When you see the ship "go down" it is simply the vanishing line of your perspective. The next time you are in a place to view a ship sailing away, bring a telescope. After you have seen the ship disappear from view completely with the naked eye, use your telescope. You can bring the ship entirely back into view. This clearly indicates that the ship isn't being blocked by water.
To explain "the vanishing line of your perspective", consider a very long hallway that you are looking down. Think about how you see the lines of the floor, ceiling and walls converge as you look down the hallway. Eventually the floor and the ceiling meet and you can't see any further down the hallway with your naked eye. But there is nothing blocking your line of sight and you could see further with a telescope.
Are you assigned to come to flat earth threads to "debunk" them? I find it odd you spend so much time debating against it if it's just some "loony conspiracy" with no evidence.
Also the fact that you can zoom the ship back into view with a camera or scope proves that it isn't going over the "curve" horizon.
I debunked your ball earth "proof" and you failed to even comment on it, just a downvote how convenient.
Not that I even want to debate the subject with someone that trolls around telling people how wrong they are, yet is only parroting what they've been told without researching or experimenting for themselves.
If flat Earth is such a ludicrous idea why would you spend so much time "debunking" all these loons and there crazyness ?
To be honest I don't want people to believe absolute rubbish like that. The problem is that many dont believe we have been to space and without that lots of evidence becomes very hard
The map of the flat earth looks like the UN flag. The North pole is in the middle and Antarctica is a ring around us. The sun is much closer to us than we have been told. It moves in a circular motion around the North pole. When the sun is on the opposite side of the North pole from you it is so far away that it disappears from view due to the law of perspective.
That's pretty creative, but you've lost me with this 'law of perspective' and how the sun could just disappear by being far away whilst stars very far away remain visible.
The description of how the sun, moon and stars move is a lot to type out, so I will give a link. The flat earth is stationary while these things move around us.
Could we go there? How far up does the atmosphere go? What is above it?
Unfortunately for a lot of those things our information just comes from authorities. Clearly for this to be true there must be scientific authorities involved in covering it up. For the question of could we go up there, the Van Allen Radiation belts appear to be a problem.
What causes the appearance of gravity? What are GPS satellites doing?
These two questions take a lot of explaining to answer. I won't be able to type out thorough explanations here. Consult the resources I have linked for more detail. Gravity is an interesting topic. Research into how the theory of gravity became accepted is interesting. The short answer is that it was made up as an explanation for the heliocentric model and ball planets.
GPS satellites don't actually exist. GPS is done through radio towers on earth. There are certain places, closer to Antarctica, where GPS does not work.
The question is, how do you explain the lunar eclipses that occur while the sun is also visible in the sky? The earth blocking the light from the sun is not what causes lunar eclipses.
The Greenwich Royal Observatory recorded that “during the lunar eclipses of July 17th, 1590, November 3rd, 1648, June 16th, 1666, and May 26th, 1668 the moon rose eclipsed whilst the sun was still above the horizon.” McCulluch’s Geography recorded that “on September 20th, 1717 and April 20th, 1837 the moon appeared to rise eclipsed before the sun had set.” Sir Henry Holland also noted in his “Recollections of Past Life” the April 20th, 1837 phenomena where “the moon rose eclipsed before the sun set.” The Daily Telegraph recorded it happening again on January 17th, 1870, then again in July of the same year, and it continues to happen during lunar eclipses to this day. Therefore the eclipsor of the Moon cannot be the Earth/Earth's shadow and another explanation must be sought.
Also, observed from space is a whole other topic. Suffice to say NASA does a lot of acting and CGI work.
NASA can get into "low earth orbit", but they have not been to the moon. The pictures and video that they provide us with have a lot of problems (green screen shots, bubbles from space walks shot underwater, silly permed hair that bounces back exactly right, etc).
But when you are considering the shape of the earth, consider the physical proofs first. The evidence is very strong. You can perform experiments yourself easily. Put aside the how and why of the coverup required until afterwards. Those things take a lot more research and the evidence isn't something you can physically experiment to prove.
All nations that have a space program use it for money that can be black budgeted. The Chinese put out even lower quality space stuff than NASA has. As I said, consider the physical evidence before moving on to the how and why of the coverup.
What experiments can I perform?
The following two books describe some. A lot of the easier ones to perform yourself come down to measuring things over water and making observations from high altitude.
Google "photo of earth", what do you see? There are a lot of problems with those images. The one that you see everywhere is actually a composite image, you can find the clip of the NASA spokesperson saying that themselves. There really should be some actual photos for us to look at.
Also thank you for confirming what I predicted
I promise you I am not trolling, this subject is worth looking into. Consider checking out some of the links that I have provided. Approach it with an open mind.
the rockets being launched into space, satellites, Hubble/other space telescopes.
All of these things we don't have direct access to. All of that information comes from official agencies. We either take them at their word, or we examine the material that the official agencies provide us with. Once you catch them lying and faking over and over you pretty much have to throw out anything they tell you.
Consider this: google "photo of earth". Now, ignore the fact that its all CGI or composites rather than actual photos for a moment. Just pick one of them.
Next watch this quick clip of Neil Degrasse Tyson describing the shape of the earth: https://youtu.be/kFjG4jpUhQI
They are aware that there is too much area in the Southern Hemisphere, so they come up with this explanation. The "photos" you have been presented with are far too perfectly round to fit the description he gives.
This describes the extra space they are trying to account for in the South:
“From near Cape Horn, Chile to Port Philip in Melbourne, Australia the distance is 9,000 miles. These two places are 143 degrees of longitude from each other. Therefore the whole extent of the Earth’s circumference is a mere arithmetical question. If 143 degrees make 9,000 miles, what will be the distance made by the whole 360 degrees into which the surface is divided? The answer is, 22,657 miles; or, 8357 miles more than the theory of rotundity would permit. It must be borne in mind, however, that the above distances are nautical measure, which, reduced to statute miles, gives the actual distance round the Southern region at a given latitude as 26,433 statute miles; or nearly 1,500 miles more than the largest circumference ever assigned to the Earth at the equator.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition”
Trying to find link. NASA rep making an admission.
