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.
Hello fellow truthseekers,
I have found the wiki to be of adequate explanations regarding the Earth, but what about the Sun? Do we know its origin? Its composition? And where does the light and heat come from?
Thanks! Hope this isn't a redundant post.
[How are they obviously space ships in orbit around a globe?
There are many observations that can be made with binoculars, a relatively cheap telescope, and using some math.
The ISS can be viewed with the naked eye, binoculars, and telescopes. With binoculars I have been able to make out the solar panels.
Figuring out where satellite dishes are pointed will give evidence of space travel. The dishes are directional antennas that are pointing towards a satellite in geostationary orbit, so were are told. It is not that complicated to figure out where two or more dishes receiving a signal from the same satellite are pointed. Where the imaginary lines intersect or get close to intersecting(if you are not too meticulous gathering the data) is evidence where the signal is coming from.
Iridium flares can be observed. They first started becoming visible around the late 1990's. You can find plenty of sources to tell you when and where to look.
You can take long exposures of the night sky where geostationary satellites are said to be.
You can try things like this:
http://makezine.com/2009/07/22/catching-satellites-on-ham-radio/
IMHO if the search for truth is TFES objective they really do not seem to be trying too hard to seek out that truth. My guess one reason not doing two or more of the above is that it will offer evidence that space travel happens, those pictures from space agencies are real and that is damning evidence against the Earth being flat.
Nothing about that tells us that they are obviously space ships in orbit around a globe earth.
I assume you still have access to the telescope you used for the Bishop Experiment. You have access to the internet since you can post in these forums. You got all the tools you need to find out the how, when and where to observe the ISS. Something is up there, moving faster then any plane I have seen. Viewing it through my binoculars I could make out the general shape and solar panels.
Figuring out where satellite dishes using the same satellite are pointed can give you a pretty good idea of the altitude of the source of the signal. Same reason why almost since radio was invented the source of the signal could be located. If you are really meticulous and exact you should get a very good estimate of the location the satellite signal is coming from. Is there a flaw in my logic? Satellite dishes using the same satellite need to be set at different elevations and directions in different locations. If you get LOP's that show an altitude in the atmosphere then you have evidence that space flight is a lie.
Find reports for the Iridium flares prior to the late 90's? Reason I am using the Iridium satellites is they are usually the brightest things in the night sky.
You can combine the long exposure pictures with the SatTV suggestion. Do they at least reasonably coincide? Is there any documentation prior to spaceflight observations of these things not moving in the night sky?
You can not track a satellite and at least note the amount of time you were able to track it? You can not do this? https://amateurgeophysics.wordpress.com/earth-orbiting-satellites/the-doppler-shift-of-satellite-radio-beacons/
If I wanted to prove space travel is impossible I would not just say it is. I would look for ways to prove to myself or others I am right and if within my means would do so. The above are the cheapest and relatively easiest ways I could think of to gather data and evidence.
Edit: If you can determine that something man made is up there then at the very least it should help to refine the FE model. Like the altitude of what I will call the can not pass line. Not 100% sure where space starts on the FE model.
It was a wager for money. The experiment is invalid for that reason alone. End of story.
Correlation does not equal causation, Tom. There were checks in place to deal with this source of bias.
Both Hampden and Wallace had referees. Their referees looked into the telescope and sided with their clients.
Actually Hampden's referee signed off on a picture demonstrating that the middle marker was higher than the outside markers, indicated the Earth is round.QuoteThe experiment is out the window because it was a wager. It is not really permissible as evidence to either side of the argument.
So then I assume you will amend the wiki to say as much, in the interest of completeness? Also, the wiki should be amended because it says that Wallace cheated, which is patently untrue. He was forced to give the winnings back because those types of wagers were not permitted and nothing to do with cheating.
It was a wager for money. The experiment is invalid for that reason alone. End of story.
Correlation does not equal causation, Tom. There were checks in place to deal with this source of bias.
It was a wager for money. The experiment is invalid for that reason alone. End of story.So you will now omit all reference to the Bedford Canal experiment!
You do realise that even an atmospheric refraction of 0.5° can make an object at sea-level visible at 30 miles.
The only way to check this sort of thing is to do repeated measurements at various times of the day.
The images in this reference show what can happen http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz904.htm.
[How are they obviously space ships in orbit around a globe?
There are many observations that can be made with binoculars, a relatively cheap telescope, and using some math.
