Comments (Concave Earth Theory)

Page 5

2014/05/13 at 1:39 pm
Enlighten Fawn
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
Hi Steve ~ Thanks for Your Response – I just found it today – 05-13-14 – Interesting > I’m not sure what ‘Pine Gap’ is ? Everyday, as Time goes on…. I’m So Thankful of My Dad’s Insights, Facts, etc. He Told Me to be Open to All Discoveries, Theories… He told Me of Atlantis, the Hollow Earth, Flat Earth Society :-), among a Lot of Other things, as well! He mentioned the Concave, but didn’t elaborate on that one – it is hard for some people to wrap their brain around that one! Unfortunately, My Dad perished through the ‘establishment’ He did Tell Me though, that if I do perish, it’s from interference /invasion… Truth Will Always Prevail+ Fawn ~

2014/05/13 at 5:02 pm
Enlighten Fawn
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Thanks WH ~ I Hope there Is Giant Peach Tree’s, too – because I’m allergic to mushrooms!!

2014/05/13 at 5:04 pm
Enlighten Fawn
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
Hi Steve ~ That Is so Interesting about that CNET article! BTW, I just viewed Your video – What is the Pine Gap? So, now I understand – What’s also Interesting is that My Dad told Me that the Star Trek shows were based on Real Life! and the Fact that Kate Mulgrew was on that show! Wow, the Dots Are Connecting…. that Krauss man is like what Wild Heretic states: “A turd in the Punchbowl” tee hee – 😉 Fawn ~

2014/05/13 at 5:44 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Saros.
No Saros, that is a new one for me.

The only thing I have heard of is using air pressure as a very rough guide to find out how high something is (such as a plane), but then I read that calculated air pressures at such and such an altitude were different to actual readings from a balloon.. but then what other yardsticks did they use to know how high the balloon was etc.? Time?

Can you tell me what the relative yardsticks are?

I’ll have a quick look into it.

Cheers

EDIT: Found this after an initial look: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=208501
So, they use radar/laser eh? Light bends, but radar supposedly less so. I haven’t thought much beyond this at the moment.

2014/05/14 at 9:10 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Enlighten Fawn.
Hi EF,

What did your dad mean by perishing through interference/invasion and him perishing through the establishment?

2014/05/14 at 9:15 am
Nils Esche

The explanation you were asking for does not appear.
I sended is 3 times already.

2014/05/14 at 9:48 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Nils Esche.
Mmmm. Try on the homepage maybe.

2014/05/14 at 1:02 pm
Saros
In reply to Wild Heretic.
I have been thinking a bit about it and my guess is that based on altitude we should be able to determine where we’re within the Earth and more broadly we can perhaps even prove the actual shape of the planet, but since the altitude is not measured absolutely but only relative to the sea level this is not really helpful. The sea level might be at an altitude of let’s say 2000 km relative to another region of the ocean, but since we know the surface curves we can’t tell the actual altitude and it only makes sense within a few hundred km around the point of reference. We can speculate, I guess, that the poles are at a higher or maybe lower location, for example, and that is why they are frozen, or something within these lines. I even pictured a hypothetical model of the concave Earth where the polar regions are some sort of cylindrical upward formation in the middle of the concave Earth. The different climates might also be due to the altitude somehow, although we’re not aware of that and we’re told that we can only observe the effect of altitude on climate in mountains and such, but perhaps that is the reason why we have climates at all, due to a certain region being higher or lower absolutely. This is just a wild guess but since altitude is something very relative and not easily absolutely provable and verifiable, I think it is a good field for research. Especially considering the possibility that it might turn out that certain calculations related to the altitude of objects in space, natural or man-made, are wrong and it absolute terms actually invalid.

2014/05/14 at 1:12 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Saros.
Interesting thinking Saros. I hadn’t though of it like that. My take on it was just that seasons were caused by the angle of the “spotlight” Sun and altitude was based on height from the ground directly underneath whether the Earth were flat, convex or concave… but getting height by triangulation of radar and such like might not be so accurate if the Earth is concave. I’m not sure to be honest.

2014/05/14 at 1:38 pm
greek man

A map of ferguson orlando>

Food for thought?

Could this also explain the climates and temperatures?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Orlando-Ferguson-flat-earth-map.jpg

2014/05/14 at 3:45 pm
Nils Esche

Explanation why I think this footage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjXvV0JBE0k

uses wide angle lens:

––––––––––––––––––––––––––

This is what we are seeing during the whole footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUY5dhawKiQ

Not by the use of a digital effect but through the optics of the wide angle lens, they used.

The horizon is curving in- and upwards while the object, the camera is attached to, rotates
2m:00s following , 2m:15s following, 3m:00s till the end of the footage.

