1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Railroads, tunnels, canals.... bridges?

« on: February 16, 2018, 02:59:25 AM »

Name for me any FE whistle blowers. You cannot. Why? Because FE truthers do not have the financial or scientific backing that globers do

Or, and this is just my own crazy theory, but maybe it's because there isn't a whistle...
Why would a flat earth be such a terrible truth that "they" (whoever they are) have to keep from us?

You want to prove a flat earth? If you believe the model as presented in this Wiki and the sun and moon are only a few thousand miles away then all you have to do is do some observations from a few locations known distances apart. If the moon and sun are as close as you supposed they don't have to be that far apart for you to get measurable differences in angles.
Do some triangulation and voila, there's your proof, there's your Nobel Prize.
That is literally all you have to do. I have said this numerous times on here, it is always ignored.

I await your results with bated breath...

I saw a video where this very thing was done. It was quite interesting in that the same formulas used for RE to project the Moon's distance (I'm pretty certain it was the Moon) could also be used for the FE theory. The person was in the Eastern part of the USA and his mate was in the Western half, I believe. They performed the function and came out almost exactly as predicted. It came down to punching in the numbers on a 3rd party scientific calculator on a website that is not caught up in this debate. I'll try to locate the video and post it here.

How would you explain the crepuscular Sun rays from the angular standpoint? They always seem to show a near rather than a distant Sun. No need to post any pics or vids, as I am certain you are familiar with this FE paradigm. I would like to read your thoughts and views on that.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Railroads, tunnels, canals.... bridges?

« on: February 16, 2018, 02:45:35 AM »

You are projecting. This is a narcissistic trait. You have the backing of trillions of dollars of documents and audios and videos that support a globe and even they all cannot agree... much less many of them blowing whistles. Name for me any FE whistle blowers. You cannot. Why? Because FE truthers do not have the financial or scientific backing that globers do, much less the media bludgeon used to silence those, or encumber them with problems. Because of this uneven struglle and unfair set of ever changing rules against the FE people, it takes a serious and intelligent person to stand up against the establishment and present legitimate questions that this financial GIANT will never answer truthfully. We have no whistles to blow because the evidence we do present is already written in the books of old and brought to our awareness by the human spirit of curiosity, intelligence and logic.

How can you ad hominem someone who asks an honest question about his life and the creation around him and instead of getting/giving truthful answers such as, "Well, this is what we believe but it is only proven to be so on a white board at MIT or NASA." the person is told that this is the way it is and if you step out of line you will be squashed.

You did point out some numbers, but perhaps through your lack of understanding engineering in this particular model, which you brought to our awareness, you just refuse to understand that more numbers are needed... particular the blueprints or the planning typed up from those blueprints.

I mentioned "narcissist" because that is what narcissists do. They project, they change the rules with word salad and eventually begin to ad hominem the truther to demean their character or make it seem like wanting the truth outside of the "truth" is worthy of guilt and shame.

Respect

You probably think it's a "word salad" because you don't actually understand the physics involved. If anything, the pages on the FE wiki are a word salad, and they won't even admit this. Are you aware of why FE has no financial/scientific backing? It's probably because most people with finances are smart enough to put their money with the experts who have demonstrated proficiency in making things work. This is why no respectable research institution puts money toward "creation science," flat earth, or anti-vaxxers.

If you actually understood the experimental validation of all of the physical laws that govern our universe (hint: Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws at slow speeds), then you wouldn't be saying all of this. Of course, this requires a basic physics education, which you appear to show contempt for and therefore probably lack (sour grapes?).

The only reason why you think the evidence doesn't agree is because you don't understand it. Plain and simple.

According to you, yes? Fortunately, I do not need your approval for anything. I am content in my research and intuition and instinctive powers at present. Your reactions to my other posts compounds my hunger to keep searching. Your narrative and tone is the same. Respect

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New member with one question for FE members

« on: February 16, 2018, 02:40:52 AM »

Hello,
     My nephew recently has become a believer in a flat earth. Why? I dont know but thats his choice... The question I have is this. Lets say Sir Richard Branson is able to complete construction of and tests of the craft he wants to take average folks into space in the next 5 years. If this happens and a member of the FE society, and by that I mean a member who is well known "around" the globe takes a flight and sees the earth is round, when said person returns to earth and says yes the Earth is indeed round as a marble, would that end this debate for those who think its flat? And one other question I have is since all other planets are round why would it be that the Earth is flat? One FE member a few years back was asked by Elon Musk how did they know that Mars was round and not flat their response was... because we can actually observer Mars and see that Mars is round through a telescope etc.. Now I am not asking any of this trying to be an ass, but asking as an educated fellow who likes to ask questions and have a civil discussion/debate and possibly learn something, even though learning is a tougher task now at 47 as im pretty sure i killed a few brains cells over the years. Thanks for any opinions and remember... she's as round as a marble i bet the farm..

Branson's prototype "exploded" at 45,000 feet. I personally think that no one outside the inner circle (of the few who control space) will ever be allowed to get there to see an expanse as far as the naked eye can look in any direction. Time will tell, but one can be certain that "IF" this happens, it will be auspiciously played out for months on MSM and with a groomed group of passengers and pilots... more than likely the lot of them all wearing Freemason rings (i.e. Apollo astronauts).

Respect

Wow, so many assertions, so little proof. What "inner circle" are you even talking about? Even simple ballistic missiles can make it into space (not orbit) and see what's up there. These are owned by some of the shadiest and worst characters in the world.

How do you know, personally, that they make it into space or otherwise? Aren't you making assertions now?

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Understanding the Psychology (or Mindset) of a Flat Earther

« on: February 16, 2018, 02:38:17 AM »

What does psychology have to do with the Van Allen Belt. What does the opinion of a psychologist have to do with facts, or even arguments that cannot be proven by FE'ers because no one will discuss them with the ones asking the questions and all evidence is locked up? Moreover FE'ers are not backed by trillions of dollars, the MSM, the military, the education system ad nausea and its vast wealth of rewards and punishments for those who comply and dissent.

Moreover, it is professionally disingenuous for a shrink or doctor to perform a diagnosis on someone (much less a large group of people) in which no polls have been conducted (legitimate or otherwise) and no willing human beings (FE'ers) have volunteered for, and subsequently there is no empirical evidence to support such (heretofore) narcissistic tactics (i.e. projecting) by these armchair theorists... and that is exactly what they are doing... theorizing and probably getting a fat check for doing so. Ya think?

Here's a hint. Nobody discusses this stuff (apart from the REs on this forum) because it's a waste of time. There's nothing more to debate. The evidence is overwhelming, and the only reason why you don't think so is because you don't understand the evidence, and have fundamental misunderstandings of basic science. When you have people who haven't even built a simple induction motor or navigation system, and don't even understand Newton's 3 laws telling 99% of scientists that they're all wrong because of X (a word salad of fundamentally wrong nonsense), I think it's not unreasonable to diagnose them with a bit of a mental problem; that being said, I think that natural cognitive biases are responsible, not mental illness.

You are persistent, aren't you? Perhaps we should all call it a night, yes? I appreciate your zeal, but is it not permissible for people to discuss things on their own forums on the internet without self-appointed champions of the realm trolling and adding nothing more than ad hominems and strawman arguments?

I am interested in both sides of the debate... not being lectured by a cheeky person with no show of regard for free discourse.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the sinking ship effect

« on: February 16, 2018, 02:33:32 AM »

I recently talked to a sailor who had spent 18 years working on ships during that time he became very good at spoting ships on the horizon when I explaind the flat earth perspective on how ships diminish in size he told me "No matter how much you magnify the ship it will be blocked out by the curviture of the earth."

It is called atmospheric magnification / refraction. The moisture above the water acts as a lens. As the object on the water recedes it will begin to "sink" from the bottom up. This is elementary science that a sailor will not get from "spotting ships" and not knowing a thing about atmospheric magnification / refraction. For you to cite that reference really is ludicrous. You eyes are lenses. The atmosphere is another lens you are looking through. That's two lenses to view an actual object.

The video aptly explains this phenomena quite well and nothing more needs to be said about such simplicity.

That video is actually junk. Magnification is not refraction; a curved mirror can also magnify FYI. You don't actually know what you're talking about when you invoke refraction. If refraction were at play (which it is), it goes both ways, which is not observed at all. Additionally, it does not refract that much, as can be calculated by the indices of refraction.

Alright. I appreciate your view and opinion and personal citation. Should we agree to disagree now?

Respect. I appreciate your vigor.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Vanishing Point

« on: February 16, 2018, 02:31:36 AM »

Browsing the tfes Wiki I came across the "Viewing Distance" subject, in which the concept of the "Vanishing Point", "beyond which no man can see", is discussed briefly. It is described thus:
"The vanishing point, beyond which no man can see, is created when his perspective lines approach each other at a certain angle smaller than the eye can see."

I must assume that this "Vanishing Point" has a finite and measurable length, or distance from the eye of the observer, as it is evoked to explain, in part, our inability to perceive objects beyond the "Vanishing Point". This limitation, in turn, is invoked to explain why, no matter how high we ascend above the flat earth, we will never see the edge.

The effectiveness of the "Vanishing Point" in limiting our vision is explained thus:
"The vanishing point acts as the limi[ti]ng point of all vision, as all bodies beyond it are too small and squished into the surface to see with the naked eye."

Now, does anyone out there have the numbers associated with the "Vanishing Point"? IE, how far from my eye is it? It seems, strangely, to vary with altitude, according to the Wiki article, so I'll rephrase the question. How far from my eye is it when I am standing on the surface of the flat earth, not above it?

There are too many variables missing in this vague and ambiguous struggle of yours, which you present in the form of a question. It is not worth giving the time for it and I hope no one else falls into this baited trap.

This isn't ambiguous; it may be verbose. Essentially he's asking for an explanation of why the vanishing point gets farther away with increasing altitude. The perspective argument doesn't cut it. Your assertion that "there are too many variables" suggests that you haven't done any sort of scientific research, where oftentimes there are far more noisy variables.

I believe that the OP was made by Scroogie, yes? What does Scroogie say to your stepping in on his (her?) behalf and interrupting my discourse to him (her?)? Just saying...

Respect

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ice Wall Must Be Very Tall

« on: February 16, 2018, 02:28:02 AM »

The Challenger sailed as far north as Japan in the Pacific, and as far north as Halifax (and London, of course) in the Atlantic. This could hardly be called a circumnavigation of Antarctica for purposes of size comparison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_expedition

Fair enough. What about Captain Cook?

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The International Space Station

« on: February 16, 2018, 02:23:56 AM »

The Flat Earth Society's general opinion on the International Space Station is that it is a hoax. However during the 2017 eclipse, the YouTube channel Smarter Every Day was able to capture the ISS transition the eclipse.
How do you know what he "captured" was the ISS? Because he said so? Because there is nice, questionable footage?


Although I think the whole video is worth watching, at around 3:23 into the video you can see the ISS quickly transition the eclipse near the bottom right of the eclipse followed by a slowed down and zoomed in capture where you are able to see the shape of the ISS.

They were able to calculate the position of the ISS and the exact time it would pass, thanks to a mathematical formula which is explained in a different video on his channel.

I am just curious on The Flat Earth Society's opinion on this footage.

My opinion is that I saw video footage of some guys in a field and they had cameras. Footage changed to a scene of some lights, with a small, dark shape sailing past one of the lights. Actual or fabricated with some spiffy software? Possible? Indeed yes! Who knows? What they say in the video and what they presented (spliced in) to me is anathema to any legitimate truths. I am not buying it, but the whole presentation seemed pleasant and seemingly convincing to the average non-thinker.

Kindest Regards

See, this is a perfect example of the difference between Round Earth and Flat Earth on this forum. Round Earth does research and thinking to back up its claims. Flat Earth does mere speculation and what-ifs to try to poke holes in something they don't understand. Your opinion was formed in less than 5 minutes and you didn't even do the most basic of research. How do I know? Because you're questioning whether the video makers faked the video of them observing the ISS from the ground. Well, why don't you just take out your telescope and look toward it?. It's been well-documented that the details of the ISS are visible from the ground to anyone with a good telescope. There are tons of people who have replicated looking at the ISS. So your rebuttal is just an ad-hoc, poorly thought-out, reactionary, and ignorant machination; you didn't even consider that you might be wrong and look up evidence to support your claims.

You seem convinced in your beliefs. I am curious as to why you haunt forums like this simply to ad hominem those who aren't satisfied with the Mainstream Narrative. Why are you here? To save us all?

Your entire comment is a strawman you use to bludgeon those in dissent of your vague and ambiguos defenses... the standards you hold us to and yet which you do not abide by. Where are your citations of a round earth? Oh... let me guess... you will cite the same jabberwocky that I grew up with and believed in until the advent of the Internet.

Google, "NASA admits to losing Moon Landing Tapes". Go figure!

I have no problem with you believing what you wish in this matter. If you wish to troll forums where people wish to believe something else and research for supportive citations then please demonstrate "YOUR" views with civility and citations (counter proof, if you will).

Respect

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The International Space Station

« on: February 16, 2018, 02:15:18 AM »

The Flat Earth Society's general opinion on the International Space Station is that it is a hoax. However during the 2017 eclipse, the YouTube channel Smarter Every Day was able to capture the ISS transition the eclipse.
How do you know what he "captured" was the ISS? Because he said so? Because there is nice, questionable footage?


Although I think the whole video is worth watching, at around 3:23 into the video you can see the ISS quickly transition the eclipse near the bottom right of the eclipse followed by a slowed down and zoomed in capture where you are able to see the shape of the ISS.

They were able to calculate the position of the ISS and the exact time it would pass, thanks to a mathematical formula which is explained in a different video on his channel.

I am just curious on The Flat Earth Society's opinion on this footage.

My opinion is that I saw video footage of some guys in a field and they had cameras. Footage changed to a scene of some lights, with a small, dark shape sailing past one of the lights. Actual or fabricated with some spiffy software? Possible? Indeed yes! Who knows? What they say in the video and what they presented (spliced in) to me is anathema to any legitimate truths. I am not buying it, but the whole presentation seemed pleasant and seemingly convincing to the average non-thinker.

Kindest Regards

See, this is a perfect example of the difference between Round Earth and Flat Earth on this forum. Round Earth does research and thinking to back up its claims. Flat Earth does mere speculation and what-ifs to try to poke holes in something they don't understand. Your opinion was formed in less than 5 minutes and you didn't even do the most basic of research. How do I know? Because you're questioning whether the video makers faked the video of them observing the ISS from the ground. Well, why don't you just take out your telescope and look toward it?. It's been well-documented that the details of the ISS are visible from the ground to anyone with a good telescope. There are tons of people who have replicated looking at the ISS. So your rebuttal is just an ad-hoc, poorly thought-out, reactionary, and ignorant machination; you didn't even consider that you might be wrong and look up evidence to support your claims.

I have to say I completely agree with you on this. I have learned that any argument that simply tries to cast doubt without actual evidence isn't worthy of consideration. The video of the ISS is evidence. To argue it was a fake requires more than just your say so.

If Mad Mike Hughes were to ever launch himself high enough to prove the earth was flat, and had photos and videos to prove it was flat, I wouldn't try to argue they were fakes just because they go against what I believe. I would take them seriously and look into how a round earth could look flat.

The Man Who Saw The Flat Earth (From a Balloon!): Auguste Piccard


I am not arguing with you. I am simply curious about it all.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No flat earth model can explain this case

« on: February 16, 2018, 02:06:40 AM »

I would contest your use of lexicon in your description. In my view, the Sun is approaching from a distance, reaching zenith to the viewer, and then receding into the distance. What the lenses of our eyes perceive as we view its course through the sky is also affected by atmospheric refraction (AR). AR is the amount of moisture in the air, or lack thereof, which also acts as a lens and further distorts the actual object (image) given to our brains through these two "lenses".

You did not ask any question, but rather instead pointed out something and then made a conclusion, so I am not sure if there is a question there.

The effect you described (using my lexicon) perfectly explains what people see... for those who believe they are on a ball and the ball is rotating... and for FE believers, that they are standing on a stationary plane and the object (the Sun) is circling overhead in ever tightening and widening concentric circles. The effect, at face value, is the same regardless, but how one interprets it is debatable.

Respect 

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the sinking ship effect

« on: February 15, 2018, 07:06:42 AM »

I recently talked to a sailor who had spent 18 years working on ships during that time he became very good at spoting ships on the horizon when I explaind the flat earth perspective on how ships diminish in size he told me "No matter how much you magnify the ship it will be blocked out by the curviture of the earth."

It is called atmospheric magnification / refraction. The moisture above the water acts as a lens. As the object on the water recedes it will begin to "sink" from the bottom up. This is elementary science that a sailor will not get from "spotting ships" and not knowing a thing about atmospheric magnification / refraction. For you to cite that reference really is ludicrous. You eyes are lenses. The atmosphere is another lens you are looking through. That's two lenses to view an actual object.

The video aptly explains this phenomena quite well and nothing more needs to be said about such simplicity.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Railroads, tunnels, canals.... bridges?

« on: February 15, 2018, 06:56:28 AM »

From what I'm reading, all you've done is stated that the towers are 41.275mm apart on the Varrazano-Narrows bridge and 36mm apart on the Humber bridge. You didn't link a design document detailing that the engineers did this on purpose, nor did you verify that their supposed difference isn't just due to one of the towers happening to lean slightly in one direction. Considering the height of the towers on the Varrazano-Narrows bridge, a different of 41.275mm would only require a 1.95e-4 variation (as if both the towers were level and exactly 90 degrees with the ground), that is, one of the towers could lean 1e-8 degrees in a single direction and achieve a lean causing an increase of 41.275mm at the top versus the bottom. You're telling me that those towers are undoubtedly 90 degrees vertical to the ground? I highly doubt that.

This kind of proof would require that you not only measure the top of the towers accurately (who measured that, may I ask?) but also that you verify the distance difference of the towers is not just due to one happening to lean 0.00000001 degrees in a direction it isn't supposed to.

Cue the standard flat earth response - "you have no proof that this is very true and I doubt it therefore your evidence is false".

It's amazing the hoops flat earthers require round earthers to jump through before their evidence can be accepted while on their own presenting far less or nothing at all to support their claims.
The wiki says "Surveyors' operations in the construction of railroads, tunnels, or canals are conducted without the slightest "allowance" being made for "curvature," although it is taught that this so-called allowance is absolutely necessary! This is a cutting proof that Earth is not a globe.”
Yet no supporting documents to show this. No surveying hand books. No design drawings. Nothing. Then when a round earther mentions a specific case with specific numbers it is discounted outright because

You didn't link a design document detailing that the engineers did this on purpose, nor did you verify that their supposed difference isn't just due to one of the towers happening to lean slightly in one direction.

You are projecting. This is a narcissistic trait. You have the backing of trillions of dollars of documents and audios and videos that support a globe and even they all cannot agree... much less many of them blowing whistles. Name for me any FE whistle blowers. You cannot. Why? Because FE truthers do not have the financial or scientific backing that globers do, much less the media bludgeon used to silence those, or encumber them with problems. Because of this uneven struglle and unfair set of ever changing rules against the FE people, it takes a serious and intelligent person to stand up against the establishment and present legitimate questions that this financial GIANT will never answer truthfully. We have no whistles to blow because the evidence we do present is already written in the books of old and brought to our awareness by the human spirit of curiosity, intelligence and logic.

How can you ad hominem someone who asks an honest question about his life and the creation around him and instead of getting/giving truthful answers such as, "Well, this is what we believe but it is only proven to be so on a white board at MIT or NASA." the person is told that this is the way it is and if you step out of line you will be squashed.

You did point out some numbers, but perhaps through your lack of understanding engineering in this particular model, which you brought to our awareness, you just refuse to understand that more numbers are needed... particular the blueprints or the planning typed up from those blueprints.

I mentioned "narcissist" because that is what narcissists do. They project, they change the rules with word salad and eventually begin to ad hominem the truther to demean their character or make it seem like wanting the truth outside of the "truth" is worthy of guilt and shame.

Respect

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New member with one question for FE members

« on: February 15, 2018, 06:41:51 AM »

Hello,
     My nephew recently has become a believer in a flat earth. Why? I dont know but thats his choice... The question I have is this. Lets say Sir Richard Branson is able to complete construction of and tests of the craft he wants to take average folks into space in the next 5 years. If this happens and a member of the FE society, and by that I mean a member who is well known "around" the globe takes a flight and sees the earth is round, when said person returns to earth and says yes the Earth is indeed round as a marble, would that end this debate for those who think its flat? And one other question I have is since all other planets are round why would it be that the Earth is flat? One FE member a few years back was asked by Elon Musk how did they know that Mars was round and not flat their response was... because we can actually observer Mars and see that Mars is round through a telescope etc.. Now I am not asking any of this trying to be an ass, but asking as an educated fellow who likes to ask questions and have a civil discussion/debate and possibly learn something, even though learning is a tougher task now at 47 as im pretty sure i killed a few brains cells over the years. Thanks for any opinions and remember... she's as round as a marble i bet the farm..

Branson's prototype "exploded" at 45,000 feet. I personally think that no one outside the inner circle (of the few who control space) will ever be allowed to get there to see an expanse as far as the naked eye can look in any direction. Time will tell, but one can be certain that "IF" this happens, it will be auspiciously played out for months on MSM and with a groomed group of passengers and pilots... more than likely the lot of them all wearing Freemason rings (i.e. Apollo astronauts).

Respect

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The International Space Station

« on: February 15, 2018, 06:33:27 AM »

The Flat Earth Society's general opinion on the International Space Station is that it is a hoax. However during the 2017 eclipse, the YouTube channel Smarter Every Day was able to capture the ISS transition the eclipse.
How do you know what he "captured" was the ISS? Because he said so? Because there is nice, questionable footage?

Link to video

Although I think the whole video is worth watching, at around 3:23 into the video you can see the ISS quickly transition the eclipse near the bottom right of the eclipse followed by a slowed down and zoomed in capture where you are able to see the shape of the ISS.

They were able to calculate the position of the ISS and the exact time it would pass, thanks to a mathematical formula which is explained in a different video on his channel.

I am just curious on The Flat Earth Society's opinion on this footage.

My opinion is that I saw video footage of some guys in a field and they had cameras. Footage changed to a scene of some lights, with a small, dark shape sailing past one of the lights. Actual or fabricated with some spiffy software? Possible? Indeed yes! Who knows? What they say in the video and what they presented (spliced in) to me is anathema to any legitimate truths. I am not buying it, but the whole presentation seemed pleasant and seemingly convincing to the average non-thinker.

Kindest Regards

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What exists at 2.537 million light years away from the Earth?

« on: February 15, 2018, 06:21:19 AM »

Globe model includes Universe.
OK. Prove it is out there.
Flat model denies it.
It seems I just did.

Globe model claims that at 2.537 million light years away is Andromeda Galaxy.
Yes... they perhaps do. Have they ever been to this theoretical place?
Flat model claims that Andromeda galaxy doesn't exist that way.
Indeed!

People who know Flat model well would know what exists at 2.537 million light years from Earth.
How might we know, and cite something to lend credence to this assumption.
If it is not Andromeda galaxy, then what is there instead?
Who knows in fact and truth?

Globe Earthers, please don't pretend that you know what Flat model says for such distances. What you know is from Globe model.
Flat Earthers will know better what is there in Flat model.
This question is for them.

All I know is what Yahweh said through the words of Moses in the Book of Genesis:

Light Without a Named Source Came First (on the first day or age)
Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4  And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Notice God said "Let there be...". The word make, create or form is not used. His spoken word brought light into being.


Lights in the Firmament Came Second (on the fourth day. or age)
Gen 1:14  And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15  And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16  And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17  And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18  And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19  And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

It is written that these lights were set into the Firmament.

Strong's Concordance H7549 רקיע for the word 'Firmament' (Hebrew: râqı̂ya raw-kee'-ah) is as follows:
From H7554; properly an expanse, that is, the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky: - firmament.

H7554 (from above reference) רקע râqa‛ raw-kah'
A primitive root; to pound the earth (as a sign of passion); by analogy to expand (by hammering); by implication to overlay (with thin sheets of metal): - beat, make broad, spread abroad (forth, over, out, into plates), stamp, stretch.

Since there is no empirical evidence of ever being out so far as to reach the "firmament" surface and document it, then what makes you so sure that there is no LED barrier and that you can project yourself or an object outwards from the earth for infinite?

What... is man able to imagine Yahweh away with his own understanding, or lack thereof?

 

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Vanishing Point

« on: February 15, 2018, 06:00:57 AM »

Browsing the tfes Wiki I came across the "Viewing Distance" subject, in which the concept of the "Vanishing Point", "beyond which no man can see", is discussed briefly. It is described thus:
"The vanishing point, beyond which no man can see, is created when his perspective lines approach each other at a certain angle smaller than the eye can see."

I must assume that this "Vanishing Point" has a finite and measurable length, or distance from the eye of the observer, as it is evoked to explain, in part, our inability to perceive objects beyond the "Vanishing Point". This limitation, in turn, is invoked to explain why, no matter how high we ascend above the flat earth, we will never see the edge.

The effectiveness of the "Vanishing Point" in limiting our vision is explained thus:
"The vanishing point acts as the limi[ti]ng point of all vision, as all bodies beyond it are too small and squished into the surface to see with the naked eye."

Now, does anyone out there have the numbers associated with the "Vanishing Point"? IE, how far from my eye is it? It seems, strangely, to vary with altitude, according to the Wiki article, so I'll rephrase the question. How far from my eye is it when I am standing on the surface of the flat earth, not above it?

There are too many variables missing in this vague and ambiguous struggle of yours, which you present in the form of a question. It is not worth giving the time for it and I hope no one else falls into this baited trap.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ice Wall Must Be Very Tall

« on: February 15, 2018, 05:54:22 AM »

In 1773 Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier. During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall! Captain Cook wrote: “The ice extended east 57 and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.”

On October 5th, 1839 another explorer, James Clark Ross began a series of Antarctic voyages lasting a total of 4 years and 5 months. Ross and his crew sailed two heavily armored warships thousands of miles, losing many men from hurricanes and icebergs, looking for an entry point beyond the southern glacial wall. Upon first confronting the massive barrier Captain Ross wrote of the wall, “extending from its eastern extreme point as far as the eye could discern to the eastward. It presented an extraordinary appearance, gradually increasing in height, as we got nearer to it, and proving at length to be a perpendicular cliff of ice, between one hundred and fifty feet and two hundred feet above the level of the sea, perfectly flat and level at the top, and without any fissures or promontories on its even seaward face. We might with equal chance of success try to sail through the cliffs of Dover, as to penetrate such a mass.”

“Yes, but we can circumnavigate the South easily enough,‟ is often said by those who don't know, The British Ship Challenger recently completed the circuit of the Southern region - indirectly, to be sure - but she was three years about it, and traversed nearly 69,000 miles - a stretch long enough to have taken her six times round on the globular hypothesis.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (78)

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Understanding the Psychology (or Mindset) of a Flat Earther

« on: February 15, 2018, 05:43:56 AM »

Hi,

You have likely already read the attached articles, however, it gave me a high level understanding and some insight on the Psychology or Thinking of a Flat Earther.

In taking a quote from the attached article called "Flat Earth: What Fuels the Internet's Strangest Conspiracy Theory?" (By Stephanie Pappas, Live Science Contributor): "flat-Earth conspiracy theorists may be chasing many of the same needs as believers in other conspiracies: social belonging, the need for meaning and control, and feelings of safety in an uncertain world."

In the second article entitled "Are Flat-Earthers Being Serious?" (By Natalie Wolchover and Live Science Staff): Karen Douglas, a psychologist at the University of Kent in the United Kingdom who studies the psychology of conspiracy theories quotes that : "all conspiracy theories share a basic thrust: They present an alternative theory about an important issue or event, and construct an (often) vague explanation for why someone is covering up that "true" version of events. One of the major points of appeal is that they explain a big event but often without going into details," she said. "A lot of the power lies in the fact that they are vague."

-----------------------------------

For all of you Round / Spherical Earthers out there like myself, you likely won't be able to change the mind of a Flat Earther no matter how much evidence you try to present or how much you want to debate. Psychology helps us to understand in a way that Conspiracy Mindsets can be about the need for social belonging, the need for attention, and/or the need for control and certainty in world that may not make too much sense (to them).

Regards.

https://www.livescience.com/61655-flat-earth-conspiracy-theory.html

https://www.livescience.com/24310-flat-earth-belief.html

What does psychology have to do with the Van Allen Belt. What does the opinion of a psychologist have to do with facts, or even arguments that cannot be proven by FE'ers because no one will discuss them with the ones asking the questions and all evidence is locked up? Moreover FE'ers are not backed by trillions of dollars, the MSM, the military, the education system ad nausea and its vast wealth of rewards and punishments for those who comply and dissent.

Moreover, it is professionally disingenuous for a shrink or doctor to perform a diagnosis on someone (much less a large group of people) in which no polls have been conducted (legitimate or otherwise) and no willing human beings (FE'ers) have volunteered for, and subsequently there is no empirical evidence to support such (heretofore) narcissistic tactics (i.e. projecting) by these armchair theorists... and that is exactly what they are doing... theorizing and probably getting a fat check for doing so. Ya think?

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The moon

« on: February 15, 2018, 05:34:10 AM »

The moon looks "upside down" to those in the southern hemisphere in comparison to those who live in the northern hemisphere. This simple fact would appear to break the current flat earth orbit model.

Why? If the moon path on a FE travels in concentric circles and fluctuates between those concentric paths, that would put the moon further outwards from dead center at times and further inwards at time, depending where upon the FE you are standing.

As an example... look at the moon... then turn your back to the moon and lean backwards until you are looking at the moon with your head upside down. What I mean is that the further inwards to dead center of FE you are, you must look up and away from FE dead center to view the moon. Someone further out from FE dead center is facing you and looking up and inwards towards FE dead center and up at the same thing.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The ultimate proof that the Earth is ROUND...

« on: February 15, 2018, 05:23:07 AM »

The answer to your question regarding the object receding on the surface of water is refraction. You have several factors involved. Here is a video to explain (go to about 3:14 to see my point)



So your argument is based upon what you see from the lenses of your own eyes, and perhaps you omit what is going on between your eyes and the object... the light and the water and temperature of the gases surrounding you. The point in the video aptly explains how an object on a flat surface disappears from the bottom up as it recedes in the distance. I do not how how else to make any more simpler than that.

The water in the atmosphere acts as a lens... more so if you are viewing parallel to the surface of the earth and get closer to the surface of the earth. So you are seeing an object through the lenses of your own eyes... through the refractory lens effect of the atmosphere... and this must be taken into consideration.

Regarding the so-called space ship receding from you outwardly, you will not have the refractory effect going on. The object will recede and get smaller and vanish. Your eyes are cameras. They can only handle so much.

Respect!