An entire blog dedicated to complaining about Flat Earth theorists

All other paranormal and conspiracies.
User avatar
Ye Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2016 2:34 pm
Contact:

An entire blog dedicated to complaining about Flat Earth theorists

Post by Ye Admin » Tue Apr 16, 2019 4:00 pm

I was entertained by the read. I'm not closed-minded to new ideas but the Flat Earth thing is just something that I personally think, if it were true, Richard S. Shaver would have known about it and made it public. RAP would have certainly made a big deal out of it.

So the arguments the blogger makes, as well as the arguments the Flat Earthers make, are entertaining even if I have no horse in this race. I'm not interested in convincing people that the way I see things is the only way. My opinion is just, like, my opinion. But this is what that guy has to say.
http://embracetheball.blogspot.com/

aeon
Posts: 622
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2016 5:42 pm
Contact:

Re: An entire blog dedicated to complaining about Flat Earth theorists

Post by aeon » Tue Apr 16, 2019 4:55 pm

All these arguments are gibberish. Gravity does not exist it is physically impossible. Jeran is a fake flat earther and some of these shills really are paid by the govt. Astronomy is a religion it is totally false. Stars are not suns. As far as I can tell planets and moons are reflections and not solid bodies. Something is very wrong. The moon is the sun reflection off the upper atmosphere in the gamma ray wavelength. The moon surface is what the sun surface looks like under the bright light. It looks very old and damaged. Using the thermosphere as a reference point the sun is only hundreds of miles up and is 6.2 miles across using standard parallax. The sun is a machine. I have watched its surface in real time with my equipment, It is bubbling like oatmeal so it seems to be outgassing terribly.

There are no real satellites. All TV signals and your GPS is done by ground stations. All space rockets are dumped in the ocean. They never even travel at jet speeds. I had Dishnet it was made by Navy intelligence. The uplink/downlink is two way and is a longwave transceiver and had a camera lens they called an infrared sensor.

Ray Palmer did call out NASA and the globe theory. Shaver said he would allow astronomers their concepts but insisted gravity was exd friction and if you launched a spaceship at a gravity null point it could travel at multiple light speeds.

Eric Dubay started this whole modern argument. I agree with some of his points but disagree with his maps completely. All flat earth maps shapes sizes are completely wrong and should be thrown out.

There are absolute physical proofs already done by the govt that debunk their own insane spinning globe nonsense.

I had the NASA channel on cable in the 90s and those morons actually showed the earth flat from hundreds of miles up and showed the Apollo landing as a total fake as well, by showing in the descent of the lunar lander that the craters from orbit to landing never changed size; and the moron astronauts just kept talking in a monotone never skipping a beat. You would be in a panic. They could not see the surface from their port hole and had no radar.

aeon
Posts: 622
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2016 5:42 pm
Contact:

Re: An entire blog dedicated to complaining about Flat Earth theorists

Post by aeon » Tue Apr 16, 2019 6:19 pm

Engineer, W. Winckler, wrote into the Earth Review October 1893 regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating, “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this - that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet.

Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle”

One surveyor, Mr. T. Westwood, wrote into the January, 1896 “Earth Review” magazine stating that, “In leveling, I work from Ordinance marks, or canal levels, to get the height above sea level. The puzzle to me used to be, that over several miles each level was and is treated throughout its whole length as the same level from end to end; not the least allowance being made for curvature. One of the civil engineers in this district, after some amount of argument on each side as to the reason why no allowance for curvature was made, said he did not believe anybody would know the shape of the earth in this life.”

Another Surveyor and Engineer of thirty years wrote to the Birmingham Weekly Mercury, Feb. 15th, 1890 stating, “I am thoroughly acquainted with the theory and practice of civil engineering. However bigoted some of our professors may be in the theory of surveying according to the prescribed rules, yet it is well known amongst us that such theoretical measurements are INCAPABLE OF ANY PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION.

All our locomotives are designed to run on what may be regarded as TRUE LEVELS or FLATS. There are, of course, partial inclines or gradients here and there, but they are always accurately defined and must be carefully traversed. But anything approaching to eight inches in the mile, increasing as the square of the distance, COULD NOT BE WORKED BY ANY ENGINE THAT WAS EVER YET CONSTRUCTED.

