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.

Messages - pb1985

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Where is eye level in this photo?
« on: March 22, 2019, 08:03:55 PM »
I don't expect you to assume any of that, that I'm not a communist shill, RE spy, etc. But don't expect me to believe unverifiable, not so easily repeatable evidence. Each of us can look at the vast totality of the evidence for and against FE, and make our own judgments. Regardless of shill/disinfo questions, points 2 and 3 stand:

2) There's no way to verify the camera is not slightly pointing upward (even unintentionally), which would elevate the center line of the perspective field. Neither is there any way to verify it wasn't cropped and the photo bottom cut off disproportionately to the top, even unwittingly.
3) We've seen footage from far higher where the horizon line was momentarily revealed, and it appeared to be at eye level (e.g. the Baumgartner footage)

As for Bastian's point that it's just a [manned] space travel conspiracy and not about the shape of the Earth, why fake the satellite photos, which they've provably done repeatedly (e.g. in the Blue Marble 2012 series, among many others)?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Where is eye level in this photo?
« on: March 22, 2019, 07:42:48 PM »
If you think Earth and universe models don't matter in politics or social engineering, you're just dumb, to be frank, or are a shill. Either way, not worth spending much time on.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Where is eye level in this photo?
« on: March 22, 2019, 07:30:01 PM »
'Do you think we live in a Hollywood movie?'   'You actually think disinformation exists?'

The UK was caught putting on entire call center-like operations of shills posting on internet forums, and such work could easily be contracted out, and repeatedly has been shown to be for political campaigns, ballot items, etc. You couldn't be more naïve, or look more uneducated, and you're not convincing/fooling anyone.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Where is eye level in this photo?
« on: March 22, 2019, 07:05:05 PM »
There are a few, probably insurmountable problems with this right off the bat, including but not limited to:

1) If FE were true, any subversive truth is going to be swarmed with disinfo and disinfo agents, so taking one's word on an internet forum is out the window.
2) There's no way to verify the camera is not slightly pointing upward (even unintentionally), which would elevate the center line of the perspective field. Neither is there any way to verify it wasn't cropped and the photo bottom cut off disproportionately to the top, even unwittingly.
3) We've seen footage from far higher where the horizon line was momentarily revealed, and it appeared to be at eye level (e.g. the Baumgartner footage)

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Law of Perspective
« on: March 21, 2019, 01:04:31 AM »
'Doesn't account for what we observe . . .suns, moons'

As far as I know, there's only one of each that we see here, and it accounts for the moon, which appears considerably larger as it nears the horizon, and I'm suggesting it may apply to the sun also.

'No bottom up compression'

Yes there is. I said the lines are merely a device to understand what's happening, not to say they exist. If you divide the perspective field into 1,000 horizontal lines, there is compression for those nearest the center line, while those away from the center are increasingly spaced out (which makes closer objects appear larger). As for the other dynamics at play, objects that depart converge towards the center, even if they remain far off to the left or right. If you Google Image 'one point perspective grid' you will get a better idea.

'Require some uniformity'

How can they require what doesn't exist, if we are both admitting that apparent sun size varies within the day, and day to day? I dispute your claim that the sun is always the same at sunset and sunrise. As for whether aether is accounted for, doing so may be impossible since the sun is unlike any other object, [in FE] is higher than any other visible object, and aether concentrations or its behavior may vary with latitude and altitude in unknown ways. While refraction is predictable and expressible in a formula in a lab setting, there is no way to translate that across the numerous variables in a real-world setting, especially when the object is said to be 3,000 miles altitude, and no man has likely gone beyond 30-40 or so.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Law of Perspective
« on: March 20, 2019, 07:01:42 PM »
I don't think you're looking at it correctly.

Optically, think of the sun not as a distinct object but as an inextricable part of a single image  that is the human perspective field, and imagine that the field consists of thousands of horizontal lines. These lines compress into smaller increments (terminating at near-zero increments) as they get closer to the center line, so the horizontal lines that represent the top or bottom part of a departing object will hit the center line and compress first; top or bottom depending on whether the departing object is above or below the center line of the perspective field. When an object returns into view, the opposite effect of compression (which takes the effect of sinking), i.e. decompression, would occur (taking the effect of rising), as if a tape is being played in reverse.

