Comments (Concave Earth Theory)

Page 10

2014/10/07 at 8:16 pm
Lord Steven Christ
missteribabylonestar.com/posthypnoticepiphany.html
In reply to Bradley.
Hi Bradley, I’ve mentioned before that I believe the spiral star clusters are tiny, and immersed in a celestial ocean contained inside the glass celestial sphere (not to be confused with the glass sky at 100km). They formed into spirals because they are drain remnants of the great flood when the windows of heaven were opened. I believe they are created by multi-bubble sonoluminescence, at at the time of the flood, they heated up the glass containing them and melted holes, allowing the celestial water to flow out and down to earth. They later healed and cooled and left the spiral remnants. This is the dark water mystery resolved….it is dark water, not dark matter.

2014/10/07 at 8:21 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
You saw three (or was it more?) stripes on the back of the Sun wasn’t it? I don’t disagree with that. I also think the Sun has a light and dark side.

2014/10/07 at 8:27 pm
Lord Steven Christ
missteribabylonestar.com/posthypnoticepiphany.html
In reply to Wild Heretic.
For you, WH…

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

Yes, this is an admonition.

2014/10/07 at 8:42 pm
Lord Steven Christ
missteribabylonestar.com/posthypnoticepiphany.html
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Did you finish my video (8:16), I show parallel rays striking the back of the sun.

2014/10/07 at 8:43 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
Yeah, I call that grace, or coincidence.

2014/10/07 at 8:45 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
Not yet there. Will get there though.

2014/10/07 at 8:46 pm
Lord Steven Christ
missteribabylonestar.com/posthypnoticepiphany.html
In reply to Wild Heretic.
p.s. I mention how the solstices work at 8:57

2014/10/07 at 8:57 pm
Bradley
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
Thank you for that message Steven, I will look into all that as well as I’m able to.
As far as what I was asking about what is outside the earths crust though any ideas or suggestions, or perhaps point me in the direction as where to read about it.
side question What is meant by the term celestial? And, what are your beliefs about…….hmm how should I phrase this?…….about spirit, God, present reality, and other common topics that ensue from there?
If this is the wrong area to post this question I apologize, please feel free to direct me. Also if this topic is better discussed in verbal communication I’d be happy to.

P.S.
As far as being Christ reborn, are you positing to be a form of an ever present christ consciousness or simply saying that you are ??? I don’t know, what are you saying?
(so many questions 🙂 thanks for your time.

2014/10/07 at 9:26 pm
Richard Parker

I’m highly intrigued by the concept of the holes at the poles, WH. Could you please elaborate on this a bit. Do you think so called space is a giant cosmic brain type of apparatus in function. If there’s holes at the poles, what do you the the shape of the earth/universe is in it’s entirety.

I recall Plato talking about “the heavens”, concave surface of the earth in which we live on, “Hades” beneath, and a place known as Tartarus (which is described as a place being as far as the heavens are to the surface, Hades is to Tartarus. So it seems to be the deepest of abysses, but it is composed of mainly water. It is stated in Greek mythology that it was the first primordial place of existence. Just some ideas Where could those fish you spoke of had traveled?

Most of all, what is the true shape of the entire system? Ovular? Thank$

2014/10/08 at 2:45 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
Did you include how the south pole is in constant darkness during our summer and vice verse in winter? And also the amount of daylight received in the hemispheres? That’s why the Sun has to be in the center and why it has to wobble.

I wonder if the lines of light behind the Sun were the immediate part of the magnetic B-field? Although they should curve a bit.

2014/10/08 at 9:52 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Richard Parker.
Yes, I’ve read about the mythical underworld a bit. It seems far too detailed in Norse and Greek mythology to be just a made up religious concept, especially since plenty of their kings and heroes ventured therein. The underworld is a tough cookie. You have mythological accounts, contemporary accounts – sometimes they overlap in similarity, sometimes they don’t. There seems to be “another dimensional” type quality about it. Not easy to fathom.

I think the fish came from the hole near the north pole, the one near Russia. Someone estimated its location at 84.4N.

As to the true shape of the entire system, well that is very difficult. We have one anecdotal account of the other side just seemingly being the convex side, but there are problems with that model too. Another account is that spirit was on the other side. It could be that there are many “worlds” or avenues possible when going underground and breaking through to the other side.

Drop me a comment on the article on the holes near the poles when it is published (early next week). That way I won’t have to repeat myself too much and we can look at the few accounts given.

Also when I first heard about our cavity situation, the synapse model you mentioned also sprang to mind. You could be on to something there.

2014/10/08 at 10:01 am
Lord Steven Christ
missteribabylonestar.com/posthypnoticepiphany.html

Satellites in the Concave Earth (NASA broke the sky)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGyWMQxiX5c

2014/10/18 at 8:02 am
Nils Esche
freundevonwahrheit.xobor.de/t175f12-Les-eacute-to…

WH, you should mention the Bible as storyline for ours as probably “true”!

A little trip through King James Bible – into the earth, we are living in!

Matthew 6:10

10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
_______________________

Genesis 1:22

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Genesis 4:12

12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

Genesis 4:14

14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

Genesis 6:4-5

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Genesis 6:17

17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Genesis 10:32

32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

1 Chronicles 16:14

14 He is the Lord our God; his judgments are in all the earth.

1 Chronicles 17:8

8 And I have been with thee whithersoever thou hast walked, and have cut off all thine enemies from before thee, and have made thee a name like the name of the great men that are in the earth.

