[flatearth_is_a_gov_psyop]

http://www.incredible-adventures.com/edgeofspace.html

Go see the curvature of the earth for yourself. Or let me guess it's some sort of holographic projection on the inside of the pane of glass and the Russians are in on it too.

The fact that Obama brought this up out of nowhere while giving a speech (in effect putting coals on the fire), is further proof that this is a government psyop.

I wouldn't be surprised if this site all of a sudden becomes unreachable during a government shutdown, exactly like the forums "abovetopsecret" and "godlikeproductions."

This is clearly a government psyop that came out of nowhere because they were feeling the heat so they are attempting to discredit "conspiracies" and make anyone questioning government propaganda appear like a moonbat.

[Pete Svarrior]

Go see the curvature of the earth for yourself. Or let me guess it's some sort of holographic projection on the inside of the pane of glass and the Russians are in on it too.

http://faq.tfes.org/

I wouldn't be surprised if this site all of a sudden becomes unreachable during a government shutdown, exactly like the forums "abovetopsecret" and "godlikeproductions."

I would. Out of curiosity, though, can you provide some evidence regarding AboveTopSecret and Godlike Productions? If not, could you at least provide the dates during which you allege they were down so I can investigate on my own?

This is clearly a government psyop that came out of nowhere because they were feeling the heat so they are attempting to discredit "conspiracies" and make anyone questioning government propaganda appear like a moonbat.

Which government do we represent?

I do find it interesting that you consider a forum set up by a bunch of volunteers to be a "government psyop", but a shady company offering magical flights who doesn't even state their prices is 100% legit. Selective scepticism much?

[sandokhan]

There is no curvature at the surface of the Earth.

Let us go to lake Ontario (Grimsby - Toronto, distance of 55 km, curvature 59 meters)

TORONTO - BEAMER FALLS CONSERVATION AREA




https://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_baird/14067034302

Taken from a viewing stand at Beamer Memorial Conservation Area, Grimsby

DISTANCE 55 KM ; CURVATURE OF 59 METERS


Beamer's Falls #071114
River Forty Mile Creek
Class Ramp
Size Medium
Height: 45
Crest: 20
The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority acquired Beamer Memorial Conservation Area in 1964, to protect and preserve the Niagara Escarpment and the Forty-Mile Creek valley system. The site is home to a variety of Carolinian plants and wildlife.

http://www.gowaterfalling.com/waterfalls/beamer.shtml


Therefore, from 45 meters in altitude, we should see a huge 59 meter curvature right in front of us, and a visual obstacle of some 65 meters.


Here is the other photograph from Beamer Falls:




http://www.flickr.com/photos/suckamc/53037827/#

Again, no curvature whatsoever across a distance of 55 km, no 59 m midpoint visual obstacle.


Ms. Kerry Ann Lecky-Hepburn took these photographs some years ago: the RE called her, and were told they were taken at an altitude of 170 m in Grimsby.



No ascending slope, no midpoint visual obstacle of 59 meters, no curvature whatsoever.

From the very same spot, Ms. Lecky-Hepburn used a reflector telescope for this zoom:



No curvature whatsoever across a distance of 55 km.


Another photograph signed Mrs. Lecky-Hepburn:



http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/#

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/#in/photostream

No curvature whatsoever, from Hamilton to Lakeshore West Blvd: no visual obstacle, just a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to the other shoreline.




http://www.flickr.com/photos/tundrabluephotography/312939439/#

No 59 meter curvature whatsoever, a perfectly flat surface of the water.



Let us go to lake Michigan now.

 

Grand Haven Daily Tribune   April 3, 1925

COAST GUARDS SEE MILWAUKEE LIGHTS GLEAM

Captain Wm. J. Preston and Crew See Lights of Milwaukee

and Racine Clearly From Surf Boat

ANSWER TO FLARE

Crew Runs Into Lake in Search For Flashing Torch

Grand Haven Daily Tribune   April 3, 1925

Captain Wm. J. Preston and his U. S. Coast Guard crew at Grand Haven harbor witnessed a strange natural phenomenon last night, when they saw clearly the lights of both Milwaukee and Racine, shining across the lake.  As far as known this is the first time that such a freak condition has prevailed here.

 The phenomena was first noticed at shortly after seven o’clock last night, when the lookout called the keeper’s attention to what seemed to be a light flaring out on the lake.  Captain Preston examined the light, and was of the impression that some ship out in the lake was “torching” for assistance.

Launch Power Boat

   He ordered the big power boat launched and with the crew started on a cruise into the lake to locate, if possible, the cause of the light.  The power boat was headed due west and after running a distance of six or seven miles the light became clearer, but seemed to be but little nearer.  The crew kept on going, however, and at a distance of about ten and twelve miles out, a beautiful panorama of light unfolded before the eyes of the coast guards.

