The Flat Earth Society

The Flat Earth Society => Suggestions & Concerns => Topic started by: sandokhan on January 24, 2016, 09:28:36 AM

Title: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: sandokhan on January 24, 2016, 09:28:36 AM
Flat Earth Theory is the key to understanding the cosmology of the Universe.

Flat Earth Theory is unified field theory, an answer to each of the most important and fundamental questions posed by physicists and chemists.

It encompasses all sciences, from quantum ether mechanics, to the field of the new radical chronology of history.


This section, the Frequently Asked Questions, is meant to provide a basic and correct understanding of the geography, physics and cosmology of the Flat Earth.



How do we know the surface of the earth is actually flat?

The most important and direct proof is the fact that the Tunguska explosion (June 30, 1908) was seen all the way from London, instantaneously (it was also observed all over Europe).

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.

Other important proofs: photographs which do show that there is no curvature whatsoever across the strait of Gibraltar, across the English Channel, or across Lake Ontario.


What is terrestrial and planetary/stellar gravity?

Terrestrial gravity is a force of PRESSURE and is not attractive.

This pressure is applied/exerted by telluric currents which fundamentally interact with all matter.

A telluric current is basically a subquark string which travels in double torsion fashion.

The dextrorotatory subquarks cause disintegration, decay and the influence of gravity; the laevorotatory subquarks provide the antigravitational force as exemplified in the celebrated experiments of Lamoreaux, DePalma, Kozyrev, Brown.

Magnetic monopoles are subquarks.

Through the subquarks we have a flow of bosons/antibosons.

In a conductor, which consists of the same subquark strings, these subquarks align themselves to allow the boson flow (what we actually call electricity).

Magnetism is the same phenomenon: a flow of bosons through subquarks outside a conductor, the other (electricity) a flow of bosons inside a conductor.


Planetary/stellar gravity is a rotational type of force: it is the aether/ether itself which keeps the planets and stars orbiting using double torsional forces. This double torsion force in the shape of a vortex is responsible for the movements of the heavenly bodies in a precise fashion.


What does the Earth look like?

The radius of the flat earth measures 6356.21 km.

This is the correct flat earth map:

(https://web.archive.org/web/20090831201231im_/http://geocities.com/levelwater/africabrazil.gif)

It is covered by a dome made up of aether and ether, the very reason all Nasa missions could not have taken place as described in the official science.

Aether = medium through which the subquarks strings (ether) flow


How does the Sun orbit above the flat earth?

Rotate the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn by 23.5 degrees, and we get the upper and lower bounds for the orbit of the Sun on a flat earth.

It rises from beyond Japan and illuminates at least half of the entire surface (not a spotlight sun at all), and sets somewhere beyond Antarctica.

Then, it rises again to complete its orbit over the other half of the semicircle (approximately).


The most important part of the Sun's orbit is its precession (the westward shift of 1.5 km/year).


The shape of the Sun (and all other planets/stars) is that of a disk.

Its diameter measures some 600 meters.

It orbits at some 15-20 km above the surface of the flat earth.

There are five heavenly bodies which do have the same diameter: the Sun, the Moon, Jupiter, the Black Sun, and the Shadow Moon.

The Black Sun causes the solar eclipse and also the celebrated Allais effect.

The Black Sun emits the laevorotatory subquarks, the fundamental particle of the flat earth.


The Shadow Moon causes the lunar eclipse and emits the dextrorotatory subquarks.


Most stars and planets have a diameter of some 30 meters and orbit above the first dome (described above), and underneath the second dome (the final dome of the flat earth universe), using aether/ether as a rotational gravitational force.



Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: andruszkow on January 26, 2016, 08:18:21 AM
15-20km? Do we need pilots testimonies for this since they've flown only 4-9 km from the sun then? Surely some must be able to say they've been screaming past the sun during a flight in bright daylight.

What about the planes that  can operate in 20km of altitude. Have they been looking down at the sun?

What about high altitude balloons?
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: bhjoellund on January 26, 2016, 08:34:40 AM
Well, not only screaming past the sun, but it should also be quite a lot bigger than it actually is, if it indeed was hanging 15-20 km above ground with a diameter of 600 meters, due to perspective.

Also, Felix Baumgartner.. Did he soar past the sun on his way down? Must've been quite hot.
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: sandokhan on January 26, 2016, 09:48:08 AM
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.

Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: andruszkow on January 26, 2016, 10:00:32 AM
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 participated in that post, and you didn't win anything, not even remotely close. People stopped commenting on your replies because they were ludicrous, and despite the wall-of-text nature of your posts in general, there were nothing in them resembling a proof.
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: sandokhan on January 26, 2016, 10:34:00 AM
It is a pity that you are living in a delusional world.

Let me wake YOU up to REALITY.

That thread turned into a COMPLETE AND TOTAL DISASTER for you.


http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3838.msg80842#msg80842

LAKE ONTARIO FLAT SURFACE DATA


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

GPS ETHER RADIO WAVES


http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3838.msg80911#msg80911

WHAT IS A RADIO WAVE?


http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3838.msg80918#msg80918

WHAT IS A RADIO WAVE, PART 2


A total debunking, destruction, demolition of your fairy world of scienceless science.


http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3838.msg81284#msg81284

IMPOSSIBILITY OF A SPHERICALLY SHAPED SUN


Your answer proved that you have no idea about astrophysics, none whatsoever.


http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3838.msg81286#msg81286

MY ANSWER, TOTALLY DEBUNKING YOUR FAILED FAIRY TALE OF A SPHERICAL SUN

Please come to your senses: you have the audacity to come here and post in such a manner?

YOU were not able to answer to any of my points.

YOU were totally and absolutely debunked 100%.

It will happen each and every time you have the misfortune to challenge me on FET.
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: Lord Dave on January 26, 2016, 10:37:39 AM
I read the FAQ you posted and I am very confused.

Like if monopole magnets are subquaks, then wouldn't a string of monopole magnets be a string of subquarks?

Also, if boson's flow through subquark strings to make electricity and magatism, how can subquark strings exist if Aether = medium through which the subquarks strings (ether) flow when Aether is only above the atmosphere as the dome?

Finally, if bosons flow outside a conductor to make magetism, then what about a permanent bar magnet?  The bosons should be flowing inside the conductive metal, out into the non-conductive air, then around and back into the conductive metal.  But no electricity flows in the metal.

Also, we see lighting.  Does that mean Air is a conductor?  What about rocks?  Wood?  Plastic?  People?
What is a conductor?
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: andruszkow on January 26, 2016, 11:22:18 AM
YOU were not able to answer to any of my points.

YOU were totally and absolutely debunked 100%.

It will happen each and every time you have the misfortune to challenge me on FET.

Don't you think that's a tad narcissistic? Considering the state of FET and the different fractions of Flat Earth Societies, do you acknowledge the fact that other Flat Earther's don't agree with you?

You can't just cling on to your own material as if it's the truth. This is exactly what you accuse Round Earther's to do.

I don't live in a delusional world. In fact, I'll even go as far as to say that whether the Earth is flat or round, it doesn't change a thing, except for that very fact. My life will go on as always. I'm not sure what a RE conspiracy would ever gather from me in the long run at all, which is the very reason you should question FET to begin with. When that question is answered, be can begin to disregard known facts, speculate and theorize.

After all, considering that more than 2000 years of scientific knowledge and facts which our ancestors have bled and died for is being confirmed on a daily (hourly, minutely) basis, the burden of proof is really on you. Period.
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: sandokhan on January 26, 2016, 11:58:34 AM
Considering the state of FET and the different fractions of Flat Earth Societies, do you acknowledge the fact that other Flat Earther's don't agree with you?

They do tacitly agree with me when and as they have to rely on my AFET each and every time they find themselves unable to answer even simple questions re: gravity, radio waves, ring laser gyroscopes, axial precession, beam neutrinos, maps, solar/lunar orbits/facts.

Each time I intervene and restore the balance with my AFET means another blow to the other FE "theories".


After all, considering that more than 2000 years of scientific knowledge and facts which our ancestors have bled and died for is being confirmed on a daily (hourly, minutely) basis, the burden of proof is really on you. Period.

Let me remind you how history has been falsified/faked:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3838.msg81159#msg81159


lorddave, your questions are very welcome.

Exactly.

A string of subquarks = a string of magnetic monopoles


Aether is everywhere: it is more dense above the atmosphere as we get nearer to the dome.

Lightning occurs when telluric currents (subquarks strings) align themselves to pass the energy (electrostatic discharge).

Remember Tesla's experiments with lightning: the energy propagates itself exactly through the same subquark strings.


The wave-particle duality paradox of official science is finally resolved: bosons (longitudinal waves) travel through subquarks strings (transversal waves).


