The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: tunu on August 11, 2012, 09:50:52 PM
-
I'm still trying to get a handle on this whole FET. The idea of a multi-national, multi-generational conspiracy to hide the shape of the earth is of interest to me. Does anyone have any ideas (evidence?) of when the conspiracy started? what was the first lie told to hide the true shape of the earth, who told it?
more importantly what prompted it? It seems to me that since there hasn't always been a RET around, at some point someone came up with it. Was the conspiracy started at the same time as the first RET?
-
The conspiracy is centered around the Cold War era, mainly when the space race was at full throttle. NASA wanted the world to think it landed a man on the moon. Well, when they first created the studio, they depicted a round Earth. This, of course, is incorrect. If the world were to find out that the Earth is flat, it would destroy NASA and its continuing scam. The conspiracy is not a big bad super villain (illuminati, etc.). They simply don't want the world knowing the Space Race lie.
NASA (everyone that works there) genuinely believe the Earth to be round.
-
This is an exceedingly difficult question to answer. I generally try to avoid conspiracy topics in general, because it seems specious to me, but I will attempt to answer your question because it has been some time since I've posted on the matter.
I think the first trace of "the conspiracy" in general shows up in the 1100's. This is as far back as one can trace the Machiavellian writhings of the House of Guelph-Este. This is not exactly the question I believe you are asking, however. I believe you are asking when the conspiracy expanded to hide the shape of the earth began. This was somewhat later.
The conspiracy traces to Nuremberg the 14th and 15th centuries and the ascendency of the BGMG under the House of Guelph. In the 15th century cartography was entering an exciting new time. New lands were being found. Previously uncharted islands, indeed even continents, were being added to world maps. The BGMG found a splendid way to find massive amounts of Royal funding (commissions). If you convince burgeoning world powers that their maps are completely inadequate and only a globe can accurately depict the earth, one is in for a lot of commissioned work. Add to that the fact globes became a status symbol in vogue among the wealthy of the period and you have an enormous cash cow.
But this ignores (or only scrapes) the actual depth of the plan. The goal of the BGMG was not map-making or wealth from it. The simple goal was power. To gain influence at court led to all sorts of potential for abuse of such power. This was an age where the court was the center of power; "scientists" vied to have their ideas heard. The difference between living in obscurity and becoming a household name was a "discovery" away.
Further, it was the Age of Discovery, where untold wealth might be a ship's journey away for a kingdom -- indeed this was the genesis of European imperialism. Map makers invented (http://www.bl.uk/learning/artimages/maphist/deception/fictitioushome/fictitious.html) islands and continents to attain funding for expeditions. The closer you find yourselves to the strings of power, the more opportunity for corruption.
-
The conspiracy is centered around the Cold War era, mainly when the space race was at full throttle. NASA wanted the world to think it landed a man on the moon. Well, when they first created the studio, they depicted a round Earth. This, of course, is incorrect. If the world were to find out that the Earth is flat, it would destroy NASA and its continuing scam. The conspiracy is not a big bad super villain (illuminati, etc.). They simply don't want the world knowing the Space Race lie.
NASA (everyone that works there) genuinely believe the Earth to be round.
So.... the conspiracy involves just NASA.... and other space faring nations go along with it just to help NASA out?
-
I think the first trace of "the conspiracy" in general shows up in the 1100's. This is as far back as one can trace the Machiavellian writhings of the House of Guelph-Este. This is not exactly the question I believe you are asking, however. I believe you are asking when the conspiracy expanded to hide the shape of the earth began. This was somewhat later.
wait, now I'm confused again. Are you saying that every conspiracy, ever, has in fact been one big conspiracy? and, at some point they decided to add "lets tell them the earth is round" to the list of lies?
A note on "Ski"s comments about cartography and exploration, if the goal was to dupe the most money possible out of as many governments as possible for as long as possible by making "new maps", wouldn't the ideal shape be an "infinite disc", not a "finite sphere"?
Why would these con men choose a shape that would inevitably run out of empty space for them to "invent new continents" on for fun and profit?
please help, this conspiracy is getting bigger, and it's veracity is getting smaller. Please tell me you have something else.
-
Of course not every conspiracy ever. There does exist, however, a common thread in western wisdom cults that runs through the House of Guelph-Estes. No conspiracy exists for the sole end of promoting a globe (excepting perhaps the space agencies, but that, too, is a means to an end). The choice of the globe was simply the chronological bias of the time. People have erringly believed in a round earth long before the 1300's; that falsehood began with the Pythagorean number cult and persists today.
-
NASA does not know the world is flat. They are ignorant on the matter. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel, not to conduct real earth science. NASA is not hiding the shape of the earth from anyone -- they don't even know it themselves. They are not running a real space program, after all
-
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --
I don't know how you can take yourself seriously.
-
the conspiracy started when people who believe in a planar earth stopped doing experiments to determine the truth.
instead they just cry conspiracy when evidence is presented to them.
I am glad there are true Zetetics here that do not have to rely on a massive conspiracy to determine the real shape of the earth.
-
I'm still having a hard time understanding this conspiracy.
Why did they pick a globe as the false shape of the planet?
Why have they maintained that fallacy all this time?
Is there anyone that knows the truth (i.e. the world is flat) that is doing any REAL earth science and exploration?
Thanks guys, (most of) you have been helpful :)
-
i am unsure, but believe it is planar until evidence would disprove this.
I have done a few experiments, and currently working on a new map, with the help of other Zetetics.
-
i am unsure, but believe it is planar until evidence would disprove this.
why?
you're starting with the assumption that the world is flat, why would you do that?
Where does that assumption stem from?
-
NASA does not know the world is flat. They are ignorant on the matter. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel, not to conduct real earth science. NASA is not hiding the shape of the earth from anyone -- they don't even know it themselves. They are not running a real space program, after all
Tom I don't see how you can think this. NASA claims satelites are orbiting a spherical earth. If the satelites are not there, they would have to be lying about it. How can they think that satelites are orbiting, when they are not.
-
NASA does not know the world is flat. They are ignorant on the matter. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel, not to conduct real earth science. NASA is not hiding the shape of the earth from anyone -- they don't even know it themselves. They are not running a real space program, after all
Tom I don't see how you can think this. NASA claims satelites are orbiting a spherical earth. If the satelites are not there, they would have to be lying about it. How can they think that satelites are orbiting, when they are not.
I bolded the part in my quote you missed. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel, which includes satellites. Since NASA couldn't achieve space travel, they are using alternative technologies such as stratellites and pseudolites to perform the duties of a satellite.
It's a space travel conspiracy, not a flat earth conspiracy. The conspiracy has nothing to do with the shape of the earth except that a round world is what the public expected to see at the time of NASA's creation. NASA is not hiding the shape of the world from anyone. They are simply mistaken about it. When they put together their space hoaxes they depict a round earth because they were taught that the earth was round in grade school like everyone else.
Also see: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Motive_of_the_Conspiracy (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Motive_of_the_Conspiracy)
-
When they put together their space hoaxes they depict a round earth because they were taught that the earth was round in grade school like everyone else.
Also see: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Motive_of_the_Conspiracy (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Motive_of_the_Conspiracy)
You say this a lot. The scientific community has good reasons to believe that the Earth is round. It's one thing to disagree with those reasons, but it's another altogether to say that they're nonexistent, and that everyone in the world but you and your friends believes in a round Earth simply because they were told that in elementary school. We believe in a round Earth because we are compelled by the evidence, just as you are compelled by your evidence.
You're suggesting that none of us is capable of relinquishing any belief we had as children.
-
The scientific community does not have good reason outside of NASA to believe that the earth is round. It's a dogmatic belief which has been passed down from generation to generation since the times of the Ancient Greeks. The idea of a round earth is little more than media hype which people follow like dogs to the whistle.
The proofs for the earth's rotoundity have been discussed on this forum at length over the years, and each shown to be false or flawed. I suggest you search.
-
I have yet to see any refutation that does not use Rowbotham's flawed [mis]interpretation of perspective.
-
I'm still having a hard time understanding this conspiracy.
Why did they pick a globe as the false shape of the planet?
Because that was already the predominate (mis-)conception about the shape of the earth. They simply promoted it for graft.
-
Why would the maps of the royalty be wrong if they were already built on globularist ideas?
-
I imagine the maps of Europe weren't greatly incorrect.
-
If the belief in a round earth was already so ingrained, I'm not seeing how the Guelphs or whatever could use it for gain. Cartographers and explorers would already be assuming the earth was round. The only exciting thing happening map-wise would be adding new places, but that would require actual exploration and not just saying "hey guys, the earth is round" which they apparently already knew.
This makes little sense.
-
The scientific community does not have good reason outside of NASA to believe that the earth is round. It's a dogmatic belief which has been passed down from generation to generation since the times of the Ancient Greeks. The idea of a round earth is little more than media hype which people follow like dogs to the whistle.
The proofs for the earth's rotoundity have been discussed on this forum at length over the years, and each shown to be false or flawed. I suggest you search.
Except for the fact that a good number of geodetic surveys have measured the roundity of the earth to great precision long before NASA was created.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy)
-
The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel, which includes satellites.
WOW, what a statement.
If NASA launched/set up "pseudollites" then, sureley they must have known the Earth is flat. Or else they would just launch "normal" satellites as they expected Earth to be round so the normal satellites would circle around the Earth... This undoubtably leads to us to conclusion that NASA in fact knows the shape of the Earth.
So, how about NASA/USA's top enemies - such as Iran or North Korea, what interest do they have in supporting Nasa's false theory about RE? Do have in mind that Iran is a very religious country and they would not mess with God's will had god made Earth flat, they'd admit that...
Both of these countries (Iran and N.Korea) have their space programs, maybe not as advanced as NASA, but they exist... on the other hand they are not investing in their space programs (that much money) like NASA is accused here.
If FE was true, every nation would laundry a lot of money through space programs...
-
If Nasa can get it wrong, why cant other space agencies?
There are very few true Zetetics, when they finally reach space, the truth will finally be known.
