought about it much - one thing at a time. You certainly aren't alone with those kind of thoughts tho. Do I think what you are ascertaining is the case? No.

I don't have all the answers regarding why stars are not visible in supposed pictures, and videos from space. I have seen countless people flame on such pictures and videos. I suppose I have another homework project to do.

Funny - the video below was posted in the thread that this thread spun out of, but nobody mentioned that there are no stars visible in that video either.



At this point, I'd guess there is a reasonable explanation as to why we don't see any stars in the video above - and in many other videos from space as well.

I am not the professional photographer here, specifically not the one that has experience taking pictures from such altitudes, and/or from that environment.

Additional information - Edited...

Ok - so, I did a little bit of digging around, and what I'm coming up with is pretty much what I would've guessed.

There are a lot of pictures of the sun from balloons, and other things from space to be looked at. Have you ever noticed how much different the sun looks in those pictures compared to what we see here on earth?

I am working on finding some decent links for you to check out. Hopefully I will be able to add them to this post before my time to edit runs out.

Second Edit...

Ok - I have looked over enough of what Google has to offer me at the moment. If I post some of those links here, all hell is going to break loose, and nobody wants that. Please do some homework on the question/s at hand. In the meantime, I will be doing more research myself.

Back on the OP topic in general - There was some information posted earlier in this thread that suggests that there have been some RF experiments done that somehow concluded that the earth may be concave. Interesting...

My father is a registered ham radio operator, and has been since before I was born. I have never heard anything about such studies.

Some of what I know about - which is a well known phenomenon to ham radio operators - and I have personally experienced it with CB radio during it's peaks myself.

Radio propagation - Wikipedia

I can remember talking with people on a CB radio in Montana in my late teens, and they were from places as far away as Australia.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: zxcv0Date: 2019-10-22 09:25:28Reaction Score: 1




Schism said:


> I have never seen anything that suggested what the radius of the supposed concave earth may be. Whatever the case, anything concave, convex, or spherical - has a radius.


The radius for the concave earth model is 4,000 miles, the same as the convex earth (and supported by the Tamarack mines experiment). It's an inversion of the existing heliocentric model taught in schools, which is why it works so well with things flat earth struggles with (constellations, distances between top points on a map, night/day cycle), minus all the nonsense that comes with the heliocentric model.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SchismDate: 2019-10-22 11:48:05Reaction Score: 1




zxcv0 said:


> The radius for the concave earth model is 4,000 miles, the same as the convex earth (and supported by the Tamarack mines experiment). It's an inversion of the existing heliocentric model taught in schools, which is why it works so well with things flat earth struggles with (constellations, distances between top points on a map, night/day cycle), minus all the nonsense that comes with the heliocentric model.


Oh geez - the radius of the supposed concave earth model is supposedly equal to that of the radius of the heliocentric model? Wow.



Schism said:


> Funny - the video below was posted in the thread that this thread spun out of, but nobody mentioned that there are no stars visible in that video either



People that support and/or entertain such arguments certainly have another problem to deal with. They certainly cannot blame a single entity such as NASA for such phenomenon that can be found published by independent entities elsewhere.

People that suggest that the stars are located somewhere their feet and the atmosphere have a similar problem problem to deal with as well. Pictures and videos from NASA and independent entities do not suggest anything of the sort.

People that suggest our own eyes deceive us - I suppose that argument could be used as an alternative explanation for just about anything.

I personally find way to many holes in alternative earth shape arguments. I have scoured the internet reading other forums, I've read the arguments, the back and forth, watched many videos, read the commentaries, etc. I found it all to be very interesting at first, and had to look into this stuff.

I'm pretty sure I'm done looking at the moment.


----------



## toybrandon (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: toybrandonDate: 2019-10-22 12:17:06Reaction Score: 2




Schism said:


> Hey _@toybrandon_
> 
> I'm not sure how to answer your thoughts with any certainty at the moment. I haven't thought about it much - one thing at a time. You certainly aren't alone with those kind of thoughts tho. Do I think what you are ascertaining is the case? No.
> 
> ...


I've seen quite a bit of the research regarding stars I think you are alluding to. My working theory on why we don't see stars in NASA's space videos is that it is one thing they can't fake because it introduces a ton of room for error.

Obviously, I don't think that the high altitude balloon videos are faked in any way and I have no idea why you can't see stars in those videos. One possible explanation that would make sense is that the stars are below the level of those balloons. Not sure if this is plausible and I'm not proposing this as a serious explanation. I'm only saying that it would explain it.

O course, this is all predicated on not believing ANYTHING NASA puts out, which also includes any other space organization affiliated with NASA (pretty much all of them). They have been busted way too many times to be taken seriously about anything.

For the record, I don't claim to know the shape of the earth. I am fairly certain that the heliocentric model is an elaborate deception. There are very logical reasons why TPTB would choose to deceive us in this regard and I have my own suspicions as well. The flat, infinite plane model makes logical sense, but the world may be far stranger than we can conceive of given all of experience and context is based on this realm.

Regarding the appearance of the sun in the high altitude balloon videos: I have noticed the same thing - it looks very different than it does from the ground. I have also noticed that the angle of the sun doesn't seem right. The sun seems to be directly above the earth, but visible from the side view that the balloon's camera captures. If the sun were 93 million miles away, it would only be seen by pointing the camera directly away from the earth. The only times that the balloon's camera should be able to capture the sun is roughly up to 3 hours after sunrise and 3 hours before sunset. And even then, the sun should appear very distant. None of these balloon videos that I have seen support what is expected on a globe. I'm not sure if they support a concave model, because I've never seriously considered the concave theory.


----------



## Curious (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: CuriousDate: 2019-10-27 16:34:45Reaction Score: 1




Schism said:


> Sure, not a problem - I will do my best to stay on topic.
> 
> It's really easy, or at least I thought my quote would be easily understood by the majority of readers. Perhaps many of you don't get out much - or perhaps you do, and never noticed. IDK.
> 
> ...


I am far from an expert photographer from Space, but I wonder is it possible to exist such a cloudless night all over North America or Europe?


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SchismDate: 2019-10-27 19:01:16Reaction Score: 1




Curious said:


> I am far from an expert photographer from Space, but I wonder is it possible to exist such a cloudless night all over North America or Europe?


That's an excellent question.

With a little research, I came up with several likely answers instead of a single guess. The tech in the links below actually crossed my mind prior to my initial response which I edited out. You must decide for yourself if you choose to believe it. I am not to skeptical about any of the explanations below myself.

City Lights of North America - EPOD - a service of USRA

City Lights of the Americas


Bonus-


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: OskarSnaefelDate: 2019-10-28 18:37:24Reaction Score: 0




ripvanwillie said:


> That is because there aren't any reliable sources, at least any that I can find.
> I've been researching it for over 20 years, and there used to be quite a bit on the internet. But now most of it has been googled. You can find all the flat earth info your brain can handle, but concave earth? Almost nothing.
> If you do a basic internet search you'll quickly find that we are given only two choices, the convex, spinning earth or a flat stationary earth. If you do find anything on a hollow earth it probably won't be the concave earth model, but a fanciful hollow planet with subterranean worlds not yet explored but still based on the convex earth model. Many novels have been written on this subject.
> This is the classic fallacy of a false dichotomy. It seems the powers that be don't want us to know about the concave earth so they only show us two possibilities., both which are seriously flawed.
> ...


Is there a 3d version so I can conceptualize this? Sounds fascinating


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: antiquitechDate: 2019-11-25 16:45:59Reaction Score: 0


Flight paths don't make sense on a concave or spherical earth. Why do Concave Earthers seem to act more certain than their theoretics seem to provide? For example, I've seen nothing from the Concave Earthers about the secrecy, legislation, and sun/moon observational discrepancies in Antarctica.

All of that aside, I'm happy to see a large breadth of discussions on this forum; it is a gem!


----------



## dreamtime (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: dreamtimeDate: 2019-11-25 17:13:32Reaction Score: 0




antiquitech said:


> Flight paths don't make sense on a concave or spherical earth.


Care to elaborate?


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: OskarSnaefelDate: 2019-11-25 19:19:03Reaction Score: 0




antiquitech said:


> Flight paths don't make sense on a concave or spherical earth. Why do Concave Earthers seem to act more certain than their theoretics seem to provide? For example, I've seen nothing from the Concave Earthers about the secrecy, legislation, and sun/moon observational discrepancies in Antarctica.
> 
> All of that aside, I'm happy to see a large breadth of discussions on this forum; it is a gem!


I'm not attached yet to any idea but antarctica and the north pole have many questions and no one can answer as we cant go there. 

As for the legitmancy of any model I have to fall on Occams razer again and say: This could all be solved by a picture of the earth by our millions of satellites. Therefore something is amiss. I never thought of concave before and haven't personally done any studies. If internet or science didn't exist I'd guess flat with a dome. There seems to be anomalies with every model so therein lies the problems.


----------



## irishbalt (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: irishbaltDate: 2019-11-25 19:31:08Reaction Score: 0


Ah yes another great Carlin quote is "It's all BS and it's bad for you".

That about sums some of this up.




Searching said:


> I agree with George Carlin on this one. Not the mainstream timeline, but the rest tracks.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SchismDate: 2019-11-25 20:07:09Reaction Score: 2




OskarSnaefel said:


> This could all be solved by a picture of the earth by our millions of satellites.


If pictures were taken, many people still wouldn't believe what was being presented, and I don't blame them. There is a 24/7 live feed from the ISS, and it gets scrutinized as total BS CGI by many.

Meanwhile, Google earth exists, and countless people use it. How was Google earth created? Why do so many people believe anything Google earth shows us?

The fact that so few still pictures of earth exist in the mainstream is very concerning. I'd guess there is some reason for why TPTB did that, but I'm not sure what that reason is. Sometimes I wonder if it is all part of a bigger picture that seems pretty clear to me. If TPTB told people everything, countless memes, alternative theories, conspiracy theories, etc, simply would not exist. IMHO, TPTB prefer things be just the way they are. TPTB thrive in such environments.

Edited for clarity.


----------



## Citezenship (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: CitizenShipDate: 2019-11-25 20:19:18Reaction Score: 6


One thing that bothers me about this subject is the seeing through the atmosphere aspect.

We can't see through the atmosphere at ground level when looking level for more than 16 miles i think with very good visibility yet when we look at the moon through the same atmosphere we can see over 240.000.000 miles no matter if it is on the horizon or directly above!


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SchismDate: 2019-11-25 20:55:55Reaction Score: 2




CitizenShip said:


> One thing that bothers me about this subject is the seeing through the atmosphere aspect.
> 
> We can't see through the atmosphere at ground level when looking level for more than 16 miles i think with very good visibility yet when we look at the moon through the same atmosphere we can see over 240.000.000 miles no matter if it is on the horizon or directly above!


Here's an interesting article regarding the longest photographed and nonphotographed line of sight lines on earth.

The Longest Sightline on Earth — Calgary Vision Centre

You don't have to believe it, but here's wakis input on the same subject.

Horizon - Wikipedia

An interesting excerpt from the waky article...

Assuming no atmospheric refraction and a spherical Earth with radius R=6,371 kilometres (3,959 mi):

For an observer standing on the ground with _h_ = 1.70 metres (5 ft 7 in), the horizon is at a distance of 4.7 kilometres (2.9 mi).
For an observer standing on the ground with _h_ = 2 metres (6 ft 7 in), the horizon is at a distance of 5 kilometres (3.1 mi).
For an observer standing on a hill or tower 30 metres (98 ft) above sea level, the horizon is at a distance of 19.6 kilometres (12.2 mi).
For an observer standing on a hill or tower 100 metres (330 ft) above sea level, the horizon is at a distance of 36 kilometres (22 mi).
For an observer standing on the roof of the Burj Khalifa, 828 metres (2,717 ft) from ground, and about 834 metres (2,736 ft) above sea level, the horizon is at a distance of 103 kilometres (64 mi).
For an observer atop Mount Everest (8,848 metres (29,029 ft) in altitude), the horizon is at a distance of 336 kilometres (209 mi).
For a U-2 pilot, whilst flying at its service ceiling 21,000 metres (69,000 ft), the horizon is at a distance of 521 kilometres (324 mi)



CitizenShip said:


> We can't see through the atmosphere at ground level when looking level for more than 16 miles i think with very good visibility


Figured I'd mention, I certainly have been to many places where I could see way more than 16 miles. I wasn't standing on a mountain either.

Another interesting article that includes a video. I remember seeing the video several months ago.

The world's tallest building is so tall… you can grab a lift and watch the sunset twice


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: antiquitechDate: 2019-11-25 21:38:33Reaction Score: 0




dreamtime said:


> Care to elaborate?


Plotting the flight paths on a flat map and the huge detours most long flights make through the upper part of the norther hemisphere make sense. I meant not to elaborate because there are dozens of dots to connect about flight paths & earth shape - and didn't want the responsibility of communicating it all accurately at the moment. 

Another one is that:
-- the air in a non-windy location on the equator must be moving 1000mph (and 0mph with respect to the surface of the earth). 
-- the air at "the poles" must be moving 0mph with respect to the air at the equator & 0mph with respect to the surface.
Now, please consider how planes are getting E-> W wind for significant stretches of longitudinal flights...

_@OskarSnaefel_ I don't understand how you're relating Occam's razor with satellite imagery. They're only related with the presupposition that satellite imagery is not / cannot be faked. How about this for Occam's razor: the shortest path from earth to "space" is a straight line. You can find zero rockets that go in a straight line because they launch from land and don't want to be discovered on land. They always go over water to be discarded after the show. So what anomaly are you saying exist for a relatively flat, stationary earth?

There are so many experiments one can use to prove these things directly within their own experience. I don't see any room for despair or reliance on authority. The mainstream claim is 8inches per mile squared is the rate of curvature. The "concavers" seem to be claiming the opposite: 8inches per mile squared upward instead of downward. So just see if any seem to hold true anywhere in the world... Mathematics of gyroscope use in airplanes, optical range of light houses & ships, etc.

Now that I'm thinking about the concave model... The constellations people are seeing in the southern & northern "hemispheres" would not work on a concave model the size of the supposed earth - the concave model would have to claim that the earth is *way* bigger than they seem to be claiming. But then concave earth would be too flat of an oppositional model to distinguish & control


----------



## Citezenship (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: CitizenShipDate: 2019-11-25 22:35:40Reaction Score: 1


This is a funny one, can we really rely upon our eyes?

Our eyes are said to invert the image that we see, so are we all walking on the roof or the floor???

We also have major doubts about gravity, leaving the door wide open for what keeps us stuck to the surface/roof. The spinning ball will not work without gravity but a concave one will and also falls into line with centrifugal forces, however where that leaves us is that the stars must be some type of projection of who knows what. This also means that our environment has been designed to leads us to believe the opposite.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SchismDate: 2019-11-25 23:12:03Reaction Score: 1




antiquitech said:


> How about this for Occam's razor: the shortest path from earth to "space" is a straight line. You can find zero rockets that go in a straight line because they launch from land and don't want to be discovered on land. They always go over water to be discarded after the show.


This quote wasn't directed at me, but it makes no sense to launch the majority of modern rocketry in a straight upward trajectory. Forget about the word gravity - IMO, this is likely the reasoning.

Gravity turn - Wikipedia

Does the space shuttle fly straight "up" when leaving Earth?
Beyond maiming people, I have no idea why one would want a rocket to fall back to dry land where most all of the population resides. Falling back into the ocean is incomparably safer.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: zxcv0Date: 2019-11-26 03:40:31Reaction Score: 0




Schism said:


> The fact that so few still pictures of earth exist in the mainstream is very concerning. I'd guess there is some reason for why TPTB did that, but I'm not sure what that reason is.


The fact that so few (read: none) believable pictures of earth exist is not concerning at all. They don't have any to show. 

People love to preach Occam's Razor when defending government involvement in mass conspiracies, but will happily ignore Mr Occam when it comes to space. 

If they're not showing you any, and have to admit to using composites, it's not because they want to protect everyone from all the alien spaceships that'd get in the way of a good shot. 

It's cos they can't do it, period. Not now, not ever.


----------



## KD Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: KorbenDallasDate: 2019-11-26 03:50:54Reaction Score: 8




Schism said:


> Beyond maiming people, I have no idea why one would want a rocket to fall back to dry land where most all of the population resides. Falling back into the ocean is incomparably safer.


They would just need to attach a camera or two to their rockets, and livestream the launch all the way through ISS docking, for example. People would not be asking questions then.

As far as launching straight up goes. They send them rockets beyond the horizon. _Former Soviet launching place_ _(__map__)_ does not have a luxury of having Atlantic ocean nearby. If it falls it falls. But it does benefit from having remote areas beyond the horizon.

Looks real real too. What a joke.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: zxcv0Date: 2019-11-26 04:06:00Reaction Score: 2




KorbenDallas said:


> *They would just need to attach a camera or two to their rockets, and livestream the launch all the way through ISS docking, for example.* People would not be asking questions then.
> 
> As far as launching straight up goes. They send them rockets beyond the horizon. Former Soviet launching place does not have a luxury of having Atlantic ocean nearby. If it falls it falls. But it does benefit from having remote areas beyond the horizon.


This is the kind of reasoning that space roadies will never entertain. The docking of a crew to the ISS, travelling at a purported mind-boggling 8kms a second, would be one of the most watched videos in the history of humanity. But for NASA and co, it's nothing special. They've been doing it every six months for two decades. They have more important things to do like showing the same flyover of earth from low-earth orbit day after day after day for two decades. 

Not only that, but in those two decades, it's never occurred to anyone to bring an extra camera to the ISS and just have it pointing out into space instead of the earth. It would be absolutely incredible to get shots of the sun from *ahem* 410kms in space.

Of course, we're never going to get any of this because no one goes anywhere. Maybe NASA figures that we already get amazing shots of the sun from amateur balloon flights that reach 120,000 feet. They're probably right, since it's about 80,000 feet closer to the sun than the ISS plane ever gets.


----------



## KD Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: KorbenDallasDate: 2019-11-26 04:21:21Reaction Score: 1


A good statistical tool is asking random people to name one applicable discovery made in Space during our 50 years exploring it. I am yet to see one person naming one. These are the most important ones.

_Five key scientific findings from 15 years of the International Space Station_
NASA, RosKosmos and co have nothing but talk. They might be flying to some outside continents, or to the nearest self-destruction location, that we will hardly ever find out. As far as flying out to where they say they do... lol, sure.


----------



## Citezenship (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: CitizenShipDate: 2019-11-26 04:38:47Reaction Score: 0


Apollo 11 Moon Landing astronauts coped with no toilet and used bags taped to bums and 'pee condoms', Nasa report reveals

Space don't sound like no fun!

That RT vid above is such a joke!

I really can't get with the concave theory, closed, yes.

We are talking about a concave sphere here, although you would only be left with a ring as an alternative.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SchismDate: 2019-11-26 12:42:58Reaction Score: 0




KorbenDallas said:


> They would just need to attach a camera or two to their rockets, and livestream the launch all the way through ISS docking, for example. People would not be asking questions then


I feel pretty confident saying that if I could produce such a long video, many people still wouldn't believe it. There are countless videos of space bound rocketry with cameras attached to them on Google.


KorbenDallas said:


> As far as launching straight up goes. They send them rockets beyond the horizon. _Former Soviet launching place_ _(__map__)_ does not have a luxury of having Atlantic ocean nearby. If it falls it falls. But it does benefit from having remote areas beyond the horizon.


Yea, I wasn't implying that all rockets land in the water. They generally fall where there is the least amount of liability, which generally is not on land.


KorbenDallas said:


> Looks real real too. What a joke.


Almost seems fake - almost. She's awful close - to close. Not as much exhaust smoke as I would've expected. She doesn't get buried in the cloud of exhaust either. Hard to say wtf is going on without more research into that imperticular video production.


KorbenDallas said:


> A good statistical tool is asking random people to name one applicable discovery made in Space during our 50 years exploring it. I am yet to see one person naming one. These are the most important ones.


There's other discoveries out there to be considered. Again, many people wouldn't believe the discoveries if they read, watched, etc, about them anyway. And I'm ok with that.


zxcv0 said:


> Not only that, but in those two decades, it's never occurred to anyone to bring an extra camera to the ISS and just have it pointing out into space instead of the earth. It would be absolutely incredible to get shots of the sun from *ahem* 410kms in space.


There's plenty of that to be looked at already. There's tons of still shots, and video taken during various activities from the ISS.


zxcv0 said:


> Of course, we're never going to get any of this because no one goes anywhere. Maybe NASA figures that we already get amazing shots of the sun from amateur balloon flights that reach 120,000 feet. They're probably right, since it's about 80,000 feet closer to the sun than the ISS plane ever gets.


How many times have you watched the ISS with your naked eye? It is hauling ass, and very bright. Here's a couple links to aid in studying the ISS from tera firma. In the first link - you can sign up to receive alerts as to when to see it as it passes overhead or within line of sight - wherever you are. Spotthestation will prompt you for your current location when you set up an account. I get a text message about ~12-24 hours beforehand.

International Space Station

ISSTracker ~ Real-Time Location Tracking of the International Space Station
------Back to the concave earth discussion - I have yet to see anyone post something that really made sense - made me rethink and/or made my head spin.

Edited for clarity


----------



## wild heretic (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: wild hereticDate: 2019-11-26 13:32:22Reaction Score: 5




antiquitech said:


> Plotting the flight paths on a flat map and the huge detours most long flights make through the upper part of the norther hemisphere make sense. I meant not to elaborate because there are dozens of dots to connect about flight paths & earth shape - and didn't want the responsibility of communicating it all accurately at the moment.


Do you mean the curved pathway flights take across the Atlantic?
Live Flight Tracker - Real-Time Flight Tracker Map | Flightradar24


> Another one is that:
> -- the air in a non-windy location on the equator must be moving 1000mph (and 0mph with respect to the surface of the earth).
> -- the air at "the poles" must be moving 0mph with respect to the air at the equator & 0mph with respect to the surface.
> Now, please consider how planes are getting E-> W wind for significant stretches of longitudinal flights...


That's an argument against the spinning earth model. In the concave earth, it is the sun that spins, not the earth, which is stationary.


