Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Tintagel

Pages: [1]
Suggestions & Concerns / Flat Earth Creative
« on: November 21, 2014, 01:58:30 PM »
This is mostly a placeholder post at the moment, and a reminder for me to start creating more art assets and such to promote the site.  I was reminded because the "Happy New Gears" banner is still on the front page, and I realized I hadn't done any holidays in between.

This post will also be a collection of links to existing creative assets, like the leaflet, located elsewhere on the site, once I get to a spot where I can sit down and locate / link them all. 

TFES Tract:
Mockup cover for annotated ENaG:

In the meantime, if you have any ideas for creative assets feel free to make requests.

Flat Earth General / The sea, and the moon, and me.
« on: October 16, 2014, 06:49:36 PM »
Greetings society members :)

I've just returned from a fall trip to the beach.  Behold our glorious flat earth. 

This photo was taken almost precisely 24 hours after a total lunar eclipse (which, sadly I wasn't able to see) where the full, eclipsed moon and sun were both visible above the horizon  (Something that geometry says isn't possible on a spherical earth).  Here, 24 hours past the full moon, the sun is rising over the sea.  Behind me, the moon (still largely full, barely 24 hours into the waning period) is high in the sky.  Here's a shot of the moon in the opposite direction, so you can see what I mean.

I thought I'd been able to get the horizon into the bottom of the shot (oops), but you can basically see where it is (just below the trees). By using the height of my hand at arm's length as as estimate for 10 degrees, I estimated the moon's position at about 35 degrees above the horizon when the sun rose, making the angle between the sun and moon in the sky about 150 degrees, when it should have been closer to 180.  At full moon, the angle between the sun and moon on the sky is 180.  The moon doesn't cover 35 degrees of sky relative to the sun in a single day.  If it did, there would be a full moon every 10 days.  I couldn't get a panoramic shot with my phone, or I would have, because it was awesome.

Suggestions & Concerns / Flat Earth Blog?
« on: March 27, 2014, 08:01:34 PM »
Since the front page of the site appears to be a wordpress-like organism, is there interest from the community in starting a Flat Earth blog?  I'd write for it, but would others?  It would help to keep a steady stream of fresh content on the site that is actually FET related.

Flat Earth General / Annotated ENAG
« on: March 03, 2014, 08:16:01 PM »
So, since the news release we're about to push out mentions our creating an annotated edition of Earth Not a Globe, let's get that started. 

Here's the table of contents, and I think the annotations should go pretty quickly if each member tackles a chapter.

Chapter I. Zetetic and Theoretic Defined and Compared
Chapter II. Experiments Demonstrating the True Form of Standing Water, and Proving the Earth to be a Plane (lots of these, maybe a few members)
Chapter two breakdown:
Experiment 1 (A boat, with a flag-staff)
Experiment 2 (six flags along a canal)
Experiment 3 (The Bedford Level 1)
Experiment 4 (The Bedford Level 2)
Experiment 5 (1870 Bedford Level)
Experiment 6 (Brighton, in Sussex)
Experiment 7 (The sea horizon)
Experiment 8 (Sea horizon at Portsmouth Harbour)
Experiment 9 (St. George's Channel)
Experiment 10 (the apparent concavity of the earth if seen from a balloon)
Experiment 11 (eastern pier at Brighton, quadrant with plumb)
Experiment 12 (Telescope at Waterloo)
Experiment 13 (London and North-Western Railway)
Experiment 14 (Theodolite at Shooter's Hill, in Kent)
Experiment 15 (views from the "grand" hotel)
Chapter III. The Earth No Axial or Orbital Motion
Chapter IV. The True Form and Magnitude of the Earth
Chapter V. The True Distance of the Sun
Chapter VI. The Sun's Motion, Concentric With the Polar Centre
Chapter VII. The Sun's Path Expands and Contracts Daily for Six Months Alternately
Chapter VIII. Cause of Day and Night, Winter and Summer; and the Long Alternations of Light and Darkness at the Northern Centre
Chapter IX. Cause Of Sunrise And Sunset.
Chapter X. Cause of Sun Appearing Larger When Rising and Setting Than at Noonday
Chapter XI. Cause of Solar and Lunar Eclipses
Chapter XII. The Cause of Tides
Chapter XIII. The Earth's True Position in the Universe; Comparatively Recent Formation; Present Chemical Condition; and Approaching Destruction by Fire

We will also want a foreword and an afterword, most likely by Mr. Bishop.