-
Nasa does not get it wrong, the existance of either Pseudollites or satellites proves that Nasa knows what it is doing.
If there are pseudollites then it's Nasa's conspiracy, if there are satellites then it's RE.
Simple as that, in any case - Nasa knows if the Earth is flat or round.
-
The scientific community does not have good reason outside of NASA to believe that the earth is round. It's a dogmatic belief which has been passed down from generation to generation since the times of the Ancient Greeks. The idea of a round earth is little more than media hype which people follow like dogs to the whistle.
The proofs for the earth's rotoundity have been discussed on this forum at length over the years, and each shown to be false or flawed. I suggest you search.
I've repeated demonstrated this to be false in threads that you dropped.
I've demonstrated the methods used to calculate the positions of the planets using Kepler's equation (M=E-e sin E) for any future date. I'd be happy to post the links again.
I've also demonstrated at least one method (there are several) of proving Kepler's laws of planetary motion using only plane geometry.
Again, it's one thing to disagree with RE methodology. It's another thing to say that RE has no methodology. I've made it available to you.
-
You've mentioned "zetetics" as a group of people or philosophy(?) a few times, bu you haven't answered my question:
Is FET a religious belief, or a scientific hypothesis?
-
You've mentioned "zetetics" as a group of people or philosophy(?) a few times, bu you haven't answered my question:
Is FET a religious belief, or a scientific hypothesis?
FE is a scientific fact.
-
FE is a scientific fact.
[/quote]
Really? Based on what research and what evidence?
-
FE is a scientific fact.
Really? Based on what research and what evidence?
[/quote]Based on my personal research, which I have posted on TFES. Also ENaG by Rowbotham.
-
FE is a scientific fact.
Really? Based on what research and what evidence?
Based on my personal research, which I have posted on TFES. Also ENaG by Rowbotham.
holy crap! you've done research, and have evidence that the earth is flat!?!?!? Send that paper to every science journal ever, remake the world of science and collect your billions of dollars!!!! what are you waiting for!!! the money is out there waiting for you!
-
FE is a scientific fact.
Really? Based on what research and what evidence?
Based on my personal research, which I have posted on TFES. Also ENaG by Rowbotham.
[/quote]
OK links?
-
NASA does not know the world is flat. They are ignorant on the matter. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel, not to conduct real earth science. NASA is not hiding the shape of the earth from anyone -- they don't even know it themselves. They are not running a real space program, after all
and your evidence for this is...
-
If Nasa can get it wrong, why cant other space agencies?
There are very few true Zetetics, when they finally reach space, the truth will finally be known.
Nasa, and the russians, and the chinese, and everyone else, the european space agency, india etc, even north korea. they're all launching stuff. they can't possibly all be on some absurd conspiracy. Not to mention all the scientists, all the physicists and astronomers and engineers of the planet earth. They are smart they would notice if the earth is acutally flat and spaceflight is all fake!
-
NASA does not know the world is flat. They are ignorant on the matter. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel, not to conduct real earth science. NASA is not hiding the shape of the earth from anyone -- they don't even know it themselves. They are not running a real space program, after all
and your evidence for this is...
Tim Bishop never has evidence. He thinks his boldness is sufficient.
-
The proofs for the earth's rotoundity have been discussed on this forum at length over the years, and each shown to be false or flawed. I suggest you search.
Oh, really? Let's go through some, shall we?
1. Sharp horizon featuring sinking ship effect. RE explanation - the ground curves away from us. FE explanations: Light bends (inconsistent with observations of stellar angular distances and known physics of light), Rowbotham's magic perspective (inconsistent with every known law of physics and not reproducible on demand).
Verdict: evidence for RE, not FE.
2. Rotation of stars around two celestial poles. RE explanation - we are on a turning sphere. FE explanation - none. Occasionally someone will shout "celestial gears!" but that's not actually an explanation as no possible configuration of gears would produce that effect.
Verdict: evidence for RE, not FE
3. Existence of a north and south pole, at which there is continual daylight in summer and continual darkness in winter. RE explanation - the axis of the turning sphere we are on is tilted by a few degrees and the sphere is orbiting the sun. FE explanation - there isn't one.
Verdict: evidence for RE, not FE.
4. Circular area of darkness on the moon during lunar eclipse. RE explanation - the earth is between the sun and moon and casting a shadow of its shape on the moon. FE explanation - a circular body called the Antimoon which sadly cannot be shown to exist without being a conclusion of lunar eclipses.
Verdict: evidence for RE, not FE (as the Antimoon has no corroboration with anything whereas all bodies in the RE explanation have several other pieces of evidence that corroborates.)
5. Satellites. RE explanation - objects orbiting the earth under the influence of gravity. FE explanation - none. The existence of satellites is denied.
Verdict: evidence for RE, not FE (see ISS thread for proof that at least one satellite exists.)
There's more, of course but I can't be bothered here. You all know them. Note especially how the RE evidence elegantly interlocks, with every individual phenomenon providing backup and support to the others, whereas each piece of FE "evidence" stands alone, requiring extra laws of physics (which can never be detected in any other circumstance) or extra bodies just to make things work. None back up any of the others.
But hey, Tom, why not present evidence how each of these RE proofs is false or flawed? Go right ahead.
-
You've mentioned "zetetics" as a group of people or philosophy(?) a few times, bu you haven't answered my question:
Is FET a religious belief, or a scientific hypothesis?
FE is a scientific fact.
Zetetism is not a religion.
It is a way of life.
It is using all you senses to determine truth, not blindly following others.
There are very few real Zetetics. I believe the closer you get however, enlightenment will be reached.
When space travel becomes open for everyone,
the truth will finaly be known.
A massive conspiracy??? now thats just silly.
NASA isnt the big bad wolf.
-
Zetetism is not a religion.
It is a way of life.
It is using all you senses to determine truth, not blindly following others.
I'm sorry, but in what authoritative definition of zeteticism does it say that you must limit yourself to using your senses in order to determine truth? I think that you might be confusing zeteticism with empiricism. They are not the same.
Zeteteicism is more about searching and open minded skepticism than necessarily relying on your senses. Zeteteics should use all available resources in their search for the truth.
-
The Conspiracy began in Ancient Greece, prior to the birth of Christ, when the spherical fundamentalist Plato mistook the Earth for a sphere because of his ideologically motivated religion (Plato believed the sphere was a divine shape).
This sphericism was the prevailing (wrong) view in the Hellenistic world, but in the Ancient Levant, the heroes of the Bible crusaded against this inaccurate worldview. Jesus preached the flatness of the Earth. He went as far as to demonstrate that water has no convexity, by walking out away from observers on the Sea of Galilee to demonstrate that his feet were still visible several miles away, not obscured by curvature. A modern version of Jesus's experiment was conducted by Rowbotham at Bedford Canal, but the first Bedford Level Experiment (The Galilee Level Experiment) was performed by Jesus.
Jesus' enlightened approach to zetetic science was seen as a threat by the globularist Romans, who conspired to assassinate him in order to prevent an uprising in the serfs of the Levant, who were kept under control by the Round-Earth lies of the Romans.
After Jesus' assassination, Paul disseminated the beliefs of Jesus but inadvertantly focussed on his ethics more than his geography, resulting in a globularist christianity which became highly popular.
A Roman Emperor (Konstantin the Great) converted to Christian Globularism and the Bible was mistakenly taken for a Globularist text. By this time, the gospels had been codified by Alexandrian globularist scholars, who had naturally glossed the scientific elements of Jesus' experiments, presenting them as kooky miracles rather than studies about the shape of the Earth.
The level of scientific rigour held by the Bible heroes would not be matched until the medieval enlightenment occured, with many people realising the truth of geocentrism and zeteticism using the power of investigation.
However, by this time, the Conspiracy held such sway that even many geocentrists held the Earth to be a globe. Crackpot superstars such as Copernicus further poisoned the minds of the public with their sphere-worshipping drivel. Still, support for genuine zetetic science continued to grow in Renaissance and Enlightenment Europe. The Conspiracy needed a new poster-child for its wild and morally corrupt views about the shape of the Earth, and that poster-child eventually came in the form of alchemy-believer and committed satanist Isaac Newton. In a grotesque parody of the Biblical fall, Newton and his Conspiracy associates promulgated a story in which Newton was struck on the head by a fallen apple and in the subsequent concussion discovered a magical force, Gravity, which tended to forge all celestial objects into spheres.
The invention of Gravity by the Conspiracy represented a resurrection of the largely discredited Platonic Sphericism, in which the sphere is the teleological end point of all matter, including the Earth - however, the doctrine now gained imitative credibility from the rhetoric of Enlightenment science, and was backed up by the rock-star status of Newton.
The lies could only continue for so long in the face of staggering evidence to the contrary. In the mid-1800s, Doctor Samuel Birley "Parallax" Rowbotham, the iconoclast and visionary, published his damning dismissal of globularist dogma. The Neo-Newtonian satanists of the Victorian age concocted a master plan, the greatest deception in human history - Space Travel, which was to play out over the course of the 20th Century and solidify sphericism against the rational scepticism of free-thinking minds.
The plan was not without interruption. Knowing, as they did, that the Flat, circular habitable Earth was surrounded by vast escarpments of insurmountable ice, the public discovery of which would slice globularism to shreds, the Conspiracy was unable to introduce the myth of Space Travel at the turn of the 20th Century, as previously planned. Brave zetetic hero Scott of the Antarctic travelled deep into the wastes of the outer circle, and was sure to bring back news of the unacceptable truth - the maddening mountains of the Ice Wall which hold in the oceans of the Earth - and plans for early 20th century faked "zeppelin" flights into space as part of the Great War were shelved in order to pursue the most outrageous assassination the Southern Hemiplane has ever seen. Scott's team were brutally murdered by Conspiracy agents; their camp was made up to look like they had died in their sleep, and Scott's pivotal diary, which can only have testified to the shocking truth, was fraudulently edited to corroborate the myth of a South Pole.