 Captain Preston decided that the flare came from the government lighthouse at Windy Point at Racine.  Being familiar with the Racine lights the keeper was able to identify several of the short lights at Racine, Wis.

Saw Milwaukee Also

   A little further north another set of lights were plainly visible.  Captain Preston knowing the Milwaukee lights well, easily distinguished them and identified them as the Milwaukee lights.  The lights along Juneau Park water front, the illumination of the buildings near the park and the Northwestern Railway station were clearly visible from the Coast Guard boat.  So clearly did the lights stand out that it seemed as though the boat was within a few miles of Milwaukee harbor. 

   Convinced that the phenomenon was a mirage, or a condition due to some peculiarity of the atmosphere, the keeper ordered the boat back to the station.  The lights remained visible for the greater part of the run, and the flare of the Windy Point light house could be seen after the crew reached the station here.


DISTANCE GRAND HAVEN TO MILWAUKEE: OVER 80 MILES (128 KM).

http://www.coastwatch.msu.edu/images/twomichigans2a.gif


Windy Point Lighthouse:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Wind_Point_Lighthouse_071104_edit2.jpg/800px-Wind_Point_Lighthouse_071104_edit2.jpg

The lighthouse stands 108 feet (33 m) tall

THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.

Using the well known formula for the visual obstacle, let us calculate its value:

h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS

h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS

h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS

h = 20 meters BD = 984 METERS

h = 50 meters BD = 827.6 METERS

h = 100 meters BD = 667.6 METERS


No terrestrial refraction formula/looming formula can account for this extraordinary proof that the surface across lake Michigan is flat.



Moreover, as we have seen, the light from Windy Point was continuously observed, during the approach, and during the return to the station:

The power boat was headed due west and after running a distance of six or seven miles the light became clearer, but seemed to be but little nearer.  The crew kept on going, however, and at a distance of about ten and twelve miles out, a beautiful panorama of light unfolded before the eyes of the coast guards.

The keeper ordered the boat back to the station.  The lights remained visible for the greater part of the run, and the flare of the Windy Point light house could be seen after the crew reached the station here.


More information on lake Michigan here:


http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1591587#msg1591587

[andruszkow]

Gah, stop with all your over-water pictures! You magically assume that Pythagoras is enough to settle the debate, but conveniently as always, FE believers use only the tools that support their claims. When do you guys understand, that Pythagoras isn't ENOUGH to explain the visible curvature of Earth, especially over water? It's even worse that it's misty weather on all pictures. And yes, I'm talking about atmospheric refraction.

To top it off, you took the pictures from 40-some meters altitude? Im literally shaking my head at you while typing this.

[sandokhan]

When do you guys understand, that Pythagoras isn't ENOUGH to explain the visible curvature of Earth, especially over water?

But there is no visible curvature of Earth, especially over lake Ontario.

In fact, you could not miss it: it measures a huge 59 meters, absolutely nonexistent.


Actually, it takes more than the theorem of Pythagoras...

VISUAL OBSTACLE



BD = (R + h)/{[2Rh + h2]1/2(sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R


BD = visual obstacle

h = altitude of observer


Atmospheric refraction won't help you at all: not in these photographs.

However, here is the general formula: http://ireland.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/refract.htm#


You can ascend all the way to 213 meters to take pictures, it still won't help your case (213 meters highest point in Grimsby): there is no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature of 59 meters, everything is in plain sight, a totally flat surface of the lake.

[andruszkow]

When do you guys understand, that Pythagoras isn't ENOUGH to explain the visible curvature of Earth, especially over water?

But there is no visible curvature of Earth, especially over lake Ontario.

In fact, you could not miss it: it measures a huge 59 meters, absolutely nonexistent.


Actually, it takes more than the theorem of Pythagoras...

VISUAL OBSTACLE



BD = (R + h)/{[2Rh + h2]1/2(sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R


BD = visual obstacle

h = altitude of observer


Atmospheric refraction won't help you at all: not in these photographs.

However, here is the general formula: http://ireland.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/refract.htm#


You can ascend all the way to 213 meters to take pictures, it still won't help your case (213 meters highest point in Grimsby): there is no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature of 59 meters, everything is in plain sight, a totally flat surface of the lake.

I'm gonna link you to a post I did earlier on the sister-site of tfes.org.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64532.msg1728715#msg1728715

I even posted this earlier in these forums today as well.

To keep it short: I've succeeded multiple times snapping pictures from 24+ km with visible curvature. As I ended the linked post, next launches are january and february during nighttime, to catch the (even more visible) curvature of Earth during a sunrise.

Not that I didn't know this up front, but there's nothing FE'ers can say that will ever prove the Earth is flat. And that's exactly what FE'ers have to do. It's your job to disprove Round Earth, but you can't. I have actually confirmed (at least to myself) that the Earth is a globe, by spending as little as $500 on equipment.