ETHER MAGNETRICITY (double vortices of magnetic monopoles in magnets, real time photographs):

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3418.msg77441#msg77441

In a permanent magnet, the subquarks inside the magnet align themselves to allow the boson flow (magnetic flow) to occur; when a ferromagnetic material is subjected to an external magnetic field, the telluric currents near the material will form a double vortex around the object, aligning themselves with the subquarks inside the material.


BIOELECTRICITY AND RADIOACTIVITY:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3418.msg78796#msg78796
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: Lord Dave on January 26, 2016, 01:02:48 PM
Since subquarks are smaller than quarks which are smaller than electrons which are smaller than atoms..


How does so many align spontaneously?  And why?

Also, what about electrons?

And your "diality paradox solution" is a paradox.  A boson is a particle.  A subquark is... God knows what.  Neither is a wave.  And if they are, a wave of what?  Energy?

Also, what about "what is a conductor"?

And if bosons are one wave and subquark strings are the other, how do they impart momentum energy when passing through matter?  (Bosons and subquarks are both smaller than matter thus can't impact it.)
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: sandokhan on January 26, 2016, 02:01:10 PM
Flat Earth Theory = Subquark Theory = Ether

It is as simple as this.

Sun's Orbit = Solar Precession = A Very Short Chronology of History

These are the two pillars on which true FET rests.


CYMATICS: WHAT IS AETHER?

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1948.msg45022#msg45022


ETHER SUBQUARK THEORY:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1948.msg45225#msg45225

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1948.msg45226#msg45226

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1948.msg45228#msg45228

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1948.msg45261#msg45261


DETECTION OF SUBQUARKS:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1948.msg45265#msg45265


HERE IS WHAT A SINGLE SUBQUARK LOOKS LIKE:

(http://www.svpvril.com/Babbitt_Atom.gif)


First state of ether: BARYONS.

Second state of ether: MESONS.

Third state of ether: QUARKS.

Fourth state of ether: SUBQUARKS.

Fifth state of ether: AETHER.

Astral state of ether: BOSONS/ANTIBOSONS.


HYDROGEN ATOM: 18 SUBQUARKS - 9 LAEVOROTATORY AND 9 DEXTROROTATORY subquarks

A proton is made up of NINE laevorotatory subquarks - an electron is actually comprised of NINE dextrorotatory subquarks (called now preons).

However, modern science has mistakenly named a SINGLE dextrorotatory subquark as an electron and has ascribed THE TOTAL charge of the NINE corresponding subquarks as the total negative charge of a single electron, thus confusing the whole matter.


How do subquarks align?

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/chaptr01.htm


SOUND IS THE ULTIMATE FORCE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.

"Sound is the highest quality of the fourth state of matter (ether or akasha). The first state of ether arises due to high vibrations of sound. It says that matter has a sound aspect, and when a vibration is caused it generates an acoustical wave which travels through the air working with it concurrently and resulting in oscillations of paticles in the air and this causes the intermolecular space of the air to rise in vibrations and causes the atoms to eventually work into the first state of the ether."

A subquark is made up of strings of bosons and antibosons which rotate at incredibly high speeds, creating a double vortex tornado.

Energy = Sound (we can include here emotions, thoughts, imagination)

Bioenergy = Aether (spirit)


"The photo-electric effect and the Compton effect are
cited as proof that photons are transmitted from source to
destination. Recorded impacts are evidence of the arrival of
the sent photons. However, the same effect can be explained
by waves traveling through the medium of aether activating
aether cells already located at the destination, thus giving the
false impression of the cells actually having traveled there.
Similarity with a line of dominoes provides visualization of
this phenomenon. The first one is pushed into the second and
so on, with the final domino striking whatever is next to it at
the destination. Think also of waves from a ship striking the
seashore. It is the waves but not the water that travel from
the ship to the shore. It is acknowledged that the photoelectric
effect and the Compton effect gained acceptance
because they were able to provide a quantitative evaluation
of the phenomena, whereas the wave analysis did not, but it
is suggested that this was due to the lack of consideration of
an aether supporting the waves."


If needed, I can also explain the physics of a single boson or antiboson.





Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: Lord Dave on January 26, 2016, 03:16:37 PM
And this is why your FAQ is terrible.  It requires a degree in levee to understand anything you say.
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: sandokhan on January 26, 2016, 04:20:54 PM
The FAQ is the very first message: it is absolutely accesible to every reader, and it does answer the questions that the official faq cannot.

What ensued after the first message is a debate.


The readers of the FEFAQ want to be challenged, to go beyond what the official science has to say.

My explanations are pretty clear: please read the bibliographical material, explained by the best scientists in the world (for example, Dr. Stephen Phillips of UCLA).