The establishment of NASA and POCKOCMOC in the middle 20th Century was the logical conclusion of this horrific history. At last, neonewtonianism could mass produce falsified Round Earth evidence with impunity - but for the bold efforts of the International Flat Earth Research Society and its successor, the Flat Earth Society, where even today our best scientific minds continue the crusade against Platonic-Newtonian Conspiracy deceptions.
-
The Conspiracy began in Ancient Greece, prior to the birth of Christ, when the spherical fundamentalist Plato mistook the Earth for a sphere because of his ideologically motivated religion (Plato believed the sphere was a divine shape).
This sphericism was the prevailing (wrong) view in the Hellenistic world, but in the Ancient Levant, the heroes of the Bible crusaded against this inaccurate worldview. Jesus preached the flatness of the Earth. He went as far as to demonstrate that water has no convexity, by walking out away from observers on the Sea of Galilee to demonstrate that his feet were still visible several miles away, not obscured by curvature. A modern version of Jesus's experiment was conducted by Rowbotham at Bedford Canal, but the first Bedford Level Experiment (The Galilee Level Experiment) was performed by Jesus.
Jesus' enlightened approach to zetetic science was seen as a threat by the globularist Romans, who conspired to assassinate him in order to prevent an uprising in the serfs of the Levant, who were kept under control by the Round-Earth lies of the Romans.
After Jesus' assassination, Paul disseminated the beliefs of Jesus but inadvertantly focussed on his ethics more than his geography, resulting in a globularist christianity which became highly popular.
A Roman Emperor (Konstantin the Great) converted to Christian Globularism and the Bible was mistakenly taken for a Globularist text. By this time, the gospels had been codified by Alexandrian globularist scholars, who had naturally glossed the scientific elements of Jesus' experiments, presenting them as kooky miracles rather than studies about the shape of the Earth.
The level of scientific rigour held by the Bible heroes would not be matched until the medieval enlightenment occured, with many people realising the truth of geocentrism and zeteticism using the power of investigation.
However, by this time, the Conspiracy held such sway that even many geocentrists held the Earth to be a globe. Crackpot superstars such as Copernicus further poisoned the minds of the public with their sphere-worshipping drivel. Still, support for genuine zetetic science continued to grow in Renaissance and Enlightenment Europe. The Conspiracy needed a new poster-child for its wild and morally corrupt views about the shape of the Earth, and that poster-child eventually came in the form of alchemy-believer and committed satanist Isaac Newton. In a grotesque parody of the Biblical fall, Newton and his Conspiracy associates promulgated a story in which Newton was struck on the head by a fallen apple and in the subsequent concussion discovered a magical force, Gravity, which tended to forge all celestial objects into spheres.
The invention of Gravity by the Conspiracy represented a resurrection of the largely discredited Platonic Sphericism, in which the sphere is the teleological end point of all matter, including the Earth - however, the doctrine now gained imitative credibility from the rhetoric of Enlightenment science, and was backed up by the rock-star status of Newton.
The lies could only continue for so long in the face of staggering evidence to the contrary. In the mid-1800s, Doctor Samuel Birley "Parallax" Rowbotham, the iconoclast and visionary, published his damning dismissal of globularist dogma. The Neo-Newtonian satanists of the Victorian age concocted a master plan, the greatest deception in human history - Space Travel, which was to play out over the course of the 20th Century and solidify sphericism against the rational scepticism of free-thinking minds.
The plan was not without interruption. Knowing, as they did, that the Flat, circular habitable Earth was surrounded by vast escarpments of insurmountable ice, the public discovery of which would slice globularism to shreds, the Conspiracy was unable to introduce the myth of Space Travel at the turn of the 20th Century, as previously planned. Brave zetetic hero Scott of the Antarctic travelled deep into the wastes of the outer circle, and was sure to bring back news of the unacceptable truth - the maddening mountains of the Ice Wall which hold in the oceans of the Earth - and plans for early 20th century faked "zeppelin" flights into space as part of the Great War were shelved in order to pursue the most outrageous assassination the Southern Hemiplane has ever seen. Scott's team were brutally murdered by Conspiracy agents; their camp was made up to look like they had died in their sleep, and Scott's pivotal diary, which can only have testified to the shocking truth, was fraudulently edited to corroborate the myth of a South Pole.
The establishment of NASA and POCKOCMOC in the middle 20th Century was the logical conclusion of this horrific history. At last, neonewtonianism could mass produce falsified Round Earth evidence with impunity - but for the bold efforts of the International Flat Earth Research Society and its successor, the Flat Earth Society, where even today our best scientific minds continue the crusade against Platonic-Newtonian Conspiracy deceptions.
Please present any evidence at all for anything you talk about in this post. How are the dream conversations with the moonshramps, btw? I've got one in a tank, you know. Can prove it too.
-
The Conspiracy began in Ancient Greece, prior to the birth of Christ, when the spherical fundamentalist Plato mistook the Earth for a sphere because of his ideologically motivated religion (Plato believed the sphere was a divine shape).
Actually, it was widely believed among ancient Greek philosophers that the earth was round around the time of Pythagoras, well before Plato.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#Classical_Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#Classical_Greece)
-
Pythagoras' alleged globularism is only attested by unreliable secondary sources - Plato's writings are the first to explicitly preach globularism.
The majority of Presocratics are either silent on the issue or are Flat Earthers - for example Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, etc.
Plato is the father of globularism and the progenitor of the Conspiracy.
-
Pythagoras' alleged globularism is only attested by unreliable secondary sources - Plato's writings are the first to explicitly preach globularism.
The majority of Presocratics are either silent on the issue or are Flat Earthers - for example Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, etc.
Plato is the father of globularism and the progenitor of the Conspiracy.
Address my request that you supply proof of your ravings.
-
Pythagoras' alleged globularism is only attested by unreliable secondary sources - Plato's writings are the first to explicitly preach globularism.
The majority of Presocratics are either silent on the issue or are Flat Earthers - for example Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, etc.
Plato is the father of globularism and the progenitor of the Conspiracy.
He is a "projenitor" of globularism, and therefore of the heresy, but this doesn't mean that if the conspiracy exists, that he is also the "projenitor" of the conspiracy; the "projenitor" of the conspiracy is, from reading the forums, NASA.
Unless you are playing the game of guilt by association.
The origin of the sphereicity of the earth is under much debate and can be traced back to before plato; there is parmenides and empodocles; anaxagoras had some kind of flirtation with it, but alas, thought the horizon to be an illusion.
-
Pythagoras' alleged globularism is only attested by unreliable secondary sources - Plato's writings are the first to explicitly preach globularism.
The majority of Presocratics are either silent on the issue or are Flat Earthers - for example Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, etc.
Plato is the father of globularism and the progenitor of the Conspiracy.
He is a "projenitor" of globularism, and therefore of the heresy, but this doesn't mean that if the conspiracy exists, that he is also the "projenitor" of the conspiracy; the "projenitor" of the conspiracy is, from reading the forums, NASA.
Unless you are playing the game of guilt by association.
The origin of the sphereicity of the earth is under much debate and can be traced back to before plato; there is parmenides and empodocles; anaxagoras had some kind of flirtation with it, but alas, thought the horizon to be an illusion.
Plus there may be others whose writings are lost to history, perhaps in other cultures too.
-
Pythagoras' alleged globularism is only attested by unreliable secondary sources - Plato's writings are the first to explicitly preach globularism.
The majority of Presocratics are either silent on the issue or are Flat Earthers - for example Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, etc.
Plato is the father of globularism and the progenitor of the Conspiracy.
He is a "projenitor" of globularism, and therefore of the heresy, but this doesn't mean that if the conspiracy exists, that he is also the "projenitor" of the conspiracy; the "projenitor" of the conspiracy is, from reading the forums, NASA.
Unless you are playing the game of guilt by association.
The origin of the sphereicity of the earth is under much debate and can be traced back to before plato; there is parmenides and empodocles; anaxagoras had some kind of flirtation with it, but alas, thought the horizon to be an illusion.
Plus there may be others whose writings are lost to history, perhaps in other cultures too.
Very true; the amount of of writings not extant must be a lot more than what is from over the years, especcially because of all the book burnings in greece and china etc - though confuscius managed to get away with being completley lost.
-
I have come across an interesting site that has this picture(http://nrich.maths.org/content/99/12/art1/big-fig4.jpg)
-
Plato not only invented the myth of globularism, but he laid down the blueprints for the public deception which was later taken up by the Romans, by Newton and by the Space Agencies.
Plato advocated the governments of the world lying so convincingly about the shape of the Earth, that within a few generations they would believe their own lie. How correct he was.
SOCRATES: "Do you see any way of getting them to believe this tale?"
GLAUCON: "No, not these themselves. But I do, their sons and successors and the rest of mankind who come after."
-
Plato advocated the governments of the world lying so convincingly about the shape of the Earth, that within a few generations they would believe their own lie. How correct he was.
??? Why would Plato lie about the shape of the earth?
-
Plato advocated the governments of the world lying so convincingly about the shape of the Earth, that within a few generations they would believe their own lie. How correct he was.
??? Why would Plato lie about the shape of the earth?
He claimed that he knew that the earth was round when he did not.
-
Plato advocated the governments of the world lying so convincingly about the shape of the Earth, that within a few generations they would believe their own lie. How correct he was.
??? Why would Plato lie about the shape of the earth?
He claimed that he knew that the earth was round when he did not.
Sorry Tom, but that doesn't answer my question. What would motivate Plato to claim that the earth is round if he didn't know? What could he possibly gain by perpetrating such an obvious deception?
-
Plato advocated the governments of the world lying so convincingly about the shape of the Earth, that within a few generations they would believe their own lie. How correct he was.
??? Why would Plato lie about the shape of the earth?
He claimed that he knew that the earth was round when he did not.
Sorry Tom, but that doesn't answer my question. What would motivate Plato to claim that the earth is round if he didn't know? What could he possibly gain by perpetrating such an obvious deception?
Plato was the most famous philosopher/scientist in Greece and the founder of the Acadamy, which was the first institution of higher education Western World. It was his job to know all about the world. Claiming to know about the world gained him prestige and monies to run his institute from the government and financiers.
