Concave Earth Theory

[wild heretic]

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

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]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: anotherlayer
Date: 2019-11-26 15:00:09
Reaction 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]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Schism
Date: 2019-11-26 15:17:21
Reaction 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.

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]

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

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]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Schism
Date: 2019-11-26 15:42:50
Reaction 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]

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

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]

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

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]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: jd755
Date: 2019-11-26 20:59:10
Reaction 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.

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

 

[KD Archive]

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

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:

1. Discovery/Invention #1 - applicability.
2. Discovery/Invention #2 - applicability.
3. Discovery/Invention #3 - applicability.
4. Etc.

 

[Citezenship]

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

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

• NASA Facts

 

[Archive]

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

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]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: jd755
Date: 2019-11-26 21:40:03
Reaction 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]

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

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:

1. Discovery/Invention #1 - applicability.
2. Discovery/Invention #2 - applicability.
3. Discovery/Invention #3 - applicability.
4. Etc.

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]

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

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.

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]

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

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]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: jd755
Date: 2019-11-27 07:14:57
Reaction 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]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: zxcv0
Date: 2019-11-27 08:17:42
Reaction Score: 2

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]

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

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]

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

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 convex. They can't prove the earth is flat. But, there are experiments that show the earth does not spin, which totally derails the convex earth model. 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 so afraid of this theory/subject? I can certainly understand why governments and corporations would hate this theory.But you won't see it until you open your mind to the possibility. 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'm open for discussion on the concave earth.

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]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: jd755
Date: 2019-12-15 09:35:42
Reaction Score: 0

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.