As for the claim that sun appears the same every time, I disagree. I'd say it's smallest when overhead, and largest at sunrise and sunset, but appears larger some sunsets than it does in others due to changing atmospheric conditions. So tying refraction's effect to a constant or formula wouldn't suffice. In determining refraction's effect you'd also have to account for all the dynamics and effects of aether, which is not disproven and was repeatedly re-proven in experiments by Sagnac and others, as well as possible re-interpretations of the nature and behavior of light. Einstein's relativity is still under dispute by eminently qualified academics.

Whether or not these coincident phenomena are actually accounting for what we see is another question, but it seems at least plausible on its face.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Law of Perspective
« on: March 20, 2019, 01:41:58 AM »
I don't consider myself a FE'er, but I'll offer a potential explanation:

1) As the sun moves farther away, it moves towards the center line or horizon line of one's perspective field. Similarly, if a plane flies away it's going to appear closer to the horizon line and appear to drop, just as an object on the ground that moves away will appear to rise. The closer the object gets to the center line, the more it compresses, i.e. the more optical data that has to fit into a tiny space, to the point of total compression, which can explain why objects seem to disappear bottom first.
2) At the same time that this bottom-first compression is occurring, refraction causes an illusion of magnification (presumably due to dust, increased atmospheric interference), in the same way that the moon appears far larger when it is near the horizon line. This would explain why the sun often appears larger at sunrise and sunset than during midday.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Antarctic 24-hours Polar Day video
« on: March 19, 2019, 12:50:54 AM »
'I'm learning what I came here to learn'

Whatever you think you're learning it probably isn't much, given your poor reading comprehension. Somehow you missed the part in my small, 5-line post where I said 'Same applies to anyone who has kept mum on NASA's lies,' which includes Russia.

There is zero, zero doubt NASA faked the moon landings. 'Lost' the rocket plans, 'taped over' the original footage, the list goes on. They never went, they never came close.

Consider that they spent $200 billion in 2019 dollars to pull off that hoax, spent many years doing it, and many people were complicit. And now you think they wouldn't set up a few huts on an Arctic island to preserve what would be a false model of the world? That is, NASA and anyone else who wants to fake a space program (which, again, includes Russia)? You are beyond naive.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Antarctic 24-hours Polar Day video
« on: March 18, 2019, 10:53:48 PM »
'No evidence they're fake'

There's no evidence they're real either.

When a party with damaged or no credibility makes a claim, that is not considered evidence. NASA has faked countless pieces of evidence. As a result, NASA 'evidence' is fake until proven real. Same applies to anyone who has kept mum on NASA's lies.

Filming in the Arctic and saying it's Antarctica is very easy to pull off, and if believed, achieves much. It's hardly an outlandish suggestion. 'My dad saw' 'my friend knows' blah blah; oldest trick in the shill book

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What do all FEs agree on?
« on: March 18, 2019, 10:10:40 PM »
'Are countless indications of deception and cover-up around anything'
No, I don't recall 7/11 faking store openings, or sports teams posting CGI renditions of fake stadiums.

'Religions are subjective and different' 
Yet virtually all believe in a geocentric universe and a Creator, which is all I'm talking about.

'Aren't under dispute from anyone reputable or smart'
Actually, they are. Just Google 'gravity not a force' or 'Einstein special relativity wrong' and you will find untold dozens of maximally educated PhDs disputing that they exist as we have been taught.

'My fiance and I getting married at 29 is the same as 666 twice'
You and your fiance are probably unknown people and got married at a common age, and marrying at the same age is common. The odds of that may be something like 1 in 50. The speed of the Earth revolution and invention of gravity are arguably the two most central concepts in heliocentrism, and both carry the same triple digit number that could have been any 3-digit number. It's like rolling the same number on a thousand-sided die twice. The odds of this are somewhere around 1 in a million (1 in 1000 squared). Are you sure you're someone who should be talking about dumb people and intelligence?

'Living in a dome doesn't make us feel special'
Life has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth, and I believe there's something afterwards. Were a firmament to exist, it would not engender negative feelings within me. Heliocentrism is rife with rhetoric suggesting insignificance, lack of meaning: 'stuck on a floating rock' 'insignificant dust' 'space dust' etc.

