Questions About the Flat Earth

Here's a prime example of Balltardism at it's best.

Here we have a YouTube video by "Wade's Underworld" (Australians live down-under on Spaceball Earth), his goal is to show Curvature and debunk flat Earth.  To complete this task, a small island was selected, 12.5 miles (20km) from his location, and the video camera is at 65 feet (20m) elevation above sea-level.  In the image we can see waves crashing on the shore-line of the island (background); and the sailboat is some distance in front of the island (foreground); Underworld then proclaims Curvature, because the video camera height is about the same height as the highest point on the island, yet the sailboat is lower then the island.  

Now, if you've been following along, you would have picked out the correct answer; filming waves crashing on the shore-line, some distance behind the boat, means the horizon continued to rise, disproving Curvature.  The boat cannot be partially obstructed by curvature we can see waves crashing on the shore-line. Based on NASA curvature calculations, the shore-line should be more than 4 feet (1.2m) below line of site.  What's even more ridiculous, the waterline on the boat hull is at the same height as the waves crashing on the shore-line.

There is an Easter Egg to be found in the first image with the sailboat, which also proves no curvature; what is it?

Camera 65 feet (20M)
Distant island 12.5 miles (20km)

Schpankme wrote:
To complete this task, a small island was selected, 12.5 miles (20km) from his location, and the video camera is at 65 feet (20m) elevation above sea-level

They never realise their contradiction in calling it sea-level which invalidates their claim from outset. You'd think they would call it "sea-curvature" even though they cant honestly demonstrate any "sea-curvature"

The Easter Egg can be seen Top - Left in the image; there we see the horizon rising up to eye level, behind the island; and behold (dramatic effect), Sea_Level shows itself.






Flew in from Alaska to Australia and forgot to invert before landing (sic).

Schpankme wrote:Flew in from Alaska to Australia and forgot to invert before landing (sic).

Heh, heh... that's a common mistake aircrews make, and flight simulator trainers the Earth over try to mitigate through intense training regimens in their simulators. Rember; invert—at some point before landing, and at a designated spot most comfortable for you and your passengers ;-)

"Gravity sucks, gravity pulls, gravity don't follow no rules! Gravity, It's magic!"

markwilson wrote:
Gravity sucks
gravity pulls
gravity don't follow no rules
Gravity, It's magic

I wrote this joke, many years ago, to provide a stark reminder for those who accept the religion, created by the Holy Roman Empire, that is Theoretical Science.

In the beginning thy LORD God of [G]ravity created the First Day;

HE used BLOW to shoot matter in every conceivable direction, creating Spaceballs;
then on the Sixth Day HE evolved into SUCK.

Do you prefer your Spaceballs BLOWN or SUCKED?

trade mark for the Church of Heliocentricism, all rights reserved

Schpankme wrote:
In the beginning thy LORD God of [G]ravity created the First Day;

HE used BLOW to shoot matter in every conceivable direction, creating Spaceballs;
then on the Sixth Day HE evolved into SUCK.

Do you prefer your Spaceballs BLOWN or SUCKED?

trade mark for the Church of Heliocentricism, all rights reserved

Too funny! And all the congregants of the Church of Copernicus said, I'm confused, so I'll take a little of each, Amen!
Thanks for the chuckle!

I was going to make the below comment under Eric's video, but when I saw how lengthy it became, I knew eyes would immediately glaze over and I would be open game to the fallacious snipes of the ball crowd, so I decided to post it here under the Questions thread to see if my logic could be proved wrong, or if others agree with it. It's a convoluted affair, this spinning globe stuff. So if anybody can shoot down my reasoning please do so. Comment follows:

The distance from Seoul to Frankfort is about 5,323 miles (https://tinyurl.com/y2h29vx4), the whole trip captured in this video.

At about the 01;04 mark the sun comes into view. The sun remains at the same relative height above the horizon the remainder of the flight (roughly 2,766 miles from that point to Frankfort). If one thinks the airplane, at the point the sun comes into view, is at the peak point on the "sphere," the remainder of the trip should show the sun getting higher on the horizon as the airplane follows the curve folks believe is there (i.e., the sun is "fixed" in space and the airplane follows the "curve" pointing lower and lower relative to the sun as it travels). It is also true that those same people don't believe the Earth, under the airplane, is spinning away from, or to the airplane, as it travels in this basically east/west flight. https://i.imgur.com/YAj7VRVh.png

And the recording is done in time-lapse which means the sun's relative position on the horizon would be quickly exaggerated as the airplane flies downward relative to the sun's stationary distant position.

