The Flat Earth Experience

This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by Proclaimer.

Viewing 20 posts - 61 through 80 (of 6,414 total)

←1 2 345…319 320 321 →

Author
Posts
April 23, 2018 at 2:24 pm#822518
NickHassan
Participant
Hi Mike,
You have not yet replied to the question about the firmament (or expanse) being the sky.
But God placed the two great lights in the firmament in which the birds also fly.
So it can only be called the sky from the viewpoint of earth.
Is 40.22 speaks of the circle (or vault)of earth.
And a globe also appears as a circle when looked down upon.
Literalism is not faithful service to the Holy words but can seriously distort their meaning.
April 23, 2018 at 2:52 pm#822519
NickHassan
Participant
Hi Mike,
You may be convinced that you see and understand but the message of the bible
is that there are many eyes that are not blind but cannot see.
Is 43.8 Jn9.39 prov 3.5
Take care
April 23, 2018 at 6:15 pm#822528
Miia
Participant
Hey Mike, I was just thinking. If it was a flat Earth, wouldn’t it come to an end?
April 23, 2018 at 11:18 pm#822543
Miia
Participant
If we go north, south, east or west by foot, boat or plane we are going to end up at the end of the flat earth right? But nobody has ever hit that dead end. Instead, we end up at where we began.
April 24, 2018 at 5:55 am#822546
GeneBalthrop
Participant
Mike …you say Newtons mathematical laws dont work, if that is true then how come nasa is able to f u gure out the exact launch time and know exactly where there space ships will be in there flight plans? His mathematics are used on every launch today, and they work perfectly ever time.
You also seem to think 53 miles away from something on a 24,000 mile curvature means you could see with the human eye a curve, i don’t think so. Even in that 53 mile experiment, if you were to fix a telescope at perfect level position you would not see the the buildings foundation point as you would at say a mile away.
Here is a experiment we all can do, go to the ocean and watch a ship heading straight out from you, you will notice as the ship goes further and further out you slowly see less and less of the (vertical) hight of the ship in the horizon, why? Because the ship is moving around a sphere, so the horizon is slowly rising above the ship as it goes further out until it completely dissappears from the horizon.
Our stationery spy satellites also capture the earth circular movement clearly.
Mike come on how did a intelligent person like you ever get caught up in this lunacy.
Peace and love to you and yours. ……gene
April 24, 2018 at 6:22 am#822549
NickHassan
Participant
Hi Mike,
So when are you going to show us the edge of the flat earth?
April 24, 2018 at 10:42 am#822560
Proclaimer
Participant
Hi Mike.
I watched the video and I have an explanation. Not saying I am correct, but if the Earth globe does go round the sun, then this could be the explanation.
First off, the shadow is at the top of the moon because sunlight is peeping over the horizon and lighting up the bottom of the moon but not high enough or angled enough to light the top of the moon because the Earth is casting its shadow on that part. It was hard for me to imagine what it looks like initially from that perspective when we consider the heavenly bodies interacting, but suffice to say that it is easy to imagine if we are on the part of the Earth that is directly centre. That is, if the sun is directly behind me and the moon is exactly in front of me, then I would expect to see a full blood red in a shape similar to a full solar eclipse because both the sun and moon are exactly the same size from the Earth. Thus we see a corona and the moon carona equivalent whatever that is. I think that is easy to imagine.
Now, if we are not in the direct centre, then only part of the moon is going to have a shadow cast on it from our perspective and it may well look from our perspective as it does in the video. We would see a part shadow, thus that demands we could see part of the sun. In fact as I type out this explanation, I can visualize it now because the Earth is a globe, there is a huge mass of Earth out of view of the person taking the video because he cannot see over the horizon.
Standing not on the equator but say in the USA, sort of higher up the globe and on the edge in relation to where the sun and moon are. You would expect to catch a glimpse of part shadow and part sun. Yes it kinda looks weird or looks like the Earth is out of range and the guy in the video is looking at both moon and sun away from the line where sun and moon are. But the Earth is really freakin large from our perspective, so it could well look like it does in the video. If we imagine the Earth to be a small rock instead, then yes it would seem that the rock was not in the same line as the moon and sun because we are standing on the edge. But expand that rock outward as a huge globe, and you could well get the effect you see in the video as much of the Earth’s mass in out of view and below the horizon in front of the viewer.
The land in front of him on the globe that he cannot see is casting the shadow. Not the land he is standing on or the land behind him which is kinda what we think because he is observing as if he is standing in the edge when he is not at the edge rather half the Earth is in front of him and half behind him. That is a huge amount of area out of view.

April 24, 2018 at 10:50 am#822561
Proclaimer
Participant
Nick, this is the edge of the world. It is called the Antarctica. It is an ice wall that contains the oceans from spilling over the flat disc. The Antarctica spans the circumference of the disk and is of course out of bounds, because people would know the truth if they were able to go there.
Planes connecting South Africa and New Zealand do not fly over it, even though it would be a much shorter flight and save the airline money. That is, planes cannot fly over it because they would fly off the edge of the disk. If you look at airline routes, you will see planes fly over the North Pole which is the centre of the disk, but not over the South Pole because there is no thing as a South Pole on the Flat Earth.
The reality is Mike, that there is not a big enough demand for a direct flight from New Zealand to South Africa. These flights usually go via Perth in Western Australia and Harare to make it commercially viable as that is the only way they can fill the plane up with paying passengers.
April 24, 2018 at 11:01 am#822563
Proclaimer
Participant
Proof of the Antarctica
A thorough investigation into a plane crash in the Antarctica. You would think the last thing that the conspirators would want is a public airline accident investigation in Antarctica given all the research required by many people and organisations.
Mike, commercial airlines use to fly over the Antarctic as the destination, although not landing there as there is no need for an international airport here. I believe that Qantas still flies over the continent though.
Christchurch in New Zealand is the main departure point for the Antarctica for the Americans. Many Kiwis famous and not famous have been there like Sir Edmund Hillary and other famous personalities who would all have to be part of the conspiracy if it were one. They fly to McMurdo Station which is situated in the New Zealand-claimed part of this frozen continent. Here for example is a random page about visiting here.
https://www.heritage-expeditions.com/captains-blog/mcmurdo-visits/
And here are some photos that I took a few years back of the airport in Christchurch in relation to the Antarctic wing.
A pretty elaborate hoax if it is one.
April 24, 2018 at 12:01 pm#822573
Proclaimer
Participant
More proof of the Antarctica
Imagine the extent of the hoax and the people in this video either being deceived or complicit in the hoax.
A huge conspiracy relying on everyone being complicit and for what purpose? Seems like a huge resourced conspiracy that has no real purpose.
April 24, 2018 at 12:22 pm#822574
NickHassan
Participant
Hi t8,
naagh that wall isn’t 150 k tall.
But seriously, someone from NZ should arrange tours to the Great Wall of Antarctica.

But if you can believe this it would be easier to believe in Mormonism and Preexistence.

April 24, 2018 at 1:19 pm#822576
mikeboll64
Blocked
Nick: You have not yet replied to the question about the firmament (or expanse) being the sky.
But God placed the two great lights in the firmament in which the birds also fly.
So it can only be called the sky from the viewpoint of earth.
The firmament is strong, like molten glass. It is a physical barrier that separates the waters above it (what you think of as “space”) from the waters below it (our atmosphere, oceans, lakes, rivers, and the fountains of the great deep which are below those). When it says God set the sun, moon and stars on appointed circuits “IN” the firmament, I don’t know for sure if that means literally in the physical barrier of the hard firmament itself, or just on the “inside” (our side) of the barrier. But I’m almost certain it has to be the former.
Now how about you answer my question from way back to the beginning of this discussion? I want to know how exactly YOU personally know we live on one of trillions of spinning balls in a near infinite vastness of mostly empty vacuum called space. I already know how you “know” it, but I’d like to hear you SAY that you “know” it because men have told it to you. So can you be honest with me, yourself, and the rest of us here and just say what we all know to be the truth anyway? Thanks.
April 24, 2018 at 2:00 pm#822577
mikeboll64
Blocked
miia: Hey Mike, I was just thinking. If it was a flat Earth, wouldn’t it come to an end?
If we go north, south, east or west by foot, boat or plane we are going to end up at the end of the flat earth right? But nobody has ever hit that dead end. Instead, we end up at where we began.
Hey miia, thank you not only for the very logical question, but for the honest, truth-seeking way in which you asked it – as opposed to some here whose questions are really more akin to, “Oh yeah, smart guy? Well then what about THIS? And what about THAT? Hmm? Can’t answer those, can you? I can’t believe you’ve bought into this nonsense! Lol!”
Of course I usually just laugh people like that off, because if they’re not being unnecessarily condescending and smug, they are spouting fancy scientific jargon and theories that they’ve HEARD other people talk about before – but don’t actually know anything about those things themselves.
Anyway, no flat earther (I should say “ball denier”) claims to know the shape of the earth – only that it can’t be what we’ve been told. It could be square with a circle inscribed within the square – in which we all live. The Bible speaks of the four corners of the earth, and also about how God inscribed a circle on the face of the deep, and how He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth. Do you remember me and JustAskin going at each other like rabid dogs over whether or not God and angels have physical bodies? 🙂 Well I still believe they do. I believe God has a literal physical form, and a literal throne from which He rules. And if I’m right, it would be hard for God to be sitting “above” North America at the same time He’s sitting “above” New Zealand – if the earth was a ball. Also hard for angels to ascend and descend, or for Jesus to have come “down” from heaven, etc. Because in the ball theory, there is no up or down. Anyway, sorry for the rant.
The most popular flat earth model is the one you see on the United Nations flag. It is called the azimuthal equidistant projection, or more commonly the AE map.
Wiki says:
While it may have been used by ancient Egyptians for star maps in some holy books,^[1] the earliest text describing the azimuthal equidistant projection is an 11th-century work by al-Biruni.^[2]
The projection appears in many Renaissance maps, and Gerardus Mercator used it for an inset of the north polar regions in sheet 13 and legend 6 of his well-known 1569 map. In France and Russia this projection is named “Postel projection” after Guillaume Postel, who used it for a map in 1581.^[3] Many modern star chart planispheres use the polar azimuthal equidistant projection.
It’s been around for a while. But you’ll notice that the center of the map is the North Pole, and there is no continent of Antarctica. Ball deniers believe that what we’ve all been told is the continent of Antarctica is really an ice wall that encompasses the entire plane on which we live. I noticed T8 posted a picture so you get the idea. On the AE map I’ve included, it would be the white ring around the 6 continents on which everyone lives.
Since you seem to be truly inquisitive about this, I strongly suggest you watch this one video. It is called “21 Questions”, and briefly addresses the most common questions that people have when being confronted with flat earth theory. It’s only 45 minutes long, and it will get you in the ballpark of what we believe. Remember it is meant for beginners, and in no way encompasses the multitude of observations and absurdities that refute the spinning ball model. I think you’ll enjoy it…
April 24, 2018 at 2:11 pm#822580
Proclaimer
Participant
Superstition Mountain is 4000 feet tall. At 55 miles (55 x 55 x 8), there should be 2016 feet hidden by curvature. That’s slightly more than half of it. It doesn’t look that way to me. It looks like I can see the vast majority of the whole thing. What do you see?
Good Mike. You check stuff out unlike most people. Of course checking stuff out doesn’t rule out a mistake in the math for example. I cannot comment on the math you use because I have never worked out such a thing with scientifically approved math or am unable to check if your math is correct or flawed. I will say this however, if my memory serves me correctly, history records early observations of ships coming from the horizon toward land showing the sails and then the whole ship. Ships these days don’t usually have sails, so I can’t say I have noticed such a phenomenon myself. I lived on a coastline for years with the snow capped mountains of New Zealand’s South Island in the distance. This is the view I use to get:
I wonder if these mountains are far enough away to notice that the bottom contours are missing? Perhaps I could check?
However, I took an even more extreme photo once of a distant volcano looking in the opposite direction from a different vantage point. This is the best way for me to test the theory because I know the photos are real and not doctored.
I am standing on Paekakariki Hill Road in Wellington, a road close to where I live.
This is the usual view from the top of the hill. Note the island to the left. In my final photo, I zoomed in so much, that the island is not included, so you can ignore that island as having any relevance:
One fine day in Winter, I saw for the first time a distant volcano called Mt Ruapehu. That mountain looks like this up close from a ski resort town called Ohakune:
Here is the view I got looking at the same side of the mountain, but some 305 km (190 mi) away at Paekakariki Hill. The island is out of the picture to the left.
The mountain is 2,797 metres (9176 ft) high.
The photo appears to show the mountain appear lower than it really is I think, but in all honesty, it is too hard to tell because of the shape.
Maybe using Google Earth or Maps, I could get a 3D view of it from the same angle and see if there are missing contours at the bottom of the shape. Maybe you could even do that too. I will give that a go and report back if I can prove that the bottom part of the mountain is missing. If it is all there, then perhaps we need to look closely at the math or maybe it is just that the Earth is so big, that only a minute part of the bottom of this mountain would be missing, perhaps the height of a ship sail. Then again, maybe you are correct aye.
April 24, 2018 at 2:19 pm#822582
Admin
Keymaster
Hey Mike, I got an upload error when posting the photo above as T8. I looked into it knowing you had the same error and saw a file upload limit of 512 KB. I changed it to 8000 kb. You should be able to upload that gif file now. If it is still too large, I will increase the file upload limit again.
April 24, 2018 at 2:40 pm#822585
mikeboll64
Blocked
Hey Gene and T8, I’ll try my best to get to yours tomorrow. I already warned you that it might take a few days for me to respond, because I don’t have the time I used to. And may I also suggest that the shape of the earth is a HUGE topic, and includes side topics like gravity, plasma, electric universe theory, vibration, resonance, electromagnetism, the Antarctica Treaty, Captain James Cook, Admiral Richard Byrd, southern flight paths, torrs of vacuum, Sputnik, southern star trails and other phenomena in the heavens, Newton, Einstein, Tesla, atmospheric refraction, NASA and other space agencies, alphabet agencies like CIA and FBI, the Apollo missions, the Rothschilds, Jesuits, Zionists, stratospheric temperatures, Illuminati, military factions, atmospheric ionization, the god of this age and his agents, and way too many other things for me to mention now.
I know you all have a bunch of questions, but it will be very hard for me to even present my case if I keep getting hammered with a million different things – each of which take hours to work through. For example, T8 did a very cursory look into Antarctica, and has concluded in one afternoon that everything checks out for the ball earth. Gene is asking about Newtonian physics being responsible for flawless space telemetry, oblivious to the fact that no man has ever left “low earth orbit” – let alone stepped foot on the light called the moon… and apparently unaware that none of us here are skill enough in that subject to do anything but parrot things other men have told us. But I can’t address all these issues at once, in small posts. I will take hours and pages, and there is a certain order we must go. So please just let me begin to make my case, and rebut me on the issues as I present them.

So far I’ve only presented the fact that flat earth is, at the very least, consistent with the scriptures, that none of us have ever seen the supposed curve, and that millions of us have seen objects that should be hidden by thousands of feet – even many miles – of curvature if we really lived on a ball 25,000 miles in circumference. Gene, your boat going over the horizon argument is right on topic, and I will address that tomorrow.
I’m not trying to be an ass here guys, but we won’t get anywhere this way. I’m begging for patience. So right now, can anyone explain why none of us have ever seen curvature? Can anyone explain why we can see buildings, mountains, and other objects like the Statue of Liberty and lighthouses from many times farther away than we should?
April 24, 2018 at 2:41 pm#822586
Proclaimer
Participant
@miia
Hey Mike, I was just thinking. If it was a flat Earth, wouldn’t it come to an end?
Jesus did say a few things about the end of the world. lol.
April 24, 2018 at 2:43 pm#822587
Proclaimer
Participant
Hey no worries Mike and no pressure at all. Sometimes I take weeks to answer a post as there are more important things in life that take precedence.
Just good to hear from you again bro.
April 24, 2018 at 2:45 pm#822588
mikeboll64
Blocked
Hey Mike, I got an upload error when posting the photo above as T8. I looked into it knowing you had the same error and saw a file upload limit of 512 KB. I changed it to 8000 kb. You should be able to upload that gif file now. If it is still too large, I will increase the file upload limit again.
Fantastic! Now I don’t have to keep resizing my photos!
April 24, 2018 at 2:50 pm#822590
Proclaimer
Participant
Can anyone explain why we can see buildings, mountains, and other objects like the Statue of Liberty and lighthouses from many times farther away than we should?
Maybe the Earth is so big that it is possible to see these things from great distances before the curvature makes them invisible.
A better question might be why I cannot see Alaska from New Zealand when looking through a powerful telescope. I looked at the graphics you posted of a flat Earth map, and there appears to be a clear line of view between Alaska and New Zealand.
Author
Posts