'We've yet to find another intelligent species'
Bad assumption based on false premise. There may be no other intelligent species. Aliens are fake, UFOs are fake, alleged sightings per year are up 1200x since founding of UN; it's all a psy-op to get you ready for fake alien encounter to usher in world govt.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Antarctic 24-hours Polar Day video
« on: March 18, 2019, 09:50:59 PM »
Yeah, I won't hold my breath on that. That's like asking for the data for Purdue 9/11 impact simulation; guy asked repeatedly for it and 10+ years later still crickets. Or maybe I will ask NASA to check again for the original moon landing tapes that they 'taped over because they ran out of space' (yes, that's the real reason).

First off, I never said it was faked, I said it could have been filmed in the Arctic. As for the timestamp on raw footage, all they would have to do is to have set the camera to the appropriate Antarctica time zone prior to filming. I'm not ruling out that it's real, but my doubts are not without basis.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Antarctic 24-hours Polar Day video
« on: March 18, 2019, 08:51:47 PM »
I think this is a fair point: how can it be verified this is Antarctica and not a northern region/island? I checked the channel and didn't see any proof that seemed beyond doubt.

The Moon is Arizona and Mars is Devon Island Canada, so swapping places is definitely in their playbook. And I do believe that when it comes to deceptions this fundamental, we are dealing with a worldwide deception where all sides agree to agree.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What do all FEs agree on?
« on: March 18, 2019, 08:33:48 PM »
I consider myself more a skeptic of the globe-heliocentrism than FE, but it's universally held among FE'ers and most globe-helio skeptics that:

1) There are countless indications of deception and cover-up around RE by NASA (fake Moon landings, fake Earth images, ISS fakery) and other agencies, and a lack of convincing documentation of RE after 60 years of their supposedly being able to provide it. Why, what are they hiding? Also: prohibited Antarctic exploration; Antarctic Treaty USAP and NASA all founded in 12 month period, among many other points.
1A) There is an enormous anti-religious, pro-secular, pro-scientism, pro-world government motive for RE deception and rejection of geocentrism.
2) The scientific foundations of heliocentrism (e.g. gravity as a force, no aether, special relativity) are still under dispute or not decisively proven, and their leading figures (Newton, Einstein) show signs of respectively being mentally ill and a fraud and being heavily promoted by the establishment. Many physicists disagree with both even today.
3) The vast majority of if not all RE proofs have alternative explanations that are objectively just as feasible, if not more so, if one sets aside one's conditioning.
4) RE theory is stamped with occult numerology (66.6k mph, 1666 gravity 'discovery,' 93M mi Sun), suggesting it is a deception and that underlying mathematics may have been reverse engineered and a globe re-projected.
5) In terms of direct experience, it looks flat even from 35k feet which is the highest 99.99% will ever go, it feels flat, it feels stationary. Humanity and Earth to most people feel special, not just another species in a random place.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mercury/Venus transiting the sun
« on: March 18, 2019, 01:42:59 PM »
I'm going to answer your point from the FE perspective.

If the experiments are indeed genuine (the distinction of 'amateur' carries no weight, since the deep state/shadow govt has legions of undercover personnel doing all kinds of things as relatively convincing 'amateurs,' including doing phony/junk/disinfo research on conspiracy-related matters, surely as well as posting all day in this and other forums; it's a shame that they have cast doubt on and complicated well-meaning, real amateur research activity, but that's where we are) the findings could be due to a misunderstanding of the media at certain altitudes. The various FE models often posit a crystalline, glass, or metal dome and layering of heavens, and also maintain the existence of aether, which is still asserted to exist by some academics and was only said to be disproven by two non-public experiments. Taking dome-multiple heavens-aether as true, the various mediums encountered - perhaps denser than near-Earth air/aether - may be slowing the waves and making the distance seem greater than it is. As far as I can tell they're not able to do the bounceback with other planets, so they can't compare the Venus findings with that of others. The vast majority of radio waves don't penetrate the ionosphere, and I haven't seen evidence of credible tests, if there can be any, that involve super-HF test signals going out and not coming back. I don't believe man has ever gone above the neighborhood of 40-50 miles altitude (which is the approximate altitude of the provably faked Apollo video of Earth; and where the 'ISS' appears to be unmanned satellite), so there's been no direct verification of what's above (only a tiny lower portion of 'first heaven' in the various models), and the credibility of the agencies/people who might go there (or claim to have conducted highly advanced radio testing) in the future is at/near zero. If super HF waves are able to partially or fully penetrate the firmament, resulting in no or misdirected bounceback, it would be difficult to prove RE using radio alone, based on the technology and experiment methodology used thus far.