1 Chronicles 17:21

21 And what one nation in the earth is like thy people Israel, whom God went to redeem to be his own people, to make thee a name of greatness and terribleness, by driving out nations from before thy people whom thou hast redeemed out of Egypt?

Job 1:7-8

7 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

8 And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

Job 38:33

33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?

Psalm 8:9

9 O Lord our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!

Psalm 16:3

3 But to the saints that are in the earth, and to the excellent, in whom is all my delight.

Psalm 45:16

16 Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth.

Psalm 46:8

8 Come, behold the works of the Lord, what desolations he hath made in the earth.

Psalm 58:2

2 Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth.

Psalm 58:11

11 So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.

Psalm 75:31

31 The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah.

Psalm 113:6

6 Who humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven, and in the earth!

Psalm 119:19

19 I am a stranger in the earth: hide not thy commandments from me.

Psalm 135:6

6 Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places.

Proverbs 11:31

31 Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner.

Isaiah 12:5

5 Sing unto the Lord; for he hath done excellent things: this is known in all the earth.

Jeremiah 9:24

24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord.

Daniel 4:23

23 And whereas the king saw a watcher and an holy one coming down from heaven, and saying, Hew the tree down, and destroy it; yet leave the stump of the roots thereof in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beasts of the field, till seven times pass over him;

Matthew 6:10

10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Luke 11:2

2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

Acts 2:19

2 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

Romans 10:18

18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

Colossians 1:16

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

1 John 5:8

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Revelation 5:3

3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.

Revelation 12:9

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Luke 11:2
2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
_______________________

NUFF SAID, Nils

Johannes 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

2014/10/18 at 5:56 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Nils Esche.
I hadn’t realized there are so many references to “in” the Earth rather than “on”. Excellent.

I didn’t read them all, but when you look at it from a concave perspective, interpretations can change a lot. Look at Revelation 12:9 near the end there.
The devil, Satan (the old serpent) was cast out into the Earth, and his angels with him. So the devil must live with us here in the Earth. Is this “hell”? Does he run this place? Is the devil Jehovah? Is Satan a reptoid? Now that is a big perspective change.

Also makes me wonder if “heaven” is outside the concave Earth. Is it the other side? Or is there another side at all? maybe everything is cavernous, or something else that doesn’t correspond to normal 3D geometry?

2014/10/19 at 3:43 pm
Nils Esche
In reply to Wild Heretic.
So, WH:

“So the devil must live with us here in the Earth. Is this “hell”? Does he run this place? Is the devil Jehovah?”

YES! He (Satan) runs this place – and Jehova is the devil as well (he has thousands of names).

I will go more into it later.

And I got this big perspective change as well. And it hit me like a hammer, too.

“Heaven” is inside earth, and as is it said in the bible, it is “heavens”, not “heaven”!

John 18:36: “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world…”

As i said to you before, you should look into it a bit more deeper, what scripture says!

I provide you all with a link:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5EtLmidKchvadyrEotfENg/videos

Try seeing it yourselves. You will get an idea there!

God bless you all, Nils

Johannes 14:6 “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

2014/10/19 at 7:21 pm
dizzib
whodotheyserve.com
In reply to Nils Esche.
Great post. I’ve just spot checked my English Standard Version (ESV) in ten places and it says ‘on earth’ in all but 2 cases. I’d wager other modern translations have this same ‘improvement’ too!

2014/10/20 at 11:57 am
Hernán Fuentealba
kaijuus-old-forum-post.blogspot.com.ar

the reason gravity comes from outside may not be due earth concavity, but because simple stars and sun and moon and earth makes an interactive attraction and rejection force, if you place a magnet with the same poles one over the other you will see the rejection is stronger as they get nearby, the same experience we fell on earth, in other order of things, also is possible that atmospheric pressure makes most of the effect of gravity, since balloons doesn’t seem affected by gravity because they are less dense than air. if the earth was concave we could not see the sun illuminating one continent and no the other. I think earth must be bigger and sun much smaller. so the earth may seem to be flat or concave in some parts, and that’s why the sun not shines the whole surface of earth

2014/10/29 at 4:43 am
Ivan

The fatal mistake for this theory would be objects, such as stars or the sun/moon, appearing to rise from the horizon. In a concave model, it would be impossible for any object to appear to rise from the horizon because there would not be physical room for such. Objects would have to make ” contact ” with the ground , which we know does not happen. In the concave model, there would always be a visible ” gap ” between Earth and ” heavenly bodies. Nice try though. Very creative imaginations. You should write science fiction. I would definitely read it.

2014/11/04 at 5:12 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Ivan.
Keep reading.

2014/11/04 at 8:37 pm
Lord Steven Christ
missteribabylonestar.com/posthypnoticepiphany.html
In reply to Ivan.
a newb, lol.

