Comments (Concave Earth Theory)

Page 3

2013/12/23 at 4:49 pm
Lord Steven Christ
missteribabylonestar.com/posthypnoticepiphany.html
In reply to scud.
thx scud, merry Christmas to you too, and to you as well WH.

funny video here, me yelling at an Irishman…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cYhoV2x0pU

2013/12/24 at 6:38 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
Merry Christmas LSC to you too and everyone who reads this and LSC’s website, and cluesforum.

Keep the insights coming in the New Year LSC, Sumstuff, Saros, Scud and co. and have a good one.

2013/12/24 at 10:58 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
Great video. Made my Christmas!

2013/12/24 at 1:36 pm
Wild Heretic

I’m reposting this link to this page because it is more evidence for the heliocentric model inside a geocentric concave Earth (which seems to be the truth of our situation):

“Hey Sum,

I love this vid from the user you thanked

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry9tLRKZueE&feature=c4-overview&list=UUvtVMFQ3eqE3wc2L7N_E7Mg

That’s more corroborating evidence for a concave Earth, albeit, not directly.”

2013/12/24 at 6:37 pm
Lord Steven Christ
missteribabylonestar.com/posthypnoticepiphany.html
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Ah ok, so Jupiter goes in front of the sun sometimes (as well as in back). a little more tweaking to my orbiting planets model to come later. Nothing major.
So sad that this info is out in public view and people don’t bother to ask questions.
p.s. glad I made your Xmas with the Irishman video, that was fun!

🙂

2013/12/25 at 4:40 pm
sumstuff52
In reply to Wild Heretic.
yes, i can see my old friends ridiculing me last year i was sumstuff46

2013/12/26 at 1:33 am
el guapo

Excellent work. However, I don’t think you’re giving diverging plumb lines their due import at just 50%. Remember the first experiment WAS NOT at Tamarack mines in 1901, it was actually in France sometime prior. The French were then so wigged out by what they discovered that they contacted the American Geodetic Survey and requested that they repeat the experiment in the USA. One can safely assume that the French scientists would not have done that unless they were getting conclusive readings.

2013/12/27 at 8:35 am
Cocchi

Dear Wild Heretic, when will your next article about the hypothesis mentioned in the last paragraph of your “Concave Earth” article be published? I am very much looking forward to that article, as I would love to know what that hypothesis is. It may explain a lot. Thank you so much in advance!

2013/12/27 at 5:08 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Cocchi.
Hey Cocchi, I’m working on it. It will take a while as it covers so much. I’ve very nearly finished “the path of the Sun”. Next is the mechanics, and after that “gravity”, then probably “the night sky”, then either “frequencies” or “electromagnetism” and lastly “the evidence”. It will probably be twice as long as the longest article so far maybe.

I won’t write anything completely wild just yet and leave that till later.

2013/12/28 at 3:27 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to el guapo.
Yes, I remember reading about that French experiment. My only issue was if it took place at all. If I knew for sure then I would up the percentage considerably; but I think the only source for it is Palmer who could have sensationalized stuff… maybe. So it is just a question of source. If you can find another source, maybe in another language, then we will have to revise. A couple of readers have made some breakthroughs looking in other languages, especially Russian. Clever. I wouldn’t have thought of it myself.

It wouldn’t surprise me if the French experiment did occur, but they covered it up. And ditto for that more speculative officially unpublished study at Tamarack Mines talked about by Grant in his concave Earth book.

2013/12/28 at 3:32 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
I know. The fact that Jupiter was observed to go in front of the Sun is an obvious nail in the coffin for the current model. A huge red alert that few bother to notice it seems.

2013/12/28 at 5:24 pm
aryadeva

dear wild heretic,

i discovered your website some weeks ago, since then i read your articles again and again. the first time i was introduced to the concave earth theory was about 1,5 years ago on a German blog and since then i tried to research the whole topic. (http://autarkes-rattelsdorf.blogspot.co.at/2012/03/gesamtuberblick-innenweltkosmoshohlwelt.html)

this whole theory was the main reason why i bought a dslr in January 2013 and since then I learned a lot about optics, photography and related stuff. as one side effect photography has become my obsession. since then i tried to do some experiments with infrared filters, but didn’t get good enough results so far. one problem is (i think) the sensors they build into modern digital cameras, which are built to filter infrared light out, but nevertheless it is possible to get some good exposures with long enough shutter. my main camera at the moment is a Nikon d610.

the main reason i write here is to ask everybody reading if they can provide some useful information for conducting experiments with infrared filters, i will have the opportunity (within the next 6 months) to do a 20 minute flight on a helicopter in my area (vienna, austria).

my biggest inspiration for using infrared photography is a photo from London out of this book by Johannes Lang from 1938:

https://archive.org/details/Lang-Johannes-Die-Hohlwelttheorie

this is one of 2 books in German (which is my native language besides Hungarian), the other one was written by Johann Dolanski, who already was mentioned somewhere here in the comments section.

i really admire your efforts of putting all this fantastic information together and to provide a forum where interested people can share and discuss these things.

2013/12/28 at 11:30 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to aryadeva.
Welcome aryadeva.

Thanks for those links. It looks like Herr Lang and myself are on the exact same page regarding these two diagrams:

https://archive.org/stream/Lang-Johannes-Die-Hohlwelttheorie/LangJohannes-DieHohlwelttheorie1938293S.Scan-text#page/n25/mode/2up

It’s always good to know I’m not alone coming to the same conclusions. This gives me something further to ponder too, which helps me a lot.

And I’m reading about the infrared issue on page 34. My German was fluent, but now it requires more effort to understand properly, especially this subject which is quite technical.

There is a Dutch person who commented here that he is looking into doing experiments with infra-red photography. Perhaps the two of you need could email each other?

Any contribution is greatly appreciated arya.

2013/12/29 at 12:36 am
Lord Steven Christ
missteribabylonestar.com/posthypnoticepiphany7.ht…

Hey WH, two new videos…
One is the “mysterious” stone sphere of Costa Rica, and the other is the pre-flood Pangea and the separating of continents.

Have a happy new year!
Steve

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbQ0txC5S5Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfK4VAq_rEA

2013/12/31 at 1:55 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
Cheers Steve. Will watch this now. Oh and BTW, after working through a detailed look at the path of the Sun, I have the curved octahedron in the middle of the Earth space.

Steve, I’ve been meaning to ask you for ages: How did you first come across or come to the conclusion that there was glass in the sky and also the octahedron for that matter? I would never have known about the glass if it hadn’t been for you, so kudos.

2013/12/31 at 11:53 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Wild Heretic.
I like the pre-flood theory a lot. I also like the theory that it was the flood which caused all the erosion and not ice, i.e there was no ice age.

After reading Etidorpha (well, most of it so far), I’ve always thought the water came up from the ground and flooded the place. What’s new for me is where Pangaea fits in and the formation of the mountains which I also really like. I can also add my own extra bit of info on this topic concerning the origin of post-flood man, but I’ll do that in a short article maybe after the next one. The evidence comes from genetic maps.

2013/12/31 at 12:21 pm
Lord Steven Christ
missteribabylonestar.com/posthypnoticepiphany7.ht…
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Thx, WH, coming to the conclusion of the glass sky was derived from scripture back in the spring of 2003. From 01 to 03 I had accepted a convex geocentric model of earth and would dialogue/argue with people via email over this. After going back and forth with an atheist/heliocentrist and former young earth creationist, Ed Babinski, on whether the earth spun or not, he mentioned that Abelkadar’s inverted earth mathematical scenario was the only way that he could believe that earth was motionless. This concept was new to me, so it stopped me in my tracks. I began searching for information about this concept. I found Rolf Keppler’s and Helmut Diehl’s webpage and began to dialogue with Helmut via email. (He is the older man in that photo above, standing next to his concave earth model.) He was about 81 at that time (03) so I’m not sure if he is still living. In initial incredulous skepticism I printed out the material from Rolfe’s site, the mine shaft experiment and all the statistical data from the Rectilineator experiment, etc. A brought it home to study, ponder. It took 3 days until I finally accepted it, but once I did there was no turning back. I would later have more talks with Helmut, and he told me that I was the first American he knew that accepted the concave model. He also told me that I was the new (reincarnated) Cyrus Teed. Within the next few days however, I had this intuitive feeling that something was missing from their model, so I would search scripture for clues. There are basically 5 different bible verses that convinced me of the glass sky, but the one that solidified it for me was found in Jeremiah chapter 5, verses 21-22…

“Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:

Fear ye not me? saith the LORD: will ye not tremble at my presence, which have placed the sand [for] the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it: and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it?

How can the sand from the coasts prevent waves from passing? Tsunamis and hurricanes pass over the sand very easily…

No, think harder, there is a sand up in the sky. It’s a molten sand. It prevents the water from flooding the continents. It was placed there after the Flood..…

After reading this verse I became convinced. This little riddle for those who have eyes and can’t see was the impetus for generating new diagrams of the concave earth model with the glass sky that I would show Helmut and Rolfe. Sadly, however, they couldn’t accept it, so eventually I had to disassociate from them.

The other 4 verses that also contributed to accepting the glass sky are Genesis 9:13 (the rainbow forming as a result of the glass after the flood, to act as a scientific token, to imply the glass sky PUSHED the waters down to prevent future global flooding, Job 37:17 being a blatant implication that the sky is hard and a molten looking glass, Psalm 104:9 mentioning the “bound” which in the Strong’s concordance (1366) was used also in Jeremiah 5:21 to describe the boundary that pushed the waters down, and of course 1 Corinthians 13:12 (now we see through a glass darkly).

I knew intuitively that the rainbows were formed because of the glass sky and could not accept the faulty conventional explanation of them.

Only later did all the tangible evidence come pouring in…tektites, LDG, fusion crust, auroras, ham radio, elves, ball lightning, ozone, uv block, etc.

thx for asking!

🙂

2013/12/31 at 2:34 pm
Lord Steven Christ
missteribabylonestar.com/posthypnoticepiphany7.ht…
In reply to Wild Heretic.
oh, the octahedron was derived from scripture as well, Job 38:4-6 and Revelation 21:16. The phrase “foundations of the earth” in Job 38 was used to describe something geometric and STRAIGHT with a corner stone. I would later find out of Joe Parr’s energy bubble that would encapsulate rotating pyramids and the concept of the octahedron being the heart of the universe. This blurb from a site in particular is noteworthy…

“”Our core heart is found in the octahedron as an expression of self-love and compassion. Prayer is invoked in the form of the icosahedron. The twelve faces of ‘God within’ are discovered in the dodecahedron.
“

2013/12/31 at 2:43 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
I wonder if the addition of the glass increased the pressure below it and kept the water under the ground? Just throwing that out there. I haven’t thought it through at all.

2014/01/02 at 10:18 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
Strictly speaking, for me I suppose what I have isn’t a octahedron exactly per se. It’s more like a circus tent on one side and the same on the under side but flipped over. It seems to be part of a bigger shape which I’ll go into. This next article is slow and big because it is taxing me at my limits, so everyone else interested will just have to be patient.

2014/01/02 at 10:29 pm
Mr. Story

Hello, Mr. Heretic!
May I ask for an e-mail address of yours? I think I might have some quite interesting things to tell you.
Thank you in advance.

2014/01/03 at 3:59 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Mr. Story.
Sent.

2014/01/03 at 6:59 pm
Lord Steven Christ
missteribabylonestar.com/posthypnoticepiphany.html
In reply to Wild Heretic.
New vid, WH..

Why the Horizon is Always at Eye Level Regardless of Altitude
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZyA3T1Meeo

2014/01/07 at 1:31 am
karol

see this, spectacular examples of Binocular Effect:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nvTf_27keI

2014/01/07 at 5:38 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to karol.
Great find. Great to see another poster finding new stuff which helps a lot.

I’m going to look at the other skycentrism videos now.

2014/01/07 at 9:46 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
Interesting stuff. I’m glad you are reading Lang’s book. I don’t have time right now but I would love to go through it properly.

I tell you. We will nail this bendy light issue, hopefully 😉

2014/01/07 at 9:59 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to karol.
Hey Karol and LSC,

I need some help in finding information on the leveler experiments of Heinrich Hohener and Wilhelm Martin to show that sunlight bends upwards. It is useful for my next article.

Thanks a lot.

EDIT: no worries got it. It’s Keppler.

http://www.rolf-keppler.de/lichtkrumm.htm

2014/01/07 at 8:51 pm
karol
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Read the first page of the thread ‘light bends up’ on GLP. There’s a discussion on visibility range. I can’t provide a link because I ran out of ban immunity.

2014/01/10 at 8:51 am
karol
In reply to Wild Heretic.
See the skycentrism videos concerning sunray. It’s proved beyond any doubt.

2014/01/10 at 11:05 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to karol.
Will do. I am halfway through them.

2014/01/12 at 1:50 am
Sceppy.

I’d like to put some of my theories into your mind, if that’s ok, concerning the concave earth and gravity, etc. If that’s ok, I’ll be back to make some points, because yourself and Steven Christ appear to be true outside of the box thinkers, which I am.
You will remember me from my brief time on clues forum, maybe.

2014/01/13 at 10:55 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Sceppy..
Of course Sceppy, go ahead. If you think your theoretical proposition is too long for a comment post, I can post it as an article and put it under a heading on the left menu as “Guest column” or something like that. I’ll leave it for you to decide.

My take on gravity is that the Earth space is an aetheric double rankine vortex stuck end to end with the wide funnel parts at either poles. This shape makes a toroid. Gravity would then be caused by the angular momentum putting pressure on the surface of the Earth. The reason why there is slightly less gravity at the equator is because the angular momentum is more vertical at the center and more horizontal near the poles. This too seems to obey the square law. I’ll do a proper article on gravity after the next one. I was going to put everything together in one article but it is too much and so I’ll post them in smaller chunks instead.

2014/01/13 at 2:37 pm
Sceppy.
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Ok, WH, my view is drastically different. I mean, I follow a concave earth and I’m in the middle of putting together a map and explanation to go with it, in part.
Of course, I’m a long long way off piecing it all together, but maybe when it’s done, it will give you extra food for thought.

I’ll give you it in a nutshell.
Gravity and inertia, as we are told about them, to me , like much of space science and earth science pertaining to shape, etc, is total misinformation.
Atmospheric pressure explains it all, even inertia, which people see as basically carrying momentum until a force is acting upon it to change that.
In a way, it’s easy for people to be confused, because, if we mention atmospheric pressure for gravity, the comeback is swift with , ” oh yes, that can explain some stuff but it’s gravity that keeps atmospheric pressure IN side the earth.”
It’s a classic answer and relies on nothing more than “it just does.”

If gravity is keeping atmospheric pressure inside the earth as the globalists say, then it’s pushing, which means it’s pushing on the oceans, but somehow, the moons gravity which is supposedly airless and 4 times smaller than a global earth, manages to PULL at the oceans and yet it doesn’t pull out the atmosphere.

And blah blah. I think I have that sort of right, but maybe someone can correct me.
I’m in the middle of writing it all out about the earth, (not in it’s entirety lol) and how I believe it works.
So a few key points which I will expand on later, so be prepared for it.
Space as we know it, as in a vacuum with stars and so called planets, does not exist at all to our view.
We are a cell in suspended animation of a perfect vacuum that our primitive eyes cannot see into, because NOTHING can travel or exist as a force of continued movement in that vacuum.

All of our elements are stacked in order of density starting from the bottom of the cell which would be something like pure diamond due to ridiculously dense pressure of the size of this cell and what is inside of it…TO US.

The sun is in the centre of what people believe is the north pole, but is no such thing, in my opinion.
The sun in the sky is a reflection as are the stars and the moon and every other dot that are called planets. They are all reflections of what is occurring in this cell of earth.

The top of our atmosphere , I believe is ice, as in something like helium ice or basically the last element this earth can give out, which sits at the top, fully expanded and under no pressure, which forces it to flash freeze as it becomes dormant against the vacuum.

A vacuum cannot exist inside earth. We can only evacuate pressure from a container but not all, which basically is playing with high v low pressure and this is the key to everything that happens inside this earth cell.

I could go on and I will if you want me to add to it or question me on it all, because I’ve seen your stuff and read it with interest, which is what made me know that you are prepared to logically look at everything which seem lunacy, to many.

Tell me what you think and by all means critically pull apart anything you don’t see that works or just question the life out of me and I’ll get back as quickly as possible.
If we all bounce off of each other, there’s a much better chance of putting the tiny pieces into place of the mammoth jigsaw puzzle that in reality we should have a lot more knowledge of if it was suppressed, for whatever reasons of which I have a few.
Cheers.

2014/01/13 at 6:00 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Sceppy..
These are my current thoughts, but it is only opinion and so doesn’t matter.

Gravity and inertia, as we are told about them, to me , like much of space science and earth science pertaining to shape, etc, is total misinformation.
Atmospheric pressure explains it all, even inertia, which people see as basically carrying momentum until a force is acting upon it to change that.
In a way, it’s easy for people to be confused, because, if we mention atmospheric pressure for gravity, the comeback is swift with , ” oh yes, that can explain some stuff but it’s gravity that keeps atmospheric pressure IN side the earth.”
It’s a classic answer and relies on nothing more than “it just does.”

Out of interest what causes the weight of the different densities?

I think the moon is likely an optical phenomenon and not physically there in the sky. I don’t know though. Either way, I reckon the moon has no effect on anything by itself, but is a marker or indicator of the aetheric processes in the Earth space; such as full moon indicates low atmospheric pressure etc.

I’ve no idea, but I reckon stars could be caused by aetheric friction in the middle of Earth space.

Sounds reasonable.

I think the Sun is a real physical object, stars are aetheric friction, the moon and possibly the planets are projections, but that is a stab in the dark.

LSC thinks something similar. I haven’t thought about it, so i have no idea.

Sure, but I think there is something behind the curtain of atmospheric pressure so to speak.

2014/01/13 at 7:04 pm
Sceppy.
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Wild Heretic says:Out of interest what causes the weight of the different densities?

My answer:
Not easy to explain without maybe getting boring, but here goes.
The earth (my theory) is in a vacuum as a cell, as I said.
The earth WEIGHS nothing in terms of IT against that vacuum as it’s suspended in it and only breathing withing itself, as silly as that sounds.
It’s always high and low pressure imbalances, meaning a fight between matter creating friction, creating heat, creating expansion of matter and releasing less dense matter through that expansion and it all starts from within.
Basically it’s all under pressure and just as hydrogen molecules are trapped withing water and air molecules; pressure and friction can expand some, so basically nothing becomes weight to us unless we can physically weigh it.
To do that we have to use scales that have to be part of the atmosphere we are in, so any scales we use is under atmospheric pressure before we start using them.

From that point on; any matter that is more dense than atmospheric pressure will exert it’s own force on those scales, because it’s natural environment is blow out atmospheric environment we live in, whether that is a drop of water or a lead block.
The further down the earth an element is, the denser it will be up top and that’s why they weigh on our scales.

I know it’s not an easy concept for people to grasp, because mainstream science tries to use weight as an indicator of gravity as if gravity somehow acts on the actual air, but if thought about carefully, it’s absolute nonsense.

They use the feather and a coin inside a tube that has SOME pressure evacuated from it and call it a vacuum, (which as I’ve said, cannot be made on earth) and tell us that it’s proof that gravity and air pressure are different by showing us that the feather now falls ROUGHLY the same speed as the coin to the bottom of the tube.

The reality of it is, (if thought through) pressure has been evacuated from the tube and because of this, the air inside has expanded to fill that tube. The more air evacuated, the more expansion of air molecules in that tube because they MUST fill the space.
By doing this, all that is created is a very low pressure environment that has reduced enormously in it’s friction properties, so now, even a feather becomes easier to fall through it, because there’s no dense air pressure under it to resist it’s movement through it.

I’d be happy to explain it all in more detail if there are any questions about it, but I can assure you, when anyone tells you that a VACUUM proves things…the simple answer is, no vacuum can exist on earth in it’s entirety, all that can be achieved by us, is low pressure against a high pressure environment and it all starts with pressure, agitation, vibration from the centre of the bowl….that started with the sun, with everything else following on from that, all started from pressure.

2014/01/14 at 11:07 am
Sceppy.

I made a few spelling errors in my last post, saying withing for within and blow instead of below. I should have proof read it. Sorry about that.

2014/01/14 at 11:12 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Sceppy..
Don’t worry about that.

2014/01/14 at 6:33 pm
Saros
In reply to Sceppy..
Sceppy, quite interesting ideas. Congrats for the out-of-the-box thinking. I am inclined to agree with your explanation on gravity and weight, or at least it seems you might be on the right track. However, what is important is that the official explanation is most likely total rubbish. What you said about the Moon not pulling the atmosphere is also a good point. I don’t know about the Sun being in the north pole though. Also, if the stars are reflections or caused by aetheric friction as WH suggests how come we see the same configuration all the time? What if the stars and the sun are holes through which the light comes out? If the Earth is concave, and we have this rotating sphere inside the Earth as well which is filled with bright light, and the only places where this light can escape from are the holes which represent the sun and the stars. Just an idea.

2014/01/14 at 10:53 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Saros.
I had thought about the consistency of position of the stars, but I think the aether is consistent. The same locations experience the same friction because it is the same space and the same shape.

I like the holes idea, but I’m not sure I can get that to work with the path of the Sun, unless it is the globe that wobbles, but a sphere would be the wrong shape to work for my theory. Also, the stars would be on the same outer layer of the sphere as the Sun so why do the stars spin around the night sky faster than the Sun around the day one? The stars also emit a different light to the Sun which emits the same light as a sulfur lamp. Too many inconsistencies for me, but I like it nevertheless.

2014/01/15 at 12:13 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Sceppy..
The earth WEIGHS nothing in terms of IT against that vacuum as it’s suspended in it and only breathing withing itself, as silly as that sounds.

I agree with that, and I’ll show you its oscillation in my next post.

It’s always high and low pressure imbalances, meaning a fight between matter creating friction, creating heat, creating expansion of matter and releasing less dense matter through that expansion and it all starts from within.

Good. I agree with the pressure imbalances (but aetheric ones). Also, what is the process that starts it all within?

What you are saying is that there is no greater unresolved force, just those within the substance that is doing the acting right? O

Oh wait, I read the rest of your post. You are saying there is no perfect vacuum therefore all downward movement is relative to density yes?

Lastly, what force causes these different pressures to move the denser substances downwards and the less dense substances upwards? Let’s take an extreme example. Let’s say there is a near vacuum with one air molecule in it (or 1000 if you like). Why do the air molecules settle at the bottom of the vacuum chamber, like our atmosphere does to the vacuum above it? What internal force is within that air molecule which puts it to the bottom of the vacuum cell or chamber? And why bottom and not top? These air molecules are only relative to themselves and nothing else of other densities.

2014/01/15 at 12:37 am
Saros
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Yeah, the holes idea was just an idea (quite far-fetched too), I didn’t actually think it through. It could be a combination of things though. It could be that there are different layers with holes, and they overlap somehow while rotating. I don’t know.

Also, it is possible that the stars don’t even have their own light. What if they reflect light the same way the fake satellites do? 🙂 And also it is possible the stars are not even there, but are a form of mirage, but I doubt it. I can’t see a mirage so consistent and maintaining the same configuration and intensity over large periods ot time.

I would like to hear more about Sceppy’s idea of the sun being in the north pole. I can’t imagine that at all.

By the way, it just occurred to me that the Moon could be a worn-out region of one of those layers above. Normally it is dark and opaque, but let’s assume that it gets thinner in certain parts making it almost transparent, so the light from the layer above it can pass and appears to us as the Moon. When the layer above it spins, it blocks the light coming from within and we only see the phases etc.

2014/01/15 at 11:31 am
sceppy

Wild
Heretic says:Good. I agree with the pressure imbalances (but aetheric ones). Also, what is the process that starts it all within?

That’s a good question and to answer it as best I can I would say “decay”…
Think of an apple left on a shelf and forgotten about.
Over time, it would start to decay. It would break down inside, with all the matter inside turning to mush or simply condensing…and because of that, the apple sinks further down from the top and sort of, creates a little bowl or indentation as it sinks and rots.
Now, naturally, air pressure is aiding in that from the top, but earth as a cell wouldn’t be experiencing any of that, because for every action, there would be an equal and opposite reaction inside the earth, as in, what decays and falls, will be replaced by the lighter/expanded molecules/matter of that decay due to friction which creates heat, which separates the gases from the solids, which are pushed UP as the more dense drops down. It’s an imbalance but a marriage made in heaven, because it’s always equal and opposite action/reaction.
In a nutshell, we COULD assume that the earth was once a dense spherical kind of rock like a sort of egg shape or something like that.
How it got there is another story, but basically, this vacuum that (I believe) nothing can freely move in, could contain trillions/infinite amounts of the same thing or variations of cell like earths, all with their own internal life support.
We are just bacteria inside that cell, helping it grow or not..depending on how we see ourselves, as in good bacteria or bad.
In human nature, our arrogance is that this earth was made for us.

I think, just like a cell of our body that teems with other cell life within that and within that,etc,etc..way beyond our thinking.
So basically, what we are dealing with “now”, (in my opinion) “to our short life thoughts”, is an expanding earth, which is not good…it’s bad, because just like a balloon will expand inside an evacuated chamber, earth is doing the same, only it’s not because of the vacuum sucking, as vacuums do not suck. A perfect vacuum is basically dark or black to our eyes. Basically it does not exist to us, so we would not see any other cell outside of this ice dome covering, only inside, like a mirror.
Think of the stars and everything you see, as reflections. Think of a planetarium.
Everything you see comes from inside, right?
Think of the earth sun acting like a blast furnace, but a super one, and crystals that are super dense within it that are resonating and reflecting different variations of light.
Anyway, there’s lots more about it but that’s the basics.
…………………

Wild Heretic says:What you are saying is that there is no greater unresolved force, just those within the substance that is doing the acting right? O

Oh wait, I read the rest of your post. You are saying there is no perfect vacuum therefore all downward movement is relative to density yes?
………….
Pretty much like that, yes. I know this might sound crazy, but imagine the earth as a sort of egg and the top half is like a glass but helium ice and under it will be all the other gaseous elements in various stages, as in liquids and such. Think of some of it like flash freezing and flash thawing continuously. Almost like having a sea up there, because basically we are living in our own sea, it just happens to be much less dense than what fish live in and we know that dropping dense objects into water…the water will allow it through unless it’s got atmosphere trapped within it, whether that’s a rowing boat filled with air pressure or a sealed container filled with air pressure.
It’s no different up above, it’s just a case of perception.

……………
Wild Heretic says:Lastly, what force causes these different pressures to move the denser substances downwards and the less dense substances upwards? Let’s take an extreme example. Let’s say there is a near vacuum with one air molecule in it (or 1000 if you like). Why do the air molecules settle at the bottom of the vacuum chamber, like our atmosphere does to the vacuum above it? What internal force is within that air molecule which puts it to the bottom of the vacuum cell or chamber? And why bottom and not top? These air molecules are only relative to themselves and nothing else of other densities.

……………..
The simple answer is, they don’t settle, they always equalize.
To give you an idea, let’s imagine air molecules are sponge balls…now imagine those sponge balls squashed/compressed with each one you shove into a container.
The more you put in…the more dense they become and the more compressed until (if you were superman) you could compress a football sized sponge ball into the size of a pea or better, kind of thing.
So now that container is under pressure and always filled throughout.
That would be known as your compressed air cylinder, naturally.
Now we want to make what people class as a vacuum, but would be evacuated pressure, so we pull out some balls and as we do so, we see the other balls inside, expand to fill that void, because you are trying to create a low pressure against that high pressure.
If you managed to take out most of the balls, you would find that the container would be filled with the few remaining as they have super expanded, maybe close to, but not quite their full state but they would be weak and you could easily squash them.
This is why rockets have never been into what we are told, is space, because the atmosphere would soon act on the rocket and start to take it apart, piece by piece or molecule by molecule, starting with the compressed air inside that’s used to force the fuel out of it. It would expand so much, it would simple blow the rocket to pieces.
Think of a balloon in an evacuated chamber and that should tell anyone all they need to know.

………

Wild
Heretic says:Good. I agree with the pressure imbalances (but aetheric ones). Also, what is the process that starts it all within?
……

Think of the egg and the decay inside, or what we would perceive as decay. Inside the egg is what counts as we cannot break through the shell, so everything is only relevant inside with the yolk being the creation of all life.
Everything is alive and under agitation but we are too primitive to understand it all because we cannot see most of what goes on, even with microscopes.
Heat makes things rise and ejects life into the earth and it needs it’s coolants and vents, which it has with the oceans and ice, plus volcanoes as safety valves that actually are adding to the atmosphere and shooting out dense particles to keep everything under agitation as it all falls into it’s place in the sandwich over time to be started again.

I’ve went off on a story telling episode here. Hopefully I haven’t bored anyone.

Everything that happens in earth is a push on push. We use pull as a saying but the truth is, pull never happens, except we use it to say a horse is pulling a cart, but realistically, it’s pushing it if you break it all down from start to finish. I can explain this if anyone wants.
Basically molecules are stacked up the dome and each molecule is exerting it’s own mass against the one above and below.
It’s like building a high rise building. You start off with solid foundations and add bricks and then lighter bricks and lighter blocks, etc. all exerting their own force on top of and against each other brick, until the top (lightest) , (lets call it the ridge tiles for ease)… will be under least pressure, whilst the foundations are holding all of it up.

I’m willing to explain anything if anyone has any questions and bearing in mind that I’m not saying this as I know what’s going on and that’s that. It’s merely my hypothesis.

2014/01/15 at 2:24 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Saros.
I like the holes idea Saros. I wouldn’t write it off just yet. In fact, you reminded me of my first idea of what the stars could be which I had initially dismissed, but your idea has made me reopen the case so to speak.

I had forgotten an important fact about the stars which binds this phenomenon to the Sun. This rules out my off the top of my head aether friction theory.

My initial idea was that stars are puncture holes in the Sun from bits of the electrode breaking off and going through the iron/nickel casing forming meteorites.
The light from stars is white/bluish to the naked eye which would work as a sulfur lamp is white/bluish also. The Sun is more yellowy because of the schreibersite layer which coats the front of the lens. I think the stars are panoramic because of the eye of the rankine aetheric vortex in which the Sun resides. it might also explain the sky dome effect.

The only problem to the theory is the fact that there are stars (different ones?) that can be seen during the day also. Maybe something to do with the way the light bends, but I’ll have to leave that on a back burner for now.

I see what you mean about the moon. Now that is a left-field thought. Something to ponder.

2014/01/15 at 5:53 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to sceppy.
Goodness me Screppy, you are giving me plenty of reading material 🙂

2014/01/15 at 5:55 pm
sceppy

We are told be be reliant on the science that is sold to us and accept it as the truth without question, to the point of almost being child like again.
It’s like growing up and realising that your parents bought all your presents and knowing Santa was just a fantasy figure and yet it’s like being told, ” now you’re grown up, we have re-evaluated Santa and he is actually real, you just won’t see him but you can track his progress throughout the world.”
Does that remind anyone of anything?
Tracking the ISS by the co-ordinates they give you.
Anyway: what we are told to believe and what we actually have to accept, is down to the individual…IF… they can allow themselves to think with a clear mind and not be swayed by peer pressure to stick to protocol.
Gravity, inertia, warped space time, light year stars, speed of light, special relativity, Higgs boson, etc. The list is endless and it’s no more than science fiction writings that can be told but never fully understood and for good reason. It’s because they are all made up junk to explain our existence and that of supposed other planets and solar systems and what not.
The biggest intimidation tool they have against the common person to keep up a ruse, is to baffle the life out of you with ridiculous equations that no one can fathom.
E=MC2…I mean, what is it in reality?
Energy equals mass times the speed of light SQUARED.
Basically it means that your mass will yield much more energy than it consumes. So there we go, all done.

No chance:
Always remember the basic story of life. You only get out of something what you put into it and if you look at it in real terms, you will find that to be correct, as long as you remember the basics, as in: for every ACTION, there is and EQUAL reaction.
The fatter the candle, the longer it will burn against a slimmer one of equal height.
If you push a car…the car resists that push with the same force needed to push it.
Light wood will burn quicker than a fire lighter block, because it’s less dense and contains less fuel.
It doesn’t matter what you use or what you can think of (if thought of in the right way), you cannot get any more energy out of something than is put into it.
If you want a bigger fire, you use more coal. If you want a longer lasting fire, you use more dense coal.
Whether you are using hydrogen or whatever…you will use as much energy put into it as the energy you get out of it.

Wind farms produce energy and it appears that we get more out of it than what is put in..and to us, or our way of thinking…it appears right, but look at the bigger picture of what is needed to produce that energy. It’s wind energy which culminates from high/low pressure variations caused by friction of molecules under enormous energy.
Just because we think the wind blows for the hell of it, doesn’t mean it’s not part of another energy cycle, which originates at the centre of earths concave circle….THE SUN, which is gobbling up energy by taking in the energy of the atmosphere.
This is the potential real life, but if you want more energy out than what’s put in, then we have to resort to MAGIC or the made up laws that allow it.
Things like, nuclear power does not need air to fission or rockets do not need to use the atmosphere to fly. You know, stuff like that.
It’s a nice story, it just happens to be total misinformation, in my honest opinion
A lot of the laws are used because space is used… and ordinary earth “realistic” laws would make space the impossibility that it is, as in this inertia law, of things staying in motion until something acts upon that motion, which is sensible on earth but easily explained in real terms of atmospheric pressure, except it’s used without that, as if another force is responsible for momentum, which fits for their space exploits, as in, supposedly pushing an object in space and it will go on forever, nonsense.

A true vacuum would mean suspended animation for anything in that, because, up, down and horizontal would cease to exist as any direction.
Of course, we are told that space ISN’T a true vacuum and it does have SOME scattered matter…SCATTERED MATTER???
Scattered matter would not allow anything to travel through it and scattered matter could not be anything if it’s scattered as it cannot exist as part of any medium for anything.
What they should say for scattered matter, is, earth like cells in suspended animation that we can only imagine but never see, because our eyes could not see anything if there is no medium for it to travel through, including light, which is not what we are told it is.

Vibration/friction/agitation and frequency = energy, which means that light is the direct run on from what created it, which is sound.
We associate sound with our primitive ears, but that’s only the short story.
To find out the common sense basics of how it all works, you only have to look around you at your common light bulb and your house wiring and how it all leads to what is happening inside earth.
Flows of electrons through wires are simply flows of vibration/friction/agitation/sound, all made possible by pressure of matter/molecules or whatever you want to name it.
It gets forced down a wire in a frequency creating a small amount (to us) of heat and flows through a THINNER filament in your light that restricts the flow but becomes under more pressure, resulting in a glowing light.
The same happens with your hose pipe. Turn on tap and you get a steady flow that can water your garden 10 feet away. Stick your finger over the nozzle so far and you can water it about 25 feet away.

Yes folks, the speed of light is nonsense. It’s actually the speed of sound that we see from any point we see it from, as in where the sound originated from, we see the glow at distance before we hear the sound, because our eyes are far superior to our ears, which when all is said and done, are just pressure drums that catch the pressure wave which activates the hammer in our ear to the drum, which our brains interpret as whatever sound we hear.

Any questions on this and I’m willing to explain further. It’s just a case of how people perceive what’s going on around them. The open minded logical common sense folk, will seriously think about it…but the brainwashed will ridicule it and be happy to believe in the complicated magic that was fed to them.
I know that on here, you welcome out of the box thoughts and that’s why I have no problem explaining myself in any detail you want, except I will only ever deal in the basics of something to explain, because I think it’s much easier for people to grasp and think about than someone saying, ” ahhh, well, photons disassemble into culiminour calstitates,which activate the unobtanium sycallations which immediately split into two part per 1 trillion oscillations, producing vacuumous energy through the dark fabric of space, resulting in a squared speed of light that curves space time.”
I think you get my drift.
I can make all this crap up at any time and be grilled on it…and yet, if I had a suit on or a white overcoat with a few large letters on the pocket, like Dr Sceppy, PHD…and all the rest of it; people would actually take me serious and study it and recite it whilst not knowing what the hell they are reciting, except that it works in the world of fantasy.
If you want to figure out this earth, then don’t buy the 10 million piece jigsaw with a sky full of small birds…start with the 10 piece ones and build your own mind foundations from that, because the basics is where we all need to be to figure it all out.

Reliance on the model given out by the story tellers is like babies being spoon fed their favourite foods and begging for more.
If a food doesn’t taste right, you spit it out.
If a story doesn’t seem right or seems too good to be true…you question it, knowing that if it’s too good to be true, it usually is.

The official explanations are like selling you a flat screen TV for a tenner. It looks good and appears to look up to date and will sit well in the corner of your room, but take the back off of it and you find that all or most of the components are missing.
This is what they are selling you about space and space travel.
It looks good, but on closer inspection (if ever we had the chance) we would find that all of the components are missing.

Sorry about going off on one, but this stuff that we get told about (in the main) is at best, misinformation/misdirection or misunderstanding… and at worst, it’s downright blatant lies.

2014/01/16 at 12:53 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to sceppy.
Dr Sceppy, PHD 🙂

2014/01/16 at 8:09 pm
sceppy

A concave earth makes perfect sense when you consider what we see around us.
Go to the beach and walk into the water and you will notice that you are always walking down a slope. Because you are basically walking into the deeper, gradual bowl.
Think about the mountains thawing out and releasing water which all flows to the sea.
Rainfall and anything on land, all flows to the sea.
This could never happen like that on a globe and no magical gravity could hold trillions upon trillion of gallons of water on a so called globe.
All the clues to life are all there in front of us, in our everyday lives. It’s just that most of us do not put two and two together to get four, because we have been conditioned to believe in outlandish theories, as I mentioned before.
On a dark night in your home, preferably with no street lights, turn on your living room, kitchen or bedroom light if it’s a nice bright one and stand back away from your window and look out.
You will notice that you can’t see out, but you can see what’s in your bedroom, because the window acts like a perfect mirror.

The ice dome does this as well, which is why you see the moon as a reflection of the sun.
You see, the sun is reflected down to one part of the concave earth and the other side doesn’t get that direct reflected light, but it does get to see the source of it on the other side of the dome, further down or up the bowl your position or country is.

It’s the reason we have lost cities under water. They didn’t just fall into the sea thousands of years ago. They were basically swamped by the drop in pressure as the earth keeps growing.
We weren’t always living under 15 psi of pressure. We lived under much higher pressures, because the earth sun was gaining in size and using more energy as it does so, causing lower pressure which means less pressure on the oceans, which means ocean rise, which means that those cities which were further down into the bowl, were flooded.
They weren’t just simply flooded overnight. It would have bee gradual. Something like we see now, where cliffs get eroded away and collapse.
It’s slowly happening again to those places that are nearest the inner bowl. This is why you see the flooding. It will gradually make those places uninhabitable as people will have to move back up the bowl, a little at a time.

If you want to give yourself a mental map of the bowl, as opposed to the globe map…try to alter your mind to the map you perceive as being correct because flight times and all the rest of it seem to fit.
The globe model is a very clever trick and you have to change your total perception of it to understand how it works.

First of all…forget Antarctica being the outer rim of ice before the dome.
Forget about the north pole being the inner circle of the dome.

WHAT!?
Confused?

The map we are shown (in my belief) is back to front, so get ready to picture this.
Picture your globe model with the north and south so called poles.
What we notice is that, countries like Canada, Russia and the likes, are around the north pole, or on TOP of the globe and Australia, most of south America and a decent portion of Africa and all of New Zealand, are spaced around the south pole and yet, if you look at the global map…does it not strike you as odd that it looks as bare as it does?
I mean, why have most of the land mass on the north side and just fractions on the south?

That’s because we have been duped into simply accepting that’s how it is…but in rational reality of your mind….if the earth was a globe or to be clap trap scientific about it…an oblate spheroid, because don’t forget, it bulges at the equator in this vacuum, don’t you know. lol

Ok, back to the jigsaw of thought.
Forget the globe and forget the north and south.
Try this thought.

Think of your globe as covered in foil and all the land masses printed on it.
Now open the foil up, like you would open a chocolate orange….
If you open it from the south pole end, or the bottom. You will find that the south pole (Antarctica, we are told) will spread around the outer edge of the foil and this would be known as the ice rim or the dome foundation….or so I thought.

I spent time pondering this and although it makes sense…something was niggling me, because I thought…well if Antarctica is the rim, then it’s UP the bowl, which means that all that water is also up the bowl. Can you see what I mean?

So I mentally peeled the foil from the north pole (top) of the globe and then it all made perfect sense.
You see..what we know as the north pole, is not the north pole…it’s really the south pole and the north pole is the actual outer rim, up the bowl.
What you find, now, if you mentally peel the foil from the top, is…you get Australia and Most of south America, a portion of Africa and all Of New Zealand, around the INNER rim of the bowl and Russia and Canada and Greenland, etc, are running around the upper part of the bowl, with other countries a little further down and so on and so on.

WH: If you will, I’d like you to give some serious thought to this and see what you can come up with, because there is still a lot to do in getting it all to work.
I’m in the process of finishing the exact same map that I’ve just explains, so you get a real good idea of the set up. It’s not a perfect map, as it’s extremely hard to to cover a globe and draw the land masses and then open it up to add in the extras, so it’s not perfect by any means, yet it gives the idea out very easily.
It should be finished today, so I will email you it, if you are interested.
If you could get LSC onto it as well, it would be great, because I like the way he thinks as well as you.
Cheers.

2014/01/17 at 9:47 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to sceppy.
Screppy, the bowl theory has already been suggested but doesn’t work out. International flight times and all that (Check Qantas, Sydney to Wellington). I’ve posted it twice somewhere on this blog (can’t remember where lol), maybe under concave earth theory.

2014/01/17 at 8:54 pm
John Gault
In reply to sceppy.
Sceppy- I agree with much of your thinking. Thanks for sharing.
Considering your north pole rim/south pole center model — how do you reconcile that model with the nightly rotation of the stars around the north star?

WH- thanks for creating this site and your ongoing efforts on this issue. Good stuff.

-JG

2014/01/17 at 11:49 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to John Gault.
You’re welcome. Just trying to make sense of it all and put it together, with friends 😉

sceppy
In reply to John Gault.
John Gault says:Sceppy- I agree with much of your thinking. Thanks for sharing.
Considering your north pole rim/south pole center model — how do you reconcile that model with the nightly rotation of the stars around the north star?
…….
Well, I think that all points of light including what we see as the north star, are simple a direct magnification through crystal in the centre of earth’s circle.
The best way I can describe what I’m thinking is to look what happens when you focus a magnifying glass to a point of light and imagine crystals doing the same thing, only up the dome .
Think of a rotating lamp in your home with fiber optic like dots of light rotating and you see it all on your ceiling.
I’d be lying if I professed to know the exact mechanics of it…but I believe it’s something along these lines.
I have it all in my head but trying to spit it out in a way that doesn’t make me appear a scatter brained loony, which I’m well used to being described as constantly, lol…is hard.

The only people that will ever read between the lines and give it thought, is people like you lot, because you allow yourselves to think and can obviously smell bullshit a mile of with official explanations.
I believe there is a hell of a lot of reflection going on around the dome as well.
We all live under water, it’s just that our water is much less dense than the sea and like the sea, the waves and the white surf is it’s clouds just like our clouds sit above us.
I’m sure you’ve heard the saying of the seven skies.
I know it’s to do with religion and I’m not religious, but the reality is, there will be 7 skies if you look at the different elements going up the dome.
It’s like the so called clouds in what they tell us is space, among the stars. It’s just lighter elements under high and low pressure just rising and dropping like our clouds do.

What these astronomers see as galaxies and such…all they are seeing, in my opinion, is reflections and clouds inside the dome.

2014/01/18 at 2:47 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to sceppy.
Think of a rotating lamp in your home with fiber optic like dots of light rotating and you see it all on your ceiling.

I was thinking along the same lines – the disco glitter ball effect. I’ve no idea about any crystal sphere in the center though, not that I am dismissing this – far from it – just that I haven’t looked into it. It may all be able to be explained by the effect of an eye of a vortex… or it may not lol 🙂

What these astronomers see as galaxies and such…all they are seeing, in my opinion, is reflections and clouds inside the dome.

Another point we tend to agree on. I very nearly added a little extra to one of the previous articles here showing that a lot of these so called photos of distant galaxies etc. , i.e. nebulae are actually just close ups of clouds in the stratosphere shot at night and then “touched up” as they always do numerous times to get the colour right (that good ol’ familiar purple colour) – lol 🙂

The only thing we disagree is on is gravity. The problem is air doesn’t expand everywhere in the Earth cavity to fill the required space. It settles near the crust with less and less air the higher we go to the point that we need breathing apparatus just to climb high mountains. Why isn’t the air equally spread over the 8000 mile diameter of the space inside the Earth… or even equally spread within the 100km atmosphere to the glass sky?

2014/01/18 at 10:04 am
sceppy
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Wild Heretic says:I was thinking along the same lines – the disco glitter ball effect. I’ve no idea about any crystal sphere in the center though, not that I am dismissing this – far from it – just that I haven’t looked into it. It may all be able to be explained by the effect of an eye of a vortex… or it may not lol 🙂
……………..
Yeah, it’s not an easy concept to grasp for anyone, I admit that and it’s a reliance on what appears to be fanciful thoughts.
I mean, we have no chance of physically seeing the truth of it all from a ground level observation, but they key is up in the sky at night with powerful telescopes, which we do not have access to but we know who does.
It’s about a blank canvas and going back to basics and looking at what earth is giving out, as in precious stones and dense gold/silver, etc.
We see it all in small amounts and use it as hard to find jewels. It’s like the big king sits on his central throne and throws his scraps to the peasants…as in, the centre holds the real jewels in abundance and they all work in unison.
Think of quartz in a watch. It vibrates.
Now equate that to the centre of something much larger vibrating around that centre in that vortex and spewing out light all around and that light being reflected.
I may be off the mark in the exact way it works but I’m 100% convinced that earth is a cell and everything we know, see and what happens, is down to this cell alone and nothing outside of that dome exists to our perception.
The suns movement around the earth is like a radar screen. Take a look at a radar screen and think along those lines.
Wild Heretic says:
Another point we tend to agree on. I very nearly added a little extra to one of the previous articles here showing that a lot of these so called photos of distant galaxies etc. , i.e. nebulae are actually just close ups of clouds in the stratosphere shot at night and then “touched up” as they always do numerous times to get the colour right (that good ol’ familiar purple colour) – lol
…….
Bang on here for me.
All separated gases make clouds in their respective sandwich filling layers and it’s trapped molecules within molecules.
For instance:
At sea level, we breathe the air but that air contains all the elements that are above us to the top of the dome.
The sun radiation/friction expands those and separates them, Russian doll style, layer by layer, like farting in the bath where it starts off as smaller bubbles as they come out and gain in expansion as they reach the top until they pop, (peg on the nose at this point) lol
Hydrogen is one of the last dolls inside that Russian doll, which is why we need to use electrolysis to separate it at sea level.
We can separate it easily by setting fire to a log because the log just needs a start off of super friction, or to be simple…a match.
All fire is doing is distributing the elements into their respective layers, just like the heat of the fire of earth sun does to water. It breaks it down by friction and boils it into steam that breaks down as it’s pushed by denser sea level molecules squeezing it up and the higher it gets, it’s changing again…it’s being separated based on the heat of the sun and the expansion of molecules that sit in the sky…all under agitation because it’s pressure on pressure.
Nothing gets destroyed, it just gets sorted by expansion or contraction/condensing.
Each set of clouds from our vision by eye to our vision higher up by telescope and further, are the result of a build up of not quite expanded molecules of whatever gases and some are still trapped inside others as the sun has moved away, so they condense and fall and squash and fall and condense and fall…and by the time it becomes too condensed…we are soaking wet with rain fall.
Super condensed and the friction becomes so fast, it starts a separation/expansion again on it’s way down, which is why we see a crack of lightning.

