Flat Earthers gather in New Zealand

Flat Earthers hold a conference in Auckland, with speakers from around the globe.

Flat Earth celebrities have flown across the globe to speak at the Flat Earth Expo in Auckland, New Zealand. Flat Earthers believe that we live on a flat plane rather than the accepted globe model. Flat Earthers also believe that most evidence to the contrary is controlled by a giant conspiracy of which NASA is at the forefront.

The Flat Earth model has the north pole in the centre of a flat circular disc and the South Pole as not existing at all. Instead, they believe that Antarctica is a giant encircling ice wall that hems in the world’s oceans. They point out that nearly all of us have never visited Antarctica, thus we rely on the testimony of a few who claim to have visited the frozen continent, and who are mostly lying to us and are part of the conspiracy. Flat Earthers are quick to point out that it is illegal to visit Antarctica. Whether this is true or not, the fact is, it is illegal to do a number of things in any protected wilderness areas of the world of which Antarctica is a special one.

This conference in Auckland comes with a huge opportunity. Flat Earthers flying to New Zealand from the Northern Hemisphere have a unique opportunity to prove to themselves that the Earth is not flat and instead the mostly accepted globe. They only need to travel via South America to New Zealand and note the hours spent getting there will be way less than their Flat Earth model would have you believe. You see, the Flat Earth disc with no south pole has New Zealand, Australia, South America, and Africa many times apart in distance from each other as the globe suggests, simply because, instead of reducing down to a single point we call the South Pole, the area of land in the Southern Hemisphere expands out to the giant ice wall circumference of the whole disc. This projection is similar to how we view Canada, Russia, or even Antarctica on most world maps where they are many times larger on these maps than they are in reality . This is because maps have difficulty projecting a 3D globe onto their 2D canvas. In essence, the Flat Earth model is a 2D construct as it is a flat surface albeit disc shape, so it has the Southern Hemisphere as being much larger in area than it really is.

Sitting in an isolated spot in the Southern Hemisphere, New Zealand gives these Flat Earthers travelling to Auckland the unique opportunity to debunk their own belief. But how many will actually test this out? I am thinking perhaps a few, but most of these guys will just be looking forward to rubbing shoulders with their Flat Earth brothers when they get here and on-route looking out toward the flat horizon because they are simply not flying high enough to see the curve.

Viewing 20 posts - 281 through 300 (of 6,414 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #822978
    Dig4truth
    Participant

    Ok, a brief explanation of why I take the plane earth seriously.

    *The measurements of distances of what should and should not be visable are testable and repeatable and they do not coincide with a sphere with the circumference of what our earth is said to be.

    *Water always seeks a level. It always conforms to the inside of a container, never to the outside of a container which would be required if the earth were a sphere.

    *If a pressurized atmosphere (earth’s) is exposed to a vacuum it would attain to a state of equilibrium. It has not.

    *Testable and repeatable experiments have been performed that demonstrate the earth is not moving.

    *The biblical narrative substantiates that the above points are true.

     

     

     

     

     

    #822979
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Dig:  Hey Mike, what a wild question in this vast vacuum of space, “where should we go next”?

    Hmm, I couldn’t venture to say.

    Lol.  I think the absurd idea that we live in a pressurized “atmosphere” adjacent to the most powerful vacuum known to man – with no boundary separating the two – is a great place to go next.  🙂

    Anyone out there have an idea how a pressurized system can remain pressurized abutted to a vastly powerful vacuum?

    #822980
    Dig4truth
    Participant

    Mike, that shrinking sun video blew me away! I’ve seen several others but that one is just crazy obvious!

    #822981
    Dig4truth
    Participant

    Many globalists will say that this topic just sucks.

    But to answer your question I really don’t have any idea how a pressurized atmosphere could stay pressurized when adjacent to the vast vacuum of space.

    Oh wait, unless there is a firmament or dome placed over it. But other than that – nope!

    #822982
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    T8:  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.

    That’s the story we’ve been told.  How can you personally verify it?

    T8: 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?

    Light clearly refracts.  But as the video Dig4truth posted points out, it refracts down towards the more dense medium.  And no experiment has ever shown that something clearly over the horizon or a hill or whatever can be seen from someone on the other side due to refraction.  That’s the gist of the Mick West Metabunk calculator.  He uses the same formula everyone else does (the ONLY formula, since we can’t have arbitrary formulas for things like pi, right? 🙂 ), but then the bottom half of his calculator tries to take most of that hidden height away by claiming “standard refraction”.  But refraction is anything but “standard” – as you can clearly see on this video.  It’s 4 minutes, but you need only watch 30 seconds to get the idea…

     

    So when that Chicago skyline picture started getting a lot of chatter about how it would be impossible to see from that far, the elites had to do something about it…

     

    The meteorologist claims what we’re seeing is a mirage, because it would be impossible to see Chicago from ground level in Michigan (you know, because 8 inches per mile squared 🙂 ).  But first of all, where is his empirical scientific evidence that it is only a mirage?  The only reason he claims it is a mirage is that on his ball earth model, we couldn’t possibly be seeing what we are seeing.  There is no experiment he’s done to verify it is indeed a mirage, right?  But in that video Dig posted, you’ll see a real person doing a real experiment to verify it isn’t a mirage after all.  He starts from Michigan in a boat, and keeps the skyline in view while he sails across the lake to Chicago – proving that what he was seeing from Michigan was the same Chicago he was seeing when he got there.  And look at the graphics the meteorologist uses, showing a superior mirage on a sailboat.  Notice how the real sailboat is right side up on the water, while the mirage is upside down above it?  Now compare the refraction in that Skunk Bay Weather Cam video I posted above with the clarity with which we see Chicago in Joshua Nowicki’s photo.  Or check out this photo of what a superior mirage of Chicago really looks like…

     

    Notice how there is a right side up building on the water, and then an upside down version right above it?  Here’s one of some boats…

     

    Notice again that you have the real boat right side up, with a mirror image of it upside down above it?  Now, does that original image of Chicago look like that?  Besides, hundreds of people have posted similar images of Chicago from Michigan that exhibit no signs of being mirages.  And finally, let me point out that in each case a mirage is happening due to refraction, you can always see the original object too.  In other words, the real object can’t be hidden behind a mountain or whatever, while you’re seeing only the mirage.  In every case I know of, the mirage is always above the actual object – which is itself clearly visible when it should be hidden behind curvature.

    So when Mick West tells you in that video that flat earthers are doing it wrong, he’s saying that we’re not always adding his made up “standard refraction” figures into the results his calculator gives us.  Most of us do anyway – just to shut him up.  And even with adding in his sham, it still ends up that we are seeing things that should be hundreds of feet (sometimes miles) below the curvature.  I personally don’t think anyone should add those figures in, because as you can see from Skunk Bay, refraction is anything but “standard”.

    Okay, I think we’re all up to date now.  I wanted to get that history of the heliocentric model done before I got to this “standard refraction” thing, so you’d already be well aware of how scientists just make up crap like shrinking mechanical arms, and do away with long accepted things like the ether – just because the results of the experiments don’t align with their preconceptions of how things should be.  Mick West has done that with “standard refraction”.  Without that added after-the-fact calculation, his earth curve calculator gives the same results as all the others.

    #822985
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Dig: Mike, that shrinking sun video blew me away! I’ve seen several others but that one is just crazy obvious!

    That is a great one!  But you have to have the right, dry conditions.  Add humidity, and the sun will magnify as it’s moving away from you, giving the appearance that it disappears over the curve of the earth at the same size.

     

    You can see this effect if you look at my two photos of Superstition Mountain side by side.  The one where I’m only a mile or two away shows a much smaller mountain than the one where I’m 55 miles away.  I’m heading back down there the next clear weekend, because I think I can get it from 65 miles away. That would be nearly 3000 feet supposed to be hidden on a 5000 foot mountain.  I’ll post the photos here when it’s done.

    #822986
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Dig:  Many globalists will say that this topic just sucks.

    Lol.

    Dig:  But to answer your question I really don’t have any idea how a pressurized atmosphere could stay pressurized when adjacent to the vast vacuum of space.

    Oh wait, unless there is a firmament or dome placed over it. But other than that – nope!

    I can’t think of any other way either.  They say that the vacuum of space is orders of magnitude greater than the most powerful vacuum we can create on earth.  And according to the heliocentric model, there is absolutely nothing separating what is “our atmosphere” from what is “the vacuum of space”.  How can that possibly be the case?  I know what scientism says about it, but I find their explanation as absurd as the situation itself.  Let’s see if anyone else on the site has an idea.

    #822987
    Dig4truth
    Participant

    Notice that the meteorologist says that it is an “inversion“. Really? What does “inversion” mean?

    a reversal of position, order, form, or relationship:

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inversion
    synonyms: reversal · transposition · turning about ·

     

    Is the image we see an inversion? Is it a reversal? A transposition? Nope.

    It is an actual image of the skyline. Hey, but it was a nice attempt to transpose or reverse a clear and apparent point.

     

    #822988
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi Mike and dig4,

    Ok the site is now flooded.

    The great flood?

     

    We are as just as convinced as we always have been. Must we plead for mercy?

    Are you satisfied yet because this site does good stuff?

    #822990
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Mike said:

    earth is a little more than 6000 years old

    I have always had a problem with that. The Bible doesn’t subscribe to that. The best argument you can make from the Bible is that there is 6000 years back to Adam. But the first man was certainly not created the day the Earth was made. There could well have been many worlds before our one. You even questioned that one yourself. Whether Adam was the first intelligent being or human that God created on Earth. Why would there ever have been only one world for an eternal God?

    We live in an age, although God did start again, so there were two ages / worlds, the Antediluvian Age and our age. But the Bible does support the idea that the Earth is older than the World, even way older or aeons older.

    #822991
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Auroras

    Mike said this regarding a comment I made about how auroras are formed:

    That’s the story we’ve been told. How can you personally verify it?

    I cannot personally verify this like I can the existence of God, but the globe earth explains it better than the Flat Earth because of this one simple fact. The Globe Earth has the Antarctic as the South Pole and surrounds and the North Pole is the same as the South Pole in that they are the top and bottom of the globe in relation to the sun being closest at the equator or at least in the tropics. Thus, the aurora happens in both parts of the world because the poles are the same, albeit different sides of a magnet.

    The Flat Earth on the other hand has the North Pole as the centre of the Flat Earth and the South Pole doesn’t actually exist. But for the sake of the argument, the South Pole is the circumference of the Flat Earth, yet the aurora still takes place there too even though it is completely different to the North Pole.

    So the same phenomena takes place in two very different places. The Globe model says they are essentially the same place experiencing the same phenomenon, just different ends of the globe.

    I think the Globe Model wins when it comes to explaining the aurora. The same phenomena because its a similar feature, similar location to the sun, and similar conditions.

    #822993
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Natural resources in 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?

    There are two major hindrances to extracting resources from the Antarctica. The first being that it is unbelievably inhospitable and consequently expensive to set up anything there, never mind oil wells and pipes etc. Secondly, the inhospitable climate also ensures that countries with territories there were happy to sign an accord to keep Antarctica free of such activity. If it were easy to get at such resources, then it may have turned out differently.

    Before anyone calls BS on ignoring any oil deposits down there, NZ did the very same thing in a much more accessible area called the Kermadecs to our north. NZ set or are setting up the world’s largest marine reserve there in a largely unexplored part of the South Pacific in the subtropical zone. It is said the waters here are crystal clear and many wanted to keep it that way. It is also free of fishing. However, a new government is now trying to renege on progress toward the Kermadec Marine Reserve as it is called, so I am not sure where this is at now, but needless to say, if NZ wanted oil, it would be much easier to get it there.

    Both Australia and New Zealand have territories in Antarctica and New Zealand just recently put a ban on oil exploration in their own country, so they are hardly interested in oil extraction in a continent that is covered in km of ice and not fit for human life. Australia is also not interested in resources in their part of Antarctica. Their own continent is rich in minerals so they are happy to mine away and ignore the frozen continent to their south. Remember that BP needs government permission to drill and explore in sovereign nations and their territorial waters and outlying islands etc.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12030723

    #822996
    Dig4truth
    Participant

    Here’s an entertaining video that will get us thinking about the vacuum of space:

     

     

    #822997
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    A mountain or city skyline that cannot be seen most days means special circumstances need to be in place in order to see them. This is true for both models. So how does this favour the Flat Earth really. While the curvature argument supposedly should be making things invisible that are not, it is also true that the Flat Earth model should make things visible that are not. Both suffer because they are both not consistent. So both theories need special circumstances.

    In the photo of Mt Ruapehu, if the Earth was flat it is still not visible most days just the same as if it were a sphere. So both theories need to explain what the special thing is that is happening to make it visible. Why is the onus only on the Sphere Earth model to explain it.

    #823014
    Dig4truth
    Participant

    t8, the two are not equal. One has limits and the other has limitations. (Not exactly sure what that means but it sounded good at the time).

    On the globe earth things can be seen that should not be able to be seen.

    On the FE things that cannot be seen are beyond visibility. (Limitations, there you go)

    There is a vanishing point beyond which no one can see on either model. This may be extended by atmospheric conditions but it cannot be overcome in the visable spectrum. (Limits, hey did I just make sense?)

     

     

     

    #823017
    Dig4truth
    Participant

    Ok, the concept that really sucks! Vacuum!  (2.22 minutes)

     

     

    Please, if anyone has an idea how our atmosphere can coexist with the vacuum of space – speak out!

    #823019
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi,

    Acts 17.21

    ( Now all the athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new)

    Why not discuss useful things?

     

    #823023
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    T8:  The best argument you can make from the Bible is that there is 6000 years back to Adam. But the first man was certainly not created the day the Earth was made.

    No, he was created 5 days after God created the heavens and the earth – on the 6th day.  And that puts the age of the earth at around 6000 years old.  Is there any valid reason to think otherwise?

    T8:  You even questioned that one yourself. Whether Adam was the first intelligent being or human that God created on Earth.

    I sure did… back when I was still duped by the stories of scientism, and believed there was such a thing as “cavemen” who lived hundreds of thousands of years ago.  I’ve done 4 years of research into it since then, and have come to know (not think, but know) that there doesn’t exist one iota of empirical evidence to suggest our world is older than the Bible says it is.

    T8:  Why would there ever have been only one world for an eternal God?

    I couldn’t tell you how many worlds God has created, but I’m talking only about our world, the earth.  And as far as the scriptures teach, there will one day be a new earth, but as of now, there has only been this one that we and Adam have lived on.  I asked you before how you got “worlds” from the scriptural word “ages”, but you must have missed it.

    This is a little off topic for this thread, but it falls under the same broad umbrella.  Because if it weren’t for the heliocentric model, there would be no big bang cosmogony, no amoeba to man evolution, and therefore no need for the billions of years old our earth is claimed by some to be.

    #823024
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Nick:  Why not discuss useful things?

    Who among us will decide which things are useful, and which are not?  And by whose authority will that one make the decision?

    Now to be fair, the last thing I asked you was about scripture.  And I assume you consider scripture a useful thing to discuss, right?  Here’s the question again…

     

    Is the account of the Tower of Babel in the Bible a real historical account?

    #823025
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    T8:  I cannot personally verify [how and why we have auroras]…

    Neither can I.  So since we are unable to personally verify the stories we’ve been told about Antarctica and auroras, it’s best we leave them behind for now, and focus on things we are able to personally verify, don’t you think?

    What’s your answer on the Tower of Babel?

Viewing 20 posts - 281 through 300 (of 6,414 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 1999 - 2024 Heaven Net

Navigation

© 1999 - 2023 - Heaven Net
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account