101

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: May 12, 2016, 03:32:55 PM »

ONE degree south of the equator and you cannot see Polaris !!

Proof?

You are on the internet ... hook up with someone who lives just south of the equator in Brazil or Indonesia and ASK them !!! Or contact the Bosscha Observatory which is located 6.8 degrees south of the equator in Lembang, Java in Indonesia. I'm sure they will tell you whether they can see Polaris or not. http://bosscha.itb.ac.id/id/ is their website ... or you can contact them via their facebook page https://www.facebook.com/observatorium.bosscha

I have been to Jakarta which is 6 degrees south of the equator and you cannot see Polaris ... head for the country where the city lights don't impede your view and you can see stars ... but you CANNOT see Polaris. I know because I am an amateur stargazer - have been since childhood ... ahhh but that was decades before people stopped believing 2500 years of astronomy research and started to think that after a couple of hours spent watching FE videos on YouTube they knew more about the shape of the earth than hundreds of thousands of professional and amateur astronomers over 2500 years who have each spent thousands of hours every year closely observing our night skies and recording those observations.

Honestly ALL you have to do is buy a telescope and USE IT !! For a few hours every night for a few months !! You cannot learn anything from YouTube FE videos or this website !!
I'll tell you something else that happens when you are near the equator ... no twilight... one minute it is daylight and a few minutes later it is night ... boom !! The sun just falls into the sea and it is dark !!
I wonder how the FE Model explains that

Why don't you people travel??? Why don't you get off your computer and look at the night sky?? The ISS is even visible without a telescope !!

102

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: May 09, 2016, 04:18:57 PM »

Tom Bishop ... can you please answer how the Flat Earth Model can explain the different observations from the northern and southern hemispheres?
I shall repeat them again.... all are irrefutable ... any hobbyist astronomer can make these observations by simple travelling to the opposite hemisphere and taking a telescope with them>

How does the flat earth model explain ...
1. The fact that 'down' here (ie Southern Hemisphere, I am 1600km south of the Tropic of Capricorn) we cannot see Polaris, and many of the other stars which can be seen from the northern hemisphere, yet many of the stars that we can see cannot be seen from the northern hemisphere. eg

In the Flat Earth literature William Carpenter tells us of accounts where Polaris was seen beyond the equator. In Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham corroborates William Carpenter with accounts of seeing Polaris at 23.5 degrees beyond the equator.

2. In the southern hemisphere the stars appear to rotate clockwise around the south celestial pole, whereas in the northern hemisphere the stars appear to rotate anticlockwise around the northern celestial pole (ie Polaris)

The stars are rotating against each other like two gears. I prefer the bi-polar Flat Earth model where the center of these gears are over the two poles.

3. In the southern hemisphere we see a different view of the moon compared to the view from the northern hemisphere (https://i.imgur.com/ZPY5fvh.jpg and http://guanolad.com/stuff/moon_orientation.jpg)

This is perfectly explainable. Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.

4. In the southern hemisphere the phases of the moon work differently (http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/time/moon/hemispheres.html)

This has the same explanation of above.

ONE degree south of the equator and you cannot see Polaris !! This is documented FACT ... why don't you travel to Indonesia (my favourite travel destination) or Brazil and check it out???

Gears??? Really??? Along with Shadow Objects??? In other words you cannot explain any of those observations using the FE Model ... unless you lie or your answer is just total baloney !!

This is an excellent video which refutes the gear/bipolar model

103

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Great NASA Conspiracy

« on: May 02, 2016, 03:43:49 AM »

One thing you seem to be completely unaware of is the compartmentalized nature of information, and how certain secrets are treated as the "holy of holies" which only a select few will ever be allowed to see the workings of.

Bill Clinton couldn't keep a blow job a secret, Nixon couldn't keep a break-in secret, even with vain attempts to cover it up !!
How could NASA's "secrets" still be secret??

Oh and why was the earth considered to be round by every astronomer since the time of Eratosthenes in Ancient Greece ??

Who bribed/paid Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, Eratosthenes, Ptolemy, Keppler,  Newton, Halley, Aristarchus, Aristotle, Hubble and Einstein (who died in 1955) ... who all supported the spherical earth theory but who all died before NASA was formed in 1958...

Now try to convince me that this world wide conspiracy has been going on for 2500 years !!

104

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: May 02, 2016, 02:28:55 AM »

I'm asking for some sort of evidence that perspective works the way the Ancient Greek math says it works. Will two parallel lines really recede forever into the distance and never appear to touch? That seems extraordinary.

Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?