So me flying in a plane?
When you fly and look out the window, what do you see? If you think you see the horizon bent it is only because of the curved windows. But regardless of the window you can see the height of the horizon line at your eye level. No matter how high you are, the horizon level always rises to your eye level. This is only possible on a flat plane. On a ball you should have to look down to the horizon.
What about the balloons sent to the stratosphere with a camera?
That is actually a pretty good proof in itself. If you send up a camera with a flat lens (most have fisheye, you can see because it warps everything else as well as the horizon), you can see how flat the horizon is.
Weather balloon to 30km https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CjjbauSvBE
Keep in mind when the camera is bobbing up and down you can see the horizon curve both concave and convex. Pay attention to when the camera settles.
Also ships don't reappear when you zoom in on them
Try it. Watch something disappear with the naked eye fully, then use a magnifying device and be able to see it again.
The next time you are on a plane, look again. Before you take off, check the window, when you observe flat things do they appear flat or are they warped by the curvature of the window?
It doesn't. Since at least the ancient Greeks people have known the earth was round, partly due to the boat disappearing down into the water
I'm asking you to reconsider what you know. Recheck, just to make sure. Just because you are told something over and over again does not mean it is true. Examine the evidence critically instead of just discarding it because of the implications of what it proves.
I am a critical thinker and the evidence for a round earth far outweighs the evidence against it.
It is good that you consider yourself a critical thinker. I ask you to engage in an exercise. Put aside the how and the why of the coverup required for this to be true and consider the physical evidence on its own merits. Follow the links I have provided in this thread, there is a huge wealth of resources.
I suppose the difference for me is that I believe we have been to the moon and space.
We do differ here. We can get to low earth orbit, not to the moon.
Can listen to William Cooper describe some problems he has with the logistics involved: https://youtu.be/8mrhO6TCuF4
Also the law of perspective is created just to make the flat earth 'theory' work
No, it isn't. You can observe the effect yourself quite easily. Consider looking down a long hallway. Think about how you see the floor, ceiling and walls as you look down the hallway. Draw the lines of this image in your mind. Now think of what you can see as a 2d viewport. The stuff that is close to you, ie the first 20 feet takes up a lot more space in this 2d viewport than the second 20 feet. If the hallway is long enough, at some point you cant see any further with the naked eye. If you were to use a telescope you would be able to see further, but the effect would still be there.
I wasn't the person who started the thread, the OP seems to have abandoned it. But I should say that asking for any question and responding to it is probably more difficult than just presenting some proofs.
But here a couple anyway:
The horizon always rises to your eye level no matter how high you go. If the earth was a ball, at some point going up you would need to look down to the horizon. Think about the last time you looked out the window of an airplane. You can test it yourself. Get a camera, stick it on a balloon, let it go. People have gone up to 20 miles with balloons and always see the horizon rise to the level of the camera. That is only possible on a flat plane. Do keep in mind though that air has moisture and other particles in it, so the distance you can see is not infinite.
Consider how much water should curve using Pythagorean theorem. A copy of the book “The Lighthouses of the World” and a calculator are enough to prove that the Earth is not a globe, but an extended flat plane. The distance from which various lighthouse lights around the world are visible at sea far exceeds what could be found on a globe Earth 25,000 miles in circumference. For example, the Dunkerque Light in southern France at an altitude of 194 feet is visible from 28 miles away. Spherical trigonometry dictates that if the Earth was a globe with the given curvature of 8 inches per mile squared, this light should be hidden 190 feet below the horizon!
What you are saying should be easy to prove. A person looking through a telescope from a NYC apartment facing east should be able to read the time on Big Ben in London.
Air has moisture and other particulate matter in it. You cannot see through it an infinite distance. Consider standing at a lookout and viewing two hills, one twice the distance from you as the other. The further away one will have more of a blue tinge to it due to viewing it through more air.
Consider your own "viewport". Consider looking down a very long hallway. Think about the lines of the floor, ceiling and walls. If the hallway is long enough those lines converge in the middle of your view. The parts of the hallway closer to you take up a larger part of the 2d "viewport" of your vision. You can extend your viewing distance with magnification, but the hallway effect still remains with a telescope.
Now, if air had nothing suspended in it and you had a telescope with enough magnification (which would be quite a bit), then yes, you could make the sighting you are describing.
I have a serious question...when I visit the east coast of the US and watch the sun rise I can see the sun through the ocean long before it is above land. How is that possible if the earth is flat?
Thanks for your response.
I appreciate that you are asking a serious question. Do you have a link to an image that shows this phenomenon?
The following is not directly an answer to your question(need image pls), but discusses how the sun appears to us.
The sun "rises" and "sets" due to the law of perspective (I know this might seem like a tangent, but it is vital to the explanation). That has to do with how things appear as they get far away from you. Consider looking down a very long hallway. Think about the lines of intersection between the floor, ceiling and walls. These lines meet in the middle of your viewable area. If you consider your viewable area as a 2d "viewport", the objects that are closer to you, say the first 20ft of hallway, take up more of the viewport than things further away. Each 20 ft section takes up less of the viewable area as you go down the hall. For the sections that are very far away, they get an extremely small part of the 2d space. If you use a telescope, you can change your viewport. The things close to you are no longer visible, and you get more 2d viewable space for things further away, but the effect at the end is still the same.