Taking one station with another all over England and Scotland, it may be stated that all the platforms are ON THE SAME RELATIVE LEVEL. The distance between Eastern and Western coasts of England may be set down as 300 miles. If the prescribed curvature was indeed as represented, the central stations at Rugby or Warwick ought to be close upon three miles higher than a chord drawn from the two extremities.

If such was the case there is not a driver or stoker within the Kingdom that would be found to take charge of the train. We can only laugh at those of your readers who seriously give us credit for such venturesome exploits, as running trains round spherical curves. Horizontal curves on levels are dangerous enough, vertical curves would be a thousand times worse, and with our rolling stock constructed as at present physically impossible.”

"The distance between the Red Sea at Suez and the Mediterranean Sea is 100 statute miles, the datum line of the Canal being 26 feet below the level of the Mediterranean, and is continued horizontally the whole way from sea to sea, there not being a single lock on the Canal, the surface of the water being parallel with the datum line. It is thus clear that there is no curvature or globularity for the whole hundred miles between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea; had there been, according to the Astronomic theory, the middle of the Canal would have been 1,666 feet higher than at either end, whereas the Canal is perfectly horizontal for the whole distance.

"The Great Canal of China, said to be 700 miles in length, was made without regard to any allowance for supposed curvature, as the Chinese believe the Earth to be a Stationary Plane. I may also add that no allowance was made for it in the North Sea Canal, or in the Manchester Ship Canal, both recently constructed, thus clearly proving that there is no globularity in Earth or Sea, so that the world cannot possibly be a Planet.

aeon
Posts: 622
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2016 5:42 pm
Contact:

Re: An entire blog dedicated to complaining about Flat Earth theorists

Post by aeon » Tue Apr 16, 2019 6:42 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_map_projections

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... -data.html

These ridiculously tortured and inaccurate maps are proof the globe is a lie.


Every single satellite in "orbit" could stream color 24/7 live video of the earth if they had satellites up there. They only offer cgi and adobe photo shop.


Nautical miles at sea and knots per hour. They threw out ropes with knots to watch them drift away counting the time between knots.

1 knot is 1 nautical mile per hour.

However 1 nautical mile is not 1 statute mile that we use on land.

Nautical miles are based on the ocean curving on a globe.

This is in your face insane you can't have 2 different measurements on a map.

Land maps are in flat miles and ocean maps are in globe miles. That is why you can't use Navy maps to navigate continents, and land maps with oceans can't be used to navigate oceans.

Although inland seas, lakes and rivers are in flat miles.

1 nautical mile = 1.1508 statute mile.

This is why even the best sailors kept getting shipwrecked before radio navigation. Now they use computers which are accurate because it uses universal statute flat miles.

Sextants can't measure size of objects. That is why the sun is not 32 miles across at 3000 miles in height. However regular parallax works with a slight error in atmospheric refraction.

I trust the approximate height of the thermosphere of 621 miles because the Argus III missile exploded at 493 miles up in 1958, and had temperatures recorded you can match with other missiles of that era.

There is no way any one can verify the Van Allen radiation belts because every source anywhere is in disagreement. They rarely use the same measurement unit, so you can't convert properly, and readings of the height-shape-width, and electron-proton density and magnetic flux, vary by 10 to 10,000 and sometimes by 10 million as in solar flares.

Above the radiation shield the radiation jumps 100 times all satellite circuits would fry instantly. None of these satellites have fuel. You have to blast continuously you can't coast.

GPS is really LORAN-D.

Hyperbolic navigation refers to a class of navigation systems based on the difference in timing between the reception of two signals, without reference to a common clock. This timing reveals the difference in distance from the receiver to the two stations.

Plotting all of the potential locations of the receiver for the measured delay produces a series of hyperbolic lines on a chart. Taking two such measurements and looking for the intersections of the hyperbolic lines reveals the receiver's location to be in one of two locations.

Any other form of navigation information can be used to eliminate this ambiguity and determine a fix.

