*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7524
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #40 on: September 25, 2016, 05:33:47 AM »
If the second... honestly I don't know what else to tell you. Believing that the celestial poles don't line up is almost as bad as other flat earthers claiming that Polaris can be seen from Australia, or that the South Celestial Pole doesn't exist, or some other head-stuck-in-sand nonsense.

Is there a universal law that all phenomena must be how you imagine it to be or something?

You have clearly been brainwashed with globularist dogma and media hype, to the extent that you create facts on demand, are disinterested in truth, and deny any necessity for evidence. Scary.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #41 on: September 25, 2016, 05:56:47 AM »
If the second... honestly I don't know what else to tell you. Believing that the celestial poles don't line up is almost as bad as other flat earthers claiming that Polaris can be seen from Australia, or that the South Celestial Pole doesn't exist, or some other head-stuck-in-sand nonsense.

Is there a universal law that all phenomena must be how you imagine it to be or something?

You have clearly been brainwashed with globularist dogma and media hype, to the extent that you create facts on demand, are disinterested in truth, and deny any necessity for evidence. Scary.

Brainwashed by globularist dogma and media hype? Lol. I literally just told you several posts ago that I have been there myself. I have seen what the night sky looks like at the equator myself. If you think I and 400 million other people are lying, just go there to see for yourself.

Don't want to travel to the equator? Fine! You can test my claim right where you are! Assuming you are in the northern hemisphere, the location of the south celestial pole below the horizon can easily be estimated. Just take a timelapse of the night sky facing south. Look for the cardinal direction of the top of the arc made by the stars. The south celestial pole is in that cardinal direction. Now measure that against the cardinal direction of the north celestial pole. Easy peasy.

And yes, there is a universal law that all phenomena must be how I imagine it. Why would you think otherwise? Fun fact: the earth used to be flat, but then I imagined it to be a globe, so now it is. You are just slow on the uptake!

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #42 on: September 26, 2016, 03:08:33 PM »
If the second... honestly I don't know what else to tell you. Believing that the celestial poles don't line up is almost as bad as other flat earthers claiming that Polaris can be seen from Australia, or that the South Celestial Pole doesn't exist, or some other head-stuck-in-sand nonsense.

Is there a universal law that all phenomena must be how you imagine it to be or something?

You have clearly been brainwashed with globularist dogma and media hype, to the extent that you create facts on demand, are disinterested in truth, and deny any necessity for evidence. Scary.
You have no idea how amazing it feels to follow this thread and just witness you digging. It took 3 or 4 replies, and you brought out Tom the juvenile.

Please get whatever personal stuff gone bad in your life tied to your beliefs sorted, so you can start the process of accepting reality.

Nobody's going to come back just because you're stubborn about your flawed beliefs.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #43 on: September 26, 2016, 05:28:25 PM »
I think between Tom and Intikam we have a genius! (IQ 80 plus 80)! They both ignore all evidence as false unless it suits them, or they say I haven't seen it so it cannot be true! Just search for star trails Southern Hemisphere in Google and you will find thousands of images. If you compare them to the northern hemisphere star trails you will notice they are different, and don't say all are just CGI images. And they can be taken from Australia and Africa, or Africa and South America at exactly the same time pointing almost due south at the South celestial star to give virtually identical images. However, neither will ever believe in anything concerning the Southern Hemisphere,  so it is like flogging a dead horse! Open your eyes to reality guys.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #44 on: September 26, 2016, 09:37:15 PM »
Tom Bishop "supports" the "Bipolar Flat Earth" - and really is in need of a LOT of support!

It looks like

Another alternative model descripting Antarctica as a distinct continent.
There is still an "ice wall" in this model, but it not Antarctica.
Beyond the rays of the sun the waters will naturally freeze.

But see in Re: Merely mistaken « Reply #11 on: September 25, 2016, 10:46:59 AM » and some following posts for a bit more detail.

In Merely mistaken « Reply #20 on: September 25, 2016, 04:58:52 PM » Tom says a little more including a reference to

You should read it. But in his comments about it Tom claims that [quote author-Tom Bishop]The South Pole was not yet discovered when Rowbotham wrote Earth Not a Globe. It is understandable why he might depict the earth without it.

The Bi-Polar model is first advocated in the book The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions, (Zetetes, 1918). However, the layout of the continents is left ambiguous due to lack of data. The layout and dimensions of the continents in our picture may be different as well. Someone apparently just found a map projection of a globe that looked similar for illustrative purposes.
[/quote]

His claiming "However, the layout of the continents is left ambiguous due to lack of data." is simply bunkum, thr "layout of the continents" was as well known in 1918 as it is now, though not in as fine detail.

;) ::) Have a great read! ::) ;)

E&OE (Errors & Omissions Expected)

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #45 on: September 28, 2016, 11:24:53 PM »
The educational system in turkey leaves much to desire, it seems.

The educational system depends on according to opinion of atheist / satanist /NASA. So it means nothing. The only reality is IQ's of 160.  :)

Do not worry. After i prove gravitation's fake, all you will get like educated.  ;)
What has that to do with "The South Celestial Pole"?