You're playing games with semantics. The math proves the lines APPEAR to merge, but in reality do not. The I can find no reference that the Greeks nor anyone else has ever claimed otherwise.

Well, yes, that's our position, that the perspective lines appear to merge in contradiction to the math which says they will never merge. Glad you agree!

Tom Bishop ... can you please answer how the Flat Earth Model can explain the different observations from the northern and southern hemispheres?
I shall repeat them again.... all are irrefutable ... any hobbyist astronomer can make these observations by simple travelling to the opposite hemisphere and taking a telescope with them>

How does the flat earth model explain ...
1. The fact that 'down' here (ie Southern Hemisphere, I am 1600km south of the Tropic of Capricorn) we cannot see Polaris, and many of the other stars which can be seen from the northern hemisphere, yet many of the stars that we can see cannot be seen from the northern hemisphere. eg http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/constellations-hemisphere-northern-southern-43823091.jpg
2. In the southern hemisphere the stars appear to rotate clockwise around the south celestial pole, whereas in the northern hemisphere the stars appear to rotate anticlockwise around the northern celestial pole (ie Polaris)
3. In the southern hemisphere we see a different view of the moon compared to the view from the northern hemisphere (https://i.imgur.com/ZPY5fvh.jpg and http://guanolad.com/stuff/moon_orientation.jpg)
4. In the southern hemisphere the phases of the moon work differently (http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/time/moon/hemispheres.html)

To me these four observations, all of which I have observed myself in my travels, cannot be explained by a flat earth model ... yes I have read all of your Q&A's and your wiki ... no answers there
Considering you are a Zetetic Council Member I'm sure you can come up with some answer !!

But you will no doubt ignore me !!

105

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: April 18, 2016, 02:15:41 AM »

5 days and more than 30 views and not one single FE person can respond? Well I knew when I posted the question it could not be reasonable responded to, but I was hoping for some entertaining responses.

Have you tried the wiki? That's the usual response.

  Now why didn't I think of that? 
[quote the Wiki]Stars
The sun, moon, and stars are all rotating around a central point over the North Pole. The underlying cause for this rotation is a vast cornucopia of stellar systems orbiting around its center of attraction - an imaginary point of shared attraction. This is an extrapolated and more complex binary star movement. Think of a binary (two) star system which moves around an invisible common barycenter. Now add a third body which shares that common center of attraction. Now a fourth. When we add enough bodies the system looks like a swirling multiple system.
The stars in the night sky rotate around common barycenters above the earth just as the sun and moon do. From a location on the earth's surface the stars in the sky might seem to scroll across the night sky with Polaris at the hub.

No help here!

[quote the Wiki]DECLINATION OF THE POLE STAR
Another phenomenon supposed to prove rotundity, is thought to be the fact that Polaris, or the north polar star sinks to the horizon as the traveler approaches the equator, on passing which it becomes invisible. This is a conclusion fully as premature and illogical as that involved in the several cases already alluded to. It is an ordinary effect of perspective for an object to appear lower and lower as the observer goes farther and farther away from it. Let any one try the experiment of looking at a light-house, church spire, monument, gas lamp, or other elevated object, from a distance of only a few yards, and notice the angle at which it is observed. On going farther away, the angle under which it is seen will diminish, and the object will appear lower and lower as the distance of the observer increases, until, at a certain point, the line of sight to the object, and the apparently uprising surface of the earth upon or over which it stands, will converge to the angle which constitutes the "vanishing point" or the horizon; beyond which it will be invisible. What can be more common than the observation that, standing at one end of a long row of lamp-posts, those nearest to us seem to be the highest; and those farthest away the lowest; whilst, as we move along towards the opposite end of the series, those which we approach seem to get higher, and those we are leaving behind appear to gradually become lower.
This lowering of the pole star as we recede southwards; and the rising of the stars in the south as we approach them, is the necessary result of the everywhere visible law of perspective operating between the eye-line of the observer, the object observed, and the plane surface upon which he stands; and has no connection with or relation whatever to the supposed rotundity of the earth.
Ergo, when I stand outside and look into the skies, the star constellations I do not see are simply invisible past the vanishing point, beyond my perspective. When I travel south I am moving to a new location, changing my perspective, rising up a completely different set stars.[/quote]
  Now surely that answers it! Well, it might satisfy a dyed in the wool FEer! But, I'm not convinced, yet!
[/quote]

I have asked for the following to be explained on numerous FE YouTube videos also... have never received a response... I've travelled to the Northern Hemisphere at least half a dozen times and observed these phenomena myself... but no explanation ... ever !!

