There’s a lot of conspiracies about but this isn’t one. Or rather it might be a conspiracy to discredit alternative truthers by putting this out there to see who will bite. Get someone to make a public comment in support of flat earth and that person is instantly subject to scorn and discredited. Sounds plausible.
I've plotted on a graph the azimuthal projection on the earth and it looks like the shape of the surface is basically flat with the earth's outer edge suddenly scooping up and out at the outer realm, sort of like a sideways bracket{ without the inner tip.
Can anyone input a model into a stat database using the data from aa.usno.navy.mil?
I come here completely as an outsider since I have not even entirely listened to the episodes.
Frankly, this post seems to have turned into too many assumptions on both sides which renders the discussion completely flat.
While I can entertain the idea of fakery perpetuated by NASA and friends (though that would include all astronauts as well), I do have several questions that pop-in to my mind.
For one, the concept of toroidal energy as being a universal symbol (sacred geometry) that is fundamental to all systems beingness. How does that fit in within the flat earth paradigm? Though geometry = frequency (and vice-versa). Would a flat disc shape be a holographic representation of a sphere? That may shed light on how toroidal energies could work in flat shapes, though this is pure speculation on my part.
Are there any reasons as to why it would be flat in the first place? Deliberately or by nature? And is it just us? These are rethorical questions which I'm sure I would find answers to if I had listened to the episode.
I also do entertain the possibility of it being an elaborate psy-op model. After all, many have fallen into the 911TruthMovement clap-trap only to be distracted by the fundamental truth based on assumptions ultimately never convincingly proven.
In the end, I would only really entertain a serious inquiry at the level of meticulousness as witnessed by Judy Wood's "Where Did The Towers Go?". That is, empirical evidence first and absolutely no assumptions throughout. And last but not least, good luck, whatever the outcome, inquiry into truth requires open-mindedness.
Hi TH Chaters, I have found great joy in THC content so far and enjoy the far out stuff even though I am likely to be from Greg's father's generation. I heard him comment on one show that it was suitable to play to your dad. It was the one with the chap explaining that it was likely that there had been a war on Mars judging by the chemicals found in the atmosphere. Anyway I am one who finds the flat earth talk very irritating. The various proponents sound kind of plausible and I know a few people who are convinced by very very odd arguements and lashings of sloppy thinking. It really has nothing to do with all the other issues to which it is linked such as Moon landings and 911. NASA does not have to be ionvolved. I live by the sea and own a theodolite inherited from my Dad who was a surveyor. I set out to demonstrate that the horizon I see was curved. I did my first experiment alone and unfilmed just to be sure. I was going to be able to make a convincing proof. I then fixed a little cheap sports camera to the eyepiece and set out to make a You Tube see it here:-
I have already had a comment from someone accusing me of scamming which kind of suggests I might be at least close to the mark with this approach. What does anyone make of it, it is only 3.5 mins long. It shows a curved horizon honest. I plan to do a follow up with a camera closer to the theodolite in the hopes I can make it unargueable.
Hi TH Chaters, I have found great joy in THC content so far and enjoy the far out stuff even though I am likely to be from Greg's father's generation. I heard him comment on one show that it was suitable to play to your dad. It was the one with the chap explaining that it was likely that there had been a war on Mars judging by the chemicals found in the atmosphere. Anyway I am one who finds the flat earth talk very irritating. The various proponents sound kind of plausible and I know a few people who are convinced by very very odd arguements and lashings of sloppy thinking. It really has nothing to do with all the other issues to which it is linked such as Moon landings and 911. NASA does not have to be ionvolved. I live by the sea and own a theodolite inherited from my Dad who was a surveyor. I set out to demonstrate that the horizon I see was curved. I did my first experiment alone and unfilmed just to be sure. I was going to be able to make a convincing proof. I then fixed a little cheap sports camera to the eyepiece and set out to make a You Tube see it here:-
I have already had a comment from someone accusing me of scamming which kind of suggests I might be at least close to the mark with this approach. What does anyone make of it, it is only 3.5 mins long. It shows a curved horizon honest. I plan to do a follow up with a camera closer to the theodolite in the hopes I can make it unargueable.
