21

Flat Earth Theory / Looking for documentation on flat "poles" and lakes

« on: September 16, 2015, 09:44:34 AM »

1. POLES: I've heard people say that the north and south ice sheets were surveyed and found to be perfectly flat. It seems that it was just after this that they started pushing the "oblate spheroid" doctrine - followed by the "pear shapediness" B.S. hoax, to allow for the north and south to be flat, while preserving the "plane-t" doctrine.

So I was wondering if anyone has some documentation on the findings of the surveyors, their data, or at least just some official article links.


2. LAKES I'm also looking for any documentation on surveys of lakes that show them to be flat. So far I've found this:

http://greatlakesmaps.org/Default.aspx?tabid=87

Some of the surveys make note of "the level of the lake" being "the plane." But I'm looking for less vague statements, if such exist.

Any leads are much appreciated!


—

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Thoughts on Southern Lights?

« on: September 14, 2015, 04:31:13 PM »

Here's another man who uploads videos of the Aurora Australis. Notice the name of his video: "The Power of Interpolation"

The primary definition to interpolation is: "to alter or corrupt by inserting new or foreign matter."

What he corrupted was the video, the foreign matter he inserts is the Aurora Australis.





—

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Thoughts on Southern Lights?

« on: September 14, 2015, 03:57:24 PM »

Gee, and look what I followed directly from the SpaceWeatherLive website...

http://www.spacepage.be

NOPE, No connections to NASA whatsoever!

—

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Thoughts on Southern Lights?

« on: September 14, 2015, 03:54:12 PM »

Shot by SpaceWeatherLive.com

When it comes to lies that are mostly told by NASA, I trust all websites with the words "space" in it. And all national groups never have any direct ties to government agencies.

I love checking sources!

—

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Thoughts on Southern Lights?

« on: September 14, 2015, 03:43:12 PM »

Rayzor, That does't look anything CLOSE to the northern lights.

And then watch this video that I followed from your link...






Notice the uploader says "Aurora Australis In New Zealand," but on the video itself it says "Night of the NORTHERN Lights" and The film says this is "on the far north of Scotland."

You have to admit it's pretty deceptive to post a video saying it's the "Aurora Australis In New Zealand" when the video was shot in Scotland.

This is exactly what I mean. I'm taking screenshots of the video description for future reference. If there are southern lights, why does an uploader need to lie about it?

I bet everyone says the same thing as you did: "the lights are there, you just can't see them from where I am." That's how the deception works my friend. Just like in the article I posted, people who have been to Antarctica year after year have never seen them. They can give all the pseudo-"scientific" explanations they want for why no one ever sees them in person, it's just more lies.


—

26

Flat Earth Theory / Thoughts on Southern Lights?

« on: September 14, 2015, 08:03:18 AM »

I'm sure this has been discussed here before, but I wasn't here.

So back in 2012 these poor scientists went to the south "pole" wanting to get a look at the southern lights, but they met with disappointment.

"However, we were to be disappointed. Our predecessors here, last year’s winterers, saw nothing of the fabled lights and gave well-reasoned scientific arguments as to why we wouldn’t see them either. Even Dave, our resident Polar veteran, had only glimpsed the lights once from Rothera in his many years of coming back here."

https://abinantarctica.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/the-southern-lights/

So it seems that you can go to the north and see the northern lights every single year, year after year, with a 100% chance of seeing them. . .  But people who are "resident Polar veterans" of Antarctica go to the south year after year, and never see the southern lights.

By the way, I was in Vermont a few years ago and saw the Northern Lights from there... But these scientists on Adelaide Island never get a glimpse?



What I get from this is...

Northern Lights: Viewable every year by millions of people.

Southern Lights: Never even seen by "resident Polar veterans" returning there year after year.


To add, there are accounts throughout history of the northern lights. Their story is told in novels, songs, poems. . .

Where are the southern lights in history's account?  It seems the southern lights only exist in 21st century pictures and videos, but not on the physical earth.



TNT - Northern Lights




—

27

Flat Earth Community / Re: If they wanna say the earth is a ball...