At 00;59 the airplane is over the vicinity of Vertikos, Kargasoksky district, Tomsk Oblast, Russia (look at the map graphic depicting airplane's travel, confirm in Google Earth the airplane's rough location at that point using the distinct border seen in the lower portion of the graphic).

The distance from Vertikos (the rough point where sun comes into view), to Frankfort, is roughly 2,766 miles as shown in Google Earth. https://i.imgur.com/7EHx7dSh.jpg

QUESTION: HOW DOES THE AIRPLANE TRAVEL THAT FAR WITHOUT THE SUN GETTING HIGHER, FROM THE VIEW IN THE COCKPIT, WHILE THE AIRPLANE TRAVELS IN THE DIRECTION OF THE SUN AND PITCHED NOSE DOWN GOING ALONG THE GLOBE'S CIRCUMFERENTIAL SURFACE BEGINNING AT VERTIKOS?

You have a distant fixed object with an airplane traveling toward it and conforming its flight to the curve of the ball 24,901 miles in circumference. How does the airplane fly "down" the curvature without the fixed object getting getting higher and higher on the horizon while it flies?

And you can't say I'm not factoring in the "spin" of the ball. To make that argument is to claim the Earth is spinning away from underneath the airplane, thereby allowing the sun to remain in the same relative position above the horizon. No, the progress made is by the airplane moving toward the sun while you believe it is pitched nose downward to follow the curve. You can't have it both ways (i.e., you can't argue the spin of the Earth as a factor, without also admitting you believe the airplane is more or less stationary above the Earth while it spins away from airplane underneath).

More proof Earth Not a Globe.

For some reason I was logged out and unable to log back in. Only now have I been able to log back in for the first time.

My initial problem is still unanswered.

Why does the sun rise in the SOUTH-east remain in the NORTH throughout the day and set in the SOUTH-west in the southern hemisphere? It seems no-one here has much experience of what life is like in the Southern Hemisphere.

Here are so more damning questions:

How do the stars and everything else in the night sky follow two separate cycles (Daily and Yearly)?

Why do shadows recede on a mountain from top to bottom as the sun rises? They should ascend the mountain from bottom to top.

Now, before you all jump down my throat and accuse me of being a globe-ster, I also have a something positive to add to the flat earth movement:

In an airplane, if one looks through the window from the seat, the horizon is visible on both sides of the plane, presumably in the centre. This is not possible on a globe earth with a radius of 6,360km. In order to see the horizon through the window it would need to be at least 5-10cm below eye level, because at 10km above sea level, one can only see 356km before the earth curves away, therefore the Earth is not a sphere with a diameter of 12,720km as we've been told.

rotorabba wrote:
My initial problem is still unanswered

What was your previous Username?

rotorabba wrote:blah, blah, blah....

I assume this is rotor using daddy's account, abba. But at least you've now declared plainly that you reject demonstrable facts in nature proving the Earth a horizontal plane. You weren't quite so forthright using the rotor nom de plume. It's better when all pretense is dropped.

We don't debate about the size of the "globe." We know there is no globe, no size.

How does one explain the San Andreas Fault on the plain earth plane, if there are no moving plates plz ?

Taube Isle wrote:How does one explain the San Andreas Fault on the plain earth plane, if there are no moving plates plz ?

First you need to study the issue until such time as those demonstrable facts in nature proving the Earth a plane, leave no doubt in your mind that we do indeed live on a plane Earth. ONE universal up, ONE universal down, earth-wide.

Once you understand water's nature to find its level at rest, no matter the size of the basin holding the water, you will also know that whatever the ground is doing regards movement, is a given fact on the same plane. Who said, amongst flat earthers, that there is no movement of the ground? Earthquakes happen all the time, right?

markwilson wrote:

Taube Isle wrote:How does one explain the San Andreas Fault on the plain earth plane, if there are no moving plates plz ?

Once you understand water's nature to find its level at rest, no matter the size of the basin holding the water, you will also know that whatever the ground is doing regards movement, is a given fact on the same plane. Who said, amongst flat earthers, that there is no movement of the ground? Earthquakes happen all the time, right?

