Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - EmperorZhark

Pages: [1] 2
Flat Earth General / See you next year!
« on: July 12, 2012, 02:32:09 PM »

$200,000 for going into space. Any FEer interested? Anybody to deny what the 529 space tourists are gonna say or show when they are back?

Flat Earth General / How can FET explain this
« on: July 03, 2012, 02:31:16 AM »

Nice site where you can track all the flights in real time.
A lot of informations: destination, speed, altitude...

Incoherent with FET.

Flat Earth Q&A / Robotham's fatal flaw
« on: June 27, 2012, 04:25:01 PM »
If you read ENaG here: you'll see that Robotham states that:
"1.--That the larger the object the further will it require to go from the observer before it becomes invisible.
2.--The further any two bodies, or any two parts of the same body, are asunder, the further must they recede before they appear to converge to the same point.
3.--Any distinctive part of a receding body will be-come invisible before the whole or any larger part of the same body."
Then, he concludes (diagram 74) that the hull disappears before the mast (I'm simplifying a little bit).
What the laws of perspective tell us is that a some state, objects will disappear when they are too far away. So he assumes that the hull disappears before the mast:
a) because it is smaller than the mast, it disappears first.
b) it disappears because it becomes too small for the eyes to see.
Let's debunk this:
a) If you take a cruise ship whose hull is taller than its superstructures, the hull will still disappears before the superstructures.
b) The hull disappears behind the horizon, which is considered to be a couple of miles away. Would the human eye be able to perceive such a big ship at a distance of just 5 miles? The answer of course is yes.

OK, I'm opening a new topic because some FE'ers think RET doesn't have an explaination for eclipses and phases of the Moon and they don't bother explaining it in FET.

Here, shall we discuss it according to FET, which have main issues with those phenomenons mainly because:
1) There's no antimoon
2) There's no semi-transluscent objectin the sky (Robotham pet theory)
3) There are no shrimps
4) The light of the Moon hasn't proved to be harmfull. May be because it is a reflected light.

Flat Earth General / There's no such thing as a antimoon
« on: June 13, 2012, 01:49:25 PM »
An antimoon would need to be close to the sun and the Moon, have a diameter comparable to both and have such a trajectory that it can cause the Sun eclipses and the Moon eclipses.

But what discards the antimoon theory is that it causes only eclipses of the Sun and the Moon and no eclipses of all the solar objects we can see in the sky.
What would be the theory of a stellar oblect big enough to hide the Sun and the Moon and not flickering pinpoints in the sky?

Flat Earth General / Circumnavigation around Antarctica
« on: June 04, 2012, 12:22:52 PM »
You'll be able to follow on real time their progression:

Do plot their positions on your so-called FE map and you'll see the problem.

Flat Earth General / Venus passing in front of the Sun
« on: May 29, 2012, 08:41:59 AM »
Watch out on June the 5th, Venus transiting in front of the Sun.

I wonder how that fits in FET?

Flat Earth General / The Moon and the tides
« on: May 21, 2012, 05:22:20 AM »
As the Q&A states, tides are caused by gravity (gravitational pull from the Moon, or a hypothetical antimoon).

How can the Moon, which is only 32 miles in diameter can have some gravitational pull?

Should the Sun have almost the same gravitationl pull as the Moon?


THE planets are sometimes seen to move from east to west, sometimes from west to east, and sometimes to appear stationary, and it is contended that "the hypothesis of the earth's motion is the natural and easy explanation; and that it would be in vain to seek it from any other system." To those who have adopted the Newtonian theory the above language is quite natural; but when the very foundation of that system is proved to be erroneous, we must seek for the cause as it really exists in the heavens, regardless of every hypothesis and consequence. Careful observation has shown that the advance, apparent rest, and retrogradation of a planet is a simple mechanical result. All the orbits are above the earth; and whenever a spectator stands in such a position that a planet is moving from right to left, he has only to wait until it reaches the end or part of its orbit nearest to him, when, as it turns to traverse the other side of the orbit, it will, for a time, pass in a direction to which the line of sight is a tangent. A good illustration will be found in an elliptical or circular race-course. A person standing at some distance outside the course would see the horses come in from the right, and pass before him to the left; but on arriving at the extreme arc they would for a time pass in the direction of, or parallel to, his line of sight, and would, therefore, appear for a time not to progress, but on entering the other side of the course would appear to the spectator to move from. left to right, or in a contrary direction to that in which they first passed before him. The following diagram, fig. 99, will illustrate this.

Let S be the place of the spectator. It is evident that a body passing from A to P, would pass him from right to left; but during its passage from P to T it would seem not to move across the field of view. On arriving, however, at T, and passing on to B, it would be seen moving from left to right; but from B to A it would again appear to be almost stationary."

That's all he's got to say! Even Babylonians astronomers could have showed him his mistakes.

Flat Earth General / Robotham' Moon
« on: May 13, 2012, 12:43:01 PM »
If you read this: and especially the example, you'll notice that Robotham implies that the Moon rotates!

Care to include this in FET?

Flat Earth General / Moon semi-transparent!?
« on: May 13, 2012, 08:41:34 AM »
Accordibg to ENaG, the "the moon is not an opaque reflecting body but is really a semi-transparent, self-luminous structure". (

I know that you don't have an explaination about its "self-luminous structure", but what about it being "semi-transparent"?

Flat Earth General / Moonlight Discussion
« on: May 06, 2012, 11:09:08 AM »
What we are about to experience is the 'flower moon'.

Quote from:
A Flower moon is a traditional name for the first full moon of May. Other names are the corn planting moon, and the milk moon. According to the National Geographic "Hare moon" is another name

Below is a list of moon names so as you can accurately warn people using the correct moon terms.

  • January - Wolf moon
  • February - Snow moon
  • March - Storm moon
  • April - Growing moon
  • May - Flower moon
  • June - Mead moon
  • July - Hay moon
  • August - Corn moon
  • September - Harvest moon
  • October - Hunter's moon
  • November - Beaver moon
  • December - Winter moon

You should also probably be aware that there is a hollow moon theory.

That the discovery of life on the moon by Sir John Hershel (A super-famous Astronomer) seems to have been covered up.
A series of 6 articles published by the New York Sun newspaper cover this.

Lunar effect below details some of the symptoms of the moon

and that Thork knows way too much about the moon.

I will add this information to the topic at some point today.

From wikipedia (the articles you quote):

"The Hollow Moon theory never gained enough popularity for any major quasi-scientific hypothesis attempting to rationalize it to become notable."
"However, no connection between lunar rhythms and menstrual onset has been conclusively shown to exist, and the similarity in length between the two cycles is most likely coincidental."

And the mention of a hoax.

Flat Earth General / Companies linked – or not– to the conspiracy.
« on: April 19, 2012, 03:21:21 PM »
When you look at some satellite images on GoogleMaps, you can see some copyrighted images by Cnes/Spot images, DigitalGlobe or US Geological Survey.

Part of the "conspiracy" or not?

Time for you FE’ers to do some work.

Flat Earth General / ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« on: April 18, 2012, 09:47:16 AM »
If you read ENaG and try to reproduce Experiment 1 (, it is simply impossible.

I am not arguing wether Robotham's experiment is valid or not: an experiment has to be reproducible if you want to build a theory on it.

What do you think?

Flat Earth General / Horizon and bendy light
« on: April 16, 2012, 02:41:55 PM »
Imagine yourself in a ship at sea, with only water to be seen around.

You'll notice that the horizon around you forms a circle and that the horizon is at the same distance wherever you look.

You'll notice also that whatever the altitude of the sun, the horizon is exactly at the same distance.

How is that coherent with bendy light?

Flat Earth General / Flying times
« on: April 16, 2012, 02:26:23 PM »
If you travel from let's say London to New York and back, you'll notice that the London-New York flight is always longer than the other way round.

What's the FE explaination of this?

Flat Earth General / Felix Baumgartner jumps from 71,500 ft
« on: March 17, 2012, 04:52:38 AM »
Have fun:

Nice views of a curved Earth (no sign of a fish-eye camera).

Flat Earth General / Re: Wiki Restoration Project
« on: December 09, 2011, 04:34:44 PM »

Foucault's Pendulum

Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham discusses the Foucault Pendulum and its movements in Chapter 14, Section 8 of Earth Not a Globe. Rowbotham provides additional insight in Chapter 14, Section 21.

Summarily, the line of the pendula must be 25 meters in length to get the minimum effect, and so by necessity, Leon Focault's original experiments between latitudes were conducted outside hung from a tree exposed to the elements. Dr. Rowbotham finds that the variations of the pendula are caused entirely by the contraction and expansion of its line due to temperature variations upon the earth's surface in relation to the nearness of the Sun. These variations match up perfectly with the official published results of Focault's experiments.