While “earth” is in the center of the lens, the wide angle effect makes earth/the horizon look convex.
When earth “moves” from the center to the border of the lens, the horizon seems to turn concave and the black space/sky bulges with the same effect – the illusion to be convex.

As you can see at 2m:15s the ejected unit is unnaturally bent as well – by wide angle lens!

Please have a look at Felix Baumgarten space jump:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDdFlhzNq8o

Same there. They use a wide angle lens – both, on his “spaceship” camera and his helmet cam as well. His spaceship is unnaturally bent 0m:15s.
While Felix and his cam are rotating, you can watch the same as in the other footage: The horizon is curving in- and upwards depending of being in the center or the border of the scene. Really extreme at around 5m:00s. We can see a perfectly spherical heaven there too.

Well, they have to use those optics, to fool the audience. Felix disappeared from the public after he jumped. I am sure he is knowing the truth.

I am not certain yet, but I guess that windows of airplanes are lenses as well. Besides from reasons of air pressure their form might have optical reasons, causing the illusion of a convex horizon.

3.bp.blogspot.com/_wg6cfmBqC24/TOfZrJz9iJI/AAAAAAAABcY/SMbwvnTAsHo/s1600/Flugzeugfenster02.jpg
Look how the wing on the left of the picture its curved upwards. Surly this this has physical reasons while flying. Maybe that has optical reasons, while fooling as well 😉

1.bp.blogspot.com/-hgNbEeyrvRM/UZynTQFmXBI/AAAAAAAAAtQ/Rk7O_Jy-guU/s1600/photo.jpg

Back to the Space Shuttle footage: Too bad, the camera was attached to the fuel tank and not to the shuttle itself.
Otherwise we could have see it passing the glass sky 😉

2014/05/14 at 7:31 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to greek man.
No. It’s much simpler than that. Give me a couple of months and hopefully all will be revealed.

2014/05/14 at 8:44 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Nils Esche.
I get you now. Sorry about not being able to post. I’ll adjust the limit of the number of links allowed in a post. Maybe that is it.

I see the fish eye lens now as the object (main solid booster rocket I think?) is definitely unnaturally bent. They are crafty deceptive buggers aren’t they? Shame on them and their organization.

I also see Baumgartner’s bent capsule. I hadn’t noticed that at first thinking that was the natural design, but clearly it is not. And at 1:03 the Earth looks like it is through a fish eye. I get you now. Look at 3:17, and 3:41 to 5:03! The whole earth is curved around in a circle!!!

Great find about the airplane window. The whole wing is bent upwards – air pressure? Doesn’t look like it; more a convex reflection of the glass.

Yeah, they can’t attach it to the shuttle for obvious reasons… ahem! Even if it survived breaking through the glass (or is it melting through?), it certainly wouldn’t be able to survive the 1600 C temps melting through it on the way down. Of course, they don’t want us to see the glass as well obviously.

Shame on the crooks. Being on the wrong side of the equation is always a terrible nagging burden on the soul and eventually will take its toll. They obviously don’t mind the cost.

And thanks again Nils for helping myself and all readers to understand the fish eye lens issue.

2014/05/14 at 9:42 pm
Saros

WH, why have you deleted mu comments regarding altitude? I don’t understand?! You first posted them and even replied to them, and now they’re gone?

2014/05/15 at 8:20 am
Saros

I guess, something is wrong with the website, as I see now that the comments are visible. They only became visible after I posted my question a minute ago. Very strange. Could you try to fix this as it is really confusing. I can’t see what I have posted sometimes.

2014/05/15 at 8:21 am
sumstuff52[Donald Sarty]

Great comment
Charles Gordon
7 hours ago

Could you help me answer these questions from my flat earth wacko friend:
People that are living in the Rochester area. can see the Toronto skyline, the tower and buildings on a clear day. The distance is approx.100 miles the declination is 6,600 feet. In essence I am standing on one side of a 6,600 foot hill that is shaped like the curve of earth I can see buildings on the other side approx.100 miles away. Is that possible ? What is the difference between standing on the seashore at a 6,600 declination at approx. 100 miles and a hill that is 6,600 feet tall (assuming that the hill has the same curve as the curve of the ocean) ? In both cases I have a 6,600 hill or curve of earth to see objects that far away. I am wrong? Is it refraction? Let me know your thoughts. I have looked into refraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction.) but that involves the sun at sunset, sunrise and atmospheric conditions. In terrestrial refraction the line of sight variance is 8% + or – , depending on conditions near the surface of the water. Let me know what you thoughts are. Also, I live in So Cal and on a clear early morning as I stand on the shore I can see the coastal lights of Avalon, Catalina with my telescope I can see boat movements, people playing and walking along the shoreline. It’s approx. 30 miles away. The declination is approx. 600 feet. Why is it that I see the coastal lights and movement along the shoreline? Shouldn’t the approx. 600 feet of declination prevent me from seeing the lights and movements? Is the light, movements and image bending / refracting? Is it an optical illusion? I don’t know the answer, could you help explain those questions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9yuO9tai28&feature=gp-n-y

2014/05/15 at 11:25 am
Nils Esche
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Have a look at „Google Earth“ from whatever location – and set the height to about 40 kilometers (Felix) and up to 100 kilometers (space shuttle flight we saw/glass sky we consider).