> There are so many experiments one can use to prove these things directly within their own experience. I don't see any room for despair or reliance on authority.


Actually, it's super difficult. Dreamtime and I know this when we were discussing with an Australian guy who was carrying out such an experiment in 2016, which turned out to be too difficult in the end. It's on my forum somewhere.


> The mainstream claim is 8inches per mile squared is the rate of curvature. The "concavers" seem to be claiming the opposite: 8inches per mile squared upward instead of downward. So just see if any seem to hold true anywhere in the world... Mathematics of gyroscope use in airplanes, optical range of light houses & ships, etc.


Correct. You can't measure long distances with light sadly, unless we only do it at night; but that assumes that light doesn't bend as much at night (which seems to be true).


> Now that I'm thinking about the concave model... The constellations people are seeing in the southern & northern "hemispheres" would not work on a concave model the size of the supposed earth - the concave model would have to claim that the earth is *way* bigger than they seem to be claiming. But then concave earth would be too flat of an oppositional model to distinguish & control


None of that is true. You are new to the model so that is ok. If you want to really think about the concave earth model, visit my site first.
Concave Earth Theory – The Wild Heretic


----------



## anotherlayer (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: anotherlayerDate: 2019-11-26 15:00:09Reaction Score: 1


I just wanna know why when they show us the weather forecast on the TV, it's always CGI? Like, y'inz ain't got a satellite up there to show us the real picture? Seems strange, seems like something we should have by now.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SchismDate: 2019-11-26 15:17:21Reaction Score: 1




anotherlayer said:


> I just wanna know why when they show us the weather forecast on the TV, it's always CGI? Like, y'inz ain't got a satellite up there to show us the real picture? Seems strange, seems like something we should have by now.


I'm not sure why you would think pictures or video from some unknown alternate source would be better than the latest GOES technology.

We live in the tech era, and have been for decades. Just about anything and everything is done with tech these days. I suppose just about anything that is driven by computers, imagery, sensors, etc, could be called out as CGI by someone. Does that mean it's all BS CGI nonsense? To me, no.

Your local weather radar on your local news station is a combination of GOES technology and nexrad radar. To some, this is controversial.

Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite - Wikipedia

List of GOES satellites - Wikipedia

NOAA GOES Geostationary Satellite Server

GOES Imagery Viewer - NOAA / NESDIS / STAR

Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites - R Series | NOAA/NASA


----------



## anotherlayer (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: anotherlayerDate: 2019-11-26 15:21:13Reaction Score: 1




Schism said:


> I'm not sure why you would think pictures or video from some unknown alternate source would be better than the latest GOES technology.


Oh, I wasn't thinking. Like, at all.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SchismDate: 2019-11-26 15:42:50Reaction Score: 0


This is somewhat off topic, but at the same time, it's kind of not. I previously mentioned some of my observations and/or experiments I have done with a high quality night vision unit. If you want to see way more satellites, and/or way more things in the night sky in general - get yourself a high quality gen3 or gen4 night vision unit, and use it.

I find high quality night vision units to be far superior to any size and/or configuration of binoculars for many of my night sky observations.


----------



## KD Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: KorbenDallasDate: 2019-11-26 20:09:59Reaction Score: 0




Schism said:


> There's other discoveries out there to be considered. Again, many people wouldn't believe the discoveries if they read, watched, etc, about them anyway. And I'm ok with that.


Without avoiding the question please answer what discoveries were made in space during our 50 years of its alleged exploration.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SchismDate: 2019-11-26 20:43:20Reaction Score: 0




KorbenDallas said:


> Without avoiding the question please answer what discoveries were made in space during our 50 years of its alleged exploration


I wasn't avoiding your question, I was attempting to avoid hearsay. Hearsay can be the absolute truth, but as you should know, it is not acceptable as fact or evidence in a court of law.

You are already aware of the accepted mainstream space discoveries over the last 50 years. Seems you have mentioned them in many threads already. I don't see how the answer to the question at hand is relevant to the shape of our earth, but I hear you.

As I've said many times on this site - I don't believe NASA and it's affiliates are being completely honest with us. I don't expect them to be either.

NASA -  50 Years of NASA Solar Exploration

Timeline: 50 Years of Spaceflight

Timeline of space exploration - Wikipedia

10 Iconic Moments In The History Of Space Exploration - The Mysterious World

I didn't include Tang, or Velcro in this list, because that's pretty silly.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: jd755Date: 2019-11-26 20:59:10Reaction Score: 0




Schism said:


> This is somewhat off topic, but at the same time, it's kind of not. I previously mentioned some of my observations and/or experiments I have done with a high quality night vision unit. If you want to see way more satellites, and/or way more things in the night sky in general - get yourself a high quality gen3 or gen4 night vision unit, and use it.
> 
> I find high quality night vision units to be far superior to any size and/or configuration of binoculars for many of my night sky observations.


Got any photographs taken through the high quality scope or is a camera connection not possible?


----------



## KD Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: KorbenDallasDate: 2019-11-26 21:03:43Reaction Score: 3




Schism said:


> I wasn't avoiding your question, I was attempting to avoid hearsay. Hearsay can be the absolute truth, but as you should know, it is not acceptable as fact or evidence in a court of law.


I believe that every supporter of space travel avoids a direct answer to the question of Space Discoveries. If we assume that they do go to space, as well as physically present on the ISS, then we have to assume that everything NASA, RosKosmos, ESA, etc. tell us is the truth. From this perspective I'm not sure why hearsay is even brought up. All of the above agencies have to be doing something up there, that is if they go up there. And if they do go, they have to be doing something specific which absolutely has to be applicable somewhere. And this information has to be absolutely official, and not require any "court of law" proof.

And "up there" there have to be some discoveries made. Not "down here" on Earth, where they can invent vacuum cleaners and velcros all day long.

As such I am yet to get a direct answer from any space exploration supporting person:

*What discoveries were made by the astronauts while in space?*
If there is an answer to the above question, please answer in the following format:

_Discovery/Invention #1 - applicability._
_Discovery/Invention #2 - applicability._
_Discovery/Invention #3 - applicability._
_Etc._


----------



## Citezenship (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: CitizenShipDate: 2019-11-26 21:14:59Reaction Score: 0


This in no way proves anything but it is quite a funny read!

_NASA Facts_


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SchismDate: 2019-11-26 21:25:55Reaction Score: 0




jd755 said:


> Got any photographs taken through the high quality scope or is a camera connection not possible?


No photographs as of yet. I bought the ITT gen3 night enforcer several years ago for if or when SHTF. It can be used in conjunction or in tandem with -just about- anything, and that's why I bought it. I figured I'd put it to use rather than it sitting around in a safe waiting on if or when.

The image quality that comes from my unit is near equal to what you see the US military using in their ops. I didn't know so many people were using them for what I use mine for until several years ago.

PM me if you want to discuss this further


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: jd755Date: 2019-11-26 21:40:03Reaction Score: 0


No thanks. Just wondered if you had taken photographs through the thing. i've had a look through starpage and duckduckgo image searches and they cannot find any.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SchismDate: 2019-11-26 21:45:05Reaction Score: 0




KorbenDallas said:


> I believe that every supporter of space travel avoids a direct answer to the question of Space Discoveries. If we assume that they do go to space, as well as physically present on the ISS, then we have to assume that everything NASA, RosKosmos, ESA, etc. tell us is the truth. From this perspective I'm not sure why hearsay is even brought up. All of the above agencies have to be doing something up there, that is if they go up there. And if they do go, they have to be doing something specific which absolutely has to be applicable somewhere. And this information has to be absolutely official, and not require any "court of law" proof.
> 
> And "up there" there have to be some discoveries made. Not "down here" on Earth, where they can invent vacuum cleaners and velcros all day long.
> 
> ...


IDK why you are singling me out. You cannot prove your own beliefs in regard to the shape of the earth either. I'm certainly not going to force an answer out of anyone. In many cases, I change my mind about things as I receive new information. I am constantly evolving.

I find topics like this one interesting. It's fascinating to hear what others think, because for better or worse, it gives me something new to think about. I have learned a lot from many people on this site, and hope to return the favor.

I have made it clear many times that I do not assume everything NASA and it's affiliates are telling us is the truth, and I don't see myself backtracking on that. I hear them telling us truth and lies, and leaving a bunch of stuff out.


----------



## KD Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: KorbenDallasDate: 2019-11-26 22:31:36Reaction Score: 1




Schism said:


> IDK why you are singling me out. You cannot prove your own beliefs in regard to the shape of the earth either. I'm certainly not going to force an answer out of anyone. In many cases, I change my mind about things as I receive new information. I am constantly evolving.


Did my _direct question_ about space discoveries make you feel singled out, and instead of answering it you chose to come up with this? Sounds like if there was an answer to what discoveries were made, there would be no “single out” issues.

One of the _SH forum posting guidelines_ is quoted below.


KorbenDallas said:


> _Please keep in mind, that all of the current members have been to Wikipedia (school), and are familiar with the official versions of the events._


You chose to support the narrative on this specific heavily questioned well beyond this forum issue. Without adding anything new in support of the narrative, you reserve to restating well known official things. What did you expect was gonna happen? Of course you are being asked questions.

And please do not bring this single out thing. This is a discussion board where stuff of this nature is being discussed. If you can substantiate your opinion with anything other than restating the narrative, go ahead and do it. If you can't, don't accuse me of singling you out.

As far as me not knowing what the shape of the Earth is. That is absolutely correct, and I'm in search of the answers on the issue just like a lot of people are. At the same time not knowing what the shape of the Earth is does not mean not knowing what it can not be.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: BantaDate: 2019-11-26 23:59:32Reaction Score: 2




KorbenDallas said:


> As far as me not knowing what the shape of the Earth is. That is absolutely correct, and I'm in search of the answers on the issue just like a lot of people are. At the same time not knowing what the shape of the Earth is does not mean not knowing what it can not be.


I really can't understand how anyone who has looked into the "shape" issue and is being honest with themselves can disagree with this. None of us here possess the technology/information to really say anything definitive beyond "well, it's probably not what the space agencies say" and it's relatively possible that NO human even can accurately define it. For me, after a pretty long time of looking into this, there's almost nothing else I can take from the debate anymore aside from don't trust pseudoscience. I think there are richer fields of research available where it's possible that some progress is actually achievable. Until I build an airship to take me over Antarctica, I'm gonna be content to not know what this place looks like exactly. Hell, it looks like the face of it changes all the time, so maybe it's "shape" does too (I hear you expanding Earth folks!)


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: jd755Date: 2019-11-27 07:14:57Reaction Score: 2


For me I know there is no way for me to discern the shape of the earth or even if it has a defined shape as my bodily senses do not have the faculty to do so. However my senses do notice when the body is moving and in this case specifically spinning and ir isn't spinning.

The vusal world is an image of the real world, tangible world to put it another way, so it is an unreliable way to discern true shape of things. Sit at the long end of a table you know is a rectangle and pay attention to the shape your eyes deliver. then stand up and the image changes but the rectangular table doesn't. Jut to confirm stand on your chair to see a third iteration of the same real world object.

Crouch down and put your eyes at the table height and look at a glass of red wine at the far end. I has no bottom yet the glass is full of wine. Raise your eyes up an inch or two and and the glass bottom becomes visible again.
This limit of our vision is sold to us as evidence of a globe by the disappearing ship theory.

The surface of the plane of living is of immense importance to the historical theft. It underpins the tales woven that get looked at in varying degrees on here. Distance travelled for example is totally reiiant on a man made idea based in a globular earth theory. It fixes the positions of places relative to each other in the mind yet has no bearing on reality.
A human being has no comprehension of how far a mile is and cannot estimate let alone judge it accurately.

I am more than happyy to say I don't know what shape the earth is and as far as I can tell neither does anyone else,


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: zxcv0Date: 2019-11-27 08:17:42Reaction Score: 2




jd755 said:


> I am more than happyy to say I don't know what shape the earth is and *as far as I can tell neither does anyone else*,


There are organisations on this planet, which decide what you watch on TV, what you read about in the media, and what you learn about at school, that are very insistent that the earth is a round-shaped ball suspended in a sea of nothingness. To the point where any other alternative (a relatively recent phenomenon) offered in public is met with disdain, mockery, and social ostracism if one persists in going against the grain.

When someone is that sure, to the point where they have to indoctrinate every child on the planet with said truth, I can only assume that they are fairly confident the earth is a ball suspended in space. So confident, in fact, that proving their belief as the truth should be the easiest thing in the world.

So why is it so damn hard for them?

Either they're incredibly confident in their belief to put this much effort into educating everyone about it, or they know full well they're pedaling bullshit and have to resort to inventing evidence. (And if we still need to ask the question 'Why would they lie about this', we haven't been paying attention.)

Occam's razor, a good of the pseudoscientists, would say if you can't prove we're on a convex ball in 2019 without a shadow of a doubt, it's because we're not on a convex ball.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2019-12-15 06:32:33Reaction Score: 5




jd755 said:


> There y'all go. A thread to discuss the concave earth shape without derailing other topics. I have no skin in the game, hence the brevity.


I haven't been able to reply to many comments on this thread before now, and I apologize for that. This thread was started because some people within this site apparently didn't like my bringing up the concave earth theory so often, as they appear to prefer the flat earth model. I was hoping that this thread would open up some earnest discussion and maybe I could learn of some new ideas or evidences and others as well. Some of the investigators here who are so happy to jump into research to find the truth about other subjects seem to only be interested in criticism and have a "prove it to me attitude" when it comes to the concave earth. The thread was derailed several times too about NASA silliness and other stuff.

Do I have a working model of the concave earth? Of course not. No one has a working model of the other theories either, including the convex earth. But I can answer some of the questions and concerns brought up about the concave earth. Other questions are true mysteries at this point, and who knows if we'll ever be able to shed light on them. But I don't get the impression the answers are truly wanted here. I see some very closed minds in some of these responses. So, if anyone here is legitimately interested, please ask me questions directly, I'll try to answer it if I can. I don't know how to pull out comments and reply like others are here, but I'd really like to share what I've learned with those who are interested. I'm not interested in trying to prove anything to anyone. Feel free to believe whatever you want if it makes you happy.

One further note for those seeking scientific proof.
There is no such thing! Science hasn't tried to prove anything for over a hundred years now. Science has long been into falsification. Prove something wrong because science is not capable of proving anything to be absolute and true. Possibilities and probabilities is all they can offer. If you don't believe me, then I recommend a bit of study in the philosophy of science. Specifically, Karl Popper and falsification. This was the birth of the skeptic jerks that now run the public arm of science discussion, the Michael Shermer's and Neil deGrasse Tyson's of the world. The know-it-all's of TV science. They are the ones who brought belief into the science arena and control those beliefs through peer pressure.

So in short, I can't prove anything to you, nor can the greatest scientific minds in this world. You just take it in and choose to accept or reject what makes sense to you or not. It's all us humans are really capable of anyway since we don't have the god's eye view of this world and never will, which is by the way, the great flaw in the falsification theory.

They can't prove the earth is a convex ball. They can't prove the earth is concave. Nor can they prove the earth is flat. But, there are experiments that show the earth does not spin, which totally derails the convex earth model. There are other experiments that also show the earth not to be convex. There is also great evidence that shows the earth cannot be flat, absolute proof in my mind and to many others as well. So all that's left is the one theory no one has been able to disprove. And there is also a good deal of evidence to support the concave earth model.

So why is nearly everyone, including many flat-earthers shying away from this theory/subject? I can certainly understand why governments and corporations would hate this theory, as it will eliminate their power and destroy their markets which are based on supply and demand, both of which require a convex earth model to work. But you as an individual won't see it until you open your mind to the possibility. Our entire lives we've been told the convex model is true, and we believed it simply because we had no reason not to. Now we do. If you believe the earth is flat or convex, it is up to you to shake those beliefs before you can learn anything new and different. So don't ask so you can say "aha, I knew you were wrong!" Ask if you want to see the earth in a way you've never seen before. Start from a position of neutrality. It's really hard to do, just ask any journalist. Bias is hard to uncover within but relatively easy to see from the outside.

I love the research done here on the hidden history of our world, It's been very enlightening. But it doesn't seem to be a place for open minded concave earth discussion. So far, at least.

It's the open mind that learns. The closed mind stays in place.

I am open for discussion on the concave earth, but not debate or argument. Those are closed-minded pursuits that lead to frustration and pride. And I am trying to learn and understand, just like you.


----------



## dreamtime (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: dreamtimeDate: 2019-12-15 08:19:25Reaction Score: 1




ripvanwillie said:


> I haven't been able to reply to many comments on this thread before now, and I apologize for that. This thread was started because some people within this site apparently didn't like my bringing up the concave earth theory so often, as they appear to prefer the flat earth model. I was hoping that this thread would open up some earnest discussion and maybe I could learn of some new ideas or evidences and others as well. Some of the investigators here who are so happy to jump into research to find the truth about other subjects seem to only be interested in criticism and have a "prove it to me attitude" when it comes to the concave earth. The thread was derailed several times too about NASA silliness and other stuff.
> 
> Do I have a working model of the concave earth? Of course not. No one has a working model of the other theories either, including the convex earth. But I can answer some of the questions and concerns brought up about the concave earth. Other questions are true mysteries at this point, and who knows if we'll ever be able to shed light on them. But I don't get the impression the answers are truly wanted here. I see some very closed minds in some of these responses. So, if anyone here is legitimately interested, please ask me questions directly, I'll try to answer it if I can. I don't know how to pull out comments and reply like others are here, but I'd really like to share what I've learned with those who are interested. I'm not interested in trying to prove anything to anyone. Feel free to believe whatever you want if it makes you happy.
> 
> ...


I can’t understand the resistance either as a concave earth model would make many things easier to understand that are discussed on this forum. Every model that makes the earth some kind of closed terrarium is already better than the standard model but flat earth is in many ways a dead end, and requires cognitive dissonance on many levels.

The complexity of the topic means one needs to be curious and try to understand different cosmological concepts, without judging quickly. Unfortunately there are only few resources on the subject so it’s truly an esoteric subject and requires the honest desire to learn.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: jd755Date: 2019-12-15 09:35:42Reaction Score: 0




ripvanwillie said:


> There is also great evidence that shows the earth cannot be flat, absolute proof in my mind and to many others as well.


As I sad I've no skin in the concave earth theory, However I like you know whatever we stand on isn't spinning which renders the convex thoery null. Water contained always takes the shape of its container and always has a flat surface. We are not equipped to establish the shape of the earth or if indeed it has a shape at all let alone the extent of its land and waters.
So if you wouldn't mind would you share this greatt evidence in this thread?
Edit to add.
The thread was started, as was the Erie canal thread, because people say "there should be a thread on this" and then they don't make one, for whatever reason.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2019-12-15 10:29:57Reaction Score: 0




jd755 said:


> As I sad I've no skin in the concave earth theory, However I like you know whatever we stand on isn't spinning which renders the convex thoery null. Water contained always takes the shape of its container and always has a flat surface. We are not equipped to establish the shape of the earth or if indeed it has a shape at all let alone the extent of its land and waters.
> So if you wouldn't mind would you share this greatt evidence in this thread?


It's in other posts on this site. I'll briefly respond because you asked, but I do not wish to take this thread there.

The stars cannot have their movements above a flat, disc, bowl, or ring shaped surface. The flat earth model has no south pole. Without a polar south, the star patterns simply don't work. They cannot work. Flat earth believers either don't understand this or simply choose to ignore it. I have not met a single one who can give a solution. The north pole doesn't work either. From there we can get into dozens of other evidences showing the flat earth model to be impossible.

But I do not wish to do that. I don't want to take this thread there. If people want to believe in a flat earth, I'm fine with that. Life is discovery! If they are really "truthers" as they claim, they'll always keep an open mind for other explanations, and will eventually explore the concave earth idea. I just would like people to have an open mind on the subject and help us find answers as main stream science will never be of any help due to it's internal politics. They will only tell us what they want us to believe and I have no reason to believe this will ever change.

As humans, we may never truly have the ability to find absolute proof. However, I do believe if enough people work on it, there will be a preponderance of evidence that shows the concave earth concept to be the most likely scenario.

As for me, I only am concerned with finding the truth. I think I'm on target with the concave earth idea. In twenty five or so years of searching, I have only found more evidence supporting it. And no one has yet to disprove it. I've found a good deal of evidence disproving both the flat earth and convex earth models. The concave earth theory also holds sociopolitical implications as well as economic problems that would absolutely keep any government or scholastic entity far away. The concave earth model causes serious problems for the powers that be. That is why it is taboo.
So here we are.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: jd755Date: 2019-12-15 10:39:36Reaction Score: 0




ripvanwillie said:


> It's in other posts on this site. I'll briefly respond because you asked, but I do not wish to take this thread there.


Thank you. Did you mean your other posts on this site?
EDIT.
I've been through your posts, good job there's only 68, and it eludes me. Just me being blind or thick or both.
Still gibiru served up various articles and forum threads and reading through some I realised I've been there before, years ago when I fell in love with the hollow earth theory.
End of EDIT.
For what its worth I have no idea what shape the thing is all I know is what I stated above.


----------



## dreamtime (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: dreamtimeDate: 2019-12-15 12:56:45Reaction Score: 3




ripvanwillie said:


> The concave earth theory also holds sociopolitical implications as well as economic problems that would absolutely keep any government or scholastic entity far away. The concave earth model causes serious problems for the powers that be. That is why it is taboo.


If this forum doesnt allow for an open discussion on concave earth, then its worthwhile for those of us who are considering the model, to think about the consequences, of what happens in case more people were aware.

I'd say the realization that we live inside something can't happen as long there isn't a widespread interest in concave earth. Too many people are aware that a flat earth is cosmologically impossible, and goes against everything that can be experienced about this world, and there is no way to logically argue for it.

But no one in academia actually wants to touch the concave earth topic, although there aren't many inconsistencies with the known concepts and observations in science, only different explanations for its origins.

If our earth is concave, then it's highly likely that it isn't the only one, and there are gateways that lead out of it into other realms. If there is a practical way out, many things are suddenly possible, and other things are no longer possible, like enslaving humanity. As long as humans think they live on an isolated planet, or isolated disk surrounded by ice (although those people are few and don't matter on a societal level), its easy to control us.

