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.

Messages - totallackey

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8  Next >
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Dome
« on: May 25, 2017, 06:13:41 PM »
No debate intended. Just a review of information about the dome.
(1) What is the dome made of ?
I do not know.

I would believe it to be made of a substance that is solid, permeable, and self-healing.
(2) How high above the earth is the dome ?
I do not know.

It might also have several layers.
(3) Where is the bottom or base of the dome ?
I don't think it has a bottom per say...
(4) Any other information on the dome ?
(5) What's beyond it?
Perhaps nothing.

I think a totally new dimension.
(6) Are there any gates, doors, portholes etc?
I think so, but not in the earthbound sense.

I believe there are extradimensional aspects to the construction beyond our current understanding.

Long-time UFO believer, new to the Flat Earth theory; but intrigued.

 Are these two theories diometrically opposed? The existence of God does not neccesarily contradict the existence of life on other planets, but the certain parts of the Flat Earth model have me conflicted. After many night's consideration I have come up with the following questions;

1. How would vessels from outer space enter the earth's atmosphere through the firmament?

2. If there are other planets apart from Earth that are round, what would lifeforms look like from a round planet? (e.g animals from the deep ocean form differently due to the pressure from the water. Would creatures on ball planets form differently?)

3. Is it possible that another planet like Earth (flat) exists somewhere out there?

Any opinions appreciated,

I do not believe the "space ships" are "space ships."

I believe they are inter-dimensional devices.

I do not believe "space aliens," are "space aliens."

I believe they are inter-dimensional beings.

I am a ninth grader in Stuyvesant High School in New York, writing a research paper on flat earth theorists and why they hold their beliefs. As part of the assignment requirements, I need to conduct an interview related to the subject, and I imagine many of you here have your own personal reasons for believing what you do. I am wondering if someone here is available (preferably) today or tomorrow for an interview by phone, video chat, or if needed, email. This should be a very short interview, 15 minutes at most, although I would be available longer if you want. If you're interested, please send an email to . Thank you!
I am willing to answer questions.

Please post them here at this forum or PM here at this forum.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: sun rising below the clouds
« on: May 05, 2017, 05:53:25 PM »
Here is a video showing the sun reappear after sunset when the camera is raised up 1000 feet by a drone. So we must add to the amazing feats of this hypothetical veil that it can block the sun at ground level while allowing it to shine at higher locations (without moving the camera closer to the sun...just higher):

Everyone knows if you move higher above ground you are getting closer to things that are above you in the sky.

The Sun, moon and earth are also not literally at those distances or those sizes. It's a diagram for illustration purposes. Don't be so obtuse - like most flat earth theorists, you completely ignore the concept of scale.

Explain how the "concept of scale," so drastically screws up what should be PARALLEL light rays emitting from the sun?

I do not care how you demonstrate the scale, if there is direct light coming from the Sun, the entire moon would be illuminated in the photo.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: sun rising below the clouds
« on: April 24, 2017, 05:44:26 PM »
Why doesn't the curtain hide the stars which fill the entire sky at night when the sun is supposedly still in the sky but hidden behind the curtain? Are the stars closer than the sun, so they are in front of the curtain? Why does the sun not just go out like a light switch when the curtain is drawn in front of it, instead of the gradual fading of the light at sunset that we see every day?
Perhaps I am having difficulty communicating the point.

The Sun never goes behind the curtain.

The stars and moon may produce a different type of light not affected by the properties of the curtain.

It might be better to use the word veil instead of curtain.

They never just blacken a movie theatre when they are about to show a movie, do they?

Nope, they slowly fade to dark.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: sun rising below the clouds
« on: April 24, 2017, 04:27:11 PM »
What is the mechanism by which the sun goes dark? And why doesn't it get smaller as it approaches that point, just as everything else gets smaller when it moves further away from us due to our perspective changing?
I would think the mechanism would be the Sun is now out of sight.

Perhaps it might be because it is operating in its own realm of the dome, with a "curtain," made of unknown properties following closely behind and preceding it.

It is within the "curtain," that all appears dark.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: sun rising below the clouds
« on: April 24, 2017, 11:59:02 AM »
"A person on a flat earth with be in daylight when the sun is 4000 miles or closer. Farther away, it will be darkness."
if the sun is 3000 miles up then it is about 2645.75 miles from the spot on earth underneath the sun?
that is a really high angle, isn't it(48.59 degrees?)...for the sun appearing on the horizon under the clouds?
Where do you derive 2645.75 miles?

I do not know if the Sun is at a consistent 3000 mile altitude.

