Concave Earth Theory

[Archive]

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]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: JWW427
Date: 2019-10-08 17:56:16
Reaction 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]

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

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]

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

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]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: zxcv0
Date: 2019-10-08 21:36:36
Reaction Score: 3

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.

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]

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

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]

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

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]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: zxcv0
Date: 2019-10-09 00:19:09
Reaction Score: 1

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]

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

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]

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

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.

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:

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]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: zxcv0
Date: 2019-10-09 22:03:38
Reaction Score: 1

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]

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

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]

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

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.

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):



The original question was regarding seeing objects through a telescope from across the "bowl". I interpreted that to mean long distances, such as across the ocean or across a continent. In that case, do you think we should be able to see objects at that distance, that close to the ground, if the earth were flat or concave? I can see that on a concave earth, because - like the stars - you would be looking at a non-zero declination, so you wouldn't be going through as long a distance of lower atmosphere, which is indeed much denser. However, you said you have observed stars at the horizon. Do you have any examples of this you could share?

There is also the matter of the actual distances to the stars. In my opinion, that question is unanswered.

@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]

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

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

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: zxcv0
Date: 2019-10-20 03:44:34
Reaction Score: 0

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]

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

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

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]

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

@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, 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...

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]

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

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]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: zxcv0
Date: 2019-10-22 09:25:28
Reaction Score: 1

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]

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

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.

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.