« on: September 09, 2015, 01:51:27 AM »

It should be noted as well that since Poisson's experiments, scientists have found that light behaves both as a wave and a particle. Many articles have been published on this finding since the late 90s. This complicates things greatly, and makes it more difficult to narrow light down to its laws, because though it may (or may not) act like a wave, it can still dissipate, scatter, ricochet, and deflect like particles. Hence Poisson's theories could prove correct in the future, and his name be vindicated and cleared of reproach—and although he may remain partially wrong for arguing against light being a wave, his opponents share equally in being wrong—hence, if one wants to call Poisson a failure, we should say the same of his accusers.

28

Flat Earth Community / Re: If they wanna say the earth is a ball...

« on: September 09, 2015, 01:37:41 AM »

I have a few problems with Poissons's proposed experiment, according to the article cited above.

http://io9.com/5707749/poissons-spot--the-greatest-burn-in-physics

"Poisson reasoned that if light really was a wave, then when a light was turned on a perfectly spherical object, the light waves would bend around the sides of that object. The perfect symmetry of a sphere meant that all the light waves would meet in the exact center of the shadow behind it. There, people would be able to see a BRIGHT spot of light."

So Poisson's proposal was that if light were a wave, there would be a BRIGHT SPOT on the shadow.

"Dominique Arago ... realized that Poisson had described the perfect experiment. He found a round object, he found a light, and pretty soon, he found a spot. It was right were Poisson said it would be."

However, if you look up articles and MIT videos of Poisson's spot, you see that the spot in the shadow is a DARK SPOT, not a bright spot, as Poissons said would be the case if light is a wave.

In my view, Poisson's rivals changed the wording of Poisson's claim from "a light spot," to "a dark spot," and then claimed that Poisson had proven them right.



The second issue I have is that not one single demonstration of 'Poisson's spot' uses a regular light—again, not one single demonstration. The problems with this are: a) lasers were not in existence during the time of Poisson's experiment; b) laser beams are concentrated (very narrow) wavelengths, which physical characteristics are entirely different than that of sunlight and incandescent light (which shines outward in all directions and is not concentrated and directed), which is closer to the light in all natural light sources; c) whenever Poisson's spot is demonstrated a sphere of roughly the same size as the laser beam is used—they never experiment on different ratios of light width to sphere width.

http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-laser-and-vs-light/

This controlled experiment only proves what happens in a controlled (unnatural) environment when the light is concentrated, narrowed, and directed, and when the sphere is the same size as the width as the light. This does not conclusively lay down laws on how all light operates, because unnatural light is used, and no one ever discusses what happens when a natural light shines on different size spheres.

But mostly, Poisson's claim was that a BRIGHT spot would occur if light is a wave, and his opponents changed his words by proving that a DARK spot occurred.

I call dirty pool on this one, and the experiment needs to be done over with natural light and larger spheres. As with all experiments, a variety of test subjects must be used to make the results conclusive, and in this case the test subjects are: the kind of light (wavelength); the brightness of the light; the width of the light source; the diameter of the sphere; the distance from light source to sphere — all of these must be tested to the full spectrum in order to learn anything — no wonder man still does't fully understand light and shadow — having had our perception muddied with dishonesty just so someone could say "I'm right and you're wrong" — our concepts of light/shadow is based on a few individual people's self-centeredness, self-serving, and self-righteousness attitude.

What the experiment does prove is that light does not cast a bright spot on on the shadow as would occur if light were a wave - and it proves that a shadow is projected onto the surface if the light source is very close to the same size as the sphere—but a shadow is what people expect to see, so nothing new is learned by the experiment, as is.



Just as a side note and comparison, the same strategy of word manipulation and twisting was implemented in the case against Michael Behe's claims of intelligent design. Behe observed that both simple and complex systems could not operate if a piece of its machinery was removed. His opponents changed the wording to argue that pieces could be borrowed from already existing structures. But this did not in any way whatsoever answer the question of what happens to a machine when a piece is removed—in fact it was never discussed what happened to the machine the piece was taken from, if that machine could continue to operate. The case was won by playing dirty pool and twisting Behe's words to mean what he had not said. In addition, the leading scientists against Behe admits in a seminar (posted on YouTube) to his students, that his colleagues were joking with the judge long before the case had been concluded, that they would have to discuss the matter if irreducible complexity again the next day. The scientist recalls to his students how they and the judge all laughed and joked about it. This was not an unbiass judge, this judge was already from the home-team. It was a kangaroo court. But the point in this is that twisting people's words in order to win arguments is not an old trick—and it should not be mistaken as victory, but as fraud and manipulation, and dirty-pool played by people who can not win arguments with honesty and candor.