2014/01/18 at 1:14 pm
John Gault
In reply to sceppy.
Sceppy said: “The best way I can describe what I’m thinking is to look what happens when you focus a magnifying glass to a point of light and imagine crystals doing the same thing, only up the dome .”

Sceppy, are you talking about a dome OVER a bowl (or undulating plane) model? Or are you talking about a Koreshian ‘inside the spherical earth” model?

I appreciate that you don’t have all of the mechanics worked out (completely) but I am trying to clarify exactly which model you are proposing.

I completely agree with your contention that we live in a less-dense sea (of water) above the oceans (sea level) and below the “sky”. Furthermore, “gravity” is nonsense — object rise or fall based upon their relative buoyancy to the atmosphere around them.

Drop a rock, an air-filled balloon and a helium-filled balloon from ten feet above the water’s surface. What happens? Rock hits water and sinks; air-filled balloon hits water and floats on surface; helium -filled balloon begins rising. The ‘system’ seeks equilibrium at all levels.

WH: regarding flight times– we do not know the speed and routes of these flights and therefore must be careful not to give such evidence more weight than it deserves. Additionally, cartography is (I believe) a massive tool of deception.

Maybe these maps and legends have been misunderstood.

-JG

2014/01/18 at 4:09 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to John Gault.
My favourite old map is the one with the man’s head poking above the starry sky dome into the new world. Still can’t make sense of it but it is intriguing.

Yeah, but it is very difficult to debunk flight times. We have just 2 possible options as I can see it – either they are lying about the times and it takes a lot longer than they say it does or they are flying a lot faster (or all other flights fly a lot slower). How much further is the southern hemisphere compared to its northern one of the same latitude in a flat or bowl earth model? Twice, three times, four times? Do other flights all over the world travel ridiculously slow normally or do airplanes have secret tech that can get them to twice or three times the 600mph they normally travel to pull off this deception? If it is the flight time that is wrong, then surely passengers would notice a journey of twice the stated length every time… surely. The odds of this being wrong is 99.999% in my opinion.

I am interested in old maps though.

2014/01/18 at 4:56 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to sceppy.
I generally agree with you about pressure but disagree about gravity ( I edit my other reply below to include it).

My initial take on the water cycle without thinking about it much is that the Earth warms up due to the Sun and then condenses in the sky higher up because it is colder there. Why is it colder? Because the infra-red absorbing gases are all heavy (not speculation, but fact – look up the “greenhouse gases, they are all big molecules such as methane, water vapour, carbon dioxide etc.), these gases are in the lower atmosphere. The vapour condenses and falls. No idea if this is correct, just pulled that out of my a**. 🙂

2014/01/18 at 5:08 pm
Lord Steven Christ
missteribabylonestar.com/posthypnoticepiphany.html
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Stuff’s gonna go mainstream, get ready. 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-F4a6_uM1s

2014/01/18 at 6:25 pm
John Gault
In reply to John Gault.
(in reply to WH below–the “reply” did not appear after their comment)

WH says: “We have just 2 possible options as I can see it – either they are lying about the times and it takes a lot longer than they say it does or they are flying a lot faster (or all other flights fly a lot slower).”

The flight times are taken to be accurate as they are easily verifiable by any passenger.

The unknowns are: 1) the ground speed of the airplanes and 2) the true distance between the start point and the end point, particularly those points separated by vast stretches of ocean.

How do we calculate or measure an airplanes current ground speed? Well, we just need to know the airplane’s TAS (true air speed) (good luck!) then add or subtract local wind speeds (measured how ???) toss in some altitude/ pressure/density/temperature data and…viola! Obfuscation by complication.

Speed = Distance / Time
An accurate measure of speed requires an accurate measure of distance.
What is the true distance between Rio and Sydney? How is this measured?
It is circular logic to validate an unknown distance with unknown speed.

If we profess to know the true distances then we profess to know the true shape and size of the earth, yet that (shape and size) would seem to be the issue at hand and thus the true distances are -for purposes of this discussion – unknown.

Also, in thinking about the sphere vs flat vs bowl vs inverted sphere, I always find the compass to be hard to ignore.

How does/would a compass work in an inverted earth?

-JG

2014/01/18 at 8:19 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to John Gault.
How do we calculate or measure an airplanes current ground speed? Well, we just need to know the airplane’s TAS (true air speed) (good luck!) then add or subtract local wind speeds (measured how ???) toss in some altitude/ pressure/density/temperature data and…viola! Obfuscation by complication.

Still very improbable. These variations such as wind speed are too minor. They don’t double or triple a plane’s speed or slow down a plane by as much. This also means that no distances or speed can be measured anywhere on the Earth, not just accurately but even generally whether it is the distance from London to Birmingham, Paris to Brussels, Sydney to Perth, Paris to Moscow etc. The variations you mention are valid for all flights everywhere, yet the southern hemisphere flights should be consistently twice or three times longer. What variations only consistently apply to the southern hemisphere to equalize the flight times of those of the northern hemisphere? Is there a wind that whips around the southern hemisphere carrying a plane three times as fast as normal? Can you show me this data? If you have a theory backed by data I will certainly listen.

Also, in thinking about the sphere vs flat vs bowl vs inverted sphere, I always find the compass to be hard to ignore.

Yeah I agree. In a concave Earth it would be space that is magnetized or exhibits those properties, not the Earth. In fact it can’t be the Earth, at least with the current explanation of an iron core creating the magnetism, as iron loses its magnetic properties over 770 degrees C (the Curie temp). 🙂 It’s amazing the shit they try and make us believe.

In fact, it is likely that it is not only the earth that is a cavity, but atoms as well. In the early 20th century (era of the final push IMO), we had the Bohr atom of little balls whizzing around a nucleus and a macro universe of bigger balls traveling around an even bigger nucleus (the Sun) in orbits just like electrons. What if both were horseshit? Magnetism is a vortex (just like the aether IMO), not little balls whizzing around a bigger one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP3UIHD-Vc4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfmXVhUC3tg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5WufdvYZdY

…and this pdf which should be required reading of all theorists:

http://www.freeinfosociety.com/media.php?id=3935

2014/01/18 at 11:28 pm
Saros

Wild Heretic, please add a forum link on your website, as it is getting increasingly difficult to discuss or comment here. I think an ongoing discussion might contribute a lot.

Meanwhile, I have started my own forum, there is nothing there right now, but if anyone (Sceppy, John Gault, WH, LSC etc )wants to post a thread on something related to concave Earth, gravity, space travel hoax etc, you guys are more than welcome!
I would like to have a more intensive discussion while waiting for the new article 🙂

http://serendipitous.boards.net/board/1/general-board

2014/01/19 at 9:40 am
John Gault
In reply to John Gault.
WH, thanks for the thoughtful reply. To clarify, I strongly reject the helio model and all of the claims (iron core, etc.) associated with it. In considering three specific alternatives – flat w/dome, bowl w/dome or inverted sphere – the inverted sphere is the least compatible with the known (verified, observed) behavior of a compass. Intellectual honesty compels us to acknowledge this apparent contradiction, however injurious such admissions may be to our ‘working hypotheses’. (contradictions do not exist; apparent contradictions arise from errors in thinking)

Where is the “northern center” –to which a compass does point—located in a concave, inside the sphere earth? While geometry allows for the inversion of the helio model into the Koreshian model, such inversions do not solve the apparent contradiction between the compass and a spherical surface (convex or concave).