LORAN, for LOng RAnge Navigation, and the first chain of two stations went live on June 1942. LORAN became LORAN-A when the design of its replacement started, this was initially the LORAN-B concept, but eventually replaced by the very long-range LORAN-C starting in 1957.

aeon
Posts: 622
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2016 5:42 pm
Contact:

Re: An entire blog dedicated to complaining about Flat Earth theorists

Post by aeon » Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:29 pm

https://web.archive.org/web/20080925134 ... w/105/121/

October 1959 - Editorial
Flying Saucers Magazine - October 1959

Editorial

Ray Palmer: Recently we conducted an experiment: we went around asking people at random just one simple question: is the Moon round or square? You can imagine the reactions we got-and we'll go into them a little later on in this editorial; but first we'd like to have you imagine that you've never heard of a flying saucer, and picture your reaction to a stranger approaching you in the street and telling you about them. We're sure you can see that there is a similarity in reactions to both questions! Just what would you say to the second question, if asked whether flying saucers were shaped like pie plates placed together, with a dome on or were shaped like a top?

You would probably say the question was immaterial, because the first thing to do would be to prove that the saucers actually existed, and if you proved that, you'd have to say where they came from. In fact, that last question is the basic one today-where do they come from? Invariably we are challenged thusly: "If you're so smart, where do these saucers come from?"

Up to how we've carefully avoided giving a direct answer to the question, because anything else demands proof -and proof is difficult to secure. However, in a few issues (maybe next, who can tell) we'll tell you where they come from, and we'll prove it. We have said that they do not come from outer space. It is easy to say where they do not come from, because a negative statement does not require proof. We might be asked how we can be sure they do not come from outer space, but there is a safe answer to that - what shred of evidence can the doubter himself offer that they do? None of course. Those proponents of the outer space origin actually do not possess any proof to support their opinion. They base their thinking on a process of elimination - since they are hot U.S. projects, Soviet inventions, or any other local origination point which can be checked, the admission that they are real postulates a very distant and unprovable organization. Thus, the hue and cry for outer space. It is safe to say that is where they come from, faced with their reality. People like Major Keyhoe can write books about them, in which there can be ho real challenge concerning the saucers themselves, because the doubter is asked to look starward and be forced to admit that it is "possible". If Keyhoe does not point starward, he must finally deny the existence of saucers. He cannot take that stand, or he must be ignored. It is "safe" to point that way, because it indefinitely postpones a showdown on the entire question.

Let us point out the facts: a) saucers exists; the proof is in the observations made which cannot be explained away- that proportion of the whole which even the "experts" admit must fall into the category of the factual, but unexplainable; b) no one has thus far publicly produced an actual flying saucer. Do you know of any other facts?

In our experience we have heard many theories; ranging from Keyhoe's interplanetary origin, to red corpuscles in your eyeballs. Some say they are from another "dimension", whatever that is; others say they are from any one of the various governments, being secret inventions; spiritists say they are the spirits of the dead; some say they are living creatures, perhaps made visible to-us through some effect on them or on us by atomic radiation; and there are a number of other explanations, some even quite mad. The only fact about them all is that none can be proved.

Proof, in itself, is a matter of definition: to some, only the placing before them for personal examination of an actual saucer is to be considered proof; to others there is a variability of credibility attached, i.e., an indisputable photo, an unimpeachable witness; a personal experience (such as being taken in a ride in one and then set down without anything to back up your own story). To many, a complete set of rationalizations will constitute proof, sacking the machine itself. Into this latter classification falls such opinion as the interplanetary one. Faced with reputable witness' accounts, these people must cast about to' find the "possible" or "logical" places of origination. Since a local search (the earth) reveals nothing, next in line is inner space, or our Solar System. Since astronomical science tells us that none of the planets possess the ability to maintain intelligent life, capable of constructing flying saucers, we are forced to look further out, into outer space. Naturally we select the nearest of these areas, and in the early days Wolf-359 was mentioned often. Here the matter stands. Many admit the saucers are real, and unable to go to the stars, they drop the matter there, leaving it to the doubter to make the actual trip to Wolf-359 and prove or disprove the theory. If he disproves it, it is a simple matter to move our origination point to other galaxies.