The real reason the trial was held against Behe was that one of the most infamous atheists and proponents for evolution, Antony Flew, had been won over to intelligent design by Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box." Enemies of God could not allow others to be persuaded by the half-conversion of such a great man, who had such clout and respect. Hence the trials were held in order to "debunk" intelligent design in the minds of would-be believers in a deity. Rather interesting to note here is that Richard Dawkins admitted when talking about Flew that although he feels that Flew was foolish and misled for being won over to creation by I.D., Dawkins followed the statement by stating that Flew would have been justified if he had been won over by the The Cosmological Constant—so by recommendation of Richard Dawkins, you unbelievers should head over and examine The Cosmological Constant. The cosmological constant is such a powerful argument in evidence of a creator that it has led scientists in recent years to conclude that our entire existence is just an illusion, or someone's dream. Again God pushes science into a corner leaving them no room but to conclude and teach that "we don't exist." Rather than admit that God exist, they would rather dismiss all things, including themselves. Well, they'll eventually get their wish by being made not to exist—but they won't change what already does—and their place in the stream of time will be puny and without accounting when they and their philosophies have long gone off into oblivion.



—

29

Flat Earth Community / Re: Looking for copy of Almagest

« on: September 08, 2015, 09:12:02 AM »

Interesting ideas..    a bit more research would be a good thing.

The conventional wisdom and research says that  Pope John 1,  was responsible for the Christian Calendar,   the work being done by Dionysius Exiguus.  Around 525 CE,   It was Dionysius Exiguus who started using Anno Domino  AD

The Romans used other means of numbering years, often using,  AUC,  which is numbering years from the founding of Rome, also other year numbering based on Consuls.

Thanks Rayzor. I'll look into it more. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, and I'm not afraid to change if I am. I can't tell you how many ideas I've had to change over the years—including the ball earth model, lol. But you know, on a flat earth website I think we're at that point where we need solid proof of things before changing them, right? And people just stating things as a matter of fact is not in itself, proof.

—

30

Flat Earth Community / Re: Looking for copy of Almagest

« on: September 08, 2015, 05:48:36 AM »

I feel sorry for the undereducated and indoctrinated. Every time a shill opens his mouth, they all lose credibility, as it becomes painfully apparent they haven't a clue what they're talking about. But thank you, stupid, for making me get the dates for all these events. Now I can stick it in my files for quick retrieval the next time an idiot wants to argue.

I'm sorry, but the regression of dates point to the christ. In the words of Nickleson: "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" But you also can't change it.

Still want to disagree? Argue with history.
<snip>

Could you just take a minute to clarify what you are saying,  are you suggesting that the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans all used the same year numbering system that counted backwards towards zero?

Just a yes or no answer will suffice,  but if you want to elaborate on why you believe this, then that's fine.

I realize we use the Gregorian calendar today, which was proposed by a Pope—but as is recorded in history, it was the Romans who dealt with the question of what to do when reaching the year 1 B.C.E.

I've been studying ancient history most of my life, and nowhere have I ever run into an issue where I had to convert the years from one old system to our modern system.

According to wikipedia (the most reliable source in the world, lol) under the heading of Year Numbering: "Julius Caesar did not change the beginning of either the consular year or the calendar year." No mention is made about the numbering system actually changing over, or of the year 1. And this considering wikipedia is run mostly by atheists (believe me I had to fight tooth and nail to have some history fixed on a few pages)—if wikipedia could prove such claims, they would; but they don't. The wiki-pages on the Julian calendar, the Gregorian calendar, and the page on "calendar" mention nothing of the modern claim that there were different years before the Gregorian system—and I did check other sources, and I've looked into this before.

The Gregorian calendar was adopted in 1582 C.E., and yet we have records before that time giving dates counting from 1 C.E. and upward. If the calendar used up until the Gregorian calendar was the Julian, and that never changed in all those years, then this answers, yes, the dates must have counted from 1 C.E. by decree of Rome - which rulers which did not believe in Jesus back around the 1st century. In fact recall the persecution of the Christians during the time of the apostles. It's believed that Paul was likely put to death in the arenas - probably burned on a stake to serve as nighttime illumination for their sports, as was the custom with Christians as they refused to fight. And it was Nero who was reported to have burned Rome and blamed the Christians in 64 C.E. Hence it would be unreasonable to conclude that they changed the years to coincide with Jesus' birth, and that system continued up until 1582 C.E.

Further, it would have made no sense for Rome to have started over again from 1 if they already had a count upward to their time—it would have made more sense to continue counting upward, and in doing so they would never have had to consider what to do when reaching the year 1 B.C.E.

I've read every source I can, and I find no citations from of old which testify to the very modern claim that the years were changed after Jesus's death by Christians. A lot of people are saying it, but there's no support beyond their claims. It seems to me that they don't like the implications, and are passing off "new truths" as historic truth—just like heliocentricism and globe earth.

If someone can find me some old historic books from between the Gregorian calendar and the Julian calendar that give a different year numbering system, I'll gladly change my views to reflect history—but believe me, I've looked. And the same goes with the Julian calendar before B.C.E., find me old historical sources (documents) from around the period with some other year, and I'll change my view.

In this matter, if it is true that the years did count downward, as appears to be the case, then I point to Acts 1:7. Although it's in relation to knowing the time of the end, in principle it may extend farther in scope. There it says: "He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction.""

It appears that although man has been allowed to change historical events and alter truth, God has set our perception of time itself in his own jurisdiction, which means that even if man tried, he could not force it to change from what he wants.


—

31

Flat Earth Community / Re: Looking for copy of Almagest

« on: September 08, 2015, 02:59:26 AM »

And yet at the same time, the years before Jesus's birth count DOWN to a zero year*

No, that numbering system was invented hundreds of years after 1BC.

Are you talking about the Julian Calendar purposed in 46 B.C.E.?

"Julian and Gregorian Calendars. In the year 46 B.C.E., Julius Caesar issued a decree changing the Roman calendar from a lunar to a solar year. This Julian calendar, based on the calculations of the Greek astronomer Sosigenes, had 12 months of arbitrary length and a regular year of 365 days beginning on January 1. It also brought in the use of leap years by the addition of an extra day every four years, to compensate for the extra fraction of a day in the length of the tropical year, which has a little less than 365 1⁄4 days.

The Julian calendar year was actually a little more than 11 minutes and 14 seconds longer than the true solar year. Thus, by the 16th century a discrepancy of ten full days had accumulated. In 1582 C.E., Pope Gregory XIII introduced a slight revision of the Julian calendar, whereby the leap years every four years were retained but with the exception that only those century years with a number divisible by 400 were to be counted as leap years. By papal bull in 1582, ten days were to be omitted in that year, so that the day after October 4 became October 15. The Gregorian calendar is now in general use in most parts of the world. It is the basis for the historical dates used throughout this publication."

It's on record that when the Romans came to the year 1 B.C.E. they went straight to 1 C.E. because the ancient Romans had no zero. If the dates going backward is attributed to more recent times, then why did Rome face the dilemma of how to handle the 1 B.C.E. to 1 C.E. changeover back then?

Sorry, you're arguing with history... And WHY? Likely for the very same reasons the world powers are hiding the flat earth and geocentric system - they dislike truth, and the God of truth - which makes such people no different than those hiding the flat earth, as they both seek to do as was written in Rom. 1:18-21: they are "suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way."

—

32

Flat Earth Community / Re: Looking for copy of Almagest

« on: September 08, 2015, 02:25:32 AM »

And yet at the same time, the years before Jesus's birth count DOWN to a zero year* . . .

Incorrect.  In ancient times, years counted up based on the time of a ruler's reign.

I feel sorry for the undereducated and indoctrinated. Every time a shill opens his mouth, they all lose credibility, as it becomes painfully apparent they haven't a clue what they're talking about. But thank you, stupid, for making me get the dates for all these events. Now I can stick it in my files for quick retrieval the next time an idiot wants to argue.

I'm sorry, but the regression of dates point to the christ. In the words of Nickleson: "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" But you also can't change it.

Still want to disagree? Argue with history.



(? B.C.E — Ancient Sumeria & Babylon: Although dates are given for these two civilizations, achievements are attributed to Sumeria which clearly belong to pre-diluvian man. And regarding Babylon, it is not agreed upon what year Nimrod built his little tower—but who cares. The beginning of the civilization can only be approximated through Bible chronology, as some time after the flood of Noah—deal with it.)

All dates and quotes below come from various sources. Notice the dates (that means "numbers" for idiots) all go downward—blame history.



EGYPT

3150 B.C.E. — "A unified kingdom was founded by King Menes, leading to a series of dynasties that ruled Egypt for the next three millennia."

2700–2200 B.C.E. — "The first two ruling dynasties of a unified Egypt set the stage for the Old Kingdom period."

1650 B.C.E. — "The Hyksos invaders took over much of Lower Egypt around and founded a new capital at Avaris."

1550–1070 B.C.E. — "The New Kingdom began with the Eighteenth Dynasty, marking the rise of Egypt as an international power."



ASSYRIA TO GREECE

758 B.C.E. — "Assyria came to the fore as the dominant world power." (the date 758 is approximate).

632 B.C.E. — Babylon conquers Assyria.

539 B.C.E. — "Medo-Persia replaced the Babylonian Empire as dominant world power in 539 B.C.E."

? B.C.E. — "After defeating the Medo-Persian forces twice in Asia Minor, Alexander’s army pushed first to the south, and then to the east, completely conquering the Medo-Persian Empire."



ROME

323 B.C.E. — Rome becomes the dominant world power shortly after Alexander the Great is stricken dead with sickness at 32 years of age.

("The Romans overthrew their foreign rulers 500 B.C. and established the Roman republic, which lasted four centuries. ...As the majority realized its power and the aristocracy continued its rule, the people demanded (and received) privilege after privilege; the greatest were the election of plebeian tribunes (see tribune) and the codification (450 B.C.) of the Twelve Tables. ...The Samnites were subdued in the wars dated conventionally 343–341 B.C., 326–304 B.C., and 298–290 B.C. ...With Carthage humbled, the Roman republic turned its attention eastward. Philip V of Macedon was defeated after two campaigns (215–205 B.C., 200–197 B.C.), and Antiochus III of Syria was conquered at Magnesia (190 B.C.); eventually the defeat of Perseus (171–168 B.C.) made Macedonia a Roman province. Greece did not become a Roman province, but the brief opposition of the Achaean League was disposed of, and the Greeks became subject to Rome. Egypt acknowledged vassalship to the republic in 168 B.C." —Rome before Augustus © 2012)

63 B.C.E. — Cesar Augustus ruled Rome.

42 B.C.E. — Cesar Tiberius ruled Rome.

10 B.C.E. — Claudius ruled Rome.

2 B.C.E. — Jesus is born.



Dominant World Powers: 1) Egypt,  2) Assyria,  3) Babylon,  4) Medo-Persia,  5) Greece,  6) Rome,  7) Anglo-America... 

Daniel 2:44: "And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite."

Revelation 17:10: "And there are seven kings: Five have fallen, one is (Rome), and the other has not yet arrived; but when he does arrive, he must remain a short while."



P.S. Sorry SHILLS... "But as for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth and murderers and the sexually immoral and those practicing spiritism and idolaters and all the liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This means the second death.” —Revelation 21:8



—

33

Flat Earth Community / Re: Looking for copy of Almagest

« on: September 06, 2015, 11:34:01 PM »

But you have to admit it seems almost beyond coincidence that the messiah was born so close to the zero year like that.

Well, it is beyond coincidence. In the 6th century, Dionysius Exiguus specifically designed his year numbering system to use what he thought to be Jesus's birth year¹ as the reference point. Yes, it's not a coincidence that a system that picks a certain date as its reference point has that date as its reference point.