The link was missing for above double post sorry I am a newbie
Curved Horizon Experiment not NASA not flat
Hi I am replying to my own post now because I now realise that my previous post promoting the curved horizon viewed through a theodolite was a flawed experiement and when I set it up precisely level the effect prviously observed disappeared. The bloody horizon was actually flat. I was impressed shocked and a little ashamed. I do not believe the earth is flat I think that is utterly ridiculous but it is not so easy to demonstrate as I thought. I would appreciate any input particularly from anyone who understands what a real theodolite does. Cheers
I found this video just the other day and Don't really know where to put it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHkiZNT3cyE
Here is an Engish speakers take at decoding. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3asNnLc7w8o
I hope I am not completely derailing you guys.
I saw a comment from a US college flat earth society president they had 73 members and a poll showed the majority voted for Clinton and just under a quarter voted Trump. Take what you will from it.
Most of his arguments are anomalies in observation, and discrepancies with the gravitational model, they don't even look at Electric Universe theroy which has a lot of credibility. And no one considers that the eye ball is concave and will make adjustments until you get high enough with a wide enough viewing angle, 40,000ft and 60 degree view which you don't get from a tiny plane window.
Another thing no one discusses is where is their flat earth, it is not floating in space in the 3rd rock from the sun position, nature always makes the most efficient shape for space occupied which is a ball - think of water drops. So where is it, the only places it could be is as a completely computer generated holographic type simulation. Or is inside a larger Sphere (Saturn maybe) and the stars are projected on a dome like the Hunger games, if this is so there is much more concerning questions to be asked.
By saying - look something doesn't add up is fine but to state the earth is flat from that shows a big lack in reasoning and critical thinking.
I am a new member to the plus community. One of the reasons I wanted to join was to listen to this episode. I have watched the videos on youtube. I am truly fascinated by this theory and agree that Eric makes a nice presentation of his facts and beliefs. When I first heard of this theory, I was amazed to think that anyone could take it seriously. I struggle to join the ranks of flat earth believers. This would require an amazing conspiracy with constructs that defy logic. So maybe I am not swimming deep enough in the dark conspiracy waters yet. But, if there is a moon and it is where I have always been told it is, then watching the earth pass across it during an eclipse shows a global planet. So a compelling theory for sure. There are so many questions right now. When you look at the renewed interest and VIP visits to Antarctica, you might find some truth in there which brings 'flat earth' more credibility. So right now I stand on the global earth!
Regardless where we all stand, there will be no fewer believers in the flat earth tomorrow, or any time in the future. It can only grow until the absolute proofs both sides need.
Personally, I used to think the flat earth theory was so way out there, and just for he crazy people. However after listening to Dubay I'm no longer so sure.
Being able to zoom in fully on objects over 100 miles away without loss of image is interesting. Why doesn't the curvature of the earth take those objects out of view? This seems to run contra to the whole theory of a globe earth. I've been digging around and can't find any rationale argument to debunk this issue. Anyone here find anything that does?
If we believe there's merit in the moon landings being fake, isn't it a relatively small leap to flat earth? Seems to me moon landings would be a great way to build 100% credibility for the globe earth. Why else would you bother with such an elaborate ruse?
Anyway, I'm not a flat earther yet...
Have a great day all.
Sacroff
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
creaturehabits wrote: I'd love to see what sources people are digging into to wrap their heads around this one.
FEPE the death of pepe the frog
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MORvnDZ5No
creaturehabits wrote: I'd love to see what sources people are digging into to wrap their heads around this one.
I would suggest looking up Santos Bonacci's work
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull-down
Due to the convexity of the earth, a ship's upper rigging will be visible at a much greater distance than its lower hull: for example, in clear air a lookout at the top of mast 130 feet (40 m) above the water will be able to see the top of another 130 ft mast from over 24 nautical miles (44 km) away, but will be able to see the full hull of the other ship from only 12 nautical miles (22 km) away.[1]
With a clear horizon, whether a vessel is hull-down or hull-up gives some idea of its distance from the observer, using the line-of-sight formula.
Tactical considerations
In naval warfare, while the upper rigging (of a sailing vessel) or radio mast and stacks (of a steam ship) may give some idea of its type, it is impossible to tell the true nature of a ship when it is hull-down and its armament and size are not visible. Especially during the age of sail, a naval vessel that chose to pursue a possible enemy vessel spotted hull-down ran the risk of unknowingly closing on a more powerful opponent — depending on the wind and other conditions, it might not be possible to flee once the other vessel was clearly visible hull-up.
