Zen Garcia letter to Heliocentrist friend 3/5/2017
0 2017-03-06 by natavism
The following is a letter Zen Garcia sent to a friend of his that he elected to also publish 3/5/2017.
The Flat Earth as Key to Decrypt the Book of Enoch, Where is the Curvature of the Earth?
ZEN GARCIA·SUNDAY, 5 MARCH 2017 Sharing a reply I sent to one of my PH.D in Physics broadcasting friend, who unequivocally condemns topic of the flat earth without having ever investigated it:
Hey brother I hope your not mad with me but I know you probably are since you won't respond. This email is the last I will send unless you want to discuss it without getting anxious. You know I love you as a brother in Christ and that I am only trying to share with you the truth as I have learned it. You said in reply last night that one cannot see or detect curvature until 14 miles out but that is absolutely not true. I have studied curvature in great detail according to the mathematical formula given by science as method for determining curvature as supported by NASA and the other astrophysicists which affirm scientifically that this formula is how one can determine that curvature.
I'm going to attach below exactly what I wrote in my 9th book, Flat Earth As Key to Decrypt the Book of Enoch with regard to this as topic. You will see that curvature should be noticeable after one mile and that it is supposed to drop 8 inches per mile inversely squared according to the number of miles out, one is in trying to determine it. There is a chart below which can help you to see exactly how much curvature there should be according to how far out one is from the object being viewed.
At 14 miles there should be 130.6667 ft of curvature between the viewer and the object being viewed. Now the reason I sent you the video on the Navy railgun is because it can send a projectile directly to the target in a straight line at a distance of 125 miles without any consideration or computation for the curvature of the earth or the supposed rotation of it. At 125 miles there should be 10416.6667 ft or over 2 miles of curvature between the navy ship and the object targetted by the rail gun’s projectile. Meaning that not only should the target not be in the line of sight but in order to hit the mark one should have to shoot in an arc and then have the projectile descend in curve to reach the object without hitting the earth which lies in between. It would be impossible to shoot in a straight line and be able to hit the mark. Does that make sense?
I am only trying to share with you the truth about curvature and as I said anyone can go out to a bay or beach and look out at an object which is miles distant and prove to oneself that there is no curvature as Rob Skiba did in confirming that Joshua Nowicki’s photogtraph of the Chicago skyline was not a mirage.
Rob Skiba proves the Chicago skyline (as seen from the other side) is NOT a mirage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o37t6iBS_q4&t=1266s
It’s really that simple. Love you brother I hope that you will read this. I’m going to send you pdf’s of my two flat earth books The Flat Earth as Key to Decrypt the Book of Enoch and the Firmament: Vaulted dome of the Earth now and then ship you the paper editions sometime this week. God bless
Zen Garcia and Rob Skiba - Flat Earth as Key to Decrypt the Book of Enoch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZImfw4kBkC8
Zen Garcia and Rob Skiba - The Firmament: Vaulted Dome of the Earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVcp2XXJCgM
The Curvature of the Earth? - Excerpt beginning on Page 284, The Flat Earth as Key to Decrypt the Book of Enoch:
Before concluding this chapter, I would like to quickly mention one other aspect of this debate which in my early research on this topic was enough to convince me that the model for the world that I had believed in my whole life was wrong, pure and straightforward. This topic has to do with the measure of curvature. When one looks into this aspect of the research, one will find that the number which pertains to the mathematical formula of how one can discover how much curvature the earth should have at any given distance is based upon the measure of 8 (rounded up) inches. Below is the method that Samuel Birley Rowbotham used for calculating the rate at which the spherical earth, 25,000 English statute miles in circumference curves. "If the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in the following diagram:
Earth's Rate of Curvature
"Let the distance from T to figure 1 represent 1 mile, and the fall from 1 to A, 8 inches; then the fall from 2 to B will be 32 inches, and from 3 to C, 72 inches. In every mile after the first, the curvature downwards from the point T increases as the square of the distance multiplied by 8 inches. The rule, however, requires to be modified after the first thousand miles. "The following table will show at a glance the amount of curvature, in round numbers, in different distances up to 100 miles. To find the curvature in any number of miles not given in the table, simply square the number, multiply that by 8, and divide by 12. The quotient is the curvation required.