I am beginning to think it varies during the seasons.
or if you mean 4000 miles from the spot directly under the sun(as apposed to direct to the sun) then that would make your direct line of sight with the sun at 5000 miles distant at a 36.87 degree angle...? and that is at sunset/rise...(with the 3000/4000/5000 right triangle?)
A 3/4/5 triangle is natural and could be part of the issue, bu that holds only for a consistent 3000 mile altitude.

I am thinking the only consistent measurement is the 4000 mile distance resulting in darkness.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: sun rising below the clouds
« on: April 21, 2017, 10:57:04 PM »
Opinionated disagreement...
Your video is simply wrong.

I wrote nope because your arguments are rather specious and lacking simple reasoning.

A person on a flat earth with be in daylight when the sun is 4000 miles or closer.

Farther away, it will be darkness.

Finally, reflected sunlight is capable of casting shadows whether you like it or not.

Depending on the type of reflective surface, it can burn human skin as easily as direct sunlight or cause blindness.

There is no reason to believe that intense a light could not also cast shadows.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: If the Earth were really round...
« on: April 21, 2017, 03:08:06 PM »
Yes, I do assume that water remains roughly level, with exceptions for tide (negligible on the Great Lakes), wind or storm surges which can only affect fairly large areas at any particular point in time due to the fact that water remains roughly level, and waves, which were also negligible that day. The waves were fairly consistent through out the boat trip on a clear day, so yes, I am also assuming there were no giant waves between the boat and Chicago at any point during their short trip across the lake. In addition, any wind caused surge of water would have lifted the boat up higher which would have given them an easier time seeing more of the skyline than normal. If you truly think that a wind caused surge was high enough and somehow magically localized enough to hide the skyline, you would still need to explain why there was not large scale flooding as a result...unless the wind somehow created a giant hill of water in the middle of the lake....which is ridiculous. With average wave heights of 1-2 feet during their entire trip, and little or no apparent whitecaps, I would guess that the wind speed was under 15 mph for the entire trip, which again is not enough to cause much of a surge.

Please explain what atmospheric conditions would hide the lower 3/4 of a building 40 miles away, but allow the top 1/4 to remain visible. The building is not that high that there would be a significant difference in the amount of atmosphere between the viewer and the bottom of the building versus the amount of atmosphere between the viewer and the top of the building, so any atmospheric effects would be equivalent for all parts of the building. Remember, both top and bottom of the buildings are 42.6 miles away at the time the most distant image was recorded, so the amount of atmosphere involved is almost completely equivalent.

How about fog?

How about smog?

Choose one.

Here is one of LA.

EDIT: was going to change/decrease image size,changes reverted
- junker

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Which Is Our Map?
« on: April 21, 2017, 02:32:25 PM »
Hi, chaps and chapettes!

I've been looking to buy a large poster of an accurate, political map of the world for a while now. I just think they make cool decorations, plus it's a bit of a hobby of mine to learn capital cities.

All the modern versions are, of course, drawn up by the RE conspirators that run the decent print companies. I'm looking for a map as up-to-date as showing Sudan and South Sudan as separate countries, but all the real flat Earth maps available in poster size are cute antique-looking mockeries with dragons in the Indian Ocean.

This did get me thinking, though, that we don't seem to agree about how our map should look. The Globalists are, to grudgingly give them their due, consistent in their representation of the Earth (which only stands to reason - it's easy to get a few billion sheep to agree upon a lie, whereas the truth invites dispute). And the other thing... and I'm just playing devil's advocate here... it seems to...


it works.

It's a well constructed lie. It models things like the times of sunsets and the position of the stars at least as well as our model. On the other hand, we don't even have an agreed-upon arrangement of the major landmasses. And the representations we do have tend to be, gratingly, photoshopped RE maps. I don't mean to criticise, I'm not saying that cartography is an easy discipline. I'm just a bit shaken by these thoughts.

Could someone please offer up their opinion on which is the most accurate world map we've got so far? (Even better if you can point me in the direction of where I might be able to buy a poster!)

Many thanks, friends
How can you possibly know that any representation of a world map is accurate?

You can be of the opinion it is accurate as presented by those people occupying positions of authority, but that is all.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: sun rising below the clouds
« on: April 21, 2017, 02:27:20 PM »
Foothills would further diffuse the light. And those are some pretty rugged foothils west-southwest of Rainier (especially the ones northeast of Cinebar, and southwest of Boistfort):,-123.401533,9z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x5490d20059ca9a55:0xa0257ed9e9dab45d!8m2!3d46.8495529!4d-121.7123171!5m1!1e4
Again, it is only the peak of the 5th highest mountain in the contiguous US that is casting a shadow.