" 'Down' here (Southern Hemisphere, I am 1600km south of the Tropic of Capricorn) we cannot see Polaris, the stars appear to rotate clockwise around the south celestial pole, whereas in the northern hemisphere the stars appear to rotate anticlockwise around the northern celestial pole (ie Polaris) we see a different view of the moon (https://i.imgur.com/ZPY5fvh.jpg and http://guanolad.com/stuff/moon_orientation.jpg), and the phases of the moon work differently (http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/time/moon/hemispheres.html)"

106

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions

« on: April 10, 2016, 12:59:01 PM »

Which map are you referring to? The unipolar map, the UAFE/official map is not my cup of tea.

If you are referring to the bipolar map, then your questions are welcome.



1. I have never seen land below the plane when I have done these trips, yet according to your map I would need to fly across Australia, across the Indian Ocean, across India, The Middle East, Europe, The Arctic and then fly across USA. If your map is correct, why don't we see land when travelling to LAX from the East Coast of Australia

Take a look at the map itself: you are flying over the Pacific Ocean, perhaps somewhat close to the outer boundary/edge, all the way to LAX.

Not over the land.

2. How could this flight be completed in the time taken if your map was correct?


I debated any and all flight paths with this map, including Santiago de Chile - Juneau; everything was fine with the time flights. What exactly are you referring to?

3. On the return trip the flights by United Airlines/Qantas/Air New Zealand often stop in Auckland New Zealand. These trips take about 20 hours including a 3 hour layover in Auckland, ie they take about 17 hours flying time. To fly from Auckland to Melbourne is usually around 3:30 hours. How could this be possible if your map is accurate, because according to your map New Zealand is on the opposite side of Australia from America??

New Zealand is not on the "opposite" side from America: a flight path from LAX to Auckland will take place over the Pacific Ocean, a curve matching the corresponding arc of the outer boundary/edge of the world.

Do not have any doubts that the surface of the Earth is flat, here is the Tunguska file for you:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4315.msg85691#msg85691

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

Let me ask YOU a question now.

How do four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the surface of a sphere, without an attractive law of gravity?

Yes I am referring to your "bipolar" map - the one you reposted above.
So I presume you are saying that rather than fly a direct route the Melbourne to LAX flights go around all of the land masses and stay above the ocean on your bipolar map? Why would airlines fly a longer route than necessary? It would take more fuel and more time !! The obvious route according to your map would be a direct line from Melbourne to Los Angeles ie the route as I stated
I said "according to your map New Zealand is on the opposite side of Australia from America"
America looks strange and Australia is distorted also, meaning all distances shown for travel within Australia or America must be wrong !!

The oceans stay fixed to earth because of gravity, a theory which explains all of the observations made, is capable of making predictions which can be tested - oh but you don't believe in gravity do you ?? (Since when did Science become a belief or an opinion?)

You don't have any scale on your map, could you please provide some way that I can calculate distances from a printout of your map?

How do you explain time zones on your map?
Why can't the FEers can't even agree on a map?

I would explain the light seen in England as the asteroid burning up in the atmosphere in the Tunguska event.

Here are some questions for you ... how can the flat earth model explain ...
Why I can't see Polaris from Australia?
Why can't people in the Northern Hemisphere see the Southern Cross?
Why I see a different view of the moon than those in the Northern Hemisphere?
Why stars appear to rotate in a clockwise direction when I view the night sky from Australia? (They appear to rotate anti-clockwise to those in the Northern Hemisphere.

107

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should anyone believe the earth is flat?

« on: April 06, 2016, 12:56:43 PM »

If NASA was not part of a conspiracy then it would prove the Earth is a spheroid orbited by a moon which both orbit the sun a long with other planets and moons.  So by necessity any thing involving satellites or space travel has to be fake.

The evidence provided by science is flawed because they are assuming the Earth is a spheroid and/or scientist are part of the conspiracy.  For the Earth to be flat I lean towards a lot scientist involved in the Earth sciences would have to be part of the conspiracy.  Many calculations, observations, experiments, etc are done assuming the Earth is ball like.  That implies the error would resonate through many fields of study and become apparent.  So IMHO it is safe to assume many scientist would be involved covering up the shape of the Earth.

For 2500 years thousands of Astronomers have spent millions of hours observing the stars, planets and their movements and documented their observations!!