Note that some of these things have since been disproven - our goal here isn't to edit the work, but to offer annotations for places where Dr. Rowbotham's work was insightful, incorrect, incomplete, or has deeper implications.  The chapter on the moon, for instance, deals with the idea of an "antimoon," which isn't always a part of modern FET.  This is an excellent opportunity to illustrate some of the more modern variations on Flat Earth Theory.

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: The News Release
« on: March 03, 2014, 05:36:42 AM »
I'm posting here because I can't post in the ZC board.

I write press releases as part of my job.  I write them a lot.  I supplied Tausami with some tips and templates to write one.  They're not hard.  I haven't seen the one he wrote (I gather it was straightforward and unbiased, as it should have been), but I read Thork's variant, and have to explain why this is not the right approach.  Not only is it not formatted correctly, it would be completely ignored by the media, and makes us look like a bunch of amateurs.  It's biased and sensationalist - which I understand is what Thork was going for, but for a press release that's the wrong approach.

Press releases are supposed to be un-biased.  They're supposed to relate the facts, and nothing more.  WHat's being announced?  Say that first, give some supporting information to the announcement.  Here, let me give you an example.  This is how a press release should look.

Press Contact:
Tom Bishop
March 3, 2014

Subhead with Supporting facts with Secondary Keywords

The newly elected leadership of the Flat Earth Society today announced that .... (fill in content of the announcement here). 

Since its founding in 1956 (then called the International Flat Earth Research Society) by Samuel Shenton, the society has gone through many such changes, and according to Tom Bishop, member of the Flat Earth Society's Zetetic Council and media spokesperson, "(insert quote from Tom here)."  Bishop goes on to add, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet."

Looking ahead, the Flat Earth Society members hopes that the new changes within the organization will help usher the society into a new period of popularity.  Since opening its doors, the society's new website at has already seen an influx of new members... etc etc.

A couple paragraphs about the society itself here, nothing to do with whatever you're announcing.  Close with a call to action.  For more information, visit


Begin with "FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE," include the press contact and a dateline.  Not too long, 3 paragraphs.  Announce what you want to say, back it up with a quote from someone reputable, close with a paragraph of what the announcement means for those not already involved, and then pin on our boilerplate "about us" info with a call to action to visit the site.  That's it.  Should be able to get it all out in 300-500 words. 

Also, look into syndicating the press release ourselves via a service like Pitchengine (monthly fee) PRLog (it's free) or PRWeb (will get us into more searches, but it's pricey, starting at $99 per release).

I really don't want to step on any toes here so I say this with all due respect to the council, but there's a right way to do a press release, and I know how do to it.  I don't want us to waste our time.

Tausami, if you'd like me to review/revise your release I'd be happy to.  No sense reinventing the wheel if you've already put together a draft. :)

Flat Earth Q&A / Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
« on: February 01, 2014, 01:41:05 AM »
We needed another one of these threads, and the upper fora need more FET focused content.  Ask, and I shall endeavor to enlighten.

Science & Alternative Science / My Simulation Hypothesis
« on: January 03, 2014, 04:21:45 PM »
"Everything intuited or perceived in space and time, and therefore all objects of a possible experience, are nothing but phenomenal appearances, that is, mere representations [and] have no independent, self-subsistent existence apart from our thoughts."

-Immanuel Kant

I'm coming out, FES. 

This is a post I've thought about writing for a long time, but I haven't because it isn't strictly zetetic.  I've been reluctant to speak out because I needed to be sure of my own mind.  But it's a new year, and it's time to start the discussion.

The earth is flat.  I know that as surely as I know my own name  Observations support this.  I can see it as clearly as the colour of the sky.  Down is down, the horizon is actually the vanishing point, and we exist in a closed system distinct from all other celestial bodies.  Our earth is flat.

The earth is stationary.  It does not rotate or move in any way relative to perceived space around us.  We see evidence of this because objects farther from the hub do not exhibit effects of centripetal force.  Universal acceleration could account for the force we perceive as gravity, but my instincts say that this force is something still undefined.  All our interpretations may be wrong.

The earth is infinite, but not (in my opinion) in the way some infinite plane theorists think.  More on this later.

Some observations can also support a spherical earth.  The southern sky, lunar phases, eclipses, have been used to support a spherical earth.  This interpretation is wrong.

What follows is hypothesis.

Our earth is flat because it was engineered that way.  It was designed for us.  It's our puzzle.  I am of the belief that we live inside a simulation.

The simulation becomes more advanced as we solve the puzzles before us.  Our predecessors believed that the earth was flat because all observations supported that conclusion.  They still do. 

The simulation began to introduce subtleties that seemed to contradict their findings.  The spherical, geocentric model was widely accepted because all observations seemed to support that conclusion.  They still do. 