The ISS can be viewed with the naked eye, binoculars, and telescopes. With binoculars I have been able to make out the solar panels.
Figuring out where satellite dishes are pointed will give evidence of space travel. The dishes are directional antennas that are pointing towards a satellite in geostationary orbit, so were are told. It is not that complicated to figure out where two or more dishes receiving a signal from the same satellite are pointed. Where the imaginary lines intersect or get close to intersecting(if you are not too meticulous gathering the data) is evidence where the signal is coming from.
Iridium flares can be observed. They first started becoming visible around the late 1990's. You can find plenty of sources to tell you when and where to look.
You can take long exposures of the night sky where geostationary satellites are said to be.
You can try things like this:
http://makezine.com/2009/07/22/catching-satellites-on-ham-radio/
IMHO if the search for truth is TFES objective they really do not seem to be trying too hard to seek out that truth. My guess one reason not doing two or more of the above is that it will offer evidence that space travel happens, those pictures from space agencies are real and that is damning evidence against the Earth being flat.
There is the matter of the front legs. Seems I can see a shadow under the entire prairie dog. The only thing I can see that looks like a leg seems very, very short compared to the pictures I just looked at. It also seems more like being part of the cheek than a leg.
By the way I did this, because I got tired of seeing answer from FE's just basically saying because that is how it is. I actually researched and came up with locations that if it is a prairie dog where the picture could have been taken. I did not just say it looks like a rodent and 10 out of 10 people thought it was.
At least for me and I am sure others this is the kind of stuff we are talking about when we say evidence. It showed locations where prairie dogs live, places that and/or had limited vegetation, and pictures of those states that both prairie dogs lived and somewhat matched what we can see in the photo. I did not research any further to see if prairie dogs live in the areas the photos I posted.
I also assumed a prairie dog did not end up on an indoor set.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/10/trump-wine-is-built-on-acres-of-lies.html
Is that true? The wbsite does say that its not affiliated with Donald Tump...
Come on, that's obviously not a rodent. Maybe if you squinted really hard at it, but otherwise, any normal person can see that it's just a rock. Don't be stupid.Hoppy has a point. I imagine the typical REer isn't convinced something is wrong until the doctor has confirmed it for him with more evidence that something is wrong than the fact that his senses are telling him that he's in horrible pain and showing him that his arm is bent horribly wrong. After all our senses lie to us all the time and simply can't be trusted.On the contrary, we REers have no reason to distrust the establishment, and we understand that our perception rarely conflicts with reality, but hardly ever shows the whole story from our scale. Why would you FEers believe the doctor? He's pointing out that your arm is obviously broken, but he could be trying to get your money for his own purposes, and is probably indoctrinated by the government.
We FEers have no reason to distrust the establishment either. I'm not sure where you're going with this. I don't know how many times REers have told me I'm foolish to believe the Earth is flat just because I perceive it to be flat. If pressed they often go to great lengths to demonstrate to me that my senses are always lying to me and can never be trusted. They pull out obvious optical illusions, sets of boxes and vases that look like people and cars that appear to be going uphill while in neutral and all kinds of wacky shit. I find it a wonder that REers are able to believe anything at all, considering that our senses are really our only way of interacting with the world around us, yet they seem to be believe they can't be trusted for anything.
I don't see where "the establishment" has anything to do with it. In fact, as I've explained previously, medicine is one of the rare arts that puts practical zeteticism into use on a consistent basis and if anything its practitioners' adherence to a discipline so strongly anti-NASA suggests that they are more friend than foe. I'm really just not sure I agree that NASA is part of "the establishment". Their influence has weakened a great deal over the years. Maybe at one time... but honestly, they are more like a novelty at this point than anything else (like a "Weird Al" song, or fake dog poo), and even at that they have gotten stale.
So medicine is the only or one of the very few professions that proceeds by inquiry?
You would have us believe that NASA simply crammed a cylinder full of explosive stuff, threw a couple of guys on top of it and aimed it at the moon hoping for the best?
And you would have us believe that NASA photographed a rock that looks exactly like a rodent on the surface of mars?
That person in the video needs to refute Earth Not a Globe, the authority on the subject, not some random youtuber. The author mentions Spherical Excess as a proof of the earth's rotundity, but has not refuted the Earth Not a Globe chapter on the topic.
Why in the world would a modern surveyor be concerned with the empty assertions of someone made 160 years ago?
