- This topic has 6,416 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
If visibly observing objects in the distance that would be impossible to see on a ball earth really does kill the heliocentric model, Antarctica isn’t going to save it – even if it is a continent. If any of the hundreds of other points I’m about to bring up truly and utterly refute the very possibility of the heliocentric model, then Antarctica becomes an interesting discussion, but a moot point.
Mike, the Antarctica is the easiest one to debate because of its myriad of evidence and it is not a side issue IMO because if it is a continent, then the Flat Earth model falls out the window. Here’s the thing, it is way easier to believe that Antarctica exists as a continent, than believe the evidence that certain eclipses and moon phases are impossible in the heliocentric model. The latter can easily be misconstrued by the average person. But while I’m on this subject, I do have a question regarding your point about seeing objects like my photo that are supposedly meant to be over the curve, thus not possible to be seen from distance.
I would like to start with boats coming into view or away from the observer when approaching the horizon. The point about it not going over the curve as much as it going out of view seems a fair one to me. Of course that doesn’t prove that it will eventually go over the curve. What happens when the boat disappears when viewed through binoculars? You would have to say that it is out of view of the binoculars right. So the remedy is to have a more powerful pair of binoculars or a capable telescope. So let’s say we did that and again it disappeared and so again we looked through an even more powerful lense. Let’s say we kept doing this or let’s just say we have a device that was capable of viewing say a distance further than the distance between Alaska and New Zealand of which there is only sea thus a clear line of sight between the two. The inescapable conclusion is you would not only see the boat land at the coast of Alaska from New Zealand, but you would see Alaska right. Surely this is a test that many could do. You only need a boat, a very powerful telescope, and away you go. But no one has demonstrated this or demonstrated something similar to this. Yes my photo shows a mountain 300+ km away, but that could be very possible given the size of the globe Earth, but what about Alaska. That would do it for me if I could demonstrate that or if scientists demonstrated it and it was not debunked as a hoax. For the average person, they are just going to believe that you can see tall mountains 300 km away, but they certainly will not believe that you can see a different continent.
Okay, so let’s say your rebuttal is that distant objects disappear on a Flat Earth because of atmospheric distortion, i.e., the light will eventually scatter or something at great distance meaning you cannot receive light between New Zealand and Alaska. So then why is it that if the boat is still there once you produce a powerful lense, then what of the sun? When that appears to go below the horizon, then why can’t we just pull out a telescope and see the sun again? Oh wait, you will blind yourself. Surely this can be done in such a way as to not hurt your eyes. Or why not do it with the moon as you can view that through a telescope right. This is something I can do for myself and am in a perfect situation to do it. Although, I have to admit that I have only ever seen the moon ascend from the horizon, but the experiment could still be done. The telescope would show the moon before just viewing the same scene with the naked eye.
So here is a question Mike.
If I go to the coast and the sun or moon is going down below the horizon, if I then pull out my telescope, I should be able to see the sun / moon again after it has disappeared right?
Nick, the face of an iceberg or face / wall of Antarctica is not up for debate. We all agree that it exists. Try to focus on stuff that disproves the Flat Earth, not something both theories agree with. When you approach Antarctica you see a wall of ice. In some instances you see a frozen sea, but eventually there will be a wall of ice because there is a lot of ice on the Antarctica. Perhaps you were not aware of that? According to Wikipedia, it says this:
Antarctica covers an area of almost 14 million square kilometres (5.4 million square miles) and contains 26.5 million cubic kilometres (6,400,000 cubic miles) of ice. Approximately 61 percent of all fresh water on the Earth is held in the Antarctic ice sheet, an amount equivalent to about 58 m of sea-level rise.
&
The thick ice cover makes it the highest of all continents, with an average elevation of about 2300 m (about 7500 ft). The highest point on the continent is Vinson Massif 4897 m (about 16 066 feet) and the lowest point yet found is the Bentley Subglacial Trench (2499 m/8200 ft below sea level) in West Antarctica.Do you honestly think that all that ice would be just slightly higher than sea level? lol. Because I am pretty sure I could debunk that notion using accepted science of course. Too hard for me to sail that way to prove it to you though. If you are still unsure, try googling it and look at photos too.
Good Nick. Given the amount of ice, it would if it were all encompassing of a flat earth be high enough to contain all the waters. It would act like a dam or wall.
Thanks, T8!
I did get the impression that the registration was a non-verified type of system but when it went on for a day or two I began to wonder. At any rate a heart felt thank you for the welcome!