The last big power that took this idea seriously were the Nazis, and they did look for a way out (obviously at the poles, as well as in Tibet where people believed was an exit through caves), although it looks like they were deliberately pushed by the PTB and then epically destroyed to finally bury certain concepts about reality. While the inner nazi circle believed in concave earth, they also suppressed such ideas in Germany at that time, so they didn't want people to know either.

We live in a time where true knowledge is inverted, just like the elite is believing in an inverted form of the creator, and when it comes to cosmology, they literally inverted the original model, and it seems they destroyed all original writings about it, so that nowadays people do not even know that there was a completely opposite way to look at the world a couple hundred years ago.

Concave earth explains why the poles are off limits in our realm. North and South Pole are managed by intelligence agencies only. It also explains the fear of global warming, as the poles are not allowed to melt, as they are our prison bars.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: BantaDate: 2019-12-15 14:53:43Reaction Score: 1




ripvanwillie said:


> The stars cannot have their movements above a flat, disc, bowl, or ring shaped surface. The flat earth model has no south pole. Without a polar south, the star patterns simply don't work. They cannot work. Flat earth believers either don't understand this or simply choose to ignore it. I have not met a single one who can give a solution. The north pole doesn't work either. From there we can get into dozens of other evidences showing the flat earth model to be impossible.


I'd like to see the dozens of other evidences because I don't know how one can declare that star patterns are impossible on a flat earth when we don't even know what the stars are/what they are contained in. Could the sky itself be curved in such a manner? Furthermore, I know personally I can't even be sure what the stars are even doing at the "poles". Using the sky to determine the shape of the Earth is again a classic globe argument, like the concave Earth being so large that it appears flat. Just seems a bit convenient.



dreamtime said:


> If our earth is concave, then it's highly likely that it isn't the only one, and there are gateways that lead out of it into other realms


Maybe, but from my perspective, it seems like concave Earth is the least likely to contain passage to other realms. 

It just seems like most good arguments here are really just again reasons why the globe and heliocentric model are highly unlikely. 

I am not closed off to the concave earth, I am just failing to see the smoking gun.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: jd755Date: 2019-12-15 15:03:58Reaction Score: 1


Found it.
_When does it start to curve?_

Cannot for the life of me see what goes on over our heads is evidence of what the shape of the thing we walk on is which is nothing more than an edge between two different mediums or densities relative to our own.
Land is more dense than us so we cannot traverse through it.
Air is less dense than us so we can traverse through it.
Water is almost as dense as us so we can float on it. but cannot walk on it.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2019-12-15 17:06:29Reaction Score: 1




jd755 said:


> Found it.
> _When does it start to curve?_
> 
> Cannot for the life of me see what goes on over our heads is evidence of what the shape of the thing we walk on is which is nothing more than an edge between two different mediums or densities relative to our own.
> ...


Call them stars, points of light, gods, whatever. It doesn't matter what the stars are made of, it's the motion they make through the sky that gives us the evidence. They circle around both poles. There is no other explanation for the star patterns. There is no magical technology that allows for this impossible projection. To simply discount those patterns because we don't know the composition of the lights does not change the fact that the motions they make cannot happen if there is no south pole.

I wish I could explain it better so you could understand. I was hoping the diagram I made would be sufficient, but apparently it missed the mark with you others on this forum. Put some thought into it. Envision how those lights in the sky turn. How those patterns can be made. Once you see it, you'll be stunned. But you can't see it if you are stuck in flatland. The lights above you move in a specific pattern. And that pattern cannot be replicated on a flat earth model. It's really that simple.

Here is a link to my post on the celestial mechanics of the so-called stars. I'm not real good using this format, but I think this link will work. Pay special attention to the diagram explaining the need for a south pole. I would think this should become quite obvious once you understand the motions involved.
Stars, Galaxies, Planets: how do we know what they are?


Banta said:


> I'd like to see the dozens of other evidences because I don't know how one can declare that star patterns are impossible on a flat earth when we don't even know what the stars are/what they are contained in. Could the sky itself be curved in such a manner? Furthermore, I know personally I can't even be sure what the stars are even doing at the "poles". Using the sky to determine the shape of the Earth is again a classic globe argument, like the concave Earth being so large that it appears flat. Just seems a bit convenient.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Please see my post above to jd755 for an answer to your question. 
To me the concave earth offers the greatest possibility to contain passages to other realms. There are other worlds beneath our feet, maybe even just a few hundred miles away at certain points. There can be up to twelve other planets the same size as earth adjacent to us. And there has been lot's written about these subterranean worlds, the tunnels and passages beneath us. Many stories from indigenous peoples of how their ancestors came from under the earth and such. Even UFO research shows they most likely come from the inside of earth and not from deep space or planets light years away. And of course who is living in those cities underground? And why are most, if not all of the earth's tunnels blocked off? Why do you need governmental permission to explore under the earth?
To me it is clear and obvious. The challenge is to find a way to help others understand it as well. It has nothing to do with intelligence or special knowledge. It's there in plain sight for all of us to see.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: AndromedaDate: 2019-12-15 17:44:42Reaction Score: 1


Old Christian paintings actually show us that the sun or the core is inside the shell.

If you think of the sun as the core inside the shell, our earth is only a nod connected to the core whereas there are many other nods connected to the same core mirroring how nature actually looks like such as an apple where the sun is the center and we are the fruit body knowingly and unconsciously aware of the other nods of the same fruit body we actually are one with. 

Outside the apple are the many other outer worlds and inside the apple are our worlds we are aware of yet unconscious of hence the reason why there is conflicts and confusion in the inner world because other nods of the fruit body wants to eat the core up.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2019-12-15 18:08:41Reaction Score: 0




Andromeda said:


> Old Christian paintings actually show us that the sun or the core is inside the shell.
> 
> If you think of the sun as the core inside the shell, our earth is only a nod connected to the core whereas there are many other nods connected to the same core mirroring how nature actually looks like such as an apple where the sun is the center and we are the fruit body knowingly and unconsciously aware of the other nods of the same fruit body we actually are one with.
> 
> Outside the apple are the many other outer worlds and inside the apple are our worlds we are aware of yet unconscious of hence the reason why there is conflicts and confusion in the inner world because other nods of the fruit body wants to eat the core up.


I'd like to see the specific paintings you are talking about. Can you post examples? Perhaps this sheds light on the apple shaped maps of antiquity.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: jd755Date: 2019-12-15 18:29:07Reaction Score: 3


Probably me who is not making myself clear. I'll have another bash.
The thing I walk on is not spinning.
I don't know what the lights in the sky are nor what the sky is.
I cannot tell the difference between a planet and a star nor do I know what the sun and moon are,
What goes on in the sky has no bearing on the shape of the thing I walk on.
I have no idea what if any shape the thing I walk on is or may be nor if it is concave flat, undulating, toroidal or anything else.
I have no idea how big or how small it is.
Contained water always takes the shape of its container and always has a level surface. Water does not bulge or bend or stick to the inside or outside of anything.
This is simply evidence of itself. It neither proves nor disprove anything other than the thing i walk on cannot be convex.

Observable reality is limited by the way the eye works.
I have watched people walk past me and into the distance along a flat road and they disappear from their feet upwards. Cars do the same they disappear from their wheels upwards.
The reason being my eyes are physically closer to the surface than the sky.

All this does is disprove the theory of a ship disappearing hull first as being evidence of a convex surface and proves the limitations of the eye.
None of the above is evidence of any specific shape of this thing I walk on.
Simply said in my objective reality there is no evidence of a spinning ball, concave ball, flat plane. The only thing my objective reality shows me for certain is whatever it is, it isn't spinning.
I am not trying to convince you of anything. You have your objective reality as do we all. The objective evidence of a concave shape is missing in the same way the objective of a convex earth is missing. This doesn't make me a 'flat earther' as you seem to allude to it simply means concave convex and flat are all just labels stuck on theory, to me anways.


----------



## dreamtime (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: dreamtimeDate: 2019-12-15 18:41:11Reaction Score: 1




ripvanwillie said:


> I'd like to see the specific paintings you are talking about. Can you post examples? Perhaps this sheds light on the apple shaped maps of antiquity.


i’m currently looking for evidence for the idea that the church originally pushed for an earth-centric universe (Ptolemaic Geocentrism) to get people away from concave earth.

Then they doubled down and secretly supported the heliocentric model, and made it look like the conflict was between geocentric and heliocentric.

I remember that the opposition of the Vatican against Galileo wasn’t that clear-cut, and it seems there is indeed evidence that the resistance against him was only a lip-service.

Edit: When you want to understand how the Vatican operates, there is a pretty good understanding of its role in the rise of fascism: God and the Fascists: The Vatican Alliance with Mussolini, Franco, Hitler, and Pavelić

All of this has clearly been documented, but this didnt prevent the Vatican from rewriting this part of their history, claiming they actually opposed Fascism. This is their modus operandi, and it is important to understand that everything they preach is only a facade. They aren't christian, they do not care about the Bible, and they do not care about a geocentric model of the earth. All they care about is taking the truth, and, step for step, burying it or changing it to the opposite, and it doesnt matter to them if they need a couple hundred years for it.

Just like they supported the fascists in order to reach a hidden goal, everything they do follows a secret agenda, going back to the roots of humanity. Without the Vatican, fascism wouldnt have been possible, and the fascist leaders all knew who protected them. When their contract was finished, the Vatican created their 'rat lines' to safely bring them out of the destroyed Europe, leaving behind tens of millions of dead civilians, and a vanished high culture.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: AndromedaDate: 2019-12-15 19:03:17Reaction Score: 0




ripvanwillie said:


> I'd like to see the specific paintings you are talking about. Can you post examples? Perhaps this sheds light on the apple shaped maps of antiquity.


I do not know the name of the paintings on a straight arm but I see them circle around on the net. I think I have seen them posted here as well. Maybe dreamtime is our guy to have the paintings resurface here in this thread. 

With concave earth it means all outer worlds/stars also has the same make up meaning there is a sun or core inside every star. 

What separates us is the mechanics of gravity hence the illusion of isolation.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: jd755Date: 2019-12-15 19:19:42Reaction Score: 0


Are the paintings on here?
Concave Earth Theory – The Wild Heretic

OR HERE? 
Welcome to Concave Earth Forum


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: AndromedaDate: 2019-12-15 19:25:03Reaction Score: 0




jd755 said:


> Are the paintings on here?
> Concave Earth Theory – The Wild Heretic


Doesn’t look like it. What I had in mind were the decorated Christian glasses and similar paintings to such decorated glasses where you actually see our core or in public language the sun inside our sky or shell if you wish.


----------



## KD Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: KorbenDallasDate: 2019-12-15 19:29:06Reaction Score: 2


I'm OK with whatever shape as long as its not the known CGI model. I also think that we live on a flat surface, because this is the only thing I can see with my own eyes. Water surface does not curve in the areas I travel.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2019-12-15 19:30:37Reaction Score: 1




jd755 said:


> Probably me who is not making myself clear. I'll have another bash.
> The thing I walk on is not spinning.
> I don't know what the lights in the sky are nor what the sky is.
> I cannot tell the difference between a planet and a star nor do I know what the sun and moon are,
> ...


There are a couple of things you said that I must respectfully disagree with.

First, "What goes on in the sky has no bearing on the shape of the thing I walk on."

This statement tells me you are not understanding what I'm laying out. It has everything to do with the shape of the planet. I honestly don't see how this is not clear to you, so there's nothing more for me to offer on this point. Please put it to a thought experiment. I'm confident it will come to you if you open your mind and stop believing that the shape has no bearing. This is an excellent example of a closed mind keeping you from seeing the obvious. No slight intended as we all suffer from this bias at times.

Second, "Contained water always takes the shape of its container and always has a level surface. Water does not bulge or bend or stick to the inside or outside of anything."
This statement is patently false on both counts. Water is never level. Water is never flat. It just looks that way to us. Water absolutely bulges and dips with the tides, the currents underneath, and the air pressure above. This can be easily seen if you go to the shore of the ocean or any large body of water. When there is low air pressure, the water tends to bulge upward. When there is high air pressure, it pushes the water down.


Take a spirit level for example.
Is the bubble inside ever flat? No. Does it take on the cylindrical shape of it's container? No. Nor does the water.
Now look at what's happening inside of it. The water underneath the bubble of air is concave!
The bubble of air creates pressure from above forcing the water to the side, thus creating a concave water surface. It is always round and the water beneath is always concave. The tool works not because water is level, rather because it is not. It is the bubble trying to stay in the middle of the lines that tells us if the measured item is level or not.
If water were level a spirit level would not be possible as the air inside would not form a bubble. It would disperse parallel to the waters surface completely to both ends of the cylinder and be kept at the top because air is lighter than water. I hope this is clear to you.

Third, your example of perspective does not address the concave earth at all. Our optical perspectives work fine in a concave earth scenario. I don't understand your objection there.


Andromeda said:


> I do not know the name of the paintings on a straight arm but I see them circle around on the net. I think I have seen them posted here as well. Maybe dreamtime is our guy to have the paintings resurface here in this thread.
> 
> With concave earth it means all outer worlds/stars also has the same make up meaning there is a sun or core inside every star.
> 
> What separates us is the mechanics of gravity hence the illusion of isolation.


"With concave earth it means all outer worlds/stars also has the same make up meaning there is a sun or core inside every star."

I don't think I understand your point here, care to elaborate? In my thinking, there is only one sun. The stars are something completely different.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: AndromedaDate: 2019-12-15 20:15:03Reaction Score: 0




ripvanwillie said:


> There are a couple of things you said that I must respectfully disagree with.
> 
> First, "What goes on in the sky has no bearing on the shape of the thing I walk on."
> 
> ...


Perhaps you are right about stars are something entirely different. The distance between our sight and the stars is only a thumb between and so is everything else here.

The distance between you and me here can be measured with units of length, however the distance of us while we breathe here cannot be measured since there is no distance in the air we breathe and there is a rhythm of our bodies how we function with nature and that is for example how many breathes you take each minute, how much you eat, how much you sleep and that is time. The time here and in neighboring outer worlds is one and the same and time cannot be measured in distance. Time can only be counted.

Units of length is what make us very confused of time. It might or might not take a whole lifetime to reach the next star. It could actually be one beer away at your local pub. Which is time!

Time that is now is the biggest secret of all mysteries. If we unlock time I think we unlock the true shape of Earth. Forget about distance. It’s all about time. Will we ever find out what time it is at Mars? Do they have seconds, minutes and hours as counters?

We might find out.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: jd755Date: 2019-12-15 20:16:10Reaction Score: 1


How could one be sleighted by words on a screen.
The air bubble in a spirit level aka in alchohol has nothing to do with the behaviour of water.
IIt is interesting what you choose to comment on and what you leave alone, to me anyways.
I've been off down some iteresting routes today Lord Steven Christ, ifers, wild heretic, this place THE COSMOS and many others and can find no objective evidence of the existence of a concave, flat or convex earth shape. 
It all seems to be people defending their models ad nauseum whuch speaks volumes really.
My objective reality is what it is.


----------



## Whitewave (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: whitewaveDate: 2019-12-15 20:57:59Reaction Score: 1


When reading the level of fluid in a beaker, one has to hold it at eye level to account for the meniscus (which is concave). It may or may not lend evidence to a concave model of Earth and, frankly, I don't care but fluids do curve up on the edges of a container. May be more noticeable in a beaker than in an ocean or the phenomenon may not transfer to wider fluid containers such as oceans. Again, don't know, don't care. The entire issue doesn't strike me as something we'll solve on this site.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2019-12-16 01:12:10Reaction Score: 1




jd755 said:


> How could one be sleighted by words on a screen.
> The air bubble in a spirit level aka in alchohol has nothing to do with the behaviour of water.
> IIt is interesting what you choose to comment on and what you leave alone, to me anyways.
> I've been off down some iteresting routes today Lord Steven Christ, ifers, wild heretic, this place THE COSMOS and many others and can find no objective evidence of the existence of a concave, flat or convex earth shape.
> ...


I comment on what I feel I need to, primarily questions. But if I missed something you'd like my views on please state it specifically. I'm happy to oblige.

I've gone down those rabbit holes as well you might imagine. And I fully get your point. To me, this subject is about cosmogony and has nothing to do with religion. The only one that I find appealing out of that group is Wild Heretic. There are some interesting finds posted there, just not elaborated on in great depth. But I think there is a lot to learn from that site. It was carefully and accurately thought out and presented.

As far as the objective evidence you seek, I think that depends on your own personal criteria and attitude. What is objective evidence for you may be quite different than for others. And that may change based on bias. No one can see what's inside your head. And if you go into it with the attitude of "prove it to me" you'll probably come away empty handed.

I gave you a very good piece of evidence about spirit levels, and you apparently rejected it on your belief that it is alcohol and not water. Spirit levels are produced using alcohol to increase the operating temperatures of the device and has nothing to do with the underlying principle. I think we all know at what temperature water freezes. A spirit level still works exactly the same if water is used in place of alcohol.

And you can argue whether or not the water caused the shape of the bubble or the bubble caused the shape of the water. Either way it's still the same. The water is concave, not flat.


whitewave said:


> When reading the level of fluid in a beaker, one has to hold it at eye level to account for the meniscus (which is concave). It may or may not lend evidence to a concave model of Earth and, frankly, I don't care but fluids do curve up on the edges of a container. May be more noticeable in a beaker than in an ocean or the phenomenon may not transfer to wider fluid containers such as oceans. Again, don't know, don't care. The entire issue doesn't strike me as something we'll solve on this site.


I get it. It's called apathy. You don't know and you don't care. But you know what? Others do.

And if you don't think that it can be solved here then why did you feel the need to comment? Were you just trying to burst my bubble? I love the pun!

But not exactly what I'd call a contribution.

I was under the impression that this is a forum for open discussion. Please tell me what issues have or will be solved here that are acceptable to you so we may discuss them openly and without your indifference.

When it comes to stolen history, I can't imagine a subject larger than earth and our entire universe.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: WillieladDate: 2019-12-16 02:24:10Reaction Score: 0


So in the concave earth, are we inside or outside? If on the inside, which i think you are saying. What holds the water on the outside? Can you explain how the sun would travel? I guess it could just head east but it seems it would show on the otherside of the world.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2019-12-16 05:38:17Reaction Score: 2




Willielad said:


> So in the concave earth, are we inside or outside? If on the inside, which i think you are saying. What holds the water on the outside? Can you explain how the sun would travel? I guess it could just head east but it seems it would show on the otherside of the world.


These are some very good questions.
First there are two theories that you may be blending together here. The hollow earth theory, where the earth is a ball just like science says with us living on the outside. There are openings at the poles which lead to an inner world with an inner sun with people living inside. This was a theory popularized in many 19th century novels.
The other one is the concave earth theory which is pretty much an inversion of the current scientific theory. What is outside of our world is on the inside, including us. Outside is what science says is underneath us, molten rock, salt pools, water pools etc.

What we are talking about here in this thread is the concave earth theory, not the hollow earth theory.

So, what is on the outside is anyone's guess as we have very little data further than 8 miles down. The original author, as far as we know, of the concave earth theory was Cyrus Teed, aka Koresh. He believed it was all contained within and nothing was outside of our world.

So to answer your questions, we live on the inside. If there is water outside of us it would be suspended in pools and underground aquifers, just like what science says. But instead of reaching a molten core, eventually you'd reach another world. Meaning there may be other world just a few hundred miles beneath us.
Or, if Cyrus Teed is correct, there is no water outside, there is nothing.

The sun would travel just as we see it, of course it is inside the earth. The moon and planets all keep their same paths, just inverted.

You can't see the other side because it is blocked by what we call the universe. You cannot see through it. We can only see what is illuminated. Earth is only illuminated in the atmosphere, not in space. So when you look up, you see what is on the inside, and the only thing we see are points of light we call planets and stars. We can't see beyond this to the other side. If we look horizontally, we have a barrier of light and motion. And only within our range of vision and as far as the horizon gives us. The atmosphere eventually ends our distance vision with distortion caused by motion in the atmosphere.

Like any cosmogony, there are more questions than answers and it is not easy to explain, especially since no one knows the whole truth. We are all just trying to figure it all out.

A good place for you to start is with the Wild Heretic page. I believe it is back up now.
Yes, there is actually a post from Wild Heretic earlier in this thread. Comment #47. Please refer back to it. Here is a link to the outside page: Concave Earth Theory – The Wild Heretic

Further reading would be Cyrus Teed's 1898 book, Cellular Cosmogony. Here is a link:
The Cellular Cosmogony; Or, The Earth a Concave Sphere: Pt. I. The ...

There was also much research done by the Nazi's leading up to WWII, and there is still a concave earth movement in Germany. with several books not yet (or ever?) translated into English. 

I find this to be a very thrilling subject that answers many scientific enigmas. Enjoy your explorations!


----------



## KD Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: KorbenDallasDate: 2019-12-16 05:42:46Reaction Score: 3


I think this is supposed to be a visual representation. At least that’s what Google provided. It’s probably not exactly like that, but the main idea has to be something similar to the image.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2019-12-16 06:08:27Reaction Score: 2




KorbenDallas said:


> I think this is supposed to be a visual representation. At least that’s what Google provided. It’s probably not exactly like that, but the main idea has to be something similar to the image.
> 
> View attachment 36028


Yes. And here is Cyrus Teed's globe, which is on display at the Koreshan settlement site in Estero, Florida USA. Tour the Koreshan Settlement.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: TS135Date: 2019-12-16 06:22:23Reaction Score: 1


The inside globe concave model above has very similar to the traditional spherical dimensions. Was there any curvature formula developed? Wouldn't we still observe the curve if that was the case?


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2019-12-16 06:46:58Reaction Score: 1




TS135 said:


> The inside globe concave model above has very similar to the traditional spherical dimensions. Was there any curvature formula developed? Wouldn't we still observe the curve if that was the case?


The curvature would be the same as it is determined at the surface, just going up rather than down. Mostafa Abdelkader, a physicist, proved that this theory works mathematically on the inside of the earth. The proportions are the same, but everything within becomes exponentially smaller as you move toward the center.


