Advanced Flat Earth Theory

  • 654 Replies
  • 580503 Views
*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #90 on: December 26, 2010, 04:05:20 AM »
Although there are dozens of videos on the net showing the Strait of Gibraltar with no curvature whatsoever, I chose to present only profesionally made documentaries, so that there would no doubt as to the quality of the film itself.

Here is the new web address for the Islamic History of Europe (part I):



Between 2:56 si 3:00 the author shows us the spanish beach and points towards the african coastline

Between 3:02 si 3:07 we can see clearly that there is no curvature all the way to Morocco; moreover, if we use the full screen option, we will see the waves splashing onto the opposing beach/shore...this is actually a closeup taken, again, from that beach...

Between 3:19 - 3:22, WE CAN SEE THE WAVES SPLASHING ONTO THE OPPOSING BEACH, EVEN WITH THE AUTHOR STANDING ON THE SPANISH SHORELINE, RIGHT NEXT TO THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR; on a round earth, we would see an ascending slope, with a midpoint curvature of 3.31 meters.

Between 3:43 si 3:45, the same thing, zero curvature...full screen option, the waves splashing onto the opposing beach/shore, WITH THE AUTHOR STADING RIGHT THERE ON THE SPANISH BEACH.


The Barbarians, here are the details, where we can see very clearly that there is no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-811260411880444286&q=barbarians+terry+jones&total=22&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1#

Between 38:28 - 38:35, we can see clearly ABSOLUTELY NO CURVATURE ALL THE WAY TO MOROCCO...the surface of the strait is completely flat...

And a photograph shot from the same place:




*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #91 on: January 24, 2011, 04:29:43 AM »
The superb demonstration that the Council of Nicaea (dated in the official chronology in the year 325 A.D.) could not have taken place BEFORE THE YEAR 875 A.D., the most precise proofs based on classical astronomy given by the Russian mathematician G. Nosovsky:

http://www.google.com/base/a/1562225/D7146657310909970098

Let us follow very closely the arguments...


Despite the fact that no original Easter edicts of the Nicaean council remain, it is said that the Council issued its edicts in the alleged year 325 AD, when the the actual methods of calculating the Easter dates had already been well developed, and the Easter date table that had been used for centuries had been compiled. The latter is quite natural, since every 532 years, the Christian Easter cycle repeats from the very start the Paschalian tables for each year of 532 were in existence.



THE NICAEAN COUNCIL OF 325 AD CONTRADICTS THE PASCHALIA

There is a traditional consensual opinion according to which the Paschalia church calendar was canonized during the first Ecumenical Council in Nicaea. Nobody seem to be aware, however, that all of this blatantly contradicts Scaliger's dating of the Nicaean council 325 AD, and the epoch of the IV century AD in general.

The matter here is that the Paschalia consists of a number of calendarian and astronomical tables. The time of their compilation can be calculated from their contents qv below. In other words, the Paschalia can be dated by its astronomical contents. We see that the resulting dating of the Paschalia contradicts the dating of the Nicaean Council as the IV century AD.

The contradiction had been discovered a long time ago, and it was mentioned in the beginning of the XX century by Easter table specialists. However, to this day, there has been no comprehensive explanation of this phenomenon given.

Let us turn to the canonical mediaeval ecclesial tractate - Matthew Vlastar's Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers, or The Alphabet Syntagma. This rather voluminous book represents the rendition of the rules formulated by the Ecclesial and local Councils of the Orthodox Church.

Matthew Vlastar is considered to have been a Holy Hierarch from Thessalonica, and written his tractate in the XIV century. Today's copies are of a much later date, of course. A large part of Vlastar?s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers contains the rules for celebrating Easter. Among other things, it says the following:

The Easter Rules makes the two following restrictions: it should not be celebrated together with the Judaists, and it can only be celebrated after the spring equinox. Two more had to be added later, namely: celebrate after the first full moon after the equinox, but not any day it should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the equinox. All of these restrictions, except for the last one, are still valid (in times of Matthew Vlastar  the XIV century  Auth.), although nowadays we often celebrate on the Sunday that comes later. Namely, we always count two days after the Lawful Easter (that is, the Passover, or the full moon Auth.) and end up with the subsequent Sunday. This didn't happen out of ignorance or lack of skill on the part of the Elders, but due to lunar motion.

Let us emphasize that the quoted Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers is a canonical mediaeval clerical volume, which gives it all the more authority, since we know that up until the XVII century, the Orthodox Church was very meticulous about the immutability of canonical literature and kept the texts exactly the way they were; with any alteration a complicated and widely discussed issue that would not have passed unnoticed.

This means that we can hope for Matthew Vlastar's text to give us a precise enough account of the opinions held by the Constantinople scientists of the XIV century, in regard to the Easter issue. As we can see, Matthew Vlastar tells us the following:

In addition to the two Apostolic Easter rules, namely:

1) Not celebrating Easter together with the Judaists.

2) Only celebrating Easter after the spring equinox.

The Elders of the Council that introduced the Paschalia added two more rules for certainty, since the previous two do not define Easter day explicitly enough:

3) Only celebrating Easter after the first full moon in a given spring. That is, after the Passover that is often called Lawful Easter in Christian clerical literature that is, Easter celebrated in accordance with the Law of Moses or, alternatively, that of the 14th Moon.

4) Easter cannot be celebrated on any weekday; the celebration is to occur on the first Sunday following this full moon, or the Passover.


THE FOURTH RULE BROKEN

The first three rules of four were still quite valid in the XIV century, according to Vlastar, whereas the 4th rule of Easter Sunday being the first Sunday after the full moon was already broken.

Furthermore, Matthew Vlastar gives a perfectly valid astronomical explanation of why the rule was broken. The reason is that the Circle for Moon (Methon's Cycle) isn?t completely precise. There is a very slow shift of real full moon dates in relation to the ones stated by the Circle for Moon that the Elders of the Council may have been unaware of. However, in the age of Matthew Vlastar, knowledge of the shift already existed. Vlastar was aware of it and gave its correct value about 24 hours in 300 years.

This is why no less than two days should pass between the full moon and Easter (according to Vlastar, and applicable to his age). The matter is that the calculations of the Christian Easter are based on the calendar with its Circle for Moon values, as opposed to real full moon dates given by astronomy.

When, over the passage of time, a two-day discrepancy between the Paschalian Circle for Moon and the real full moon schedule had evolved, this could not fail to impact the distance between the astronomical spring equinox and Easter Sunday. If the previous distance equalled zero or more (so that Easter could not come before the full moon), it became equalling two or moreso that the Easter could not come earlier than two days after the full moon.

However, most often the amount of days separating the full moon and Easter Sunday, exceeded two, anyway, since the rules have it so that one had to wait for the Easter's advent from the vernal full moon and until the closest Sunday, that is, about three days (half a week) in average, and more than two days in most cases.

So the two-day gap that had accumulated by the age of Vlastar did not always manifest, and no rules were broken in the years when several days had to pass between the full moon and Easter.

However, in certain years, when the distance proved less than two days, the 4th Easter rule was broken, namely, Easter Sunday fell on the second Sunday after the vernal full moon. For example, if the Passover falls on a Saturday, Easter has to be celebrated the next day, on Sunday.


Thus, we know a lot, almost everything, about the Paschalia. So, why the astronomical context of the Paschalia contradicts Scaliger's dating (alleged 325 AD) of the Nicaean Council where the Paschalia was canonized?

This contradiction can easily be seen from the roughest of calculations.

1) The difference between the Paschalian full moons and the real ones grows at the rate of one day in 300 years.

2) A two-day difference had accumulated by the time of Vlastar, which is roughly dated 1330 AD.

3) Ergo, the Paschalia was compiled somewhere around 730 AD, since

1330 - (300 x 2) = 730.

It is understood that the Paschalia could only be canonized by the Council sometime later. But this fails to correspond to Scaliger's dating of its canonization as 325 AD in any way at all!

Let us emphasize, that Matthew Vlastar himself, doesn't see any contradiction here, since he is apparently unaware of the Nicaean Council's dating as the alleged year 325 AD. A natural hypothesis: this traditional dating was introduced much later than Vlastar's age. Most probably, it was first calculated in Scaliger's time.


The conclusion we came to:

FIRST STATEMENT:

The Council that introduced the Paschalia according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council  could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.

The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times ? in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.

Thus, if we're to follow the consensual chronological version, we'll have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.

Let us note that J.J. Scaliger could not have noticed this obvious nonsense during his compilation of the consensual ancient chronology, since computing true full moon dates for the distant past had not been a solved problem in his epoch.

A satisfactory coincidence of calendarian Passover full moons with the astronomical ones had only existed between 700 AD and 1000 AD (by which we mean their occurrence within the range of 24 hours from each other). Prior to that, the calendarian full moons have always taken place after the Passover ones, and after 1000 AD, the opposite started to happen. The beginning of the 13th Great Indiction (877 AD) falls on the period of ideal coincidence of Passover and astronomical full moons.

This means the Paschalia could only have been compiled in the period between the IX and XI centuries AD.

Propter hoc, the dating of the Nicaean Council (as the Council that had introduced the Paschalia) is only possible, within the timeframe of the VII-XI centuries, the most probable one being the epoch of the X-XI centuries, after the year 877 AD.

SUMMING UP THE DATINGS OF THE NICAEAN COUNCIL

The Paschalia could have been compiled in the following timeframe:

- not any earlier than 784 AD by the actual definition of Easter;
- not any earlier than 700 AD by the coincidence of Paschalian and astronomical full moons;
- not any earlier than 700 AD by the Palm of Damascenus;
- not any earlier than 743 AD according to Matthew Vlastar;

Hence, the Paschalia was first compiled earliest around the second half of the VIII century AD. The Paschalia was canonized at the Nicaean Council that took place in the XI-XIV centuries. The Paschalia might well have contained certain astronomical concepts of the VII-XI centuries that had already been a part of the ecclesial tradition by that time.


In another article, "The Dating of the First Oecumenical Council of Nicaea and the Beginning of the Christian Era" by G. Nosovsky, it is clearly demonstrated that the Gregorian calendar reform was done incorrectly (and now we know that it was done at least after 1750 A.D., given the fact that the volcano eruption which destroyed both Pompeii and Herculaneum must have occurred at least after 1740 A.D.)...see also http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1109929#msg1109929

Since the Council of Nicaea MUST HAVE TAKEN PLACE AT LEAST AFTER THE YEAR 875 A.D., the official chronology of the period 100 - 1100 A.D. is one which was made up at a much later date...
« Last Edit: January 24, 2011, 04:36:43 AM by levee »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #92 on: January 26, 2011, 12:55:47 AM »
December 24, 2018

"At the very beginning of this journey, I noted that Jim Morrison’s story was not “in any way unique.” As it turns out, however, that proclamation is not exactly true. It was a true enough statement in the context in which it appeared – which is to say that Morrison’s family background did not differ significantly from that of his musical peers – but in many other significant ways, Jim Morrison was indeed a most unique individual, and quite possibly the unlikeliest rock star to ever stumble across a stage.


Morrison essentially arrived on the scene as a fully-developed rock star, complete with a backing band, a stage persona and an impressive collection of songs – enough, in fact, to fill the Doors’ first few albums. How exactly Jim Morrison reinvented himself in such a radical manner remains something of a mystery, since before his sudden incarnation as singer/songwriter, James Douglas Morrison had never shown the slightest interest in music. None whatsoever. He certainly never studied music and could neither read nor write it. By his own account, he never had much of an interest in even listening to music. He told one interviewer that he “never went to concerts – one or two at most.” And before joining the Doors, he “never did any singing. I never even conceived of it.” Asked near the end of his life if he had ever had any desire to learn to play a musical instrument, Jim responded, “Not really.”

So here we had a guy who had never sang (apparently not even in the shower or in his car, which seems rather odd to me), who had “never even conceived” of the notion that he could open his mouth and makes sounds come out, and who couldn’t play an instrument and had no interest in learning such a skill, and who had never much listened to music or been anywhere near a band, even just to watch one perform, and yet this guy somehow emerged, virtually overnight, as a fully-formed rock star who would quickly become an icon of his generation. And even more bizarrely, legend holds that he brought with him enough original songs to fill the first few Doors’ albums. Morrison did not, you see, do as any other singer/songwriter does and pen the songs over the course of the band’s career; instead, he allegedly wrote them all at once, before the band was even formed. As Jim once acknowledged in an interview, he was “not a very prolific songwriter. Most of the songs I’ve written I wrote in the very beginning, about three years ago. I just had a period when I wrote a lot of songs.”

In fact, all of the good songs that Morrison is credited with writing were written during that period – the period during which, according to rock legend, Jim spent most of his time hanging out on the rooftop of a Venice apartment building, consuming copious amounts of LSD. This was just before he hooked up with fellow student Ray Manzarek to form the Doors. Legend also holds, strangely enough, that that chance meeting occurred on the beach, though it seems far more likely that the pair would have actually met at UCLA, where both attended the university’s rather small and close-knit film school.


