Questions About the Flat Earth

This video:



... contains @12:20 - 12:40 a clip showing a ship behind another ship, but of the ship behind you can see only the cargo and the masts, the entire hull is invisible. The ship being further out I'd expect to see it smaller, but still as a whole, not just the portions above the deck level. I can't find a satisfactory explanation to the phenomenon, can someone please point me to the right direction?

Tangentially related - how come "Questions" is a single thread instead of an actual forum? Being a forum it'd be a lot easier to browse and comprehend.

MoNad wrote:This video:



... contains @12:20 - 12:40 a clip showing a ship behind another ship, but of the ship behind you can see only the cargo and the masts, the entire hull is invisible. The ship being further out I'd expect to see it smaller, but still as a whole, not just the portions above the deck level. I can't find a satisfactory explanation to the phenomenon, can someone please point me to the right direction?

It's simply perspective, at some point the ground-level gets to an high and everything beyond it seems to sink down. The waves of the ocean make this effect even more severe. So the waves which block the ship are much closer than the actual ship, and therefore of a much bigger scale, so that a lot of the ship is blocked by it.

Xander wrote:It's a law of nature that heavy things will displace lighter things in a downward direction.

This isn't a natural law, this is an observation.  

Xander wrote:Logically it could never happen any other way.

What exactly is the logic behind this statement?

Here's another observation: an object that's freely able to move will move to the direction of least resistance (i.e. least work needed for motion) until it finds an equilibrium. The density of air has a pressure gradient; when you move higher from the ground level there's a measurable decrease in density, which means that w/o gravity the direction of least resistance is upwards. Therefore, logically, when you release your hold of an object, it should move upwards.

This hypothesis leaves a few questions unanswered:

1. What exactly is the cause for the downward movement?
2. In a vacuum on the Earth a feather and a bowling ball will drop with exactly the same 9.8m/s/s acceleration. Why is heavier object not dropping faster?

Apologia Christou wrote:

MoNad wrote:This video:
... contains @12:20 - 12:40 a clip showing a ship behind another ship, but of the ship behind you can see only the cargo and the masts, the entire hull is invisible. The ship being further out I'd expect to see it smaller, but still as a whole, not just the portions above the deck level. I can't find a satisfactory explanation to the phenomenon, can someone please point me to the right direction?

It's simply perspective, at some point the ground-level gets to an high and everything beyond it seems to sink down. The waves of the ocean make this effect even more severe. So the waves which block the ship are much closer than the actual ship, and therefore of a much bigger scale, so that a lot of the ship is blocked by it.

This is the first explanation I found, and it's one of those unsatisfactory ones.

Firstly; perspective works equally on three dimensions. Look at any loaded container ship: the height of the cargo on deck is usually more than the height of the hull from waterline to the deck. And the masts are even higher. There's simply no way perspective can disappear a ship's hull but leave the cargo on deck or the masts clearly visible.

Secondly; ships ride the waves. That's a 20 second clip - if there was any significant amount of waves you'd see both ships bobbing up'n down. There's no up/down movement whatsoever. You can clearly see the waves, the sea is almost calm. The only way this could be caused by waves is that both ships are by themselves sailing calm waters, but there's a huge standing wave between them.

Thirdly - at what point exactly does ground level get "to an high"? Can I go out to a shoreline and determine "at the distance of x miles the ground level of the water gets to an high sufficiently that everything behind it starts to sink down"? What exactly is the distance x? What exactly causes this "sink down" effect at a distance?

MoNad wrote:

Apologia Christou wrote:

MoNad wrote:This video:
... contains @12:20 - 12:40 a clip showing a ship behind another ship, but of the ship behind you can see only the cargo and the masts, the entire hull is invisible. The ship being further out I'd expect to see it smaller, but still as a whole, not just the portions above the deck level. I can't find a satisfactory explanation to the phenomenon, can someone please point me to the right direction?

It's simply perspective, at some point the ground-level gets to an high and everything beyond it seems to sink down. The waves of the ocean make this effect even more severe. So the waves which block the ship are much closer than the actual ship, and therefore of a much bigger scale, so that a lot of the ship is blocked by it.