The sun rising is the sun coming towards you in a path that is parallel to the earth. The sun in this case is at the ceiling height from our hallway The sun is not nearly as high above the earth as you have been told, more like 3000 miles. At some point it becomes within your viewable perspective and the rise is how it appears during that process.
Next, this video discusses the effect of the sunrise and sunset using refraction through a curved surface to simulate perspective. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feZPgewB2Eo
Not really. With the deep water, like off Maine, the sun is seen like it's under the water before it cracks the horizon. In this video it's only a little red near the water surface. I've sat on the beach and up on the rocky hills and seen it happen. I'll try to find a video to explain it. There use to be a great series of "sunrises from around the world" that showed it like I'm describing. :-)
Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis performed several experiments showing the effect of kinetic energy on rotating systems, which have ever since become mythologized as proof of the heliocentric theory. The “Coriolis Effect” is often said to cause sinks and toilet bowls in the Northern Hemisphere to drain spinning in one direction while in the Southern Hemisphere causing them to spin the opposite way, thus providing proof of the spinning ball-Earth. Once again, however, just like Foucault’s Pendulums spinning either which way, sinks and toilets in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres do not consistently spin in any one direction! Sinks and toilets in the very same household are often found to spin opposite directions, depending entirely upon the shape of the basin and the angle of the water’s entry, not the supposed rotation of the Earth.
“While the premise makes sense - that the earth’s eastward spin would cause the water in a toilet bowl to spin as well - in reality, the force and speed at which the water enters and leaves the receptacle is much too great to be influenced by something as miniscule as a single, 360-degree turn over the span of a day. When all is said and done, the Coriolis effect plays no larger role in toilet flushes than it does in the revolution of CDs in your stereo. The things that really determine the direction in which water leaves your toilet or sink are the shape of the bowl and the angle at which the liquid initially enters that bowl.” -Jennifer Horton, “Does the Rotation of the Earth Affect Toilets and Baseball Games?” Science.HowStuffWorks.com
The Coriolis Effect is also said to affect bullet trajectories and weather patterns as well, supposedly causing most storms in the Northern Hemisphere to rotate counter-clockwise, and most storms in the Southern Hemisphere to rotate clockwise, to cause bullets from long range guns to tend towards the right of the target in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere. Again, however, the same problems remain. Not every bullet and not every storm consistently displays the behavior and therefore cannot reasonably be used as proof of anything. What about the precision of the sight aperture, human error, and wind? What about Michelson-Morley-Gale’s proven motion of the aether’s potential effect? Why does the Coriolis Effect affect most storms but not all? If some storms rotate clockwise in the North and counter-clockwise in the South, how do those storms escape the Coriolis force? And if the entire Earth’s spin is uniform, why should the two hemispheres be affected any differently? Coriolis’s Effect and Foucault’s Pendulum are both said to prove the Earth moves beneath our feet, but in reality only prove how easy it can be for wolves in sheep’s clothing to pull the wool over our eyes.
Sorry for the lateness of my reply. The Coriolis effect on toilets and sinks is far too weak to be of any real significance in the rotation of the water going down the drain, as any imperfections, deviations or currents present in the water will exert a greater effect on the direction of flow, so I agree with this to a certain extent. If a perfect funnel is used as the sink or toilet bowl in the experiment, then you do see opposite flow in the different hemispheres.
Same applies to bullets, as there are a large number of variables involved which will effect the direction of any deviation.
However, all low pressure systems in the Southern hemisphere spin in a clockwise direction, while in the Northern hemisphere they spin counter-clockwise. This is an observable, incontrovertible fact which I feel renders the flat earth theory unviable.
If, it is conceded (which it is not, would need to research more) that everything you have just stated is true, then:
This is an observable, incontrovertible fact which I feel renders the flat earth theory unviable.
I don't think this is an appropriate conclusion. The possibility exists for another explanation for this effect. I don't think you can completely ignore all other evidence. Consider it this way: I feel there are many strong pieces of evidence that prove that the earth cannot be a ball and they are observable, incontrovertible facts which render the globular earth theory unviable! And many of those proofs are much more fundamental to the property of flatness. For example, showing that water does not curve over long distances. This, to me, is much more direct than saying "Storms spin mostly one way in this location and a spinning globe provides a plausible explanation for that".
I urge you to consider ALL of the evidence. This seems too weak to be an ending point for investigation.
Here are a couple resources if you are interested:
Distortion of the maps of Africa and Australia -- not to mention the ridiculous distance between them -- on the Flat Earth map
those are all the proof anyone needs to conclusively debunk the Flat Earth theory
I've said it a dozen times
so why is this nonsense still being pushed in this sub ?
Go look at the Flat Earth Theory map !
Look at Africa and Australia !
Look at the distortion required of Flat Earthers to even include them on the Flat Earth Theory map !
Look at the distance between Australia and Africa on the Flat Earth Theory map !
That's it. Flat Earth theory demolished !
And Flat EArthers know it !
They admit it !
They admit they have NO way of reconciling the distortion and distance re: Africa and Australia with their flat earth theory !
It's what brought Flat Earth theory to a standstill over history
Now, for anyone entertaining the Flat Earth theory --- look at Australia and Africa and realise you've been wasting your time and energy re: the Flat Earth theory
Why do you think Africa and Australia cannot be that far apart? Are there direct flights or cruises between Australia and Africa?
The problem for the globular model is that there is too much earth in the Southern Hemisphere.