-
Plato advocated the governments of the world lying so convincingly about the shape of the Earth, that within a few generations they would believe their own lie. How correct he was.
??? Why would Plato lie about the shape of the earth?
He claimed that he knew that the earth was round when he did not.
Sorry Tom, but that doesn't answer my question. What would motivate Plato to claim that the earth is round if he didn't know? What could he possibly gain by perpetrating such an obvious deception?
Plato was the most famous philosopher/scientist in Greece and the founder of the Acadamy, which was the first institution of higher education Western World. It was his job to know all about the world. Claiming to know about the world gained him prestige and monies to run his institute from the government and financiers.
So, how would a round earth gain Plato more prestige and/or money than a flat earth?
-
So, how would a round earth gain Plato more prestige and/or money than a flat earth?
Claiming to have special knowledge about the earth gained him prestige. He claimed that the earth was round in contradiction to reality (that the earth is flat), writing reality off as an illusion.
No one would pay attention to someone who was claiming that the earth was flat in a time when the common man knew nothing of the earth and lived on a flat world as far as he knew. All of Plato's "teachings" are along the lines of "you think it's this... but it's really this". Calling everything an illusion is his claim to fame. Look at his World of Ideas and The Cave, for instance.
-
Fortunately we know now that Plato was right.
-
Plato not only invented the myth of globularism, but he laid down the blueprints for the public deception which was later taken up by the Romans, by Newton and by the Space Agencies.
Plato advocated the governments of the world lying so convincingly about the shape of the Earth, that within a few generations they would believe their own lie. How correct he was.
SOCRATES: "Do you see any way of getting them to believe this tale?"
GLAUCON: "No, not these themselves. But I do, their sons and successors and the rest of mankind who come after."
Address my request that you supply proof of your ravings.
-
the "conspiracy" started during the space race,
when pictures from space showed a circle of light, (when non zetetics thought that they saw a sphere).
but in reality pictures from space look as planar as they do spherical.
the faqqers are the conspirators, and sadly they have taken over this once great society so much that
we have an absentee Zetetic council.
What we need is a champion, like Dr Bishop who will weed out the faqqers, restore the Zetetic Council and
bring us ALL to enlightenment!
-
So, how would a round earth gain Plato more prestige and/or money than a flat earth?
Claiming to have special knowledge about the earth gained him prestige. He claimed that the earth was round in contradiction to reality (that the earth is flat), writing reality off as an illusion.
Gee, and here I thought that claiming that "the earth was round in contradiction to reality" and "writing reality off as an illusion" would gain him nothing but ridicule. Ah, those wacky ancient Greeks.
-
Plato's absurd globular theory was also motivated by cult ideology. As the shape which is most similar to itself, Plato believed that the sphere was a divine form, and sought to promote this laughable premise by deliberately lying to the public and pretending he believed it himself.
-
So, how would a round earth gain Plato more prestige and/or money than a flat earth?
Claiming to have special knowledge about the earth gained him prestige. He claimed that the earth was round in contradiction to reality (that the earth is flat), writing reality off as an illusion.
Gee, and here I thought that claiming that "the earth was round in contradiction to reality" and "writing reality off as an illusion" would gain him nothing but ridicule. Ah, those wacky ancient Greeks.
Check out a Sunday mass at your local church. Priests and Pastors make claims in contradiction to reality all the time, and it gains them nothing but prestige. They tell of magic and mysticism, worlds beyond our own, and people eat it up.
Claiming to have special knowledge of the world has always brought prestige. It's the reason traveling medicine shows of the 1800's were so popular, despite a distinct lack of clinical trials for those products. It's the same reason why people flock to psychics and astrologists. Some psychics are so in demand that they can get away with charging 4 and 5 figures for a reading on a constant basis.
-
Check out a Sunday mass at your local church. Priests and Pastors make claims in contradiction to reality all the time, and it gains them nothing but prestige. They tell of magic and mysticism, worlds beyond our own, and people eat it up.
I've been to plenty of masses and I don't recall the priest ever claiming to have special knowledge about the shape of the earth.
Claiming to have special knowledge of the world has always brought prestige. It's the reason traveling medicine shows of the 1800's were so popular, despite a distinct lack of clinical trials for those products.
Funny that you should bring up 19th century medicine and a lack of clinical trials. Tell me again about Dr. Birley's wondrous elixirs and how many clinical trials they were subjected to.
-
Check out a Sunday mass at your local church. Priests and Pastors make claims in contradiction to reality all the time, and it gains them nothing but prestige. They tell of magic and mysticism, worlds beyond our own, and people eat it up.
I've been to plenty of masses and I don't recall the priest ever claiming to have special knowledge about the shape of the earth.
People go to church because the priest claims to have special knowledge of the world. His claim of special knowledge gains him prestige.
Funny that you should bring up 19th century medicine and a lack of clinical trials. Tell me again about Dr. Birley's wondrous elixirs and how many clinical trials they were subjected to
Rowbotham did claim that trials were performed on his Phosphorous products. And indeed, it is agreed today that there are many medical benefits to phosphorous (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sa=X&ei=5PRDUIGbGs3aigK-wYC4Dg&ved=0CBsQvwUoAQ&q=medical+benefits+of+phosphorus).
-
Plato's absurd globular theory was also motivated by cult ideology. As the shape which is most similar to itself, Plato believed that the sphere was a divine form, and sought to promote this laughable premise by deliberately lying to the public and pretending he believed it himself.
For the 4th time, please supply proof of your ravings.
BTW James, it doesn't really matter to me if you want to comply with this. The more you refuse to engage with my request, the more it looks like you're talking out of the wrong orifice.
-
People go to church because the priest claims to have special knowledge of the world. His claim of special knowledge gains him prestige.
No, people go to church because they believe in God and want to worship him. They don't go there to worship the priest. ::)
-
Check out a Sunday mass at your local church. Priests and Pastors make claims in contradiction to reality all the time, and it gains them nothing but prestige. They tell of magic and mysticism, worlds beyond our own, and people eat it up.
I've been to plenty of masses and I don't recall the priest ever claiming to have special knowledge about the shape of the earth.
People go to church because the priest claims to have special knowledge of the world. His claim of special knowledge gains him prestige.
No, people go to church because the priest claims to have special knowledge of God.
Funny that you should bring up 19th century medicine and a lack of clinical trials. Tell me again about Dr. Birley's wondrous elixirs and how many clinical trials they were subjected to
Rowbotham did claim that trials were performed on his Phosphorous products. And indeed, it is agreed today that there are many medical benefits to phosphorous (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sa=X&ei=5PRDUIGbGs3aigK-wYC4Dg&ved=0CBsQvwUoAQ&q=medical+benefits+of+phosphorus).
Do you have any resources that can confirm that Rowbotham's products were subjected to proper clinical trials?
-
People go to church because the priest claims to have special knowledge of the world. His claim of special knowledge gains him prestige.
No, people go to church because they believe in God and want to worship him. They don't go there to worship the priest. ::)
The priest claims that invisible and super-natural entities exist, that we have a soul, and that we just need to put our hands together and ask for something to be granted our heart's desires. The priest claims to have knowledge that is in direct contradiction to reality, and gains prestige based on this.
-
The priest claims to have knowledge that is in direct contradiction to reality.
So tell me Tom, exactly what teachings of a religion - let's use Christianity as an example - are in direct contradiction to reality? You are of course expected to supply proof of whatever example you give.
-
The priest claims to have knowledge that is in direct contradiction to reality.
So tell me Tom, exactly what teachings of a religion - let's use Christianity as an example - are in direct contradiction to reality?
The whole thing. I don't see any magical fairies in the sky granting wishes or causing magic. The teachings of Christianity most certainly contradicts reality.
-
The priest claims to have knowledge that is in direct contradiction to reality.
So tell me Tom, exactly what teachings of a religion - let's use Christianity as an example - are in direct contradiction to reality?
You are of course expected to supply proof of whatever example you give.
The whole thing. I don't see any magical fairies in the sky granting wishes or causing magic. The teachings of Christianity most certainly contradicts reality.
Tom doesn't see fairies, therefore that's proof that fairies don't exist.
I don't see germs, therefore that's proof that germs don't exist.
BTW I have added back in the little bit of my post that you deleted, as I consider it quite important.
-
The priest claims to have knowledge that is in direct contradiction to reality.
So tell me Tom, exactly what teachings of a religion - let's use Christianity as an example - are in direct contradiction to reality?
You are of course expected to supply proof of whatever example you give.
The whole thing. I don't see any magical fairies in the sky granting wishes or causing magic. The teachings of Christianity most certainly contradicts reality.
Tom doesn't see fairies, therefore that's proof that fairies don't exist.
I don't see germs, therefore that's proof that germs don't exist.
BTW I have added back in the little bit of my post that you deleted, as I consider it quite important.
The burden of proof is on he who makes the positive claim. In this case the burden of proof is on those who believe in magical fairies, just as the burden of proof was on those promoting germ theory hundreds of years ago.
The burden of proof isn't on me or anyone to prove that magic invisible fairies *don't* exist. That's stupid. You're here claiming that magical fairies do exist, and therefore the burden of proof is on you.
The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic.
See: Russell's Teapot.
-
The priest claims to have knowledge that is in direct contradiction to reality.
So tell me Tom, exactly what teachings of a religion - let's use Christianity as an example - are in direct contradiction to reality?
You are of course expected to supply proof of whatever example you give.
The whole thing. I don't see any magical fairies in the sky granting wishes or causing magic. The teachings of Christianity most certainly contradicts reality.
Tom doesn't see fairies, therefore that's proof that fairies don't exist.
I don't see germs, therefore that's proof that germs don't exist.
BTW I have added back in the little bit of my post that you deleted, as I consider it quite important.
The burden of proof is on he who makes the positive claim. In this case the burden of proof is on those who believe in magical fairies, just as the burden of proof was on those promoting germ theory hundreds of years ago.