Briefly ...
6th Century BC - An ancient Greek Astronomer called Anaximander first proposed a spherical earth 2500 years ago.
280BC (approx) - Aristarchus proposed the heliocentric model of the solar system ie spherical earth and planet orbit the sun, moon orbits the earth, earth rotates to give day and night. He even correctly predicted that earth was the 3rd planet from the sun and the correct order for the other planets which are visible to the naked eye. Unfortunately his work was only mentioned by others, and only rediscovered after Copernicus
240BC (approx) - Eratosthenes used the length of the sun's shadow at two different latitudes to calculate the earth's circumference (with amazing accuracy for the time)
1543 - Copernicus publishes his heliocentric model of the solar system
1608 - A Dutch spectacle maker Hans Lippershey invents the telescope
1609 - Galileo uses a telescope and discovers 4 of Jupiter's moons, The Milky Way Galaxy and Moon craters
1609 - Kepler puts forward his first and second laws of planetary motion
1668 - Newton builds the first reflecting telescope
1758 - Halley correctly predicts the return of Halley's comet in 1758
1905 - Einstein introduces the Theory of Relativity
1923 - Hubble shows the existence of other galaxies
1930 - Pluto is doscovered
1957 - Sputnik is launched by the Russians - the first man made object to orbit the earth
October 1st 1958 - NASA is established in response to the launch of Sputnik by Russia. In the middle of the Cold War it was not acceptable to America that Russia should lead in the "Space Race"

My question to you is ... If NASA is lying to us ... why did all of those thousands of Astronomers who lived BEFORE NASA lie and continue to say that the earth is a sphere? Who paid them??

108

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions

« on: April 06, 2016, 12:11:10 PM »

My AFET is totally tested in countless debates: how many times do you think I engaged in discussions re: the sun's orbit/high altitude jumps?

No one has ever been able to debunk my AFET, rest assured.

In fact, here is the 20 page thread on the solar orbit:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58190.msg1488698#msg1488698 (PAGES 6-8)




Here you will find the ISS solar transit photos/videos:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3838.msg81131#msg81131

(Watch the ISS solar/lunar videos and convince yourself that F. Baumgartner could not have jumped from an altitude higher than 12-14 km)

Moreover, we have had ample discussions on how altitude is erroneously measured (amateur rockets/balloons):

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3838.msg80887#msg80887


You see, my AFET is the ONLY flat earth theory that has been thoroughly tested in debates: it won each and every time.

I have some questions about your map which I would like you to answer please.
I have flown from Sydney or Melbourne directly to Los Angeles on numerous occasions. The return journey is either direct to Melbourne or via Auckland.
The nonstop journey from Melbourne to LA takes around 14:15 hours
The non stop return trip from LAX to Melbourne is around 15:45

Could you please explain why ...
1. I have never seen land below the plane when I have done these trips, yet according to your map I would need to fly across Australia, across the Indian Ocean, across India, The Middle East, Europe, The Arctic and then fly across USA. If your map is correct, why don't we see land when travelling to LAX from the East Coast of Australia
2. How could this flight be completed in the time taken if your map was correct?
3. On the return trip the flights by United Airlines/Qantas/Air New Zealand often stop in Auckland New Zealand. These trips take about 20 hours including a 3 hour layover in Auckland, ie they take about 17 hours flying time. To fly from Auckland to Melbourne is usually around 3:30 hours. How could this be possible if your map is accurate, because according to your map New Zealand is on the opposite side of Australia from America??

Thank you

109

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Round-earth evidence: the sound from Krakatoa

« on: April 06, 2016, 09:31:53 AM »

So, if reflected by "something at the edge" it would cause echoes at all sorts of times, because the distance from Krakatoa to the edge varies from about 9,000 km to 31,000 km. Perhaps this is further proof that Oceania is really the center point of the firmament. More study is required. Done Now you're talkin'! The map on the right has even got Australia about the right shape and shows both poles! Tough about Euroasia being on the rim, but who cares about the few people silly enough to live up there - last time I was there (in spring mind you!) is was far too cold for any self-respecting warm blooded Aussie. Oh with, most of the earth's population live up that area. So what, all these TFES people couldn't care less about the size and shape of Australia on their silly UN map - let's give them a bit of their own back. Australia on North Polar Equidistant Azimuthal Map

Map created by Request an Azimuthal Map Equidistant Azimuthal Map Centred on Krakatoa

Love your map !!! It is obvious from the FE Map currently floating around that Australia is way way out of proportion !!! Why don't any of the Fe supporters realise this??? Perhaps this just shows the ignorance that many FE'ers  have about the rest of the world !!

Nice to see USA all shrivelled up in your map centred on Krakatoa !!

110

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The dimensions of the Earth will not fit on a Flat Surface

« on: April 06, 2016, 09:18:52 AM »

Uhhh... Good point, except whenever I search I'm seeing that the best answer for the distance from NP to EQ is ~20k km, and EQ circumference is 40k km. If that's not the definition of 'radius', I don't know what is.