As applies to radio experiments, audio fakery also cannot be discounted. Satellites may be able to automatically receive morse-coded Venus-targeted super HF radio transmissions and/or be aware of their broadcast beforehand and send them back at a heliocentrically appropriate timing. This wouldn't have to be done in many instances, just for a handful of government and amateur tests to be cemented as undeniable fact, at which point people, accepting the fakery, would probably decline to go through the expensive and apparently pointless exercise of trying to repeat the results. If the satellite operators missed any tests, the planet could be thought to have been missed, or something else went wrong; in any case the failed experiments wouldn't likely be reported by the media or be of interest to more than a tiny percentage of the population.

With regards to orbit observations, another potential explanation that hasn't been mentioned is Tychonic/Egyptian 'geoheliocentrism' (essentially a form of geocentrism). In it Mercury and Venus orbit the Sun (explaining transit), the Sun orbits the Earth, and the other planets orbit the Earth at an altitude higher than and orbit broader than the Sun-Mercury-Venus system. It seems possible that an elliptical-orbit form of the Tychonic model (known as Modified Tychonic / MT) is consistent with most observations, if relativity, which is fraught with indications of establishment promotion and fraud in the form of Einstein, is found to be a false concept.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mercury/Venus transiting the sun
« on: March 18, 2019, 03:54:43 AM »
Donttrollme: A potential explanation would be that the sun's distance from the Earth varies during the year, perhaps with the seasons, and passes below Mercury and/or Venus at certain times, allowing them to move behind sometimes and in front at others. Another potentially coinciding explanation would be electron-like orbits that are sometimes below and sometimes diagonal motion, moving behind.

I wouldn't classify myself as a FE'er but have been researching the theory. I do think there is a point where other kinds of evidence (for example, with regards to Antarctica, angular resolution of eye and its relation to curvature formula, horizon at eye level, abounding NASA fakery, and other types) can overwhelm a single unexplainable phenomenon or limited number of phenomena that may be inaccessible for the layman to study and misunderstood by professionals.

Given the garbage analysis and blindness to obvious problems I've seen in many mainstream academic disciplines (e.g. history and anthropology), where untold thousands in the fields are wasting their time for decades on end by clinging to thoroughly disproven paradigms, while laughing at the new and correct paradigms (e.g. Clovis First, which is a complete joke yet still the so called consensus), including 'leaders in field' at the highest-ranked universities, I as a lay non-astronomer hardly have total confidence in astronomers. That's no attack on you personally, but I sadly cannot have confidence in the community's findings without personally verifying, due to what I've seen in other fields.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mercury/Venus transiting the sun
« on: March 17, 2019, 02:50:43 PM »
'Can safely say there's no faking'

First off, that was in third place of the three possibilities, with the first one the primary possibility. Nice job ignoring the first two points.

But to address your cherry-picking, how can you 'safely say'? You saw a small black dot cross in front of the sun. When a plane crosses the sun, a perfect black outline of one is seen. Any spherical aircraft could produce the same effect (simply flying slowly across the space where transit is said to be visible), and it could be done very close to the Earth's surface, not requiring any kind of space flight.