Statute Miles Away/Math/= Drop
1 mile 1 x 1 x 8 = 8 Inches
2 miles 2 x 2 x 8 = 32 Inches
3 miles 3 x 3 x 8 / 12 = 6 Feet
4 miles 4 x 4 x 8 / 12 = 10 Feet
5 miles 5 x 5 x 8 / 12 = 16 Feet
6 miles 6 x 6 x 8 / 12 = 24 Feet
7 miles 7 x 7 x 8 / 12 = 32 Feet
8 miles 8 x 8 x 8 / 12 = 42 Feet
9 miles 9 x 9 x 8 / 12 = 54 Feet
10 miles 10 x 10 x 8 / 12 = 66 Feet
"To find the curvature in any number of miles not given in the table, simply square the number, multiply that by 8, and divide by 12. The quotient is the curvation required.
One can see that after a few miles the curvature is so great that it should be easily recognizable and yet when scientists tried to measure this curve none was detected, proving curvature nonexistent. Other experiments were set up to detect the motion of the earth, and again none was detected. Some of the experiments which had been done which verify these conclusions are the Bedford Level experiment, The Michelson-Gale experiment, “Airey’s failure,” and The Sagnac experiment. There are others which have also been done which discount curvature or movement to the earth. I’m not going to repeat here all of those experiments. However, I will mention that in my study on this topic, I learned that construction engineers do not in any way consider the curvature of the earth when drawing up blueprints for the building of bridges, canals, and railroads over long distances well to the extent of 30 miles. At 30 miles a construction project should have to figure in a corresponding drop of 600 feet according to the formula above.
Another thing which negates as factor curvature which all of us can attest to especially now with the aid of high-powered cameras and telescopes available to our generation. Is how on a clear day, one can perceive across vast ocean distances, monuments such as the Statue of Liberty, lighthouses, cityscapes, and even land masses such as island vistas some more than 50 miles. But according to the formula for the measure of the earth’s curvature at distances more than 20 miles, such structure should be 266 feet below the horizon under an observer’s line of sight making such sightings impossible.
Neither can any curvature be visibly detected when looking out of the basket of a hot air balloon, the windows of noncommercial planes (commercial airliners have windows installed which like fish eye lenses warp the appearance of the earth), or when standing upon the highest mountains of the earth. Even at very high altitude, in every direction the horizon remains flat and level.
Flat Earth Proof: Oahu seen from Kauai more than 90 miles away https://youtu.be/Wc2ZIKAA6CY
Navy Rail Gun - conclusively proves the Earth is flat and motionless https://youtu.be/pIvPj_wL50I
US Navy Submarine Chief: What Curve? - Flat Earth SW23 - Mark Sargent https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFi98T8phoI
US Army Artillery Radar Operator: No Curve Used https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk6i2fqRa0
US Navy Missile Instructor confirms FLAT EARTH - SW21 - Mark Sargent https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJOB0vcZ4NI
I've had such little success talking about flat earth or related topics on /r/conspiracy that I've been helping out in /r/theworldisflat for over a year now - if you are interested in flat earth please check it out.
31 comments
n/a Noxton 2017-03-06
Honestly, I can't be bothered to read all of this, but it LOOKS to me like there's an ASSUMPTION that the Earth is a perfect circle.
It's not a sphere, it's spherical. It's in the range of a sphere. It's globular. It's LIKE a circular object, but it bulges in the middle.
Most flat Earther's I've talked to online seem to ignore this part.
n/a natavism 2017-03-06
Well maybe when you can be bothered to read it then your comments regarding the post will be worth reading for the rest of us :)
n/a Noxton 2017-03-06
Flat Earth is about as real as the Christian God.
That is to say, not at all.
n/a natavism 2017-03-06
Wow you're really here to try to discourage conversation here aren't you? :)
n/a Pdelic1 2017-03-06
Here are some questions to ask yourselves in regards to FE:
When you look through a telescope at any of the other planets for long enough, why are you able to see them and their moons clearly as round, with a shadow cast as a ball has a shadow, right in front of your eyes?
How are you able to see their moons orbit them if they are not round?
How are you able to see Saturn's rings encircle its globe if it's not round?
How are you able to see their poles change angle toward you in three dimensions if not round?
How are you able to see the large planets like Jupiter and Saturn clearly spin about their axes if not round?
