The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Orbisect-64 on August 17, 2015, 09:44:19 PM
-
Before I pose my question I would like to say to the paid shills who hang out here all day and night - like it's their job.
I ALREADY KNOW THE BALL EARTH ARGUMENT! I've lived with it my whole life, so I don't care to rehash what I already know.
Therefor I do not NEED or WANT - YOUR input.
And just so you will SHUT UP! here is your view. So please SHUT UP! Thank you.
http://astronomy.nju.edu.cn/~lixd/GA/AT4/AT401/HTML/AT40103.htm
Now that that's out of the way, I'm posing my question to Flat-Earthers to explain to me THE FLAT EARTH VIEW (please refer back to the above statement if you are a ball-earther and can't keep your bloody mouth shut)..
Question:
In the winter, from what I read, there appears to be one set of constellations; but in the summer there is a completely different set of constellations. The only thing I have to confirm whether this is true or not is a) science textbooks; b) the Stallarium program, which has NASA's approval.
Note: I'm not talking about how the stars are different below, at, and above the equator. I'm talking about the star constellations changing in one location.
Has anyone done conclusive research on this subject who can guide me to the right FLAT EARTH research?
Thank you.
—
-
A starting point ...
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2635.msg66165#msg66165
-
Jesus! get a book, go out (when dark & clear) and look up, do it through the year, bingo.
You don't need to know them all (constelations), find the plough/big dipper (looks like a saucepan) it will revolve slowly round a point projected from the bottom/front star through the top/front star, the first other star you reach is polaris.
Use this guide, I don't care what conclusions you come to, stargazing is awesome. http://earthsky.org/tonight/big-dipper-high-in-north-on-june-evenings
-
Hey look, it's Jura-Glenlivet, the shill I was talking about who can't shut up.
-
Thank you for the information Thork. I'm reading over the material. :)
—
-
A starting point ...
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2635.msg66165#msg66165
There is a logic to that hypothesis. But is there more recent documentation of stars on these separate paths?
Like I see photos of the looping paths of some of the "planets," but is there photo evidence to support the idea that individual stars and constellations go on individual paths.
I know that Job says that individual constellations are pulled along as with ropes, so there is scriptural evidence. But all I see as physical documentation is in old books.
—
-
Whilst I am flattered you think my musings are worth paying for you missed the fact I wasn't putting forward any arguement, just giving you the rudiments to do the observations yourself, but I would definitely go with the ropes.
-
Question:
In the winter, from what I read, there appears to be one set of constellations; but in the summer there is a completely different set of constellations. The only thing I have to confirm whether this is true or not is a) science textbooks; b) the Stallarium program, which has NASA's approval.
Have you managed to get you baseline summer observations recorded yet?
-
Hi Orbi'
Up very late last night watching the Lunar eclipse, beautiful clear sky and the Autumn procesion of constelations was in full flow, Orion, the most iconic is now visble from about 2.0 onwards until dawn and will rise earlier as the year goes on, hope you have been doing your observations, here is a map of what and where to help http://earthsky.org/tonight/orion-well-up-before-dawn-in-september , have fun.
-
Up very late last night watching the Lunar eclipse ... hope you have been doing your observations ... have fun.
Yeah, no flat earther has any explanation for lunar eclipses ::)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm
-
Wasn't making a point about the eclipse Thork, I was trying to give Orbi something to help him on this thread, as Orion is arguably the easiest constelation to recognise and he can track its movement across the sky over the next few months, his conclusions will be his own affair, on this I am just a pasionate stargazer with a few pointers should he want them.
There is already another thread on the eclipse, post your sacred text there and duke it out with tiger face.
-
It was called Rahu and Ketu by Indians, even several thousand years ago. Although I don't ascribe to astrology because the Bible warns agains divination any mysticism (the occult), there's one important thing to consider regarding Rahu and Ketu. Astrologers use real stellar bodies in all their practices. All the stars are real physical things, as well as the sun and moon which they use. Hence, they would not make up an imaginary body in the sky to work out their own sciences.
Today, modern science knows of at least one of these dark bodies in the sky (at least there's one that they've admitted to).
3753 Cruithne has been known by science since 1983, and as can be seen on wikipedia's illustrations, it passes so close to earth (even in their fake model of the solar system) that it's literally impossible for it not to pass in-between earth and sun at least once a year.
It has also been known as "the second moon" and "the black sun."
If the moon passing in-between the sun and earth was the cause of eclipses, then there would be an eclipse somewhere on earth almost every single night, considering that the moon is usually opposite the sun at night, and therefor the moon would be inside earth's cast shadow. That we only experience eclipses a few times a year is evidence that it's not caused by earth's or the moon's shadow. Coriolis effect is also an evidence that the body blocking the sun in a solar eclipse is not earth's shadow. But science pulls out "the messiah card" of relativity and gravity to magically explain this away where logic, reason, and observation would state otherwise... and kind of screw up their model.
The most modern name given to the dark body that causes eclipses is Nibiru—but this name was designed as a doppelgänger to make the truth appear ridiculous. It also scares people with modern myths (peddled off as ancient myths) which speak about apocalyptic events. In this way, rather than investigate it, the public brushes it off as foolish. And rather than embrace God's creation, people are conditioned to be in dreadful fear of it.
All anyone needs to do to accept this explanation over the "official" theory is read up on "the axis of evil." Thousands of scientists are being won over to the geocentric model because of it—and the axis of "evil" is obliterating their current heliocentric model. This shows that our present model is a [flat] out lie. The truth is being revealed, and every time they are FORCED to acknowledge the truth, ironically, their model of the earth resemble the flat earth model a little more. It's hilarious to watch their system not only to be destroyed, but to watch them be forced to change their model, bit by bit, into ours—into the truth.
—
-
Someone tell me how my last comment got me a warning.
I insulted no one.
This really makes me believe this site is run by controlled opposition. It would appear Eric may be right.
Yes it would appear that posting truth will get one banned from a site like this.
-
No, Bit long, bit mental, but nothing obviously insulting.
Didn't you get an explanation?
-
Yes it would appear that posting truth will get one banned from a site like this.
If they wanted to ban you, you would have already been banned. The point of warnings is precisely to prevent that outcome.
-
The point of warnings is precisely to prevent that outcome (a banning).
Or to bring up the warning count.
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3442.0
Because forums are just like any other game, and operate under the same rules. You can either be put out: a) by fault, or cheating); b) by interference; c) by the number of strikes.
In this case it could be both interference and strikes. The evidence above speaks for itself, I addressed no one, and insulted no one, therefor the warning was unwarranted and without reason... hence it accomplishes one thing - it brought up my warning count. I can think of at least one person who would have personal reason to use their power to "interfere" to the end of seeing me off the playing field.
P.S. No reason was given. Just a quote and a warning. No reason given = no reason had ... Reason = bring up the warning count.
—
-
Or to bring up the warning count.
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3442.0
I helped establish the rules system on this forum. While some of its execution may have changed since my resignation from the admin post, I'm quite confident I understand how things work around here
The way our warnings work is really more to provide guidelines to moderators than to act as a "three strikes, you're out" system. It enables the moderators to act with an appropriate bias and to treat repeat offenders more seriously than someone who just occasionally slips up.