I have even put at your disposal PHOTOGRAPHS of magnets with subquark flow.

Finally, you don't seem to understand what is going on here.

Other than my FAQ, the reader will not able to get the answers he/she wants re: FET.

Not from the official faq anyway.

Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: Lord Dave on January 26, 2016, 04:47:44 PM
The FAQ is the very first message: it is absolutely accesible to every reader, and it does answer the questions that the official faq cannot.
It is not the first message.
Also, what you wrote answers nothing.  I'm sorry but if I can't understans the answers without first understanding how subquarks flow inside the aether (and what aether is) then its not a faq.  (Frequently Asked Questions). What it is, is a book.


Quote
The readers of the FEFAQ want to be challenged, to go beyond what the official science has to say.
Or they want answers to frequently asked questions.

Quote
My explanations are pretty clear: please read the bibliographical material, explained by the best scientists in the world (for example, Dr. Stephen Phillips of UCLA).
No, they really aren't.  You didn't define a quark or a boson.  I know they're subparticles that make up quantum physics but most will not.

Quote
I have even put at your disposal PHOTOGRAPHS of magnets with subquark flow.
How do you photograph a subquark when they are, by definition, smaller than light waves?  Smaller than electrons?  If you're talking about the picture, thats a single subquark string, so not a magnet with subquark flow.


Quote
Finally, you don't seem to understand what is going on here.

Other than my FAQ, the reader will not able to get the answers he/she wants re: FET.

Not from the official faq anyway.
I haven't gotten any answer I understand yet.  Do you think a new person will do better?  I at least know you and am familiar with your work.

Simplify.
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: sandokhan on January 26, 2016, 06:30:27 PM
The FAQ is just the very first message, not the debate which ensued afterwards: I am telling you how things are, you seem to  want to be making up the rules on this thread, which is kind of rude, don't you think?

You haven't paid your dues here or anywhere else to be able to tell me what to do.

I have given the best references which do answer your questions (most of them are linked to this very site).

The other references do include the very definition of a quark, subquark, and a Higgs boson for that matter: obviously, as usual, your homework was done superficially, that is why you have no right to complain.


The photographs refer to subquark flow, that is, the magnetic field (Spintronics published these amazing images for the very first time).


Now, do not pretend that you do not understand the answers I have been providing to you.

What I was expecting from you, is to take your time, in fact several days, to go through the ample references I provided: here you are, 15 minutes later with a bizarre request, "simplify".

You were able to understand them when we were debating the DePalma experiment some years ago, no complaints from you then.


Trust my judgment: I know that most of my readers DO understand what I'm saying, and are very dissatisfied with the other faq.

The official faq answers NOTHING at all pertaining to gravity, radio waves and much more: if YOU are satisfied with this state of affairs, most other RE are not.

One of the RE asked a very simple question: how do you explain the ham radio distance to the moon measurements? No other FE was able to answer (nor will they using the official faq). But I was.

My FAQ does answer the important questions, no matter what you say: it has been used for the past  eight years to defeat each and everyone of the best RE (perhaps they understood it much better than you can).
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: andruszkow on January 26, 2016, 06:36:25 PM
The FAQ is just the very first message, not the debate which ensued afterwards: I am telling you how things are, you seem to  want to be making up the rules on this thread, which is kind of rude, don't you think?

You haven't paid your dues here or anywhere else to be able to tell me what to do.

I have given the best references which do answer your questions (most of them are linked to this very site).

The other references do include the very definition of a quark, subquark, and a Higgs boson for that matter: obviously, as usual, your homework was done superficially, that is why you have no right to complain.


The photographs refer to subquark flow, that is, the magnetic field (Spintronics published these amazing images for the very first time).


Now, do not pretend that you do not understand the answers I have been providing to you.

What I was expecting from you, is to take your time, in fact several days, to go through the ample references I provided: here you are, 15 minutes later with a bizarre request, "simplify".

You were able to understand them when we were debating the DePalma experiment some years ago, no complaints from you then.


Trust my judgment: I know that most of my readers DO understand what I'm saying, and are very dissatisfied with the other faq.

The official faq answers NOTHING at all pertaining to gravity, radio waves and much more: if YOU are satisfied with this state of affairs, most other RE are not.

One of the RE asked a very simple question: how do you explain the ham radio distance to the moon measurements? No other FE was able to answer (nor will they using the official faq). But I was.