There is so much controversy over the "Bedford Canal" experiment and the fuss afterward that basing a whole movement on that is surely building on quicksand!Quotehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment
Rowbotham repeated his experiments several times over the years but his claims received little attention until, in 1870, a supporter by the name of John Hampden offered a wager that he could show, by repeating Rowbotham's experiment, that the earth was flat. The noted naturalist and qualified surveyor Alfred Russel Wallace accepted the wager. Wallace, by virtue of his surveyor's training and knowledge of physics, avoided the errors of the preceding experiments and won the bet. The crucial step was to set a sight line 13 feet (4 m) above the water, and thereby avoid the effects of atmospheric refraction. Despite Hampden initially refusing to accept the demonstration, Wallace was awarded the bet by the referee, editor of The Field sports magazine. Hampden subsequently published a pamphlet alleging that Wallace had cheated and sued for his money. Several protracted court cases ensued, with the result that Hampden was imprisoned for threatening to kill Wallace and for libel. The same court ruled that the wager had been invalid because Hampden retracted the bet and required that Wallace return the money to Hampden./quote]
Yes Hampden "won" the money, but with a reputation in shatters!
Look you have "a snowflakes chance in hell" of any wide acceptance till you have a model with:
an accurate map that can be used for find distances and directions accurately,
a model that can explain observed phenomena, sunrises, sunset etc.
Sure to your eyes the earth looks flat, but when I look around with open eyes I see numerous things that simply do fit with that conclusion.
Everything from the sun and moon staying the same size all the time they are visible to the sun rising in the East (here and I gather EVERYWHERE) at the equinoxes - you might check it out on 7 days time - I see it rises almost in the east here now.
So I what do I see with my own etes:
- The Earth looks flat and the horizon looks flat - it does, simply because the earth is huge![1]
- On a clear day looking out to sea the sky-horizon interface is a sharp line (it is only about 5 km away!). On a flat earth it would have to fade into the distance with no distinct boundary.
- The sun appears to rise from behind the horizon and appears to set behind the horizon.
- The sun stays the same size as it arcs up and over the sky - actually it sometimes seems a bit little larger at sunrise and sunset.
- The sun always appears to be a disk, though sometimes a bit distorted at sunrise and sunset.
- The sun always rises due east and sets due west on each equinox - here, and I am told it happens all over the earth.
- Likewise the moon appears to rise from behind the horizon and appears to set behind the horizon.
- The moon stays the same size as it arcs up and over the sky - it sometimes seems a bit bigger at moonrise and moonset.
- The moon always appears to show the same face wherever it is in the sky. (And from wherever we observe it - though we have to travel for this observation).
- The full moon always appears to be a circle, though sometimes a bit distorted at moonrise and moonset.
You just have to look in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment:Don't be ridiculous! Of course the earth is concave.
QuoteOther experiments
On 25 July 1896, Ulysses Grant Morrow, a newspaper editor, conducted a similar experiment on the Old Illinois Drainage Canal, Summit, Illinois. Unlike Rowbotham, he was seeking to demonstrate that the surface of the earth was curved: when he too found that his target marker, 18 inches (46 cm) above water level and five miles (8.0 km) distant, was clearly visible he concluded that the Earth's surface was concavely curved, in line with the expectations of his sponsors, the Koreshan Unity society. The findings were dismissed by critics as the result of atmospheric refraction.
I know talking to you (of the 2 <= π <= 4 fame) is useless, but in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction it does point out that"QuoteWhenever possible, astronomers will schedule their observations around the time of culmination of an object when it is highest in the sky. Likewise sailors will never shoot a star which is not at least 20° or more above the horizon. If observations close to the horizon cannot be avoided, it is possible to equip a telescope with control systems to compensate for the shift caused by the refraction. If the dispersion is a problem too, (in case of broadband high-resolution observations) atmospheric refraction correctors can be employed as well (made from pairs of rotating glass prisms). But as the amount of atmospheric refraction is a function of the temperature gradient, the temperature, pressure, and humidity (the amount of water vapour is especially important at mid-infrared wavelengths) the amount of effort needed for a successful compensation can be prohibitive. Surveyors, on the other hand, will often schedule their observations in the afternoon when the magnitude of refraction is minimum.
Atmospheric refraction becomes more severe when there are strong temperature gradients, and refraction is not uniform when the atmosphere is inhomogeneous, as when there is turbulence in the air. This is the cause of twinkling of the stars and various deformations of the shape of the sun at sunset and sunrise.