Assumed, they did their homework on converting values on „Google Earth“ to „correctly“ convex, one nohow would be able to see the „ball“ – which is „earth“ – from those distances as a whole.

Not even close to it! (I need to set it “5,000 kilometers”, to even see all edges of convex earth.)

Why should they do so, if this (in case of Felix) can be easily revealed – if that was not the agenda, to keep us believing in a convex earth?

Yes, they are crafty deceptive buggers 🙂
And the pieces of the puzzle they provide us with do not match.

Just for the heck of it, Nils

2014/05/15 at 5:40 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Saros.
Saros, I have no idea what is going on with what you see lol. I hope it is ok now.

2014/05/18 at 4:58 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to sumstuff52[Donald Sarty].
Thanks Sumstuff,

Great find. Keep it up and well done.

2014/05/18 at 5:01 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Nils Esche.
Thanks Nils. Much appreciated.

2014/05/18 at 5:07 pm
Wild Heretic

A very intelligent young Hungarian reader who I have been in contact with by email has pointed out that the introduction to the TV series Game of Thrones shows an artificial metallic Sun and a concave Earth. Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7L2PVdrb_8

http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Title_sequence

It’s another Star Trek “For the world is hollow and I have touched the sky” moment.

2014/05/18 at 5:11 pm
sumstuff52[Donald Sarty]
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Great find never watched the show but the intro is a blatant subliminal thanks again WH for that great tidbit

Game of Thrones Concave Earth Intro and shows an Artificial Metallic Sun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5hODzQVHQ4

2014/05/19 at 10:40 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to sumstuff52[Donald Sarty].
I hadn’t watched it either, so I was glad when it was pointed out to me.

I was just thinking that it showed the world as a kind of artificial clockwork-like machine as well. Are they trying to tell us we live inside a machine or an artificial matrix?

Also important are the 2 “glass” flashes at 0.12s indicating 2 glass layers. I only have evidence for one of them so I am sticking to that for now. If you freeze frame at 0.12s you’ll see the ground looks more opaque or out of focus like it would through glass.

2014/05/19 at 1:58 pm
Enlighten Fawn

Hi WH ~
Your reply comment to Me didn’t have a ‘reply’ showing to the right (?) You had asked about My Dad = Well, it is complex, but it comes to what You Believe, the Different Realms of Life, and My Dad Knew Everything > a spy, in a sense, and He Told Me a Lot, and also told Me to Be Selective – so, I can’t really state anymore then that….. I Can State though, He Was/Is the Best Dad a Daughter could Have! 😉 I Feel Grateful & Blessed He Is My Dad* I Am So Thankful of the Strength that I’ve Acquired because of Him+ I Miss Him So Much, but His Presence Is All Around+ Thank You for asking, and letting Me Share My Thoughts 🙂 Fawn ~

2014/05/19 at 11:28 pm
sumstuff52[Donald Sarty]
In reply to Wild Heretic.
I believe they are trying to tell us the truth i mean how insane is it seeing with my own eyes Jupiter Mars etc circling the moon clockwise or 2-3 days in a row and in Stellarium software also. how blatant ;P
All the planets stars [orbs] seem to be spiraling in and out taking turns and going clockwise when approaching the moon
Some movies are showing spirals also the movie Dark City has some strange subliminals with clocks and a matrix type world

And did you see the the Interstellar trailer looks like an astronaut approaching the convex firmament sphere and with the Milky Way embedded in the firmament and the vehicle hits it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSWdZVtXT7E

2014/05/20 at 12:59 pm
sumstuff52[Donald Sarty]
In reply to sumstuff52[Donald Sarty].
Astronaut Approaches our Tiny Convex Universe in Interstellar Movie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_AxYgrwjZI

2014/05/20 at 1:32 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to sumstuff52[Donald Sarty].
The planets are very strange. I’ve just had a quick look into their paths and there are two issues. The first is that after watching quite a few of your videos Don, there seems to be a difference in how the visible planets are supposed to be seen in the sky and how Stellarium shows them. I’m not sure what to make of that. The other issue is that the paths are really odd. Mars is the least unusual, but we have a diagonal movement with a nice little loop in the middle for a few months and then Venus appearing for a week in January and a few weeks in February and then nothing all year or so it seems. it also has waxes and wanes just like our moon funnily enough.
http://earthsky.org/human-world/venus-brightest-greatest-brilliancy-greatest-illuminated-extent

And of course they all reflect light like a disk or bowl and not like a sphere.

Before having a look at the paths I was lazy and just thought the planets were orbiting in a vortex around the Sun, but that doesn’t work out in a concave Earth perspective that I can figure. Planets wouldn’t just disappear, they would be visible from some location on the Earth all the time in this model.

At one point I’ll have to look at Stellarium and see all the calculated paths of the planets during the year and see if i can make any sense of them. It seems very difficult so far.

The stars also have their secrets. I’ve just found out today that the stars possibly orbit the sky along the electric paths (same path as the Sun’s bendy light). I’m trying to make heads or tails of it. We’ll see.

2014/05/20 at 3:23 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to sumstuff52[Donald Sarty].
Interesting that they have introduced curved space and the ship seems to hit something on the horizontal. Not sure what to make of it.

2014/05/20 at 3:53 pm
jack

i m sorry if all your calculation is correct then ya the earth is not a sphere. except there is 1 HUGE problem in your prove the earth is freaking 25,000 long and for each mile the drop is about 8in. that mean the camera that is 26miles away will only see a DROP of 17ft, i m sorry the truth hurt. next time try to bring up some real proof instead of making up some number and make your lie sound more stupid then it already sound.

2014/05/22 at 5:24 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to jack.
Jack,

A bit more coherence please. State exactly where you see a issue and what the issue is and let’s have a look together.

Edit: Ok, its the military infra-red lens. No, for each mile there isn’t a proportional drop of 8 inches as far as I can see. That would mean the Earth is a slope. You have to use the square law for a curve I think as the further along the curve you travel, you steeper the drop proportional to the horizontal distance. Is that ok?

2014/05/22 at 12:09 pm
jack
In reply to Wild Heretic.
first i would like to apologize for my language earlier because i just done arguing with someone else earlier.

if you drop 8in per mile then its a sphere i cant draw it here if you have a TI 82 or up just do the formula.

the issue is with the so call proof on the military camera, that doesn’t prove anything like i stated before the earth is 25,000 miles long. how i get that number? i take a ruler and measure the earth one foot at a time. Now the earth will curve approximately 8in per mile in order to form a sphere or you can do just do the math. C=2#R #=pie i cant find the sign on my keyboard
i m not going to the detail of how you get 8in per mile on a sphere.
What i m trying to point out is for a shoot that’s 26mi away then the earth will curve about 13feet if we rule out the hills , or what so ever. so if a guy is shooting 10feet above sea level, i m not sure where the guy is the elevation for coney island is 10-50ft. vs 10-200 in Manhattan. unless you can find out exactly where the guy is at there is no way you can compare. so lets assume they are all at the sea level. then the camera is going to capture all of the empire building except 8ft at the bottom. since the camera is 5ft above. this doesn’t prove anything.

also if you believe in gravity then you should know over time the amount of gravity will pull anything toward its center and make it a sphere. if there is GOD who out of curios and make a CUBE planet then over time that CUBE will turn into sphere.

Had you even look up the guy Teed Cyrus? the guy formed Koreshan Unity. and claim he is the messiah and will get resurrected but guess what he is dead and that’s why his group is dead so is his religion. He is a guy who form a religious group and try to tell people all the non sense and there are people who actually believe in him like the guy who DID this experiment try to prove his idea is REAL. You are right there is no way i can prove his experiment is wrong unless i m crazy and have tons money to throw away and do the experiment again. Any experiment that is made my religious group for the solo purpose to prove their idea is right, also not accepted by the scientific community and cannot be reproduced has NO credibility what so ever.

also about the altitude theory that the horizon is always eye level, are you kidding me? there is a simple tool you can get to test the level or altitude its call a LASER get one and tell me if the horizon is higher .

I still don’t know where you get the 2ft drop every mile. and please don’t even bother to use a book written by proven fake messiah and believe everything in that book. at least try to use bible as scientific proof , at least we cant prove Jesus if fake too. maybe couple thousands of years later and we lost all our information and then someone brought up Teed Cryus and stated he DID get resurrected and everything he did after he got resurrected like they wrote about Jesus. until then he is FAKE and everything he said about god, life, etc is non sense.

2014/05/23 at 8:32 am
jack
In reply to Wild Heretic.
by the way you are way more reasonable person then most people i meet that has crazy ideas. lets discover the truth together.

2014/05/23 at 8:36 am
jack
In reply to Wild Heretic.
If you are looking for a new messiah or Jesus reborn ed, look up Alan john miller from Australia.
by the way i m atheist , so no bible say, no Jesus say, no god says. they just full of sh*t to me.

2014/05/23 at 8:42 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to jack.
If you drop 8in per mile then its a sphere i cant draw it here if you have a TI 82 or up just do the formula.

The issue is with the so call proof on the military camera, that doesn’t prove anything like i stated before the earth is 25,000 miles long. how i get that number? i take a ruler and measure the earth one foot at a time. Now the earth will curve approximately 8in per mile in order to form a sphere or you can do just do the math. C=2#R #=pie i cant find the sign on my keyboard
i m not going to the detail of how you get 8in per mile on a sphere.

No. That would be a straight slope downwards. The convex theory is that it is the shape of the Earth that causes the horizon. I.e. we cannot see beyond the horizon because the Earth’s shape dips below the line of sight which is always at the horizontal. If I move 1 mile across and 8 inches down proportionally each mile (i.e in 100 miles I have 800 inches), then I have moved down a straight slope. However the Earth is shaped like a very slightly squashed sphere (according to convex theory) and not an declining slope. To calculate the increased rate of drop from the horizontal when continuing down a sphere we use the square law (which opens up whole new understandings in itself). This is because the further we move down the sphere, the bigger the rate of drop away from the horizontal line of sight above. Do you understand? If not, I’ll draw 2 simple diagrams to represent this for clarity later on.

What i m trying to point out is for a shoot that’s 26mi away then the earth will curve about 13feet if we rule out the hills , or what so ever. so if a guy is shooting 10feet above sea level, i m not sure where the guy is the elevation for coney island is 10-50ft. vs 10-200 in Manhattan. unless you can find out exactly where the guy is at there is no way you can compare. so lets assume they are all at the sea level. then the camera is going to capture all of the empire building except 8ft at the bottom. since the camera is 5ft above. this doesn’t prove anything.

See above.

I do believe in gravity, but it is most certainly a concept to question; and an initial skepticism of everything is a good place to start, especially where critical thinking is concerned. The concept of gravity inside a concave Earth is of course the opposite to the conventional theory, and that is that it is space that is doing the pushing rather than a solid object doing the pulling.

Of course, but his methods were meticulously observed and inspected by Copernican outsiders. This was an incredibly thorough and confirmed experiment. His results just on their own merit look also genuine as Simanek has already pointed out.

You are right there is no way i can prove his experiment is wrong unless i m crazy and have tons money to throw away and do the experiment again. Any experiment that is made my religious group for the solo purpose to prove their idea is right, also not accepted by the scientific community and cannot be reproduced has NO credibility what so ever.

Wrong. There is no such thing as “the scientific community”. This experiment can be reproduced of course, but never has (at least in public). Don’t you think this foundational and monumental revelation of the truth to where we reside is of fundamental importance for humanity? I do. If they can afford to spend billions shooting objects through the glass, then they can afford a few million to determine the Earth’s shape, don’t you think?

I’ll be talking about light and how lasers are inaccurate past 90 meters I think it is. Go to Rolf Kepplers site if you can’t wait.

See above. I’m not going to discuss the bible or my metaphysical beliefs on this blog… at least not yet. I don’t have a label by the way.

2014/05/23 at 10:17 am
Lucifer

If this were true… wouldn’t it be “day time” …all the time? Also… if the earth is concave and we live inside it…. then what is outside of earth?…

2014/05/25 at 8:32 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Lucifer.
Good initial questions Lucifer. I’m going on the premise of a half dark/ half light Sun, i.e. a sulfur lamp when I write the next article.

Well, that is an open book eh, “what is outside the Earth?”.

What do you think?

2014/05/26 at 12:17 pm
jack
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Here is a link to find out how far exactly you can see depends on the height you go.

http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html

there are too many things in the equation but long story short. you should able to see 1.23 miles times square root of height above ground, that is exclude any refraction that extend the distance. usually the refraction is around 10-15% and you are right about that. anyway i found out if the shooter is 3ft above ground but how high is the ground? the lobby of empire building
is 57ft above sea level. the total height of the building is 1445ft include the antenna. unless you can find out how high is the ground, there no way to do any calculation.

Also if Teed Cyrus is right about cellular cosmology and anything in his book then he would be resurrected after he is dead just like what he said, not sure if he wrote that in his book but i think so.

and you r wrong about the laser can only shoot 90meter, its all about how much power you put into the laser. with powerful enough laser you can even shoot at the prism US left there 30years ago. scientist and university and all group had use their laser and shoot at the prism and get accurate data on how far is moon from earth. and this is why we know the moon is slipping 4in away from earth every year

there is a simple way to test out the curve of the earth. grab a telescope go out to the beach on a clear summer day and look out for the freight ship. and yes you will see the top of the ship but not the whole ship but a lot of time the reflection of light on the water make it kind of blurry. but should should still able to see it. i used to lived close to the sea and my dad was a fishing man back in the old day. this is why the higher you go the further you see. why you think during the old day and now the ship have their look out station at the highest of the ship? if earth is conclave why not just lay your back down on the deck and look up? since you can see more when you look up instead of claim higher.

2014/05/28 at 8:14 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to jack.
Unless you can find out how high is the ground, there no way to do any calculation.

Keppler’s website states “[1] The camera is at the beach of Atlantic Highlands about 1m (39 in.) above ground level.”

I call bullshit on that one about the moon. People didn’t break through the glass until 1979. I can imagine they tried to blast a hole in it beforehand though. But let’s not derail this comment on the moon landing hoax please.

It has nothing to do with power. You are getting confused with bright objects above our heads and light beamed parallel to the Earth. You haven’t read Keppler’s site on these experiments have you? Translate it in google and read it – http://www.rolf-keppler.de/lichtkrumm.htm.

also if Teed Cyrus is right about cellular cosmology and anything in his book then he would be resurrected after he is dead just like what he said, not sure if he wrote that in his book but i think so.

I couldn’t care about Teed’s beliefs. I’m all for the experiments. His beliefs can stay with him. Us “concavers” don’t agree on every point either. Doesn’t matter.

The cause of the horizon is NOT due to the shape of the Earth as has already been demonstrated in the above article and by Karol (look up skycentrism videos on YouTube) and by other eye witnesses seeing places on the horizon that they shouldn’t if light travels in a straight line and the earth were convex. The fact that we can see much further than we should (not to mention that lower wave lengths of Em waves e.g. radar can see MUCH further than visible light) demonstrates this fact.

Convex earthers make the same mistake as flat earthers. They think that what they see with their eyes is the truth regarding the true shape of the Earth. Water is always level right? When we look out at the ocean or lake we see a flat plane, so obviously the Earth MUST be flat! Oh wait… ships disappear over the horizon hull first so the Earth must be convex. Hang on a minute. How can it be both? It can’t. So just by using this simple logic we can deduce that what we see with our eyes does not show the Earth’s true shape… and that’s without the experiments or further observations which prove this.

if earth is conclave why not just lay your back down on the deck and look up? since you can see more when you look up instead of claim higher.

Because light bends. I’ll write about this in the next article. It is the reason for the arc of the Sun. Neither the Sun nor the Earth physically revolve around each other in concave earth theory. The Sun revolves around the center and it is the differences of bend of the arcs of sunlight which denotes the Sun’s position in the sky. All will be explained with diagrams in the next article.

2014/05/28 at 2:29 pm
OneOfTheSheeple
In reply to Lucifer.
why do you think there is outside?

Since everything is at least 75% “dark energy” 20% “dark matter” and 5% “normal matter” in the established universe,well,you got your answer.

You see,we don’t even have to make stuff up,its already done by mainstream science.

Whats outside of earth? – whatever you imagine.

2014/05/30 at 7:47 am
sumstuff52[Donald Sarty]
In reply to OneOfTheSheeple.
Water/oil ? it does not matter people ask me that quite a bit i say water and oil because it is so abundant

2014/05/31 at 10:11 am
Anonymous
In reply to Wild Heretic.
But it has been experimentally demonstrated that objects made of matter pull upon each other with a gravitational force.

Consider the following experiment:
You take a straight, wooden rod with a uniform density and attach two weights of equal mass on either side, such that the center of mass of the system remains in the center of the rod. You then attach the system to a thin wire at the center of the rod and attach the wire to a firmly planted objects, such as a table or a clamp. You also attach a mirror to the rod in a manner that does not shift its center of mass.
Next, you shine a beam of light at the mirror and mark on the wall where the beam of light lands. Then you take a mass and place it near the system.
The wire will actually twist and the system will move so that the masses attract. The effect is measurable because the light moves. The angular displacement, in addition to the torsion in the wire, can provide information about the strength of the gravitational pull.

This experiment was performed in the 1700s by a scientist named Cavendish. That’s where we got the gravitational constant from.

So we know that gravity is caused by mass, not space. (And I’ve explained on another post why the “aether” is not a valid theory.) You can easily replicate this experiment in a college laboratory.

If that’s the case, the Earth should indeed make a sphere, making the concave Earth theory invalid.