My FAQ does the important questions, no matter what you say: it has been used for the past  eight years to defeat each and everyone of the best RE (perhaps they understood it much better than you can).
If you by photograph mean illustration, and by answers mean you're the only person in the world that cracked this mystery, yet you have zero credentials. Doesn't do you well for credibility. But we've had this discussion before, so let's not go there. I'll wait for someone here who actually seems to know something instead
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: sandokhan on January 26, 2016, 06:39:37 PM
What you are doing here is called trolling.

You were completely defeated on each and every thread you participated in.

I have told you before, you live in a delusional world, of your own making.

My proofs are complete and very sound: they include, among other things, the Biefeld-Brown effect.

You think you are up to it to debate this with me here? It takes less than 30 seconds to debunk any of your drivel.
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: sandokhan on January 26, 2016, 06:41:52 PM
Now, a question for all of you here:

Are you satisfied with the official UAFE faq?

It answers nothing, it provides no proofs at all: it has been tested again and again, a total failure (three FE forums, no less).

I have never been defeated using my AFET: and people do want to read it because it works.
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: Lord Dave on January 26, 2016, 07:07:54 PM
The FAQ is just the very first message, not the debate which ensued afterwards: I am telling you how things are, you seem to  want to be making up the rules on this thread, which is kind of rude, don't you think?

You haven't paid your dues here or anywhere else to be able to tell me what to do.

I have given the best references which do answer your questions (most of them are linked to this very site).

The other references do include the very definition of a quark, subquark, and a Higgs boson for that matter: obviously, as usual, your homework was done superficially, that is why you have no right to complain.


The photographs refer to subquark flow, that is, the magnetic field (Spintronics published these amazing images for the very first time).


Now, do not pretend that you do not understand the answers I have been providing to you.

What I was expecting from you, is to take your time, in fact several days, to go through the ample references I provided: here you are, 15 minutes later with a bizarre request, "simplify".

You were able to understand them when we were debating the DePalma experiment some years ago, no complaints from you then.


Trust my judgment: I know that most of my readers DO understand what I'm saying, and are very dissatisfied with the other faq.

The official faq answers NOTHING at all pertaining to gravity, radio waves and much more: if YOU are satisfied with this state of affairs, most other RE are not.

One of the RE asked a very simple question: how do you explain the ham radio distance to the moon measurements? No other FE was able to answer (nor will they using the official faq). But I was.

My FAQ does answer the important questions, no matter what you say: it has been used for the past  eight years to defeat each and everyone of the best RE (perhaps they understood it much better than you can).

If I need days to understand an answer, then it really shouldn't be in an faq.

As for paying my dues, not sure which ones those are.  Activity?  Upper forum activity?  FET promotion?

Finally: ok.  Your readers trust your judgement.  Fine.

Let them speak your praise here.  In fact, if they do, its likely you'll win the vote and have your faq put up.

As for if I'm satisfied with the current faq: yes.
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: sandokhan on January 26, 2016, 07:15:52 PM
Flat Earth Theory is a complex theory encompassing many disciplines: yes, it does take a lot of time to master a certain subject.

My FAQ answers, in a very simple way, the most obvious questions: gravity, FE proofs, sun's orbit.

If you are satisfied with the official faq, NAME A SINGLE THREAD WHERE IT HAS BEEN USED TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING pertaining to questions on gravity, radio waves, solar orbit.

You won't be able to find it: how, then, can you put your name and signature next to something like this?

Have the UAFE ever provided any kind of a proof that the Earth is accelerating upwards in the universe?

None whatsoever.

I, on the other hand, can provide immediately several proofs of the existence of ether.

That is one of the big differences between the official faq and the AFET faq.

My praise comes from the fact that my theory has been tested again and again successfully, unlike yours.
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: andruszkow on January 26, 2016, 07:17:10 PM
What you are doing here is called trolling.

You were completely defeated on each and every thread you participated in.

I have told you before, you live in a delusional world, of your own making.

My proofs are complete and very sound: they include, among other things, the Biefeld-Brown effect.

You think you are up to it to debate this with me here? It takes less than 30 seconds to debunk any of your drivel.

Ack. Could you concentrate and not use your condescending tone, as per usual? It's not enough that you regard yourself as the source of truth. This is not what credibility means. Imagine that people need to be taught the workings of your model; Your model needs to be reviewed by other like-minded people. As in, peer-review. Thus far, nobody has testamented to the credibility of your model. It's ok to be cocky if you are right on the money, but at this point, nothing suggest you are.

Your whole model is based on a theory that crumbled more than 100 years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis#Problems_of_complete_aether_dragging). Without this, your whole model is bogus. Don't you see the problem here? It's not enough that you celebrate yourself, someone, preferably a community of like-minded people, must attribute your theory credit before ANYONE can consider it of importance or relevance.

On that notion alone, but not exclusively(!), you won zero debates so far. As said, the burden of proof is on you, and so far, you have none. How could anyone then consider this to be a FAQ?

I do agree that the current FAQ is full of flaws, even though an admin previously stated that it's deliberate to establish the fundaments for discussions.
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: sandokhan on January 26, 2016, 07:23:57 PM
This is the kind of hapless, superficial, catastrophic messages you posted so far on this website:

The Michelson-Morley experiment refused this (an experiment often cited by FE models) and special relativity has been validated through experiments over and over again since then.

I told you twice before: you live in a delusional world; not only you lost each and every one of your debates, but I won each and every one of them, hands down.


Total debunking of the failed theory of relativity:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2715.msg80203#msg80203


In particular...

The Michelson-Morley catastrophe:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20080705084812/http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter5.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20101128012239/http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm (history revisited section, one of the very best works on the unimaginable errors of the MM experiment)


Then you were silenced completely by the Tunguska explosion subject:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3899.msg81388#msg81388


Exasperated with your meaningless trolling, one of the moderators told you:

No, you simply dislike the answers you received. You seem to think that an unsubstantiated one-liner counts as disproof, and you're welcome to think so, but that doesn't change much.

You are in no position to pass judgements on anybody here: you have a wikipedia level, superficial knowledge of science.

I, on the other hand, have defeated hundreds of RE over the past eight years, most of them more knowledgeable than you are,
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: Lord Dave on January 26, 2016, 07:37:49 PM
Wait... You said your readers love your proofs and hate the faq. 
Then you say your only supporter is yourself?  By mere fact that you dismiss evidence that isn't your own?
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: andruszkow on January 26, 2016, 07:37:59 PM
I told you twice before: you live in a delusional world; not only you lost each and every one of your debates, but I won each and every one of them, hands down.

This feeling of internet superiority belongs to simpletons and people lacking social skill: I'll let you ride that train all by yourself.

Then you were silenced completely by the Tunguska explosion subject:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3899.msg81388#msg81388

I wasn't silenced. As I've told you before, your copy/paste/report on the Tunguska event doesn't bring anything new to the table that hasn't been disproved before. I simply stopped replying to that particular thread (because you mention the Tunguska event everywhere you can) because I got sick and tired of repeating myself. You don't win a debate by repeating falsums.

I, on the other hand, have defeated hundreds of RE over the past eight years, most of them more knowledgeable than you are,

A wise man once said "Assumptions will kill you" - Now, a bit overexaggerated, you're assuming more than normal standards allow you to. As to why you do this could of course be explained better by someone who understands psychology better than I do, but people tend to resort to these attacks when they defend their ego rather than admitting they're wrong.

As I've said countless of times now: So far, you are a nobody. There's nobody giving your model credit, and so far, it doesn't prove anything. This is exactly why 99% of the professional community still relies on peer-reviewed, reproducable, accredited models and facts.

Let say, for the sake of argument, that you're right. Surely, someone will testify to this in a heartbeat. And I don't need your neighbour. Bring someone with scientific and practical leverage, then we'll talk.
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: sandokhan on January 26, 2016, 07:47:51 PM
dave... I challenged you to find a single thread where the official faq has been used to explain anything as it pertains to gravity, radio waves, solar orbit.

Don't worry, you won't find any.

I challenge you to find a single thread where I debated, where it wasn't a total and complete win for the FE.

My FAQ works, yours does not.

This is what we are talking about here: there is no such thing as an UA accelerator.



Your statement on the Michelson-Morley experiment says everything about you: as I have told you, you shouldn't be allowed to post in the upper forums, as you lack the basic knowledge to hold your own for more than 30 seconds with me.

In each of the links provided, in which you participated, you were beaten badly: to think otherwise, is a sure sign of the delusional world you live in.

Only a simpleton can bring to the table of FE debates the Michelson-Morley experiment: for your knowledge, it has been debunked thoroughly a long time ago.

I have published a formula sought after by the greatest mathematicians for the past two hundred years (my global natural logarithm formula): you on the other hand, cannot go past the wikipedia level in any of your messages, a sure sign of mediocrity.
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: andruszkow on January 26, 2016, 07:54:00 PM
dave... I challenged you to find a single thread where the official faq has been used to explain anything as it pertains to gravity, radio waves, solar orbit.

Don't worry, you won't find any.