The burden of proof isn't on me or anyone to prove that magic invisible fairies *don't* exist. That's stupid. You're here claiming that magical fairies do exist, and therefore the burden of proof is on you.
The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic.
See: Russell's Teapot.
Unfortunately, being unable to prove something doesn't automatically mean that it's incorrect.
See: Russell's Teapot.
Furthermore, I'm not asking you to prove that God, Jesus, angels etc. don't exist - I'm asking you to back up your assertion that they contradict reality. In other words, how reality would appear different if they did exist.
-
Unfortunately, being unable to prove something doesn't automatically mean that it's incorrect.
See: Russell's Teapot.
Furthermore, I'm not asking you to prove that God, Jesus, angels etc. don't exist - I'm asking you to back up your assertion that they contradict reality. In other words, how reality would appear different if they did exist.
I looked in the sky for God, Jesus, angles, etc., and didn't see any. This is a proof that they do not exist. They are nowhere to be seen. Any claim that these entities do exist contradicts the reality that they do not.
-
I looked in the sky for God, Jesus, angles, etc., and didn't see any. This is a proof that they do not exist. They are nowhere to be seen. Any claim that these entities do exist contradicts the reality that they do not.
Umm... Who said that God, Jesus, angles, etc., live in the sky?
-
I looked in the sky for God, Jesus, angles, etc., and didn't see any. This is a proof that they do not exist. They are nowhere to be seen. Any claim that these entities do exist contradicts the reality that they do not.
Umm... Who said that God, Jesus, angles, etc., live in the sky?
The Bible.
-
I looked in the sky for God, Jesus, angles, etc., and didn't see any. This is a proof that they do not exist. They are nowhere to be seen. Any claim that these entities do exist contradicts the reality that they do not.
Umm... Who said that God, Jesus, angles, etc., live in the sky?
The Bible.
Where in the Bible? You do realize that there is a lot of symbolism in the Bible that shouldn't be taken literally, don't you?
-
Unfortunately, being unable to prove something doesn't automatically mean that it's incorrect.
See: Russell's Teapot.
Furthermore, I'm not asking you to prove that God, Jesus, angels etc. don't exist - I'm asking you to back up your assertion that they contradict reality. In other words, how reality would appear different if they did exist.
I looked in the sky for God, Jesus, angles, etc., and didn't see any. This is a proof that they do not exist. They are nowhere to be seen. Any claim that these entities do exist contradicts the reality that they do not.
Yay! So I can use this as a proof against the Antimoon and all that stuff? Really Tom, you are trying to get us to accept that you think if you look for something and can't find it, it proves its non-existence? It very much depends how you look for something though doesn't it? So if invisible kangaroos existed, and you looked for them and couldn't see them, you'd take that as proof they didn't exist and be wrong. I looked in the sky for earthworms and didn't see any, therefore earthworms don't exist.
You're a joke.
-
Unfortunately, being unable to prove something doesn't automatically mean that it's incorrect.
See: Russell's Teapot.
Furthermore, I'm not asking you to prove that God, Jesus, angels etc. don't exist - I'm asking you to back up your assertion that they contradict reality. In other words, how reality would appear different if they did exist.
I looked in the sky for God, Jesus, angles, etc., and didn't see any. This is a proof that they do not exist. They are nowhere to be seen. Any claim that these entities do exist contradicts the reality that they do not.
Yay! So I can use this as a proof against the Antimoon and all that stuff? Really Tom, you are trying to get us to accept that you think if you look for something and can't find it, it proves its non-existence? It very much depends how you look for something though doesn't it? So if invisible kangaroos existed, and you looked for them and couldn't see them, you'd take that as proof they didn't exist and be wrong. I looked in the sky for earthworms and didn't see any, therefore earthworms don't exist.
You're a joke.
If no one has ever seen an invisible kangaroo, that would be evidence that invisible kangaroos do not exist. In terms of germ theory, the anti-moon, etc, people have seen those things. Therefore there is some evidence of their existence. They are not completely invisible to human experience.
Perhaps if you show me where I can look to find God, Jesus, angles, etc., those things can start existing. Until then, they do not exist.
-
If no one has ever seen an invisible kangaroo, that would be evidence that invisible kangaroos do not exist. In terms of germ theory, the anti-moon, etc, people have seen those things. Therefore there is some evidence of their existence. They are not completely invisible to human experience.
I can find plenty of pictures of germs. Would you care to show me a picture of the anti-moon?
Perhaps if you show me where I can look to find God, Jesus, angles, etc., those things can start existing. Until then, they do not exist.
God is a spiritual being. Look in your heart if you really want to find Him.
-
Unfortunately, being unable to prove something doesn't automatically mean that it's incorrect.
See: Russell's Teapot.
Furthermore, I'm not asking you to prove that God, Jesus, angels etc. don't exist - I'm asking you to back up your assertion that they contradict reality. In other words, how reality would appear different if they did exist.
I looked in the sky for God, Jesus, angles, etc., and didn't see any. This is a proof that they do not exist. They are nowhere to be seen. Any claim that these entities do exist contradicts the reality that they do not.
Yay! So I can use this as a proof against the Antimoon and all that stuff? Really Tom, you are trying to get us to accept that you think if you look for something and can't find it, it proves its non-existence? It very much depends how you look for something though doesn't it? So if invisible kangaroos existed, and you looked for them and couldn't see them, you'd take that as proof they didn't exist and be wrong. I looked in the sky for earthworms and didn't see any, therefore earthworms don't exist.
You're a joke.
If no one has ever seen an invisible kangaroo, that would be evidence that invisible kangaroos do not exist. In terms of germ theory, the anti-moon, etc, people have seen those things. Therefore there is some evidence of their existence. They are not completely invisible to human experience.
Perhaps if you show me where I can look to find God, Jesus, angles, etc., those things can start existing. Until then, they do not exist.
People have seen the antimoon?
There's absolutely no record of it.
-
God is a spiritual being. Look in your heart if you really want to find Him.
I'll be sure to ask my heart surgeon if he has seen God lately.
People have seen the antimoon?
There's absolutely no record of it.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1ece_1s4bkU/TRIpl4Qz4VI/AAAAAAAALCI/KMdXwMtC2aE/s1600/lunar-eclipse-photo.jpg)
-
God is a spiritual being. Look in your heart if you really want to find Him.
I'll be sure to ask my heart surgeon if he has seen God lately.
People have seen the antimoon?
There's absolutely no record of it.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1ece_1s4bkU/TRIpl4Qz4VI/AAAAAAAALCI/KMdXwMtC2aE/s1600/lunar-eclipse-photo.jpg)
Nice painting!
Even if it was a time-lapse photo, such a massive object has never been detected.
-
God is a spiritual being. Look in your heart if you really want to find Him.
I'll be sure to ask my heart surgeon if he has seen God lately.
People have seen the antimoon?
There's absolutely no record of it.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1ece_1s4bkU/TRIpl4Qz4VI/AAAAAAAALCI/KMdXwMtC2aE/s1600/lunar-eclipse-photo.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1ece_1s4bkU/TRIpl4Qz4VI/AAAAAAAALCI/KMdXwMtC2aE/s1600/lunar-eclipse-photo.jpg)
Nice painting!
Even if it was a time-lapse photo, such a massive object has never been detected.
The lunar eclipse is evidence of its existence.
-
God is a spiritual being. Look in your heart if you really want to find Him.
I'll be sure to ask my heart surgeon if he has seen God lately.
People have seen the antimoon?
There's absolutely no record of it.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1ece_1s4bkU/TRIpl4Qz4VI/AAAAAAAALCI/KMdXwMtC2aE/s1600/lunar-eclipse-photo.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1ece_1s4bkU/TRIpl4Qz4VI/AAAAAAAALCI/KMdXwMtC2aE/s1600/lunar-eclipse-photo.jpg)
Nice painting!
Even if it was a time-lapse photo, such a massive object has never been detected.
The photo is evidence of its existence.
That's not a photo.
-
It's a montage of photos of the lunar eclipse.
-
It's a montage of photos of the lunar eclipse.
There is no explaination of such a massive object who would:
- only appear during eclipses
- only obscure the Moon but no the stars.
Can you please refrain from low-content posting?
-
It's a montage of photos of the lunar eclipse.
Precisely. I'm not sure how it's any better evidence than the silly ISS video that always gets posted. Nothing about that montage is evidence of an anti-moon.
I'm not trying to nit-pick, it just seems like you're oddly selective about which blatantly photoshopped images you're willing to trust.
-
God is a spiritual being. Look in your heart if you really want to find Him.
I'll be sure to ask my heart surgeon if he has seen God lately.
And the concept of a metaphor escapes Tom once again. ::)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1ece_1s4bkU/TRIpl4Qz4VI/AAAAAAAALCI/KMdXwMtC2aE/s1600/lunar-eclipse-photo.jpg)
Would you care to point out exactly where the anti-moon is in that picture?
-
God is a spiritual being. Look in your heart if you really want to find Him.
I'll be sure to ask my heart surgeon if he has seen God lately.
And the concept of a metaphor escapes Tom once again. ::)
Yes, it was almost Parsifalian in its deliberate obtuseness.
-
It's a montage of photos of the lunar eclipse.
There is no explaination of such a massive object who would:
- only appear during eclipses
- only obscure the Moon but no the stars.
Can you please refrain from low-content posting?
The Anti-Moon (sometimes called the Shadow Object) is a body which comes between the sun and the moon, casting a shadow upon the moon. Under RET this body which comes between the sun and moon is the earth. Under FET this body cannot be the earth, as the earth is flat and does not move between the sun and moon. Therefore it must be some other body which comes between the sun and moon to cause the Lunar Eclipse. This body is colloquially known as the anti-moon. The Lunar Eclipse is direct evidence of its existence.
The anti-moon may very well be on the "day" side of the earth, rotating around the sun, which would explain why it is not generally seen. Almost all celestial bodies are unseen in the day, since the sun's light washes out the atmosphere.
-
It's a montage of photos of the lunar eclipse.
There is no explaination of such a massive object who would:
- only appear during eclipses
- only obscure the Moon but no the stars.
Can you please refrain from low-content posting?
The Anti-Moon is a body which comes between the sun and the moon, casting a shadow upon the moon. Under RET this body which comes between the sun and moon is the earth. Under FET this body cannot be the earth, as the earth is flat. Therefore it must be some other body which comes between the sun and moon. This body is colloquially known as the anti-moon. The Lunar Eclipse is direct evidence of its existence.
The anti-moon may very well be on the "day" side of the earth, rotating around the sun, which would explain why it is not generally seen. All celestial bodies are unseen in the day, as the sun's light washes out the atmosphere.
Funny, John Davis claims the Antimoon is between the earth and the moon and is directly in front of the moon during a lunar eclipse. Which would mean it would blot out stars.
-
Funny, John Davis claims the Antimoon is between the earth and the moon and is directly in front of the moon during a lunar eclipse. Which would mean it would blot out stars.
Where does he say that?
-
Funny, John Davis claims the Antimoon is between the earth and the moon and is directly in front of the moon during a lunar eclipse. Which would mean it would blot out stars.
Where does he say that?
Do a search. Of course, I might be wrong and it be James that says that. Either way, somebody has said it and it's available to read. I had assumed you were aware of this theory like the rest of us.
-
The anti-moon may very well be on the "day" side of the earth, rotating around the sun, which would explain why it is not generally seen. Almost all celestial bodies are unseen in the day, since the sun's light washes out the atmosphere.
Are you saying that you have no direct evidence that the anti-moon exists?
-
The anti-moon may very well be on the "day" side of the earth, rotating around the sun, which would explain why it is not generally seen. Almost all celestial bodies are unseen in the day, since the sun's light washes out the atmosphere.
Are you saying that you have no direct evidence that the anti-moon exists?
I believe he is saying that.
Zeteticism triumphs again!
-
The Anti-Moon (sometimes called the Shadow Object) is a body which comes between the sun and the moon, casting a shadow upon the moon. Under RET this body which comes between the sun and moon is the earth. Under FET this body cannot be the earth, as the earth is flat and does not move between the sun and moon. Therefore it must be some other body which comes between the sun and moon to cause the Lunar Eclipse. This body is colloquially known as the anti-moon. The Lunar Eclipse is direct evidence of its existence.
The anti-moon may very well be on the "day" side of the earth, rotating around the sun, which would explain why it is not generally seen. Almost all celestial bodies are unseen in the day, since the sun's light washes out the atmosphere.
I have a few problems with that:
- The moon is so bright because it reflects the sunlight. Sometimes it also reflects the reflected light from the earth, and you can see a very bright half moon and a dim dark half. I observed this a few times. So, if the sun is illuminating the moon, given that they reside at the same altitude, how do you sustain the spotlight theory?
- If you observe a lunar eclipse, it typically happens at night, from your point of view. In an extreme situation it will happen at dusk or dawn. Now, when we observe a lunar eclipse, there is an advancing shadow on the lunar surface, but the visible topography stays in place, so we can agree that it's just a shadow, rather than an object obscuring the moon. If the anti-moon is rotating around the sun, and gradually passing between sun and moon, I would see the moon gradually dimming out rather than a more or less solid shadow passing in front of it. And this because of the dimensions of sun, moon and anti-moon, which, according to the FET, are the same, and the generated penumbra-umbra transition would just be too soft
- If the anti-moon is on the day side of earth, it is closer to the sun than to the moon, which makes the penumbra-umbra transition even softer, thus making the rather solid advancing shadow on the moon not plausible
-
The shadow object is a theory.
Zetetism shows us the lunar eclipses are cause by the sun.
Due to an uneven balance in the Earths Mass, the Sun, and moon, which are only 100 miles in average apart,
sometimes shift. When the Moon shifts and it is closer than the sun, this sometimes causes solar eclipses.
and vice versa.
A simple Zetetic answer that makes tons of sense.
-
The shadow object is a theory.
Zetetism shows us the lunar eclipses are cause by the sun.
Due to an uneven balance in the Earths Mass, the Sun, and moon, which are only 100 miles in average apart,
sometimes shift. When the Moon shifts and it is closer than the sun, this sometimes causes solar eclipses.
and vice versa.
A simple Zetetic answer that makes tons of sense.
100 miles in altitude, or longitude?
-
Funny, John Davis claims the Antimoon is between the earth and the moon and is directly in front of the moon during a lunar eclipse. Which would mean it would blot out stars.
Where does he say that?
Do a search. Of course, I might be wrong and it be James that says that. Either way, somebody has said it and it's available to read. I had assumed you were aware of this theory like the rest of us.bute
You want me to search for something that someone once said, of which you can't even attribute an author? ???
The anti-moon may very well be on the "day" side of the earth, rotating around the sun, which would explain why it is not generally seen. Almost all celestial bodies are unseen in the day, since the sun's light washes out the atmosphere.
Are you saying that you have no direct evidence that the anti-moon exists?
The Lunar Eclipse is direct evidence that a body is obscuring the moon.
-
The anti-moon may very well be on the "day" side of the earth, rotating around the sun, which would explain why it is not generally seen. Almost all celestial bodies are unseen in the day, since the sun's light washes out the atmosphere.
Are you saying that you have no direct evidence that the anti-moon exists?
The Lunar Eclipse is direct evidence that a body is obscuring the moon.
The moon remains clearly visible throughout a lunar eclipse. Direct evidence would be something on the order of an observation of the anti-moon itself, not effects supposedly caused by the anti-moon.
-
The Lunar Eclipse is direct evidence that a body is obscuring the moon.
Do you have any comment on my previous post?
I have a few problems with that:
- The moon is so bright because it reflects the sunlight. Sometimes it also reflects the reflected light from the earth, and you can see a very bright half moon and a dim dark half. I observed this a few times. So, if the sun is illuminating the moon, given that they reside at the same altitude, how do you sustain the spotlight theory?
- If you observe a lunar eclipse, it typically happens at night, from your point of view. In an extreme situation it will happen at dusk or dawn. Now, when we observe a lunar eclipse, there is an advancing shadow on the lunar surface, but the visible topography stays in place, so we can agree that it's just a shadow, rather than an object obscuring the moon. If the anti-moon is rotating around the sun, and gradually passing between sun and moon, I would see the moon gradually dimming out rather than a more or less solid shadow passing in front of it. And this because of the dimensions of sun, moon and anti-moon, which, according to the FET, are the same, and the generated penumbra-umbra transition would just be too soft
- If the anti-moon is on the day side of earth, it is closer to the sun than to the moon, which makes the penumbra-umbra transition even softer, thus making the rather solid advancing shadow on the moon not plausible
-
The anti-moon may very well be on the "day" side of the earth, rotating around the sun, which would explain why it is not generally seen. Almost all celestial bodies are unseen in the day, since the sun's light washes out the atmosphere.
Are you saying that you have no direct evidence that the anti-moon exists?
The Lunar Eclipse is direct evidence that a body is obscuring the moon.
The moon remains clearly visible throughout a lunar eclipse. Direct evidence would be something on the order of an observation of the anti-moon itself, not effects supposedly caused by the anti-moon.
A shadow on the moon is direct evidence that something is causing that shadow, correct?
Therefore a shadow on the moon is direct evidence that a body exists to cause it. We like to call this body the Anti-Moon, or as I prefer, the Shadow Object.
The Shadow Object exists. There is no doubt about that. There is some contention on what it exists as, exactly, but it none the less exists. The Shadow Object even exists in the RET model. In RET the Shadow Object is the earth.
The Lunar Eclipse is direct evidence that a body is obscuring the moon.
Do you have any comment on my previous post?
I was getting to it.
- The moon is so bright because it reflects the sunlight. Sometimes it also reflects the reflected light from the earth, and you can see a very bright half moon and a dim dark half. I observed this a few times. So, if the sun is illuminating the moon, given that they reside at the same altitude, how do you sustain the spotlight theory?
The light from the sun can travel horizontally unimpeded because space is a vacuum. The sun's light has limited distance when traveling through the atmosphere, else the entire surface would be illuminated.
- If you observe a lunar eclipse, it typically happens at night, from your point of view. In an extreme situation it will happen at dusk or dawn. Now, when we observe a lunar eclipse, there is an advancing shadow on the lunar surface, but the visible topography stays in place, so we can agree that it's just a shadow, rather than an object obscuring the moon. If the anti-moon is rotating around the sun, and gradually passing between sun and moon, I would see the moon gradually dimming out rather than a more or less solid shadow passing in front of it. And this because of the dimensions of sun, moon and anti-moon, which, according to the FET, are the same, and the generated penumbra-umbra transition would just be too soft
- If the anti-moon is on the day side of earth, it is closer to the sun than to the moon, which makes the penumbra-umbra transition even softer, thus making the rather solid advancing shadow on the moon not plausible
The sun-earth-moon system in RET doesn't have a problem with soft penumbras at hundreds of thousands of miles. What makes you think that FET would have such issues with a smaller scale system? The premise to your argument seems to be that it's far away and therefore should be soft. How can you simultaneously maintain that something hundreds of thousands of miles away can cause a strong shadow?
-
The light from the sun can travel horizontally unimpeded because space is a vacuum. The sun's light has limited distance when traveling through the atmosphere, else the entire surface would be illuminated.
Now it's getting interesting!
So you are saying that the sunlight is omnidirectional after all (at least it should illuminate a semi-sphere underneath it, up to a horizontal level), and that the earth's atmosphere is scattering the light to a degree that you will have total darkness, if the earth's region is further away from the sun?
Fine. Let's say meteors burn up at 85 km altitude, meaning that the atmosphere is starting to get dense there. 100 km height is the limit to outer space.
If darkness is caused by light being hindered to travel through air, I can set up following example:
- At the summer solstice, when the sun is exactly over the null meridian, it sets in Bangkok.
- On the FE map, Bangkok is about 9000 miles away from the spot on earth the sun would project straight down.