What have FE'ers ever done, but being internet warriors, looking out their window, or snapping pictures over water disregarding all physics but Pythagoras for playing with elementary-school level geometry?

[sandokhan]

We have already debated here this subject (amateur rockets, balloons).

An innocent question: how did you determine the 24 km altitude?

The Earth cannot both be round and flat at the same time: the photographs across lake Ontario are very clear: no curvature whatsoever across 55 km.

Your high flying image proves nothing for the RE: it is identical, as an example, to the photographs taken aboard the Concorde, discussed earlier.

[andruszkow]

I give up.

I'm quite positive this is what you guys aim for. You want to promote a model and regard it as a serious theory. It is not. It's a religion, and you will die misinformed. Such a shame, seemingly intelligent people gone spaghetti.

[sandokhan]

How did you determine the 24 km altitude?

[andruszkow]

GPS, I already said that in the link I gave you, which you obviously didn't read.

And please, saying GPS isn't a reliable source is just digging the already pretty deep hole even deeper.

It would be fairly simple to calculate the altitude from the radio signals as there's usually 5 or 6 amateur trackers receiving the signal

[sandokhan]

GPS is not and cannot be a reliable source when it comes to determining the altitude.

Here is how altitude is measured in weather balloons:

http://www.webmet.com/met_monitoring/912.html

The altitude of the balloon is typically determined using thermodynamic variables or through the use of satellite-based Global Positioning Systems (GPS). Pressure is usually measured by a capacitance aneroid barometer or similar sensor.

How do other amateur rocket endeavours measure their claims?

Altitude verification for the rocket will be primarily based on signals from an onboard Trimble GPS receiver. Backup will come from accelerometer data.

But in fact satellites orbit at a much lower altitude, and are powered by Tesla's cosmic ray device.

An altimeter actually includes an aneroid barometer which measures the atmospheric pressure. A radar altimeter uses radio signals. Both methods do not take into account the layers of aether which exist starting at about 13-14 km in altitude and going to about 15 km, and which influence both the pressure reading and also the distance actually travelled by the radar waves.


I debunked both possibilities by showing that the aether pressure is not taken into consideration when recording the pressure by an aneroid barometer (not to mention GPS).


Ether waves = radio waves

Here is the only thread which DOES answer the ham radio/radar/GPS signal questions:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58190.msg1488698#msg1488698 (+ 18 more pages of debate)


The difference between Herztian waves (ripples through the sea of ether) and non-Hertzian waves (scalar waves/ether waves):

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3395.msg77275#msg77275

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3475.msg77992#msg77992

[andruszkow]

GPS is not and cannot be a reliable source when it comes to determining the altitude.

Yes it is, and yes it can.

The rest of that post was mostly nonsense. I read it, but it was nonsense.

[geckothegeek]

GPS is not and cannot be a reliable source when it comes to determining the altitude.

Yes it is, and yes it can.

The rest of that post was mostly nonsense. I read it, but it was nonsense.

Many times another poster has noted that the things that  sandokhan says won't work, do work and are used every day.The amateur radio "Moon Bounce" and the Astronomical Observatory measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon do work and are proof of the distance. I would not be a bit  surprised if sandokhan said that radar doesn't work and is completely erroneous. Also much of sandokhan's are "copy pasta" irrelevant to the subject and mostly complete nonsense. It seems this is the main method employed by flat earthers when confronted with the simple fact that the earth is a globe and not a flat disc.And much of "flat earth" relies on Rowbotham's erroneous ideas.
Flat earth does not even deserve the term "theory."

[sandokhan]

What is a radio wave? What is an electromagnetic wave?

In 1887, Heinrich Hertz announced that he had discovered electromagnetic
waves, an achievement at that time of no small imporl. In 1889, Nikola Tesla
attempted the reproduction of these Hertzian experiments. Conducted with
absolute exactness in his elegant South Fifth Avenue Laboratory, Tesla found
himself incapable of producing the reported effects. No means however applied
would produce the effects which Hertz claimed. Tesla began experimenting
with abrupt and powerful electric discharges, using oil filled mica
capacitors charged to very high potentials. He found it possible to explode thin
wires with these abrupt discharges. Dimly perceiving something of importance
in this experimental series, Tesla abandoned this experimental series, all the
while pondering the mystery and suspecting that Hertz had somehow mistakenly
associated electrostatic inductions or electrified shockwaves in air for true
electromagnetic waves.

In fact, Tesla visited Hertz and personally proved these
refined observations to Hertz who, being convinced that Tesla was correct,
was about to withdraw his thesis. Hertz was truly disappointed, and Tesla
greatly regretted having to go to such lengths with an esteemed academician in
order to prove a point.

Hertz made a collosal mistake: he created shock waves in air, not true electromagnetic waves, that is, just ripples in the sea of ether.