You can reproduce the experiment everywhere (some have been performed indoors), they alwys give the same result, regardless of the position of the Sun.

Flat Earth Q&A / Energy of the Sun
« on: November 19, 2011, 12:11:06 PM »
I quote the Q&A : "The sun, 32 miles in diameter, rotates at a height of 3,000 miles above sea level. As it is a spotlights, it only illuminates certain places. The sun is at a height of 3,100 miles above sea level. In the dark energy model, the celestial bodies are spherical and are made of ordinary matter."

If the sun is a single spotlight, where does the energy that we receive on Earth from it comes from?

Flat Earth Debate / The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: October 29, 2011, 06:09:19 AM »
Using this:

Or any reliable source on distances between cities,

Find any FE map large enough to contains all continents, including Antarctica, consistant with the distances given above.

Flat Earth General / Pseudolites
« on: October 24, 2011, 03:27:12 PM »
I cannot seem to find a lot of data about pseudolites, whereas there's a lot on satellites.

How come?

Flat Earth General / Gosh the Conspiracy has a lot to do!
« on: October 19, 2011, 04:37:11 PM »
There have been about 4000 launches (some with multiple payloads) and several hundred of the satellites involved are still active. Nine individual countries have launched satellites (USA, Russia, Japan, China, France, India, Israel, Australia, UK) (and the ESA).

That makes a lot of people to convice that their satellites have not been launched into space!

Flat Earth General / Going to the Moon
« on: October 16, 2011, 05:02:49 PM »
A very interesting rerun of Mythbusters the other day showwing that many of the so-called fakes or impossibilities about a Moon mission are in fact true or possible (or vice-versa).

Flat Earth General / The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium II
« on: October 01, 2011, 11:52:25 AM »
So the topic is closed because we cannot discuss the conspiracy?

Isn't the conspiracy a theory?  Not very zetetic...

Flat Earth General / Idea for an experiment
« on: October 01, 2011, 11:38:06 AM »
1. Go to a very large flat place, ie Salt Flats in Utah

2. Plan three poles as far as possible from the others.

3. Mesure the angles between the poles

Repeat the experiment in different places of the Earth.

If the sum of the angles is > 180°, the Earth is convex
If the sum of the angles is = 180°, the Earth is flat
If the sum of the angles is < 180°, the Earth is concave

Flat Earth General / Earth from 107,000 feet above
« on: September 26, 2011, 02:40:29 PM »
I've just seen a Tv program called "James May on the Moon" on Dave (TV in UK).

James May, also presenter of Top Gear, gets inside a U2 (spy plane, one of it which was famousely piloted by Gary Powers an sent down by the Russians) and climbs up to 107,000 feet (he is not driving!).

The footage shows a curved horizon, very RE-like.

Fake or not?

Flat Earth Q&A / The Sun, a spotlight?
« on: September 26, 2011, 11:23:04 AM »
I take this from the Q&A section:

Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"

A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, rotate at a height of 3,000 miles above sea level. As they are spotlights, they only illuminate certain places. This explains why there are nights and days on Earth. The stars are at a height of 3,100 miles above sea level, which is as far as from San Francisco to Boston. In the dark energy model, the celestial bodies are spherical and are made of ordinary matter. These spheres are being held above the Earth by DE.

So the Sun is a spotlight and made of ordinary matter?
So what matter causes the Sun to be so hot and eventually so dangerous?

Flat Earth General / Tides... again!
« on: September 26, 2011, 01:47:40 AM »
According to the FE Q&A, tides are caused by the law of gravity.

How come that the law of gravity applies only to water and not to other things?

Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity?
« on: September 17, 2011, 06:11:18 AM »
Why should'nt a FE be compatible with gravity ?

The Earth can be a thick disk providing enough mass to have its own gravity field.

Flat Earth Q&A / No gravity?
« on: September 12, 2011, 02:48:47 PM »
Let's assume that gravity doesn't exist and that the Earth is going upward.

Let's say its ascencionnal speed is V1. A bullet is fired vertically in the air at a speed of V2.
Because it is fired from the Earth, its resulting speed would be V1 + V2.
So the bullet would go upwards, upwards, and indefinitely away from the Earth, because V1 + V2 > V1

How come?

Pages: [1] 2