2014/11/04 at 9:49 pm
Lord Steven Christ
missteribabylonestar.com/posthypnoticepiphany.html

Bipolar “Planetary” Nebulae in the concave earth…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0RiLixkftE

2014/11/04 at 10:33 pm
Ivan
In reply to Wild Heretic.
The Tamarak mine experiment is flawed because there is less mass between then shafts than there is on the outside of each shaft. Thus the pull of gravity along the entire length of string to the balls is on the outside . Not a large amount, mind you, probably enough to spread the balls a minuscule amount. Say, like, less than a ten of a foot over several thousand feet ? There is no reason to assume the photo of the soldiers pointing their telescope up is a photo of them taking measurements. It is more likely a publicity photo which would look quite boring with the telescope level. Keppler’s ” half balls” are visibly different than the “flat” photos shown. He tried hard but there are errors in the shading of the oceans. Oops. I have been in a balloon, as have many others, never saw a bowl. Nobody else seems to make a big issue of it either. Additionally, I have been in small, low flying aircraft as well as jets, and there have been an innumerable number of pilots since aviation began. Nobody claims to have been flying inside a ball. I’m not even gonna touch the rectilineator. There are so many problems with the details of this floppy board contraption it isn’t even funny. I’d say your odds dropped from 99.99% to about 25%. Somebody with better math skills than me would need to finish the work on the Tamarak errors. What else Ya got. You still have the problem of heavenly bodies appearing to rise from the ground. It works for a convex, but fails for concave. You would see a gap. Thanks. Don’t consider myself a troll, just someone who has viewed all the evidence presented by you and “The Lord ” and find it lacking. It’s important to me that people accept the fact that Earth is not some kind of special object outside of what we observe in the universe. Beliefs like these create a theology and theism holds back the species. I enjoy your ideas though. Keep me coming. Unless of course Spaceship 2 hit the glass ceiling and broke because it didn’t have carbon fiber panels on it.
Suggestions : Get Stevie to pop for a steel beam long enough to redo the rectilineator experiment. And some qualified professionals to perform it and interpret the data.
Get a model rocket license and a giant paintball and we’ll see if we can tag the glass dome. I realize the glass ceiling isn’t your belief, but “Jesus V2.x ” paying attention, so he can take the idea and run.
Peace.

2014/11/05 at 2:42 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Ivan.
You didn’t keep reading and haven’t obviously reviewed all the evidence. Continue reading and comment below the individual articles, not here.

I agree that the T experiment was flawed. The possible secret one’s results were not revealed if they existed at all.
I agree. Balloon viewpoints are inconclusive.
The rectilineator experiment was extremely thorough and peer-reviewed by opposers such as yourself and is a slam dunk.
The horizon issues – keep reading the articles underneath especially the one marked “bendy light the evidence” and “horizon”.
Give me the money for materials and engineers and I’ll send up a rocket with enough fuel for 200km altitude and let’s see how far it gets, if anything is left of the wreckage of course after it hits the glass. PM me and I’ll give you the address for you to send the blank cheques. Although since you appear to have very deep pockets, why not do a few of those experiments yourself if you are interested in revealing the true shape of the Earth?

Lastly, the rectilineator scientific experiment showed that the concave Earth is not a theology. Heliocentric theory is however, and has 5 to 7 major problems against it with no experimental proof for it whatsoever. A lovely science fiction philosophy though.

The rest is up to you.

2014/11/05 at 3:08 pm
Ivan
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Thanks. Not sure why you would gather I have “deep pockets “. I’m poor. If I had money I would gladly fund experiments on this type of subject. Sorry I can’t help. I suggested that Steve foot the bill since he should be able to turn lead into gold, so cash shouldn’t be an issue for him. The rectilineator still poses problems. I would need you to refer me to the source for the peer review materials and I will gladly asses them. Since only one section of the device exists we have no way of confirming it’s accuracy based on this piece. Also, a review of measuring standards and tolerances in history reveals,that pre WWII tolerances were generally good to about .050″ per 5″. Stack up tolerance for 21780′ at .050″ per 12′ section comes out to 90’8”. In other words, I doubt the could have managed .005″ tolerance over a 4 1/8 mile run. I would certainly like to see the certification for their measuring devices since calipers where only just becoming common and even assembly lines used fixed gauges for manufacturing. Clearance issues were hand filed until the gauge fit. I just don’t think this experiment has the credibility you attribute too it.
Bendy light and horizons is also no joy for both you and I . By “debunking” pictures of Earth from space, using lens tricks to go from convex to flat to concave, Steve invalidates the use of optical observation for both of us.from where I live, I can see lake Ontario on certain clear days. On other equally clear days I cannot. This implies the differences are due to atmospheric conditions and would be consistent with a convex Earth. If the Earth was concave, I would be able to see the lake every day, regardless of what the atmosphere was doing because it would be above my location at all times.for me, this is a fail, but since I admit we can’t use such evidence as proof, we are stuck. I don’t claim victory, just a serious stalemate.
Additionally, I would have to strongly disagree with you about the idea that heliocentricity is theology. I don’t think you are using the word right. Heliocentric models are simply based on observations of other celestial bodies, shapes and movements. It can absolutely be wrong and subject to scientific change, but it is not theology. In contrast, you should realize that assuming Earth is some kind of terrarium for our species, even if it is a scientific experiment, wreaks of theism. Whether you believe in God, the Divine Architect, alien zoologists or whatever, you believe we inhabit a reality different from what we observe. You believe we live in a manufactured environment which means we have no real history or purpose beyond the designs of those who put us here. Existence at the behest of another entity is, in fact, theology.
Finally, I may have to accuse you and other concave Earthers of a massive conspiracy to get free flights into space when private travel becomes reality. By vocally poo-pooing the round Earth theory you have guaranteed someone will foot the bill for you and Steve to show you the truth. I am of course just joking. In reality, I have no problem with the theory you present, only that the evidence seems wanting. I have no problem if we are inside other than the lack of space, planets, galaxies, etc. While disappointing, I was never a candidate to experience any of these things for real anyway. I would welcome actual hard proof that you are correct. It would be a game changer for me though, instead of living in a way which encourages the good of humanity, I would have to adopt a ” no point except winner take all philosophy ” . Many others would as well and this would not be good for the species. One would them hope you are incorrect. Thanks again for responding. Typos are a human thing, sorry for any I make.