I challenge you to find a single thread where I debated, where it wasn't a total and complete win for the FE.

My FAQ works, yours does not.

This is what we are talking about here: there is no such thing as an UA accelerator.



Your statement on the Michelson-Morley experiment says everything about you: as I have told you, you shouldn't be allowed to post in the upper forums, as you lack the basic knowledge to hold your own for more than 30 seconds with me.

In each of the links provided, in which you participated, you were beaten badly: to think otherwise, is a sure sign of the delusional world you live in.

Only a simpleton can bring to the table of FE debates the Michelson-Morley experiment: for your knowledge, it has been debunked thoroughly a long time ago.

I have published a formula sought after by the greatest mathematicians for the past two hundred years (my global natural logarithm formula): you on the other hand, cannot go past the wikipedia level in any of your messages, a sure sign of mediocrity.

Haha, wow. Megalomania at large here. If "I have published a formula sought after by the greatest mathematicians for the past two hundred years" were true (a comment that I've laughed a bit about in previous posts), howcome nobody picked up on this? Why haven't the gathered scientific community published anything about it, which they're so eager to do?
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: Thork on January 26, 2016, 08:05:31 PM
My FAQ works, yours does not.
Opinion is divided on the subject ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIXQFaEsvlQ
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: sandokhan on January 26, 2016, 08:08:47 PM
In the official history of mathematics, Euler tried to find such a formula.

He could not.

In the 19th century, Gauss and Jacobi tried the same thing.

It could not be provided.

Ramanujan, the greatest mathematician the world has ever known, also wanted to find such a formula.


But I could.

Here is my global logarithm formula, obtained without calculus:

(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/lo3_zps0a03f5d0.jpg)

My formula was discovered in 1998, and and I was able to sum the continued logarithm function in 2014:

(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/lo2_zps18e4678b.jpg)


I was also able to sum the extended arctangent formula:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/1/a/6/1a65c25333063610ba7ca6aecd562356.png)

ARCTAN v =  2n x ((2- {2+ [2+ (2+ 2{1/(1+ v2)}1/2)1/2]...1/2}))1/2 (n+1 parentheses to be evaluated)


My challenge to any UAFE: find a single thread where the official faq was used to explain anything pertaining to gravity, radio waves, solar orbit.

It turned into a complete disaster each and every time.

My AFET successfully explained the ring laser gyroscopes, beam neutrinos, venus angular size and much more: a sure sign of success, where none of you were to be found: certainly it should be included in the wiki.



Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: andruszkow on January 26, 2016, 08:41:24 PM
Im still baffled about why you want this on TFES wiki, if your formula is what it claims to be.

I'm affiliated with people with proper qualifications. I will personally see to it that this gets confirmed/distributed.
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: sandokhan on January 26, 2016, 09:14:46 PM
Then use those special affiliations to become more knowledgeable in your overall presentation.

Remember, you have to go way past wikipedia to understand what is going on, especially in debates re: relativity vs. ether physics.

Learn to develop your intuition, that special quality that allows you to make those extraordinary connections, that most people do not see, or do not have access to.


If my faq will not be included in the wiki, then you (everybody here) must come up with an improved version, one that does address the radio waves concerns, the gravitational anomalies, and a better solar orbit description.
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: andruszkow on January 26, 2016, 09:37:20 PM
Then use those special affiliations to become more knowledgeable in your overall presentation.

Remember, you have to go way past wikipedia to understand what is going on, especially in debates re: relativity vs. ether physics.

Learn to develop your intuition, that special quality that allows you to make those extraordinary connections, that most people do not see, or do not have access to.


If my faq will not be included in the wiki, then you (everybody here) must come up with an improved version, one that does address the radio waves concerns, the gravitational anomalies, and a better solar orbit description.

Stop lecturing me. Assumptions like this doesn't suit a grown man. You know nothing about me. Chances are that my practical experience in the field you so bluntly imply you excel in, reaches much, much deeper than the level your piedestal ego puts you on. You might actually say something you'll come to regret.
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: Blanko on January 26, 2016, 09:56:42 PM
S&C isn't for petty arguments. Keep it civil or I will move this thread.
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 27, 2016, 06:59:18 AM
Sandokhan, I am not opposed to you having a section on the Wiki, but I think you really need to put significant work into simplifying these ideas for the layman.
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: Venus 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
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: sandokhan on April 06, 2016, 03:54:54 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.

(https://web.archive.org/web/20090831201231im_/http://geocities.com/levelwater/africabrazil.gif)

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?
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: Lord Dave on April 06, 2016, 04:42:09 PM
.
How do four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the surface of a sphere, without an attractive law of gravity?

