Skip to main content Link Search Menu Expand Document (external link)

Comments (Concave Earth Theory)

Page 13

2015/01/29 at 1:25 pm
    Wild Heretic
In reply to karol.
OK, I get you now. But this is assuming straight light though isn’t it?

If you can see a light over 11km, then this is certainly evidence against the straight light convex model.

2015/01/29 at 11:11 pm
In reply to karol.
WH – we don’t know how much it would bend up on such distance. It could even be negligible. If you hit the target with laser well below the supposed convexity, then the lake is surely not convex. You can always try with different heights and adjust the laser beam.
This guy will make an experiment on 3,75 mile distance. The supposed bulge in the middle due to ‘convexity’ would be 2.3 ft.
If he places the laser and the camera at let’s say 8 inches above water surface and picks up the beam on the other side then well..goodbye convex Earth.

2015/01/30 at 11:35 am

Hi, WH, what’s your opinion of Walter Russel’s observations of the invisible, yet detectable space gases which make up the fabric of the concave universe? And his theory of omnipresent still magnetic light which is simulated through positive and negative electricity? Do you see an inconsistency with the modern cosmological structure of the atom? Modern plasma theorists believe that electricity creates magnetic wave fields, but Russell states the contrary. Maybe by understanding the true structure of each particle and cell, we can see exactly how the concave universe looks? I was looking in the mirror and comparing the structure of our eyes to the whole model. I see the cornea and sclera as the invisible firmament, and the lens as maybe the sun? Perhaps the optic nerve could be the hole which connects the eye to the rest of the body’s components? Just an interesting synchronicity…..

2015/01/30 at 11:36 am
    Wild Heretic
In reply to karol.
Gotcha. Yeah go for it. Will be very interesting.

2015/01/30 at 11:56 am
In reply to Wild Heretic.
A simple thought experiment.

A Plane’s altitude during flight:

  1. If the Earth is convex then after taking off and reaching a certain altitude, a Pilot would have keep adjusting the altitude of the Plane to a lower level, if not, they would end up in “space”, before they begin descending for arrival.

  2. If the Earth is flat then after taking off and reaching a certain altitude, a Pilot would simply maintain the same altitude of the Plane before they begin descending for arrival.

  3. If the Earth is concave then after taking off and reaching a certain altitude, a Pilot would have keep adjusting the altitude of the Plane to a higher level, if not, they would end up hitting the land or sea before they begin descending for arrival.

I am not a Pilot, but after researching I found out the following:

When a plane is flying, Pilots apply a technique known as a “Step Climb”. This is described on the wiki pages as “a series of altitude gains that improve fuel economy by moving into thinner air as an aircraft becomes lighter and becomes capable of faster, more economical flight.” This is applicable during the “cruise” part of the flight which compromises the “ascent and descent phases and is usually the majority of a journey. Technically, cruising consists of heading (direction of flight) changes only at a constant airspeed and altitude. It ends as the aircraft approaches the destination where the descent phase of flight commences in preparation for landing.”

Apologies, if this or something similar has been already posted, but I have read though a lot of this site and couldn’t see it.

Also, WH, I haven’t got round to responding to your reply on the holes at the poles section, particularly the Bible part, because I am busy with other work etc, but I will get round to it soon. Thanks for your work, God Bless.

2015/01/31 at 12:52 am
    Wild Heretic
In reply to LoveThyGodWithAllHeartSoulMind.
That is interesting. But if the plane is getting into thinner air, then it is getting higher which means that it is climbing with regards to the center of gravity, so unfortunately I don’t see this as evidence of a concave earth. Interesting find though.

2015/01/31 at 5:40 pm
    karol 🙂

2015/01/31 at 7:22 pm
    sumstuff52[Donald Sarty]

Cold air is denser than warm air, and therefore has a greater refractive index. This means that as light passes down from cool to hot air, it gets bent upwards towards the denser air and away from the ground

So when making any observations and recording a great distance make sure that the water and the air are about the same temperature to lessen any refraction, i live in a cool climate and never see refraction or fata morgana in the winter time here, i see it on the long beaches here on hot sunny days

Just thought i would mention that in case someone did not 🙂

2015/02/03 at 5:24 pm
    sumstuff52[Donald Sarty]

Distant view of 533 km thanks to infrared photography

2015/02/03 at 5:33 pm
    sumstuff52[Donald Sarty]
In reply to sumstuff52[Donald Sarty].
The Geradstreckenverleger is a scientific proof of the inner world image
In the book “Does humanity a new world view”, book list , is on page 69:
Then you could see with the naked eye with dry air in winter:
*from a 15-meter-high ice floe at the North Pole, a dog team with other members of the expedition at a distance of 400 kilometers (Prof. Hobbs)
*from Strasbourg Cathedral (approximately 130 meters) Golden Horn in Constantinople Opel, distance 1980 km.
*of a volcano in Kamchatka to Ankara in Turkey. The volcano is about 3000 m high; the visibility was here about 8,000 kilometers
This distance views are in accordance with the Copernican doctrine simply absurd and impossible. Questionable is the full spherical earth on through the latest British invention of the “underwater eye” of the said in a Reuter message from 14.04.1960:
“According to British newspaper reports to British scientists working on the completion of an underwater eye, which submerged submarines can track up to 1600 km Distance and have nothing to do with radar.
The US should help finance the new system and due to the invention have changed program their own submarine. The new defense weapon would mean a complete revolution of recent submarine strategy, as well as nuclear submarines were already safely viewed by the expiry of their bases at up to a distance of 1600 km away. …

2015/02/03 at 6:01 pm

Hey all, great contributions as always. 🙂

Recently I saw a video on YouTube (and I think you saw it too Don, because I think you left a comment for it) but I can’t seem to find it now, maybe you can help:

The video was simple. It started with a guy showing a sketch, and then a minute later he shows us his own proof taken from a beach in which, while looking out towards the ocean, there is an island…

(an island, according to the convex-consensus, should obstruct the view of distant ships, as the guy reminded us in his initial sketch)

…and “low and behold, as I zoom in on the island now, the ships behind the island are plain to see, sitting high and proud ABOVE the island” (I’m paraphrasing from memory, I liked his ‘high and proud’ phrase and his lovely accent in general)


#1, Don did you happen to see and comment on that video, as I think I recall noticing?

#2, if so, could you please share a link of that here, so that we can download it before it gets erased by YouTube?

#3, Can anybody please remind me, according to the mainstream-convexity-consensus, how many kilometers SHOULD a 184cm human with toes in the water be able to see (using zoom, of course: telescope/binoculars/camera) before the supposed convexity of the earth completely hides a 10 meter high ship?

Now, that guy’s lovely video is a slam dunk proof of concavity n my opinion, because the island’s distance helps prove how far those ships are, that are sitting high and proud ABOVE the island.

The only problem with the video is that he didn’t film it with his toes in the water, he was standing on concrete which looks to me to be about 3 meters above the water.

So, as soon as we re-find this video, I’m going to download it and sow it to people, but I ave to be ready with the math.

I want to be able to say something lie this, I just need to fill in the X and Z with actual numbers:

“According to the mainstream-convexity-consensus, a 184cm human with toes in the water should be able to see (using zoom, of course: telescope/binoculars/camera) ONLY X KILOMETERS, before the supposed convexity of the earth completely hides a 10 meter high ship.”

“And, according to the mainstream-convexity-consensus, a 184cm human standing 3 meters above the water should be able to see (using zoom, of course: telescope/binoculars/camera) ONLY Z KILOMETERS, before the supposed convexity of the earth completely hides a 10 meter high ship.”

“And finally, as thoroughly disproved by this video here, according to the mainstream-convexity-consensus, a 184cm human standing 3 meters above the water should NOT be able to see (using zoom, of course: telescope/binoculars/camera) a 10 meter high ship sitting behind a 20 meter high island, an island which is 16 kilometers away.”

“Thus, according to the mainstream-convexity-consensus, this man’s video would only show ships behind the island if the island was much closer (insert quantitative mainstream calculation here) and since we know the distance of the island being filmed (insert actual distance of island here, my vague 16 kilometer recollection might be far from accurate), this video, if not forged, is proof that we live WITHIN a CONVEX sphere.”

So let’s find that video guys, and add it here!

By the way, having said all that, I still have one slight reservation. Perhaps the world’s owners, with their 99% of the world’s wealth, are using their resources to do the following:

take the 100km glass barrier reality, which is starting to be discovered by a small yet increasing percentage of the slaves

and mix that 100km glass barrier reality with forged concave earth evidence (because if they have the resources to forge convex evidence, they also have the resources to fake concave evidence)

and thus when intelligent people read about the 100km glass barrier only, just that one point, they would have a high chance of agreeing to the reality of this discovery

but when intelligent people read about the 100km glass barrier MIXED together with the concave talk, they would have a high chance of disagreeing with the concave part, and thus walk away throwing away the idea of the 100km glass barrier as well, since the two theories seemed so connected.

Imagine a fantasy conversation like this:

World Owner #1 says: “He, it looks like the 100km barrier is being discovered, what should we do?”

World Owner #2 replies: “Let’s take that fact, mix it together with some forged bullshit about concavity…

(and provide the truth seekers with lots of lovely evidence to support this concavity idea, just as we forged the bullshit “pod” images/videos and “dustification” images/videos)

…and thus when those intelligent people eventually realize that the bullshit shocking evidence was forged, they will throw away the false idea of concavity TOGETHER with the reality of the 100km barrier.”