Many have urged that refraction would account for much of the elevation of objects seen at the distance of several miles. Indeed, attempts have been made to show that the large flag at the end of six miles of the Bedford Canal (Experiment 1, fig. 2, p. 13) has been brought into the line of sight entirely by refraction. That the line of sight was not a right line, but curved over the convex surface of the water; and the well-known appearance of an object in a basin of water, has been referred to in illustration. A very little reflection, however, will show that the cases are not parallel; for instance, if the object (a shilling or other coin) is placed in a basin without water there is no refraction. Being surrounded with atmospheric air only, and the observer being in the same medium, there is no bending or refraction of the eye line. Nor would there be any refraction if the object and the observer were both surrounded with water. Refraction can only exist when the medium surrounding the observer is different to that in which the object is placed. As long as the shilling in the basin is surrounded with air, and the observer is in the same air, there is no refraction; but whilst the observer remains in the air, and the shilling is placed in water, refraction exists. This illustration does not apply to the experiments made on the Bedford Canal, because the flag and the boats were in the same medium as the observer--both were in the air. To make the cases parallel, the flag or the boat should have been in the water, and the observer in the air; as it was not so, the illustration fails.
There is no doubt, however, that it is possible for the atmosphere to have different temperature and density at two stations six miles apart; and some degree of refraction would thence result; but on several occasions the following steps were taken to ascertain whether any such differences existed. Two barometers, two thermometers, and two hygrometers, were obtained, each two being of the same make, and reading exactly alike. On a given day, at twelve o'clock, all the instruments were carefully examined, and both of each kind were found to stand at the same point or figure: the two, barometers showed the same density; the two thermometers the same temperature; and the two hygrometers the same degree of moisture in the air. One of each kind was then taken to the opposite station, and at three o'clock each instrument was carefully examined, and the readings recorded, and the observation to the flag, &c., then immediately taken. In a short time afterwards the two sets of observers met each other about midway on the northern bank of the canal, when the notes were compared, and found to be precisely alike--the temperature, density, and moisture of the air did not differ at the two stations at the time the experiment with the telescope and flag-staff was made. Hence it was concluded that refraction had not played any part in the observation, and could not be allowed for, nor permitted to influence, in any way whatever, the general result.
The bit about the satellites is probably the most obvious, but I still have yet to hear an explanation from you for why there are two high tides each day.Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you. We can look up and see satellites as they go around the earth. We can measure the difference in gravity between the poles and the equator. We can measure and explain the Coriolis Effect. We have seismographs all over the world, with results that can only be explained if it was round. We get new pictures of the earth from space every single day. We can calculate the distance to the moon using reflectors placed there during the Apollo program. We know the strength of gravity from the moon and the sun, and we can use it to explain the tides. We have centuries of proof. You're the one suggesting that we throw that all away because the earth looks flat when you stand on it.You denigrate RE believers because we stand on what scientists using the scientific method have provided.
Why have FE believers not been able to muster a collection of evidence based upon the zetetic method which is incontrovertible and refutes evidence provided through the scientific method?
It's not our place to have to defend the basic and obvious, its your place to refute it.
None of that is really basic or obvious.
Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you. We can look up and see satellites as they go around the earth. We can measure the difference in gravity between the poles and the equator. We can measure and explain the Coriolis Effect. We have seismographs all over the world, with results that can only be explained if it was round. We get new pictures of the earth from space every single day. We can calculate the distance to the moon using reflectors placed there during the Apollo program. We know the strength of gravity from the moon and the sun, and we can use it to explain the tides. We have centuries of proof. You're the one suggesting that we throw that all away because the earth looks flat when you stand on it.You denigrate RE believers because we stand on what scientists using the scientific method have provided.
Why have FE believers not been able to muster a collection of evidence based upon the zetetic method which is incontrovertible and refutes evidence provided through the scientific method?
It's not our place to have to defend the basic and obvious, its your place to refute it.
He mentioned lake Ontario during the video.
There is no curvature whatsoever across a distance of 55 km over lake Ontario:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3838.msg80842#msg80842
One photo with insufficient context does not constitute evidence.
What about all the photos that do show skyscrapers with up to 50% of their height obscured? Or this photo from Niagara-on-the-Lake where you cannot see the Rogers Centre at all:
