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

Comments (Concave Earth Theory)

Page 9

2014/09/06 at 10:41 am
In reply to rodin.
You would have to show that a camera pointed at exactly 90 degrees with proven data that it is not horizontal to the eye from various heights that proves a convex world as in this goes against all observation. The Horizon is always mid field from 35,000 feet to 1 foot from my own empirical observations at sea from mountains in Wales to flying on Jets.

2014/09/06 at 11:12 pm
In reply to Anonymous.
What is there to contend? It’s for for them to show evidence against a concave earth which they have not done in this article other than a strawman logical fallacy attack based on conspiracy theories which does not represent the real Concave Earth model which is based on real science.

2014/09/06 at 11:47 pm
    Wild Heretic
In reply to Andrew.
Thanks for the details Andrew. If you don’t mind I am going to include that detail in the next article. I think I have found the solution to this phenomenon… best guess at any rate.

2014/09/07 at 1:17 pm
    Wild Heretic
In reply to Andrew.
Andrew. How high is the Hartland peninsula above sea level and how high were you on Trevose Head? Is Trevose Head a lighthouse Island off the peninsula like I see on Google maps?

I have it at 99m –
Did you see the tip of the peninsula or the entire shoreline or something in between?

Hang on. I think I have the shorelines on the map –
Were you on the beach at Trevose Head and you saw the shoreline of Hartland Peninsula or were you at an elevated position at Trevose Head?

2014/09/07 at 1:38 pm
    G Instinct
In reply to Wild Heretic.
I recently saw this video:


My only issue with the concave earth theory is the 90 degrees of the buildings at some considerable distance. They weren’t leaning away as in the convex model, but they were neither leaning towards the viewer as in the concave viewpoint, neither.

Plus, the plumb bob experiment…..shouldn’t tall skyscrapers then be leaning towards each other if the ground is concave beneath them?

Also William Carpenter. 1000 proofs for a flat earth.
My main smoking gun from his observations? The River Nile descends only about one foot in almost 1000 miles. On any other surface, convex or concave, the water would be backing-up on itself

2014/09/08 at 12:04 am
    Wild Heretic
In reply to G Instinct.
Good questions G. I think I can now answer them.

The culprit to what we see always comes from light and the fundamental magnetic field in which it resides (the sun’s mag field, not really the Earth’s). I know light isn’t supposed to bend in a mag field, but this isn’t really true as I will show later. If light traveled straight, then you would be dead right as a ship would be “bottom up” as it went over the horizon of a convex Earth and “bottom down” on a concave one for instance. Although the tilt wouldn’t be much I don’t think as a few miles (10, 20, 30?) won’t make too much of a difference. Still, I would have thought it would be discernible.

The center of gravity is another very interesting topic. Will discuss later, but I think the Nile issue can be applied to any body of water really. Where is the center of gravity? Where is our alignment or orientation? My short answer is that either the small particles or one or more general fields of matter are gyroscopic in nature and always orientate themselves in one direction, hence the appearance of a flat earth. This orientation is always “flat” because it is electromagnetic whose two fields are always 90 degrees apart in orientation. If you can believe it I actually have an idea why this is so, but it is only an idea and not ready for publishing by a long way.

2014/09/08 at 9:04 am
    Wild Heretic
In reply to Michael.
Sorry Michael, I didn’t see your comment until now.

  1. I’m not sure about satellites except that they aren’t whizzing around thousands of kilometers up there. The dish is stationary and yet the satellites are whizzing around all the time. I’m not sure how this can work exactly.

  2. That’s a bendy light question.

  3. Refraction can’t explain seeing say 10 times over water than should be possible on a convex Earth. That is some serious refraction. The refractive index between air and a vacuum is tiny compared to even air of different densities. There are websites to check out the change of angle between say a 90 degree incoming light beam coming from a vacuum into sea level density air and it hardly changes.

2014/09/08 at 2:45 pm
    G Instinct
In reply to Wild Heretic.

Thanks WH for your quick reply and explanations. I don’t think any of the open-minded people on here have a true explanation of the actual shape of the earth.

Nor, indeed…the true map. We haven’t been high enough for the grand panorama to be witnessed of this large world of ours.

With regards to the horizon being at eye-level, I always thought that when the ground or sea meets the sky, a flat horizon is always observed.

Your theory of a rising horizon due to a concave earth is very interesting. Never thought of the possibility before and it does carry some weight.

However if descending from an aircraft, surely an image of the plane dropping below the said horizon would also be observed?
Just a thought.

Here’s an interesting take on this:

2014/09/08 at 5:14 pm
    G Instinct
In reply to Wild Heretic.
The position of the gravity field has no relevance to shallow rivers and their almost level flows towards the sea.

If the earth is concave, it is concave everywhere. Therefore the water would collect in continually filling lake, or on a convex earth, it would start backing-up on itself.

Not an experiment, just a matter of fact.

Bending light and magnetic fields are all well and good.
But all I see is a flat earth and flat water,
I’m sure there are optical illusions and light can play tricks on us.

But I am finding it hard to believe anything other than a flat land with apples falling out of trees because they are heavier than air.
Because, if a lack of gravity cannot be proved in “outer space”, why call it gravity here on earth?

Basically, how do you prove a negative?

2014/09/08 at 10:33 pm
    Wild Heretic
In reply to G Instinct.
It does have relevance as the center of gravity is exactly how we determine something is level at a particular point. It is a reference point to something above us in a concave Earth. For example, the Earth could be one giant ocean with no land at all and still be round. Do you see what I mean?

You are thinking of a round Earth with the center of gravity universally (i.e for the whole earth) at one particular point below the crust. If this where the case then all water would slide down the sides of the Earth into the “bowl” and we would have a very deep ocean for the bottom part of the Earth and dry land for the rest. We would also have difficulty standing on the dry land as near the north pole we would be upside down and couldn’t hang on!

Therefore by that logic the whole world must be flat. 😉 Which it isn’t as flight times show (as well the teed experiment etc.) Therefore the world isn’t flat and gravity must exist.

Do you see what I mean?

2014/09/09 at 7:47 am
    Wild Heretic
In reply to G Instinct.
We think it is concave, a cavity.

2014/09/09 at 8:10 am
    Wild Heretic
In reply to G Instinct.
That last video shows the earth isn’t flat when he used his after effects, the horizon went down even on his largest scale. Further evidence that it is bendy light not the Earth’s surface causing the horizon.

I know you could say we haven’t been high enough to register that effect. He could take his area of his flat earth disk and stimulate a 10km plane altitude and see if the horizon lowered.

2014/09/09 at 8:15 am
    Lord Steven Christ
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Wanted to further investigate the visibility cutoff due to atmospheric haze…..

2014/09/09 at 11:03 pm
    G Instinct
In reply to Wild Heretic.
The twin towers (before Bush & Co. blew them up) were clear visual evidence of a flat earth. If the earth were concave, the towers would be more narrow at the top and wider on a convex earth.

You have doubts about the flat earth map…so do I.
I would guess that Australasia is in a different position on the UN map. Flight times show it in the wrong place.

Look up former NASA employee Math Boyland

Look at the emblem of the Nayu Mayer 3 base station here:

what have pyramids got to do with with Antarctica?
Also notice the ice circle with the pyramids protecting it
The all-seeing penguin, too

The UK’s newest ship that has been sent to patrol (?) Antarctica is called HMS Protector, protect from what exactly? The truth, maybe?

2014/09/10 at 9:26 pm
    Wild Heretic
In reply to G Instinct.
In Nexus magazine there were rumors of a battle down in Antarctica. Could be bullshit though.

Maybe the towers were slightly narrower at the top. You mean the distance between the top of the towers and the bottom right? That is a plumb bob issue.

If the center of gravity is the central point in the Earth cavity, which I reason in my next article that it is not, then the difference between the top and bottom of a 4,250 feet plumb line 3200 feet apart is about 8 inches. The twin towers were 1368.11 feet high and 196 feet apart. The difference wouldn’t be measurable especially due to wind etc.

G, forget the flat earth. How can you change the flat map to suit flight and boat times? Does the flat earth fold underneath itself at the equator? 🙂 Then gravity has a problem. The experiment has already determined the size and shape of the earth and so it is time to stop smashing your head against a brick wall and work on the concave Earth issue instead, or let me do it. I’m about a week away from the next article.

2014/09/10 at 10:00 pm
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Sorry for the late reply. I was there 2 weeks ago again On a clear day it’s visible from a beach on Trevose Head called Mother Ivey’s Bay. These satellite dishes (GCHQ) are clearly visible through binoculars, they are about 4 or 5 miles north of Bude at Morwenstow and the one can see the cliffs extending to the left of them toward the Hartland Peninsula then stopping at a tip which i presume is the limit of view on the Hartland peninsula.

Damn wish i had that SX50 Camera.

2014/09/11 at 5:38 pm
    Wild Heretic
In reply to Andrew.
Andrew, how much could you see of the opposing beach or cliffs? Could you see the ground or just the tops of the cliffs, i.e the satellite dishes?

2014/09/11 at 6:18 pm
In reply to Wild Heretic.
I could not see the opposing beaches and i know Bude has a wide beach when the tide is out that stretches a few miles wide up the coast. Bear in mind though any beach would be extremely fore-shortened from from my low vantage height and distance and i only had 10X50 binocs. I would really like to use more powerful optics to say for sure though. All i can say is you can see the cliff edge up to a certain height and the dishes were on top higher than the water. Like looking at a horizontal pencil a few meters always from your eyes is the best way i can describe it.

2014/09/11 at 7:30 pm
In reply to Wild Heretic.
The nearest i could find on the web was a reverse picture of our topic, Trevose Head seen from Bude which about 29 miles. Trevose Head is the last (4th) Headland on the right near the right hand edge of the photo.

2014/09/11 at 8:26 pm
    Wild Heretic
In reply to Andrew.
Thanks Andrew.

2014/09/12 at 11:36 am
In reply to Andrew.
Hi Andrew, you might be interested in a small app I’ve just written to calculate how much a distant object is obscured by the earth’s curvature given the height of the eye/camera and the distance to the object.

The calculation is based on the standard Copernican model of a convex round earth of radius 6371km. It’s all open source so feel free to rip it apart! 🙂

2014/09/12 at 2:59 pm
    Wild Heretic
In reply to dizzib.
Thanks a million dizz. I need something like this.


2014/09/12 at 3:31 pm

Using English Gematria to calculate the numerical value of ‘A CONCAVE EARTH’, ‘WILD HERETIC’, ‘DAVID KORESH’,’CONFUSION’,’INSIDE OUT’ we get the same number – 696!

2014/09/15 at 10:28 am
    G Instinct
In reply to Wild Heretic.
WH….I’m not smashing my head against anything.

I say what I see, not what I’m told.

You don’t get it!
The flat earth model with regards to Aus & NZ is wrong due to flight and sailing times etc.
That does not mean to say the earth isn’t flat!
We cannot see from such a height as to determine visually the exact location of certain continents and countries.

You can’t trash a theory based on that issue alone.

I’ve put forward a whole host of reasons as to why I think the earth is rather more flat than any other shape.

As for living up the inside of a large tennis ball with an invisible magic force called gravity stopping trillions of tons of water and everything else slammed up against the side of it, falling into a huge lake at the bottom. I find that hard to believe

It is almost as improbable as a spinning water ball being held with the same force, hurtling through space

2014/09/15 at 7:44 pm
    Wild Heretic
In reply to G Instinct.
Then what is your geography for a flat Earth in light of flight times etc.? Do you have a physical model to explain known physical effects based on this model?

One way would be to flip the flat Earth over at the equator so that the north and south pole are the same. Can you explain physical effects such as gravity within this model or do you have another one?

It doesn’t matter as the rectilinator showed us the shape of the Earth and so the debate here is long over – over a year ago for me in fact. And so the physics for the correct model, with evidential support will be published soon by myself.