Another thing we do not know is WHAT flying saucers are. In order to begin a search, we should first determine what they are-it would aid us in deciding where to look. For instance, if living creatures, then we can search unknown areas (such as the sea depths), or the atmosphere in which the "creatures" are usually observed. This gives us an area of anywhere from the surface of the earth itself to the outer limits of the "breathable" atmosphere. It may be that a living thing can exist on a remarkably tenuous atmospheric vapor, perhaps even something approaching a "vacuum" as we have attained it with our laboratory equipment. Maybe a living creature can live at an altitude of 100 miles, or 300 miles. Who knows until we search that area thoroughly?

There seems to be some evidence that there ARE mysterious living forms on our earth and in its atmosphere; even in the depths of ocean and soil. But observations of "flying saucers" have more often possessed the characteristics of a machine than an animal. It may be that both exist. We can discount the animal, because if he does exist, he still leaves us with the machine.

Is there any evidence that the machine COULD originate on Earth? The editors of FLYING SAUCERS say flatly that there is. And we say it now because we are going to present it in these pages just as soon as it is completely prepared for presentation. It is a fact that once we have printed our information, it will be subject to attack. We do not intend that that attack shall prove successful by virtue of leaving the burden of proof on our shoulders, but rather that any denial will necessitate factual proof on the part of the attacker. In short, we will present only provable facts complete with the proof. In order to deny them, they will have to be proved false. In short, if we say the saucers are parked in Ebbetts Field (now vacated by the Brooklyn Dodgers), anyone who denies it will have to go to Ebbetts Field and demonstrate that the statement is false. We will not, however, make a statement that cannot be proved by such definite action.

Before we decided to offer this proof, we decided, as we mentioned at the beginning of this article, to conduct an experiment. We wanted to know how far we would get with a challenge. Will we actually be attacked, our proof subjected to scrutiny, or will we be faced with a sort of "prejudice" which will force our critics to refuse to make a scientific rebuttal, but merely resort to vituperation, ignore us, or punch us in the nose. So, we went about asking if the moon was round or square.

You might ask how we can conceivably claim to have any proof that there could be even the possibility that it was square? You might say the question is irrational, since there is no alternative-that the moon is round, and it is completely proved to be so.

Is it?

Many educated people have a tendency to accept things on previous acceptance. From childhood they have been taught (along with reproduction of proof) that the moon is round. Besides, they can prove it easily to their own satisfaction. They need merely go outside and observe it. They can look at it with naked eye or telescope. They can observe that the earth also is round, by watching its round shadow cross the face of the moon during an eclipse.

Here is where we can get back, with a vengeance, at those people who claimed that what we see and call flying saucers are merely illusions, visual fantasies induced by our eye structure itself, or mental defects causing misinterpretation of those observations. For it is just plain truth that our concept of the roundness of the moon is based on illusion-the illusion created by the mechanics of our organs of sight, basically a crystalline lens imbedded in a fleshy structure, which activates certain cells to cause them to flash an electrical (?) message to the brain, there to be ' interpreted as a particular form and shape.

But, you protest, the eye does not register an illusion. Not a healthy eye, flashing messages to a healthy brain. Says you!

How many of you have flown over a city in an airplane? Those of you who have, have you ever looked down and made a factual count of the number of houses which have square chimneys and these which have round ones? We could tell you the answer, but we don't need to. That is one of the things you can do yourself! Next, how many of you have ridden on the back platform of a train which goes through a long tunnel? Specifically, a tunnel with a square opening? Do you know what happens as you watch this square opening recede behind you? Again, we have no need to tell you -the answer is up to you.

What does distance do to the shape of an object as seen by the human eye; i.e., by a round lens? The lens of a telescope is identical to the lens of the human eye. The lens of a camera is identical to the human eye. In order to restore the observed object to its local appearance, the conditions of locality must be restored. Either you must draw closer, or greatly enlarge. But the main point here is that we ask you to determine by actual experiment what actually happens to observed objects by reason of distance?

The moon is a great distance away. Further than anything on earth. It is distance enough to appear to be something, it isn't, when observed by means of a lens (and that is the ONLY way we can observe anything). Nature has placed a barrier to our seeing things as they really are, but instead only as seen through a lens. A lens distorts. How? Again, do your own investigating! Don't take our word for it.