“From near Cape Horn, Chile to Port Philip in Melbourne, Australia the distance is 9,000 miles. These two places are 143 degrees of longitude from each other. Therefore the whole extent of the Earth’s circumference is a mere arithmetical question. If 143 degrees make 9,000 miles, what will be the distance made by the whole 360 degrees into which the surface is divided? The answer is, 22,657 miles; or, 8357 miles more than the theory of rotundity would permit. It must be borne in mind, however, that the above distances are nautical measure, which, reduced to statute miles, gives the actual distance round the Southern region at a given latitude as 26,433 statute miles; or nearly 1,500 miles more than the largest circumference ever assigned to the Earth at the equator.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (52)
Also, you should understand that "The Flat Earthers" are not a single group. The "Flat Earth Society" founded by Leo Ferrari is disinformation (seriously, he is a clown, look up some of his stuff). It exists to make the whole thing look silly. When you make statements like:
That's it. Flat Earth theory demolished !
And Flat EArthers know it !
They admit it !
They admit they have NO way of reconciling the distortion and distance re: Africa and Australia with their flat earth theory !
Those statements are intended to make the whole thing look silly. No one made any admissions of anything on my behalf.
And yes, in response to your question, there are direct flights from Australia to South Africa and have been for years.
If flying from the eastern coast of Australia (Melbourne) the flight time to Johannesburg will of course take longer, because Australia is a vast landmass and domestic flights from Melbourne to Perth (Western Australia) takes several hours. I've flown from Melbourne to Perth (and return) and can attest to the fact the trip is lengthy (approx. 3.5 hours these days, used to be longer)
Flights from Melbourne, Victoria, to Cairns in Queensland is sightly less in distance and takes almost three hours, for comparison
Were you under the impression there exist no direct flights between Australia (either east or west coast) and South Africa? There are, of course and people fly those routes all the time
I have been considering this, and other distance measurement information and I have to say that I must reconsider my model. The earth is most certainly provably flat, but I don't know that the land masses can be laid out and of the size in the current model.
The flatness of the earth over long distances of water is something that I can prove myself through experimentation in several ways. Mapping out the world I can't do directly, so it is much more difficult.
And yes, in response to your question, there are direct flights from Australia to South Africa and have been for years.
If flying from the eastern coast of Australia (Melbourne) the flight time to Johannesburg will of course take longer, because Australia is a vast landmass and domestic flights from Melbourne to Perth (Western Australia) takes several hours. I've flown from Melbourne to Perth (and return) and can attest to the fact the trip is lengthy (approx. 3.5 hours these days, used to be longer)
Flights from Melbourne, Victoria, to Cairns in Queensland is sightly less in distance and takes almost three hours, for comparison
Were you under the impression there exist no direct flights between Australia (either east or west coast) and South Africa? There are, of course and people fly those routes all the time
55 comments
4 Terex80 2015-05-23
The void of no evidence here is obvious.
Ever seen a ship sail off? It 'sinks' because the earth is not flat
0 [deleted] 2015-05-23
[deleted]
4 Terex80 2015-05-23
What? When you sail away the hull of the ship is the first thing to disappear from view, the sails or top of the ship is the last
0 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-05-23
This is incorrect.
When you see the ship "go down" it is simply the vanishing line of your perspective. The next time you are in a place to view a ship sailing away, bring a telescope. After you have seen the ship disappear from view completely with the naked eye, use your telescope. You can bring the ship entirely back into view. This clearly indicates that the ship isn't being blocked by water.
To explain "the vanishing line of your perspective", consider a very long hallway that you are looking down. Think about how you see the lines of the floor, ceiling and walls converge as you look down the hallway. Eventually the floor and the ceiling meet and you can't see any further down the hallway with your naked eye. But there is nothing blocking your line of sight and you could see further with a telescope.
0 eschaton777 2015-05-23
Are you assigned to come to flat earth threads to "debunk" them? I find it odd you spend so much time debating against it if it's just some "loony conspiracy" with no evidence.
Also the fact that you can zoom the ship back into view with a camera or scope proves that it isn't going over the "curve" horizon.
0 Terex80 2015-05-23
'assigned' Emmm no, because I choose what I like to click on. I pick it because it shows people's desperation to believe an alternative idea
1 eschaton777 2015-05-23
I debunked your ball earth "proof" and you failed to even comment on it, just a downvote how convenient.
Not that I even want to debate the subject with someone that trolls around telling people how wrong they are, yet is only parroting what they've been told without researching or experimenting for themselves.
If flat Earth is such a ludicrous idea why would you spend so much time "debunking" all these loons and there crazyness ?
0 Terex80 2015-05-23
To be honest I don't want people to believe absolute rubbish like that. The problem is that many dont believe we have been to space and without that lots of evidence becomes very hard
4 Rockran 2015-05-23
It's nearing midnight where I am at the moment.
It's early morning in California.
How is that possible on a flat earth?
-2 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-05-23
The map of the flat earth looks like the UN flag. The North pole is in the middle and Antarctica is a ring around us. The sun is much closer to us than we have been told. It moves in a circular motion around the North pole. When the sun is on the opposite side of the North pole from you it is so far away that it disappears from view due to the law of perspective.
4 Rockran 2015-05-23
That's pretty creative, but you've lost me with this 'law of perspective' and how the sun could just disappear by being far away whilst stars very far away remain visible.
-1 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-05-23
The description of how the sun, moon and stars move is a lot to type out, so I will give a link. The flat earth is stationary while these things move around us.
http://ifers.boards.net/thread/36/flat-earth-model
That post has a description of how things work.
5 throwawaynameday 2015-05-23
Soooo....
Could we go there? How far up does the atmosphere go? What is above it?
What causes the appearance of gravity? What are GPS satellites doing?
-1 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-05-23
Unfortunately for a lot of those things our information just comes from authorities. Clearly for this to be true there must be scientific authorities involved in covering it up. For the question of could we go up there, the Van Allen Radiation belts appear to be a problem.