- The sun is at 3000 miles altitude
This means, if the sunlight travels through 3 times the height of the atmosphere, or more than 255-300 km of gas (and let's ignore the density changes with different altitude), it will be totally absorbed.
This also means that weaker light should be absorbed after even shorter distances.
Then I see no reason, why we can see the stars, the galaxies etc.
The sun-earth-moon system in RET doesn't have a problem with soft penumbras at hundreds of thousands of miles. What makes you think that FET would have such issues with a smaller scale system? The premise to your argument seems to be that it's far away and therefore should be soft. How can you simultaneously maintain that something hundreds of thousands of miles away can cause a strong shadow?
The same things apply to any scale: it's not about empiric distance, but about ratio. Take a light bulb, a 1-cent coin and a white wall. Light bulb and wall are 3m apart. Let the coin pass between wall and bulb, once 10 cm before the bulb, and once 10 cm before the wall. I'm sure you will see a varying amount of penumbra. And it should also help you wrap your head around solar eclipses, and rethink the distances of sun and moon from earth.
-
It's a montage of photos of the lunar eclipse.
There is no explaination of such a massive object who would:
- only appear during eclipses
- only obscure the Moon but no the stars.
Can you please refrain from low-content posting?
The Anti-Moon (sometimes called the Shadow Object) is a body which comes between the sun and the moon, casting a shadow upon the moon. Under RET this body which comes between the sun and moon is the earth. Under FET this body cannot be the earth, as the earth is flat and does not move between the sun and moon. Therefore it must be some other body which comes between the sun and moon to cause the Lunar Eclipse. This body is colloquially known as the anti-moon. The Lunar Eclipse is direct evidence of its existence.
The anti-moon may very well be on the "day" side of the earth, rotating around the sun, which would explain why it is not generally seen. Almost all celestial bodies are unseen in the day, since the sun's light washes out the atmosphere.
This is called wishfull thinking, not science.
-
A shadow on the moon is direct evidence that something is causing that shadow, correct?
Not necessarily. For all you know, it could be the lunar bioluminescent life forms going through some sort of dark phase.
-
The light from the sun can travel horizontally unimpeded because space is a vacuum. The sun's light has limited distance when traveling through the atmosphere, else the entire surface would be illuminated.
Now it's getting interesting!
So you are saying that the sunlight is omnidirectional after all (at least it should illuminate a semi-sphere underneath it, up to a horizontal level), and that the earth's atmosphere is scattering the light to a degree that you will have total darkness, if the earth's region is further away from the sun?
Fine. Let's say meteors burn up at 85 km altitude, meaning that the atmosphere is starting to get dense there. 100 km height is the limit to outer space.
If darkness is caused by light being hindered to travel through air, I can set up following example:
- At the summer solstice, when the sun is exactly over the null meridian, it sets in Bangkok.
- On the FE map, Bangkok is about 9000 miles away from the spot on earth the sun would project straight down.
- The sun is at 3000 miles altitude
This means, if the sunlight travels through 3 times the height of the atmosphere, or more than 255-300 km of gas (and let's ignore the density changes with different altitude), it will be totally absorbed.
This also means that weaker light should be absorbed after even shorter distances.
Then I see no reason, why we can see the stars, the galaxies etc.
You're assuming that the stars are as dim as you see them through the atmosphere.
The same things apply to any scale: it's not about empiric distance, but about ratio. Take a light bulb, a 1-cent coin and a white wall. Light bulb and wall are 3m apart. Let the coin pass between wall and bulb, once 10 cm before the bulb, and once 10 cm before the wall. I'm sure you will see a varying amount of penumbra. And it should also help you wrap your head around solar eclipses, and rethink the distances of sun and moon from earth.
The shadow of the dime is still relatively black and solid when passed in front of the light bulb, and even more solid when you replace the light bulb with a flash light. Indeed, the stronger the light source, the more distinct the shadow, and no one can deny that the sun is a powerful light source.
A shadow on the moon is direct evidence that something is causing that shadow, correct?
Not necessarily. For all you know, it could be the lunar bioluminescent life forms going through some sort of dark phase.
Absurd.
-
A shadow on the moon is direct evidence that something is causing that shadow, correct?
Not necessarily. For all you know, it could be the lunar bioluminescent life forms going through some sort of dark phase.
Absurd.
How is it more absurd than your theory? Explain why, using science and facts.
-
A shadow on the moon is direct evidence that something is causing that shadow, correct?
Not necessarily. For all you know, it could be the lunar bioluminescent life forms going through some sort of dark phase.
Absurd.
I agree that the notion of lunar bioluminescent life forms is absurd (but I'm an RE'er so what do I know?). However, Rowbotham did claim that the moon is self illuminating and bioluminescence has received quite a bit of support on this site from well respected FE researchers here, so, in all fairness, the possibility should be considered.
-
A shadow on the moon is direct evidence that something is causing that shadow, correct?
Not necessarily. For all you know, it could be the lunar bioluminescent life forms going through some sort of dark phase.
This is an extraordinary claim. The burden of proof is on you.
-
A shadow on the moon is direct evidence that something is causing that shadow, correct?
Not necessarily. For all you know, it could be the lunar bioluminescent life forms going through some sort of dark phase.
This is an extraordinary claim. The burden of proof is on you.
I believe that Markjo was suggesting this idea to try and discredit Tom's question, not submit it as a possible explanation. I, however, do support the idea of bioluminescent lunar life and I do believe that the life forms are less active or nonexistent in the shadowy areas. This is all one giant derailment though. I just wanted to clear up that point a bit. If you wish to learn more about lunar bioluminescence, may I recommend starting a thread in the Q&A section.
-
A shadow on the moon is direct evidence that something is causing that shadow, correct?
Not necessarily. For all you know, it could be the lunar bioluminescent life forms going through some sort of dark phase.
This is an extraordinary claim. The burden of proof is on you.
I believe that Markjo was suggesting this idea to try and discredit Tom's question, not submit it as a possible explanation. I, however, do support the idea of bioluminescent lunar life and I do believe that the life forms are less active or nonexistent in the shadowy areas. This is all one giant derailment though. I just wanted to clear up that point a bit. If you wish to learn more about lunar bioluminescence, may I recommend starting a thread in the Q&A section.
...Or try to find an explanation because nothing makes sense with the moon shrimps.
-
A shadow on the moon is direct evidence that something is causing that shadow, correct?
Not necessarily. For all you know, it could be the lunar bioluminescent life forms going through some sort of dark phase.
This is an extraordinary claim. The burden of proof is on you.
I believe that Markjo was suggesting this idea to try and discredit Tom's question, not submit it as a possible explanation. I, however, do support the idea of bioluminescent lunar life and I do believe that the life forms are less active or nonexistent in the shadowy areas. This is all one giant derailment though. I just wanted to clear up that point a bit. If you wish to learn more about lunar bioluminescence, may I recommend starting a thread in the Q&A section.
...Or try to find an explanation because nothing makes sense with the moon shrimps.
I have a moonshramp in a tank.
-
A shadow on the moon is direct evidence that something is causing that shadow, correct?
Not necessarily. For all you know, it could be the lunar bioluminescent life forms going through some sort of dark phase.
This is an extraordinary claim. The burden of proof is on you.
I believe that Markjo was suggesting this idea to try and discredit Tom's question, not submit it as a possible explanation. I, however, do support the idea of bioluminescent lunar life and I do believe that the life forms are less active or nonexistent in the shadowy areas. This is all one giant derailment though. I just wanted to clear up that point a bit. If you wish to learn more about lunar bioluminescence, may I recommend starting a thread in the Q&A section.
...Or try to find an explanation because nothing makes sense with the moon shrimps.
I have a moonshramp in a tank.
I suggest moonshramp on toast, I have heard it is a delicacy with the moonites.
-
The light from the sun can travel horizontally unimpeded because space is a vacuum. The sun's light has limited distance when traveling through the atmosphere, else the entire surface would be illuminated.
I don't want to be repetitive, but I want to refine the concept:
Let's say the sun is over meridian zero.
In Bangkok it's dark, while in Bangalore it's still bright
The sunlight travels 300 km through the "atmolayer" to reach Bangkok, and does not make it through.
But it will indeed reach Bangalore, after travelling 250 km through the "atmolayer".
Now, one day I was flying from Europe to southeast Asia, it was a clear day and when we were over Hyderabad (India), I could see the Himalaya range, meaning 1000+ km away. Considering that the plane was flying 12 km high at most, and the total height of the "atmolayer" is 300 km, we were in the region, where the gas was rather dense, so your argument is flawed, if not nonsensical.
-
A shadow on the moon is direct evidence that something is causing that shadow, correct?
Not necessarily. For all you know, it could be the lunar bioluminescent life forms going through some sort of dark phase.
Absurd.
How is it more absurd than your theory? Explain why, using science and facts.
My theory is that it looks like a shadow because it is a shadow. This is less absurd than bioluminescent life on the moon.
The light from the sun can travel horizontally unimpeded because space is a vacuum. The sun's light has limited distance when traveling through the atmosphere, else the entire surface would be illuminated.
I don't want to be repetitive, but I want to refine the concept:
Let's say the sun is over meridian zero.
In Bangkok it's dark, while in Bangalore it's still bright
The sunlight travels 300 km through the "atmolayer" to reach Bangkok, and does not make it through.
But it will indeed reach Bangalore, after travelling 250 km through the "atmolayer".
Now, one day I was flying from Europe to southeast Asia, it was a clear day and when we were over Hyderabad (India), I could see the Himalaya range, meaning 1000+ km away. Considering that the plane was flying 12 km high at most, and the total height of the "atmolayer" is 300 km, we were in the region, where the gas was rather dense, so your argument is flawed, if not nonsensical.
I challenge that. It is not possible to see 1000+ km away through the atmosphere.
-
I challenge that. It is not possible to see 1000+ km away through the atmosphere.
Why not?
-
I have a moonshramp in a tank.
I hope you take care of it. moonshramp are notorious for being hard to keep.