-JG

2014/01/19 at 4:18 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to John Gault.
I actually disagree with the compass purely because we have no idea of the shape of form of the aether currents in the center of Earth space. A magnetic compass points 4 to 9 degrees off true north I think (if I remember that correctly). I don’t understand the contradiction. In CET the magnetic currents aren’t of the solid crust but of space itself. That is how it would work and current magnetic findings of vortices allow for that.

Where is the “northern center” –to which a compass does point?

4 to 9 degrees north.

In a concave Earth how would traditional gravity work (I know you don’t believe the official theory and neither do I)?

How would magnetism work?

How would light work?

How would the path of the Sun work?

etc. etc.

That’s for us to work out, preferably with data and evidence rather than pure speculation.

Apply these questions to the bowl theory. The Earth has already been proven not to be flat and so the last refuge of flat-earthers such as yourself and screppy is the bowl-shaped earth. Work out these questions for the bowl-shaped earth. I am slowly but surely doing it for CET.

Such inversions do not solve the apparent contradiction between the compass and a spherical surface (convex or concave).

Can you expand on these contradictions please?

I can’t get the path of the Sun to work with a bowl-shaped Earth, but I certainly can with a concave Earth, especially with the evidence so far of bendy light.

2014/01/19 at 10:38 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Saros.
Sure. What is the best free forum software for a WordPress blog such as this?

They new article is unfortunately heavy on the numbers, but occasionally light in parts. Hence the wait lol.

2014/01/19 at 10:42 pm
Saros
In reply to Wild Heretic.
I found something that might work: http://wordpress.org/plugins/bbpress/

It would be really nice if there is a forum here as well. I believe that might improve the discussion 🙂

2014/01/20 at 9:18 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Saros.
I uploaded bbforum last night but I’m trying to figure out how to link it to the top menu. I want “home” tab and then “forum” tab next to it, but I have forgotten how I put the “home” tab there lol. Let me have a look.

2014/01/20 at 9:19 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Saros.
Saros, I’ve added the forum. Click on the tab at the top menu. I’ve added three topics for discussion which mirror the articles on this blog so far.

http://www.wildheretic.com/forums/

I’ll have to leave it till tomorrow to set up a registration page and lost password etc. Its 20 past midnight right now and way past my bed time.

2014/01/20 at 10:23 pm
John Gault
In reply to John Gault.
WH, I am not a “flat-earther”– I am a non-heliocentrist sorting through alternatives. Among those are flat, bowl and concave sphere. .

As for magnetic deviation (of a compass), that can range from zero to over 120 degrees.

-JG

2014/01/21 at 11:16 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to John Gault.
JG, you need to expand on the compass needle objection so I know what it is. 🙂

As for magnetic deviation (of a compass), that can range from zero to over 120 degrees.

That is interesting in itself.

2014/01/22 at 12:37 am
John Gault
In reply to John Gault.
Yes, magnetic deviation is very interesting. Your earlier comment sent me looking into the details and – so far – I have more questions than answers.
Check out the magnetic deviation world map http://androgeoid.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/magmap.jpg
The area south of Australia shows extreme deviations. I have been unable to locate a map showing the precise data on the magnetic deviation in most northern areas.
The concern that a compass might not function on or in a sphere is based on the design and limitations of a compass. It appears designed to function in a two-dimensional plane; it indicates a line on a plane. Also, magnetic fields are two-dimensional.
-JG

2014/01/22 at 4:51 am
Wild Heretic

It looks like I have banjaxed the website by accidentally deleting the advanced-cache.pho file while trying to install a plug in. Either that, or there was a big spike in traffic recently due to me putting a link on the DI forum. Will have to wait till tomorrow to sort it out as I am too tired tonight.

2014/01/23 at 12:27 am
Wild Heretic

It looks like I have banjaxed the website by accidentally deleting the advanced-cahce.pho file while trying to install a plug in. Either that, or there was a big spike in traffic recently due to me putting a link on the DI forum. Will have to wait till tomorrow to sort it out as I am too tired tonight.

2014/01/23 at 12:27 am
Wild Heretic

It looks like I have banjaxed the website by accidentally deleting the advanced-cahce.php file while trying to install a plug in. Either that, or there was a big spike in traffic recently due to me putting a link on the DI forum. Will have to wait till tomorrow to sort it out as I am too tired tonight.

2014/01/23 at 12:28 am
Wild Heretic

Sorry about the forum escapade. I’m not willing to break the site to try and fix the problem of the minimized text box. LSC, you forum posts are still there, but not linked.

I could look into solving it, but I don’t know what caused it and reinstalling bbpress means getting rid of what was on there.

Sorry about that. It also looks like the slow down was due to a spike in traffic. There is nothing i can do about that.

This site will remain as a blog for the time being and I’ll just concentrate on the material from now on.

2014/01/23 at 10:50 pm
Lord Steven Christ
missteribabylonestar.com/posthypnoticepiphany.html
In reply to Wild Heretic.
FIFY, NASA 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VRZ9jueuSc

2014/01/29 at 5:37 pm
LionLamb
lionandlambministry.com

Terrific INFO PACKED site! Good job. Will be reading and posting, LORD willing.

2014/02/06 at 6:44 pm
Lord Steven Christ
missteribabylonestar.com/posthypnoticepiphany.html

WH, I mention you in this vid. 🙂
The Rubberband-Oscillating-Earth 93-Million Miles of Bullshit Theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGm9sCJ0aIE

2014/02/07 at 6:21 pm
sumstuff52

Earth Curves UPWARDS(Concave) NOT Downwards(Convex) As We See

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxE9miXXB9A

Whether the camera is leveled or not it should not matter at all. The center of the image should remain where it is in BOTH situations – in the water. The camera should simply zoom in to the center. There shouldn’t be such a difference at all.

2014/02/09 at 5:31 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
Hahaha! Love it.

Steve. I still haven’t got an internet connection yet (hopefully this week). I won’t be able to approve comments or reply regularly at all until then.

Cheers.

2014/02/11 at 12:35 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to sumstuff52.
Will check it out when I have more time. Thanks for the additional research sumstuff.

2014/02/11 at 12:54 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to LionLamb.
Occassionally I can’t tell a spam comment if it is too general. Lion, reply back to this reply to verify, will you.

2014/02/11 at 12:55 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
Will look when I have more time Steve.

2014/02/11 at 1:24 pm
Enlighten Fawn

Have You checked out The Flat Earth Society? 🙂
I Wish for a More Pleasant Avatar Here! I’d change it if I knew how on Your site! 🙂 So, would You change it for Me?
It aches Me when I read or here about NASA developing technology to destroy Asteroids & Comets! I Still Believe that They Are Precious Forms of LIFE+ Consisting of Essential Elements Like StarWater, Seeds, Minerals, Oxygen, etc.
I question Meteors…? Are they more like a Big Rock? Do You think when Meteors fall to the land – do they break through the Glass Sky or maybe they are even part of that Creation – creating the Glass Sky?
Fawn ~

2014/02/13 at 8:46 pm
sumstuff52
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Hello WH, here’s another great test for the readers from ka rol, a Polish researcher that has simple proof of earth’s concavity in which anyone can try themselves 🙂

Is the Earth convex or concave ? Do it yourself !

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HBUjQ6JNqmXyz3AIa3GfFKN3xN1vY6JrwsFDJC0sm8I/edit?hl=pl&forcehl=1

enjoy

2014/02/17 at 3:30 pm
LIonLamb
lionandlambministry.com
In reply to Wild Heretic.
WH,

I am replying back to your comment asking me to reply back…lol.

2014/02/18 at 7:16 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to sumstuff52.
Thanks Sumstuff. Having a quick look right now. I might use this in the next article. Great stuff.

2014/02/19 at 12:34 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Enlighten Fawn.
Meteors are pure metal (a part of the Sun) which break through the glass mixing with it in different ratios to give us the 4(?) different types of meteorites.