2014/06/01 at 5:51 am
jack

here is a identical picture of shoot taken from Atlantic highland over see the sandy hook and Manhattan. as you can see the house on the sandy hook. except the picture is taken from 266ft above ground. in both picture you can see the house on the sandy hook is below the center of the picture which mean the camera has to be above that house. i also find it interesting how can a German magazine had a report about US army’s new camera during the COLD WAR but i cant find any newspaper or magazine in US with the same story? pretty much the whole story is a hoax.

the The Tamarack Mines experientman. here is a link to explain the whole mystery.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm

in the final conclusion the result of the diversity is cause by the air flow and rotation of the earth. which Mathematical proof.
and marrow’s PREDICTION about a new experiment which involve 2plumbing bob 4250ft away from no2 and no5 shaft NEVER happen. he only predict such experiment base on his BELIEVE. also quoted “Morrow and Teed were highly religious folk who were not the sort of people to deliberately lie or mislead” either marrow is lying or Palmer is lying because 1 of them say 3200 another say 4250. interesting.
and marrows claim the 2shaft experiment that is 3250ft away and 4250 deep in earth. what type of measuring tool or method could they possibly have to measure such length? remember there was no laser back then, and no steel tape ruler can go up that length. which prove such experiment is impossible to be carry out during that time period.

of course you always think any fact, scientific proof, as long as those fact or proof contradict your believe then they are either hoax or conspiracy. i know how it goes now.

2014/06/01 at 9:28 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Anonymous.
I’ll look into that experiment in more detail, however on first impressions if everything is valid, it demonstrates that mass by its presence has an effect which I would fully expect. It doesn’t demonstrate that there are giant balls in space attracting each other or that the earth is a sphere!

I don’t really want to go into the micro just yet, however why not have an initial stab at it. I would guess that this very weak effect is due to the spin of the “atoms” of the “matter”. And of course since the Earth is concave and it is the space above us that spins, this very strongly suggests that matter is really made of spinning cavities of different densities. Matter must be cavernous, not “solid”, something akin to spinning vortices perhaps. Vortices of what? Well, if you don’t like the aether (fair enough), then choose another word which is more comfortable, like spinning electromagnetic fields. And by logic we have now come to the conclusion that gravity (and matter) are really just a spinning “electromagnetic” field.

Shall we go further? Yeah, I absolutely love logical speculating. It’s a major distraction of mine.

Since mankind so far gets a lot of energy from gravity, such as a waterfall through a dam, it should be logical to assume that mankind can also get its energy from spinning an electromagnetic field. This means that if I spin a magnet on its vertical polar axis I should be able to get a lot of energy. Knowing nothing about electrical engineering, for a long time I thought this was how electrical engineers got their energy. How wrong I was. They rotate the coil NOT the magnet! Oh dear. And then lo and behold who decided to rotate the magnet in 1978 – Bruce de Palma… and the rest is history (suppressed of course).

Not only that, but spinning objects of all kinds must alter the gravity field in which it resides – enter Bruce de Palma once again.

And that is only just the beginning of what I have deduced (a mere man on his laptop – no scientist or mathematician at all). If we can speculate on what is causing the spinning “space” then we may be able to emulate it without having to spin the magnet at all! Think about that.

I now know why this information is drastically repressed as it opens the door to everything. Its the key to it all. That is why they want this door FIRMLY closed for as long as they can keep it that way.

I have a few more obvious ideas as well, which de Palma didn’t try out, but should have. Mind you, he meditated to get his idea, and had no idea that the Earth is really concave. Imagine if he knew.

2014/06/01 at 7:28 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to jack.
of course you always think any fact, scientific proof, as long as those fact or proof contradict your believe then they are either hoax or conspiracy. I know how it goes now.

No I did not. You didn’t read what I wrote did you? I gave it a fair assessment and gave it a 50% due to the lack of verification of the source. You shout in caps it never happened. You don’t know that and neither do I. Maybe it happened and maybe it didn’t.

2014/06/01 at 7:36 pm
Anonymous
In reply to Wild Heretic.
This very strongly suggests that matter is really made of spinning cavities of different densities. Matter must be cavernous, not “solid”, something akin to spinning vortices perhaps. Vortices of what? Well, if you don’t like the aether (fair enough), then choose another word which is more comfortable, like spinning electromagnetic fields. And by logic we have now come to the conclusion that gravity (and matter) are really just a spinning “electromagnetic” field.

Well, we know that an atom is mostly made of empty space. There is a nucleus at the center of the atom and an electron cloud surrounding the atom. This is the basis of chemistry and particle physics.

They rotate the coil NOT the magnet! Oh dear. And then lo and behold who decided to rotate the magnet in 1978 – Bruce de Palma… and the rest is history (suppressed of course).

That means nothing. It’s a simple matter of electromagnetic induction. If a closed loop or solenoid is placed in a changing magnetic field (subjected to magnetic flux) an electric field will be induced that in turn creates an electric current in the loop or solenoid.

A person can create a current by shoving a magnetic in and out of a loop of wire. They can also create a current by rotating the wire around a stationary magnet. Both create magnetic flux and both induce an electric field and therefore a current.

It has nothing to do with “rotating magnetic fields.” Whether the coil or the magnetic moves is irrelevant; all that matters is that they move with respect to each other.