And when you've investigated all these things properly and scientifically and as completely as today's science will allow you to, come back to us and. say the moon is roundpositively!

It might be square, just like the chimneys on most houses!

We sincerely hope that somebody will be able to come up with proof that the moon isn't square, but it will have to be proof, not opinion, or general acceptance, because frankly the idea of a square moon appalls us.

Whatever shape the moon is, the earth is likely to be much the same shape-and if it's square, it will be a fearful prospect; there are enough squares in this flying saucer business already!

P. S. We couldn't get anybody to consider the question seriously, which worries us worse. Won't anybody think for himself these days. And come to think of it, it's only comparatively recently that we thought of the earth as round - for thousands of years everybody believed it to be unquestionably flat! Wouldn't it be funny if we finally wound up with it square?-Rap,

https://web.archive.org/web/20080820112 ... iew/80/93/

https://web.archive.org/web/20080820112 ... iew/73/82/

User avatar
Ye Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2016 2:34 pm
Contact:

Re: An entire blog dedicated to complaining about Flat Earth theorists

Post by Ye Admin » Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:32 pm

I wish I still had one of my father's science books from the 50s that speculated that time travel was possible but space travel was impossible. The reason given was that the Van Allen belt would kill anyone trying to escape the Earth. I have no memory of what the book was titled. Nearly everything we ever owned up until 1994 no longer exists.

But there will always be memories.

aeon
Posts: 622
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2016 5:42 pm
Contact:

Re: An entire blog dedicated to complaining about Flat Earth theorists

Post by aeon » Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:35 pm

https://web.archive.org/web/20080925134 ... w/111/127/

HOW ATLAS' CAMERA LIES TO US!


Shown on FLYING SAUCERS' front cover this issue is a photo of the earth taken from an Atlas ICBM at an altitude of 100 miles, purporting to show the curvature of the Earth. As will be proved in this article, this cannot be a fact; that to use this or other photos as evidence of the curvature of the Earth is to misconstrue the evidence.

To those of us who have ever watched a ship sail to sea, it is evident that the Earth's surface is curved, and that the curvature drops away from our own position in all directions. We have watched the ship go hull-down over the horizon, its funnels and masts last to disappear. To an observer on the shore, standing six feet tall, the ship disappears very rapidly; and at the most, his limit of vision is 23 miles, the distance of the horizon. Also, allowing his eyes to travel around the horizon, he notes it to be curved, and if he is located on a ship at sea, he can turn about until he describes a full 360 degree circle and finds that the horizon returns to its starting point. He thus sees an area of the Earth's surface approximately 46 miles in diameter.

If our observer goes up in an airplane, perhaps to a height of a mile, he finds that the horizon (by what is called optical illusion?) ascends with him, so that although he has elevated himself a mile, the horizon also has seemed to elevate itself so that it is still directly ahead of him, at eye-level, and not below him, as he might suspect. Indeed, if he ascends ten miles, he finds the horizon still at eye-level.

As high as man has been, in balloon or plane, he has found that the horizon has kept pace with him. The only difference due to his variation in height is a variation in the total area of the Earth's surface he can see. At one mile, he can see a great deal more than he can at 6 feet. How much more can be accurately calculated by anyone with a little knowledge of geometry. But one thing is sure, it is a far cry from seeing the whole Earth.

On our front cover we have a picture which shows an area of the Earth extending approximately from Omaha, Nebraska to Mexico City, Mexico. The exact distance can be determined by anyone interested by consulting a map, or measuring it on a globe. In comparison to the total expanse of one hemisphere of the Earth, it is an area illustrated in Figure I accompanying this article. It is easy to see that Atlas' camera can see, from its 100-milehigh perch, an area of the earth considerably less than the area of the United States. In relation to the North American continent as a whole, it is actually an insignificant portion. In relation to the two American continents, Europe and Africa, and portions of Asia, it is certainly far from the area of one side of the Earth. No person in seriousness could claim that the curved line originating from the location given as Omaha and culminating in the location described as Mexico City would be the curvature of the surface of the Earth, for the obvious reason that it would reduce the diameter of the Earth to less than one-eighth its actual diameter!