Not much on the web about this but oddly enough, the Flat Earth Society has a nice write-up of it on their site.

The Concave Earth Hypothesis

We cannot see curvature because we are to small in comparison to the size of the earth, and there is nothing flat within our vision to measure it against. We don't see curvature now, we are only told it is there so we tend to believe the authorities. But there have been several successful attempts to measure the curvature, or at least make it visible. One is the rectilineator experiment by U.G. Morrow, the Tamarack mine survey is another. Those mine experiments were replicated several times, and were also performed in other mines located in France. There have also been tests done on water with boats that show the earth is indeed curving upward.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: jd755Date: 2019-12-16 08:59:50Reaction Score: 0


Apologies if this link has been posted before but Gibiru sereved it up when looking for information on Cyrus and his divine revelation and it may be of value here The Cellular Cosmogony Index
Although the word 'pseudoscience' appears very early on. So maybe nott that valuable.
I'm not quoting from it but the divine revelation is discussed and it seems it wasn't an angel who imparted this theory to Cyru it may have been a woman. Either way he seems to have got this information from 'another realm' so too speak. As with all such revelations (Tesla for example or Moses) I wonder how these individuals are chosen and why the specific information is gven. Of course it is impossible to prove or provide any evidence of a revelation to anyone else so either he did get a revelation in a vision or he didn't and made shit up is as good as it gets unless he copied someone else's work.


----------



## dreamtime (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: dreamtimeDate: 2019-12-16 10:02:51Reaction Score: 1


up to 150,000 missing stars: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/ab570f

easier to explain in a terrarium.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: jd755Date: 2019-12-16 15:46:36Reaction Score: 2


Digging once again into how Cyrus came by this information, seems he was knocked unconscious by an electrical shock and when he came to again he claimed he had had a vision of a woman/angel/divine motherhood who told him a few things about the uinverse, life and his destiny or fate (the stories vary) but and this staggers me, it's amazing what the search engines, in this case statrpage divvy up.
From here; Koreshan Unity founder Dr. Cyrus "Koresh" Teed with Freemasons.

Koreshan Unity founder Dr. Cyrus "Koresh" Teed with Freemasons.
Not after 1908Another thing I noticed when reading through Curus's book at the site linked above, I'm up to here The Cellular Cosmogony: Koreshan Principles of Optics
He is attacking the convex earth theory and has yet to mention the flat earth theory unlike today where its the flat earth theory the concave earth theory people (not neccessarily those on here) are attachking. Quite fascinating to see this change of focus.
As for the book it's a little odd to say the least if for no other reason than he is inventing new words all the time to explain his theory and giving other a 'new version' for exampl the physcal universe is writen like this "aelchemico-organic cosmos (the physical universe)". Once i figured out you can reverse this change by seeing "physical" in plsce of "alchemico-organic" it got easier to read.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: WillieladDate: 2019-12-16 16:45:39Reaction Score: 1




ripvanwillie said:


> These are some very good questions.
> First there are two theories that you may be blending together here. The hollow earth theory, where the earth is a ball just like science says with us living on the outside. There are openings at the poles which lead to an inner world with an inner sun with people living inside. This was a theory popularized in many 19th century novels.
> The other one is the concave earth theory which is pretty much an inversion of the current scientific theory. What is outside of our world is on the inside, including us. Outside is what science says is underneath us, molten rock, salt pools, water pools etc.
> 
> ...


What are the possible explanations to hold the oceans in place? Electrostatic?


----------



## dreamtime (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: dreamtimeDate: 2019-12-16 17:08:47Reaction Score: 1




Willielad said:


> What are the possible explanations to hold the oceans in place? Electrostatic?


The most plausible explanation to me is to understand gravity as a force that comes from the centre of the universe (the sun), instead of a pull-force think of it as a push-force. Gravity thus becomes part of the electromagnetic property of the sun or whatever machinery is in the center of the cavity. I suspect that the sun is responsible for keeping the cavity in place, that is, without the electromagnetical properties of the sun the earth cavity would collapse. the push force gravity keeps everything at a certain level, at a certain distance to the sun.

How does gravity work? – The Wild Heretic

What is gravity? – The Wild Heretic

Gravity – observations and theory – The Wild Heretic


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2019-12-16 18:50:51Reaction Score: 1




jd755 said:


> Apologies if this link has been posted before but Gibiru sereved it up when looking for information on Cyrus and his divine revelation and it may be of value here The Cellular Cosmogony Index
> Although the word 'pseudoscience' appears very early on. So maybe nott that valuable.
> I'm not quoting from it but the divine revelation is discussed and it seems it wasn't an angel who imparted this theory to Cyru it may have been a woman. Either way he seems to have got this information from 'another realm' so too speak. As with all such revelations (Tesla for example or Moses) I wonder how these individuals are chosen and why the specific information is gven. Of course it is impossible to prove or provide any evidence of a revelation to anyone else so either he did get a revelation in a vision or he didn't and made shit up is as good as it gets unless he copied someone else's work.





jd755 said:


> Digging once again into how Cyrus came by this information, seems he was knocked unconscious by an electrical shock and when he came to again he claimed he had had a vision of a woman/angel/divine motherhood who told him a few things about the uinverse, life and his destiny or fate (the stories vary) but and this staggers me, it's amazing what the search engines, in this case statrpage divvy up.
> From here; Koreshan Unity founder Dr. Cyrus "Koresh" Teed with Freemasons.
> View attachment 36066
> Koreshan Unity founder Dr. Cyrus "Koresh" Teed with Freemasons.
> ...


Some people here may not like what I am about to say, but it is the truth as I see it.
The reason Cyrus Teed never brought up the flat earth is because it wasn't a competing theory in his day. Until a few years ago, no one considered the flat earth theory as a possibility. It was a completely dead theory until a few religious extremists brought it back a few years ago. I mean even ten years ago pretty much NO ONE considered the flat earth as a real possibility. It was used as a joke or to show someone is not right upstairs. 
*The resurrection of the flat earth movement is a recent internet phenomenon.* 
I've been studying the concave earth as well as the hollow earth theories since the mid-1990's and I never had a single mention of the flat earth until about five or six years ago. This is why I have been so shocked that people even consider it now. It was put away dead long ago, and the only thing that resurrected it was religious fanaticism caused by what I feel is misinterpretations of the bible. 
It's also a strong possibility that the new flat earth movement is merely a smokescreen used to cover up the concave earth theory. What other theory could they use to keep people from exploring the concave earth? They first pumped up the hollow earth theory to confuse the two. After the attempt to find the holes in the poles failed in 2013 I believe it was, interest in the hollow earth waned. Now that idea is pretty much dead and no one as far as I see is researching that anymore. So in come the flat earth stuff to muddy the waters again. 
The only ones really opposing the concave earth idea are the flat earth believers. The Copernican believers pretty much don't care. They don't consider the concave earth a competing theory. 
So why do flat earthers oppose the concave earth model so vehemently? Well it's because there is no evidence of a flat earth! All that supposed "new" flat earth evidence you see on the internet also applies to the concave earth. It is concave earth evidence they are uncovering and are twisting it to suit their flat earth dreams! The laser experiments and all the other stuff they are doing. It's all concave earth evidence.
For years I had to try to get people to just open their minds to another possibility. Now I have to try and convince people the world isn't flat! To me it's absolutely insane, and it shows how easily we are fooled when we are young of age. What is the age of the average flat earth believer? Ever meet an 80 year old who believes in a flat earth? I haven't. Most believers I've talked to are teens and early twenty somethings. That is not a slight against youth. I was very easily fooled at that age as well.
But it's only temporary though. The flat earth movement is losing steam. I'm seeing people start to jump ship and some are looking into the concave earth now because they realize it also fits into their religious dogmas. Others are just going back to the mainstream Copernican model. The overwhelming evidence against a flat earth will eventually win out and kill that theory once again. 
Having said that, I'm not opposed to people exploring the flat earth idea. I think it's great they are looking into alternatives. Eventually, one by one they will see the evidence of a flat earth just isn't there, and they will realize all those dreams of a flat world were really the seeds of a new reality. That we live on the inside.


----------



## dreamtime (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: dreamtimeDate: 2019-12-16 18:55:10Reaction Score: 1




ripvanwillie said:


> Some people here may not like what I am about to say, but it is the truth as I see it.
> The reason Cyrus Teed never brought up the flat earth is because it wasn't a competing theory in his day. Until a few years ago, no one considered the flat earth theory as a possibility. It was a completely dead theory until a few religious extremists brought it back a few years ago. I mean even ten years ago pretty much NO ONE considered the flat earth as a real possibility. It was used as a joke or to show someone is not right upstairs.
> *The resurrection of the flat earth movement is a recent internet phenomenon.*
> I've been studying the concave earth as well as the hollow earth theories since the mid-1990's and I never had a single mention of the flat earth until about five or six years ago. This is why I have been so shocked that people even consider it now. It was put away dead long ago, and the only thing that resurrected it was religious fanaticism caused by what I feel is misinterpretations of the bible.
> ...



brilliant analysis!


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: BantaDate: 2019-12-16 19:02:26Reaction Score: 1




ripvanwillie said:


> They circle around both poles.


So maybe I'm too skeptical, but I haven't been to the south pole so first of all, I'm not sure the stars completely circle around there. They do appear to from southern hemisphere observations. So accepting that premise, you mentioned several times people not having an open mind on the subject, but is it not possible that the sky itself could curve in such a fashion over a flat surface (or whatever) that it creates the same pattern? It certainly is possible to imagine something like that and it's no more conceptually valid or invalid than the land being convex/concave. Whether the sky and celestial objects are even tangible is debatable (and by strict definition, they obviously aren't), and we are all limited by our first person perspective.

Most, if not all, visual evidence can be viewed in a variety of ways. But if thinking the sky and it's lights are holograms is "magical" then so is thinking we live inside a giant ball. I wouldn't dismiss either, but I question where the line is. Again, I am not sure that any human being has the context to accurately assess this.


ripvanwillie said:


> *The resurrection of the flat earth movement is a recent internet phenomenon.*
> I've been studying the concave earth as well as the hollow earth theories since the mid-1990's and I never had a single mention of the flat earth until about five or six years ago. This is why I have been so shocked that people even consider it now. It was put away dead long ago, and the only thing that resurrected it was religious fanaticism caused by what I feel is misinterpretations of the bible.
> It's also a strong possibility that the new flat earth movement is merely a smokescreen used to cover up the concave earth theory. What other theory could they use to keep people from exploring the concave earth? They first pumped up the hollow earth theory to confuse the two. After the attempt to find the holes in the poles failed in 2013 I believe it was, interest in the hollow earth waned. Now that idea is pretty much dead and no one as far as I see is researching that anymore. So in come the flat earth stuff to muddy the waters again.
> The only ones really opposing the concave earth idea are the flat earth believers. The Copernican believers pretty much don't care. They don't consider the concave earth a competing theory.
> ...


I am sorry, but this is all a bunch of rhetoric nonsense. I find the continued attacks on flat earthers to be the most bizarre part of this argument. Many flat earthers are independent researchers with plenty of observations that show distances that would seem impossible on/in a sphere, which is what led them to their conclusion and many would say when pressed "well, I know it's not a spinning ball, at least not the size it's claimed."

It just seems that opposing concave earth means asking for more than a few observations (which mean you dismiss the flat earth and globe earth observations, of which there are lots) or conceptual workarounds. Sure, that's the level of proof that may work for the heliocentric globe model, and for some flat earthers (though less than the average person I am willing to bet), but we should be looking for actual empirical evidence if in fact the shape of the earth is something that can be objectively shown (no idea).

Ok, I'm sorry again if I'm piling on, but I am consistently seeing claims like:
_
"After the attempt to find the holes in the poles failed in 2013 I believe it was, interest in the hollow earth waned."_

Who on earth is credible enough and in a position to say that?


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: jd755Date: 2019-12-16 19:44:01Reaction Score: 1


You do know Cyrus was deeply religious long before he was knocked out by his electricity experiment and had his vision.
From my readings today the flat earth crew spend their time attacking the convex eartt crew who respond in kind. Complete waste of time and effort as far as I can tell.
It looks to me Cyrus may well have been aware of previous people's hollow earth theory which predates his vision and ran along with his after vision theory but oddly he didn't attack that one either.
Interestingly to me, his proof that the earth is not convex matches exactly the proof the flat earth crew use to show the lack of convexity.

Here is the chapter of his book called *Experiments on Lake Michigan *  which he proves convexity is not possible. The Cellular Cosmogony: Experiments on Lake Michigan

As for keeping the water stuck onto the concavity it has too do with flow of gravity out of the sun which keeps everything in its proper place again as far as I can tell from his book. Please feel free to correct me if this is wrong.
This chap and his life is becoming very interesting.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2019-12-16 19:49:05Reaction Score: 1




Banta said:


> So maybe I'm too skeptical, but I haven't been to the south pole so first of all, I'm not sure the stars completely circle around there. They do appear to from southern hemisphere observations. So accepting that premise, you mentioned several times people not having an open mind on the subject, but is it not possible that the sky itself could curve in such a fashion over a flat surface (or whatever) that it creates the same pattern? It certainly is possible to imagine something like that and it's no more conceptually valid or invalid than the land being convex/concave. Whether the sky and celestial objects are even tangible is debatable (and by strict definition, they obviously aren't), and we are all limited by our first person perspective.
> 
> Most, if not all, visual evidence can be viewed in a variety of ways. But if thinking the sky and it's lights are holograms is "magical" then so is thinking we live inside a giant ball. I wouldn't dismiss either, but I question where the line is. Again, I am not sure that any human being has the context to accurately assess this.


I appreciate your position here. There's nothing wrong with being skeptical, the trick is doing it without closing your mind to possible new truths. But are you fully thinking this thing through? You don't need to go to the south pole to make that discovery. People live all around the south pole. Australia, south America, and Africa surround it on all sides. And people have sailed those seas for hundreds of years if not longer. The southern skies are well known to those who live down there (it is only down from our perspective here in the north). That is how we got those star trail photo's. They are real. How many people in the southern hemisphere believe in the flat earth? I never see anyone from these southern locations saying there is no south pole or polar vortex. Not one. Maybe there are a few believers down there, but I certainly haven't met any. 
And even if the stars are holograms, it doesn't matter. 
*THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY TO PROJECT THE STARS IN THOSE PATTERNS WITHOUT A SOUTH POLE. *
That is the issue. No hologram could project that pattern without a pole. It is absolute proof. There is no magic here. You need to think this through, Banta. Once you see it you will understand. It simply can't be done. How can you have the southern cross above South Africa, Argentina, and Australia at the same time on the flat earth? Its just not possible. It's not magic. It's impossible.
Furthermore, the north pole doesn't work in the flat earth model either. The stars simply don't work on a dome, hologram or not. It's the geometric pattern that doesn't work and it has nothing to do with the composition of the stars.  
Before I started promoting the concave earth idea I spent years trying to disprove it. In the end, I couldn't. The evidence just gets stronger. 
*HOW MANY FLAT-EARTHERS EVER TRY TO FALSIFY THEIR OWN THEORY?*
This is your first step in researching. Try to falsify it. If you can't prove it's false then you move on to finding evidence supporting it. I have yet to meet a single flat-earther who has tried to falsify the flat earth theory! Not one.
I'm still looking for evidence to prove the concave earth false. I haven't found anything yet. There always seems to be a way it fits in the theory. So for the last ten years or so I have been looking for evidence to support it. And I have found much evidence supporting it and one experiment clearly proves it in my mind. It's rock solid evidence supported by mathematics and was performed by actual scientists who repeated the experiment time and again and at different locations by other researchers. In the end they literally buried the evidence. Furthermore, all the competing theories can and have been be falsified through experimentation and observation, including the Copernican model they force on us in school and on television.
That is why I am strong on my convictions of a concave earth. But I am still open to the possibility that it is wrong and will continue to look at opposing evidence. I am not a "believer" in anything. I try my best to understand. That's all we can really do. I wish there were more people seeking understanding and less believers.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: jd755Date: 2019-12-16 20:00:06Reaction Score: 1


178 pages in and here it is the proof on concavity. The Cellular Cosmogony: Objections by Illogical Critics

_*Experiments on Naples Bay*

A straight reach of 4½ miles was found upon the smooth waters of Naples Bay. At the most southern extremity a target of white cloth 29x30 inches was fixed upon an upright with cross-arms; the top of the target stood 2 feet above the high-tide mark, leaving a space of 4 or 5 inches to the water's surface.

On March 5, at time of high tide, the Staff sailed to the farthest point northeast from which the target could be seen with the telescope. To the naked eye, the target was entirely invisible. The horizon seemed to occult the lower limbs of the belt of mangrove trees constituting the background of the view.

Over the water at the point of observation, the telescope was fixed at an altitude of 30 inches above the water, and through it the target stood out in bold relief. The instrument was then lowered to within 18 inches, with the same observed results. Afterward, at the height of 10 inches above the water, the entire surface of the target was still visible.

Very careful observations were made and repeated with the telescope at this altitude. The target was clear cut and well defined, and even the space between the bottom of the target and the water was observable. Then, to make the test absolutely satisfactory and conclusive, the telescope was fixed upon the water's surface; with the instrument almost touching the water--indeed, it could not be placed closer without wetting the lenses--long and careful observations were made. There could be no mistake; the entire surface of the target could be seen, with a small dark line of the background appearing beneath it.

The terrestrial eyepiece was then exchanged for

p. 178
the astronomical eyepiece of greater power. The target was increased in size, and the relations of the target and the water's surface and the background came out still more noticeably. The object glass is 3 inches in diameter; the axis of the telescope was 2 inches above the water. On the basis of convexity, the horizon would be but one half mile away--for the declination for one half mile is considered to be 2 inches--leaving 4 miles of surface to decline from the horizon point, amounting to 10¾ feet. The target would have to be higher than 10¾ feet above the water in order to be seen; as it was at an altitude of only two feet, it would be 8¾ feet below the line of sight.

*Water's Concavity Visible*

These are the most satisfactory observations thus far made by the Geodetic Staff, because the tests were more crucial. The results were conclusive, as they afforded an ocular demonstration of the earth's concavity. A stake 2 feet in height was placed midway between the Observing Station and the target, with cross-bar at top of stake.

With the telescope at the same altitude, the cross-bar was observed to be a little below the top of the tar-get, with the target foreshortened by perspective to a breadth equal to about one half the length of the stake. With the visual axis of the telescope 2 inches above the water, the cross-bar was seen to be in line with the top of the target.

Besides this observation, an absolutely satisfactory view was had of the water surface itself. With the telescope placed absolutely level, the water appeared to slope gradually upward to the center of


p. 179
the telescopic field. With the objective end of the telescope placed a little upward from the true level, and with the water still visible near the objective end of the instrument, the actual concavity of the water--a mid-way depression--was clearly observable.

This midway depression was at the point of the stake with cross-bar midway between the point of observation and the target, from which midway depression there was a gradual slope upward to the target. This view was obtained by the long, terrestrial eye-piece, and also by the astronomical eyepiece, the concavity through the latter being the more marked. There could be no mistake as to the concave arc; the. water was seen to be not convex; it did not appear to be a plane, but concave!_


----------



## KD Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: KorbenDallasDate: 2019-12-16 20:06:29Reaction Score: 1


For myself the lack of observable curvature is a big turn off. If the same curvature formula applies, I think we are supposed to be able to see it. I do not think that we are too small to notice it. And the higher we ascend the more of this curvature we should be able to see. Distances are not that great for the curvature to not be noticeable.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2019-12-16 20:09:54Reaction Score: 1




jd755 said:


> You do know Cyrus was deeply religious long before he was knocked out by his electricity experiment and had his vision.
> From my readings today the flat earth crew spend their time attacking the convex eartt crew who respond in kind. Complete waste of time and effort as far as I can tell.
> It looks to me Cyrus may well have been aware of previous people's hollow earth theory which predates his vision and ran along with his after vision theory but oddly he didn't attack that one either.
> Interestingly to me, his proof that the earth is not convex matches exactly the proof the flat earth crew use to show the lack of convexity.
> ...


Now you know where the flat earthers got their idea from! This might come as a bit of a surprise to you, but I don't agree with Teed's conception of our world. I agree that it is probably concave and we live on the inside, but I think much of the model he created is flawed. So my vision of a concave world is quite different than his.
He was raised to be very religious, and he did believe he was visited by what he called "the female aspect of God." He was also trained in a medical system that no longer exists called eclectic medicine. From what I've been able to find, it was similar to what we call now naturopathic medicine. Teed experimented with alchemy as well.
Teed was an unusual man who was very charismatic and apparently a great orator. He had an especially strong appeal to middle aged women, and often times found himself defending against angry husbands. He died from wounds he suffered from a beating by the local town marshal!
If you are interested in Teed's life, here is a really crappy video I made about his life. Some day I'll do it over.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: BantaDate: 2019-12-16 20:20:19Reaction Score: 2




ripvanwillie said:


> I appreciate your position here. There's nothing wrong with being skeptical, the trick is doing it without closing your mind to possible new truths. But are you fully thinking this thing through? You don't need to go to the south pole to make that discovery. People live all around the south pole. Australia, south America, and Africa surround it on all sides. And people have sailed those seas for hundreds of years if not longer. The southern skies are well known to those who live down there (it is only down from our perspective here in the north). That is how we got those star trail photo's. They are real. How many people in the southern hemisphere believe in the flat earth? I never see anyone from these southern locations saying there is no south pole or polar vortex. Not one. Maybe there are a few believers down there, but I certainly haven't met any.


I think I am thinking this through, but thank you for checking! First of all, I am not sure what a "pole" really is to begin with. Geographic south pole? Magnetic? So, when I say I'm not sure if they circle around a pole, unless you're saying by definition, that's what they circle around, then I'm not really sure what that means anyway. Which is why I quickly just accepted the premise and agreed that southern "hemisphere" observations _imply _circular star motion around what can be called a pole. Moving on...



> And even if the stars are holograms, it doesn't matter.
> *THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY TO PROJECT THE STARS IN THOSE PATTERNS WITHOUT A SOUTH POLE.*
> That is the issue. No hologram could project that pattern without a pole. It is absolute proof. There is no magic here. You need to think this through, Banta. Once you see it you will understand. It simply can't be done. How can you have the southern cross above South Africa, Argentina, and Australia at the same time on the flat earth?