Who cares! I want to see his proofs of this gravity hoax people are talking about!
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

*

Offline nametaken

  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • ͡ ͡° ͜ ʖ ͡ ͡°
    • View Profile
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #46 on: September 29, 2016, 12:44:02 AM »
Totes, gotta hand it to you, you're right hitting all my favorite topics here. Also, I couldn't resist, since nobody has done it yet.



Eh, I'm not crazy for the gears myself, but I understand [the need for something like] it. There is a youtuber called p-brane who recently did a video about this, but I don't think he satisfactorily summed it up. He tries to demonstrate the 'diamond' shaped red lines depicted in the above image, as the 'lense' perspective we are familiar with from the ground; IE, in particular, crepuscular and anti-crepuscular rays convergence point during sunset; which looks like 2 suns; the real one and it's opposite on the 180 degree opposite horizon (forming giant 'diamonds' in the sky). Of course, sundogs also exist which can be a useful tool in understanding 'flat earth celestial functions', but I'm still at a loss to bring it all together. I mention it simply because it is one avenue that isn't mentioned often.

Of course if you google 'sundogs' you are gonna get a load of "Nibiru" conspiracies. So do that at your own discretion. It is also interesting, that you cannot see a rainbow indoors, without the use of a mirror. It has been postulated that something in the atmosphere (ie flat earth dome) is acting like a mirror, enabling 'free rainbows' which shouldn't exist without a giant mirror somewhere overhead.

But like I said... I'm not tying all that together. The FE model isn't complete so far as I'm aware on this one topic you have presented here, that is obvious to anyone who spends a few days researching it. The devil, as they say, is in the details. And this one is still eluding me. Sorry for rambling but that's my $.02. Hopefully this is a little bit better post quality than what I started here with; I like to think I understand these topics a bit better now, thanks in no small part to correspondence here.
The Flat Earth Society has members all around the Globe
[H]ominem unius libri timeo ~Truth is stranger.

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #47 on: September 29, 2016, 07:20:11 AM »
Totes, gotta hand it to you, you're right hitting all my favorite topics here. Also, I couldn't resist, since nobody has done it yet.

I got SUNSHINE... in a bag... I'm useless... dang, haven't heard that song in awhile.

Quote
Eh, I'm not crazy for the gears myself, but I understand [the need for something like] it. There is a youtuber called p-brane who recently did a video about this, but I don't think he satisfactorily summed it up. He tries to demonstrate the 'diamond' shaped red lines depicted in the above image, as the 'lense' perspective we are familiar with from the ground; IE, in particular, crepuscular and anti-crepuscular rays convergence point during sunset;

I'm not going to look at this tonight, since my other reply was rather long. However, I am already cringing at the thought of him trying to connect the direction of the south celestial pole, anticrepescular rays, and whatever the heck "lense perspective" is. Ugh, this is going to be some twisted, convoluted logic...

However, I will respond to one statement:
Quote
It is also interesting, that you cannot see a rainbow indoors, without the use of a mirror.

Counterpoint: prisms

*

Offline Salviati

  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • I don't have a personal text.
    • View Profile
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #48 on: October 21, 2016, 12:59:17 PM »
I want to compliment the OP because he or she spotted FET's worst nightmare. The rotation of the sky around both north and south celestial poles is the ultimate nail on FET's coffin. Our feers friends can do triple somersaults but can do nothing to fix this. No way, no antimoon, moon luminescence, or other hand waving can explain how on a flat earth observing toward south from Australia, South America or South Africa skies rotate around a point and observing toward north from the Northern Hemisphere we see skies rotate around another point.

** This is possible ONLY if we are on a sphere **

Of course the 'Bipolar Map' cited by Tom Bishop is a joke. Observe it:
http://wiki.tfes.org/File:Altmap.png
but don't laugh too loud. Imagine a ship that travels along the equator line from ,say, south america toward west. When it is near the rim... OMG... what happens?. Or a ship that travels along the equator toward east from Malaysia, when it reaches the border... DOUBLE OMG... what happens? And many many other problems with this map. Besides, it's a particular projection of the ROUND earth.

And note please that this observation (i mean the rotation of the sky) doesn't need anything special, no physics laws, no mathematics, no indoctrination from NASA, but only seeing the sky by anyone with his own eyes. Pure zeteticism at his best! Even only an eye is sufficient! Even more zeteticist!

Is there any Feer that can explain clearly and convincingly how things go on a flat Earth  to explain this fact?
« Last Edit: October 21, 2016, 01:02:05 PM by Salviati »

geckothegeek

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #49 on: October 21, 2016, 05:25:39 PM »
I want to compliment the OP because he or she spotted FET's worst nightmare. The rotation of the sky around both north and south celestial poles is the ultimate nail on FET's coffin. Our feers friends can do triple somersaults but can do nothing to fix this. No way, no antimoon, moon luminescence, or other hand waving can explain how on a flat earth observing toward south from Australia, South America or South Africa skies rotate around a point and observing toward north from the Northern Hemisphere we see skies rotate around another point.