World Owner #3 replies: “Great! Let’s do it. How about we start feeding compelling evidence of BOTH of these things, as a set package, to someone who appears crazy to the average person…

(e.g. Steve – no offense brother, I love you, I do not think you are lying at all about the evidence that has been shown to you, I’m simply saying that perhaps it was fed to you on purpose)

…and then we allow that crazy person’s videos to appear at the top of google’s search results and and YouTube’s suggested related videos…

…and yeah a few non-crazy-seeming folks (like Wild Heretic) will also start presenting the rational evidence we are releasing, but that’s fine too, as long as the truth seekers all unconsciously receive the following message: “It’s a package, if you tell people about the 100km barrier reality you must ALSO tell them about the concave earth theory. Talk about BOTH.” – That way, when average listeners refuse to accept the concave part, which most will, such listeners will ALSO refuse to accept the 100km barrier reality. Mission accomplished. The 100km barrier “theory” will thus be strongly squashed by 2020, all due to this mixing of other non-essential theories.”

World Owner #4 says, “Yeah, yeah, let’s add in more non-essential theories, such as redefining gravity. Just as the 100km barrier “theory” doesn’t need to have a concave-earth-theory attached to it, the concave-earth-theory itself doesn’t need to have a gravity-is-not-a-pull theory attached to it.

Now we’ve suddenly got a reality (100km barrier) packaged together with a falsehood (concavity) packaged together with another falsehood (gravity not a pull.) So eventually, some smart folks will realize, “Wait a second, the concavity theory doesn’t need to redefine gravity, since the most rational concavity theory puts us as a hollow sitting within millions of miles of ROCK, it is the mass of the ROCK which surrounds us that causes gravity, even in the concave theory. So why was this guy I respect pushing this unneeded extra theory. He must be wrong about that, and thus wrong about concavity, and thus wrong about the 100km barrier.” And thus, once again, mission accomplished, another thinker walks away from the 100km barrier reality.”

end fantasy conversation

OK, OK, I finally got off my chest some concerns I have, about this big package of lots of THEORIES-surrounding (and seemingly sullying) the 100km barrier REALITY.

And yet, having said all that, I still don’t know.

Perhaps the reality is 100km barrier PLUS concavity PLUS fancy-ether-push-gravity.

Perhaps the reality is 100km barrier PLUS concavity WITHOUT any fancy gravity change, since millions of miles of rock all around the hollow concave earth would provide the plain old mass-based-pull-gravity.

Perhaps the reality is 100km barrier, and that’s it.

Or, who knows, perhaps the reality is concave PLUS fancy gravity WITHOUT the 100km barrier.

But wait a second, I’m starting to confuse myself. Which part AM I most sure about?

I’m most sure about all NASA images/videos having evidence of forging.

So that evidence of NASA forgery makes me quite sure that there is a reason why we CAN’T go to the moon nor space stations.

So I guess the evidence of NASA forgery is proof to me that there is some kind of barrier preventing space exploration.

But I’m gonna’ go ahead and admit it: I don’t know. Maybe the forgery is a clever double-psych-out.

Meaning, perhaps they fake all the NASA stuff in a way that gets caught by attentive observers, and thus these smart people say “Hey, all this NASA forgery proves humans can’t leave earth, either due to a barrier and/or radiation and/or meteorites!” and thus these smart people, having found “the truth” resign themselves to being trapped here, while meanwhile the owners of earth ARE indeed traveling to, living on, growing food on, mining on, various other planets, and enjoying the spacious new land, a new frontier which they and only they get to enjoy.

Imagine them laughing at us, “We convinced the idiotic 90% of humanity that the Apollo footage was real (while pretending such an accomplishment is difficult), haha, THEN we convinced the smart 10% of humanity that leaving earth is absolutely impossible, totally impossible, don’t even try, you’ll die if you try, and thus we have secured all of this new frontier land for ourselves and our children! Ha! Fool both kinds of people with the same exact footage.”

I don’t know, maybe I should create a site that says,
“9-11 image/video fakery with simulated victim? YES
Subsequent faked false-flag-terrorism victims? YES
Occasional real false-flag-terrorism victims? YES
Mass faking of most images humans see? YES
Nuclear power-plants-and-bombs faked? YES
Humanity being trapped here on earth? MAYBE NOT…

I don’t know, sorry for the long rambling rant.

Back to my original questions, hey Don, did you see that “ships behind an island” video?