2014/11/05 at 5:12 pm
Lord Steven Christ
missteribabylonestar.com/posthypnoticepiphany.html
In reply to Ivan.
NSA/XKEYSCORE, please place this “Ivan” on the FEMA Detention List. Maybe later in a location that is directly under a hole in the glass sky and possibly a megacryometeor can have a near miss, putting some fear of God in him, tia.

2014/11/05 at 6:02 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Ivan.
Let’s break it down.

The rectilineator still poses problems. I would need you to refer me to the source for the peer review materials and I will gladly asses them. Since only one section of the device exists we have no way of confirming it’s accuracy based on this piece. Also, a review of measuring standards and tolerances in history reveals,that pre-WWII tolerances were generally good to about .050″ per 5″. Stack up tolerance for 21780′ at .050″ per 12′ section comes out to 90’8″. In other words, I doubt the could have managed .005″ tolerance over a 4 1/8 mile run. I would certainly like to see the certification for their measuring devices since calipers where only just becoming common and even assembly lines used fixed gauges for manufacturing. Clearance issues were hand filed until the gauge fit. I just don’t think this experiment has the credibility you attribute too it.

You have no idea of the tolerances of the rectilineator… and neither do I except what Morrow tells us in his book. You are looking at a generalization of general equipment pre-ww2. The rectilineator was beyond thorough though. It was measured and tested many times by many different people of different viewpoints and then results just happened to nearly perfectly coincide with a concave Earth. I’m sure that was just an absolutely massive co-incidence. 😉 If their equipment was not accurate enough, or faulty as you suggest (what else can they say to protect current dogma?) then the results would not just happen to coincide with a concave Earth, they would be all over the place.

Bendy light and horizons is also no joy for both you and I .

Nope, it’s a slam dunk. The only way to refute it is to use exactly the same tactic as you have used for the rectilineator and that is to say Wilhelm Martin’s test was faulty. No other way. If it isn’t faulty, then classic helio and geocentric models are completely off the cards. It’s game over with no credits left… and that’s not the only massive issue with those models as they well know.

By “debunking” pictures of Earth from space, using lens tricks to go from convex to flat to concave, Steve invalidates the use of optical observation for both of us.from where I live, I can see lake Ontario on certain clear days. On other equally clear days I cannot. This implies the differences are due to atmospheric conditions and would be consistent with a convex Earth. If the Earth was concave, I would be able to see the lake every day, regardless of what the atmosphere was doing because it would be above my location at all times.for me, this is a fail, but since I admit we can’t use such evidence as proof, we are stuck. I don’t claim victory, just a serious stalemate.

And what could that change in atmospheric conditions be? Certainly not refraction over those distances. It’s obvious what those conditions could be since you’ve read the bendy light article. They could be changes in the Earth’s electric field. Why are those long distance horizons always over water? Water vapour is less dense than air and refracts light in the other direction no less! (which could be a contender for the long horizons in a concave Earth, but of course wouldn’t work in a convex one). Light bends (so forget convex theory. It’s wrong.) and Martin showed that light had varied bend depending on the time of day (and even direction), which again coincidentally ties in with being able to see really large distances at night over water. He didn’t have enough data over the entire year to determine seasonal variation, and so that would need to be looked into. Super long distance horizon are not a 100% convex debunk, but they have yet to explain why it happens. It’s the bending light that ends it all.

Additionally, I would have to strongly disagree with you about the idea that heliocentricity is theology. I don’t think you are using the word right. Heliocentric models are simply based on observations of other celestial bodies, shapes and movements. It can absolutely be wrong and subject to scientific change, but it is not theology. In contrast, you should realize that assuming Earth is some kind of terrarium for our species, even if it is a scientific experiment, wreaks of theism.

There has been one and only one scientific experiment to determine the true shape of the Earth and they are praying that they did it faulty despite what I mentioned above. That experiment said the earth is concave. Mathematically, observations of the Sun, stars etc. can be equally valid in a concave Earth as well as a convex one. It is theology. They believe that the Earth goes round the Sun as it can be mostly made to fit with the observations of the Sun and stars. I say mostly, because it can’t explain the 4 min per 24 hour faster rotation of the stars than the Sun (look at sculelos’s articles on the flat Earth society forum, or wait a while for my version). It doesn’t explain the Sun arcs accurately either as I’ve already pointed out.

A belief without scientific experiment is a philosophy. It’s promotion as the truth makes it a theology. That is what used to gall me with heliocentric theory. I’m way beyond that now, but I will come full circle.

Whether you believe in God, the Divine Architect, alien zoologists or whatever, you believe we inhabit a reality different from what we observe. You believe we live in a manufactured environment which means we have no real history or purpose beyond the designs of those who put us here. Existence at the behest of another entity is, in fact, theology.

Yes, that is a belief or rather one of many beliefs. I agree that that part is a speculative philosophy. I do not for one moment say that that is the truth and ram it down people’s throats via an educational system, be it a church or a university; and so no that isn’t a theology. It is a possibility though. I hope to speculate with others later on and lay down lots of possible ideas. I’ll be looking at Genesis and other creation “myths” after that too as some of them have a whole different meaning after looking at the information in this blog. Some real eye-openers there I can tell you.

Finally, I may have to accuse you and other concave Earthers of a massive conspiracy to get free flights into space when private travel becomes reality. By vocally poo-pooing the round Earth theory you have guaranteed someone will foot the bill for you and Steve to show you the truth. I am of course just joking. In reality, I have no problem with the theory you present, only that the evidence seems wanting. I have no problem if we are inside other than the lack of space, planets, galaxies, etc. While disappointing, I was never a candidate to experience any of these things for real anyway. I would welcome actual hard proof that you are correct. It would be a game changer for me though, instead of living in a way which encourages the good of humanity, I would have to adopt a ” no point except winner take all philosophy ” . Many others would as well and this would not be good for the species. One would them hope you are incorrect. Thanks again for responding. Typos are a human thing, sorry for any I make.

There is really only one hard proof and that is the rectilineator experiment. Having said that, all other proofs that make helio/geo/and flat earth theory redundant are still possible, and even very likely with concave Earth theory… if that makes sense. That is the state of it. The more you dig, the more it makes sense. IMO we will never have mainstream support backup in our lifetimes at the very least. So we can only convince ourselves (or unconvince if that is a word) as to what the truth really is.

At least you are open to different models. These things can take time… or sometimes not. Don’t worry about typos, I am not a grammar nazi and don’t care about such things. Oh, and no, being good may be even more desirable in an artificial concave earth if this place is a lab or testing ground. If it’s just a farm and the creators don’t care then whatever… even then. Anyway, that’s a topic for another day perhaps and not something for me to worry about just yet. 😉

2014/11/05 at 6:43 pm
Ivan
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
Oh, Steve ! If the NSA pays any attention to what you say at all, it is directly related to your own past. If NSA pays attention to ANYTHING I might do, they truly have their priorities messed up. There are lots of dangerous people in the world they should be watching. Besides, my man, why would they care about a sheep who drinks the Koolaid-aid of a round Earth like me ? Wouldn’t they be infinitely more worried about someone who has ” figured out ” the lies ? No, I think all the concave Earthers, false flag, moon hoax, Middle East debunkers, holocaust deniers, etc are going to get the first rooms at FEMA. Guys like me are the little drones they want to keep. Someone has to pick the food and collect their trash after they deport all the Mexicans and lock guys like you up,right ? I did send 60 minutes an email asking them to do a special on you though. I think the world needs to meet you. You tube is great for a certain crowd, but you need to reach a larger audience. Confronting people at a UFO conference really only results in ridicule. If your serious about your message, you need to get more support from the steeple. I hope they contact you. You’re welcome in advance. With a guy like you on national television ( for something other than murder threats ) you might just get the world to demand the truth once and for all. As I’m have said to WH, I would actually be OK with this idea, I just want to know for sure.if there is a glass ceiling, I am so serious about shooting paintballs at it. A little stained glass over head might be a nice change. As far as the fear of God goes, don’t have any, never will. If God exists, he knows where I’m at anytime he wants to chat. Until then, your theory actually goes farther to prove aliens put us here than to prove a God. It explains the fossil record quite nicely. After all, you don’t throw out the fish tank cuz the fish died. Maybe you get a snake next, or some hermit crabs or a spider. Point being, a ball terrarium probably represents an enormous effort to create. Gotta be good for multiple experiments. Peace brother. I hope you find yours.

2014/11/06 at 12:32 pm
Ivan
In reply to Wild Heretic.
WH, I was wondering about your opinion on something. We get shown all these gigantic holes around the world and I think ( not sure) the deepest one is around 17.5 km. since the government would have to know for sure if you are right about concave Earth, do you think they have a secret effort to drill through to the outside ? They would undoubtedly be deeper than any public hole we are aware of. Or is the outer shell likely all lava? I have also been pondering the optical purity that a glass ceiling would need to have, do think it could actually be as clear as it would seem to be? I have been racking my brain trying to come up with a way to get high enough to check for my self. It just seems to high for any garage based effort I could mount. Is there any plan by concave Earthers I could join where resources could be pooled to find out for sure. I think this needs an answer once and for all. Thanks. I apologize for picking on Steve on your forum, I simply can’t take him seriously. I think he is lucky he is so good at explaining this theory, otherwise he damages the credibility of your movement with all the second Jesus, NSA stuff.