How are you able to see them pass behind the Sun if not orbiting it?
These are all things that you, personally, can go and look at plainly through common telescopes. So:
IF we can all at least agree that the OTHER planets and moons we look at are round, (since each of you can look at them yourselves and clearly see that they are with your own eyes), is it more likely or less likely that Earth would be an exception among all of them, and be the only planet that behaves differently?
Or does FE claim that Earth is not a planet, but something else entirely???
If the earth is flat, why is it that Euclidean Geometry does not work to obtain the shortest path over long distances (such as those traveled by airplanes)?
9a. To further that question, how can it be that a parabola actually produces the shorter route, if the surface is not curved? Why does only non-Euclidean geometry work for determining shortest travel distances over long paths? Are you claiming such is not the case?
Why must GPS satellites calculate positions based on a sphere in order to perform accurately?
What is Sunset on a flat earth? How could it occur geometrically and still explain how half of the earth is night and half day?
Please describe the ice wall that you're saying exists instead of the south pole. How high is it? Can one fly over it? When one does fly over it, does one fly off into space?
Are you then claiming that we can launch ourselves into space by flying perpendicular to the "earth's upward acceleration?" merely by flying off over this ice wall?
How far does the ice wall extend? Has anyone ever walked upon it? Is there evidence of that walk?
Has the FE ice wall ever been documented as observed in any way? Anything? Even one photo or report from the field somehow?
Please describe your competence in what lens distortion is and how it works, especially to varying degrees of severity.
Also then describe how it's possible that so many photos could be so SEVERELY distorted by a regular lens so as to make a flat object look round, with parts of it fully behind other parts of it and not exposed to the camera, while objects adjacent to it are hardly distorted at all.
Are you saying that literally ALL photographs ever taken of the earth have been faked or subject to extreme lens distortion?
If we are not accepting photographic evidence of RE, do you believe ANY photos of ANYthing whatsoever? Ever?
If you're willing to accept even one photo of anything ever at all (that you didn't take yourself), why are photos of the round earth excluded?
If we're not accepting photographs, please at least explain the most likely reason why there have been NONE of a flat earth, EVER, and ONLY photos of a round one.
How do seasons occur if we are not on a ball, axially tilted toward a central light and heat source?
Explain the phases of the moon, and what causes them, if not orbit and rotation.
Explain the tides, and what causes them, if not gravity and orbit.
If the earth is not round, and planets not round, then why is it that we must use calculations based on orbits of round objects in order to place satellites into space adequately?
Why is it that we can see those satellites orbit us with a common telescope, and how do they lose direct line of sight if not dropping behind the curve of a round earth?
Why is it that we must calculate based on those orbits and related signal loss to make our phones work?
If the earth is not round, and planets not round, then why have we had to use spherical/orbital calculations in order to successfully land rovers on other planets? Are you claiming that we have not done such?
If the earth is not round and gravity does not exist, then what keeps us from losing our atmosphere and ocean?
Are the seas supposedly contained by this ice wall?
Since the atmosphere would surely be above such ice wall, what prevents it from spilling off over the sides of the earth, into space, as the earth accelerates up toward the atmosphere?
If the earth is flat, then how is it that if I fly in any direction along a straight line from any point and don't stop, I will eventually return to exactly where I started from? Do you claim that this will not occur?
Astronauts have been to space and claimed to have looked at an unmistakably round earth. If you reject their photographic evidence, do you also claim they are lying or delusional about what they have seen??
n/a natavism 2017-03-06
You have 3 #1, 3 #2s, 3 #3s... you have 3 separate lists. I might actually address your concerns if it were possible in a timely fashion.
This is what I mean when I say you can't talk about this topic... they show themselves with force :)
n/a Noxton 2017-03-06
Looks like you can't be bothered, either. Nice try, lemon pie.
n/a natavism 2017-03-06
Right - I'm not reading his debunk piece because he didn't read the original post either - and his post is a terrible mess. I'm trying to stay on topic no thanks to contributions like yours :)
n/a Pdelic1 2017-03-06
The earth is not flat.
n/a natavism 2017-03-06
I mean technically it's not perfectly flat, but we live on a plane :)
n/a Pdelic1 2017-03-06
No we don't. You sound "plane" stupid tbh.
n/a Liighten 2017-03-06
You might actually address his concerns if you weren't an absolute moron.
n/a natavism 2017-03-06
You might contribute to this thread in a meaningful way if you did something other than attack me but that's not why you're here is it? :)
n/a Liighten 2017-03-06
Why would I attempt to "contribute" to this thread after you completely ignored the above post with loads of questions for you to answer or defend your belief in regards to?
It's up to your people to provide real evidence to support your claim. And no, Charlie, Youtube videos by Billy Bob don't count as evidence.
n/a natavism 2017-03-06
You obviously haven't been to /r/theworldisflat - there are hundreds of threads there spanning everything from real life scientific experimentation from hundreds of years ago to modern day footage - it's all conclusive proof.
I posted this thread to discuss it on /r/conspiracy and the above cretin tried to torpedo it by pasting a bunch of bullshit he got from somewhere else without even reading the original post.
My behavior in this thread in consistent - I want to talk about the material I posted about. I do not want to deal with aggressive derail trolls :)
n/a Liighten 2017-03-06
As a scientist, your first sentence is downright HILARIOUS. None of that garbage comes close to scientific evidence. Your definition of conclusive proof is just another facet of your ignorance, which might I add is VAST. Absolutely zero threads in your moronic subreddit constitutes a thread of proof.
It doesn't matter from where another person sourced questions to your belief. They are legitimate regardless, and you ignored them because there's no way you can answer him without making yourself look like a buffoon.
n/a natavism 2017-03-06
I understand that threads on the internet do not necessarily constitute proof themselves - I just claim that the threads talk about the proofs and evidence. If you aren't even aware of things like Michelson / Morley, Sagnac, Airy's Failure - there are threads there discussing these things. Those things are the proof. The subreddit talks about those things, do you understand, as a scientist? :D
I wanted to discuss the letter and present it - I did not come here to entertain trolls who are pasting bullshit without reading my original post. How is that hard for you to understand?
n/a Liighten 2017-03-06
LOL did you just fucking say Airy's failure and Michelson/Morley?
You mean the studies that relied on the existence of the Aether as its basis? You mean the ones whose conclusions mean nothing other than there is no Aether?
You're even dumber than I thought.
n/a natavism 2017-03-06
Yep keep attacking me without addressing anything I bring up - typical from you types :D
n/a Liighten 2017-03-06
Pretty sure that's all that needs to be addressed in regards to these ridiculous attempts at providing proof on your behalf.
n/a natavism 2017-03-06
Oh wow it seems like one of your posts got deleted, what was that all about? That's funny, I'm not deleting my posts.
It also seems like you misunderstand what those experiments actually demonstrate - though your perspective is common among people who have not done any research into the flat earth. Check out /r/theworldisflat if you'd like to find threads and videos discussing what these experiments actually demonstrate.
n/a EarthquakesVolcanoes 2017-03-06
First let me say I love FE theory as well as concave, hollow, and spherical theories. The one bit of FE theory that sticks with me, regardless of what I believe to be true, is the boats on the horizon. There is no curve there, just grab some binoculars and the boat is still there. So my question is will the boat remain visible so long as it is not obscured by something?
n/a natavism 2017-03-06
Kind of a vague question but yes - though you will lose the boat eventually as we cannot see to infinite - the air isn't perfectly transparent.
n/a EarthquakesVolcanoes 2017-03-06
That's what I was getting at. More succinctly, will the curvature ever hide the boat?
n/a natavism 2017-03-06
Curvature will not, no. There is no curvature :)
n/a IGiftGold 2017-03-06
Yes the curvature which has been proven to exist through a million and one photos from space would eventually hide the boat assuming you can see for an infinite distance.
heres a rough example of what it's like http://imgur.com/a/isX8R
n/a IGiftGold 2017-03-06
The videos are too hilarious... "Conclusive proof" So many flaws its hilarious.
n/a IGiftGold 2017-03-06
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read...
n/a natavism 2017-03-06
While in a conversation with yourself no less :)
n/a IGiftGold 2017-03-06
I didn't feel the need to make a new parent comment. But nice try, you're proving my point more and more.
n/a IGiftGold 2017-03-06
"Hey guys there is literally video and photo proof the world is round, but we are going to claim its flat"
Fucking L O L