2015/02/04 at 6:20 am
    Wild Heretic
In reply to Observer.
1.84m – 4.8 km
4.84m – 7.9 km

6.5 miles (10.46km) away

I thought about it and there could be a natural reason for this observation. Perhaps the island is not perfectly level, i.e. the back of the island is higher than the front. This would raise the water level behind the island. Maybe that wouldn’t work though as the island, or piece of land jutting out has an ocean to the side of it and so the water must level out everywhere? No?

“Perhaps the reality is 100km barrier PLUS concavity PLUS fancy-ether-push-gravity.”

Correct. I’m writing about gravity now. Separating the observations from the theory and adding the anomalies.

Perhaps the reality is 100km barrier PLUS concavity WITHOUT any fancy gravity change, since millions of miles of rock all around the hollow concave earth would provide the plain old mass-based-pull-gravity.

Seemingly not correct. That doesn’t agree with one of the observations – latitude differential; and also it has a very hard time agreeing with the experimental anomalies (the connection between gravity, spin, electromagnetism, and resonant frequency.)

I’m most sure about all NASA images/videos having evidence of forging.
So that evidence of NASA forgery makes me quite sure that there is a reason why we CAN’T go to the moon nor space stations.


meanwhile the owners of earth ARE indeed traveling to, living on, growing food on, mining on, various other planets, and enjoying the spacious new land, a new frontier which they and only they get to enjoy. Imagine them laughing at us, “We convinced the idiotic 90% of humanity that the Apollo footage was real (while pretending such an accomplishment is difficult), haha, THEN we convinced the smart 10% of humanity that leaving earth is absolutely impossible, totally impossible, don’t even try, you’ll die if you try, and thus we have secured all of this new frontier land for ourselves and our children! Ha! Fool both kinds of people with the same exact footage.”

No “other planets”. Possibly and probably other “spaces” or “worlds” though.

2015/02/04 at 10:58 am
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Sorry for all the typos. I will be more careful from now on, to proofread before hitting send.

Wow, thanks WildHeretic 🙂 I should have known you would have such a good memory about these things, it’s like you’ve got the gift of total recall 😉

OK, so now thanks to you I’ve got that downloaded for posterity.

Hmmm, so if the guy’s camera was 4.8 meters above sea level (which seems to be a good conservative estimate)…

and if sea level is really level (it’s probably safe to say that the sea close to the cameraman in this video touches [and is thus level with] the ocean behind the island)…

then according to the convex-consensus-calculation…

the BOTTOM of the ship should supposedly start to disappear, due to the supposed convexity of the earth, when the ship is 7.9 kilometers from the camera….

Wow, this video shows that we can zoom in and plainly see the BOTTOM of the ship(s) sitting 10.46 kilometers away…

(with even the extra interesting bonus fact that water can STILL be seen even BEHIND the ship itself)

(meaning this 10.46 kilometer distant ship is still NOT EVEN CLOSE to “disappearing” behind any supposed “horizon cutoff line”, which the convex-consensus-calculation claims would begin hiding the bottom of the ship at 7.9 kilometers)

Thus the convex-consensus-calculator link posted above (thanks again WH) doesn’t even NEED to factor in the island height nor the ship height, because this calculation is all about the disappearance point of the BASE of the ship.

Convex Theory states that a ship’s bottom, filmed from 7.9km away, should be cut off by the horizon.

This video shows that a ship’s bottom, filmed from EVEN FURTHER away (10.46km) is NOT cut off by the horizon.

OK, so next someone simply needs to make a YouTube account, to contact that cameraman, to ask him exactly WHERE that lovely location is…

(with it’s lovely island’s measurable distance from the concrete, this island will help us PROVE that the ships behind the island are definitely NOT, as some naysayers would probably reply: “closer than 7.9km”.)

So we will find out where this place is, we will confirm the exact height of the filming spot, we confirm the exact distance to the far side of the island (hopefully further than 7.9km) and then various readers will visit and make their own recordings (thus decreasing the forgery concern by increasing the number of repeated-independent-tests from this beautiful location, which probably often has ships sitting behind that island, a quantifiably distant island, ready for their bases to plainly seen, not being cut off at all by any supposed 7.9km horizon line, ships sitting high and proud being plainly seen 10.46km away.

If enough people start posting videos from that location, what will the world’s owners do? Prevent ships from docking there anymore? Build a huge building on the island to block this evidence? Create some new fancy super-duper-refraction explanation? Have YouTube delete the videos and have google no longer show any search results leading to such video posed elsewhere? Illegally delete this site as well? Start hunting down and arresting on unrelated false charges the owners of the IP addresses from which these videos are uploaded from?

All of these possible upcoming attempts to squash this video location of concavity from being shown to humanity seem too outrageous, so they probably won’t do that.

I guess it’s safe to say, that if enough people visit that exact spot (and other spots like it as well, which we need to create a big list of these spots) and share the video evidence, and if enough people see these videos, then maybe, just maybe, we might be able to convince (both to ourselves AND to humanity in general) that earth IS a concave ball we live inside.

And about the 100km barrier, since it seems the supposed “amateur” videos sending hot-air-balloons-with-cameras-installed are all doing two suspicious things (using a fish-eye lens instead of a plain lens, and refusing to send the camera all the way up to the 100km barrier) then I guess we real amateurs actually have to physically put our money where our heart is by sending our own simple hot-air-balloons-with-plain-lens-cameras-installed ALL THE WAY UP TO THE 100km BARRIER, to record the balloon hitting the glass!


2015/02/04 at 2:46 pm
    Wild Heretic
In reply to Observer.
I think that problem with the balloons will be solved soon as some interested parties that have read this blog want to do experiments in that area. I think the balloons can’t get higher than about 45km (usually 30 or 35km) because of a lack of air pressure. They burst. Only a very expensive rocket has a chance… a very, very expensive rocket. Unless we all go “Tesla” and invent serious anti-gravity. Certain parts of the military likely have that tech to some degree anyway. They won’t be telling us any secrets anytime soon I think.

2015/02/04 at 10:37 pm


Amazing blog thank you. I true pioneer (LSC included 🙂

This is my first post however I have been following this site since Jan and as you can imagine is has been quite an eye opener – to say the least. I was introduced to the Flat earth model and then eventually saw LSC stuff, which is a better explanation in my opinion.

Before I go tell everyone, I have a few questions.

Back to basics for a second?!

1) In the concave earth, how do the oceans stay in there positions , and everyone feel like there upright all the time etc?

2) Why does the earth always look so flat (I almost feel its easier to explain to people that the earth is flat).

3) How do we account for all the ‘apparent’ satellites ans Satellite ‘industry’ (I’ve seen the videos and believe their fake) but there are 1000’s of people around the world that claim to work with or for that industry?!

4) What about the study of astrophysics, and space related ‘sciences’, and the $1,000,000,000’s that get spent on the study of plants, space, gravity etc ….. how come they missed it? and what are they still looking at?

Cheers – looking forward to your response.

2015/02/07 at 9:55 am
    Wild Heretic
In reply to Benji.

  1. Center of gravity. Up is towards the center of gravity in the middle of the Earth cavity. Down is towards the crust away from the center.

  2. Bendy light. A. If the Earth is flat and light is straight, then the Earth will look flat and the horizon will be very, very far away. B. If Earth is curved and light is straight, then the Earth will look curved (like in the film inception). C. If the Earth is curved and light is also curved, then the Earth will look flat. D. If the Earth is flat and light is curved, the Earth will look flat (but the horizon wouldn’t be very far at all).

It is impossible to tell the difference between A. C. and D. with the exception that the horizon distances would be vastly different. The truth seems to be C.

  1. 1000s work for the space agencies too. Compartmentalization is my guess. “Need-to-knows” will be members of the brotherhood organizations (Scottish and Yorkshire rite Freemasons I think). They are military organizations anyway. When was the last time you were informed by the military of their goings on? How about the Western alphabet agencies? How many work for them? I’m still waiting for my regular weekly phone call from the heads of these agencies as to what is really going on in the world and a good general debriefing as to all their secrets. Hasn’t happened yet, but fingers crossed. 😉

On satellites, I’m tending to think that some satellites are placed on the glass (resting) looking up at the Sun and possibly down to Earth (geostationary satellites). Logistically, that might not be too hard to do.

  1. The next couple of articles will shed more light on that. I’ll give you a treat and post one of those paragraph here first.

“Also note that when taking about charges in “deep” space, these haven’t necessarily been directly tested or observed (except by satellites, cough) but often seem to rely on computer modeling and replication in the lab which isn’t science in its strictest sense, i.e. direct experimentation and observation.

For instance, this concave Earth thesis is an amateur attempt at a possible explanation of our every day observations within the framework of the rectilineator and Wilhelm Martin’s bendy light experiments. Those two experiments are the science part of this blog; the rest is educated speculation within that framework that the Earth is concave and light bends upwards. The same applies to those “scientists” who input the data and apply it to their computer models based on heliocentric theory and a globe Sun. It is very important to differentiate between models (theory) and experiments (science) – the two are not the same.”

Hope that helps.


2015/02/07 at 10:19 am
    sumstuff52[Donald Sarty]

Water’s Concavity Visible

These are the most satisfactory observations thus far made by the Geodetic Staff, because the tests were more crucial. The results were conclusive, as they afforded an ocular demonstration of the earth’s concavity. A stake 2 feet in height was placed midway between the Observing Station and the target, with cross-bar at top of stake.

With the telescope at the same altitude, the cross-bar was observed to be a little below the top of the tar-get, with the target foreshortened by perspective to a breadth equal to about one half the length of the stake. With the visual axis of the telescope 2 inches above the water, the cross-bar was seen to be in line with the top of the target.

Besides this observation, an absolutely satisfactory view was had of the water surface itself. With the telescope placed absolutely level, the water appeared to slope gradually upward to the center of

p. 179

the telescopic field. With the objective end of the telescope placed a little upward from the true level, and with the water still visible near the objective end of the instrument, the actual concavity of the water–a mid-way depression–was clearly observable.

This midway depression was at the point of the stake with cross-bar midway between the point of observation and the target, from which midway depression there was a gradual slope upward to the target. This view was obtained by the long, terrestrial eye-piece, and also by the astronomical eyepiece, the concavity through the latter being the more marked. There could be no mistake as to the concave arc; the. water was seen to be not convex; it did not appear to be a plane, but concave!

2015/02/08 at 4:07 am
In reply to Wild Heretic.
WH – thanks for your reply.

I found this video by LSC on Satellites just after I posted my questions yesterday, I think it is a very good theory/possibility.

Also, when NASA did crack the glass sky and traveled into ‘Space’, can you guess was up there?

1) Is it perhaps the space travel we have been told? or something different.

2) If the moon is a lot smaller then what we have been told and ‘within our earth universe’ would there even be any point to travel there?


  I do realise you will just be speculating

2015/02/08 at 9:53 am
    Wild Heretic
In reply to Benji.
They didn’t go to the moon IMO. They couldn’t see it up there for starters.

I don’t believe in orbiting at all. Everything that goes up, comes down parabolic style. Maybe they needed the shuttle to deploy satellites on the glass so they could take readings of the Sun,Van Allen belts etc.? No idea. The only thing that orbits I think are those objects very close to and surrounding the Sun, such as stars, asteroids. I’m not sure about comets. This doesn’t include anti-gravity black projects. Their own gravity theory doesn’t account for the orbiting due to eternal acceleration, which doesn’t mean that another theory of gravity in the concave Earth could account for it, but gravity as a space push also doesn’t account for orbiting. I’ve yet to see any falling objects floating from ground level up to 46km (not including anti-grav projects).

As for a magnetic levitation halfway between the crust and the center of the cavity, I don’t know. I haven’t worked out anything like that so far, but that doesn’t mean that it does not exist. I’m not sure how you could put satellites up that far (2000 miles?). You also have the problem of very highly charged particles, not only the thermosphere.

2015/02/08 at 12:57 pm
    R. E.
In reply to Observer.
Steve’s videos have a pretty dismal view count though. Have they ever appeared on YT’s first page?

He said that he is working with our government – I could believe that

2015/02/11 at 5:36 am
    R. E.
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
They try to explain it with Mach’s principle, lol. “The planets behave contrary to how we say they do, because they do.”

2015/02/11 at 5:42 am
    R. E.
In reply to Wild Heretic.
I have that book, The Smoky God. It didn’t have the ring of truth to it (they stayed at a house in the beautiful inner world for two years learning the language, then ventured out? No.). I think someone was having fun with us… maybe someone who knew.

2015/02/11 at 6:15 am
    R. E.
In reply to mike.
The truth is not horrible, it’s good.

2015/02/11 at 7:25 am
    Wild Heretic
In reply to R. E..
Yes, that is a distinct possibility. I thought it odd that he never divulged any more really interesting info about their culture and flora and fauna. Some bits were there, but I was expecting more. If they did go, then there must be a reason for it.

2015/02/11 at 9:13 am
    R. E.
In reply to Observer.
Observer, TPTB know about earth concavity and encourage others to learn about it nowadays, but they won’t do a press release.

2015/02/12 at 4:05 am
    Wild Heretic
In reply to R. E..
You could well be right. It is very hard to do an about face when the opposite has been promoted for so long. Also, pushing something like this through in the traditional media type way may cause too many shock waves too soon, ending careers, egg on faces etc. People have families to feed etc.

2015/02/12 at 10:08 am
In reply to Observer.
I heard you can get ‘there’ by taking underground tunnels. The Incas for example have been rumoured to have done it when a large group of them mysteriously disappeared during the Spanish conquest. there have been expeditions who went looking for them but also they never returned.

2015/02/19 at 3:22 am
    Wild Heretic
In reply to jr.
I have heard of that too. Lot’s of secrets connected to the underworld I think.

2015/02/19 at 11:42 pm

I believe the earth to be half concave and have many cavities.

The reason for something being always cold is most likely its altitude.
So the poles have to be on great altitude just like the mountains that are in a state of cold.
So cold places should represent the top part of a cavity
while deserts should represent the very bottom.

I mean look again at the intro of game of thrones.
And you can see how when the earth curves upwards you
can clearly see the frozen terraces.Hmmmmm

2015/02/24 at 11:57 am


I’m enjoying your work… Just wondering if you can account for line of site propagation on the ocean in the concave earth model? In the convex model they say that radio waves can only travel so far from boat to boat due to the curve of the earth. If a higher antenna is used then the radio waves can travel further due to the greater angle to the horizon.


2015/02/24 at 8:15 pm
    Wild Heretic
In reply to Surfsup.
I talk a bit about this here – radar horizon

2015/02/24 at 8:44 pm

666 responses…i better fix that:

Have you seen the work of Bill Gaede? His revolutionary perspective on gravity might have you rethink these observations.

2015/03/02 at 8:09 am
    Wild Heretic
In reply to Daniel.
You mean rethink theory, not the observations?

I’ve not come to the theory part yet. I was going to have a speculative stab at gravity in the next thesis article, but I have revision to do which will take some time to do properly.

Aether push is still the best general idea for gravity in a concave Earth (the only one so far to fit the simple observations). I want to label “aether push” better in the next article, i.e. what it actually is and works in CET. The only construct I have so far discovered that fits is a part of the Earth’s electric circuit.

Bill Gaede’s thesis is stuck on spinning ball theory (tension between balls) – which they all are, because they think that is the correct world model (heliocentric theory), hence their theory of gravity is flawed (and always will be – i.e. gravity as an attractive property of mass). The problem is I read somewhere that a physicist said that there is no gravity in the subatomic world (can’t remember where I read that now). This means that gravity is a construct of the environment, not the object within it.

There is no need to construct hypothetical torsion fields connecting and attracting all matter etc. Let’s just look at the Earth’s electric circuit instead.

2015/03/02 at 9:05 am
    fake name
In reply to Wild Heretic.

why not put the balloons inside a mesh so that it will prevent them from bursting. and like this they can go very high.
and also it will be a good idea to send 3 balloons connected to a triangle frame, so that the cameras will not swing. and like this the footage will be grate. also at least 3 cameras must be put on the frame so that we can capture many directions.

2015/03/05 at 9:51 am
    Wild Heretic
In reply to fake name.
I had thought of something like that to stop it swinging. It sounds like a very good idea. Would a square be a better shape or not? I think maybe one balloon but attached to a triangle frame as three separate balloons may have slightly differing buoyancies?

Rather than a mesh, maybe a much stronger material for the balloon itself? Are there stronger materials?

2015/03/05 at 12:15 pm
In reply to Wild Heretic.
How are you going to explain the atomic action of pulling a rope?

And weight being location specific?

2015/03/07 at 12:41 am
    Wild Heretic
In reply to Daniel.
location specific – Done already.

Pulling on a rope. Doesn’t seem to exist according to some physicists. I can’t remember where I read that now. Subatomic chemistry is all theory anyway. I don’t recommend the spinning balls one. It’ll do for the basics, but nothing more I think. Personally, I like this guy’s idea of the electron at the moment:

2015/03/07 at 1:32 am
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Modern physics has no conception of the force of “Pull”, which is problematic for your gravity theory.

You have quantum which holds that punching a ball will pull instead of push via “Negative Momentum”. (Quantum Theorists confess they don’t have a clue and their models don’t describe reality)

And you have Relativity which holds an object sinking into space time creates the effect of gravity (but not pull), invoking gravity to explain gravity is a circular logic fallacy.

Since Relativity was falsified by Galaxy Rotational Problem, the ad-hoc hypothesis of Dark Matter was used to explain away relativity’s insurmountable problems.

Therefore I cannot see what you agree with in the

Since they appeal to Dark Matter, a rectification fallacy to bandaid the failures of Heliocentric Model.

2015/03/07 at 11:59 am
In reply to Wild Heretic.
^ to clarify, stating the object descends/sinks/moves into space time to create gravity : What causes the object to sink?

2015/03/07 at 12:07 pm
    Wild Heretic
In reply to Daniel.
I only skim read it yonks ago. It’s just the general idea of the diagram of the electron being a torus field and the proton was the central point of resistance as the ether was pumped through the center. That is all I liked. Forget the rest. I didn’t get into into the words really, just the diagram lol. Hey, the diagram is only an idea. I don’t look into these things too deeply or seriously. The link may even be wrong that I posted. I had an original one for years and couldn’t find it so I reversed google image what I had. Maybe i got the wrong website and the original one doesn’t exist anymore. That’s probably the mistake.

I also don’t believe in dark matter and and all the rest.

2015/03/07 at 8:08 pm
In reply to Wild Heretic.
I do believe it is necessary to come to terms with the atomic methodology of gravity before determining how exactly it shapes the universe.

Since a discrete ball has no natural ability to pull another ball, the common sense logic is that every atom is connected by twined electromagnetic ropes.

Now the mysteries of the universe: push, pull, gravity, quantum entanglement/leap are elementary.

I would challenge you to see if such clarification of Newton’s Laws would support a concave/geocentrism etc.

2015/03/08 at 9:48 am
    Wild Heretic
In reply to Daniel.
Gravity is speculative to me and so isn’t really important as long as I present a theory that works with the observations and the concave Earth model. The inverted mainstream theory seems to work and so I will stick with that. It doesn’t mean that that is true or the right one, but that doesn’t matter to me for the purposes of this blog.

I’ll have a look at that pdf though.

Just had a very quick and superficial look and I like the rope theory a lot as it seems to be basically the double helix which I have always had a fondness for. Could it be a basis for a standing wave model with the “motion” of one helix traveling one way and the other helix going the way against it so as to create a standing wave which when moving in a tight circle becomes matter? Just thinking out loud.

2015/03/08 at 11:01 pm
    James Corry

When and how did ‘they’ first become aware of the convex Earth and why do ‘they’ suppress this knowledge?

2015/03/10 at 10:04 pm
    Wild Heretic
In reply to James Corry.
Good questions. I’ve thought a little about this and I am not sure myself. Certainly “everyone” (those with power) knew by 1897. I think they knew about the glass in the late 1940s when they sent rockets up to 100km. I saw a docu on YT about that, sending a rocket up to 100km they said in 1947 or 48, I can’t remember.

I speculate that certain other groups knew about the concave Earth long before this; but then what groups and when? Are we going back to Atlantis times? I know there is an “international” group that were suddenly very interested in me literally the day after publishing the Sun as a sulfur lamp article. Who they were, I do not know, but those experiences have led me to think that they have very high technology (I won’t go into this here). “Heliocentric theory is wrong” got me attention from a British group as well (they had just the standard surveillance back door hacking tech, nothing exotic there at all which led me to believe they were just an alphabet agency). The international group however were a totally different kettle of fish with reality bending tech in a league far beyond the British experience. I won’t go into the personal details here, but thought my opinion may interest you (and the British group ;)).

Why they suppress this knowledge is open to speculation. I’ll probably write an article outlining the possibilities in the future. One poster on YT wrote a good theory that it is a battle for your soul.


2015/03/10 at 11:47 pm
In reply to Wild Heretic.
The concept is that light travels both ways, and is tied to gravity.

I think this is important for geocentrists to address, if the earth is the center of the universe, what exactly causes the planets to revolve around it?

How does a larger planet revolve around a smaller one?

2015/03/12 at 8:28 am
    Wild Heretic
In reply to Daniel.

My question for CET is how does anything orbit the Sun? At the moment I’m not 100% sure, but I have to put all that on a back burner for the moment as I slowly revise all the other prelude articles. This satellite article has exploded in my face and is massive, hence the delay.

2015/03/12 at 10:51 am
    Nous Invictus

“My question for CET is how does anything orbit the Sun? At the moment I’m not 100% sure, but I have to put all that on a back burner for the moment as I slowly revise all the other prelude articles.”

Nothing orbits the sun – the moon and the planets revolve around what is directly behind the sun: the Axis Mundi or the world pole. In case you’re unfamiliar, the Axis Mundi traverses the central axis of the celestial sphere and is the celestial sphere’s source of motion – what Aristotle called the unmoved mover. If you have trouble visualizing this conceptually, simply draw a circle with a point at its center and have a line traverse it perfectly from top to bottom; from there imagine it in three dimensional form and you will ‘see’ the world pole: I say ‘see’ because the Axis Mundi is invisible and the center point cannot be directly observed as it resides directly behind the sun, but the Axis Mundi can be indirectly observed by its proximity to both Polaris and Sigma Octantis.

I hope you find this knowledge beneficial. Take care.

Vincit omnia Veritas

2015/03/13 at 8:08 am
    Wild Heretic
In reply to Nous Invictus.
Thanks Nous.

I will think about these things a lot later. Actually, just had a quick think and yes, I think you are right. It must be that because of Polaris. At the moment that strongly suggests it is the “holes near the poles” rotating h-field is the cause.

Ah yes, I remember my thought processes on this one a while ago. I will come back to this area of CET a lot later as I am in the thick of satellites at the moment, which are revealing a few surprises.

2015/03/13 at 10:43 am

Take the time to read The Complete Works of Leonardo Da Vinci, it is available free online on pdf (search title). He knew something was up.
The sections on Astronomy, Perspective and the Earth will very much help you all in your endeavours. If you want some clarity, read it. Better yet, put the pdf up on your site so ppl have access to it, is public domain.

2015/03/14 at 3:49 am

Please watch Snowpiercer (2013) movie.