You see I had to ask due to mass indoctrination out there.

It be handy though, if we knew for sure of what really causes & triggers earthquakes. Of course with the advanced technology they possess, some no doubt maybe man made & produced in part.

It'd be interesting to know btw, where lava originates from. How it's created & by which process?

Heat created from interaction of the aether field and the electromagnetic field of earth is a possibility ,since all is vibration . Who knows ? "Heat" is just another manifestation of the electromagnetic spectrum
Why do you think tectonic theory is known as theory ? Man has not been able to drill deeper than 8 miles as far as I'm aware .
Why are you unable to think this would be possible on our flat earth .
Maybe you need to unshackle your mind - think outside the box and realise everything you have been told you know is bullshit

RedorBlue wrote:Heat created from interaction of the aether field and the electromagnetic field of earth is a possibility ,since all is vibration . Who knows ? "Heat" is just another manifestation of the electromagnetic spectrum
Why do you think tectonic theory is known as theory ? Man has not been able to drill deeper than 8 miles as far as I'm aware .
Why are you unable to think this would be possible on our flat earth .
Maybe you need to unshackle your mind - think outside the box and realise everything you have been told you know is bullshit

Oh yes, actually much of what we got brainwashed with, is the pure opposite!

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.”

― Michael Ellner

Taube Isle wrote:

Oh yes, actually much of what we got brainwashed with, is the pure opposite!

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.”

― Michael Ellner

What I think about Ellner and hypnosis (not much since I'm not going to spend time with it, though an altered mind that zealously clings to untruths because of indoctrination I suppose is in a hypnotized state of being, a trance) is irrelevant, but I can't find a thing to argue about with the quote. Not a thing. And I suppose if I were a well known personality I'd have my own "Loon" page too, no doubt.

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/07/646-michael-ellner.html (where we're told, "Ellner is crazy.")

But we've all seen the episodes of the famous famously having some kind of mental breakdown on national TV. Al Roker, Britney Spears (Diane Sawyer interview), Shaq O'Neal, to mention just a few. Who knows if it was just part of the script (after all, if it involves an "actor," we can't know if it is the actor just acting a part).

Doing a search for Ellner's name only, that quote is most prominent. But it packs so much truth that it is no wonder he's a marked man among the intelligentsia– which reminds me of another proof of our backward state which he didn't call out in his quote; we still insist on esteeming highly the academia that just cannot figure out that the Earth is indeed built on a horizontal plane, and who still busy themselves in the face of so much evidence contrary to their position, indoctrinating our children into the laughable spaceball fairy tale for adults (Flat Earth Math comes to mind here).

Interesting what Webster didn't say regarding the word, 'hypnotic,' from Webster's 1828 Dictionary (the only form of the word given):

"HYPNOT'IC, adjective [Gr. sleep.] Having the quality of producing sleep; tending to produce sleep; narcotic; soporific.

HYPNOT'IC, noun A medicine that produces, or tends to produce sleep; an opiate; a narcotic; a soporific."

Now it's an industry (think MKUltra). Back then it was something making you sleepy ;-)

I read the banning rules so hope I am doing this right. It said to post to the flat earth questions thread if you think something hasn't been covered. I am curious about how GPS works, I have heard it's land based. The official media story is satellites. Satellites in my understanding are just hooked up to balloons, I don't know if they even do anything. I looked up Loran under the impression that is the technology behind GPS, is there truth to that. Has GPS been covered in this forum, I can't find anything when searching gps.

Kindly,

Anders

anderskitson wrote: Has GPS been covered in this forum, I can't find anything when searching gps.

Kindly,

Anders

Take a look at, http://ifers.123.st/t52-satellite-hoax-satellites-do-not-exist?highlight=Satellites

Hi all,

New member here and am doing a whole lot of research on FE at the moment.
Found this explanation of why the earth is moving and want your opinions thereon. I don't have the knowledge to say yay or nay. It's from Quora.

One way to show that the Earth is rotating is to use pair gyroscopes. Mount both gyroscopes on separate gimbals and point their axes in different directions and spin them up (using motors attached to the gyroscopes, so they can spin for hours without interference).