** This is possible ONLY if we are on a sphere **

Of course the 'Bipolar Map' cited by Tom Bishop is a joke. Observe it:
http://wiki.tfes.org/File:Altmap.png
but don't laugh too loud. Imagine a ship that travels along the equator line from ,say, south america toward west. When it is near the rim... OMG... what happens?. Or a ship that travels along the equator toward east from Malaysia, when it reaches the border... DOUBLE OMG... what happens? And many many other problems with this map. Besides, it's a particular projection of the ROUND earth.

And note please that this observation (i mean the rotation of the sky) doesn't need anything special, no physics laws, no mathematics, no indoctrination from NASA, but only seeing the sky by anyone with his own eyes. Pure zeteticism at his best! Even only an eye is sufficient! Even more zeteticist!

Is there any Feer that can explain clearly and convincingly how things go on a flat Earth  to explain this fact?

Has anyone ever considered that this website and the whole flat earth idea that the statement that it is  ".....Either one big hoax or one big joke....  " might not be pretty close to the truth ? Especially if you have followed the posts from "Tom Bishop" and "intikam" for any length of time on these forums ?

geckothegeek

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #50 on: October 21, 2016, 05:51:51 PM »
If the second... honestly I don't know what else to tell you. Believing that the celestial poles don't line up is almost as bad as other flat earthers claiming that Polaris can be seen from Australia, or that the South Celestial Pole doesn't exist, or some other head-stuck-in-sand nonsense.

Is there a universal law that all phenomena must be how you imagine it to be or something?

You have clearly been brainwashed with globularist dogma and media hype, to the extent that you create facts on demand, are disinterested in truth, and deny any necessity for evidence. Scary.

I wonder if Tom Bishop would say I had just imagined or that I had been "brainwashed with globularist dogma and media hype" if I told him I had been to sea and had seen these things.:
(1) I had seen a horizon where sea and sky meet in a distinct line (on a clear day) instead of a blur which fades away in the distance.
(2) I had watched a ship disappear beyond that horizon and I could not "restore it to view with a telescope."
(3) The Captain on those ships did not use one on those AEP's but flat charts made from projections of the globe. Was he a satanist like all those evil people at NASA ?
We somehow seemed to always go from San Diego to Yokosuka and back every time using those charts.

If flat earth has any nightmares, they must have several every night. LOL.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2016, 06:08:10 PM by geckothegeek »

geckothegeek

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #51 on: October 21, 2016, 09:49:36 PM »
Tom Bishop "supports" the "Bipolar Flat Earth" - and really is in need of a LOT of support!

It looks like

Another alternative model descripting Antarctica as a distinct continent.
There is still an "ice wall" in this model, but it not Antarctica.
Beyond the rays of the sun the waters will naturally freeze.

But see in Re: Merely mistaken « Reply #11 on: September 25, 2016, 10:46:59 AM » and some following posts for a bit more detail.

In Merely mistaken « Reply #20 on: September 25, 2016, 04:58:52 PM » Tom says a little more including a reference to

You should read it. But in his comments about it Tom claims that [quote author-Tom Bishop]The South Pole was not yet discovered when Rowbotham wrote Earth Not a Globe. It is understandable why he might depict the earth without it.

The Bi-Polar model is first advocated in the book The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions, (Zetetes, 1918). However, the layout of the continents is left ambiguous due to lack of data. The layout and dimensions of the continents in our picture may be different as well. Someone apparently just found a map projection of a globe that looked similar for illustrative purposes.

His claiming "However, the layout of the continents is left ambiguous due to lack of data." is simply bunkum, thr "layout of the continents" was as well known in 1918 as it is now, though not in as fine detail.

;) ::) Have a great read! ::) ;)

E&OE (Errors & Omissions Expected)
[/quote]

In reference to the " Bipolar Map ,Which Tom Bishop supports." :
During my four years in the Navy, I made three cruises, one from San Francisco and two from San Diego, California , USA to Yokosuka,  Japan.
I suppose Mr. Bishop would say that I was just "globular brainwashed and dogma indoctirinated" into just imagining we we we were traveling in more or less tropical waters by way of Hawaii and Guam instead of the obvious route via Alaska, Greenland and Russia  via the Arctic Ocean as per the " Bipolar Map , Which Tom Bishop supports."  I guess I just imagined I never saw any icebergs in the Arctic Ocean along the way. I took a lot of Kodachromes, but I have looked back at my collection and I don't have any of icebergs.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2016, 10:05:20 PM by geckothegeek »

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 793
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #52 on: October 22, 2016, 03:01:59 AM »
The educational system in turkey leaves much to desire, it seems.

The educational system depends on according to opinion of atheist / satanist /NASA. So it means nothing. The only reality is IQ's of 160.  :)

Do not worry. After i prove gravitation's fake, all you will get like educated.  ;)
What has that to do with "The South Celestial Pole"?

Who cares! I want to see his proofs of this gravity hoax people are talking about!

I totally agree. The South Celestial Pole is a fascinating topic but I will definitely be distracted if İntikam starts proving that gravitation is fake.
“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.” - George Orwell