And Rainier is distinctive in that there are not other such tall mountains surrounding it.

It is the most distinctively prominent mountain in the Lower 48.

Again, show me proof of your claim that diffuse reflected light can cast a shadow with an umbra.
The photo of Rainier and its shadow is my proof.

We are talking about October 2011 which would have been the 2011-2012 snow season which was widely regarded as a dud:
Even the year before, I am sure most of that 907 inches of snow you reference fell after October. I am also pretty sure you are referencing the snowfall on top of Rainier, and not the snowfall at the much lower elevations to the southwest.
At 5400 ft, Paradise, known for its high annual snowfall totals. 700 inches fell in 2011/2012.

Not a dud.

And not accounting for the light reflecting off the lakes and rivers in the area.

The sun in the flat earth model never is below about 10 degrees above the horizon which is why flat earthers make up all kinds of ridiculous explanations for how it can appear that low in the sky in the first place:
The Sun is not visible for an entire night, 365 days a year at the latitude of Rainier.

So the simple fact that the sun even appears on the horizon in the photo debunks a flat earth before we even discuss the shadows. And this means that on a flat earth, the sun would be behind the clouds as explored in this post:

Flat Earth Debate / Re: sun rising below the clouds
« on: April 20, 2017, 06:06:29 PM »
The sun on that day would have been about 248 degrees from Rainier which is west-southwest. Switch to map view on the link to google earth I posted and you will see there are lots of mountains between Rainier and the shore when traveling west-southwest. (Map view shows the mountains more clearly with a topographic shadowing effect)
You post the map view.

Between Rainier and the Pacific, there are what could be called foothills.

Show me a photo of diffuse reflected light casting a dark shadow that is shaped like it has formed from a point source of light.
Light reflected off of the water or snow can certainly be diffuse, but it is not that way all the time.

Snow cover would have been nil anyways at that time of year.
Look it up.

You are making the claim.

I know there was 907 inches of snow in that area in 2010/2011.

That is a lot of snow.

I don't know what to say to the claim that 133 miles is close by.
I know you don't.

Hard to believe a freaking MOUNTAIN within 133 miles could be considered close (2 - 2.5 hours by car).

And you do realize that the picture shows heavy cloud cover overhead? On any of the existing flat earth models, the sun would be behind those clouds anyways which would radically reduce and diffuse the light further. There is no way that perspective can bring a hidden object into view, nor can it hide an object that is in view (although an abject can be so distant that the eye can no longer distinguish it from the surroundings). Refraction can only make objects above the atmosphere appear higher than they really are, so no effect of refraction would be able to bring the sun down into view as it clearly is in the photo.

But hey, diffuse light from a sun hidden behind the clouds can cause all kinds of dark shadows, right?
And the Sun is quite a distance to the EAST of Rainier in that photo and surely you must realize those clouds quite possibly DO NOT EXTEND as far east as the Sun, correct?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: If the Earth were really round...
« on: April 20, 2017, 05:12:52 PM »

Wow, a flat earther that claims that water is not always flat! Any rise in the water at that end of the lake caused by overall wind patterns would be relatively level, or it is not water we are talking about (remember that level is not the same thing as flat: level refers to the distance from the center of the earth which would remain constant on the surface of a body of water). Any tide-like surge caused by steady winds would affect all of the water in the area equally.
Any waves would not be large enough to hide 2/3 to 3/4 of a sky scraper.
Thinks conditions on a lake the size of Michigan are consistent across the board.
Besides, the pictures were taken from a boat which at times would have been on top of the waves, so any hiding of the skyline by wave action would come and go as the boat itself rose and fell on the waves. Here is the original video:

The water was relatively calm that day with what appears to be a 1-2 foot swell which would have a negligible effect on the view of the skyline.
Thinks swells are consistent across the board.
There is no question that he could still see the skyline, but the only explanation for why a larger and larger portion of it was hidden as he got farther away is that the earth itself is curved and so the average surface of the water is curved also.

From the pic insert, it is clear to see there are atmospheric conditions already present, possible hindrance  to ideal viewing.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: sun rising below the clouds
« on: April 20, 2017, 04:56:53 PM »
Novarus also explains above why reflected light is not a possible explanation given the geometry of the flat earth, so I suggest you re-read his post also.
Novarus' explanation is a waste of space.

All opinion.

And one totally in error.

Novarus claims the sunlight is reflecting off the clouds.

...For light to be reflecting off the clouds from the sun to hit the mountain, both the sun and the mountain would have to be on the same "side" as the clouds.