Careful observation of the gyroscopes over hours will show that their axis of rotation will slowly change, moving in a circle over a period of 24 hours. It'll even be apparent, with careful measurement, that both gyroscopes will appear to be rotating around the same direction -- which is why I said two gyroscopes: if you coincidentally put one gyroscope pointed along that direction, you wouldn't seem the movement.

Even more careful observation would show that that direction that they are rotating around corresponds to the direction to the Celestial North Pole (or Celestial South Pole, if you are in southern hemisphere), and that each gyroscope always maintains the point among the stars it is pointing. If you pointed a gyroscope at Sirius, it would point at Sirius throughout the day and night, even when Sirius was below the horizon.

You would be forced to conclude that either (a) the Earth is rotating, and the stars aren't, and the gyroscope and gimbal arrangement allowed the gyroscope to stop rotating, or (b) the gyroscope somehow manages to lock into the celestial sphere and rotate with it, despite there being no manifest connection between the two.

SoldierMan wrote:
New member
research[ing] FE moment  

the earth is moving
use pair gyroscopes

Gyroscopes Prove Flat Earth
The Gyroscope was used by John Serson (c. 1743) at Sea-Level to locate the horizon in foggy or misty conditions.

SoldierMan hi there.

Look at the conclusions in your Quora quote.  Since all scientific experiment finds no evidence of rotation then conclusion ( a ) must be incorrect , which leaves conclusion  ( b) .
    It has been shown that Foucault's pendulum device aligns its swing to what is called "deep space"  which is just the movement of the vault of the heavens rotating every 23hrs 56 mins. The answer is there .
   If quora chooses to say that earth rotates then they will have to verify that statement . Science cannot do that - the obvious conclusion to that is that earth does not rotate .
   The luminiferous aether (as it was once known ) is the connection between gyroscopic and pendulum motion and the stationary earth in my view .
   
   Checking that foucault pendulum motion for a friend as proof of the rotating earth led me to realise that the mainstream model is total garbage .
   Look into syzygy effects on pendulums if you are able .

Basically earth is stationary , the heavens rotate about the north pole - and all true scientific empirical evidence shows this .  And all the rest is bs.

Thanks for the response guys.

Well I just finished 2 videos by Eric Dubay (I believe he is admin here) including the epic 6 hour long "The Best Flat Earth Documentary", took several sittings to get through it ; many videos by Rob Skiba; a couple by Pastor Dean Odle (who is resposible for getting me into the FE through an interview he done on the Sheila Zilinsky show) and a few others here and there. Compelling stuff.

Anyway my question is are there any issues where the FE theory has any known problems that the community are aware of?

- One for me was the eclipse of the moon. But even with the globe theory eclipses have been known to take place when the sun and moon are above the horizon which would be impossible. As for the FE take on it, we can only guess and say that there is an unknown body up there that we are unaware of. Any thoughts?

- A second one for me would be asteroids and the damage they leave in the forms of impact craters on the earth. However there is one big problem; when I look at pictures of the so called craters there are never any leftovers or remains of the asteroids! They wouldn't just shatter into tiny unrecognisable fragments there would surely be some identifiable chunks that remain. Some have said they could be the result of underground gas explosions causing a cave-in. What about falling stars as we really don't know what they are; or at least part of a star. We still aren't too sure what is "up there" either, so I guess it could be anything.

So any other issues that I have left out?

Stationary flat earth is a reality , there is no guess or theory involved.
Guess work/theory/imaginary scenario is the basis of the heliocentric model , and all your "issues" stem from your ingrained belief in this imaginary model - once you grasp that all scientific experiment show a stationary earth then all your beliefs , and the things tptb tell you you know ,will become redundant .

What force defines above and below?

Why do objects in free fall always move in exact right angle to the ground? Why do objects move in free fall not in any other angle to the ground?
The mass-density-thing doesn't explain the falling angle. The theory of gravity was so cozy...




I think we should consider to start a new topic for this very simple but groundbreaking question to begin/continue discussion.
@Admin: what do you think?

FR wrote:
objects in free fall always move in exact right angle to the ground?

There is no evidence showing objects in free fall moving at right angles to the ground.  This is called BALLTARDISM.

FR wrote:
we should start a new topic for this groundbreaking question

Let me suggest that you've been banned in the past for making Balltard Topics.