Consider this video describing the problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51DED8dcNkA
Now consider this clip of Astronaut Alan Bean describing how they miraculously avoided the Van Allen belts to get to the moon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3-cTwK65kc
These two questions take a lot of explaining to answer. I won't be able to type out thorough explanations here. Consult the resources I have linked for more detail. Gravity is an interesting topic. Research into how the theory of gravity became accepted is interesting. The short answer is that it was made up as an explanation for the heliocentric model and ball planets.
GPS satellites don't actually exist. GPS is done through radio towers on earth. There are certain places, closer to Antarctica, where GPS does not work.
-2 IownaFerrari 2015-05-23
The flat earth is continuously moving upwards causing the phenomenon of gravity.
1 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-05-23
No, this is misinformation. The earth is not moving upwards, it is stationary. What you think of as gravity can be explained by density and buoyancy.
4 JvFlw 2015-05-23
If Earth was flat, how would you explain lunar eclipses?
If Earth was flat, how would you explain its circular shape when observed from space?
-1 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-05-23
The question is, how do you explain the lunar eclipses that occur while the sun is also visible in the sky? The earth blocking the light from the sun is not what causes lunar eclipses.
The Greenwich Royal Observatory recorded that “during the lunar eclipses of July 17th, 1590, November 3rd, 1648, June 16th, 1666, and May 26th, 1668 the moon rose eclipsed whilst the sun was still above the horizon.” McCulluch’s Geography recorded that “on September 20th, 1717 and April 20th, 1837 the moon appeared to rise eclipsed before the sun had set.” Sir Henry Holland also noted in his “Recollections of Past Life” the April 20th, 1837 phenomena where “the moon rose eclipsed before the sun set.” The Daily Telegraph recorded it happening again on January 17th, 1870, then again in July of the same year, and it continues to happen during lunar eclipses to this day. Therefore the eclipsor of the Moon cannot be the Earth/Earth's shadow and another explanation must be sought.
Also, observed from space is a whole other topic. Suffice to say NASA does a lot of acting and CGI work.
-2 Terex80 2015-05-23
Space is a lie, NASA never got there (this is what they say and all images are made up by people protecting the theory)
Not lying this is the sort of reply you get
-2 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-05-23
NASA can get into "low earth orbit", but they have not been to the moon. The pictures and video that they provide us with have a lot of problems (green screen shots, bubbles from space walks shot underwater, silly permed hair that bounces back exactly right, etc).
But when you are considering the shape of the earth, consider the physical proofs first. The evidence is very strong. You can perform experiments yourself easily. Put aside the how and why of the coverup required until afterwards. Those things take a lot more research and the evidence isn't something you can physically experiment to prove.
0 Terex80 2015-05-23
And of course the USSR was in on this conspiracy?
What experiments can I perform?
So the photos from space of earth?
Also thank you for confirming what I predicted
0 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-05-23
All nations that have a space program use it for money that can be black budgeted. The Chinese put out even lower quality space stuff than NASA has. As I said, consider the physical evidence before moving on to the how and why of the coverup.
The following two books describe some. A lot of the easier ones to perform yourself come down to measuring things over water and making observations from high altitude.
Zetetic Cosmogeny: https://archive.org/details/zeteticcosmogon00recgoog
100 Proofs Earth not a Globe: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/pamphlets/One%20Hundred%20Proofs%20that%20the%20Earth%20is%20not%20a%20Globe%20%28William%20Carpenter%29.pdf
Google "photo of earth", what do you see? There are a lot of problems with those images. The one that you see everywhere is actually a composite image, you can find the clip of the NASA spokesperson saying that themselves. There really should be some actual photos for us to look at.
I promise you I am not trolling, this subject is worth looking into. Consider checking out some of the links that I have provided. Approach it with an open mind.
0 Terex80 2015-05-23
Physical evidence: the rockets being launched into space, satellites, Hubble/other space telescopes.
The 100 proofs is too low quality, can't read any of it sorry.
What problems are there with them?
1 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-05-23
All of these things we don't have direct access to. All of that information comes from official agencies. We either take them at their word, or we examine the material that the official agencies provide us with. Once you catch them lying and faking over and over you pretty much have to throw out anything they tell you.
Consider this: google "photo of earth". Now, ignore the fact that its all CGI or composites rather than actual photos for a moment. Just pick one of them.
Next watch this quick clip of Neil Degrasse Tyson describing the shape of the earth: https://youtu.be/kFjG4jpUhQI
They are aware that there is too much area in the Southern Hemisphere, so they come up with this explanation. The "photos" you have been presented with are far too perfectly round to fit the description he gives.
This describes the extra space they are trying to account for in the South:
“From near Cape Horn, Chile to Port Philip in Melbourne, Australia the distance is 9,000 miles. These two places are 143 degrees of longitude from each other. Therefore the whole extent of the Earth’s circumference is a mere arithmetical question. If 143 degrees make 9,000 miles, what will be the distance made by the whole 360 degrees into which the surface is divided? The answer is, 22,657 miles; or, 8357 miles more than the theory of rotundity would permit. It must be borne in mind, however, that the above distances are nautical measure, which, reduced to statute miles, gives the actual distance round the Southern region at a given latitude as 26,433 statute miles; or nearly 1,500 miles more than the largest circumference ever assigned to the Earth at the equator.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition”
0 Terex80 2015-05-23
Proof that it is cgi/composites?
So me flying in a plane? What about the balloons sent to the stratosphere with a camera? Also ships don't reappear when you zoom in on them
1 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-05-23
Trying to find link. NASA rep making an admission.
When you fly and look out the window, what do you see? If you think you see the horizon bent it is only because of the curved windows. But regardless of the window you can see the height of the horizon line at your eye level. No matter how high you are, the horizon level always rises to your eye level. This is only possible on a flat plane. On a ball you should have to look down to the horizon.
That is actually a pretty good proof in itself. If you send up a camera with a flat lens (most have fisheye, you can see because it warps everything else as well as the horizon), you can see how flat the horizon is.