I must admit that I have been interested in this topic for a while now. As we all are growing and changing from day to day and year to year, I too am growing and changing. Some of the things that I was dogmatic about in the past I am more open to other opinions now. Some of the things that I was open to before have become more rigid. I suppose most of use have had these changes. And this topic is, well, very fluid. (I’m not even sure if there is a pun there)
I have gone thru many changes on this topic, from rejection and ridicule to reflection and finally to realization.
I’ll start fresh tomorrow but for now I’ll just say thanks for the new community and God bless.
Hi Mike.
I just had my neigbour visit and I showed him my photo of Mt Ruapehu. He is retired now, but was a radio engineer when employed. He told me he has seen Ruapehu from this radio antenna linked below.
https://www.google.co.nz/maps/dir/paekakariki+hill/Mount+Ruapehu,+Manawatu-Wanganui+4691/@-40.849756,175.1053326,131a,35y,39.27t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m19!4m18!1m10!1m1!1s0x6d3f57d35bc5f201:0x10d516c2d11e54b4!2m2!1d174.9341994!2d-41.0480771!3m4!1m2!1d174.6059384!2d-41.3755834!3s0x6d38b89501177079:0x9f166c1cb4ba8fc6!1m5!1m1!1s0x6d6aff04016025c7:0xfc498ab29c92e684!2m2!1d175.5685104!2d-39.2817207!3e0Further, he said residents of Peka Peka Beach which is on the coast in that area, can look across the water and actually see Mt Taranaki (right out to the west) from the beach itself. Of course the conditions have to be right.
He also pointed out some interesting things to me. He said for example, that my TV aerial was pointed at a certain transmitter or antenna in order to get its signal. But he noted that while UHF is pretty much a line of sight signal, I can still receive the signal even though there are hills in the way because the signal bounces around somewhat. While he wasn’t sure exactly how that happened, it was just an established fact in his field of work that you can still receive the signal even if it was not exactly line of sight. He noted that as you head down the far side of the hill from the signal, the signal does deteriorate rapidly, but doesn’t cut off fully immediately. In other words, while the signal is basically line of sight, it is still capable of going over the blind side of a hill (horizon) for a certain distance due to signal bouncing.
So if my photos is impossible because of the curvature of the Earth then is that like saying my TV should get no signal because it is over the horizon so to speak. But if we think about it, you would need multitudes of transmitters if the UHF signal stopped exactly over any horizon or peak of hill. And given UHF is basically line of sight, it does open the possibility that you can also see beyond the horizon due to distortion of light bouncing or reflecting over the horizon in a similar way I can still get a clear TV signal from a transmitter or aerial even though I am over the horizon of a hill.
This is just me thinking out loud of course, but I further want to add that maybe aurora’s rely on the curvature of the Earth. Charged particles are blown by solar wind toward the upper atmosphere and ionization emits light of varying color. But this light display must also be bouncing back down to us in order for us to see it. So, is it not possible that we could actually see things beyond the horizon given the right conditions? After all, we can see auroras and we can receive UHF from behind hills. So does light become immediately invisible if it is over the horizon or can we see just beyond it sometimes due to distortion or the right conditions? This is just one possibility if indeed the mountain I photographed should be half hidden due to the Earth’s curvature. Just thinking out loud here though. Not saying it is all science.
Hi Mike,
You need to be aware of this possibility.
2 thess 2.10
.., because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.
For this reason God will send them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false.
Mike, just a quick observation regarding the photo I took. The peninsula that sticks out in the foreground is actually the very small peninsula in this map. It is called Paraparaumu Beach.
As you can see below, the peninsula is greatly exaggerated in how far it sticks out from the main shape of the coastline compared with the Google Map linked above. Thus, it stands to reason that the rest of the foreground is affected in like manner, leading to the phenomenon of an exaggerated amount of sea when using the zoom lense.
Andrew: Mike,
It’s been several years ago that I looked into geocentric theories and it talked about the experiments you’ve brought up along with a debunking of Einstein,though they didn’t hold to a flat earth theory many of the things you’ve brought up are the same in that they don’t believe the earth is spinning.
Some of them believe it is spinning, but just not orbiting anything. But yeah, the movie “The Principle” is a bunch of interviews with top cosmologists of the day, and it seems nothing has changed since Einstein’s day, when he said the conclusion that the earth is fixed with the heavens moving around it was just as valid as the heliocentric model. I found it interesting that cosmologists still can’t verify this debate, since we should theoretically be able to watch the earth spin and rotate around the sun from instruments they allegedly put in space. So why is there still a debate? Why can’t the heliocentrists refute the cosmologists who believe to this day in a geocentric model?