Although the boldness of the font indicates that I should totally accept this, I do not. We see stars traveling around a vortex in the sky. Imagine, just briefly and simply, if the entire earth realm was an infinite plane, but segments of the sky were divided into circularesque segments, perhaps due to the nature of the local sun. The local sky could be rounded and reflected around you at the edges. Does this sound ridiculous? Maybe! But what makes living inside of a giant sphere any less ridiculous? 

Maybe I would find the argument more convincing if I was even sure where the continents were located relatively, although again, I don't really see how that even necessarily matters. The point is, if you can develop a physical model of the Earth to account for how you see the sky, you can create a physical model of the sky that creates the SAME observations. They are both just stories and not scientifically or empirically valid because of things like the thought exercise I just typed above.



ripvanwillie said:


> The stars simply don't work on a dome, hologram or not.


Again, you keep asserting this, but it's simply not true. You could maybe say that creating a shape to the sky that creates the same perspective from the observer is harder, less likely, etc, but it's literally not impossible. Does sky need to turn in circles to give the appearance of that? Could the sky change appearance based on local conditions (yes, obviously in ways, do we know the extent)? 



ripvanwillie said:


> *HOW MANY FLAT-EARTHERS EVER TRY TO FALSIFY THEIR OWN THEORY?*
> This is your first step in researching. Try to falsify it. If you can't prove it's false then you move on to finding evidence supporting it. I have yet to meet a single flat-earther who has tried to falsify the flat earth theory! Not one.


You need to find better flat earthers then, because most I know entertain the idea because they tried to disprove it (or prove the globe). 



ripvanwillie said:


> It's rock solid evidence supported by mathematics and was performed by actual scientists who repeated the experiment time and again and at different locations by other researchers. In the end they literally buried the evidence


Mathematics by actual scientists? Whee!! And experiments, eh? What's the hypothesis being tested here, with regards to the shape of the earth? 

You are at best correlating observational data, which is fine for certain applications, but let's not confused any of this earth shape business with actual empirical science.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2019-12-16 20:28:40Reaction Score: 1




KorbenDallas said:


> For myself the lack of observable curvature is a big turn off. If the same curvature formula applies, I think we are supposed to be able to see it. I do not think that we are too small to notice it. And the higher we ascend the more of this curvature we should be able to see. Distances are not that great for the curvature to not be noticeable.


It's funny you should say that because once you see it you can't un-see it. It's there. it's visible. But it's very subtle. The distances are very great for our ability to decipher it, plus our brains do everything they can to make it seem flat, simply so we can have balance. But it can be seen to some extent. Look into our vision, how the eyes are designed, and how the work with the brain work to give us our vision, the inner ears and how our bodies balance themselves, and it starts to make more sense. Many balloonists have reported the horizon rises along with the balloon and the earth beneath looks like a salad bowl. It has been written that airplane pilots also have noticed this phenomenon too, but obviously prefer to keep their occupations rather than report about it. The same reason they keep quiet about UFO sightings. 
The problem as I see it is young people expect to see a vision like in a video game. There are a few that use a concave world as their model, but they are not realistic visions, they are fantasies, and have given people false expectations of what a concave world looks like. 
If you want to see what a concave earth really looks like, just open your mind and your eyes will see. It's all around us!


Banta said:


> I think I am thinking this through, but thank you for checking! First of all, I am not sure what a "pole" really is to begin with. Geographic south pole? Magnetic? So, when I say I'm not sure if they circle around a pole, unless you're saying by definition, that's what they circle around, then I'm not really sure what that means anyway. Which is why I quickly just accepted the premise and agreed that southern "hemisphere" observations _imply _circular star motion around what can be called a pole. Moving on...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, you should do some more research because the experiments were done by actual scientists and were covered up because they obviously wanted to keep their jobs.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: jd755Date: 2019-12-16 20:34:24Reaction Score: 1




ripvanwillie said:


> This might come as a bit of a surprise to you, but I don't agree with Teed's conception of our world


Not really. You don't strike me as being a blind follower.


ripvanwillie said:


> So my vision of a concave world is quite different than his.


So it should be for you are not he.


ripvanwillie said:


> He died from wounds he suffered from a beating by the local town marshal!


Possibly possibly not. Yes the author of that page got his name wrong but.
From here  ERBzine 5127

_One of the most interesting to me is a gent by the name of *Cyrus Teeg*. After damn near killing himself with an electrical experiment that went bad he changed his name to Koresh (the Hebrew version of Cyrus) and put forth a theory he called Cellular Cosmogony. His hollow earth was very different from Pellucidar. In his view the surface of the earth we know is inside a sphere and our outer space is really inner space.

In addition to the hollow earth the goddess of his electric vision granted him immortality and the belief system that became Koreshanity. The immortality became an issue during an attempt to avoid taxes. He had created a “New Jerusalum” in Florida with his followers, and wanted to have it declared independent. *During the meeting when this idea was suggested, a local citizen pistol whipped him so badly that he died as the result two years later in 1908.*_



ripvanwillie said:


> If you are interested in Teed's life, here is a really crappy video I made about his life.


Sorry I never go near Facebook and much prefer to read than watch., but thanks anyway.


Banta said:


> Mathematics by actual scientists?


I was once told, well quite often actually by a mathematician, mathematics is simply a language. Arithmatic is where it's at. The difference has always eluded me!


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: BantaDate: 2019-12-16 21:29:21Reaction Score: 0




ripvanwillie said:


> Well, you should do some more research because the experiments were done by actual scientists and were covered up because they obviously wanted to keep their jobs.


I know I'm not going to find a valid scientific experiment because the question of the shape of the earth isn't even a valid scientific inquiry, strictly speaking. What is the hypothesis? What is the independent variable that is being tested to see if it causes the result? There isn't so it isn't an experiment. It's an observation, a data point,  that then has to be compared to other data points for correlation. Even if observations show concavity, we would still need to ascertain a cause. Assuming it's because you live inside of a sphere is the same as assuming you live on it. There can be optical reasons and/or geometry of the sky and celestial lights that causes this, as I outlined in the post above that you didn't address.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2019-12-16 21:29:56Reaction Score: 0




jd755 said:


> Not really. You don't strike me as being a blind follower.
> 
> So it should be for you are not he.
> 
> ...


The writer from  ERBzine missed more than just his name. This is from Peter Hicks, who was a park ranger at the Koreshan site and he got these from the records there.
"...The Koreshans felt that they weren't getting their fair share of road taxes and ran a slate of candidates in the election of 1906. They were prevented from running in the Democratic primary because separately and they had voted as a block for Teddy Roosevelt in the 1904 election. It began as fun with the Koreshan band playing and the newspaper attacking the other candidates, but this changed on October 13, 1906. While meeting the 1:30PM Atlantic Coast Line train from Baltimore, a group of Koreshans got into a fight in front of R.W. Gillams grocery store in Ft. Myers. Dr. Teed tried to break it up, but was attacked by town Marshal S. W. Sanchez. Dr. Teed was injured and arrested along with Richard Jansch and Claude Rahn. They were taken to the Lee County Bank at the corner of 1st and Hendry Street where they posted bond of $10.00 each. They chose not to return for trial and the matter was dropped. However, Koresh's condition from the beating worsened as time went on and was believed to be the cause of his death two years later. He died on December 22, 1908 (the Winter Solstice)...."


Banta said:


> I know I'm not going to find a valid scientific experiment because the question of the shape of the earth isn't even a valid scientific inquiry, strictly speaking. What is the hypothesis? What is the independent variable that is being tested to see if it causes the result? There isn't so it isn't an experiment. It's an observation, a data point,  that then has to be compared to other data points for correlation. Even if observations show concavity, we would still need to ascertain a cause. Assuming it's because you live inside of a sphere is the same as assuming you live on it.


"I know I'm not going to find a valid scientific experiment because the question of the shape of the earth isn't even a valid scientific inquiry, strictly speaking."

Then why are you even commenting here? Do you just want to argue, and try to shoot me down?
Apparently, you think people should just believe the flat earth theory or the Copernican theory without any evidence because none is possible in your mind. But the concave earth idea somehow needs this impossible proof? Your comment makes no sense to me.

"There can be optical reasons and/or geometry of the sky and celestial lights that causes this, as I outlined in the post above that you didn't address."

Please name them, as I have never seen any. I'd love to research it. I look at all the flat earth research I can find.

By the way, I'm not trying debate you and I certainly don't want to argue. I don't think those behaviors lead to anything constructive. I'm just laying out what I've learned after many years of research for you and others here's consumption. It can be a very difficult subject to wrap one's mind around. After all, we are talking about the entire universe being turned inside out! So it may take some deep, earnest thought. Yes, I can get a bit zealous about it. I'm human too. But I am happy to answer questions the best I can.
And I have no problem with your not believing me, actually I hope no one here does. I prefer you open your mind and do the research yourself.
If you just believe what others tell you, what have you actually gained?
I'm just opening the door for you.
You don't have to come in.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: BantaDate: 2019-12-16 23:38:20Reaction Score: 1




ripvanwillie said:


> Apparently, you think people should just believe the flat earth theory or the Copernican theory without any evidence because none is possible in your mind. But the concave earth idea somehow needs this impossible proof? Your comment makes no sense to me.


Actually, I think the most reasonable opinion is "no idea what the earth looks like in a macro sense" since conclusive evidence is likely impossible and that even the question of the earth even having a "shape" could be invalid. I would be super happy if no one ever "believed" anything, but that's obviously not realistic.

What I was trying to say is that the shape of the earth is not a question that can be answered by the scientific method. This is not an opinion, it is fact. You cannot scientifically validate through experiment any shape because you cannot manipulate the earth to be sure that it's causing the perceived effect. The best you can do is model it with the assistance of mathematics. This can be instructive in ways but should not be confused for empirical fact. There are known unknowns and unknown unknowns when conducting this sort of study. It is not experimentation, there is no valid hypothesis to test because, the scope is too large. Put simply, we are too small to measure it in a way that would remove all doubt and everything else is an extrapolation (most of the time in my opinion) of inherent biases.


ripvanwillie said:


> There can be optical reasons and/or geometry of the sky and celestial lights that causes this, as I outlined in the post above that you didn't address."
> 
> Please name them, as I have never seen any. I'd love to research it. I look at all the flat earth research I can find.


It's nothing to name, it's my own personal thought "experiment", which again, simply put is there is simply no way to conclusively say that the shape of the sky "medium" and it's lights could not create what appear to be stellar vortices at the "poles" over a flat surface. This is compounded by the fact that we take as a given that we know the locations of continents relative to each other when we really just know their "global position" . It's just a convention that's agreed upon. Again, this probably sounds ridiculous maybe but doesn't people living upside down thousands of miles above my head sound ridiculous too? I've been ignoring that it also requires a type of gravity, which itself is hard (impossible?) to validate in a true scientific sense as well.


ripvanwillie said:


> By the way, I'm not trying debate you and I certainly don't want to argue. I don't think those behaviors lead to anything constructive.


Likewise. I don't think it's constructive to make claims such as the radius of the concave earth mirroring the globe earth and saying that since its been mathematically validated that it's true, while throwing out some vague illusions to actual science being done.

I'm again sorry, as I seem to be being quite combative about something that I don't know the answer to, but I do know what pseudoscience looks like and a huge reason why we live in a world of lies is because we think people can prove things with stories about their observations. Even if you are consistent, you don't know what you don't know.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2019-12-17 00:53:52Reaction Score: 1




Banta said:


> Actually, I think the most reasonable opinion is "no idea what the earth looks like in a macro sense" since conclusive evidence is likely impossible and that even the question of the earth even having a "shape" could be invalid. I would be super happy if no one ever "believed" anything, but that's obviously not realistic.
> 
> What I was trying to say is that the shape of the earth is not a question that can be answered by the scientific method. This is not an opinion, it is fact. You cannot scientifically validate through experiment any shape because you cannot manipulate the earth to be sure that it's causing the perceived effect. The best you can do is model it with the assistance of mathematics. This can be instructive in ways but should not be confused for empirical fact. There are known unknowns and unknown unknowns when conducting this sort of study. It is not experimentation, there is no valid hypothesis to test because, the scope is too large. Put simply, we are too small to measure it in a way that would remove all doubt and everything else is an extrapolation (most of the time in my opinion) of inherent biases.
> 
> ...


This thread was made to discuss the concave earth theory. Obviously that is not your intent. Good day.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: BantaDate: 2019-12-17 01:14:36Reaction Score: 1




ripvanwillie said:


> This thread was made to discuss the concave earth theory. Obviously that is not your intent. Good day.


Fascinating reply, I feel like I'm completely on topic. The major point that I've been railing on is that you cannot just dismiss an unknown configuration of the sky as a potential cause of perceived stellar motions. But you do and insist it has to be the case that the earth is concave due to this observation and then say that this presumption is somehow scientific and helps proves the concave earth.

I will simply agree to disagree on this point because I do think there is nothing more to be gained here, but would prefer that you not speculate on my intent when my questions and comments are aimed at the evidences for the concave earth. The evidences you have provided.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2019-12-17 01:35:23Reaction Score: 1




Banta said:


> Fascinating reply, I feel like I'm completely on topic. The major point that I've been railing on is that you cannot just dismiss an unknown configuration of the sky as a potential cause of perceived stellar motions. But you do and insist it has to be the case that the earth is concave due to this observation and then say that this presumption is somehow scientific and helps proves the concave earth.
> 
> I will simply agree to disagree on this point because I do think there is nothing more to be gained here, but would prefer that you not speculate on my intent when my questions and comments are aimed at the evidences for the concave earth. The evidences you have provided.


If there is no way to determine the shape of the earth then there is no reason other than belief to say one shape is real and others not. 
And yet you claim to not have belief involved. 
You are contradicting yourself. 
And your belief that the earth's shape can't be determined is a dead end road. With that reasoning there is no purpose for science at all. Why bother?
You have added nothing to the conversation, rather you've only tried to be the fly in the soup, and keep others from having a fruitful discussion. 
If you are so set on this being impossible, then why are you here? Why does it get under your skin? 

Was this forum created to chase people away and close peoples minds on subjects they don't believe in and don't understand, or is it to explore things that have been hidden from us?

It used to make me upset when people would troll my posts, but now I just feel sad. It's very destructive thinking. Nothing good can come from it. 
I hope you can find something more constructive to fill you time with.


----------



## KD Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: KorbenDallasDate: 2019-12-17 01:57:01Reaction Score: 2




ripvanwillie said:


> Was this forum created to chase people away and close peoples minds on subjects they don't believe in and don't understand, or is it to explore things that have been hidden from us?
> 
> It used to make me upset when people would troll my posts, but now I just feel sad. It's very destructive thinking. Nothing good can come from it.
> I hope you can find something more constructive to fill you time with.


It appears that not agreeing with your opinion is trolling. Well, I do not buy into the concave Earth either. I also do not buy into Spherical, Flat, Hollow and any other.

As far as Concave shape goes, I can see how it works in theory, and can visualize it just fine. At the same time I do not see any real world confirmation. It works on similar principles with the Spherical theory with the only difference of outsides being on the inside.

The major turn off for me is the exact same one I experience with the Spherical model.  Meaning that we are too small to perceive the curvature. This is the part I strongly disagree with, for if we know the true size, all those curvature changes should be observable even without optics. With optics they should stick out like a sore thumb.

Concave and Spherical would both work just fine if the known dimensions were  substantially off. I'm talking about 10X-100X.

Saying that _calculateable_ curvature is there, but we cannot see it because we are too small is no different from the tactics used by the Spherical Earth supporters. The distances provided by the formula are not that great to make the curvature invisible.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: WillieladDate: 2019-12-17 02:35:00Reaction Score: 1


The horizon rising to the eye of the observer was the main thing that made me able to become open minded about this topic. Flight paths were interesting too, especially where emergency landings would take the plane. I guess if concave the horizon would rise. Flight paths would make the same sense as on a globe though. I would think that ships moving away from the observer on a rising horizon would not disapear from the bottom up like on a flat plane, but it still fascinates me that on a flat plane things disapear bottom up. 
I enjoy discussing this topic. I find it truly strange that the shape of our home is so elusive to me. There is evidence of shape in abundance but proof is so fleeting. In reality it feels normal not to know the shape of the Earth. At least for me.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2019-12-17 02:44:20Reaction Score: 1




KorbenDallas said:


> It appears that not agreeing with your opinion is trolling. Well, I do not buy into the concave Earth either. I also do not buy into Spherical, Flat, Hollow and any other.
> 
> As far as Concave shape goes, I can see how it works in theory, and can visualize it just fine. At the same time I do not see any real world confirmation. It works on similar principles with the Spherical theory with the only difference of outsides being on the inside.
> 
> ...


Not true. Read his posts. He said it is an impossible subject not worthy of discussion. His only goal was to shut down the idea, thus closing the post.

It's ok if he disagrees, you as well. At least you have an open enough mind to give it real consideration and allow the discussion to continue even if it doesn't suit your view of the world. He clearly does not, so why try to shut others down? 

I guess he wants to be the Michael Shermer of this forum! He did after all call this pseudoscience.

"For me, after a pretty long time of looking into this, there's almost nothing else I can take from the debate anymore aside from don't trust pseudoscience."  This was one of his early posts, so why was he compelled to continue on with his attack against this theory?

As far as the testing of the earth's shape and scientific involvement, it wasn't just Cyrus Teed and a bunch of Nazi's looking into this. There have been real experiments with verifiable measurements.

The curvature can be seen and has been measured and those measurements, while not exact are quite close to what is believed by modern science to be true.
Maybe you haven't looked into the mining experiments in France and Michigan, USA, but those were performed under the supervision of real scientists using acceptable experimentation methods. The measurements were properly calculated by qualified individuals. The tests repeated and appropriately altered several times to eliminate any possible anomaly they could find, yet the results were the same in both France and Michigan. Once the answers were found to go against the scientific models, the mines were filled in and the experiments could no longer be done there. The information was filed away and the scientists who conducted the experiments never spoke about them for the remainder of their lives. Obviously these scientists felt the shape of the earth can be measured and modeled.

Then there is Mostafa Abdelkader, a mathematician from Egypt, who showed mathematically that the universe can be inverted and still function the same. This is amazing mathematical evidence that shows the concave earth theory to be equal in efficacy as the accepted Copernican based model. And it completely flies in the face of Banta's insistence that it cannot be measured or the shape determined. This was peer reviewed and published. You can't say that about any other model, flat or otherwise. It also explains why they share the same measurements here as well as difficult to observe phenomenon. 
Perhaps it is your expectation of a large visible curve that is off. In my thinking it will be a very small curvature, just like the scientists say. Contemplate the math in real life size. We are tiny compared to the earth. Do you think the ant that crawls on your foot is wrong in thinking it's a rock just because it can't see the rest of your body? That's you in the concave earth. It can and has been both measured and seen.

So I feel I have good reason to say what I have.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: BantaDate: 2019-12-17 04:20:14Reaction Score: 0




ripvanwillie said:


> Not true. Read his posts. He said it is an impossible subject not worthy of discussion. His only goal was to shut down the idea, thus closing the post.


You want to put quotes around that accusation? 

To be clear, I personally think the shape of the earth may be beyond human comprehension, but I greatly resent being told I'm shutting down discussion from asking a few questions and making a few observations. I also don't think discussing it is fruitless... I for one was hoping for some answers in this thread and again, I am sorry if Rip thinks what he provided is evidence because it looks like pseudoscience from where I'm standing.

Which by the way, because I don't think Rip necessarily knows what I mean when I say pseudoscience:

_a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method._



ripvanwillie said:


> Then there is Mostafa Abdelkader, a mathematician from Egypt, who showed mathematically that the universe can be inverted and still function the same. This is amazing mathematical evidence that shows the concave earth theory to be equal in efficacy as the accepted Copernican based model. And it completely flies in the face of Banta's insistence that it cannot be measured or the shape determined.


So some guy, working off the standard cosmology, uses the inverse of globe math and determines "hey this could work"... this flies in my face of asking for actual scientific evidence? 

I again should stop because it's obvious that Rip and I have different standards of evaluating evidence, but I felt I had to respond one more time because I'm a little insulted I'm being compared to a troll. There seems to be more accusations regarding peoples' intents/intelligence than direct addressing of the points in this back and forth.


----------



## KD Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: KorbenDallasDate: 2019-12-17 04:24:50Reaction Score: 1


As long as we stay civil, things will be alright. Sometimes discussions get a bit more intence than they probably should, but such is the nature of this activity.

Me being a philosopher


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: BantaDate: 2019-12-17 04:36:50Reaction Score: 0




KorbenDallas said:


> As long as we stay civil, things will be alright. Sometimes discussions get a bit more intence than they probably should, but such is the nature of this activity.
> 
> Me being a philosopher


Absolutely, and I feel bad if I'm being insensitive... it's funny because hollow earth is one of those subjects that captivated me back a couple decades ago (sounds like Rip too) and a part of me thinks there could be more to it (though maybe it's just mostly that there are subterranean civilizations). But the theory, as presented in this thread thus far, seems to be based on a lot of mathematical conjecture that likes to masquerade as science and that's a huge red flag for me. 

If it's a solid theory, it can withhold my skepticism and questioning. I am not trying to derail conversation or suppress the truth... I just want extraordinary claims to be backed by extraordinary evidence and there is little here thus far to indicate that. 

So again, my apologies to Rip for any misunderstanding.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2019-12-17 05:03:27Reaction Score: 1




Banta said:


> You want to put quotes around that accusation?
> 
> To be clear, I personally think the shape of the earth may be beyond human comprehension, but I greatly resent being told I'm shutting down discussion from asking a few questions and making a few observations. I also don't think discussing it is fruitless... I for one was hoping for some answers in this thread and again, I am sorry if Rip thinks what he provided is evidence because it looks like pseudoscience from where I'm standing.
> 
> ...


I apologize if my words appeared to accuse you of being a troll. That is not what I said nor meant. I said I am tired of people trolling my posts. 

That doesn't make you a troll, but your questions, which came after your saying this: 
*"I know I'm not going to find a valid scientific experiment because the question of the shape of the earth isn't even a valid scientific inquiry, strictly speaking,"* took you out of the conversation. Any questions after this were just trolling activities attempting to bait me into an argument because you had no intent other than oppose. And if you look up the definition of internet trolling, that is precisely what it is.

That doesn't make you a troll unless this is your normal behavior.
Again, this was a thread to discuss the concave earth theory, and that is not what you have been doing here.

I bear no grudges against you or hold no dislikes. We may agree on other issues or disagree on everything. I have friends that disagree with me on just about everything, as you might imagine, but it doesn't stop us from being friends and having friendly discussions. But if they make comments like yours, I'll end the discussion, if for no other reason than to keep the peace. People are more important than ideas.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: BantaDate: 2019-12-17 05:28:21Reaction Score: 0




ripvanwillie said:


> *"I know I'm not going to find a valid scientific experiment because the question of the shape of the earth isn't even a valid scientific inquiry, strictly speaking,"* took you out of the conversation. Any questions after this were just trolling activities attempting to bait me into an argument because you had no intent other than oppose. And if you look up the definition of internet trolling, that is precisely what it is.


I disagree. I was not trying to bait you into an argument. There is a misunderstanding here, I think.

Just because something is not "scientific" doesn't mean it doesn't have value. However, throwing the word science out there doesn't mean something is science. Most of what is described as science these days is mathematical modeling and correlation which do not prove cause. Confusing these terms may only be accidental but the implication is throwing science in front of something implies empirical fact where there may not be any. We see this in defense of the heliocentric model routinely. If we are going to cite science (natural science), then we are going to adhere to the scientific method OR we're going to admit what we're doing is not an experiment that will prove or disprove the cause of an effect but rather a study where we are likely presuming some variables. Do you think a mathematician could design a working universe with the Earth's radius doubled or any number you'd like? I do. And that just makes it conceivable, it doesn't prove anything.

That said, I don't feel it's pointless to have the discussion, I mean, most of what is researched on this forum cannot be proven because the past is gone to never return, but there can be little puzzle pieces gained along the way. I guess though I was mostly taken by your assertiveness on the subject and harsh dismissal of flat earth proponents, while citing an elements that seem as unprovable and using similar language to globe propaganda. I also still firmly disagree with the assertion of the geometry of the sky precluding a flat earth and would still be interested in knowing why my thought exercise can't be correct. The sky above a couple hundred thousand feet is a complete mystery to me and I don't see how we can authoritatively say we know how we would perceive it from different locations unless we are presuming a tangible nature of the celestial objects, which I will not take as a given. Lots of stories about the sky out there... it's humanity's oldest pastime, really. Well, telling stories in general probably, sky stories are the number one subgenre!


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ScottFreemanDate: 2019-12-17 06:43:09Reaction Score: 1




jd755 said:


> I was once told, well quite often actually by a mathematician, mathematics is simply a language. Arithmatic is where it's at. The difference has always eluded me!


Could he have been being literal?  Ar(it)hmatic _is_ where (it)'s at, while (it) is _not_ in "mathematics". A mathematician's joke, to me, for sure.

Edit:  Lol, took me a minute. Your statement is then also correct in that your answer does not contain (it), but this could go on for some time I suppose


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2019-12-17 08:12:13Reaction Score: 5




Banta said:


> I disagree. I was not trying to bait you into an argument. There is a misunderstanding here, I think.
> 
> Just because something is not "scientific" doesn't mean it doesn't have value. However, throwing the word science out there doesn't mean something is science. Most of what is described as science these days is mathematical modeling and correlation which do not prove cause. Confusing these terms may only be accidental but the implication is throwing science in front of something implies empirical fact where there may not be any. We see this in defense of the heliocentric model routinely. If we are going to cite science (natural science), then we are going to adhere to the scientific method OR we're going to admit what we're doing is not an experiment that will prove or disprove the cause of an effect but rather a study where we are likely presuming some variables. Do you think a mathematician could design a working universe with the Earth's radius doubled or any number you'd like? I do. And that just makes it conceivable, it doesn't prove anything.
> 
> That said, I don't feel it's pointless to have the discussion, I mean, most of what is researched on this forum cannot be proven because the past is gone to never return, but there can be little puzzle pieces gained along the way. I guess though I was mostly taken by your assertiveness on the subject and harsh dismissal of flat earth proponents, while citing an elements that seem as unprovable and using similar language to globe propaganda. I also still firmly disagree with the assertion of the geometry of the sky precluding a flat earth and would still be interested in knowing why my thought exercise can't be correct. The sky above a couple hundred thousand feet is a complete mystery to me and I don't see how we can authoritatively say we know how we would perceive it from different locations unless we are presuming a tangible nature of the celestial objects, which I will not take as a given. Lots of stories about the sky out there... it's humanity's oldest pastime, really. Well, telling stories in general probably, sky stories are the number one subgenre!


What is science and who makes that decision? 

They call Bill Nye the science guy, but he's just an actor who works for Disney and he only has a basic 4 year degree in general science. He isn't a scientist by any means. He's a very good actor who plays the role of a scientist. But he's THE science guy. I certainly hope he doesn't make the rules as he's quite content to spread lies to children.

So what is the difference between science and pseudoscience? What are the criteria and who gets to make that call?

Many of Einstein's theories are now seriously being questioned (as they were back in his day but were shut down by TPTB). Much of what he speculated is looking false in many scientific circles. Some predict they will all fall including the famous E=MC2 equation. If that happens does Einstein become a pseudoscientist?
What if it turns out that Cyrus Teed was correct, will he still be considered a pseudoscientist even though his experiment was correct? 

After hundreds of years of speculation and experimentation by some of the world's greatest scientific minds, there is still no proof of gravity. Yet we have an equation, and claim it to exist without any legitimate evidence. The general nature of science is not a belief system, yet the belief in gravity absolutely is there and it only exists to support the heliocentric model of the solar system. Without gravity the whole house of cards falls down. Pun fully intended. This means the heliocentric model is based on belief. It has no backbone of it's own. Science still can't explain why Newton's apple bonked him in the head. It obviously hasn't knocked any sense into them.

Eventually, nearly everything in science turns over into something new. There are very few hard and fast laws. And they may not even be correct. Just like gravity. 

So how does science earn credibility with contradictions like this? They don't with me. 

Basically, I see little difference between science and pseudoscience. They are just names people give others because they like or dislike their ideas and/or education. Some scientists suck at their jobs. Barely graduated college. But they're still scientists. And even more are on the take selling lies to children for that nice fat paycheck. I had classes from quite few of those types in my college days. 

What I care about is what leads me to the truth, whatever that turns out to be. 

The difference lies in the experiment, how well it is executed, and of course it's validity. Sometimes experiments turn up unexpected evidence that changes the way we think. They are just as valid as experiments that hit their target. Teed may have been a religious nut job, but his experiments were valid. They were performed under strict rules, the measurements and equations verified by third party onlookers. But no one ever even attempted to repeat them. They discredited Teed instead, which is the logical fallacy called Ad hominem, or attacking the man. 

Science is chock full of these hypocrisies.

The experiments at the Tamrack mines were absolutely scientific by your definition. They were performed by a professor and were under the authority of the the Michigan College of Mining. So were the ones in France. Please conduct some research before you say it was unscientific.

When I answer peoples questions or lay out an idea, I can't tell them everything and expect them to understand. You have to take the ball and run with it. That is how learning works. I plant the seed and you make it grow in your own mind. You have to go out and find your own fertilizer.

Like I said before, I'm happy to discuss this with you and anyone else who is genuinely interested. But I have been studying this for twenty five years or so. I've seen tons of stuff that can no longer be found on the internet. Many books read. Many books lost. Lot's of scientific papers read, and not just the abstract. Countless hours looking for evidence first against and then for the idea. Many years of thought experiments and physical experiments as well.

No, I am not, nor do I consider myself the supreme authority on this subject, but I've yet to find anyone who has studied it anywhere near as much as I have. I certainly hope to find someone who has studied it well someday, but I'm not holding my breath. I've been getting grief over this for a very long time. Lost many friends and the respect of family members. Trolled by far more than I could ever count. So at my advanced age, I am losing patience with people who just want to debate and argue. I just want to share what I've learned, and hopefully some bright new minds will be able to shine new light on the subject beyond what I can offer. Pick up where I will be leaving off. I still have far more to learn than days in front of me. So I am eager to hear more evidence, including that of the flat earth theory. I still look for evidence to disprove the Concave earth theory as well. I am after the truth. I'm not trying to just push an idea on others.

If you want to learn, I'll tell you what I know. I'll offer leads if I can. But it's up to you to discover it for yourself. If you prefer to just shoot the idea down, or argue, then I have no time for you. And I am not going to spoon feed anyone. They have to do the work too.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: jd755Date: 2019-12-17 09:54:12Reaction Score: 1


Well this is refreshing. Two people stepping back from going full on ranty shouting sweary defence of theories relating to a possible earth shape. Quite a group of people here.

Mathematics is a language just as English is. It is not proof or evidence of anything. Ma Thematics. Doh!
YOU are the scientist. YOU do not need to go to skule for years and get a degree to become what you already are. You are born scientist.
Degrees are for EXPERTS to wave around at each other and at people who don't have them.
Science is everyday observation, sensing experience thinking testing supposing all rolled up into YOU.

All these hidden and locked away experiments and their uncomfortable results may exist or may not. They are locked away so there is no way to know one way or the other so are useless to any discussion about the reality around us.
All earth shape theory is just that theory. This thread was created for a concave earth discussion and thankfully it is still a discussion, as I said above what a group of people here. Beats every other place I've ever been involved with hands down.

The concave theory is as unproven as any of the other earth shape theory for me. There is nothing in day to day reality that reveals anything about a possible shape.
Contained water suggests that this earth (land/sea/air) may be a planar surface but it is anything but flat. The ocean as vast as it is is just as contained as the water in my teacup or a mountain lake.
Water cannot support itself to go up anything. It only goes up above liquid water in vapour form and arguably when it changes form to ice. Condensation and melthing are downward motions and once liquid it puddles or collects in a container until the container cannot hold anymore then it escapes.
Try it with a glass and you can see it in action. I know this seems simole but science is simple.
Fill it half full and look at it. It takes the shape of the glass container and has a flat upper surface. There is a miniscus true. But the bit inbetween is flat and the miniscus is at the same height all around the glass.
Brim it and low and behold it will e dead level with the glass the miniscus disappears.
Keep adding drop by drop and it will move above the glass at the exact same height as the miniscus but inverted as it now curves down to the glass. Add a drop more and it will overflow. away from its container.
Not one drop will stick to the outside of the glass, in the same way not one drop stuck to the inside of the glass when it was filled.
That's science done by YOU. Repeatable verifiable experiment you can take to anyone and show them. No theory involved but equally no clue about what is going on aka the how and why it does these things.

This behaviour suggests planar just suggests nothing more.
I don't feel I've anything more to add in to this discussion, though events may push me back who knows.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Eagle777Date: 2020-06-21 17:23:50Reaction Score: 5


Convex or concave, they look almost equal to each other, yet very different. If I were to play Sherlock Holmes, I would call the convex one a criminal. Why? Because the more I learn about CET model, the more it sounds like it is the good guy, and the arguments supporting the convex one sounds somewhat weaker against CET model. But nevertheless I'm careful, because this is not a proof.

To share some knowledge:

Let us assume that CET model is true. If that "orbiting fake sun" is a light bulb, then there must be something powering it, which could be the original sun in the center of the earth. What is intresting is that almost every culture uses solar motifs and some few cultures have developed sun worship as a religion. Could that be because the sun, back then, was always visible in the sky? 

I have not found any historical sources to prove it, but one intresting source is that Bible mentions that as the heaven will take place on earth, there will be no night in heaven. And, I have also found that some churches are full of hints that supports the claim that there is a sun hidden in the celestial sphere. Somebody has already mentioned it.


Sources:
Encyclopedia Britannica, Sun worship
Revelation 21 KJV


----------



## Curious (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: CuriousDate: 2020-06-21 19:17:20Reaction Score: 1




Eagle777 said:


> Convex or concave, they look almost equal to each other, yet very different. If I were to play Sherlock Holmes, I would call the convex one a criminal. Why? Because the more I learn about CET model, the more it sounds like it is the good guy, and the arguments supporting the convex one sounds somewhat weaker against CET model. But nevertheless I'm careful, because this is not a proof.
> 
> To share some knowledge:
> 
> ...


One trully possible sun.... you can watch the series too


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: RedFoxDate: 2020-06-21 19:54:13Reaction Score: 3


I don't know if this reflects on me poorly or not, but once I realized the firmament was real I quit caring about the shape. It's either flat or concave, and I think the debate between that is less important than the existence of the ceiling above our heads.

Maybe we live on a ball with a glass bubble around it! And the narrative about why we never see the earth curve is true.
Probably not. 

As far as if there's a hollow element or not I think it could exist across all three models.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2020-06-21 20:35:29Reaction Score: 11


I have been studying the concave earth theory for almost 30 years now, and have uncovered an incredible amount of info, some of it I consider absolute proof. Most people are so brainwashed in the convex theory that they can see nothing else. They refuse to believe they have been lied to. Unfortunately, my failing health will probably keep me from publishing my work. But it pleases my soul to no end seeing people wake up to the truth. Keep up the good work people. Bless you all. The truth will prevail.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Eagle777Date: 2020-06-21 20:47:36Reaction Score: 1




RedFox said:


> I don't know if this reflects on me poorly or not, but once I realized the firmament was real I quit caring about the shape. It's either flat or concave, and I think the debate between that is less important than the existence of the ceiling above our heads.
> 
> Maybe we live on a ball with a glass bubble around it! And the narrative about why we never see the earth curve is true.
> Probably not.
> ...


We should care about which shape is our earth. Did you know that CET model could easily prove the ET theory together with the claims about the cut down trees and quarries. Or else why someone would steal our sun by building some artificial constructs and lurk in the dark?


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2020-06-21 22:00:07Reaction Score: 5




Eagle777 said:


> We should care about which shape is our earth. Did you know that CET model could easily prove the ET theory together with the claims about the cut down trees and quarries. Or else why someone would steal our sun by building some artificial constructs and lurk in the dark?


Nothing can be more important than the shape of the earth. It is the foundation. You know all the adages about building on a bad foundation.
Furthermore, it's how they've kept us in slavery to them. If we knew the true shape they never could have conned us on peak oil, rarity of earth commodities, and other such nonsense. Remember it all comes back to mining. That is the basis of all we build. Without mining, we're basically hunters and gatherers. Try to name even one product that isn't reliant on mining in some fashion. Even water is mined.
The convex model is how they made things appear rare. In real estate, if you own mineral rights, it's based on a convex earth model. So in reality, you own far more than they are telling you, and they are stealing your resources because you don't even know where your property ends. Side drilling is very popular. They steal water and oil in this fashion.
The world's economy is based on supply and demand. They work hard to brainwash us into thinking we need their products, so it's only common sense that they would try to do the same with the supply end of that equation. Make everything rare so demand appears to be greater than supply. Oldest friggin trick in the book. Think DeBeer's and the diamond industry.
Plus, we'd be forced to fix the world we live in. There's no escape to mars, the moon or any other such nonsense.
More to come...


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Divine WindDate: 2020-06-21 23:18:15Reaction Score: 0




ripvanwillie said:


> I have been studying the concave earth theory for 30 years now, and have uncovered an incredible amount of info, some of it I consider absolute proof. Most people are so brainwashed in the convex theory that they can see nothing else. They refuse to believe they have been lied to. Unfortunately, my failing health will probably keep me from publishing my work. But it pleases my soul to no end seeing people wake up to the truth. Keep up the good work people. Bless you all. The truth will prevail.


Hi there, I find this whole subject incredibly fascinating, and your comments particularly thought provoking. On your earlier comment about relative youngsters only being interested in flat earth, I think you may well be well off the mark there.  We are living in a time of unprecented lies and spin, and what appears to be a slow awakening for humanity over a great many subjects.  Therefore, people are questioning a great many things.   I know several people in their 40's and 50's who are simply questioning the globe, NASA's photos, the International Space station and everything related. I think it is just easy for younger people to start to question the globe as they have more flexible minds and have been indoctrinated over a shorter period, and are less embarassed about apparently asking silly questions.  If you are right, then surely a flat earth model or something different from the globe is just an intermediate step.

I have some genuine questions, if you don't mind answering them.

My first question on your prognosis is with respect to *flight paths* in the southern hemisphere, how do all the issues with a concave eart get solved with your model. The flight issues are shown in the following short video ; which I am sure you have seen before. The info is at 2 mins in.


My second question relates to the same video, and is the why there were discrepancies with repsect to *distances travelled in the southern hemisphere*, and why your model would correct these discrepancies. The info is at 1 min in the same video above.

My third question relates to a famous *photo taken by George Rayner* of Smith island. The interesting bit is the pattern behind the island, which according to some is the firmament.

Photograph - 'William Scoresby' by George Rayner, Antarctica, circa 1920s

My fourth question relates to the *gridlines* shown in this video, purported to be part of the firmament . I have just seen this, so i don't know what to think about it just yet.


My final question relates to the famous photos of *Chicago from Lake Michigan*.  Surely, if the earth is concave, the skyline would be higher than expected for a flat earth?

Seriously looking forward to your answers.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2020-06-22 02:18:45Reaction Score: 11


I don't have the energy to debate people, and I don't think debate is a positive method of discovery, so I don't do it. But, since you asked for my opinion, and you seem to have a genuine interest in finding the truth, I'll give you mine. Btw, this is not my model. I haven't figured it all out. Just bits and pieces. I watched the videos you provided.
First the video on flight paths.

The video is not showing you any evidence of this, it's just telling you it's so. There are many flights in the southern hemisphere that show the time and mileage to be correct. The airline industry has it's reasons for the bizarre paths it takes.  Don't trust me, check with the airlines and do the math yourself. The video is simply parroting other videos on the net. Most of civilization lives in the northern hemisphere, and travel is made according to that. The oceans in the southern hemisphere are much larger and it makes it much more difficult if something goes awry. The flight path mystery has long ago been debunked so I won't do it here (I don't want to be a debunker anyway).

The distances by the sailing are not explained. Were they all nautical miles? How did they measure that in the 18th century? Short answer, they couldn't. The old ships sailed by the stars, and manual instruments. And it wasn't an experiment to find the shape of the earth. So no accurate measurements were ever taken, not that they could anyway. Remember, they couldn't figure out longitude back then! Winds, currents, seasons all change the time of travel, not to mention all the stops in between. Plus, they didn't have the chronology we do now. They were exploring the world, mostly looking for spices, gold, and stealing slaves. Even today different countries have different systems of dates and calendars, and there isn't really a way to figure out the old dates precisely. So how can we do math from that missing data? Look into the work of Anatoly Fomenko and the new chronology and you'll learn how screwed up our historical dates are.

As for your second question. I disagree with that video. Again, he's just parroting other videos. The distances he shows are just numbers, not sure where he got them. He doesn't even say if it's nautical miles. I have yet to see any actual discrepancies in distances. They are well known.

Your third question I can't answer, because I've never seen that photo before, so I haven't studied it. But I will. The texture you see in the background may just be from the photo process and/or type of paper it was printed on, but without being able to view the actual photo, I can't determine that. But it clearly is texture of some sort. This is a major problem with digitizing photos. You have to look at the original. I am a professional photographer, so this is a subject I understand quite well.
As far as the firmament, that is a religious term and is only found in the Bible and Qu'ran, so much as I am aware. That is why science minded people always raise their eyebrows when that word comes up. That is why I try not to use religious terms when I describe things. It has nothing to do with religion. But, there is evidence of a glass firmament, or whatever you wish to name it. It's the Libyan glass. They found glass, lot's of it, in the Libyan desert that simply couldn't have been made here in earth. It had to be made in the sky. They even sometimes call it sky glass. You can actually buy some on Ebay! So, this one is a true mystery that may actually prove some sort of firmament or sky barrier. Remember, a vacuum will suck everything in until it's filled, so without some sort of barrier, we'd be sucked right off the planet along with our atmosphere. Either there is a firmament, or there is no vacuum in space. Take your pick. But it doesn't have to be shaped like a dome, it could be a sphere inside of our sphere.

Third question, the grid lines. This one is easy. He is using a digital zoom. It's simply an artifact of the sensor, which when digitally zoomed it shows overlapping pixels. You won't see that if you use a film camera to make the video.

Fourth question, the Lake Michigan photo. There is no way to tell if the camera was leveled or how high above the waters surface it was. There is much photographic and video evidence that shows the earth isn't convex. But that doesn't mean it's flat. In fact, (and I do mean fact) WATER IS NEVER LEVEL! The nature of water molecules and how they connect with each other makes flatness impossible. It's just how our brains interpret the scene. This is a very complicated subject that involves the brain, the eyes, the inner ear, molecular biology and such. Far too much to explain here. Simply put, our brains make it look level so we can walk upright without falling over. I do plan on making a video about this when I have the time. There are lots of photos and videos you can see on the internet that absolutely shows an upward curve. But I think people expect it to be more dramatic of a curve because of what they see in some video games. The curve is there to be seen, it's just subtle because of the size of the earth (and us!).

These are all valuable observations, but none of them show proof of a flat earth. Some of it is simple misunderstanding. If you want proof of the earth's concavity, look into FM radio waves, the Calamut and Tamarack mine surveys, et al. I will eventually do a write up and video on FM radio and how it proves a concave earth. Airplanes give us much evidence as well. They couldn't fly until someone invented wing flaps to make airplanes pitch upward!

Now take a look at the flat earth map.

Does Australia look like Australia? Not even close. Show this to an Aussie and they'll laugh in your face (or chuck an ale at you!). We have long ago mapped the lands, and we know precisely their shape and size. None of the land masses on a flat earth map are correct. If you plot the correct shapes of the land masses the oceans are wrong. If you plot the oceans, the land masses are wrong. Simply put,_* the flat earth model cannot be plotted on a 2 dimensional plane!*_ This alone should tell you the earth can't be flat. These polar projection maps are just that, polar projections. Almost nothing is accurate. All maps try to plot a three-dimensional object onto a two-dimensional plane, so they all have at least one major distortion. Out of dozens, if not hundreds of different map projections, the one that has the fewest distortions and is most accurate is the Nicolosi Globular projection. And this one is clearly a concave earth projection. There is even a three dimensional one you can observe and walk inside! It's called the Mapparium. It's at the Mary Baker library in Boston, MA. USA.

Mapparium | Mary Baker Eddy Library

Now don't get me wrong, I agree that the people who believe the earth is flat are half way there. They are the ones who are awakening. It's not their fault that they believe the earth is flat, it's the only real option they've been given by TPTB (the powers that be).

I truly feel the flat earth model is a psyop to keep people from the truth. I am 60 years old, and ten years ago no one believed in the flat earth, sans a few people in the flat earth society, which was started in the 1950's. Its growth is a modern internet phenomenon. Whereas the concave model can be seen in maps going back hundreds of years, and it's all hidden from us.

Please do not judge the concave model on my words. Investigate it yourself. I'm more afraid of turning people off to the possibility than convincing them of its accuracy. I'm only one man. Just look how many men it took over hundreds of years to develop the convex model we have been taught. I believe we all have pieces to this puzzle. No one person will ever have all the answers.


----------



## Trouvare (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: TrouvareDate: 2020-06-22 07:17:57Reaction Score: 1


Finally... I made it through this entire thread in one sitting. I can’t sleep tonight...

I, intentionally, refused to go anywhere near this thread. But since I’m not sleeping tonight, why not entertain my self torture with this painful thread.

Worth next-to-nothing, here is my observation:

What a sh*tshow! Looks like most of us just aren’t ascended enough to grasp the gnostic-esoteric brilliance of a theory (so true, simple, and provable) that has no model, and its only defense is in trashing other ideas.

To me, for many years, this model exists, mainly, for those who disagree with the mainstream “NASA” model, but still believe in the ball... It’s the same theory, just turned outside-in. It proves nothing! If your theory needs supporting theories, not-yet-proven theories, thought experiments, an open mind, or a little hocus-pocus... I’m out.

Yes, hocus-pocus. I don’t care for the correct spelling right now. Pretty much every “defense” of this model on this thread has been a veiled attack on the questioner or some sort of spell casting of a dime store Jedi mind trick to convince the weaker intellect that this is truth. THE Truth.

Credit cards are a rectangle.
_-No they aren’t; look I can make it a circle with my fingers._
It’s still rectangular.
-_No, you have to look at it differently_.
Let go. What shape is it?
-_You just can’t let go of your preconceived dogma to understand_.

There was one dogma on display in this thread, and it didn’t shed any new light, old light, or deliver enlightenment to the topic. It bashed other models and those who lean those other directions.

Perception is reality. 80%.
The other 20 is truth. It’s the truth that is common and unchangeable between our individual-perceived realities. Judges are adept in viewing the 20% and ignoring the 80.

If a theory asks you to ignore the 20 and focus on the 80, it’s disposable.

Maybe my 80% is altered due to lack of sleep.
Maybe this reply is the 20%.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: RedFoxDate: 2020-06-22 14:18:12Reaction Score: 1




Eagle777 said:


> We should care about which shape is our earth. Did you know that CET model could easily prove the ET theory together with the claims about the cut down trees and quarries. Or else why someone would steal our sun by building some artificial constructs and lurk in the dark?


I'm not saying I don't care, but just that knowing there's a firmament narrows it down enough for me that I don't lose sleep over it. There are really only two likely possibilities when you realize that, flat or concave, probably with some kind of creamy filling inside. Waking up about space blew my mind more than the shape personally and I think that's most people's hurdle. Their arguments revolve around space. When you take that out of the equation, it's one or the other and IMO matters a bit less than realizing we're in a snow globe essentially.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2020-06-22 14:31:02Reaction Score: 1




Trouvare said:


> Finally... I made it through this entire thread in one sitting. I can’t sleep tonight...
> 
> I, intentionally, refused to go anywhere near this thread. But since I’m not sleeping tonight, why not entertain my self torture with this painful thread.
> 
> ...


You call that a contribution, just badmouthing everyone? You don't like what you read so you decide it's up to you to derail the thread and call it all nonsense. I guess you didn't want us to play in your sandbox. 
You just showed that one can be fully asleep whilst suffering from insomnia. Sweet dreams, negative one.


----------



## Trouvare (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: TrouvareDate: 2020-06-22 15:10:56Reaction Score: 1




ripvanwillie said:


> You call that a contribution, just badmouthing everyone? You don't like what you read so you decide it's up to you to derail the thread and call it all nonsense. I guess you didn't want us to play in your sandbox.
> You just showed that one can be fully asleep whilst suffering from insomnia. Sweet dreams, negative one.


I'm glad you responded. Now it's out there for all to see.

Allow me to quote myself: 
_Pretty much every “defense” of this model on this thread has been a veiled attack on the questioner or some sort of spell casting of a dime store Jedi mind trick to convince the weaker intellect that this is truth. THE Truth._

We are, each, offered this platform to share our point of view. I drew no boundaries for my sandbox, because I didn't bring one; I merely saw the game being played in this one and externalized what I saw.

Like it, or don't.

There's a "Report" link under each post.

Peace.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2020-06-22 16:17:23Reaction Score: 6




Trouvare said:


> I'm glad you responded. Now it's out there for all to see.
> 
> Allow me to quote myself:
> _Pretty much every “defense” of this model on this thread has been a veiled attack on the questioner or some sort of spell casting of a dime store Jedi mind trick to convince the weaker intellect that this is truth. THE Truth._
> ...


Just in case you didn't notice, the title of this thread is:
*The Concave Earth Discussion.*
KD has many great threads on this forum, and this is just one. Believe it or not, some people are interested in this subject and have a desire to learn more about it, including me. But when you decide on your own that this is not a worthy discussion, you just throw insults and whine about how the information is presented. Slinging arrows isn't discussion, and I'm getting real tired of having to defend myself. Life is short. I recommend you find something you're interested in and leave others to be.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Eagle777Date: 2020-06-22 20:29:15Reaction Score: 2


_@ripvanwillie_

Thank you for your dedication and please ignore the negative comments.

I know a lot about CET, but I have little knowledge about what is outside the earth. If you know, could you please give me a short answer on what is outside? I have read your previous comments, but I believe there is something outside. It can't just be a levitating ball in a void or else it would constantly take some random path due to energy. Something is holding it! Maybe there is a hole in the north or in the south, or else we would be fried, and if so, it may lead somewhere. And Yggdrasil comes to mind, with its nine worlds. Searching for those words show that the "nine worlds" sometimes depicted as spheres. What else is that if all of this is true, then there must be someone in charge of all this. I don't believe CET is a coincidence.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2020-06-22 21:22:59Reaction Score: 7




Eagle777 said:


> _@ripvanwillie_
> 
> Thank you for your dedication and please ignore the negative comments.
> 
> I know a lot about CET, but I have little knowledge about what is outside the earth. If you know, could you please give me a short answer on what is outside? I have read your previous comments, but I believe there is something outside. It can't just be a levitating ball in a void or else it would constantly take some random path due to energy. Something is holding it! Maybe there is a hole in the north or in the south, or else we would be fried, and if so, it may lead somewhere. And Yggdrasil comes to mind, with its nine worlds. Searching for those words show that the "nine worlds" sometimes depicted as spheres. What else is that if all of this is true, then there must be someone in charge of all this. I don't believe CET is a coincidence.


This is where the concave earth theory gets fun, speculating on what may lie on the other side!

I absolutely agree, it can't be a ball floating in space by itself. That makes no sense to me. And this is where I deviate from the geocentrists. Of course I have never been to the outside, but others may have been. Look at all the stories of underground worlds, underground bases, native American peoples saying they lived under the earth with the ant people, etc. There are multitudes of underworld legends dating well into prehistory, and of course the Bible and Qu'ran all speak of underground worlds. Even in the UFO field most are seen entering or exiting bodies of water or caves. And didn't Admiral Byrd claim to have flown inside our planet? (posthumously in his diary). I think they may literally be other worlds just beneath our feet. Some as close as a few hundred miles, maybe even closer. This would also explain why nearly all of the deep caves are blocked, and we are not allowed access without government permission.

You can pack up to 12 identical spheres around a center one. 12+1. Where have we heard that before? The savior and his 12 disciples, just to name one. My current thinking is the outerverse, for lack of a better term, is likened to a big blob of reptile eggs, surrounded by the stuff we find underground; water, salt, petroleum, sulfur, etc. which acts as a buffer between the worlds. We may be living inside one of those eggs. Remember, everything is born from an egg, even humans! (we have a soft shell around us that must be broken upon birth before we can breathe). It only makes sense that our earth is an egg as well. And it has been described as an earth egg in many modern and ancient societies.

Basically, I think we live inside of a giant geode that has cracked and is spewing underworld substances into our oceans and skies via volcanoes and tectonic plate separations, both underwater and above ground. After they open, water and/or air mixing with these substances seals up these cracks to keep us in a sealed sphere. If there is a void in space, there must be a barrier to keep our atmosphere, and us, from being sucked into the void. What the bible calls a firmament. But, I'm not convinced there is a void, think aether. The earth is growing, and the Pangaea model indicates this as well.

Once I was made aware of the FM radio wave problem by the engineer who worked at my radio station, I began to look at other possibilities. FM radio waves prove the earth cannot be convex. The hollow earth was the first thing I studied, as the flat earth had not become a thing yet. It seems to me that the hollow earth theory and concave earth theory are actually two parts of the same thing. One is about the inside, the other, outside.

And like you mention, your culture has many legends of the underworld, as do other cultures from all over the world. I see no reason to think they aren't true. We just need to put them into our time reference so we can understand what they really mean. We all have pieces to this puzzle. And this is just one area where you can help me out. I know very little of Nordic legends. And you may also have CET evidence that I am not yet aware of. I'd like to hear more about what you know.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Itgoes4evaDate: 2020-06-22 23:42:49Reaction Score: 1


Hi Rip. 

Could you recommend some convex earth research I could look into? It's not a completely new theory for me however when I first looked into it about 7-8 years ago I couldn't find much to go on. 

Researched flat earth to death and came to the conclusion a while back if it's not flat it's concave.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2020-06-23 00:20:57Reaction Score: 1




Itgoes4eva said:


> Hi Rip.
> 
> Could you recommend some convex earth research I could look into? It's not a completely new theory for me however when I first looked into it about 7-8 years ago I couldn't find much to go on.
> 
> Researched flat earth to death and came to the conclusion a while back if it's not flat it's concave.


I am in the process of starting my site, but it's not up yet. There is another forum member here who has a very nice site, the wild heretic. Lot's of good info there. I'd recommend starting there.

The Wild Heretic – "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: WeeWarriorDate: 2020-06-23 01:27:10Reaction Score: 1




ripvanwillie said:


> This is where the concave earth theory gets fun, speculating on what may lie on the other side!
> 
> I absolutely agree, it can't be a ball floating in space by itself. That makes no sense to me. And this is where I deviate from the geocentrists. Of course I have never been to the outside, but others may have been. Look at all the stories of underground worlds, underground bases, native American peoples saying they lived under the earth with the ant people, etc. There are multitudes of underworld legends dating well into prehistory, and of course the Bible and Qu'ran all speak of underground worlds. Even in the UFO field most are seen entering or exiting bodies of water or caves. And didn't Admiral Byrd claim to have flown inside our planet? (posthumously in his diary). I think they may literally be other worlds just beneath our feet. Some as close as a few hundred miles, maybe even closer. This would also explain why nearly all of the deep caves are blocked, and we are not allowed access without government permission.
> 
> ...


Truly fascinating topic, thanks for all the info. You might enjoy my blog on the World(s) Under Our World which touches on many of these subjects.

I think you might be the right person to ask about something that I've been observing but cannot properly explain to myself with any of the existing "shape of the earth" models until I saw your link to the Mapparium...

Hmmm...

I live on the Oregon Coast with a nice hilltop view of the ocean. At night, a fleet of crab fishing boats string out along the horizon with huge lights aboard. Usually they go about 20 miles out, sometimes as far as 40 miles. 

So when these lights reach the horizon, they appear and disappear frequently! They don't gradually fade out, they are gone in a snap.

This does not seem to be the result of wave action, the lights disappear much too long for it to just be a wave trough. I can see no rhythm to this phenomenon and sometimes when the lights re-appear they are a bit further along the skyline, sometimes they are in the exact same place. 

Do you think this is evidence of a concave earth or just a trick of the light reflecting across the water?

Thanks again.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2020-06-23 02:13:45Reaction Score: 1




WeeWarrior said:


> Truly fascinating topic, thanks for all the info. You might enjoy my blog on the World(s) Under Our World which touches on many of these subjects.
> 
> I think you might be the right person to ask about something that I've been observing but cannot properly explain to myself with any of the existing "shape of the earth" models until I saw your link to the Mapparium...
> 
> ...


Well, isn't that a coincidence. I live in southern Oregon, The State of Jefferson!

Without more info and some sort of visual it would be just a guess. And I'm no professional fisherman, so my knowledge on this subject is minimal at best. I'm not sure what kind of lights they have on the fleet. Are they just headlights or do they have 360 degree coverage? The fishing boats I've been on just have headlights, but they weren't professional fishing boats in a fleet. Some boats illuminate the water all around them with several spot lights. I think it depends on what they are fishing for. Crabbers, for instance, need to find their pots. Pretty difficult in the dark. But, would they be crabbing that far out? It seems more likely fishing for tuna or another open water species such as salmon or steelhead. Those are three very popular commercial fish in our waters. But again, that's an uneducated guess.

If they are simple headlights, maybe they just changed direction. Are they trolling or sitting still?  Light absolutely reflects off the water. In my view this is evidence, because it's probably too far from the viewer to be seen on the horizon if the earth is convex. And if that were the case, the light would have to bend down otherwise the light reflection would just shoot off into the sky and you'd never see it. 

Of course the obvious answer, and maybe the correct one, is they use the lights to get to their location, and then turn them off while fishing. Then turn them on again when they move to a new location. I could see this happening in a fleet. You can't have the boats running into each other. 

In any case, 20 - 40 miles is probably too far to see on a convex earth model, but we'd have to do some math based on your altitude above sea level to make sure.

Do you have a camera that you can film it with? Might be a fun little experiment. Maybe get in touch with the fishermen and see how far out they go, direction, kind of lights, what they are fishing for, etc.
I do know the north pacific coastal waters are rarely calm. Fishing out there can be quite dangerous at times.

Thanks for your blog link. I'll definitely check that out!


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: WeeWarriorDate: 2020-06-23 03:28:31Reaction Score: 1




ripvanwillie said:


> Well, isn't that a coincidence. I live in southern Oregon, The State of Jefferson!
> 
> Without more info and some sort of visual it would be just a guess. And I'm no professional fisherman, so my knowledge on this subject is minimal at best. I'm not sure what kind of lights they have on the fleet. Are they just headlights or do they have 360 degree coverage? The fishing boats I've been on just have headlights, but they weren't professional fishing boats in a fleet. Some boats illuminate the water all around them with several spot lights. I think it depends on what they are fishing for. Crabbers, for instance, need to find their pots. Pretty difficult in the dark. But, would they be crabbing that far out? It seems more likely fishing for tuna or another open water species such as salmon or steelhead. Those are three very popular commercial fish in our waters. But again, that's an uneducated guess.
> 
> ...


Well then greetings there neighbor, I'm an advocate of the great state of Jefferson myself! Refreshing to know there are open minded folk along the coast, I haven't met that many personally!

So, in answer to your questions, the lights are super bright (a 360 degree banks of orange sodium lights ) that seem to stay on all the time as far as I can tell -- except when they mysteriously disappear, sometimes for just a second and other times for so long I think they're out of sight, but no...they will eventually "resurface".

I considered trying to get some footage of this phenomenon, but I don't know if I'll have any success with my rinky dink equipment. I did look around the web for pictures of the boat lights along the horizon and found zilch, so I got a feeling it's a tricky task because it is quite a spectacle.

My son-in-law knows the fishermen and he's the one who quoted the 20-40 mile range, although they do come in closer every once in a while.

I will ask him to double check and see if any other fleets go out with such the lights. 

I do agree that this phenomenon does seem to wipe the globe earth model out, it should be a definite point along the horizon where they disappear, but that is not what I witness at all.

Wonder if you've ever checked out Treeincarnation? Fintan doesn't address the shape of the earth per se but has some interesting ideas about how concave/convex planes create reality.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2020-06-23 03:45:33Reaction Score: 1




WeeWarrior said:


> Well then greetings there neighbor, I'm an advocate of the great state of Jefferson myself! Refreshing to know there are open minded folk along the coast, I haven't met that many personally!
> 
> So, in answer to your questions, the lights are super bright (a 360 degree banks of orange sodium lights ) that seem to stay on all the time as far as I can tell -- except when they mysteriously disappear, sometimes for just a second and other times for so long I think they're out of sight, but no...they will eventually "resurface".
> 
> ...


I'll check out that link. 
My first step would be to contact someone in the fleet and ask him why the lights suddenly disappear. They may have a simple answer. They also might say, disappear from sight? really? Ask them if they turn them on and off. Then you may want to ask them what they see looking back at the coast. You may get a surprising answer. They should see the city lights if you can see them. If you don't have the equipment to film it a student at one of your local colleges, or even high school may be able to film it for you. Photographers love to solve light mysteries!

Nice to meet you, neighbor!


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: WeeWarriorDate: 2020-06-23 04:00:57Reaction Score: 1




ripvanwillie said:


> I'll check out that link.
> My first step would be to contact someone in the fleet and ask him why the lights suddenly disappear. They may have a simple answer. They also might say, disappear from sight? really? Ask them if they turn them on and off. Then you may want to ask them what they see looking back at the coast. You may get a surprising answer. They should see the city lights if you can see them. If you don't have the equipment to film it a student at one of your local colleges, or even high school may be able to film it for you. Photographers love to solve light mysteries!
> 
> Nice to meet you, neighbor!


All good advice, I'll see if I can get some more info about their night time fishing techniques. It would be interesting what they see from their viewpoint!

I don't know any pro photographers in the area but I'll put it out on the grapevine, maybe I can find someone willing to take the challenge.

Thanks for your suggestions, hope your summer rocks!


WeeWarrior said:


> All good advice, I'll see if I can get some more info about their night time fishing techniques. It would be interesting what they see from their viewpoint!
> 
> I don't know any pro photographers in the area but I'll put it out on the grapevine, maybe I can find someone willing to take the challenge.
> 
> Thanks for your suggestions, hope your summer rocks!


Okay, well I did get a chance to ask some questions of a neighbor that joined me to watch the moon set over the ocean last night (spectacular!).

He said the crabbing fleet turns on the lights once they get to the fishing grounds and don't turn them off until they start for home around dawn. He also says their limit is about 17 miles out, so my previous info was in error because the shelf drops off about 20 miles out and it becomes the domain of the big fish, like you said. 

He had never observed the disappearing lights phenomenon like I have, but his house doesn't face the ocean so he can't watch it as diligently as I do, besides my bathroom window looks over the ocean, making it a perfect place for extended observations! 

So, thanks for the prodding, now I know more than I did before and can form some more decisive conclusions next time while contemplating the concave connection!


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Eagle777Date: 2020-06-24 16:46:40Reaction Score: 2




ripvanwillie said:


> And you may also have CET evidence that I am not yet aware of. I'd like to hear more about what you know.


Sure. I know a lot about what is already presented by others on the internet and coming up with some new points isn't an easy task. I'm not a researcher of CET, but nevertheless I have some points you might be interested in.

*Rainbows*
Rainbows aren't created by dispersion of light in the rain drops, they act as reflectors of the colors. Even thought the dispersion of light does happen inside the rain drops, they are not perfectly spherical to reflect the colors back to observer at the angle of 42 degrees (1). This is also the reason why you will never see a rainbow, or something similar, in the shower room or besides the street lights provided the right type of light source is used. And the reason you can't see the rainbow on the ground is because there is no reflector to reflect the colors back to observer or else the light is absorbed into the ground and converted to heat.

*Sounds made by stars*
Through a technique called asteroseismology, scientist were able to "record" sounds of stars. Small stars have high-pitched sounds, while the biggest ones make the lowest sounds. The sounds of stars are caused by temperature changes in the star's interior (2). While this version of explanation sounds true, this is also remarkably similar to an effect called sonoluminescence. It is a process where high-pitched sound waves cause emission of short bursts of light by bubbles in a liquid. They can be stable for days and flicker like twinkling stars (3). We don't know how long time the same experiment would last in space if the were to be repeated in a low gravity environment. Which explanation is right is matter of debate.

*Sources*
1. The Shape of a Raindrop | Precipitation Education
2. Symphony of stars: The science of stellar sound waves
3. Kyuichi Yasui, "Acoustic Cavitation and Bubble Dynamics", page 15.

*Many ask for proofs. But since this is a history forum, I don't wish to post too much science here. And those who say that questioning the shape of our earth isn't a history. Well, I say it is big part of it because otherwise if we are wrong about the shape, then we just simply wasting our time discussing things like about how old is our earth and universe. I do really care about you and about this forum. No offense, this is just what I believe.*


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ripvanwillieDate: 2020-06-24 19:41:17Reaction Score: 3




Eagle777 said:


> Sure. I know a lot about what is already presented by others on the internet and coming up with some new points isn't an easy task. I'm not a researcher of CET, but nevertheless I have some points you might be interested in.
> 
> *Rainbows*
> Rainbows aren't created by dispersion of light in the rain drops, they act as reflectors of the colors. Even thought the dispersion of light does happen inside the rain drops, they are not perfectly spherical to reflect the colors back to observer at the angle of 42 degrees (1). This is also the reason why you will never see a rainbow, or something similar, in the shower room or besides the street lights provided the right type of light source is used. And the reason you can't see the rainbow on the ground is because there is no reflector to reflect the colors back to observer or else the light is absorbed into the ground and converted to heat.
> ...


I learned in my philosophy of science classes that science can't prove anything anyway. That is why they use Popper's falsification, basically the last theory standing (this theory sounds plausible, but has serious problems as well). Possibilities and probabilities are the real dynamics of modern science, not absolute truth. And belief plays no role whatsoever.

Karl Popper - Wikipedia
Falsifiability - Wikipedia

I'll have to research the links you provided. They look intriguing! I never thought of connecting sonoluminescence with the stars. If the firmament, or glass sky is true, then in the concave earth model it would be a concentric sphere within, filled with water! That would explain the waters above and the waters below saying. It also may give a clue to the Libyan glass mystery. I always thought of the waters above as simple rain. Maybe there is more to that. The stellar sound waves sounds a lot like Pythagoras' music of the spheres to me.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Eagle777Date: 2020-07-12 20:20:00Reaction Score: 1


If earth is an artificial machine there must be an original source of power and a control center to run the show. You could say that the central sun serves this purpose, but I'm betting that there is a control center and another power station somewhere, which could be at the north or south. It is possible that the central sun wasn't the first creation which made it to become our original source of power, especially if it is considered to be a machine. And do know that any machine eventually has to be repaired which could require another source of power.

The origin and definition of the central sun is the root of the problem. If it is really a machine, like some kind of durable or perpetual device, then it may not be the whole story. The clues may be in the cause of sonoluminescence effect, generation of light and crystals.

Where does this trail lead us to and is this what keeps us enslaved?


----------



## dreamtime (Jun 12, 2021)

Image of the "hollow earth" in the new movie Godzilla vs. Kong:


----------



## dreamtime (Jun 25, 2021)

I moved my post to a new thread: The Earth was flat in medieval times


----------



## Apollonius (Aug 29, 2021)

dreamtime said:


> Image of the "hollow earth" in the new movie Godzilla vs. Kong:
> 
> View attachment 10810​



The Game of Thrones intro also clearly reveals the truth.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7L2PVdrb_8_


----------



## dreamtime (Nov 14, 2021)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Tag5cKQT0A_​


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 14, 2021)

dreamtime said:


> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Tag5cKQT0A_​



I've already seen it 2 times! What about the sun anf the moon? Any link with explanations/suggestions?


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 14, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I've already seen it 2 times! What about the sun anf the moon? Any link with explanations/suggestions?



The source of video may hold what you seek. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5YxgT0VaUmzyJzPMDc4N2Q/featured


----------



## dreamtime (Nov 15, 2021)

There is a group called FECORE - an association of flat-earthers. they have developed a method to determine the curvature of the earth's surface using geographic surveying.

in their 2018 experiment in Brighton, CO their results showed that the curvature is concave. They were very surprised themselves (we can give them credit for publishing the data uncensored), but flattened out the concavity significantly on a second run and made it a "local concavity" in their report, claiming it's hard to draw any conclusions from it.

But all in all the data speak for the concave earth more than for anything else.

Their first run showed the curvature to be even more concave than what a concave earth would look like, strongly suggesting it is not merely local concavity.

FECORE.org – Force The Level Pretest Results [Mirror] - The Daily Plane



_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzp6DSIKk6c_
​


----------



## Apollonius (Nov 26, 2021)

In the trailer of Spider Man: No Way Home, we can see the Concave Earth and the circles of the celestial sphere (armillary sphere). 

Spider Man: No Way Home Official Trailer (2:06 for Concave Earth scene)

Recently, they've been showing the Concave Earth a lot in movies or TV shows.


----------



## Akanah (Nov 26, 2021)

You think that because concave earth appear in some entertainment movies it is the truth ?
It is like the 10 blind men who feel an elephant and each has a different opinion about what shape the elephant has. None of the 10 men realized that the elephant is an elephant and therefore has many different shapes depending on the part of the body they felt.


----------



## dreamtime (Nov 26, 2021)

Akanah said:


> You think that because concave earth appear in some entertainment movies it is the truth ?



He didn't imply that. He's just collecting clips that support his theory, the clips aren't the foundation of the theory. In contrast to flat earth for example, the concave earth theory has a coherent mathematical model that rivals the mathematical coherence of the heliocentrical model. So if we want to argue for or against concave earth, we should argue based on the model (an introduction to the available evidence you can find here in german.


----------



## Prolix (Nov 26, 2021)

Not denying it's possible they were depicting that in the trailer, but on the face of it, it looks like your standard Escher-esque concave/convex psych-out effect (see also Inception).


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 26, 2021)

Does Euclidean geometry which allows us humans to construct the entirety of 'the built human environment' work on the earth shape theory 'models' featuring curves?


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Feb 7, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> The most accurate model we have.
> 
> View attachment 19536


According to ??


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 7, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> According to ??


At least not based on "Oh! I see the horizon line straight so the whole Earth is flat." 

It's an accurate model according to scientific, gnostic, historic and biblical research.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Feb 7, 2022)

So , according to you then.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 7, 2022)

Water does not, cannot, and will not - EVER - become convex on the outside of its container, nor will it - EVER - become concave on the inside of its container.

And that's just very basic physics.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 7, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> The most accurate model we have.
> 
> View attachment 19536


A pair of tachograph discs and a paint by numbers set. 
Is your name Neil Ferguson perchance?


----------



## heretolearn (Feb 7, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> At least not based on "Oh! I see the horizon line straight so the whole Earth is flat."
> 
> It's an accurate model according to scientific, gnostic, historic and biblical research.


Hello, I left you a reply on the other thread, you must have missed it, I am looking forward to your response.
I have to say, I think there is alot more to considering it flat than just the horizon being a straight line.
But if thats your take on it so be it.

Your response compelled me to come check out this thread so thanks for that.

I feel compelled to ask given the statements made what Biblical research leads you to consider this accurate as a model?
I was of the impression the Bible heavily implies the Earth to be Flat. I enjoy reading the Bible and have found no mention of concavity anywhere within in its pages. so please enlighten me so I can understand your findings also.

Again with the historical context as well what has led you to determine this model to be accurate? 
I have personally not found any evidence to suggest that this was a credible concept or notion held by anyone historically. 
Honestly, till seeing your post in the other thread and now your imagery here. I wasnt even aware of concave earth as a concept. 
Even the generally accepted ball earth lie was not a belief held by anyone until around the 1500s so please could you share your historical research I would be much appreciative. 

I should state just because there is no historical evidence as far as I can see to support such claims. I do not discount this theory on this basis alone. 
I intend to look at any information gathered here in this thread for any truth that can be found as any good researcher should.   
However, you made the statement that history has given you indications of its existence and so I think it fair to require the proof that supports such assertions as those made.

In regards to research of a gnostic and scientific nature I would respectfully urge you to consider. 
Scientific data can be read and interpreted from many different angles. 
A fantastic example would be the data produced by George Dodwell. 
The ball earth community and the man himself saw his research as proof that the earth ball was inclining or wobbling in its fixed place within the solar system. 
Something this thread would claim impossible given its viewpoint. 
I on the other hand consider his data to be evidence of the sun moving through the place we call earth as if through a smaller area of a much larger earth namely God's Earth. Returning to this area and its starting point once full traversal of the other areas has concluded. 
The same data producing and supporting two opposed and contrasting conclusions. So singular scientific data alone sadly is not sufficient in determining such proof. 
Which ironically is why I found myself on that tidal research thread where we began our interaction. 
I am looking through research threads here to determine if my concepts hold any basis or validity in others work. but also to see if others hold any form of knowledge that I should know or should deem relevant for consideration within my own concepts and designs.

Interestingly what is the concave earth's position on George Dodwells research? 
How would concave earth interact with such findings?

Your final claim was of research leading to understanding of some gnostic element pertaining to this model. I would be most interested if you could share it?
I for example noticed the gnostic element hidden within the Bible where it states that the Firmament was placed between the two waters of Heaven and Earth in the form of two seperated sides with the Firmament placed between them. 
not as a dome around or above everything as people always mistake it to imply, but as a functional gateway or layer between the ground of Earth and the ground of Heaven two flat sides with a Firmament between the two. 
gnostic because it is there written in plain english but still not ever seen, the very definiton of gnosis in fact. 
The Bible repeatedly throughout the Old testament mentions Heaven as being above and the Earth as being below. But we dont register it because we are indoctrinated to think of Heaven as over our heads in the sky where the angels sit on clouds etc. Not beneath our feet where its actually stated to be in the words. 

Further gnostic works indicate similar denotations. 
For example the highly gnostic zohar indicates a Firmament as having many levels and being akin to a ladder between the Earth and Heaven. I am also in the process of translating a cuneiform tablet BM 74329 which is titled "The Divine Genealogy of the Firm Ground" it makes similar assertions of a "circle/chariot" performing the same actions as the firmament does in genesis. 
These documents are written with potentially thousands of years between them but imply the same thing that I have also noticed hidden within the bibles writings. 
Im sure your gnostic research has produced similarly engaging deductions that support concepts indicated in concave earth theory.
As stated extremely eager to recieve your gnostic learnings, and very happy to hear others are looking for such things as well. 

How would my gnostic findings in relation to the Firmament for example apply to the concept of concave earth?  

I eagerly await your response to the questions posted on both the other thread and on here.
Additionally your follow up research evidence on here is eagerly anticipated as well.
I thank everyone in advance for the research being done here and everywhere on this forum. 
I hope to find insights here that can lead to further understanding of the place we all live. 
We work this out with one another, and not in opposition to one another.
Perhaps something for my esteemed colleague to consider. Kindest Regards.


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 15, 2022)

In order from outside to inside:

Earth's metallic crust *--->* Lava (_Molten Metal_)* --->* Biosphere (_Earth_)* --->* Crystal Sphere (Raw Material: _Pure Silica_) *--->* Planets (In order: Moon *>* Venus *>* Mercury *>* Sun *>* Mars *>* Jupiter *>* Saturn *>* Uranus *>* Neptune *>* Pluto) *--->* Celestial Sphere (Firmament) *--->* Central Sun (Cosmic Egg / Celestial Fire of Alchemists / Central Fire of Pythagoreans / Primum Mobile) *--->* Central Point of the Creation (Beginning, Empyrean, Chaos)





(Related image: The author of the cartograph is *Guillaume Testu* (1509-1573), from Cosmographie Universelle, *1555*)

_No creature_ on the Earth can cross the glass ceiling! Everything that has happened has always happened here, is happening, and will continue to happen. This barrier _cannot be overcome_, *neither by external nor internal intervention!*

Above the planets is the Firmament or the Celestial Sphere, as it is most commonly used. Stars are holes in the Celestial Sphere, sort of like Pores (holes) in the cell nucleus. The stars enable the transfer of energy from the inside to out. The Celestial Sphere is the last layer that humanity can observe, beyond this is _invisible_ to humanity unless certain conditions are met!





Inside the Celestial Sphere is the Primum Mobile (Prime Mover), also known as the Central Sun. The Central Sun is the heart/hearth of the Earth, the source of the fire that alchemists call the "_Celestial Fire_".

















(Related images: The Empyrean heaven is within the Primum Mobile.)

"According to Pernety, the purest grade of fire was the white Celestial Fire, or *the fiery power of God's will*. He described it thus: “The Celestial Fire is very pure, simple and _not burning in itself_. *It has for its sphere the ethereal region*, when it makes itself _known even_ to us. _Celestial Fire shines without burning_ and is without color and odor, though it is sensibly exhaled. It is gentle and known only by its operations.”

The Central Sun is the source that gives shape to the entire material world, breathes *life* into all living things, radiates *aether*, and provides *movement* in the universe. It is also referred to as _"The Sun Behind The Sun"_ in some places.

Within the Central Sun is the Empyrean heaven, _the starting point of creation_. I don't know much about what's going on in Empyrean. However, it is written that the fire that the alchemists call the "_Central Fire_" is located here.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 16, 2022)

Am I right to assume that this is the guy that explains all the recent diversions on the flat earth thread? 

Besides the idea that water is diamagnetic, in his world, do large bodies of standing water ever become concave or convex on its surface?

And regardless of altitude, in his world, does the horizon/vanishing point ever appear anywhere else but at eye-level?

Thanks


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 16, 2022)

User ripvanwille on version one of stolen history and page one of this thread provides all the links.
Concave Earth Theory


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 16, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> Besides the idea that water is diamagnetic, in his world, do large bodies of standing water ever become concave or convex on its surface?
> 
> And regardless of altitude, in his world, does the horizon/vanishing point ever appear anywhere else but at eye-level?


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 16, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> View attachment 19800


I must pay tribute to your computer graphic skills they are very polished.
Might I ask if you have gone out into the world and put the evidence you present for concavity to empirical test?


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 16, 2022)

Here is a lake called Grasmere its a mile in length and half a mile wide. Its lovely I've been there quite a few times.

So in these photographs are we to assume the very middle of the lake has a lower surface over the mile than it does over the half mile?
Are we to assume that it is in fact equally concave in all directions and the size of the container in this case the surrounding land has no bearing on it?

Pictures & measurements from here Grasmere - the lake


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Feb 25, 2022)

kd-755 said:


> Here is a lake called Grasmere its a mile in length and half a mile wide. Its lovely I've been there quite a few times.
> 
> So in these photographs are we to assume the very middle of the lake has a lower surface over the mile than it does over the half mile?
> Are we to assume that it is in fact equally concave in all directions and the size of the container in this case the surrounding land has no bearing on it?
> ...


Is it water?  If so, then yes, it is diamagnetic.  

Now, with only 1 mile long, and a half mile wide, you're not dealing with much in terms of concavity, but if measured precisely, you should still observe it.   It should be noted that you're probably only going to have a concavity of 2-4 inches at the very center due to how small this lake is.

Nahat Island Boston MA.


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Apr 16, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> Is it water?  If so, then yes, it is diamagnetic.
> 
> Now, with only 1 mile long, and a half mile wide, you're not dealing with much in terms of concavity, but if measured precisely, you should still observe it.   It should be noted that you're probably only going to have a concavity of 2-4 inches at the very center due to how small this lake is.
> 
> Nahat Island Boston MA.





otl2021 said:


> View attachment 19798
> 
> Am I right to assume that this is the guy that explains all the recent diversions on the flat earth thread?
> 
> ...





In addendum:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYTMYTlNov4_


----------



## Apollonius (Apr 25, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> In addendum:
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYTMYTlNov4_



It had been a very good conversation!

God is the Black Sun (void, singularity, black hole) within the crystalline celestial sphere.


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (May 2, 2022)

dreamtime said:


> You know that I agree with you on your positions - the problem is not your views, but your behavior. Aggressively trying to convince others of your positions is not in line with the goal of this forum. And the more you try, the more resistance you meet.
> 
> I have read some FE posts here on the forum that were more consistent and valuable overall than some of your posts consisting of memes making fun of flat earthers, even if I didn't agree with them.


I've tried to convince nobody of anything other than they traded one illusion, for another;  meanwhile they missed what was directly infront of their faces.



19:32


----------



## veeall (May 4, 2022)

Do the concavity theory just inverts the globe or do the proponents entertain the idea that our known continents might only comprise the 'bottom' hemisphere or even less of the surface of the concave globe?


----------



## FarewellAngelina (May 28, 2022)

Have read through all this thread at last . Harking back to the Tamarack mine experiments with pendulums/plumbobs. Here are the results of the experiments as published by the Science magazine 1902 .

Divergence of Long Plumb-Lines at the Tamarack Mine on JSTOR

It should be noted that the pendulums converged and diverged at various times. Scientists were unable to explain this and it says nothing about the shape of the earth but rather destroys the theory of gravity.

This is why the experiments were hidden or ignored by the mainstream . Heliocentric model debunked again. 

Further experimental work with pendulums was carried out in1954 by Professor Maurice Allais, and followed by more experiment by himself and others  again further debunked the heliocentric model - swinging pendulums reversed their direction during solar eclipse. Gravity schmavity. 

Look up the Allais ,Jevardin -Antonescu-Rusu effects for more information . All syzygy effects - any heavenly bodies aligning with earth.

In my opinion all these are electromagnetic effects caused by the conductive pendulums passing through the rotating earth toroidal magnetic field. Could be the basis for astrology too - or bodies/minds are affected by magnetic fields.
.
The Tamarack mines experiment don't suggest concave earth , sorry.


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Jun 6, 2022)

It's not earth that rotates.  It's the celestial sphere.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jun 6, 2022)

Yes , I know earth does not rotate but the magnetic field does. Hence the pendulum , suitably designed as those at the mine were , will always move or deflect.


----------



## sandokhan (Jun 6, 2022)

The Tamarack mine mystery:

The Tamarack Mines Mystery.

However, the anomalies which had been discovered are an extraordinary proof of the existence of telluric currents.

"In 1981 a paper was published showing that measurements of G in deep mines, boreholes, and under the sea gave values about 1% higher than that currently accepted. Furthermore, the deeper the experiment, the greater the discrepancy. However, no one took much notice of these results until 1986, when E. Fischbach and his colleagues reanalyzed the data from a series of experiments by Eotvos in the 1920s, which were supposed to have shown that gravitational acceleration is independent of the mass or composition of the attracted body. Fischbach et al. found that there was a consistent anomaly hidden in the data that had been dismissed as random error. On the basis of these laboratory results and the observations from mines, they announced that they had found evidence of a short-range, composition-dependent fifth force. Their paper caused a great deal of controversy and generated a flurry of experimental activity in physics laboratories around the world."

A superb study of the seminal paper published by Roland Eotvos on gravitational anomalies almost 100 years ago:

ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF THE EOTVOS EXPERIMENT*

His discoveries remain completely unexplained by modern science.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jun 7, 2022)

Thanks for that sandokhan . More proof of the hidden force which ,although ignored by the mainstream scientific brain washing machine, must be under investigation (and used for nefarious purposes no doubt.

 About 20yrs ago I studied Foucaults pendulum original design - as a friend and I knew then that earth rotated and hence must be a sphere.
Took about two minutes for that world to collapse. A long metal conductor with a weight on the end with a pointy bit so it could draw a pretty pattern in sand. 

Recognised immediately this design was a simple generator/electric motor design. Any conductor moving through a magnetic field and discharging to earth , completing the circuit ,will result in a force acting at right angles to the direction of flow ( Flemings? right hand rule).

Since earth is stationary the magnetic field must be moving - the Foucault pendulum aligns with deep space ie the rotation of the heavens not rotation of earth. I've since seen this admitted within mainstream .

The mine shaft job - the pendulum weights were immersed in oil to which would dampen the rotation but not stop the deflection totally.

Disturbance of the magnetic and aether fields found  by Allais ,Eotvos and others in their experiments I'm thinking. 

Nice to see the post and read the results - although hard to stop my eyes glazing over at equations involving c r g and other cringeworthy constants which have no basis in reality. 

Would be nice to see a set of real equations without the bumpf.


----------



## PANparadox (Jun 12, 2022)

Guys, I did the same experiment as the ZENITH ATLAS channel on youtube. Check out my video at jew-tube called Shape of the Earth 1, Chaotist channel.

The camera altitude is around 15 cm (it's a big telescope and I'm pointing my smartphone into the eye-lense).

You can clearly see upward curvature of the water thanks to various objects along the distance. It was around 7-10km to opposite shoreline where you see the trees. The ducks were BELOW the opposite shoreline, as well as below another object - a boat which was further than the ducks but still below the horizon level.

In the second part of the video, after following the boat, you see a red object along the surface of the lake, all the way to the opposite shoreline where the trees start. The red object is clearly below the horizon where the trees start. Concavity.

I also compared some images that I took and check this out: turns out that thanks to perfect weather - almost zero wind, the water was like a mirror. I checked two sides of the horizon (where the split between mirror and true image was) and IMAGINE THIS: on the water (one side of mirror) the mirror-image of the trees was a bit wider than the real, open view of the trees. This would not be possible either on convex of flat surface because either the mirror image would be perfectly the same size as the open view (flat surface) or it would be shorter than the open view (convex surface). But because the mirror image is longer than the open view, the surface is concave.

Guys, the lesson is in doing the experiment and you'll see once you start pointing that camera/telescope at 15cm above water level at a huge lake with various objects on the way, the shape will be evident to you.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jun 13, 2022)

I am unable to locate that video , can you provide a link please?
Are you aware of the problems caused by a moisture laden atmosphere when viewing/filming only 15cm above the surface of the lake.

Here is a link to an article that shows even the big observatory telescopes can have problems at high altitude caused by moisture and pollutants.

MountainQuest!


----------



## PANparadox (Jun 13, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> I am unable to locate that video , can you provide a link please?
> Are you aware of the problems caused by a moisture laden atmosphere when viewing/filming only 15cm above the surface of the lake.
> 
> Here is a link to an article that shows even the big observatory telescopes can have problems at high altitude caused by moisture and pollutants.
> ...


Sure, here's a link. I couldn't post links in my 1st post ever but now I think I can.


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



PANparadox said:


> Guys, I did the same experiment as the ZENITH ATLAS channel on youtube. Check out my video at jew-tube called Shape of the Earth 1, Chaotist channel.
> 
> The camera altitude is around 15 cm (it's a big telescope and I'm pointing my smartphone into the eye-lense).
> 
> ...


I messed up explaining one thing here.

In this:
"I also compared some images that I took and check this out: turns out that thanks to perfect weather - almost zero wind, the water was like a mirror. I checked two sides of the horizon (where the split between mirror and true image was) and IMAGINE THIS: on the water (one side of mirror) the mirror-image of the trees was a bit wider than the real, open view of the trees. This would not be possible either on convex of flat surface because either the mirror image would be perfectly the same size as the open view (flat surface) or it would be shorter than the open view (convex surface). But because the mirror image is longer than the open view, the surface is concave."


The mirror image is not wider, but shorter actually, than the open view image and THIS is a reflection we would get in a concave container. On convex surface, the mirror image would be wider than the real view.


----------



## ConcaveEarth (Aug 14, 2022)

very nice concave earth!
hey guys, enjoyed reading this thread

New website, Concave Earth Forums
Lots of work went into setting it up, to make a place to discuss this topic in more detail
I encourage those to sign up and move the conversation there , the web / humanity will thank you!

Current concave earthers, we need you


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Sep 3, 2022)

ConcaveEarth said:


> very nice concave earth!
> hey guys, enjoyed reading this thread
> 
> New website, Concave Earth Forums
> ...


Thank you for this!   Checking it out now!


----------