It is easy to see that Omaha is not virtually on the other side of the Earth from Mexico City, yet in this photograph our eyes tell us that this is so! The camera (which does not lie?) tells us that to a person standing in Omaha, an inhabitant of Mexico City, like the traditonal "Chinaman," stands with his head downward, and his feet toward those of the citizen of Omaha! Obviously, this curve, which we are told is the curvature of the Earth, is not the curvature of a body 8,300 (approximately) miles in diameter, but merely the HORIZON as viewed from 100 miles up! The Atlas' camera is seeing no more proof of the curvature of the Earth than our original observer standing on the seashore, watching a ship disappear below the horizon! All Atlas' camera sees is a larger area than the earthbound observer. And it, is an area circumscribed by that very same horizon that limits the range of ground observers, except that it is farther away.

The curve noticed is an optical illusion, an additionally pronounced distortion of the straight line (viewed horizontally) of the horizon, which is a property of all lenses, including the human eye. As we increase the distance from a horizontally placed straight line, the apparent curvature of it increases, inversely with the square of the distance. At a sufficient distance, it becomes a complete circle.

This curved line which purports to show the curvature of the Earth from 100 miles up is the horizon as seen from the Atlas, and the area covered is demonstrated by Figure II, which shows the incidence of the line of sight from the Atlas with the surface of the Earth, which actually is curved, but is limited to our position and the abberations induced by circular lenses such as those of a camera and those of the human eye. In this Atlas photograph, the camera has still been aimed horizontally, at right angles to the perpendicular, and what is being seen is still at eye-level to the observer, be he human or camera!

Many of us have seen, on our television screens, the movies of the curvature of the Earth taken from an Atlas. We have noted the curved side of the Earth as it moves jerkily past us in a vertical direction, and have marveled at the wonder of seeing the actual curve of the Earth. But this, too, is an inadvertant (?) trick, for if we were to lie on our sides before our television set we would be treated to a peculiar illusion-the Earth curvature we marvel at as we sit erect now becomes merely the horizon, and even to our inexperienced eye, we know that it is in a straight line and the curve is only the progression of that line around us (as is the habit of horizons) in its effort to surround us completely in a full 360 degree circle!

All that is being seen in every photo of the Earth taken from space is the horizon, and nothing else. And it is not curved; the whole thing is the very familiar optical illusion. The extent of the horizon does not tell us the Earth is roundit is the "hull-down" effect of a ship as it proceeds away from us, not the "passing in review" before us. The only way a photo from space could prove the Earth to be round would be by the portion of the launching rocket seen falling away from us (as in the photos seen on television) until is disappears OVER the horizon, and goes "hull-down," exactly as a ship does on the sea!

Lest the reader think we are saying the Earth is not round, let us hasten to reassure him. The hull-down effect proves that it is not flat, at least. We find the evidence quite convincing. But to take this matter of apparently curving horizons as evidence is beyond all reasoning, and beyond all justification.

If we assume that we get an Atlas camera out into space say 100,000 miles, and then turn the camera back and take a picture of the earth, we will still see only the horizon, but now, because of the distortion factor of lenses, and because of our much greater height, we will see the whole horizon, in its full 360 degrees, without the necessity of having to wheel about in our tracks. But, as in Figure III, it will be obvious that we are still not seeing the entire extent of the area of the Earth's 180 degree hemisphere. There is still a narrow area beyond the horizon which we cannot see! And no matter how far we go into space, be it light years away, due to the fact that the lens with which we view the Earth is literally a point in space, while the Earth is 8,300 miles in diameter, there will always remain an infinitesimal area (or might it really be gigantic?) between the horizon and the actual boundary of the sphere itself which we will find "hull-down" from our point of vantage.

The foregoing fact is unassailable. If it is, then parallel lines meet in less than infinity, and Einstein's "curved universe" is not only curved, but tangled up like a huge ball of spaghetti!