As for the why, you must be new to the concepts around FE: with heliocentrism, atheism is more tenable, faith in government can replace religion, world scientific-financial dictatorship has better chance of adoption; and humanity, were FE to be true, is kept ignorant.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mercury/Venus transiting the sun
« on: March 17, 2019, 01:15:57 AM »
I've seen some forum threads here and elsewhere that claim that FE proponents have never answered this, when there are several answers:

1) According to Aristotelian and Ptolemaic models, Moon Mercury and Venus are below Sun. All astronomers of antiquity seemed to believe planets were far smaller than Earth. If this is so, transit is explained.
2) If planets are all around the same altitude, M and V could just have different orbit paths that involve Sun crossing, where the others don't. Heliocentric assumption that all planets must be of same nature and have same kind of orbit.
3) It could easily be faked, and would only involve doing so for a few hours once every 5 or 10 years. Just google image 'airplane venus in front of sun' and you will see how easy it would be.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Earth’s core?
« on: March 17, 2019, 01:12:07 AM »
'The core' is a purely theoretical conception. The farthest man has gone is 7.5 miles out of 3,958 and that was via a 9-inch diameter hole. Diamonds formed from water at low or normal temps (not 7000 deg F heat) have been found and were estimated as coming from 250-500 miles below, where is supposedly magma.

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Compiling Objections
« on: March 17, 2019, 01:06:18 AM »
You've mentioned most of these but they're among the most common, and thought would offer brief answers:

Objection: Ships/objects disappear precisely in accordance with curvature drop
Answer: Ships compress into horizon line precisely in accordance with eye's angular resolution limit (is this true btw? I've seen the claim made but haven't fully verified)

Objection: Stars rotate differently in each hemisphere
Answer: Stars move in same direction on both hemispheres, only depends on which direction viewer is facing. In azimuthal projection most of world population lives in view of North Star and most constellations. Those that don't view different stars because they are out of range.

Objection: Long-day summers/midnight sun in Southern Hemisphere.
Answer: Little to no video of midnight sun (only seen one w signs of manipulation), longest days in inhabited areas 15-16 hours. Explanation may be that sun is many-faceted and casts light differently, e.g. casts wider beam or more intense light towards outer fringes to balance seasons. Differences in aether at center and fringes may have to do with.

Objection: FE requires satellites aren't real
Answer: Aether/air vortex at higher altitudes could keep satellite in orbit; if stronger towards center, this is where vast majority of human population is, with almost all of world population within range given they reach 1-2k miles.

Objection: Earth is a planet, planets are all the same, planets are very large, stars are all the same
Answers: Baseless assumptions that originate from acceptance of heliocentrist premise and size, distance, temp, etc., are extrapolations from its math.

Objection: Mercury/Venus transit and solar eclipse disprove FE and prove heliocentrism
Answers: Geocentrist Aristotelian and Ptolemaic models posited Moon Mercury and Venus below Sun, which explains transit. As for tiny Mercury size, cosmologies and theologies of antiquity suggest an assumption that planets were way smaller than both Earth and Sun. Solar eclipse could be due to very rare retrograde motion or irregularities in moon orbit. Moon ability to block is because Moon is below and size may be not all that different.

Objection: Anyone could just go to Antarctica and disprove FE
Answer: 1) Claimed or de facto regulated by govt, all activity there is by govt, all crossings are under supervision of govt and by military. Explorers could move along rim some distance and then claim or even believe have reached center. With radar infrared and jets could easily detect and intercept any sea or air entry. 2) Very risky just to arrive, high chance of being blocked (on basis of being prohibited, for safety, etc.) 3) Then must scale up to 200 ft ice wall, go overland 100s or 1000s of miles inland to ice wall, potentially involving scaling huge mountain peaks, then make it back and report story to establishment media 4) Anyone with wherewithal to arrive would be aware of this, chances are it has never even been attempted. 5) As for proof of FE by aircraft, jets could easily intercept any craft and take offline.

Objection: We've known of RE since Ancient Greeks
Answer: Little proof many Greeks even existed, history very hazy, centuries unaccounted for in custody of works. Eratosthenes is only RE experiment, and works for FE at 3,000 mi altitude and 32 mi diameter sun, which are plausible size and altitude.

Objection: Heliocentrism depends on gravity and everyone knows gravity is real. Newton discovered and Einstein elaborated.
Answer: All kids learn about gravity is Newton's apple (which proves nothing), then move straight on to heliocentrism. There is active, vigorous debate by maximally educated academics over whether gravitational force is real. There is much evidence Einstein was fraud and plagiarist of Poincare and others.

Pages: [1]