Aetheric pressure.
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: Venus 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.

(https://web.archive.org/web/20090831201231im_/http://geocities.com/levelwater/africabrazil.gif)

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.
Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: sandokhan on April 10, 2016, 01:22:37 PM
Each and every one of your questions has been answered many times before.


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66237.msg1771301#msg1771301 (star trails, Polaris)


FOUR experiments which contradict the imaginary law of "attractive" gravitation:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66170.msg1767225#msg1767225

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66170.msg1767237#msg1767237


Double forces of attractive gravitation paradox:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1723400#msg1723400

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1724215#msg1724215


You haven't done your homework at all on the Tunguska event.

The event at Tunguska COULD NOT have been caused by a meteorite, comet or asteroid:

In 1983, astronomer Zdenek Sekanina published a paper criticizing the comet hypothesis. He pointed out that a body composed of cometary material, travelling through the atmosphere along such a shallow trajectory, ought to have disintegrated, whereas the Tunguska body apparently remained intact into the lower atmosphere.

The chief difficulty in the asteroid hypothesis is that a stony object should have produced a large crater where it struck the ground, but no such crater has been found.

Fesenkov (1962) claims, "According to all evidence, this meteorite moved around the Sun in a retrograde direction, which is impossible for typical meteorites...." Fesenkov notes that meteorites rarely hit the earth in the morning, because the morning side faces forward in the planet's orbit. Usually the meteorite overtakes the earth from behind, on the evening side.


JULY 1, 1908 LETTER SENT TO THE LONDON TIMES

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html

“TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.”

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.  It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset.  The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals.  Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night.  It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct.  An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow.  The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year.  I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight.  I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.

Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.”


Let us remember that the first newspaper report about the explosion itself ONLY appeared on July 2, 1908 in the Sibir periodical.


A report from Berlin in the New York Times of July 3 stated: 'Remarkable lights were observed in the northern heavens on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, the bright diffused white and yellow illumination continuing through the night until it disappeared at dawn...'

On July 5, (1908) a New York Times story from Britain was entitled: 'Like Dawn at Midnight.' '...The northern sky at midnight became light blue, as if the dawn were breaking...people believed that a big fire was raging in the north of London...shortly after midnight, it was possible to read large print indoors...it would be interesting if anyone would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.'


The letter sent by Mrs. Katharine Stephen is absolutely genuine as it includes details NOBODY else knew at the time: not only the precise timing of the explosion itself (7:15 - 7:17 local time, 0:15 - 0:17 London time), BUT ALSO THE DURATION OF THE TRAJECTORY OF THE OBJECT, right before the explosion, a fact uncovered decades later only by the painstaking research of Dr. Felix Zigel, an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation:


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.



Manotskov decided that the 1908 object, on the other hand, had a far slower entry speed and that, nearing the earth, it reduced its speed to "0.7 kilometers per second, or 2,400 kilometers per hour" - less than half a mile per second.

375 miles = 600 km, or 15 minutes of flight time, given the speed exemplified above

I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).


(http://www.andras-nagy.com/ufo03/pic/p131.jpg)

The fight path of the cosmic object, as reconstructed from eyewitness testimony and ballistic wave evidence. Felix Zigel and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region. The arc at the bottom of the map indicates the scope of the area where witnesses either saw the fiery object or heard the blast.


The information acquired by the Florensky and Zolotov expeditions about the ballistic shock effect on the trees provides a strong basis, in some scientists' view, for a reconstruction of an alteration in the object's line of flight. In the terminal phase of its descent, according to the most recent speculations, the object appears to have approached on an eastward course, then changed course westward over the region before exploding. The ballistic wave evidence, in fact, indicates that some type of flight correction was performed in the atmosphere.

UFOs/Jet aircrafts/V2 rockets were invented by the Vril society, only after 1936.

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.


Do not forget that each and every major airline was founded by high ranking members of diverse secret societies who had every reason to hide the truth about the true shape of the Earth, from the rest of the population.

The other UAFE/FE have lost each and every debate they were part of, their maps were shown to be wrong. My map, the global Piri Reis map, is the only one that fulfills the role of a true FE map.

Time zones?

You first have to understand how the Sun orbits above the flat earth:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4037.0


Title: Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
Post by: Lord Dave on April 10, 2016, 04:30:21 PM
May I suggest you debate specifics in the FE sections?  This is about approval or rejection of sandokhan's alternate wiki.