2014/09/15 at 8:31 pm
    G Instinct
In reply to G Instinct.
Science is a broad church and we should never stop questioning.

I respect your views and opinions and I too, have some belief that parts of this earth are concave, but within a flat disc-shape.

One thing we can agree on, is the ridiculous NASA lies about almost everything!

N o

A stronauts

S cience-fiction

A nimation

this is very interesting….

2014/09/16 at 10:29 pm
    Wild Heretic
In reply to G Instinct.
Fair enough.

If I had to guess as to what the second sun was, I’d say a reflection of some kind, but I’m not sure. Steve might have a guess at that as that is more his area.

2014/09/17 at 1:41 pm

Any body come around this:

Another reference was made by some guy “Sculelos” on ka rol’s recent upload, comparing path of the sun and space shuttle., citing a link on vimeo:

My take on that: The alleged distances and sizes of these objects make much more sense in a concave earth. And since at least some of them seem damaged or adrift, the word “star wars” may get a whole new meaning… 😉 The only thing I really don’t like about this is that mystery-making attitude “We know where they are, but won’t tell you where to look.”

Are there similar videos to be found? Can anyone build such a “water-filled” telescope?

2014/09/18 at 11:24 am

Some rather pointless internet browsing this morning turned up something of interest?

Here’s a bit more about Gerard Valk (though no explanation as to why he depicted Earth the way he did)…

Hope all is well WH and very much looking forward to your next piece.

2014/09/20 at 9:11 am
    Wild Heretic
In reply to scud.
Cheers Scud. Things are taking a little longer because I came down with adult croup and I thought I’d push myself speculatively regarding a mechanical explanation as to how the “holes near the poles” could be powering the sun. It isn’t necessary to the premise of the next article but I thought I would give it a go anyway.

It sure makes you wonder how and why they drew those maps the way they did. It is said that really old maps are just copies of even older ones, which were copies of ones before that etc. Does this point to a civilization before ours? I don’t know.

2014/09/20 at 5:48 pm

I came across this dramatic video showing the Toronto skyline from 33 miles away over lake Ontario:

When he zooms out you’ll notice he’s standing by the lake’s edge from which I estimate the camera is some 8 to 10 ft high. So plugging this into my calculator means 581 to 565 ft of building should be obscured.

For some reason my last 3 attempts at posting failed, so I’ll post the rest of my analysis separately…

2014/09/20 at 7:28 pm
In reply to dizzib.
Using Google-earth I’ve determined the 2 buildings to the immediate right of the CN Tower are the Ritz Carlton (688 ft) and the RBC centre (607 ft). Worth mentioning I doubt these heights include the foundation elevation.

Using the CN Tower as a guide I estimate we can see roughly the top 100 ft of the Ritz which is about what we’d expect in the Copernican model. So I’m unconvinced we’re seeing more building than we should be, at least in this instance!

2014/09/20 at 7:29 pm
    Wild Heretic
In reply to dizzib.
The best instances of unbelievable horizons are always over water at night… and I mean unbelievable.

2014/09/20 at 11:56 pm

Hi All
Great job what you are pulling out together.
Science is a methodology, and has become a religion with dogma.
There is a fight underneath between the CounterChurch and the Church on philosophy and values.
I respect any person abiding to a code of honor and trying to align with the truth.
3 reproaches to be honest:
– Too good a name, I am jealous as a specialist of
– Too genial an idea
– I thought I had doubted anything I could and you proved me wrong!

One thing puzzles me altogether, and I would like to help collect information there.
I can collect data on European, french satellites, I think supposed to be Medium Earth Orbit, I have a friend Engineer there.
I have already checked numerous information on Apollo.

– So I can check the actual orbit of those satellites ? supposed to be ranging from 2.000 km to 20.000 km

I have already collected data on radiation protection to go through the van Allen belts, how can u explain high energy particles belts, requiring a 15cm (6 inches) lead protection on all sides .
Controls are in three copies
And satellites with all those protection still flash or break down occasionally………..
(it would have been better to fit them with the unbreakable Apollo suit technology ! lol)

Kind regards

2014/10/01 at 3:46 am

You probably came across theNASAchannel onyoutube.
What do you think of him ? his theories ? flat unlimited earth, Atlantis like with outer circle all around Antarctica
So for u what is Antarctica ? why so protected and never flown over by planes ?
I would enjoy your thoughts on Antarctica and its secrets, from the Nazis to Operation Highjump then the Antarctica treaty
Look forward to hearing / reading from you

2014/10/01 at 4:07 am
    Wild Heretic
In reply to CaptainCavern.
Funnily enough article 3 is mostly about the Van Allen belts. It is so obvious what they are when you put everything together in a concave Earth.

I have been very lucky with the next 9 articles. There were a lot of hit and misses and rewrites and throwaways, but it has all come together now.

I thank grace that I’ve been able to join the dots, at least to a certain level and will continue to do so.


2014/10/01 at 9:38 am
    Wild Heretic
In reply to CaptainCaveman.
Only the outskirts of Antarctica been flown over because of the hole I think (which isn’t over the geographic pole at all). Having said that, the outskirts mean the lower and upper side, so it does seem to be wrapped around the south pole.

I don’t think the Earth is flat, but they do come up with a couple of things (like we do) that should make the helios take note that their model might not be exactly correct lol. One example is the horizon always at eye level. That is a more than awkward problem which I’ll go into in article 9.

2014/10/01 at 9:44 am
    Lord Steven Christ

2014/10/01 at 12:25 pm
    Wild Heretic
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
Very nice graphic Steve. Your artistry is great and you know your graphics software well.

2014/10/01 at 2:00 pm
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
Good modeling Steve and yes please stick with the name Steven Christopher so every time I get someone interested in this subject they don’t laugh at me the next day and ask if I think I am Christ also.
And maybe read the part in the Bible where it assures us that in the end days anyone that is calling themselves Christ will be a liar. I can look up the exact scriptures for you if you need but just understand it is a credibility issue.
Great find on the PLATO!!!!!!!! Wow Socrates… who knew… a real stand up guy if there ever was one.
Your observational skills are fantastic and you seem like a really cool and level headed guy but most people will figure you for a liar since Jesus already warned us about imposters and that the next time we see him he will ‘Cometh with clouds’ You see Steve… Jesus is the SUN and also the story of Lucifer is the SUN (stars in space used to be called the angels in heaven, one (the brightest) ‘fell to earth’ and rules over a lake of fire…the light bearer he is called, and often confused for Venus but, you know, about 100000 times brighter). As well as Mithras, Horus, Hercules, Shiva and choads of other stories where the 12 months, the 4 seasons, Orion, Virgo, and December 25th regularly come into play.
So if we are all going to learn the true shape of the Earth lets learn what true religion is also (yes it actually exists haha we are pretty much practicing it here on this site)

A lesson in Astrotheology is a good foundation for this knowledge we are discovering together.

2 films i can think of are The Naked Truth (old British documentary simply brilliant)
and Zeitgeist (the whole series is great but the first one is about Astrotheology)

All of it fits in very well with our cave of misfits haha

and hey WH ^^ when can we get a look at the new article?
get it published before our cave neighbors decide they do not want it out there. Never a good idea to hold on to game changing documents. They make movies about that kind of stuff.
Man figures out all problems to life and suffers horrible car crash just hours before publishing it worldwide etc. Lets get this milk spilled already 🙂

Peace and much cave love

2014/10/01 at 10:55 pm
    Wild Heretic
In reply to Bob.
Thought about that. I’m OK, I’ll release them all at once. Just polishing up number 5. 6 will be trickier, the last 3 will be quick.

I’m not in love with Zeitgeist. If he wants to form a communist commune somewhere then that is great. All power to him. As long as he doesn’t go political and start forcing his stuff on everyone then I’m happy with it.

I’ll have a look at the naked truth. is this it?