The heliocentric model arose because the simulation evolves.  It becomes more complex as our model of the universe becomes more complex.   We're being tested.

Those first observations, of a flat and stationary earth, were correct.  The remain valid today, we're simply being fed more complex data, possibly to see what we'll do with it.  The "curved shadow" on the moon during an eclipse.  The retrograde motion of planets.  The inscrutability of quantum mechanics.  The seemingly arbitrary limitations placed on physics such as the speed of light and the conservation of angular momentum.  All of these things are, to me, clear indication that we're being tested by an overseer.  I do not know its purpose.

Our earth is an infinite plane around which phenomenological evidence of various "truths" manifest.  In this model, Antarctica is a discrete continent and there is no ice wall.  Rather than expanding off into an infinite ocean, however, the infinite plane of our earth simply loops back onto itself.  You can never reach the edge because no edge exists.  Our earth seems physical.  Based upon observation and intuition alone, I do not believe it is an electronic or computerized simulation.

Or, our earth is a finite plane resolved to a disc, but the spatial dimensions around the southern hemidisc are bent to a greater extend than near the hub, perhaps by aether / UA.

We experience bending light.  The curvature of light is the same as the curvature of earth in the spherical model.  Those of us who support a spherical model believe the earth is round because light sometimes makes it look round.  This ambiguity, as well as the ambiguity between gravity and UA, is deliberate. 

I do not know who the overseers of this simulation are.  I do not know the bounds or rules.  But everywhere I look I see evidence of its reality.

I'm posting this in S&AS because it is not strictly a flat-earth hypothesis. 

There you go.  My confession.

Flat Earth General / Electromagnetic Accelerator
« on: December 26, 2013, 04:58:35 PM »
Was doing some research this morning in relation to light in FET when I remembered this formula existing in our wiki on this page:

I searched the old forums for where this simple formula came from, but all I could find was a thread where Euclid derived the following equation for how light from polaris bends moving rimwards from the north pole: 

Success!  I have derived an equation for the path of light from the north star in the north south direction that exhibits the above assumptions.

y(x) = h - x Cot[r/h] - (x^2 (3 h - 2 r Cot[r/h] - r Tan[Pi/2 (1 - r/R)]))/r^2 - (x^3 (-2 h + r Cot[r/h] + r Tan[Pi/2 (1 - r/R)]))/r^3

y is the height of the light beam as a function of x, the distance from the north pole.  h is the height of the Sun.  r is distance of a ground observer of the light beam from the north pole.  R is the distance from the equator to the north pole.

This is a cubic equation.  Further degrees of polynomials could be used up to an infinite Taylor series, but they would require more unknown parameters.  Perhaps a theory for cause of bendy light could provide values for these unknown parameters.  Quadratic and lower polynomials are unable to satisfy the assumptions.

The thread goes on for a while, but ends with Parsifal:

I have recently come to the realisation that for any function y = f(x) that models the curvature of light, its derivative function f'(x) must be an injective function. Otherwise, the action of Dark Energy on rays of light at a particular gradient will be ambiguous. Euclid's equation does not fit with this requirement, as its derivative function is a quadratic whose value therefore approaches positive infinity as x approaches either positive or negative infinity.

I enjoy maths, so I'd like to continue the discussion here.  Parsifal, was any more work done beyond this, and how does that thread relate to the EA equation that is found in the Wiki?

Suggestions & Concerns / FES Emails (from previous thread in Announcements)
« on: December 24, 2013, 02:02:37 AM »
I think this is a good idea, maybe deserving of a separate thread.

I am thinking a charter member signup where the regs can get an e-mail.  Then, on a go-forward basis, noobs can earn theirs.

I'd be in for this.  I'd love to have a tfes email, even for a small fee or donation to the ongoing hosting costs :)

I wanted to start a thread for the discussion of some of the alternative theories about the nature of earth that one can find alongside FET, in an effort to bring more diversity to the forums.  I've flirted with geocentricity, but FET has my heart.

Are there any geocentrists or hollow earth theorists among us?

Flat Earth General / TFES Holiday Greetings
« on: December 21, 2013, 10:25:19 PM »
Made this to help spread the word and hopefully get some interest.  Open to making more, just ask :)

Flat Earth Q&A / On the earth's shape, and what we truly know
« on: December 20, 2013, 06:20:22 PM »
A continuation of the discussion that began in

And within that time apparently you actually think the earth is flat. That utterly head-scratching to me because I wonder how you can picture how the earth is able to orbit around the sun if it's flat. An what about that other planets? Are they flat too? NASA takers pictures of Mars too, you know. And NASA isn't the only space program out there because they didn't launch the Sputnik. Friggin centuries after 1492 and we still have people thinking the world is flat.