Granted, some quick searches do show WILD variance on the former's distance; I've seen from 7.5k km to 50k km in just the past few minutes. However, the first google result ("equator to north pole distance" I'm feeling lucky) states that the KM was actually designed on - whatever 10k of any measurement equaled said distance. So, meh. Looks like there isn't a consensus, but I just picked this up right as I saw this topic, so I don't really know.

If you google "circumference of the earth through the poles" you get this website ... http://www.space.com/17638-how-big-is-earth.html

It says the circumference at the equator is 40,075 km (24,902 miles), whereas the circumference through the poles is 40,008 km (24,860 miles)

So rounding off to 40,000 km for the circumference through the equator, and 10,000km for the distance from the equator to the North Pole is totally acceptable.

From memory the original post contained nothing about the radius of the earth, which would be the distance from either one of the poles or from the equator, directly to the centre of the earth, which is about 6,370 km

111

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A Simple Experiment for Simple Minds

« on: April 06, 2016, 03:56:34 AM »

Pretty sure that photo is edited.  The reflection of the moon shouldn't be brighter than the moon itself.  The moon shouldn't have a white ring around the edge like that either.  Conclusion: the moon was superimposed there by a non-professional, and doesn't belong in this image at all.  Second conclusion: the sun should be up even with the main cloud frill.  That's where the crepuscular rays point, right in the middle of the artificially darkened area. I put that photo there, but it's provenance is ? (unknown). There are at least 151 references easily accessible. The one that looks the most likely origin (I think) says (in Swedish) "What if I had been so good at taking photos that I managed to take this picture for example. Now I'm not the first to admit bluntly that it is stolen . . . . . " But it's still a nice picture.

I came across this one the other day when I was reading the news online ... it was taken in Australia (drivers on the left hand side of the road) and you can tell it is from the southern hemisphere because the moon looks different than what the moon looks like from the northern hemisphere (an observation for which I have yet to find a FE explanation)
The website was
http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/centralian-advocate/full-moon-rises-to-the-imagination-of-alice-springs/news-story/aacc0924459828df3e9906453182b60c#load-story-comments

112

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is that speck of light we spherical Earthlings call satellites?

« on: April 05, 2016, 06:36:56 AM »

You obviously didn't even click the link rabinoz. It's all that terrible cgi of the thousands of satellites swarming the earth, you know the ones not visible from the international space station, or visible from the DISCOVR satellite "photograph" of Earth. I don't see a single photograph that is referencing any single satellite from earth in that Google search result.

Why don't you buy yourself a telescope and USE it !!
It always amazes me that FE'ers who have never owned a telescope and spend virtually every night glued to their computer screen think they know more about the night sky than real Astronomers who spend thousands of hours each year using incredibly powerful telescopes to observe the night sky ...  and all of the amateur astronomers around the world that spend many hours viewing the night sky through a telescope !!

113

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Southern celestial pole

« on: April 05, 2016, 04:52:51 AM »

I'm not saying i have any opinion either way although i cant see how the FET can explain the southern celestial pole. when looking at the sky in the northern hemisphere the stars all seem to spin around the northern celestial pole, a point which by luck is very close to polaris, a very bright star, the FET explains this. However in the southern hemisphere where polaris and the northern celestial pole as well as much of the stars in the northern hemisphere depending how far south you go are no longer visible there's all new stars that appear to spin around a point known as the southern celestial pole. This unfortunately has no bright, close by stars but people have invented tricks to estimating it quite easily such as using the intersection of a line running through two of the stars in the constellation of southern cross and a line drawn perpendicular to two stars known as the southern pointers running in-between them.

This is correct !! I have personally observed stars from both the northern and southern hemispheres, as I live in Australia but have travelled north to Thailand, Japan and taken numerous trips to USA and Canada.
Not only is the set of stars different between the northern and southern hemispheres, but also stars viewed from the northern hemisphere appear to rotate counter clockwise about Polaris, but stars viewed from the southern hemisphere appear to rotate clockwise about the south celestial pole ... how does the FE model explain this???

Another difference is the view of the moon... when viewed from the southern hemisphere it appears to be an upside down version of the moon as seen from the northern hemisphere!! https://i.imgur.com/ZPY5fvh.jpg 
This is explained perfectly by the spherical earth model as shown in this diagram  http://guanolad.com/stuff/moon_orientation.jpg

But the FE model has no explanation for this observation either.

Also the phases of the moon as viewed from the southern hemisphere ... this link explains the differences http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/time/moon/hemispheres.html