Mind you, that's not "the zero year". Our year numbering system doesn't have a "zero year". It's 1BC followed by 1AD (BCE/CE if you'd prefer).

1 - He got it wrong by some 5-ish years, but you get the point.

And yet at the same time, the years before Jesus's birth count DOWN to a zero year* . . .which just so happen to reach zero within a few years of Jesus' birth. After the zero year, we count upward.

(* the "zero year" is the year 1 BCE as the Greeks didn't have a zero in their number system. After 1 BCE they started with 1 CE.)


—

34

Flat Earth Community / If they wanna say the earth is a ball...

« on: September 06, 2015, 11:28:45 PM »

edit - so long and thanks for all the fish

35

Flat Earth Community / Re: Looking for copy of Almagest

« on: September 04, 2015, 12:44:23 AM »

So it looks to me from what I've read that Ptolemy believed in a spherical earth—but he believed in a geocentric universe and an unmovable earth. I was under the impression by what someone said that he also believed in a flat earth.

I wonder what conclusions he would have come to regarding the shape of the earth if he was born before Aristotle's time.

Either way, he's a pretty strong voice in mathematics (his techniques are still used today) to be stating that earth is stationary, unmovable, and the center of the universe. You'd think more people would pay attention.

On a side note, I find it amusing, considering wikipedia is so pro-evolution and anti-christ (believe me I've had arguments with them over a few errors in the pages), that they use B.C. instead of B.C.E. I use B.C.E. just because most scholars accept that as the official—but it's just odd that wiki would use B.C. I also use C.E. in stead of A.D. But you have to admit it seems almost beyond coincidence that the messiah was born so close to the zero year like that.

(B.C. = Before Christ; B.C.E. = Before our Common Era; A.D. = in the year of our lord; C.E. Common Era)

36

Flat Earth Community / Re: Looking for copy of Almagest

« on: September 03, 2015, 07:10:27 PM »

Thanks guys. I downloaded the books from garygreen's list. I can't read them, but some people I'm in contact with speak ancient and modern Greek.

I'll probably just end up plunking down the cash for Toomer's translation.

But thanks guys.

—

37

Flat Earth Community / Looking for copy of Almagest

« on: September 02, 2015, 08:48:44 PM »

Ptolemy's books were written nearly two thousand years ago, they are well within public domain; and yet it doesn't appear to be downloadable for free.

I noticed that all the free versions that were available online were removed from the internet, and in 2013 a physicist uploaded "A Modern Almagest - An updated version of Ptolemy's Almagest" on the same sites where the original was removed. The "updated version" is filled with teachings contrary to Ptolemy's flat earth and geocentric views—the author has basically written his own science textbook and put Ptolemy's name on it.

It's pathetic that their ball earth doctrine can't stand in the face of accurate history, and that they have to cheat and plagiarize in order to make it hold water.

So does anyone have a PDF copy of this free domain book, where we can work out a download arrangement?

Frankly there should be a downloadable version of the Almagest on this site.


—

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Queen Victoria

« on: September 02, 2015, 05:22:02 PM »

I read somewhere that Queen Victoria believed in the flat earth. Rowbotham himself seems to have been knighted.

I can't recall where I read about it. Does anyone know the source?

—

39

Flat Earth Theory / nothing about anything

« on: August 27, 2015, 12:53:30 AM »

x

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: View Distance On A Plane?

« on: August 26, 2015, 07:52:19 PM »

Thank you Thork.

But what does "see" mean? You say you may be able to SEE something in the right conditions, but are we talking about a large ship, or looking at a another person?

If weather conditions were perfect, with low particle density and maximum view distance, how far do you think you would be able to see another man, whether he be identifiable or just a dot? For my purposes I don't need to be standing on the sea shore; imagine you're standing on a flat featureless surface that goes as far as the eye can see - how far could you see another man before he's little dot becomes indistinguishable from the horizon? Are we talking about 50 miles in this scenario?

This is why I was look looking for that old view distance chart, it told you how far you could see an object according to its size, and your height.