Weather balloon to 30km https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CjjbauSvBE
Keep in mind when the camera is bobbing up and down you can see the horizon curve both concave and convex. Pay attention to when the camera settles.
Try it. Watch something disappear with the naked eye fully, then use a magnifying device and be able to see it again.
0 Terex80 2015-05-23
When you get higher in the plane you can see that there is curvature, I don't quite get what you mean about it 'rising' to your eye level.
I see the earth curving.
It doesn't. Since at least the ancient Greeks people have known the earth was round, partly due to the boat disappearing down into the water
Also the sun? Eclipses? Time zones? Night time?
1 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-05-23
This is an important proof. This video might help explain it: https://youtu.be/TW__MZXMA7A
The next time you are on a plane, look again. Before you take off, check the window, when you observe flat things do they appear flat or are they warped by the curvature of the window?
I'm asking you to reconsider what you know. Recheck, just to make sure. Just because you are told something over and over again does not mean it is true. Examine the evidence critically instead of just discarding it because of the implications of what it proves.
That would be a lot of typing. For a description of how the model works check here: http://ifers.boards.net/thread/6/moon-stars-prove-flat-earth
0 Terex80 2015-05-23
I am a critical thinker and the evidence for a round earth far outweighs the evidence against it.
I suppose the difference for me is that I believe we have been to the moon and space.
Also the law of perspective is created just to make the flat earth 'theory' work
1 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-05-23
It is good that you consider yourself a critical thinker. I ask you to engage in an exercise. Put aside the how and the why of the coverup required for this to be true and consider the physical evidence on its own merits. Follow the links I have provided in this thread, there is a huge wealth of resources.
We do differ here. We can get to low earth orbit, not to the moon.
Can listen to William Cooper describe some problems he has with the logistics involved: https://youtu.be/8mrhO6TCuF4
http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm takes a critical look at some photos provided by NASA.
Listen to these astronauts talk about the Van Allen Radiation belt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51DED8dcNkA
Consider this clip of Astronaut Alan Bean describing how they miraculously avoided the Van Allen belts to get to the moon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3-cTwK65kc
No, it isn't. You can observe the effect yourself quite easily. Consider looking down a long hallway. Think about how you see the floor, ceiling and walls as you look down the hallway. Draw the lines of this image in your mind. Now think of what you can see as a 2d viewport. The stuff that is close to you, ie the first 20 feet takes up a lot more space in this 2d viewport than the second 20 feet. If the hallway is long enough, at some point you cant see any further with the naked eye. If you were to use a telescope you would be able to see further, but the effect would still be there.
0 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-05-23
This is a comedy presentation by Matt Boylan discussing images produced by NASA. It isn't "proof", but it is intended to make you think critically.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKaOe9hM70I
4 throwawaynameday 2015-05-23
I can call a person in Japan when it is day time in America, and it is night time there.
-2 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-05-23
Yes, that is fully possible with the flat earth model.
Consider the model described at this link: http://ifers.boards.net/thread/36/flat-earth-model
3 throwawaynameday 2015-05-23
So that makes sense, but only if the sun is more like a spotlight and less like a fireball.
0 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-05-23
Yes, I would say there is less conclusive evidence on the nature of the sun (as well as the moon).
4 orrery 2015-05-23
Don't feed the trolls.
2 grandmacaesar 2015-05-23
Your logical fallacy is "burden of proof". The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, not upon someone else to disprove.
You made the claim. You provide proof of your claim.
-1 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-05-23
I wasn't the person who started the thread, the OP seems to have abandoned it. But I should say that asking for any question and responding to it is probably more difficult than just presenting some proofs.
But here a couple anyway:
The horizon always rises to your eye level no matter how high you go. If the earth was a ball, at some point going up you would need to look down to the horizon. Think about the last time you looked out the window of an airplane. You can test it yourself. Get a camera, stick it on a balloon, let it go. People have gone up to 20 miles with balloons and always see the horizon rise to the level of the camera. That is only possible on a flat plane. Do keep in mind though that air has moisture and other particles in it, so the distance you can see is not infinite.
Consider how much water should curve using Pythagorean theorem. A copy of the book “The Lighthouses of the World” and a calculator are enough to prove that the Earth is not a globe, but an extended flat plane. The distance from which various lighthouse lights around the world are visible at sea far exceeds what could be found on a globe Earth 25,000 miles in circumference. For example, the Dunkerque Light in southern France at an altitude of 194 feet is visible from 28 miles away. Spherical trigonometry dictates that if the Earth was a globe with the given curvature of 8 inches per mile squared, this light should be hidden 190 feet below the horizon!
2 grandmacaesar 2015-05-23
What you are saying should be easy to prove. A person looking through a telescope from a NYC apartment facing east should be able to read the time on Big Ben in London.
0 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-05-23
No, this is incorrect for a couple of reasons.
Air has moisture and other particulate matter in it. You cannot see through it an infinite distance. Consider standing at a lookout and viewing two hills, one twice the distance from you as the other. The further away one will have more of a blue tinge to it due to viewing it through more air.
Consider your own "viewport". Consider looking down a very long hallway. Think about the lines of the floor, ceiling and walls. If the hallway is long enough those lines converge in the middle of your view. The parts of the hallway closer to you take up a larger part of the 2d "viewport" of your vision. You can extend your viewing distance with magnification, but the hallway effect still remains with a telescope.
Now, if air had nothing suspended in it and you had a telescope with enough magnification (which would be quite a bit), then yes, you could make the sighting you are describing.
1 TroyB42 2015-05-23
I have a serious question...when I visit the east coast of the US and watch the sun rise I can see the sun through the ocean long before it is above land. How is that possible if the earth is flat? Thanks for your response.
1 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-05-23
I appreciate that you are asking a serious question. Do you have a link to an image that shows this phenomenon?
The following is not directly an answer to your question(need image pls), but discusses how the sun appears to us.
The sun "rises" and "sets" due to the law of perspective (I know this might seem like a tangent, but it is vital to the explanation). That has to do with how things appear as they get far away from you. Consider looking down a very long hallway. Think about the lines of intersection between the floor, ceiling and walls. These lines meet in the middle of your viewable area. If you consider your viewable area as a 2d "viewport", the objects that are closer to you, say the first 20ft of hallway, take up more of the viewport than things further away. Each 20 ft section takes up less of the viewable area as you go down the hall. For the sections that are very far away, they get an extremely small part of the 2d space. If you use a telescope, you can change your viewport. The things close to you are no longer visible, and you get more 2d viewable space for things further away, but the effect at the end is still the same.
The sun rising is the sun coming towards you in a path that is parallel to the earth. The sun in this case is at the ceiling height from our hallway The sun is not nearly as high above the earth as you have been told, more like 3000 miles. At some point it becomes within your viewable perspective and the rise is how it appears during that process.
This video explains the model:
https://youtu.be/P5LzJrVKmBk
This one describes the movement of sun, moon and stars: https://youtu.be/CbRIbIeKj7E
Next, this video discusses the effect of the sunrise and sunset using refraction through a curved surface to simulate perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feZPgewB2Eo
1 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-05-23
This is a video of some sunrises. At 6:50 there is one over water. Do you see the effect you are describing there?
https://youtu.be/QiVH_6ybxeE
1 TroyB42 2015-05-23
Not really. With the deep water, like off Maine, the sun is seen like it's under the water before it cracks the horizon. In this video it's only a little red near the water surface. I've sat on the beach and up on the rocky hills and seen it happen. I'll try to find a video to explain it. There use to be a great series of "sunrises from around the world" that showed it like I'm describing. :-)
2 Tight_As_An_Owl 2015-05-23
Explain how the Coriolis effect fits with your 'hypothesis'.
1 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-05-23
This is not my own answer. It is copied from here: http://ifers.boards.net/thread/36/flat-earth-model?page=15
Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis performed several experiments showing the effect of kinetic energy on rotating systems, which have ever since become mythologized as proof of the heliocentric theory. The “Coriolis Effect” is often said to cause sinks and toilet bowls in the Northern Hemisphere to drain spinning in one direction while in the Southern Hemisphere causing them to spin the opposite way, thus providing proof of the spinning ball-Earth. Once again, however, just like Foucault’s Pendulums spinning either which way, sinks and toilets in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres do not consistently spin in any one direction! Sinks and toilets in the very same household are often found to spin opposite directions, depending entirely upon the shape of the basin and the angle of the water’s entry, not the supposed rotation of the Earth.
“While the premise makes sense - that the earth’s eastward spin would cause the water in a toilet bowl to spin as well - in reality, the force and speed at which the water enters and leaves the receptacle is much too great to be influenced by something as miniscule as a single, 360-degree turn over the span of a day. When all is said and done, the Coriolis effect plays no larger role in toilet flushes than it does in the revolution of CDs in your stereo. The things that really determine the direction in which water leaves your toilet or sink are the shape of the bowl and the angle at which the liquid initially enters that bowl.” -Jennifer Horton, “Does the Rotation of the Earth Affect Toilets and Baseball Games?” Science.HowStuffWorks.com
The Coriolis Effect is also said to affect bullet trajectories and weather patterns as well, supposedly causing most storms in the Northern Hemisphere to rotate counter-clockwise, and most storms in the Southern Hemisphere to rotate clockwise, to cause bullets from long range guns to tend towards the right of the target in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere. Again, however, the same problems remain. Not every bullet and not every storm consistently displays the behavior and therefore cannot reasonably be used as proof of anything. What about the precision of the sight aperture, human error, and wind? What about Michelson-Morley-Gale’s proven motion of the aether’s potential effect? Why does the Coriolis Effect affect most storms but not all? If some storms rotate clockwise in the North and counter-clockwise in the South, how do those storms escape the Coriolis force? And if the entire Earth’s spin is uniform, why should the two hemispheres be affected any differently? Coriolis’s Effect and Foucault’s Pendulum are both said to prove the Earth moves beneath our feet, but in reality only prove how easy it can be for wolves in sheep’s clothing to pull the wool over our eyes.
1 Tight_As_An_Owl 2015-05-23
Sorry for the lateness of my reply. The Coriolis effect on toilets and sinks is far too weak to be of any real significance in the rotation of the water going down the drain, as any imperfections, deviations or currents present in the water will exert a greater effect on the direction of flow, so I agree with this to a certain extent. If a perfect funnel is used as the sink or toilet bowl in the experiment, then you do see opposite flow in the different hemispheres.
Same applies to bullets, as there are a large number of variables involved which will effect the direction of any deviation.
However, all low pressure systems in the Southern hemisphere spin in a clockwise direction, while in the Northern hemisphere they spin counter-clockwise. This is an observable, incontrovertible fact which I feel renders the flat earth theory unviable.
https://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/.coriolis http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/how-weather-works/coriolis-effect
1 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-05-23
If, it is conceded (which it is not, would need to research more) that everything you have just stated is true, then:
I don't think this is an appropriate conclusion. The possibility exists for another explanation for this effect. I don't think you can completely ignore all other evidence. Consider it this way: I feel there are many strong pieces of evidence that prove that the earth cannot be a ball and they are observable, incontrovertible facts which render the globular earth theory unviable! And many of those proofs are much more fundamental to the property of flatness. For example, showing that water does not curve over long distances. This, to me, is much more direct than saying "Storms spin mostly one way in this location and a spinning globe provides a plausible explanation for that".
I urge you to consider ALL of the evidence. This seems too weak to be an ending point for investigation.
Here are a couple resources if you are interested:
A 25 minute video explaining the flat earth model: https://youtu.be/P5LzJrVKmBk
A 10 minute video discussing the movements of sun, moon and stars: https://youtu.be/CbRIbIeKj7E
A book on the subject, Zetetic Cosmogeny: https://archive.org/details/zeteticcosmogon00recgoog
2 RMFN 2015-05-23
That who makes the claim has the burden of proof.
1 HaltNWO 2015-05-23
It's been observed to be round. Prove me wrong.
-2 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-05-23
I can't, because it is true.
It took me a while to even be in a place to be able to consider it, but the physical proofs are strong. A couple old books:
Zetetic Cosmogeny:
https://archive.org/details/zeteticcosmogon00recgoog
100 Proofs Earth not a Globe: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/pamphlets/One%20Hundred%20Proofs%20that%20the%20Earth%20is%20not%20a%20Globe%20%28William%20Carpenter%29.pdf
1 poruss 2015-05-23
Distortion of the maps of Africa and Australia -- not to mention the ridiculous distance between them -- on the Flat Earth map
those are all the proof anyone needs to conclusively debunk the Flat Earth theory
I've said it a dozen times
so why is this nonsense still being pushed in this sub ?
Go look at the Flat Earth Theory map !
Look at Africa and Australia !
Look at the distortion required of Flat Earthers to even include them on the Flat Earth Theory map !
Look at the distance between Australia and Africa on the Flat Earth Theory map !
That's it. Flat Earth theory demolished !
And Flat EArthers know it !
They admit it !
They admit they have NO way of reconciling the distortion and distance re: Africa and Australia with their flat earth theory !
It's what brought Flat Earth theory to a standstill over history
Now, for anyone entertaining the Flat Earth theory --- look at Australia and Africa and realise you've been wasting your time and energy re: the Flat Earth theory
and go enjoy yourselves instead
1 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-05-23
Here is an Azimuthal projection map so that people can see what we are talking about. Not saying this image is 100% accurate, but is the general idea:
http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/57/109157-050-0DC404D6.gif
Why do you think Africa and Australia cannot be that far apart? Are there direct flights or cruises between Australia and Africa?
The problem for the globular model is that there is too much earth in the Southern Hemisphere.
“From near Cape Horn, Chile to Port Philip in Melbourne, Australia the distance is 9,000 miles. These two places are 143 degrees of longitude from each other. Therefore the whole extent of the Earth’s circumference is a mere arithmetical question. If 143 degrees make 9,000 miles, what will be the distance made by the whole 360 degrees into which the surface is divided? The answer is, 22,657 miles; or, 8357 miles more than the theory of rotundity would permit. It must be borne in mind, however, that the above distances are nautical measure, which, reduced to statute miles, gives the actual distance round the Southern region at a given latitude as 26,433 statute miles; or nearly 1,500 miles more than the largest circumference ever assigned to the Earth at the equator.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (52)
Also, you should understand that "The Flat Earthers" are not a single group. The "Flat Earth Society" founded by Leo Ferrari is disinformation (seriously, he is a clown, look up some of his stuff). It exists to make the whole thing look silly. When you make statements like:
Those statements are intended to make the whole thing look silly. No one made any admissions of anything on my behalf.
1 poruss 2015-05-23
Distance between Perth, Australia, to Johannesburg, South Africa is 5,173 miles.
This is equivalent to 8 325 kilometers or 4,495 nautical miles. http://www.travelmath.com/flying-distance/from/Perth,+Australia/to/Johannesburg,+South+Africa
And yes, in response to your question, there are direct flights from Australia to South Africa and have been for years.
If flying from the eastern coast of Australia (Melbourne) the flight time to Johannesburg will of course take longer, because Australia is a vast landmass and domestic flights from Melbourne to Perth (Western Australia) takes several hours. I've flown from Melbourne to Perth (and return) and can attest to the fact the trip is lengthy (approx. 3.5 hours these days, used to be longer)
Flights from Melbourne, Victoria, to Cairns in Queensland is sightly less in distance and takes almost three hours, for comparison
Were you under the impression there exist no direct flights between Australia (either east or west coast) and South Africa? There are, of course and people fly those routes all the time
1 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-05-23
Thank you for this information.
I have been considering this, and other distance measurement information and I have to say that I must reconsider my model. The earth is most certainly provably flat, but I don't know that the land masses can be laid out and of the size in the current model.
The flatness of the earth over long distances of water is something that I can prove myself through experimentation in several ways. Mapping out the world I can't do directly, so it is much more difficult.
0 Terex80 2015-05-23
Physical evidence: the rockets being launched into space, satellites, Hubble/other space telescopes.
The 100 proofs is too low quality, can't read any of it sorry.
What problems are there with them?
1 poruss 2015-05-23
Distance between Perth, Australia, to Johannesburg, South Africa is 5,173 miles.
This is equivalent to 8 325 kilometers or 4,495 nautical miles. http://www.travelmath.com/flying-distance/from/Perth,+Australia/to/Johannesburg,+South+Africa
And yes, in response to your question, there are direct flights from Australia to South Africa and have been for years.
If flying from the eastern coast of Australia (Melbourne) the flight time to Johannesburg will of course take longer, because Australia is a vast landmass and domestic flights from Melbourne to Perth (Western Australia) takes several hours. I've flown from Melbourne to Perth (and return) and can attest to the fact the trip is lengthy (approx. 3.5 hours these days, used to be longer)
Flights from Melbourne, Victoria, to Cairns in Queensland is sightly less in distance and takes almost three hours, for comparison
Were you under the impression there exist no direct flights between Australia (either east or west coast) and South Africa? There are, of course and people fly those routes all the time