An electromagnetic wave is simply a ripple in the sea of ether waves: it consists of two scalar waves, which propagate in a double torsion motion.

Tesla kept the ripples in the ether sea (electromagnetic waves) to a minimum, while sending the entire signal/impulse ONLY through the laevorotatory ether scalar wave (sometimes going beyond the speed of light): it is exactly how he achieved his legendary and fantastic results, by NOT using the hertzian ripples in the ether waves.

A normal electromagnetic wave will produce a temporary ripple in the ether sea, the signal transmitted will travel at the speed of light, in the absence of a higher density of aether (medium) and ether waves.


Tesla upholds the startling theory formulated by him long ago, that the radio transmitters as now used, do not emit Hertz waves, as commonly believed, but waves of sound. He says that a Hertz wave would only be possible in a solid ether, but he has demonstrated already in 1897 that the ether is a gas, which can only transmit waves of sound; that is such as are propagated by alternate compressions and rarefactions of the medium in which transverse waves are absolutely impossible. Dr. Hertz, in his celebrated experiments, mistook sound waves for transverse waves and this illusion has been continually kept up by his followers, and has greatly retarded the development of the wireless art. As soon as the expert become convinced of this fact they will find a natural and simple explanation of all the puzzling phenomena of the so-called radio.


The original set of J.C. Maxwell's e/m ether equations show and prove that Tesla's discovery is true.

The speed of light is a variable and depends on the density of the aether (medium through which ether/scalar waves/telluric waves).


Without the correct definition of a radio wave, the UAFE are basically defenseless when it comes to explaining GPS/radar/doppler shift effect.

[andruszkow]

You have got to be kidding?

I'm not going to hold you personally responsible for your posts because they're obviously copy/paste's, it's just so disturbingly annoying that the texts and passages you lean on to prove your religion are fiction on this level.

Here's a challenge: Get a hold of a GPS chip, adafruit ultimate, Ubloc, or any other open source chip, and do the tests and math yourself. It will change whatever world you live in, I promise you this much.

Teslas cosmic ray device, wow If all of the above were true, we would have been 500 years further with our technological advance than we are.

It makes you wonder where our floating houses and cars are.

[andruszkow]

Oh, and combine it with a radio transmitter like NTX2 to understand how it generates radio waves at different frequencies. It's all very measureable with spectrometers and the likes, and in my next blog post, I'll feature a video showing you this from both an electronics viewpoint and a source code viewpoint. It's time to kill off these fairy tales that you all just copy/paste for good!

[sandokhan]

You mentioned GPS and NTX2.

They use radio waves and microwaves.

In my last message I brought to your attention the very fact that the definition used for a radio wave, in modern science, is wrong (in addition to the bibliographical material, I used my own words for about a third of the entire post).

It is Nikola Tesla who discovered and invented: radio waves, microwaves, X-rays, radar.


Tesla on the invention of radar
 
In August 1917 Nikola Tesla outlined a concept for primitive radar-like units. He stated:
 
"...by their [standing electromagnetic short waves] use we may produce at will, from a sending station, an electrical effect in any particular region of the globe; [with which] we may determine the relative position or course of a moving object, such as a vessel at sea, the distance traversed by the same, or its speed".
 
 
http://www.teslascience.org/pages/tesla.htm#warden
 
Everyone has heard of RADAR, but few people know that the men who built the first primitive RADAR units in 1934 were following principals, mainly regarding frequency and power level, that were first established by Tesla in 1917.
 
Tesla’s 1917 proposal for Directed Energy submarine warfare (Tesla's Views on Electricity and the War - The Electrical Experimenter - August, 1917 and New Yankee Tricks to Circumvent the U-Boat - The Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette, Fort Wayne, Indiana - August 19, 1917) is eerily similar to a 2008 US Department of Defense proposal.


Do you understand what a radio wave is?

If not, pay attention.

A Hertzian wave is just a ripple in the sea of ether.

Ether = subquark strings = telluric currents

A telluric current is a transversal wave, through which flow/propagate longitudinal waves.

A non-Hertzian wave is just such a longitudinal wave, propagating through the transversal wave.

This is true wireless.

Tesla used exclusively non-Hertzian waves, and none of the Hertzian waves.

The speed of a radio wave is completely and absolutely linked to the density of aether in the atmosphere.


The detection of ether:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791

[andruszkow]

Sea of Ether... I'm actually amused

[andruszkow]

PS: A telluric current is a low frequency current traversing through water or under ground. If by sea of ether you mean "ocean", then you're correct. Also, electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of light.

[Pete Svarrior]

Sea of Ether... I'm actually amused

Do you have anything to say that actually contributes to the discussion? If not, can we agree that we already know you'd like to say "no" to everything, thus saving each other the trouble of you saying it and us reading it? Much appreciated!