-
A shadow on the moon is direct evidence that something is causing that shadow, correct?
Not necessarily. For all you know, it could be the lunar bioluminescent life forms going through some sort of dark phase.
This is an extraordinary claim. The burden of proof is on you.
I believe that Markjo was suggesting this idea to try and discredit Tom's question, not submit it as a possible explanation. I, however, do support the idea of bioluminescent lunar life and I do believe that the life forms are less active or nonexistent in the shadowy areas. This is all one giant derailment though. I just wanted to clear up that point a bit. If you wish to learn more about lunar bioluminescence, may I recommend starting a thread in the Q&A section.
...Or try to find an explanation because nothing makes sense with the moon shrimps.
I have a moonshramp in a tank.
I suggest moonshramp on toast, I have heard it is a delicacy with the moonites.
I ate a moonshramp and bathed in the "afterglow"..................
-
I challenge that. It is not possible to see 1000+ km away through the atmosphere.
Tom, you have unwittingly admitted that you actually consider the Earth to be a globe. Case closed.
-
I challenge that. It is not possible to see 1000+ km away through the atmosphere.
Why not?
The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
I challenge that. It is not possible to see 1000+ km away through the atmosphere.
Tom, you have unwittingly admitted that you actually consider the Earth to be a globe. Case closed.
Cease. I'm using these terms for the benefit of newcomers.
-
The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
Something tells me you just dodged a bullet ;D
-
I challenge that. It is not possible to see 1000+ km away through the atmosphere.
Tom, you have unwittingly admitted that you actually consider the Earth to be a globe. Case closed.
No, he unwittingly slipped on a simple problem of trigonometry. Because the Earth is round and the atmosphere is so thin (you are almost out of the atmosphere climbing just 100,000 feet) there is no place where you can have a straight stretch of 1000 km of atmosphere. You could, in fact, do the test in a lab, making a ray of light travel one kilometer a thousand times, or something like that.
-
You could, in fact, do the test in a lab, making a ray of light travel one kilometer a thousand times, or something like that.
How many labs do you have access to, that are over 1 km in length?
-
You could, in fact, do the test in a lab, making a ray of light travel one kilometer a thousand times, or something like that.
How many labs do you have access to, that are over 1 km in length?
And you are the one who was talking about 500 meter long pieces of glass?
Use your imagination. Put a mirror on a mountaintop with a view towards your lab. Real scientist have to solve everyday problems all the time and don't cry because their labs are not a kilometer long. Only couch scientists like you would despair because all of the equipment should be actually inside their labs.
-
Use your imagination.
The rhetoric for Round Earthers for thousands of years. The prosecution rests, Your Honour.
-
Use your imagination.
The rhetoric for Round Earthers for thousands of years. The prosecution rests, Your Honour.
C'mon, don't be petty... let me rephrase:
Use your "inventive talent": 2 first surface mirrors, one laser, whatever gear is needed for precise placing. It will not be difficult to set up a zetetic experiment to determine the transparency of the atmosphere.
-
Use your imagination.
The rhetoric for Round Earthers for thousands of years. The prosecution rests, Your Honour.
C'mon, don't be petty... let me rephrase:
Use your "inventive talent": 2 first surface mirrors, one laser, whatever gear is needed for precise placing. It will not be difficult to set up a zetetic experiment to determine the transparency of the atmosphere.
I said something simular. You can do this over a large area of calm water, let's see Port Phillip bay in Melbourne would do. ( I used to live there) You could easily measure the curvature over the water with lasers and mirrors and prove Rowbotham's theories "hold no water" LOL.
-
The whole argument is silly. You can't see anywhere like 1000 km through air.
Visibility refers to the relative clarity of the air, which determines the distance, details, and colors that we can see in a landscape. Visibility is related to the absorption and scattering of light in the air. As more light is absorbed and scattered, whether by clouds, dust, or smog, visibility decreases. Even pure air absorbs and scatters light. Maximum visibility is about 390 km (240 miles) at sea level.
So Tom Bishop's challenge to the RErs stands. Trig was just side-stepping as usual having been outmanoeuvred by the silver fox once again.
-
The whole argument is silly. You can't see anywhere like 1000 km through air.
Visibility refers to the relative clarity of the air, which determines the distance, details, and colors that we can see in a landscape. Visibility is related to the absorption and scattering of light in the air. As more light is absorbed and scattered, whether by clouds, dust, or smog, visibility decreases. Even pure air absorbs and scatters light. Maximum visibility is about 390 km (240 miles) at sea level.
So Tom Bishop's challenge to the RErs stands. Trig was just side-stepping as usual having been outmanoeuvred by the silver fox once again.
Wasn't the claim about seeing a mountain range (much higher than sea level) from a plane (also much higher than sea level)? At higher elevations the air is thinner and should offer much greater visibility.
-
The whole argument is silly. You can't see anywhere like 1000 km through air.
Visibility refers to the relative clarity of the air, which determines the distance, details, and colors that we can see in a landscape. Visibility is related to the absorption and scattering of light in the air. As more light is absorbed and scattered, whether by clouds, dust, or smog, visibility decreases. Even pure air absorbs and scatters light. Maximum visibility is about 390 km (240 miles) at sea level.
So Tom Bishop's challenge to the RErs stands. Trig was just side-stepping as usual having been outmanoeuvred by the silver fox once again.
Wasn't the claim about seeing a mountain range (much higher than sea level) from a plane (also much higher than sea level)? At higher elevations the air is thinner and should offer much greater visibility.
Are you going to provide any data as to a revised figure?
-
I used some school trigonometry on the RE model to calculate the maximum distance a person inside an airplane travelling at 12 km altitude can see plus the maximum distance a person on an 8000m mountain can see. Adding those distances I would get something between 700 and 800 km.
So I reckon I must've been closer to the mountain range, and my claim was wrong.
But hey, I read about a maximum visibility of 390 km at sea level somewhere in this thread... And I see another calculation that states that if the sun light has to travel for more than 300 km though the air, it's lights off! What's the next step?
-
I say, follow the money. Hollywood has made billions off RE theory. The reason the Scientologists run Hollywood is because Hollywood needs true believers in RE theory and Scientology provides an entire religious theology based on space travel. Not hard to connect the dots here: A RELIGION OF SPACE TRAVEL -> BLOCKBUSTER MOVIES LIKE STAR WARS -> $Billions and $Billions
-
I say, follow the money. Hollywood has made billions off RE theory. The reason the Scientologists run Hollywood is because Hollywood needs true believers in RE theory and Scientology provides an entire religious theology based on space travel. Not hard to connect the dots here: A RELIGION OF SPACE TRAVEL -> BLOCKBUSTER MOVIES LIKE STAR WARS -> $Billions and $Billions
you do realize that the "star wars" franchise existed decades before the "religion of space travel" that you claim created it. . . . . .
-
FE is a scientific fact.
Really? Based on what research and what evidence?
Based on my personal research, which I have posted on TFES. Also ENaG by Rowbotham.
[/quote]
You are the same Hoppy that swore, as FACT that the moon would be lit on the opposite side of the setting sun in one of my threads a long time ago. Have you ever shown the evidence or witnessed this astounding FACT?
Because you seemed to disappear from that thread never to return....
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,56637.msg1449449.html#msg1449449 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,56637.msg1449449.html#msg1449449)
-
A shadow on the moon is direct evidence that something is causing that shadow, correct?
Therefore a shadow on the moon is direct evidence that a body exists to cause it. We like to call this body the Anti-Moon, or as I prefer, the Shadow Object.
The Shadow Object exists. There is no doubt about that. There is some contention on what it exists as, exactly, but it none the less exists. The Shadow Object even exists in the RET model. In RET the Shadow Object is the earth.
I just want to clarify:
1. there is a shadow on the moon
2. something must cause that shadow
3. it is impossible to tell whether or not this "shadow object" is an antimoon or the earth
isn't this as much evidence for RE as FE?
The shadow of the earth on the moon is direct evidence that the earth is round, right?
-
Im a flat earther, but I myself don't believe in the conspiracy. I think NASA genuinely sent up satallites, put men on the moon, took pictures of Earth from space and all that jazz. I used to believe in the conspiracy until FES's founder/great mind, said of the first photo of Earth taken to space as presented to him in 1957, "it is easy to see how a picture can fool the untrained eye". At first I didn't get this but then it hit me! The sun shines roughly half the earth while the rest lays in darkness in the night with only the moon, and the sun acts as a spotlight, this giving and illusion of a round earth, when it instead only shows the circle of light around our flat (but circular) world
-
Im a flat earther, but I myself don't believe in the conspiracy. I think NASA genuinely sent up satallites, put men on the moon, took pictures of Earth from space and all that jazz. I used to believe in the conspiracy until FES's founder/great mind, said of the first photo of Earth taken to space as presented to him in 1957, "it is easy to see how a picture can fool the untrained eye". At first I didn't get this but then it hit me! The sun shines roughly half the earth while the rest lays in darkness in the night with only the moon, and the sun acts as a spotlight, this giving and illusion of a round earth, when it instead only shows the circle of light around our flat (but circular) world
so NASA sent men to the moon (which is round?) and then took pictures of earth (which is flat?), and have no reason to lie to the public about the details of those missions?
-
Im a flat earther, but I myself don't believe in the conspiracy. I think NASA genuinely sent up satallites, put men on the moon, took pictures of Earth from space and all that jazz. I used to believe in the conspiracy until FES's founder/great mind, said of the first photo of Earth taken to space as presented to him in 1957, "it is easy to see how a picture can fool the untrained eye". At first I didn't get this but then it hit me! The sun shines roughly half the earth while the rest lays in darkness in the night with only the moon, and the sun acts as a spotlight, this giving and illusion of a round earth, when it instead only shows the circle of light around our flat (but circular) world
so NASA sent men to the moon (which is round?) and then took pictures of earth (which is flat?), and have no reason to lie to the public about the details of those missions?
Why would they have a reason to lie? The people at NASA are simply mistaken into thinking the earth is round. But intellects like myself know the truth