This is the first explanation I found, and it's one of those unsatisfactory ones.

Firstly; perspective works equally on three dimensions. Look at any loaded container ship: the height of the cargo on deck is usually more than the height of the hull from waterline to the deck. And the masts are even higher. There's simply no way perspective can disappear a ship's hull but leave the cargo on deck or the masts clearly visible.

Secondly; ships ride the waves. That's a 20 second clip - if there was any significant amount of waves you'd see both ships bobbing up'n down. There's no up/down movement whatsoever. You can clearly see the waves, the sea is almost calm. The only way this could be caused by waves is that both ships are by themselves sailing calm waters, but there's a huge standing wave between them.

Thirdly - at what point exactly does ground level get "to an high"? Can I go out to a shoreline and determine "at the distance of x miles the ground level of the water gets to an high sufficiently that everything behind it starts to sink down"? What exactly is the distance x? What exactly causes this "sink down" effect at a distance?

Firstly; why not? That's exactly what happens when you stand at the beach and watch the ships slowly disappearing below the horizon. You still see the top, but not the bottom.



Secondly; that's not the point. The point was, that this small wave which blocked the ship in the back is actually much closer to you than the actual ship, so that the dimensions of that little wave are actually much bigger, and therefore it blocks a lot of the sight of the ship. This little wave(s) also blocks all the waves that come behind it, because it is the biggest in scale. There are waves beyond that wave, and there is a ship beyond that wave; all of which are being blocked by that "Closest & Highest Wave" in the picture below.



Thirdly; I don't know the exact calculation, but the higher you are from the ground, the more you can see. So if you know the height of your sight, you can definitly calculate the distance you are able to see, until the ground and the sky meet at one point. The law of perspective of flat surfaces causes this effect to occur.

siriusrising wrote:Has anyone else been studying the YouTube videos of godgevlamste?
In a series of videos starting with
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFPfPKJCx3Q
He posits the theory that the Moon is a reflection of a gigantic earth. I found them to to very interesting. Food for thought. Just wondering what other ifers members thought.

I watched godgevlamste and The Lost History of Flat Earth and had several problems with it. Earth's continents size, shape and alignment really look nothing like this Moon map (not to mention all the additional landmasses no one has ever seen). As shown here Polaris simply doesn't work on this map. The LHFE series was quite good until he got to this section and made the ridiculous claim that "The Moon is the only real Flat Earth map." The Gleasons, Hammonds, and other traditional FE maps are clearly far better than this one. Presenting new theories is fine, but I don't appreciate the definitive manner in which he asserts his spurious speculations:

MoNad wrote:

Xander wrote:It's a law of nature that heavy things will displace lighter things in a downward direction.

This isn't a natural law, this is an observation.  

Xander wrote:Logically it could never happen any other way.

What exactly is the logic behind this statement?

Here's another observation: an object that's freely able to move will move to the direction of least resistance (i.e. least work needed for motion) until it finds an equilibrium. The density of air has a pressure gradient; when you move higher from the ground level there's a measurable decrease in density, which means that w/o gravity the direction of least resistance is upwards. Therefore, logically, when you release your hold of an object, it should move upwards.

This hypothesis leaves a few questions unanswered:

1. What exactly is the cause for the downward movement?
2. In a vacuum on the Earth a feather and a bowling ball will drop with exactly the same 9.8m/s/s acceleration. Why is heavier object not dropping faster?

This is a research society by and for Flat Earthers, not a question forum for ballers. You are speaking about "gravity" as if it is anything more than an easily debunked theory, which tells me you do not belong on this forum. If you are genuinely curious about Flat Earth then I recommend using this forum the way it was intended, as a place to conduct and share research, not somewhere to argue and ask endless questions. If you continue on this way you will be banned.

A feather and an anvil will both fall but at different rates because one is radically denser than the air while the other is not. This debunks the supposed uniform speed of acceleration due to "gravity," 9.8 m/s/s which would more accurately be labeled something like the max acceleration towards density equilibrium. As long as something has enough mass and is aerodynamic enough to negate the air resistance of the fall, things will fall at the same rate of approx. 9.8 m/s/s When in a vacuum chamber, the factor of air resistance is removed completely so everything, even feathers, balloons and dandelion seeds etc. will all fall at the same rate. Removing the medium of air just makes it even easier for everything to settle towards its density equilibrium.

There is a pressure gradient formed by the amount of stacked air/water/land over you in a column which increases the pressure/weight/density the further down you go and that defines direction. And helium balloons fall up, not down, proving there is no downward directional bias. Please see the following videos for further explanation:

Admin wrote:
I watched godgevlamste and The Lost History of Flat Earth and had several problems with it.  Earth's continents size, shape and alignment really look nothing like this Moon map (not to mention all the additional landmasses no one has ever seen). As shown here Polaris simply doesn't work on this map. The LHFE series was quite good until he got to this section and made the ridiculous claim that "The Moon is the only real Flat Earth map." The Gleasons, Hammonds, and other traditional FE maps are clearly far better than this one. Presenting new theories is fine, but I don't appreciate the definitive manner in which he asserts his spurious speculations:

I agree. It seemed to be something that all of a sudden several people in our community were pushing. When they say it with as much conviction as Ewar it is disappointing. Watching his later videos though he seems like a guy that is willing to change his mind. I do find the idea very fascinating but I'm far from being convinced. I think he got the idea from looking at the astrological clock in Prague and the moon map hypothesis and combined the two.

Like you say, when you really analyse what he's proposing, it creates far more problems than it answers.

Xander wrote:I agree. It seemed to be something that all of a sudden several people in our community were pushing. When they say it with as much conviction as Ewar it is disappointing. Watching his later videos though he seems like a guy that is willing to change his mind. I do find the idea very fascinating but I'm far from being convinced. I think he got the idea from looking at the astrological clock in Prague and the moon map hypothesis and combined the two.

Like you say, when you really analyse what he's proposing, it creates far more problems than it answers.

I read somewhere response from Ewar person that he is presenting "his path to the truth" or something like that.
And this path can be misleading sometimes.
And it's not a fact that he will present a truth at the end.
One should watch it as a movie (TV series), that have opinions on the facts different from "mainstream science" and of coarse make one's own opinion.
It may be work of controlled opposition.
After so many lies from different sources one should not take anything as a truth, but analyze the probability of information being truthful.
BTW, mixing truth with lies is a great approach to controlling the masses.

StillWakingUp wrote:
I read somewhere response from Ewar person that he is presenting "his path to the truth" or something like that.
And this path can be misleading sometimes.
And it's not a fact that he will present a truth at the end.
One should watch it as a movie (TV series), that have opinions on the facts different from "mainstream science" and of coarse make one's own opinion.
It may be work of controlled opposition.
After so many lies from different sources one should not take anything as a truth, but analyze the probability of information being truthful.
BTW, mixing truth with lies is a great approach to controlling the masses.

I'll be interested to see ultimately what he fleshes out. We'll see then how good (or not) his final analyses are. The moon map thing aside, I do think he is bringing much needed quality to the mudflood/Tartaria area. We have Eric of course in the flat earth space doing that, but in the Tartaria arena there just isn't that quality. It's mostly people looking at pictures and musing. I think Ewar's latest video (2.3) analysing the work of Victor Hugo in connection to old world architecture is top notch.



I agree, he could always be controlled opposition, but like you say, even so, we can still work out the truth from the lies with analysis (hopefully!).

I am guessing this has been discussed, but has not been done. And unless I am missing something, as usual lol, I would like to have a go with this.

Drone requirements:
--solar powered
--multiple cameras... at least front, back, under, and one on the attitude indicator
--programmed to fly only straight

And here is the plan:


Thoughts, help, further ideas appreciated.

In reality East and West are circles not straight lines, so in your second picture the line is going South-East rather than East. East is the direction you travel when your left shoulder is exactly 90 degrees to the Pole Star.

Admin wrote:In reality East and West are circles not straight lines, so in your second picture the line is going South-East rather than East.  East is the direction you travel when your left shoulder is exactly 90 degrees to the Pole Star.

Hi Eric, and thanks for the reply. And I agree here, but this is why I specified that the compasses are used only on the ground for the initial orientation of the plane to be pointed east from Ecuador... and then to fly in a straight line only.

See if this helps to make sense out of my ramblings:


Does that make more sense or am I still missing something?

Ah, I see, in that case, yes, sounds good, if you can maintain a perfectly straight line, you will always end up in Antarctica eventually regardless of where you start and which direction you are facing.

I'm about a week into FE.. after an initial high of finally learning the truth of my reality, I'm starting to ask the question.. now what?

There's no going back to sleep for me, so that's off the table.

Living life surrounded by people who refuse to wake up no matter how hard you shake them seems really depressing to me.

I hear plenty of podcasts and videos of people speaking truth, and see them getting hundreds sometimes thousands of views and likes so I have to ask the question, for both myself and for the community, ... now what?

Here are some of my suggestions:

What do you think about solar flares? I’ve seen some amateur people on YouTube capture them with telescopes with a filter. Are they real? If so does that confirm mainstream interpretation of the sun or could it be another reason why the the sun “flares”?

Greenlight144000 wrote:What do you think about solar flares? I’ve seen some amateur people on YouTube capture them with telescopes with a filter. Are they real? If so does that confirm mainstream interpretation of the sun or could it be another reason why the the sun “flares”?

"solar flare" returns lots of CGI pics: https://search.brave.com/images?q=solar+flare&source=web#2

On YouTube, and searching "solar flare p900," returns a video by Wolfie 6020, a known disinformation agent: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=solar+flare+p900

Otherwise, it seems the boys with the P900/1000's aren't finding much solar flare activity to film with their nifty zoom lenses.

Take away from it what you will, that a known disinfo agent is ranked by YouTube's deceptive search algorithm so that his nonsense is showcased high in the search results.

Do you have one or two specific videos you think represent actual solar flares? If so, please provide link(s).

Eric, btw, just recently exposed some of Wolfie 6020's nonsense regarding his laughable assertion that Lake Pontchartrain proves water clings to a ball:



I did find the following video, which purports to be taken from a Nikon P900. It looks nothing like what we see in the first search I provided above. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyDpK_rN4lU

Is it your "confirmation bias" that is attempting to "confirm mainstream [Masonic] interpretation"? If so, why listen to liars?

markwilson wrote:

Greenlight144000 wrote:What do you think about solar flares? I’ve seen some amateur people on YouTube capture them with telescopes with a filter. Are they real? If so does that confirm mainstream interpretation of the sun or could it be another reason why the the sun “flares”?

"solar flare" returns lots of CGI pics: https://search.brave.com/images?q=solar+flare&source=web#2

On YouTube, and searching "solar flare p900," returns a video by Wolfie 6020, a known disinformation agent: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=solar+flare+p900

Otherwise, it seems the boys with the P900/1000's aren't finding much solar flare activity to film with their nifty zoom lenses.

Take away from it what you will, that a known disinfo agent is ranked by YouTube's deceptive search algorithm so that his nonsense is showcased high in the search results.

Do you have one or two specific videos you think represent actual solar flares? If so, please provide link(s).

Eric, btw, just recently exposed some of Wolfie 6020's nonsense regarding his laughable assertion that Lake Pontchartrain proves water clings to a ball:



I did find the following video, which purports to be taken from a Nikon P900. It looks nothing like what we see in the first search I provided above. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyDpK_rN4lU

Is it your "confirmation bias" that is attempting to "confirm mainstream [Masonic] interpretation"? If so, why listen to liars?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/mq_46OJDOR4?feature=share


https://youtu.be/Bh7zXrmRcA4


These are the ones I came up with. I’m not trying to do confirmation bias I just have doubts sometimes.