Not only that, but spinning objects of all kinds must alter the gravity field in which it resides – enter Bruce de Palma once again.

Why? The force of gravity is only dependent on gravitational mass and distance. The movement of the object has no effect on its gravitational pull.

Mind you, he meditated to get his idea, and had no idea that the Earth is really concave.

Four debatable experiments that have not been reproduced do not “prove” that the Earth is concave. There is a multitude of evidence that suggest the Earth is convex that is easy to reproduce. Besides, the shape of the Earth can be determined using simple trigonometry.

2014/06/01 at 8:27 pm
airizona tony

are you familiar with the video “secrets in plain sight”? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L777RhL_Fz4

2014/06/03 at 8:26 pm
Lord Steven Christ
missteribabylonestar.com/posthypnoticepiphany.html

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

2014/06/05 at 4:46 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
Yeah I just saw that Steve. I’ve been going through a lot of yours, sumstuff and karol’s videos recently.

That’s not a bad analogy of the horizon, in fact the more I think about the curvature of light parallel to the ground, the more I like the fog effect. Clever.

2014/06/05 at 3:38 pm
Saros

Just a small remark about Karol’s videos, namely the horizon issues. What he is constantly showing through a series of videos as a proof of concave Earth actually can be interpreted as flat Earth evidence too.

He points out that mountains and other features are sometimes visible from a long distance which hints at the possibility that the Earth is not convex. Mountains would also be visible from a long distance, given appropriate atmospheric conditions, if the Earth were flat too.

Another issue that he discusses is the horizon being at eye level. That would also be true even if the surface is flat or it would appear so. From an airplane view, for example, the horizon is not the distant land, but the clouds, so the distant land is not at eye level.

Additionally, you would not be able to see beyond a certain distance anyway regardless of the model – convex, flat, concave.

I’m curious why karol so opinionatedly holds that the evidence he presents proves concave Earth when it doesn’t.

I understand the idea is very beautiful and easy to “prove” if you invert the current convex model and reduce the size of the celestial bodies and their distance to us, but is it true? Can you really randomly make such adjustments?

WH, your articles here are indeed intriguing(most of the space related ones seem to be inspired by the cluesforum discussions though), but they don’t necessarily go in harmony with the article about Concave Earth, as the same ideas regarding space are often strangely shared by flat Earthers too.

Please explain to me how exactly seeing a mountain from a great distance proves only concave Earth, but not flat Earth? How observing the flatness of a lake proves concave Earth? This is what ka rol does. Very confusing indeed. Then to make his point he throws in the argument that light bends upward(whatever that means) with vague proof and pretty much no scientific support. The light obviously goes straight and bends when reflected off something, but I don’t see how this necessarily proves Concave Earth.

2014/06/06 at 9:34 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Saros.
You are right. It doesn’t. It only 100% proves that the horizon is not a proof of a convex Earth. The reason why the horizon always being at eye level is more indicative of a concave Earth rather than a flat one is that when we look straight ahead we are looking at a line parallel to the ground (with official straight light rays of course). If the ground were also parallel (i.e. flat), then we would never be able to see the ground unless we looked down, but the horizon is always at eye level. It moves up to our eyes. We would always see sky in front of us and the ground below the center of our vision if the Earth were flat.

ka rol is only beginning to suggest that perhaps the horizon actually rises when using an optical zoom. However that is very early days yet and I am not sure about that at all just yet.

The Wilhelm Martin experiment is the near 100% positive proof of upward bending light that demonstrates a concave Earth. It is very hard to refute the evidence from land surveyors and the Wilhelm Martin anomaly. It is proof of light turning upwards which destroys both the helio and geocentric model. Flat earthers are in a serious conundrum with it because they need upward bending light to be true so that they have any chance of their meridians being correct (90/270 degree horizontal light at dusk and dawn is 100% impossible without it). At the same time upward bending light destroys flat earth as what we see with our eyes is always on the level as Rowbotham and our own eyes demonstrate. It means what we see is always turning up in reality.

There is nothing more scientific than what Wilhelm Martin did and repeated and witnessed and is well-known with land surveyors. Their machines even have a mechanism built in to compensate for this effect which you can switch on or off! This means that this upward bending light is very well known among the users and manufacturers.

There is no refuting it. It is there and it is a given.

The only way the Earth can be flat is if what we see with our eyes and or zooms turns downwards showing a convex Earth thereby compensating for the upward bending light to make the Earth flatish. Instead unfortunately we see a “flat” plane with a horizon always at eye level no matter how far we zoom in and when we zoom in, the nearer objects become lower than the horizon (the more distant objects are always higher than the nearer ones).

That’s my take on it so far, but my understanding of this issue is evolving.