2014/11/06 at 5:41 pm
Lord Steven Christ
missteribabylonestar.com/posthypnoticepiphany.html
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
aww Ivy. looks like you are getting perspective, maybe you can ponder this objective scenario…

If the part in the bible is true where it says that the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, the world and they that dwell therein (Psalm 24:1), and if I am the Lord, and if the earth is concave with glass in the sky, then any contribution to the theory of the concave earth with glass in the sky is set to MY acceptance of it and not the reciprocal.

2014/11/06 at 7:01 pm
Ivan
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
Your statement confuses me. Unless you are making another attempt to sell me on your divinity, you totally lost me. It’s a pity too bro, you have mad skills at explaining the concave Earth theory. If you were to drop the second coming stuff and , you know,maybe stop calling people who haven’t opened their minds enough to ponder this idea retards, you could gain a huge amount of traction. You really do seem quite intelligent, WH and you could wind up in the history books as the modern day Galileo if you are correct. Even if you have yourself absolutely convinced you are the sun of god ( Ra ), I personally believe your following is quite small. Mainstream Christians think you are a blasphemer and you really need their support to further research into this matter. Let go of your ego and be the change in the world you seek. You already have way too many non- Jesus incidents in your past to be the real deal. Maybe if you hadn’t slipped out of character so many times. Back to the relevant matter, I am continuing to pursue my own investigation of this theory, there is some good evidence here. I saw someone question why pilots don’t have to continually pull back on the yoke to maintain level flight. I believe the answer was something to the effect of ” the same reason they don’t have to keep pushing forward in a convex model. I chewed on this for a while but it comes back as a fail, gravity pulls down on the plane and the planes forward motion causes it to follow the convex surface. No trim is needed. However, if the ether is pushing down on the plane in a concave model there is actually a greater requirement to continually ” pull up ” to maintain
level flight. I need clarification. I have also questioned some commercial airline pilots who have logged many hours at 40,000 ft. ceilings. Their responses don’t reflect a concave Earth. I’m willing, and trying, to reconcile this idea with observation but as soon as I accept one piece of evidence something comes along that raises doubt. Please explain in the least condescending way possible, you’ve got my attention but I can easily pass summary judgement if you don’t seem to take your own idea seriously. Thanks again, enjoying the forum. Peace.

2014/11/07 at 3:19 am
Lord Steven Christ
missteribabylonestar.com/posthypnoticepiphany.html

My comments are not appearing….

2014/11/09 at 3:19 pm
Roy Tribble

I’m not done reading the site, so you may have already addressed this, but here are the big problems that stand out to me:

1) Lunar eclipses. Still can’t wrap my mind around that. And I sure as heck don’t think it’s “some other object” as flat Earthers say. Must have something to do with bending / lensing effect, the thing is it’s gotta happen to where it appears it’s the shadow of the Earth (we know that’s not possible if it’s concave, right?). I also think Blood Moons are sunlight shining through the Earth’s atmosphere and reflecting upon the Moon’s surface. I suppose that can still be explained with a concave cosmology.

2) Maybe near 100k up there really IS no gravity! Maybe we can get satellites up there and they orbit along with the inner sphere.

3) It’s hard for me to believe all the video of people living in ISS are “CGI”. Looks real to me, I think they are indeed in weightlessness. Maybe it’s entirely congruent. Maybe there IS a space station up there, it’s just at the edge of “space” before the glass ceiling. Let’s face it, most space activity seems to all take place in low Earth orbit.

4) Still can’t wrap my mind around all space missions being hoaxes, every one of them, the Moon landings, all probes, etc. Sure, they’ve sent stuff up, but it would hit the glass dome or the inner sphere at some point and blow up or bounce off, or get absorbed.

5) It’s interesting about the 90 degree angle meteor impacts, but aren’t there steaks on the Moon?

6) I think Joe Parr’s stuff is significant, with the energized pyramid that forms a circle around it, floats, shows odd properties. He showed there was an 11 year cycle, just like the Sun.

7) So if the Sun is small and a sulfur disk — what’s all the talk about solar “radiation”, flares, filaments, CME’s, etc. about? On and on.

8) I can buy stars are solumlumence bubbles suspended in water (or something), but what I’m confused by are asteroids floating out there, planets, comets, etc. — what are these things? Just stuff littered about between the glass dome and the inner sphere, floating around it?

9) What are supernovas, pulsars, etc? All of these space things seem to show observable properties that make them complex. What about stars with wobbles, i.e. planets? It would suggest a little sonoluminescent bubble has a little planet buzzing around it.

More needs to be done to address this stuff — that said, I think it’s possible ALL of it could be congruent within a concave cosmology. This cosmology requires you to make things smaller, and basically flip your brain like a mirror to conceptualize some of it.

That’s all for now.

2014/11/09 at 6:45 pm
Roy Tribble

I also wanted to add that what may be on “the other side” is just another Earth (I mean the place you would go if you went through the two portals in the north or south pole to the “outside”), a repeating Russian doll universe, over and over. This would suggest another, smaller outer/inner Earth exists somewhere within the big suspended ball we’re staring at when we look at the sky. It would presume the light we’re getting from the Sun in our inner world is also feeding an outer world deep within the inner sphere of our world (one we can’t see, but essentially would be in front of us if we looked up into the “sky”, buried behind a few layers of “stuff”, possibly existing within the pyramid.

This doll theory would be infinite, of course. From big to small, but time / gravity properties might change with size, too. Sounds like a multiverse idea, but it’s not quite.

Kind of explains, too, why things are “bigger” on the outer crust — animals, trees, birds, as reported in legends — as you graduate within the “dolls”, sizes change.

2014/11/09 at 7:00 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
Could be because I didn’t check the blog yesterday. Not sure. Try again if you like.

2014/11/10 at 11:53 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Roy Tribble.
Thought a little bit about that. It would explain the giantism, but in the Smokey God it was always daytime with a purple hazy Sun I think it was. I can’t see how it could be this way on a convex shape. It could just be a different size cavity with perhaps a little bit different physical laws. I’m not sure. The brain synapse idea was brought up and could be something like that, or the holes near the poles are something like “dimensional” wormholes to other worlds (cavities?). I don’t know.

2014/11/10 at 11:56 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Roy Tribble.
I personally think astronomy physics needs a “start-again” reset on everything from gravity to “solid balls orbiting” etc. I can’t answer all the questions. I will probably have a go at stars/comets/asteroids as my last input on this all. Here is my opinion:

I agree on the lensing effect. At the moment I’ve stumbled across a possibility that the moon could be a concentrated reflection of parts of the Earth, but I am not sure. The eclipse is likely an optical issue rather than balls in space blocking our view etc.
Maybe, but I think the Sun is culprit. The two leading theories of gravity in a concave Earth is a spinning bucket motion (centrifugal force) and the electric field. Johannes Lang went for the electric field and so do I, except that it is the Sun’s electric field that dominates. I can’t see the spinning bucket to be correct because firstly there is no evidence (or common sense) of the Earth moving and secondly the centrifugal force would be vastly diminished at the poles as the poles are right on the central vertical axis. The only culprit that makes sense to me is the Sun’s electric field which would mean that gravity increases the closer to the Sun we get.
I don’t think anything orbits above the glass. The space shuttle can resist both the thermosphere and melt the glass on reentry. It makes a parabolic arc up and then down. No floating at all. That’s my take on it. Its very easy to fake people floating around the ISS. Kubrick did it in 1968 and so we can now.
The number one reason for breaking through the glass in the 80s IMO was to study the Sun. They weren’t 100% sure what the Sun was I think. It looks like they knew by 1986 for sure as that was when the first sulfur lamp was commissioned and then finally produced in 1990. It’s all graphics up there. The only video I have seen from NASA that it is 100% genuine is the booster rocket camera up to about 40km I think it is. They even stated that no trickery was involved! A bizarre thing to say. It’s beyond reasonable doubt suspicious that there has never been a full video of any space travel from launch to “orbiting” or “moon landing”. If a camera couldn’t stand the heat on re-entry (I’m sure they could insulate one) then why not have a camera looking out of the shuttle window from launch to its target. It’s all CGI, underwater tank etc.
Electric universe people think craters are electrical affects. I think it could be reflections of parts of the Earth’s crust (which could also link to the negatively charged field). I don’t know.
I will have to look into that more about the 11 year cycle. I saw a good website on Joe Parr, but needs further research.
Solar radiation is UV, the rest is the Van Allen Belts. Flares, filaments, CMEs etc. are sometimes parts of the Sun (asteroids/comets/meteorites) which break off because of electrical discharge from the carbon electrode. Sometimes they aren’t though. They are definitely always electrical discharge though IMO. I mention this in the article.
Good question. Personally at the moment I think stars are just bits of the Sun (asteroids etc.) which are caught in its electric field, but this requires a lot more research as, as far as I know, I don’t think anything here on Earth can get trapped by an electric field – it either attracts or repels.
I put planets in the same category as the moon. I don’t know about the rest (galaxies pulsars etc.). Steve has some videos on them. I don’t think I’ll ever go into that topic except that the “Milky Way” looks to be the Sun’s electric field band that stars follow. We will see.

I don’t agree with Sculelos (flat earth forum) of everything we know about the convex cosmology is just flipped and we get smaller and smaller the higher we go. (Sounds like the Egyptian mathematician’s take on the concave earth). Sure, the results of effects like gravity can and must be switched, but I stop at that.

2014/11/10 at 12:31 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Roy Tribble.
Amazing Don, truly an outstanding find.

2014/11/10 at 1:18 pm
Lord Steven Christ
missteribabylonestar.com/posthypnoticepiphany.html

New video, Seasons in the COncave Earth…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrcwpwhChUg

2014/11/12 at 5:04 am
maturity
youtu.be/L3srQA1Qj7hmm

After I originally left a comment I appear to have clicked on the -Notify me when new comments are
added- checkbox and now every time a comment is added I receive four emails with the exact
same comment. Perhaps there is an easy method you are able to remove me from that service?
Cheers!

2014/11/21 at 12:20 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to maturity.
I’ll have a look…

Couldn’t see anything in the discussion menu. If you know where I can switch this off my end let me know and I’ll do it.

2014/11/21 at 12:23 pm
sumstuff52[Donald Sarty]

In your face subliminal 😉

The Universe In a Nutshell
S. Hawking

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/stephenhawking-theuniverseinanutshell-140802093547-phpapp01/95/stephen-hawking-the-universe-in-a-nutshell-1-638.jpg?cb=1406990442

2014/11/21 at 1:54 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to sumstuff52[Donald Sarty].
Nice! What people don’t realize is that they mean this nearly literally. 🙂

2014/11/21 at 2:21 pm
Jonathan Glassel

WH, this is a pretty good video series that covers a lot of the same things you do.

http://youtu.be/xaJRZoogWNM?list=PLs2iUBFlEvfH_vdAxAP6geXhaDAMinBwq

At 13:50 surveying is discussed. For me, this is the smoking gun, if the surveyor quoted is correct, our national coordinate and elevation system is based upon the concave model. This should be easily proven.

Hoping some other surveyors can verify this. Having done road and highway construction, I used a Sokkia Total Station and an SDR 33 data collector. I taught myself to run the equipment, but was never schooled on the why and the wherefore of proper surveying.

I always wondered why the curvature of the earth was never involved in the calculations. Of coarse, if we were working off of predetermined coordinates and elevations that were already fudged for the concave curvature, it makes sense.

2014/11/25 at 4:07 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Jonathan Glassel.
Fascinating. Karol and myself both started looking at concave Earth around the same time as Steven gave us a reminder. I have seen his skycentrism videos too. The concave surveying co-ordinates would definitely be the smoking gun. If I can get the data and understand it enough to comment I’ll have a go at it at some time.

2014/11/25 at 4:57 pm
Jonathan Glassel
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Rectilineator Experiment could be duplicated fairly inexpensively using modern surveying equipment like a total station which is a level, transit and Theodolite in one package. I have taken readings from a mile away 15 years ago. The equipment is probably better today.

My understanding is that elevations shown on construction plans are based on “Sea Level.” Houston is about 10 feet above, Denver is about 5,000 feet above sea level and Death Valley is about 1,000′ below sea level.

Original Elevation Benchmarks were placed by an agency of the government throughout the country. Every road and bridge would have several benchmarks on it.

So, if we started on the coast, established our benchmark near the water and starting taking shots as we went inland, after a mile or two, we should start to see a pattern similar to Rectilineator. It would not be all that much effort to check 25 miles or more.

If the coordinates have been fudged, it should be quite obvious the difference between concave and convex elevations will become too huge to ignore.

I am in Houston, not too far from Galveston but my equipment is long gone. Not sure how we could commission an engineering firm to certify the results, though.

2014/11/27 at 12:21 am
Jonathan Glassel
In reply to Jonathan Glassel.
Comments from a VT Columnist (George writes as Jack Heart)

Jonathan Glassel Hoping to find surveying folks out there. Apparently the world system of coordinates are based upon a concave Earth. Which means we reside on the inside! Also see The Wild Heretic

“When you have eliminated all which is … is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

George Esposito Correct Jonathan Glassel, the National Socialists were targeting their rockets using coordinates taken from Cyrus Teed better known as Koresh. his concave model of the earth was never dis-proven, nor the ten thousand dollar reward offered to do so ever collected.Unfortunately i can’t use him because Teed has wiped clean from history except as a curiosity. But if anyone has an old edition of Encyclopedia of the Unknown they will find it there.

2014/11/27 at 12:37 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Jonathan Glassel.
Jonathan, so basically if we marked a level location with the equipment and took the government sea level readings into account, then we should see an increasing difference in “height” on the ground as we travel further inland. Have I understood that correctly?

I have no surveying skills.

Can we trust the government sea level readings? Or have they incorporated a presumed convex or even concave Earth?

Interesting video by Karol on map projection used until the 50s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6L0Mo6ES-s&list=UUrbDK0rpMta34nEzS2hinkQ

I was just thinking, why not use the total station along a very long beach, very near the water like the rectilineator as that should help eliminate, or at least greatly dampen, sea level variations? The total station uses light to measure both distance and slope it seems. Because light bends, perhaps an amalgamation of very short distances can be used just like the short length wooden beams of the rectilineator. I’m pretty sure that would work.
http://www.tcd.ie/civileng/Staff/Brian.Caulfield/3A1/3A1%20Lecture%208.pdf

2014/11/27 at 2:53 pm
Jonathan Glassel
In reply to Wild Heretic.
The Total Station should be able to duplicate the Rectilineator along a beach, taking shots every 500′ or so. Since the earth concaves in every direction, we should be able follow an existing seaside road to compare with gov’t benchmarks and get the same results.

We can establish our own “sea level” as a base. Then with the sea at our back, we move inland and compare our sea level with the gov’ts benchmarks and see if a pattern develops.

2014/11/28 at 10:34 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Jonathan Glassel.
This sounds very promising. We need to get hold of a total station and a person who can read it and verify it. I could learn to use it, but an outside engineer or even better an engineering firm to help and also verify the results would be the way to go.

Could the total station also be used to measure bending light at a greater distance than 1km? (1500m and 2km I was thinking of). In this way we could tell for sure that light bends upwards and not just bends any old way.

A third experiment is needed to verify the stars and moon visibility with balloons. All this costs money of course, but at least we have 3 constructive experimental ideas to ponder.

2014/11/28 at 11:51 pm
sumstuff52[Donald Sarty]

Come and weigh in guys, i suggested CET is a good theory to check into, we need to get this important info out there, you’ll see WH’s link
https://www.facebook.com/ancientaliens
Ancient Aliens
20 hours ago
What’s your favorite theory? #AncientAliens