When we look at the moon, the outer rim of its circumference is not really its outer rim, but its horizon. There is a portion on that rim we cannot see, although it is not behind the moon. 'The only way the actual limit of the circumference could be seen is for us to be able, by some legerdemain, to widen the distance between our two eyes to approximately 3000 miles, so that the rays of light from the moon would literally be parallel, and those from one side of the moon's apparent diameter fall into one eye, and those from the other into the other eye. And even then it would be a matter of mental perceptive rationalization. Certainly to the single lens of the camera, or the telescope, the full diameter of the moon cannot be seen, because the portion below the horizon will remain forever invisible.


Diagram



It is a well-known fact that different kinds of light (ultra violet and infra red as examples) give different dimensions to observed objects. Even in natural light, the lighted side of a half moon seems to have a greater diameter than the dark side, and a photograph will show this to be true. Called an optical illusion, astronomers have failed to explain why a camera is subject to optical illusions.

Dave Garroway, in his Today program, showed the movie films we have previously mentioned, which supposedly show the curvature of the Earth (and indeed, the expert who was present to demonstrate the actual procedure in taking the pictures said it was the curvature of the Earth!), and noting the peculiar jerkiness and rocking motion of the film, and the amazing speed with which the curvature passed before the camera, asked the reason for it, and whether the film was not "speeded up," and actually had been taken at much slower frame speed. The expert explained as follows: The camera, mounted in a horizontal plane, was photographing the curvature of the Earth as the rocket ascended straight up, and the jerky rocking effect was the rocket's own wavering motions as it ascended, but that the apparent speed was not real, that the rocket was rotating on its vertical axis as well as climbing, and that was the reason the camera could photograph the entire curvature of the Earth. He made it plain to Garroway (and to this writer) that the rocket was not actually going around the Earth in an orbit, but had merely been fired straight up, to fall almost straight back.

This writer submits that it must be a deliberate action to run the film (or mount the camera) so that the motion would be in a perpendicular fashion, rather than horizontal, in order to create the illusion of curvature, rather than of the straight horizon which it would obviously be if run past the observer's eyes in the proper style, to conform with the proper erect horizontal mounting of the camera in the side of the rocket which is ascending straight upward.

We have also seen photos (movies) taken from the rear of a detaching nose cone, showing the rocket falling away below. This was taken at a considerately greater altitude, but shows no curvature, or horizon whatever. At no time is the supposed curvature of the edge of the Earth, or even a horizon, in view. The reason is obvious-the rocket (at 300 or more) miles, was not at all high enough for the field of the camera's lens to take in more than a small area of the ground directly below.

The next time you see a picture of the Earth's curvature, turn it on its side, view it properly, and you will see only the horizon, which may be more distant than you are accustomed to viewing, but your mind will tell you that it is not curved, only appears to be so because no matter at which point on the line you look, the distance is the same, and if the line were straight, logically it should appear to bend away from you as the angle of viewing became greater. This is the true "optical illusion" of the horizon.

The Atlas' camera has not shown us the curvature of the Earth, only a more distant horizon. To say that it proves the Earth is curved is to misconstrue and distort the evidence. The Earth is surely curved, but the evidence is SOLELY visible in the familiar "hull-down" phenomenon, and no other!

The scientists are so anxious to show off the knowledge that we all possess anyway from our own simple observations, that they are not averse to a little "subterfuge" to get into the limelight. Either that , or they actually cannot tell the difference between the curvature of the Earth and the horizon. In which case it would be better to give the cameras to someone with the ability, to use them correctly!

THE END

aeon
Posts: 622
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2016 5:42 pm
Contact:

Re: An entire blog dedicated to complaining about Flat Earth theorists

Post by aeon » Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:52 pm

https://web.archive.org/web/20060213152 ... icles1.htm

In 1958 my parents bought the Collier encyclopedia which had 4 extra science volumes and covered the Van Allen belts.


https://www.freewebs.com/mysteriousholl ... 201959.pdf

aeon
Posts: 622
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2016 5:42 pm
Contact:

Re: An entire blog dedicated to complaining about Flat Earth theorists

Post by aeon » Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:26 pm

http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211_fall201 ... World.html

http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/bigg.cfm

http://coconutrevival.com/?p=2072

total hogwash

In the middle of the Pacific ocean the curved water is standing 172 miles high measure that you liars


Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest