Concave Earth Theory

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: toybrandon
Date: 2019-10-22 12:17:06
Reaction Score: 2
Click to expand...
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.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Curious
Date: 2019-10-27 16:34:45
Reaction Score: 1
Click to expand...
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?
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Schism
Date: 2019-10-27 19:01:16
Reaction Score: 1
Click to expand...
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-

 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: OskarSnaefel
Date: 2019-10-28 18:37:24
Reaction Score: 0
Click to expand...
Is there a 3d version so I can conceptualize this? Sounds fascinating
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: antiquitech
Date: 2019-11-25 16:45:59
Reaction Score: 0
Click to expand...
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!
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: OskarSnaefel
Date: 2019-11-25 19:19:03
Reaction Score: 0
Click to expand...
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.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: irishbalt
Date: 2019-11-25 19:31:08
Reaction Score: 0
Click to expand...
Ah yes another great Carlin quote is "It's all BS and it's bad for you".

That about sums some of this up.


 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Schism
Date: 2019-11-25 20:07:09
Reaction Score: 2
Click to expand...
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.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: CitizenShip
Date: 2019-11-25 20:19:18
Reaction Score: 6
Click to expand...
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!
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Schism
Date: 2019-11-25 20:55:55
Reaction Score: 2
Click to expand...
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)
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
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: antiquitech
Date: 2019-11-25 21:38:33
Reaction Score: 0
Click to expand...
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 :)
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: CitizenShip
Date: 2019-11-25 22:35:40
Reaction Score: 1
Click to expand...
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.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Schism
Date: 2019-11-25 23:12:03
Reaction Score: 1
Click to expand...
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.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: zxcv0
Date: 2019-11-26 03:40:31
Reaction Score: 0
Click to expand...
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.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2019-11-26 03:50:54
Reaction Score: 8
Click to expand...
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.

gforce2.jpg
gforce.jpg
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: zxcv0
Date: 2019-11-26 04:06:00
Reaction Score: 2
Click to expand...
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.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2019-11-26 04:21:21
Reaction Score: 1
Click to expand...
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.
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.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Schism
Date: 2019-11-26 12:42:58
Reaction Score: 0
Click to expand...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
 
Tips
Tips
Please respect our Posting Rules.

Similar threads

R
Gravity versus buoyancy/density
2 3
Replies
46
Views
12K
reverendALC
R
Oracle
  • Sticky
A How To Write a Thread Guide
Replies
0
Views
154
Oracle
Oracle
Starfire
Alternative Theories for the Purpose of Pyramids
4 5 6
Replies
100
Views
12K
TurpinHero
TurpinHero
Frostychud
Castration, Circumcision, and Transgenderism from Antiquity to Today
2
Replies
34
Views
7K
velholobo
V
Gold
What do we actually know about the Bible? The old world Bible? How does it tie in to history, "plasma apocalypse" pole shift theology and history?
2
Replies
31
Views
13K
Researcher
R
Back
Top