Greenlight144000 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/mq_46OJDOR4?feature=share


https://youtu.be/Bh7zXrmRcA4


These are the ones I came up with. I’m not trying to do confirmation bias I just have doubts sometimes.

The first link is aggregated from Chuck's Astrophotography channel. https://www.youtube.com/c/ChucksAstrophotography

Look at this nonsense in which he promotes an "expanding universe" with CGI effects (i.e. big bang): https://www.youtube.com/shorts/IuKS4vnR_pA

Let's also take a look at your second link. Thunderf00t pretends to be a deep thinker (and from his "about" page): "The true beauty of a self-inquiring sentient universe is lost on those who elect to walk the intellectually vacuous path of comfortable paranoid fantasies."

This video of Thunderf00t's features Nathan Oakley, another well known disinfo agent (he denies being related to Robin Oakley): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdn9cvJBt64

You should also know that Nathan Oakley is a card-carrying member of the Sargent/Steere/Globebusters Potato Head crew. Steere has moved on to her next gig - though she's not sure what she wants to talk about yet (i.e. no longer highjacking flat earth discussion with her nonsense). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9Vh8PMxvNI

markwilson wrote:

Greenlight144000 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/mq_46OJDOR4?feature=share


https://youtu.be/Bh7zXrmRcA4


These are the ones I came up with. I’m not trying to do confirmation bias I just have doubts sometimes.

The first link is aggregated from Chuck's Astrophotography channel. https://www.youtube.com/c/ChucksAstrophotography

Look at this nonsense in which he promotes an "expanding universe" with CGI effects (i.e. big bang): https://www.youtube.com/shorts/IuKS4vnR_pA

Let's also take a look at your second link. Thunderf00t pretends to be a deep thinker (and from his "about" page): "The true beauty of a self-inquiring sentient universe is lost on those who elect to walk the intellectually vacuous path of comfortable paranoid fantasies."

This video of Thunderf00t's features Nathan Oakley, another well known disinfo agent (he denies being related to Robin Oakley): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdn9cvJBt64

You should also know that Nathan Oakley is a card-carrying member of the Sargent/Steere/Globebusters Potato Head crew. Steere has moved on to her next gig - though she's not sure what she wants to talk about yet (i.e. no longer highjacking flat earth discussion with her nonsense). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9Vh8PMxvNI

https://youtu.be/USiTZyZsN_c

Okay thanks mark there is this one more video I want to show you that I think is from a flat earther. He recorded the 2017 eclipse and it shows a The sun “flaring”.

He is what we thought he was.

One thing I really don't understand is: how does it work with distances (and directions) in the south?
If east-west distances are so much further, how does this stay unnoticed on maps, routes and in distances and travel time?

What are the thoughts about this from members her from the southern 'hemisphere'?

And what do you think of this article about a maps mistake:?
https://www.news.com.au/travel/australian-holidays/queensland/google-maps-agrees-to-sort-its-inflated-distances-in-the-queensland-outback/news-story/a38f729e4791d19d0d81fefe575250d6

And of this question I posted earlier about directions in the south?:
https://ifers.123.st/t221-dear-spinning-ball-earth-believer#18629





(sorry if this should be in a different topic!)

How do you know how far the distances actually are?
Google maps censors all the oceans, not that I expect oceans to have distinguishing features. It could be that the maps show the countries we know of relatively accurately, and all of the the distortion is reserved for oceans. The rest of the inconsistencies are smoothed away with the mercator projection.

There isn't enough land mass in the southern hemisphere to casually notice these inconsistencies.


Why would you screenshot a forum post from another section of the same forum? That's very sketchy.

Hi, first post, but ive been using this site as a resource since i found it couple months ago.

Is there a diploma in flat earth science? that could certify a person has basic and advanced understanding of a flat earth, sun, moon, stars. Even nasa, esa, indian and chinese space programs

There should be enough to make an exam that is thourough and difficult to pass. There may be a panel of essay readers, and profiencnt clarity and vast understanding would be qualitatively graded for pass or fail.