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 - Yendor

Pages: [1]
This thread will discuss whether a weight hanging on the end of a wire, separated  from its support structure by a swivel, has to swing back and forth, like the Foucault's pendulum, to prove the earth rotates or can it simply hang to prove the same thing. My feelings are, a swing weight is not necessary and just letting it hang will prove the same thing. I built a contraption that does just that and I did not see any indication of earth's movement and that is where the discussion began that ended up derailing another thread and why it was brought here as a new thread. I have pictures below that shows what I built.

I recently watched a video on YT and the person who made it said that if in fact we live on a spinning globe, then the sun should dip lower in the sky at noon then it does at sunrise and sunset. In other words the sun should form sort of a smiley face across the sky as the Earth spins on its axis. I've never seen or heard this before. I've only heard that the sun follows an arch throughout the day from east to west. I know during the summer months the sun rises almost directly east of me and it sets almost directly west of me and it is almost directly over my head at noon. I've never seen it dip or be lower in the sky at noon. I found this image on the internet and I added the sun and my location with a red diamond shape. If you notice from my perspective on the globe I would see the sunrise almost directly east of me. But, if you can visualize as you turn the earth towards the east my location would appear to rise up until I am directly in front of the sun, as it would be at high noon, and should I not see the sun more towards the south then what I see now, the sun directly over my head? As the earth continues to spin eastwards, my location would to appear to be going down until sunset where I would look directly west to see the sun. From my perspective, the sun would rise from the east and go southeast, south, southwest, and set in the west. I look forward to some thoughts or opinions about this from both FEers and REers. The link below is to the YT video I watched.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

I just watched this video on YT and to my feebly mind, I believe Mr. Dave Murphy has some good points. It would be interesting to see how my RE friends on here can answer these question. Everyone should take the time to watch it.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Flat Earth General / Navigation, Why Use GPS Satellites?
« on: February 14, 2016, 10:20:34 AM »
We are told that GPS is a network of 24 satellites that orbit the earth and we rely heavily on them for navigation around the world. It almost seems that it is the only way we can navigate.

Below are two navigation systems. The second one I didn’t actually know existed. The first one is the familiar space borne GPS system and the second one uses the earth's natural magnetic field. Read over the information and see if it makes sense to you why we are using the space borne GPS system.

A.   The flight paths of the GPS satellites are tracked by US Air Force along with monitor stations operated by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). The (NGA) is part of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The tracking information is sent to the Air Force Space Command's master control station. 2 SOPS contacts each GPS satellite regularly with a navigational update (using the ground antennas). These updates synchronize the atomic clocks on board the satellites within one microsecond and adjust the ephemeris of each satellite's internal orbital model. The updates are created by a Kalman Filter which uses inputs from the ground monitoring stations, space weather information, and other various inputs.
B.   The GPS satellites orbit the earth and transmits ephemeris and almanac data to a receiver on earth.
C.   Part of the ephemeris data is what is used to calculate location and the path the GPS satellite is following.
D.   The GPS receiver gets the ephemeris data and it uses it to calculate the receiver’s location.
E.   This location data is based on the Latitude and longitude grid system from the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) agency and is displayed on the user’s receiver.
F.   The (GIS) also produces Geospatial Intelligence date (GEOINT). It is everything you can see or know about the earth.
G.   The Geospatial Intelligence date (GEOINT) is produced and managed by The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA).


A.   The (NGA) produces what is known as the World Magnetic Model (WMM) 
B.   The (NGA) is part of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
C.   The (WMM) is the magnetic field data of the entire world and is charted and the Latitude and longitude can be displayed to the user by any device that has a magnetometer built into it. For more information on (WMM) visit:
It seems NOAA pulls most of the strings when it comes to the way we navigate the world. So we have to rely on what they tell us.
I may be wrong, But from what I read, it seem the earth’s magnetic field would be a good way to navigate around the world instead of using satellites. The electronic components are small and relatively cheap. The navigational network would be much cheaper then satellites and the end results seem to be the same for both.
 Here is something interesting you probably didn’t know.
The World Magnetic Model (WMM) continues to be the navigation standard model for the entire U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), International Hydrographic Organization (IHO), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and consumer electronics (e.g., iOS, Blackberry, Android) and many others.
Unlike GPS devices, which rely on line of sight to satellites thousands of miles above the Earth, WMM-corrected magnetic compasses cannot be jammed, are not subject to ionospheric disturbances, and work everywhere across the globe, including under the sea and in deep canyons.

So, tell me why we are not using the (WMM) to navigate?

Flat Earth General / Why do astronauts on board ISS float around
« on: December 16, 2015, 01:05:18 PM »
When I was growing up it was centrifugal force that caused objects to move outwards. Like centrifugal clutches and the weights in a distributor would move outwards to advance the timing. Then I started reading that centrifugal force was not a real force at all it was really centripetal force. So, I thought I'd study this a little deeper. That is when I got on the subject of satellites in orbit. I read the following:

Velocity, Acceleration and Force Vectors
The motion of an orbiting satellite can be described by the same motion characteristics as any object in circular motion. The velocity of the satellite would be directed tangent to the circle at every point along its path. The acceleration of the satellite would be directed towards the center of the circle - towards the central body that it is orbiting. And this acceleration is caused by a net force that is directed inwards in the same direction as the acceleration. This centripetal force is supplied by gravity - the force that universally acts at a distance between any two objects that have mass. Were it not for this force, the satellite in motion would continue in motion at the same speed and in the same direction. It would follow its inertial, straight-line path. Like any projectile, gravity alone influences the satellite's trajectory such that it always falls below its straight-line, inertial path. They demonstrated this with the following image:

This picture shows an object following a path around the Earth at a precise distance above the Earth because inertia is causing the object to fly straight and gravity wants to pull the object down to Earth. What you have is a nice curve flight around the Earth. Well, if this is the case, then isn't this the same thing airplanes do. They fly around the Earth everyday. The airplane's engine is providing the inertia to cause the airplane to fly forward and gravity is trying to pull the airplane down. The pilot has to maintain altitude and direction and a nice curved path is maintained around the Earth just like a satellite does. It is really a balancing act between gravity and inertia. Gravity is trying to pull it down, but inertia keeps it from happening. If the airplane's engine stops, gravity will take over and it will free fall to the ground. If the satellite's inertia runs out, then the satellite will free fall to the ground. In this case, the only real difference between a satellite and an airplane is how high each fly. What I don't understand is why do all the videos show the astronauts floating around inside the ISS. To me that is no more possible than passengers on an airplane floating around inside the airplane. We all know that doesn't happen. Some say it is because the ISS is in free fall and it is like being on an free falling elevator. That can't be true because inertia is what keeps satellites and airplanes from free falling to the ground in the first place. Others say they float around because there is no gravity in space. That is not true, there is only 10% less gravity on the ISS then on Earth and that is not enough difference to keep passengers on an airplane from floating around. So, I sit here and wonder if the videos of the ISS true, false or I'm I totally off base on my reasoning?

Flat Earth General / Discussions About The Moon
« on: December 09, 2015, 02:05:35 PM »
let's assume the Earth is a round globe and If the Moon is full at a certain time at one location on one side of the Earth would the Moon be full at the same time at another location on the direct opposite side of the Earth? I don't think so, but maybe I'm wrong.

« on: October 31, 2015, 09:55:18 AM »
This post is about surface-search RADAR that is used on Navy ships. It was discussed on another thread I had started on a different subject matter that it completely derailed that thread, so I decided to start another thread about it as the subject. I want others to join in on this discussion because I would like to know more about it and maybe some other people on this forum can shed some light on the subject matter. I'm hoping some flat Earth people will join in the discussion who know a lot more than me because I think I'm going to need somes support when the REers get their teeth in this subject.

I've stated before that I was in the Navy. I was stationed on a guided missile destroyer for five years during the Vietnam era. I actually worked on the Guided Missile Launching System so I basically lived and worked with the guys that ran the Fire Control Radar. I do know something about that radar.

The radar that I'm mainly interested in is the surface-search radar. My ship had the AN/SPS-10 on board. I know that this radar was designed to detect surface targets such as ships, low flying aircraft and missiles. I never worked on this radar or had much association with the guys that did. However, Because I worked in weaponry  I knew how far the FC radar could track a target and I knew how far my missiles could go, so I was only told how far away the surface-search radar could detect a target, 150 miles. I have done some research on this radar and it is no longer used, it has been replace by a solid state radar, AN/SPS-67. I don't believe my ship ever did get the new radar because it was too old and it has now been decommissioned. I have found official government documentation that says the AN/SPS-10 radar has been reported to detect targets greater than 100 miles out.

This is that website I found this document, it is on page 105:

I also found a patent That talks about the SPS-10 radar antenna being mounted at a height of 52 meters and the target can be detected over the range of 50 nautical miles.

This is the website I found the patent:

I took just these numbers from the patent and plugged them into this calculator:

and it says the target would be hidden 342 meters or 1123 feet. If you use the numbers of where the antenna was mounted on my ship and you use the numbers from the government document then the hidden distance is 1600 meters or 5000 feet.

So, This shit does not make sense to me. How can radar detect a target that is hidden by a wall of water and maybe some ocean floor too? The only way I can explain it is if the Earth may not be round and it is more flat.

If anyone knows about Navy surface-search radar and what it can do as far as range tracking targets, please come in on the discussion and help me out on this matter.

Flat Earth General / Camera with zoom lens brings ships back in sight
« on: October 23, 2015, 01:11:26 PM »
I spent some time yesterday at the river and took some pictures of ships using my camera. I've attached only a few here for anyone interested in seeing how ships can fade in the distance and brought back in view with a zoom lense. I used a 80 - 200mm lens and I numbered the pictures together, img 1 img 1A etc., showing one picture at 80mm and one the other at 200mm. I also used binoculars and they worked the best. The ship would be completely out of sight and with the binoculars they would come back in plain view and you could see the complete hull not just the superstructure. I was no more than six foot above the water line. 

img 1

img 1A

img 2

img 2A

img 3

img 3A

img 4

img 4A

It is so pathetic we don't have actual real honest to goodness pictures of the planet we live on. After all we went to the moon. Or did we? We should have real believable pictures that haven't been doctored to make them look real. Some say it's ball shaped. Some say it is oblate spheroid shaped. Some say it is pear shaped and some say it is flat. I wonder what shape it will be next. I guess we'll just have to keep on arguing about it's shape.

Flat Earth General / Plastic RF Filters are possible - proof to Rayzor
« on: August 11, 2015, 12:25:33 PM »
Rayzor pretty much called me a liar when I mention plastic RF Filters in one of our debates. I think he said something about rolling all over the floor while laughing and he even called me a clown. Well this one article proves him wrong. In fact it is exactly the way I explained it to him.

Web site:

 RF Filter Housing - Plated Plastic
Problem Current RF Filter Housings are manufactured by die casting and/or machining aluminum to the final dimensions, then applying Silver plating. The excessive cost to die cast and machine the aluminum housings has caused RF Filter OEM’s to evaluate lower cost injection molded and plated housings. Cybershield Solution Cybershield has teamed with SABIC Plastics to develop an injection molded plastic and plated RF Filter Housing. SABIC Plastics has developed Ultem 3452, which has outstanding dimensional stability needed to mold to the precise dimensions required for the RF Filter Housing. Other plastic resins may also be
suitable for RF Filter applications, including Polycarbonate, Liquid Crystal Polymer to name a few. Cybershield applies All-Over Copper electroless plating, which is subsequently Silver plated to provide identical electrical properties as machined aluminum. Based on evaluations to date, plated plastic RF Filter Housings offer >20% cost reduction compared to aluminum and are approximately 40% lighter.

Flat Earth General / Flat Earth Map
« on: July 02, 2015, 08:14:12 AM »
Hello Everyone,

The link below will take you to a good map of the flat Earth in 1892, for those who hasn't seen it before. Have a good day.


Hello everyone,

Here we go again, they must be trying to drown our astronauts in that big swimming pool. The article says they installed a new docking port adaptors, ran 400 feet of cable and installed new antennas. They did all  of this which will allow SpaceX and Boeing’s crewed spacecraft to connect with the ISS. My question is why can't they just have the SpaceX and Boeing spacecraft adapt to the docking station that is already on the ISS. That would be cheaper, safer and you already know it works. That is what other spacecraft did for many years.

And here are those pesky wires and cables hanging all over the place. One would think they would tie them up then that by now so they wouldn't get tangled up in them. One man's opinion.

For the second time in less than a week, a NASA astronaut reports a small amount of water in his helmet.

It happened as Terry Virts was re-entering the International Space Station after Sunday's third and final leg of a spacewalk. He was not in any danger.
During Wednesday’s 6 hour and 43 minute spacewalk, Virts reported a small amount of free floating water in his helmet.

Water in an astronaut’s helmet is a big concern for NASA. It nearly drowned Italian astronaut Luca Parmitano during a 2013 spacewalk.

However, NASA said the water only formed in Virts’ helmet at the conclusion of the spacewalk as he was re-entering the space station, which is known to happen from time to time.

“This spacesuit is known to have carryover water,” said NASA Spacewalk Officer Alex Kanelakos. “That’s what we call this type of occurrence, and we’ve had seven other occurrences of this carry over on this spacesuit.”

Despite the water issues, NASA said the three spacewalks in eight days have been a success.

During the spacewalk, Virts and Barry “Butch” Wilmore installed new antennas to the outside of the ISS.

The antennas will provide rendezvous and navigational data for new commercial crew vehicles that will be launching from Florida’s Space Coast, starting in 2017.

It was tedious work for astronauts and required a lot of maneuvers for the pair, who also had to lay 400 feet of cable.

The three spacewalks have now set the stage for this summer, when two other NASA astronauts will install a docking port adapter, which will allow SpaceX and Boeing’s crewed spacecraft to connect with the ISS.

NASA said this is the largest transformation of the space station since its construction as the agency gets ready for a new era of commercial crew spaceflight.

Flat Earth Debate / Foucault pendulum - FAKE
« on: June 25, 2015, 06:37:49 AM »
I noticed throughout my research that most REers will use the Foucault pendulum as a good example of proof the Earth is spinning. Attached is an article of one guy's belief it is fake. I thought it may be interesting to some people and not so interesting to others.



Foucault pendulum
Richard G Elmendorf’s Investigation
So much for the propaganda, now study the truth of it. This comes from the 20-year investigation of the Foucault pendulum by Richard G Elmendorf completed in 1994. Elmendorf is an engineer by profession and has now to be the world’s leading expert on the subject by far. We thank him for permission to use his work in our synthesis. Mr Elmendorf’s begins with the following:

‘The Foucault pendulum is one of the best-known experiments in the history of science. It created a sensation in its first public showing in Paris in 1851, and has fascinated scientists and laymen ever since. …
    This article discusses the history, construction, operation, theory and meaning of the Foucault pendulum, presenting facts about it which are not generally known or understood by the millions of visitors who view these fascinating displays in science museums, schools, planetariums, observatories and other public buildings all around the world every year.
    My findings about the Foucault pendulum may very well astonish you…The surprising truth is that all Foucault pendulums are fakes. Most of them are fakes because they are forced to do what they do, rather than doing what comes naturally, and all the rest of them are fakes insofar as they are used as proof of the earth’s [supposed] rotation. The only kind of Foucault pendulum which would not be a fake would be one that was free-swinging, operated properly, and either had no explanations, plaques or literature associated with it, or had such which plainly acknowledged that it cannot determine absolute rotation. I know of no such Foucault pendulum anywhere. The Foucault pendulum is a piece of scientific apparatus specifically designed and built to deceive and mislead. It is literally a “humbug” – a sham, a fake, a fraud, an artifice, a pretence, a hoax – and I believe it should be exposed as such. But the Foucault pendulum is more than a hoax. It is actually a religious propaganda tool. Foucault pendulum displays have something very serious and important to prove.' ---  R.G. Elmendorf: A Critical Investigation of the Foucault Pendulum, published by P.C.S., PO Box 267 Bairdford, PA 15006, USA, Introduction.

Flat Earth Debate / Disproof of gravity
« on: June 23, 2015, 09:13:53 AM »
As I become more indoctrinated in the FET, I don't believe in gravity either. Here is a excerpt from a paper written by Aaron Guerami, Titled 'Disproof of Gravity'. He doesn't believe in gravity either. He has written a whole paper, with many examples as to why he doesn't believe in gravity. I've just attached just one of his examples. I'd like to know everyone response to this.
1) Experimentally
One simple experiment shows there is no gravity. The Helium Balloon. It rises. How is this
possible? Classical Mechanics shows that Force equals the Constant of Gravity multiplied by the
Mass of Object 1 multiplied by the Mass of Object 2 divided by the Distance between the two
masses raised to the second power.
With this logic, the mass of the Earth is so great that the helium balloon would have no choice but
to be attracted to the Earth. We have mass 1 pulling on mass 2 and mass 2 pulling on mass 1.
F1 = F2. This is just wrong. The force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force
that the Earth pulls on the balloon. It would not rise. What we see in the experiment that the
helium is rising to meet its level of density.


Flat Earth General / I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« on: June 19, 2015, 01:56:18 PM »
I would like to anounce I'm no longer on the fence. I've finally decided that I agree with most everything the FET say. I still have questions and I don't know if I believe all their theories, but when it comes to logical thinking and common sense the FET win me over.


Flat Earth General / ORION Space Program - Is this a joke?
« on: March 25, 2015, 12:59:53 PM »
I just watched the below video and NASA must be trying to play an April fools joke on us early. A young NASA engineer is telling us all the wonder things ORION will be able to do and all the problems that will have to be overcome. Are they kidding, I thought we overcame these very same problems back in the '60's before we sent people to the moon. Either the new generation of engineers can't read actual paper blue prints, Some idiot threw all the old APOLLO Moon Mission paperwork away or they finally realized the conspiracy theorist must be right, we never actually went to the moon. Whether you believe in a round Earth or a flat Earth, you have to admit this is hard to believe it's real.

I looked up a similar question on the internet and I found this answer...

Ask a Physicist Answers

If a helicopter hovers in a fixed position for 24 hours will the earth rotate around it?

helicopter orbit

Perhaps you're familiar with the idea of inertia: an object in motion tends to stay in motion (unless acted upon by a net external force). In a way, we can also refer to this idea as conservation of momentum. That idea's going to play a big part in answering your question. When the helicopter starts out, it's sitting on the ground and the ground (being part of the Earth) is rotating at one revolution per day, as we know. Since the helicopter is also sitting on the ground, it's also inside this moving reference frame, and has the momentum that goes with it so the helicopter is also moving at one revolution per day. In fact, so is the air! Now, when the helicopter takes off, it flies straight up to some height above the Earth's surface. But though the helicopter has exerted a force (through the use of its rotors) to lift it straight up, it hasn't exerted a force in the horizontal direction to counter the motion (momentum) it already had that one revolution per minute! So though the helicopter is no longer touching the ground, unless the pilot purposely exerts a force against the helicopter's initial momentum, the helicopter will continue to move at one revolution per day, and thus remain above the same spot on the Earth's surface from where it took off. The momentum that the helicopter started with is the same as what it ends with that's conservation of momentum! The same is true on a smaller scale when you jump in the air if you jump straight up, you'll land exactly where you started, because in every other direction (except up and down), your momentum is the same (try it out the next time you're on a plane: the plane acts like a miniature version of the Earth, and when you jump, you land right where you were, even though the plane's going 500 miles an hour!). On a larger scale, rocket scientists have to account for the motion of the Earth before they launch a satellite. In order to put the satellite into a specific orbit, they can't just shoot it straight up from the Earth's surface. They have to apply horizontal forces as well, in order to counter the Earth's rotation and get the satellite into the correct orbit.

Answered by:

Kelly Chipps (AKA nuclear.kelly)
 Postdoctoral Fellow
 Department of Physics
 Colorado School of Mines

 Submitted by:

 Chuck from Mississippi

Does everyone agree this is really true? I guess not to me.

I spent the best part of this morning reading the whole thread that was started by ‘Jer9999’ on March 11, 2014 at 07:19:17 PM. His or her question was: “Does Flying Around the World in 1 Direction Prove the Earth is Round?”
Basically most of the thread was about whether you can fly or go around the earth without turning left or right. The FE people say no unless you are at the equator or the ‘great circle’. You have to turn the same way you would have to turn on a flat earth to go from one side to the other. The RE people said the opposite, you can in fact go around the earth, or say a large ball, without turning left or right, simply go straight. I was perplexed. I just did not know what to think. The people on both sides of the argument, and it was an argument, seemed very smart and knew what they were talking about. I could see the logic from both views. So I decided to try an experiment.
1)   I took an old ball I had and punched a dowel through it so it was pretty much even through and through. Sort of what an axle and wheel would be.
2)   I drew a circle all the way around the ball equal distance from the dowel on one end. Just say 1 inch down. It looked like a longitude line around an earth globe.
3)   I drew a horizontal line on the wall at eye level and placed a vertical line near half way. It looked like a cross hair.
4)   I positioned, at eye level, the line I had drawn on the ball even with the horizontal line on the wall. I turned the ball until the line on the ball lined up with the vertical line on the wall. Then I aimed the edge of the line on the ball with the vertical line on the wall.

5)   The view was like what you would see if you looked out of your car’s windshield at the horizon and saw the road in front of you sink off on the horizon. Unlike the earth, you can see the curvature of the ball evenly lined up with the horizontal line on the wall.

6)   The dowel through the ball ended up being near a 45 degree angle to the horizontal line on the wall.

I began turning the dowel, keeping it at the same 45 degree angle. As I turned the dowel I could see that the line on the ball stayed lined up with the crosshair on the wall. I did not have to turn left or right to get it to stay lined up, I just rotated the dowel. This little experiment, although very crude, seems to show me that maybe the RE people won this point. If I’m wrong, please show me.

Flat Earth Q&A / airplanes flying around a flat earth
« on: July 31, 2014, 07:16:45 AM »
I'm new here and I admit I've wondered in the past about a round earth being true or not. All things I've seen indicates to me it could in fact be flat. My question is:

How do flat earth believers explain how pilots can fly over the earth and not realize that it is flat. I've known a lot of pilots in my life and I've never heard one say the earth was really flat. If they do know, why don't they come out and say so.

I'm not looking for scientific or math answers just what your thoughts are on this and what you may know for sure.

Pages: [1]