Andrew: I’ve also watched some of the moon landing conspiracy documentaries and read some about it,but it’s been years ago. And I still wonder about it, as to weather we really had the technology to do it then or do we now?
According to “astronaut” Don Pettit, we used to have the technology to go to the moon, but we lost it. 🙂 (15 second video.)
There’s also a clip of a NASA spokesman explaining how we’ll have to develop new technology to get men and instruments through the dangerous Van Allen belts before we can think of leaving low earth orbit. Uh… haven’t many men and instruments already gone through those radiation belts and back? Here’s another entertaining minute and a half for you…
Gene, are you paying attention?
Andrew: I remember reading somewhere that the US gave the USSR a bunch of grain in exchange for keeping the moon landing hoax hushed up, since they had some bad harvests. Do you know anything about that? Since we were in the space race with them at the time people always ask why they didn’t expose it as a hoax if they knew it was.
I haven’t heard of the grain thing, but I strongly believe all parties privy to the fake space race were all aware of the same thing, ie: we can’t get through the dome. I believe the dome was first discovered in Antarctica, thereby prompting worldwide government interest and a 53 nation treaty to use military force to protect what they claim is only a huge pile of lifeless ice.
So if Russia was pretending to send Sputnik into outer space while America was pretending to put men on the moon, then I believe those are the scripts they were each handed – many years ahead of the staged events – by those who really run our world. I’m sure that statement will open up another huge can of worms, but I would really like to continue going through some more evidence against the heliocentric model before getting into the One World Order, deep state, and shadow governments. They’re all related, but if we don’t keep it focused, we’ll be all over the place in no time.
Magnification and bending of light must be taken into account when grappling with this topic.
Following is a video that illustrates this phenomenon very well.
Hey Mike, enjoying your posts. I have watched the movie “Principle” and it is a profound scientific statement!
Happy birthday to your son! Wow, how time flies, as well as the best laid theories of scientism.
Gene: Mike …When did i say i deny their math, it’s the same as mine, except i used a “tangent” line off the surface of the earth, to work the pythagoream theorem from, they used a radious line to prove it , both work as anyone wth any good math backround will attest to.
Gene, does your math garner the same results? For example, your math has 2 feet of drop at one mile, while theirs has 8 inches. Are 2 feet and 8 inches the same thing? Yours has 4 feet at two miles, while theirs has 2.5 feet. Are those two results the same? Now at three miles, your way and their way align – but ONLY at three miles. At four miles, you’re off again. At five miles, you’re off even more. At six miles, you’re off even more than that. And so on until infinity. You are implying that you are a math genius compared to me, but can’t even see that if you just keep adding a two foot drop for every mile, you end up with a long, downhill slant – never a circle. Let me see if I can draw something up so you understand…
I’m not very good drawing with a mouse, but across the top are the miles. Down the side are the 2 foot increments you say we drop for each mile. So using your formula I drew out 9 miles (or 18 feet of drop according to you). Do you see how it’s just a downhill line, and will continue as such forever? It will never curve around underneath to begin forming a circle. So hopefully now you can see that your math is wrong. If not, so be it… but I’m not wasting any more of my time on it.
Gene: …why not give us one “good” reason for any conspiracy about our moon mission…
The heliocentric model was intended to hide God by convincing people that our place in the universe isn’t anything special, and therefore wasn’t created (or it WOULD BE special). The moon missions (and any outer space mission) is an attempt to keep the charade going. It’s like you bringing up the never-ending talk of sending regular people to the moon, and putting them up in luxury hotels when they get there. They’ve been saying it for years, and each time we arrive at the date they said it would happen, they keep pushing it back more and more years into the future. I have an idea… why not just send an over-the-counter digital camera up there first, with 100% non-stop streaming video of the earth as it spins and orbits the sun – so nobody would question it any longer? How long have we had the technology to do that? Why haven’t we – with a 52 million dollar a day budget? Or perhaps just a simple I Phone in the hands of one of those guys doing a space walk, where he does a complete 360 degree pan around, both horizontally and vertically, so we can get a real feel of what he sees in every conceivable direction from up there? But those things have never been done, and never will be – because they don’t want us to see the “4th wall” in the studio where it is all faked. I mean, look at that recent Tesla in space crap. They REALLY outfitted it with cameras that were only designed to work for a few hours? Who would do that, Gene? Would you? Would you invest the time and money to send a car into space on a trajectory towards Mars, but put cameras on it that were only designed to work for a day or so? You just need to start thinking for yourself, and stop blindly believing everything you’re being told. There is probably a combined 20,000 hours of NASA fakery on YouTube right now, and we’ll be getting to some of it before this is done.
Gene: Don’t you believe Jesus when he said that knowledge would increase, or do you think it’s fake knowledge ? Come on Mike admit the truth and move on to something that counts. Trying to tie up time on worthless persuits like flat earth thories is simply a waste of energy and time.
What if this knowledge I’m trying to show you right now IS the increase Jesus was talking about? If we live in a terrarium world that nobody could doubt was created, but have been lied to for centuries by people who didn’t want us to know our world was undeniably created, then this subject IS something that counts, not a worthless pursuit. Wouldn’t you agree that knowing the truth of the world God created for us is worthwhile, and not a waste of time and energy?
Dig4truth: Hey Mike, enjoying your posts. I have watched the movie “Principle” and it is a profound scientific statement!
Happy birthday to your son! Wow, how time flies, as well as the best laid theories of scientism.
Thanks, man. Glad to have you on board. So where should we go next with this? I see you addressed T8’s concern about the sun. I’ll probably say something as well on that matter when I get to that post. Oh, I promised him I would address Mick West’s Metabunk curvature site. And I wanted to pose an open question for everyone…
Is the account of the Tower of Babel in the Bible real history? What say you all?
T8: Testing all things takes time however, and testing the Math you have posted and the site links that work out the horizon etc would take a lot of time for me to work through how it works and be able to expose any flaws. For now, I focus on the easy stuff from my perspective such as the existence of the frozen continent which I feel has ample evidence of its existence, despite never being there of flying over it myself. Be patient with me please. Good things take time right?🙂
Yeah, take your time with the math thing… if you feel it’s worth it. But remember that all those sites are run by ball earthers, since flat earthers don’t believe there is a curvature to be measured. Ask yourself why all of them have the same results if you put in the same numbers – and why those results all match the 8 inches per mile squared rule. I mean, why would ball earthers like Mick West from the video you watched where he said we were doing wrong have the same exact formula as every other ball earther out there? Do you think these people, who call us “flattards”, would conspire to come up with a false formula just to help us out? 🙂
As for Antarctica, let me get you pointed in the right direction with this TV interview with Admiral Byrd…
Notice the tons of resources he mentions. Have you ever heard about anything like that on Antarctica? Does it seem feasible that companies like BP and Exxon haven’t paid billions to politicians to get their greedy little hands all over those resources? Instead, we’ve just got scientists studying… ICE! For decades and decades! How much can we really learn about ice in Antarctica that we can’t learn in Greenland or Canada? 🙂 Anyway, there is seriously a lot of Antarctica information that will blow your mind. All you need to do is start looking into it as you have the time to do so.
T8: …it won’t backfire if the truth wins out right?
True dat. I read that comment this morning, and the one about it affecting my son’s faith if I’m wrong. And I did a lot of thinking about that during my work day. Guess what kept drumming through my head? The written word of God is our ultimate authority – because it is the only authority we have to go by today. So if the Bible lists genealogies that clearly indicate that the earth is a little more than 6000 years old, then the earth is a little more than 6000 years old. End of story. If God says He created the earth, and then the stars 4 days later, then that’s the order they were created. End of story. So it doesn’t matter if every single person in the world screams that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and every heliocentrist insists that the stars existed long before the earth. Because we let every man be a liar, and God be true, right?
So, if the Bible says that Joshua commanded the sun and moon to stand still, then that’s what happened. And if the Bible says the earth rests on pillars, then it does. And if the Bible says the sun, moon and stars are luminaries God placed in the firmament to give light and be for signs and seasons, then that’s exactly how it is. If the God says the earth is fixed and cannot be moved, then our earth is fixed and cannot be moved. If Jesus says the stars of the sky will fall to the earth, then they will.
You’ll notice that none of these things align with the heliocentric model. You can force fit a couple of them by doing some mental gymnastics and playing word games… but who among you will call Jesus ignorant or a liar because he said the stars will fall to the earth, and we know that is impossible in the heliocentric model?
So I’ve asked an open question about the Tower of Babel. Do you think that is a real historical account in the Bible, T8?
Nick: Ok 2 photos.
Here you go, Nick. Pages and pages of them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
