Flat Earth

[GandalfTheGreen]

1, we are living on a globe, where the border between land and sky is an infinite straight line...
2, if the camera is 3.78 miles away at 6" high you only can see the shore line above the boats on a globe where the curvature is 8" / miles (30.24" in this case)...

Your own math, for globe curvature, debunks you.

8 inches per mile squared of curve, per mile. Nearly 4 miles. You're literally looking UP, as you look OUT. This is demonstrated over and over again through hundreds of hours of footage on This playlist. As I'm trying to demonstrate to the "flat earthers" Things that are "flat" do not rise.

The AE map is not an FE map - it is a flat distorted representation of the imaginary globe so its farkin obvious you wont be able to match anything up . Gobal longitudes and latitudes have to be distorted to map them on to a plane .

The AE uses the imaginary concept of latitudes below 64 degrees South .

Earths magnetic southern pole 64 S is almost at the limits of our plane.

The Antractic climate is far colder than the Arctic since it receives less of the suns energy - reasons given in the explanation for your misunderstanding of the tropics in my previous post.

Thank you for making my obvious point, that much more obvious. You literally traded an imagined reality, for a reality that requires even more imagination; and lacks in even more rational and empirical evidence.

"I see" Is literally the FOUNDATION for illusion. Your imagination shrouds your logic.

"imaginary globe" ---> "The AE uses the imaginary concept of latitudes below 64 degrees South ."

This is a rather pronounced demonstration how one illusion is chosen over another, when both are false. You literally traded a half lie, for a half lie, a masonic Hegelian dialectic, but feel free to ignore modern navigation, and the ACTIVELY TRAVELING SHIPS for your half baked fantasy of reality.

Clearly, (as per the usual in your case ) You didn't bother reading my points about elevation and colder climate, and the FACT that Antarctica is the continent with the highest elevation. (hence, why it's colder)

You have a well known habit of cherry picking useless information and clinging to it as if it was factual. (Like a AE map that doesn't work) Feel free to explain how the southern magnetic pole works on your own admitted imaginary concept of reality. I have more than enough time to endure such a nonsensical discussion; as well as evidence to clearly verify how incorrect your concept of reality is.

If there was any valid evidence that earth is indeed a flat plane, it would of been produced years ago. (6 years running, 0 proof of empirical navigation)

"What I see" doesn't hold a candle to "what is real."

Especially when you can't provide ANY evidence AT ALL, that SHIPS, that physically navigate over the SURFACE of the Earth, travel in routes that are RELEVANT to the IMAGINED AE projection you grasp so tightly as "truth."

If it was truth, it would be empirically replicated by the navigational systems of these vessels.

My most sincere apologies, that I'm not in the slightest bit remorseful that you are entirely wrong; and have provided absolutely ZERO evidence that ANY form of the imaginary AE projection can be used to navigate the oceans. Should you, or ANY flat earther for that matter ACTUALLY provide evidence that displays such, I would GLADLY concede this discussion, and establish you as correct. However it should be considered in the last 6 years, there hasn't been ONE flat earth expedition to demonstrate their beliefs.

Projecting that I am "misunderstood" about the FACTS I've presented about Antarctic; while you FAIL to produce ANY system of navigation that demonstrates that the jest of the AE presentation is in fact reality, only further exhibits the lack of understanding you have when it comes to ocean navigation, climate, and the tropics.

Let me guess..... Thousands of vessels around the world are actively lying about their navigation... so they can hide your imaginary illusion?

Active ships <----- I implore ANY flat earthers to demonstrate which (if any) of these ships are using routes that are in the "southern hemisphere" that match ANY assumed routes for their IMAGINARY AE projection.

 

[Akanah]

Here the question was asked why Antarctica is colder than the Arctic.
Without necessarily referring to my idea of a biological earth, I can at least paraphrase the answer; Antarctica has a much larger area than the Arctic and simply needs much longer to thaw. And it is as certain as the amen in the church that Arctic and Antarctic will soon be ice-free in the future.
But this has nothing to do with man-made global warming, but with the earth's own heat which increases.

 

[grav]

The horizon mos def rises to the eye of the beholder who himself rises in altitude. And it's always flat. Deniers will please provide proof of the opposite.
Not only that, the sun appears larger when seen from high altitude title aircraft and balloons.

As for the moon, scientists who are not subjects of the Control System have known for decades that it emits a plasma radiation, similar to how ionized gases in a light bulb illuminate an area.

The video below is, I think, 7 years old.
Photographers have made many videos of the curious lunar wave.. It is a moving line of disturbance, as if a hologram is being refreshed, or possibly a fluorescent light effect is travelling in a big Las eggs casino sign.

View: https://youtu.be/pwRd14bJ0Q8


Best guess for now
-- a transparent dome, or multiple layers of domes, embedded with channels that produce light effects.
The sun’s EM spectrum is well known. The moon's is not, and it certainly is different from that of the sun's.
And scientists who have access to true science know that they participate in the fraud.

 

[GandalfTheGreen]

The horizon mos def rises to the eye of the beholder who himself rises in altitude. And it's always flat. Deniers will please we provide proof of the opposite.
Not only that, the sun appears larger when seen from high altitude title aircraft and balloons.

As for the moon, scientists who are not subjects of the Control System have known for decades that it emits a plasma radiation, similar to how ionized gases in a light bulb illuminate an area.

The video below is, I think, 7 years old.
Photographers have made many videos of the curious lunar wave.. It is a moving line of disturbance, as if a hologram is being refreshed, or possibly a fluorescent light effect is travelling in a big Las eggs casino sign.

View: https://youtu.be/pwRd14bJ0Q8


Best guess for now
-- a transparent dome, or multiple layers of domes, embedded with channels that produce light effects.
The sun’s EM spectrum is well known. The moon's is not, and it certainly is different from that of the sun's.
And scientists who have access to true science know that they participate in the fraud.

Do the opposite, get flat and level, and the horizon still rises to your eye.


Indeed, sun and moon are both plasma.

 

[FarewellAngelina]

Thank you for making my obvious point, that much more obvious. You literally traded an imagined reality, for a reality that requires even more imagination; and lacks in even more rational and empirical evidence.

Really? What Scale exists for imaginary things??!!

What was your obvious point for that link challenging FErs to plot that data on to an imaginary AE map?

 

[GandalfTheGreen]

Really? What Scale exists for imaginary things??!!

What was your obvious point for that link challenging FErs to plot that data on to an imaginary AE map?

That you can't. Because FE isn't real.

The "scale" is evident in reality. Reality is based much more than "observation" because you literally only see 1% of the entire spectrum.

Basing your entire reality on an apparition is a sure fire way to look pretty goofy when someone takes your fantasy into heavy consideration, and then rips it apart for the illusion that it is.

I can "imagine" that I live on a flat plane all I'd like. Until it's physically demonstrated; that's literally all it will ever be. Your imagination.

Polish yacht Katharsis II eyeing Hobart as Antarctic triumph nears end

Here's a link.

the map of the journey shows most of the journey outside of the arctic circle touching 70 degrees south four times before heading back out .

Not so impressive.

What's impressive, is that in your imagined version of reality, the calculated distance traveled would by MUCH, MUCH more. Yet, it's not. At all, not even CLOSE. Infact, there has never been any proof at all, that the distances proposed in the imaginary flat earth paradigm can reflect reality.

Not one.

Thanks for that . Looking at the route map and the other data on that website it doesn't look like a Loop of Antarctica beneath 60 degrees at all. Why not circumnavigate the farkin continent?

That is not a circumnavigation of the continent , it's only close for about 30% of the time.

Also the celestial sphere is up in the sky - nothing to do with what's down here .

Except for the FACT, that everything contained within it has a HISTORICAL context with mankind. You should check the book: "The Secret Life of Plants" A wonderful book that clearly demonstrates how life on earth is effected by what is contained within the celestial sphere. (As above, so below, as within so without; This isn't anything new.)

ISBN # 0-06-014326-6

The use of the words "thought to date back to " reveals how weak your "facts" are.

The statue was acquired by Cardinal Alessandro Farnese in 1562 . Vatican again. Says so in this link. Doesn't say from whom.

Farnese Atlas - Wikipedia

Click on his name in this link and scroll down to the section titled " Legacy as collector and patron" . You will see that
"In the Palazzo Farnese the best sculptors worked under his eye, to restore fragments of antiquities as complete sculptures, with great scholarly care"

I'll link that for you too.

Alessandro Farnese (cardinal) - Wikipedia

The statue has to be regarded as a fraud. He told the sculptors what he wanted and they obliged .

Unfortunately for you; the "farnese atlas" is far from the oldest version of Atlas. Doesn't matter, because the older you go back, the more obvious it is that they switched the celestial sphere, for earth.

Ancient Representations of Atlas

"The Farnese Atlas is a 2nd-century Roman marble copy of a Hellenistic sculpture of Atlas kneeling with the celestial spheres, not a globe, weighing heavily on his shoulders. It is the oldest extant statue of the Titan of Greek mythology, who is represented in earlier vase-painting, and more important, the oldest known representation of the celestial sphere." ---- From your own source.

Admitting it's a copy of an original, does nothing to defraud the original. Which is my entire point; that originally, it was a Celestial sphere.

The thing that is paraded infront of your eyes on the NASA logo.

I have now been locked out of this thread.

Best of luck to those who fell for illusion number 2 to actually prove it's more than just an illusion.

 

[dreamtime]

@GandalfTheGreen banned from this thread permanently for ignoring my original request to not use this thread to attack the FE model. He was repeatedly asked to share his knowledge about concave earth in the concave earth thread, instead of attacking others over their views here.

 

[Apollonius]

@GandalfTheGreen banned from this thread permanently for ignoring my original request to not use this thread to attack the FE model. He was repeatedly asked to share his knowledge about concave earth in the concave earth thread, instead of attacking others over their views here.

I hope you ban Flat Earthers who come to the Concave Earth topic.

 

[grav]

I can "imagine" that I live on a flat plane all I'd like. Until it's physically demonstrated; that's literally all it will ever be. Your imagination.

I'm sorry to see posters banned, but .......... he'll be back. Somehow.

I do not post in the CE thread. To me, it's not that different from FE except for the surface of the accretion disk in the Universal Torus.
aka the Cosmic Egg.

FEers have presented plenty of "physical demonstrations" of the flat horizon since at least 2015.
German rocket engineers were the first to see die flache erde, back in 1946, after TPTB imported them to the US in Operation Paperclip.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=48&v=xAIXnatdZzo&feature=emb_logo

 

[dreamtime]

Let's face it; Most people who want to discuss the shape of the earth post in this thread here. Flat-Earthers don't show up in threads of the Conakve Earth or my Embryo Earth thread. This is the only thread where people can discuss at all. Maybe you should open another extra thread where all earth models may be discussed, because otherwise it all runs very one-sided.

Everyone can use this thread to ask critical questions about FE, as long as it's respectful. We just need to keep it balanced and welcoming here.

 

[Akanah]

I'm sorry to see posters banned, but .......... he'll be back. Somehow.

I do not post in the CE thread. To me, it's not that different from FE except for the surface of the accretion disk in the Universal Torus.
aka the Cosmic Egg.

FEers have presented plenty of "physical demonstrations" of the flat horizon since at least 2015.
German rocket engineers were the first to see die flache erde, back in 1946, after TPTB imported them to the US in Operation Paperclip.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=48&v=xAIXnatdZzo&feature=emb_logo

The video shows well how huge the earth actually is, so that at this height you cannot see any concave or convex curvature of the earth.
For an artificial curvature of the earth, a fisheye lens or the fake video of the moon landing must always be used.
The trembling of the earth is interesting in the video.

 

[Demosophist]

With a sufficiently powerful telescope I should be able to see NYC. However, I haven't actually tried that for a couple of reasons. 1. I don't have a sufficiently powerful telescope; and 2. I don't want to see NYC anyway.

 

[grav]

With a sufficiently powerful telescope I should be able to see NYC. However, I haven't actually tried that for a couple of reasons. 1. I don't have a sufficiently powerful telescope; and 2. I don't want to see NYC anyway.

You have an interesting username.
I'm not sure, however, where you stand on the surface -- flat or curved?
I stand flat.
Like you, I have no monster telescope, but I would like to see any city hundreds of miles away.
Infrared camera lenses are the best way to penetrate atmospheric conditions, like postal workers who are deterred by "neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night."

JTolen has presented several videos showing photographed targets that should be hidden by the curve. 8xdxd, according to true math, spherical trigonometry.
8 inches of drop per mile squared.


View: https://youtu.be/ujBBLYHBsQY

 

[Quiahuitl]

The formula of 8 inches per mile squared is only valid over smaller distances.

You can use Pythagoras theorem. The square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides.

I'm using 5500 miles as the diameter. Rocket altitude 65 miles so the visible horizon would be

Square root (5565*5565 - 5500*5500 ) = 848 miles.

DISCLAIMER - I'm not saying the Earth is curved; I'm saying if it was curved, this is how you would calculate the visible horizon.

 

[inthefade]

The formula of 8 inches per mile squared is only valid over smaller distances.

You can use Pythagoras theorem. The square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides.

I'm using 5500 miles as the diameter. Rocket altitude 65 miles so the visible horizon would be

Square root (5565*5565 - 5500*5500 ) = 848 miles.

DISCLAIMER - I'm not saying the Earth is curved; I'm saying if it was curved, this is how you would calculate the visible horizon.

View attachment 22171​

Wouldn't your diagram be a diameter of 11000 and a radius of 5500?

 

[Quiahuitl]

Wouldn't your diagram be a diameter of 11000 and a radius of 5500?

Diameter 11,000 radius 5500: yes, correct. Note - the drawing is not to scale.

 

[inthefade]

Note - the drawing is not to scale.

Thank you, I was not sure.

 

[chessquaker]

Wow! Would you look at the Sun! And the clouds above it. The truth is before our eyes.

 

[grav]

Diameter 11,000 radius 5500: yes, correct. Note - the drawing is not to scale.

But the globe is 8,000 miles in diameter, radius 4,000.
The 8xdxd formula is simple to use, up to about quarter of the circumference. After that point, it is useless, as the curve winds back on itself.
Globers and Concavers have yet to show us their curves.

The premier authority on space, NASA, shows us cgi images.
Even then, their utter contempt for human gullibility is apparent in cartoons that contradict logic.

Tinker Bell is alive and well and lives rent-free in the minds of the sheeple.

 

[Depswah]

But the globe is 8,000 miles in diameter, radius 4,000.
The 8xdxd formula is simple to use, up to about quarter of the circumference. After that point, it is useless, as the curve winds back on itself.
Globers and Concavers have yet to show us their curves.

The premier authority on space, NASA, shows us cgi images.
Even then, their utter contempt for human gullibility is apparent in cartoons that contradict logic.

View attachment 22193​

Tinker Bell is alive and well and lives rent-free in the minds of the sheeple.

NASA Admits We Never Went to the Moon – Forbidden Knowledge TV
I find this short vid to be relevant to your post and interesting of how NASA could possibly have taken a photo of Earth, from the Moon.