That is an absurd and total misinterpretation of what experience tells all of us.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: sun rising below the clouds
« on: April 20, 2017, 04:55:55 PM »
133 miles is not close at all. There are lots of mountains west of Rainier and few lakes or rivers:,-122.5803192,47095m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x5490cde6eec94b87:0x5cf4a1fb4f91a418!8m2!3d46.8799663!4d-121.7269094

From the link to the photo: This particular image was shot on the morning of October 26th, 2011

Diffuse reflected light will not create a shadow with an umbra because the light is reflected in all directions (unlike a mirror or highly polished surface). See: And in the case of light reflecting off of many square miles of ground, there is even more scattered light coming from even more directions. So any shadows from all of that light coming from many different directions would in effect cancel each other out. That is why photographers use diffusers over their lights: to spread out the light source and eliminate harsh shadows. The only source of light that can cast a shadow like the one in the pictures is a point source or something close to a point source like the sun.

The fact that sunlight off of snow or water can cause blindness has nothing to do with the type of shadow that light would cast, or rather not cast. Try standing under an overhanging roof (to block direct sunlight) in front of a field of white snow, and see if the light from the snow can cause a dark shadow behind you. It won't. Yes there is a lot of light being reflected from all over that field into your eyes, and you better have sunglasses on. But again, because the light is coming from all directions, there would be no dark, well defined shadows behind you.

However, you are correct that nothing I write is ever conclusive.

Lots of mountains west of Rainier?!?!


I think you need to pony up pal.

You make the claim the light is diffused.

I happen to know for a fact light reflected from snow will cast a significantly dark shadow.

Same with light reflected from water.

Seen it with my own two eyes.

133 miles is obviously going to be a subjective measure, but unlike you I believe it distinctively qualifies as close.

It is not the entirety of the mountain casting a shadow, but rather that part subjected to light.

Any part of the top of the mountain would certainly cast a shadow from a light source below it.

And light from the Sun reflected off the surface of the Earth at an altitude lower than the summit of Rainier would qualify.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: If the Earth were really round...
« on: April 20, 2017, 04:45:28 PM »
I have a feeling that if enough supposedly flat water collected in the tip of Lake Michigan to hide 2/3 or more of a skyscraper, then quite a few people would have drowned.
We're is your proof?  How much is "greater" amounts?  By my calculation you have to have about 280 feet greater.  I'm not going to believe you until you can prove it.

So, you are now claiming the water in Lake Michigan remains flat?

While the ocean experiences waves of larger magnitude of course, I can assure you the water in Lake Michigan regularly experiences swells and waves of oceanic proportions.

Your calculations are wrong.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: sun rising below the clouds
« on: April 20, 2017, 04:23:21 PM »
Is this entire thread just a bunch of entitled noobs who failed to read up on EAT?

I am hungry.

But it seems they just willy nilly write things off without any serious thought applied and what appears to be a tremendous lack of personal experience.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: sun rising below the clouds
« on: April 20, 2017, 04:21:40 PM »
It is the direct light of the Sun.
What Nirmala said.
Both of you now deny concentrated reflection of the Sun's rays off of water, snow, and ice, sometimes so intense as to require extremely dark glasses to avoid eye damage or blindness?
The question is not how much light is reflected by water or snow, but whether that light would form a point of light that would cast a shadow like the one in the photos. Reflected light off of a large surface would tend to be very diffuse and would not cause that kind of shadow. The light from the sun is all coming from that round area in the sky. The light from the snow would be coming from all directions, and so any shadow would be spread out and not well defined.

Also Mt. Rainier is not near the coast and so water would not be a factor, although the light reflected off of water would be even more diffuse.

This particular shot was taken in October, and I doubt there was much snow coverage that early in the season:

Furthermore, the area around Mt. Rainier is quite mountainous, so it is not like there is a big flat field of snow out in front of it acting as a huge concentrating reflector.
It is only 133 miles to the Pacific Ocean to Mt. Rainier.

The entire area is filled with rivers and lakes.

October of what year?

The entire area west of Rainier is an alluvial plain.

The Sun, reflecting rays off of the water, is certainly not as intense as the direct sunlight, but I am sorry.

Nothing you have written is conclusive.

You did not even address the need for polarized glasses when on the water or the issue of snow blindness.

Naturally reflected sunlight is not as diffuse as you wish it to be.

Lots of opinion.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: sun rising below the clouds
« on: April 19, 2017, 11:10:36 PM »
It is the direct light of the Sun.
What Nirmala said.
Both of you now deny concentrated reflection of the Sun's rays off of water, snow, and ice, sometimes so intense as to require extremely dark glasses to avoid eye damage or blindness?


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8  Next >