I know that NASA isn't the only alleged space program, I clearly stated that we were in a race against the Soviets.  It is far easier to fake a satellite launch than to fake a moon landing.

The shape of the earth is something I feel pretty passionate about, and is entirely a different topic, so if this discussion is to continue I'd suggest we make a thread in Flat Earth Debate or Flat Earth Q&A to address you more fully.  However, to address your questions here:

That utterly head-scratching to me because I wonder how you can picture how the earth is able to orbit around the sun if it's flat.

The earth does not orbit the sun.  The sun circles above the disc of the earth in a circle whose radius is wider in the winter, and more narrow in the summer (in the northern hemidisc).  The moon also circles above us.

An what about that other planets? Are they flat too?

I've never been to another planet, so I couldn't say for sure.  As for the wandering celestial bodies in our sky, I believe the ancient greeks had many things right in their geocentric solar system model, including the nature of the motion of the heavens (at least in principle), but unfortunately many bought into the spherical earth idea put forth by some of their thinkers, and thus the charade was born.  The reason for this was that many ancient Greeks believed in perfect heavens - all perfect circles and spheres, and they simply assumed that the earth must be the same.  They were wrong.  The earth is not the same as the other celestial bodies, and all one needs to do is look at them to see it.

I do own a telescope and have looked at a few of them, and they appear to be spheres, but again I can't say for sure.  However, just because other celestial bodies are spherical does not mean the earth is.  The earth is special - most notably because life exists on it, but for other reasons as well.

NASA takers pictures of Mars too, you know.

NASA has released many images purporting to be from  mars, yet cannot explain how landers and rovers with an estimated active lifespan of 90 days can still be transmitting data years later.  NASA's funding comes from the federal government, so it's in their favor to keep up the charade.  That said - as mentioned, I'm not a conspiracy expert, so I'll leave off here.

Friggin centuries after 1492 and we still have people thinking the world is flat.

I assume you're referring to Christopher Columbus, but by 1492 the idea of a spherical earth was pretty common.  Columbus himself believed in a spherical earth.  Thanks to the ramblings of the cult leader Pythagoras and the arguably insane Aristotle whose writings were parroted by a later mathematician named Copernicus, the round earth fallacy was unfortunately pretty virulent.  Copernicus also popularized the incorrect notion of a heliocentric solar system in which the earth orbits the sun, but this was largely discredited at the time. 

So you see, one false experimental result, one mistaken calculation, repeated enough times leads to laziness.  Repetition gives way to assumptions that later turn to accepted fact - all based on fallacy.

I don't pretend to have a complete picture of cosmology, because I try to depend upon observable phenomena for my ideas.  Most other Flat Earth Theorists here will say the same.  I do have some pet projects that are purely theoretical, but I would never try to assert those as fact without direct observation and verification. 

I would now ask the same of you - how do you know, with such certainty, that the earth is a sphere?  I'm asking how you yourself know, based on your own experience, separate from any false assumptions that have been taught to you over your life.  If one begins to take stock of what one truly knows to be true, for the overwhelming majority of us, it is sadly little.

This is the realization that opened my eyes to the possibility that everything I thought I knew was wrong.  This is the realization that led me to Zeteticism. 

Flat Earth Debate / Effects of the UA on light
« on: December 19, 2013, 03:59:50 PM »
One of my pet projects has been a FE model by which UA can account for the (apparent) persistence of northern and southern celestial poles.  A piece of this model hinges on the idea that the UA affects light to a greater extent than it affects objects which have mass, including bending of said light via the aether swirling around the disc of the earth.  Also, the atmoplane seems to minimize the effects of UA for objects which have mass, but I think perhaps light is affected by UA regardless of the presence of atmosphere. 

This is a very rough approximation of the idea when I first formed it - it's evolved a bit since then, but the basic idea remains the same.  The UA pushes the earth along, but it accelerates light faster, and it swirls through the aether around us, the light from stars below the disc emerging as what we call the southern sky.  Likewise, light coming from Polaris above the disc of earth is also bent upward by the UA and Aether as it reaches earth.

I call it aetheric lensing, and it is an attempt at a more clearly defined version of "bendy light" we've seen before.  I posted about it once or twice on the old fora, but thought I'd bring it here for continued discussion.

Is it zetetic?  It is admittedly not - it's pure hypothesis, but I'm interested in thoughts from the community nonetheless, and hope that we can perhaps develop an experiment to test the idea.

Pages: [1]