2014/10/02 at 7:56 am
In reply to Andrew.
could there be another solution for this ‘lens problem’? i think the solution might be, that we forget living inside the earth. starting from ground level the horizon is always flat, turn around slowly on an elevated place, and the horizon is always flat. as soon as we launch from the ground and go higher and higher, the more of the bowl shaped like geography around us unfolds as we increase height. so the possible reason for perceiving a ‘convex’ rounding is, that the 360 degree sight is like a big circle, so when looking straight at the horizon at lets say 30 km you are mislead by this circle and you see some kind of convexity, which is not the convexity of earth but of the circle of your sight. i hope you understand what i mean, critique welcome.

2014/10/02 at 9:30 pm
    Wild Heretic
In reply to aryadeva.
To be honest, I don’t think we ever see a convex horizon full stop… certainly not up to 10km in a plane.

2014/10/03 at 3:10 pm
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Oh yeah, Zeitgesit.

Question: “What is Zeitgeist? / What is the Venus Project?”
Answer: “Communism with computers and robots.”

2014/10/03 at 7:40 pm
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Yes that is the correct link for The Naked Truth.

Haha well I am not aware of the Zeitgeist plot to take over the world I just think they are informative documentaries especially the Astrotheology one. Oh and the money one is a very nice explanation of the monetary system.

Truth stays the same no matter what our opinion of it is.
Even when it changes ^^

Peace in the Cave 🙂

2014/10/06 at 5:38 am
    Wild Heretic
In reply to Bob.
The most interesting fable for me on money was the one with the priests. The one where before money there was just the rulers and the slaves and then one day to help stop the continual revolts and uninspired work, a priest introduced tokens and said to the slaves that they have been freed. Instead of going their own way, looking after their own land, all the slaves clamoured over the tokens trying to get as much as possible and worked a 100 times better which the ruling class taxed and also of course produced the tokens. 🙂 Now they were productive slaves.

2014/10/06 at 8:12 am
    Lord Steven Christ

WH, I hope you consider or “re-consider” you’re view that the sun is very near the center. I know you probably want to stick to the sulfur lamp concept of it with a circular glass sphere spinning near the center, but consider how in this video the seasons, the milky way, and the sun act in perfect harmony. Understand the electricity of the sun which people like Eric Dollard and Donald Scott say, is receiving it’s energy from another source (I say it’s the pyramid.)

2014/10/07 at 4:09 pm

I’ve been looking over some of this information today after stumbling onto a Lord Steven Christ Video. I haven’t researched much yet just soaking it all in. Wondering if someone can give me there idea or direct me to where on the website I can find info about what is out side the earth/universe then?
Also, what about supposed nearby spiral galaxies that can be viewed through telescopes. Is the bioluminesence…or whatever that is creating the stars have consistency to it?
I suppose that will be the first thing I research, what exactly your stating creates the stars and what the planets are made of.
I’ve always said all a person needs to do is understand math and science a tiny bit better than we do, and they will be able to convince us of anything. Goes for both side of this story.
Interesting stuff guys.

2014/10/07 at 6:37 pm
    Wild Heretic
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
I’m just putting it where the arc of the Sun shows me to put it. I think the Sun gets its energy from the holes near the poles. I don’t think the Earth is a closed system at all.

I remember reading years ago that fish stocks in one type of fish had been decimated off the coast of Ireland and wouldn’t come back in decades if ever. Then a few years later there were more of this fish type than before they were decimated and scientists couldn’t understand it lol. They could if they knew that the Earth wasn’t a closed system.

The more I am discovering, the more Teed was right. Maybe his vision had real merit.

Just seen the video Steve, and at 1:30 you have just found evidence which agrees with my theory about the Sun at the solstices. Excellent. I didn’t know that existed.

2014/10/07 at 7:34 pm
    Lord Steven Christ
In reply to Wild Heretic.
well, I guess I can’t make you believe what I saw in my vision of the back of the sun if you choose not to. As far as the poles, I do think there is a northern hole, not convinced on a southern one. But I think you are making a glaring omission of the pyramidal power source, the glass star sphere and the reason for the Milky Way.