In any event, the question that naturally arises (though it does not appear to have ever been asked of him) is: how exactly did Jim “The Lizard King” Morrison write that impressive batch of songs? I’m certainly no musician myself, but it is my understanding that just about every singer/songwriter across the land composes his or her songs in essentially the same manner: on an instrument – usually either a piano or a guitar. Some songwriters, I hear, can compose on paper, but that requires a skill set that Jim did not possess. The problem, of course, is that he also could not play a musical instrument of any kind. How then did he write the songs?

He would have had to have composed them, I’m guessing, in his head. So we are to believe then that a few dozen complete songs, never heard by anyone and never played by any musician, existed only in Jim Morrison’s acid-addled brain. Anything is possible, I suppose, but even if we accept that premise, we are still left with some nagging questions, including the question of how those songs got out of Jim Morrison’s head. As a general rule of thumb, if a songwriter doesn’t know how to read and write music, he can play the song for someone who does and thereby create the sheet music (which was the case, for example, with all of the songs that Brian Wilson penned for the Beach Boys). But Jim quite obviously could not play his own songs. So did he, I don’t know, maybe hum them?

And these are, it should be clarified, songs that we are talking about here, as opposed to just lyrics, which would more accurately be categorized as poems. Because Jim, as we all know, was quite a prolific poet, whereas he was a songwriter only for one brief period in his life. But why was that? Why did Morrison, with no previous interest in music, suddenly and inexplicably become a prolific songwriter, only to just as suddenly lose interest after mentally penning an impressive catalogue of what would become regarded as rock staples? And how and why did Jim achieve the accompanying physical transformation that changed him from a clean-cut, collegiate, and rather conservative looking young man into the brooding sex symbol who would take the country by storm? And why, after a few years of adopting that persona, did Jim transform once again, in the last year or so of his life, into an overweight, heavily-bearded, reclusive poet who seemed to have lost his interest in music just as suddenly and inexplicably as he had obtained it?


It wasn’t just Morrison who was, in retrospect, a bit of an oddity; the entire band differed from other Laurel Canyon bands in a number of significant ways. As Vanity Fair noted many years ago, “The Doors were always different.” All four members of the group, for example, lacked previous band experience. Morrison and Manzarek, as noted, were film students, and drummer John Densmore and guitarist Robby Kreiger were recruited by Manzarek from his Transcendental Meditation class – which is, I guess, where one goes to find musicians to fill out one’s band. That class, however, apparently lacked a bass player, so they did without – except for those times when they used session musicians and then claimed that they did without.


Anyway, the point is that none of the four members of the Doors had band credentials. Even a band as contrived as the Byrds, as we shall soon see, had members with band credentials. So too did Buffalo Springfield, with Neil Young and Bruce Palmer, for example, having played in the Mynah Birds, backing a young vocalist by the name of Rick “Superfreak” James (Goldie McJohn of Steppenwolf, oddly enough, had been a Mynah Bird as well). The Mamas and the Papas were put together from elements of the Journeymen and the Mugwumps. And so on with the rest of the Laurel Canyon bands

The Doors could cite no such band lineage. They were just four guys who happened to come together to play the songs written by the singer who had never sung but who had a sudden calling and a magical gift for songwriting. And as you would expect with four guys who had never actually played in a band before, they pretty much sucked. But don’t take my word for it; let’s let the band’s producer, Paul Rothchild, weigh in: “The Doors were not great live performers musically. They were exciting theatrically and kinetically, but as musicians they didn’t make it; there was too much inconsistency, there was too much bad music. Robby would be horrendously out of tune with Ray, John would be missing cues, there was bad mike usage too, where you couldn’t hear Jim at all.”

Another thing that was unusual about the band, however, is that, from the moment the band was conceived, the lineup never changed. No one was added, no one was replaced, no one dropped out of the band over ‘artistic differences,’ or to pursue a solo career, or to join another band, or for any of the other reasons that bands routinely change shape.

It would be difficult to identify another Laurel Canyon band of any longevity that could make the same claim. After their first two albums, the Byrds changed line-ups with virtually every album release. Frank Zappa’s Mothers of Invention were in a near-constant state of flux. Laurel Canyon’s country-rock bands were also constantly changing shape, usually by incestuously swapping members amongst themselves.

But not the Doors. Jim Morrison’s band arrived on the scene as a fully-formed entity, with a name, a stable line-up, a backlog of soon-to-be hit songs – and no previous experience writing, arranging, playing or performing music. Other than that though, they were just your run-of-the-mill, organic, grass-roots rock-and-roll band – with a curious aversion to political advocacy."


As I said from the very start, The Doors' music was composed by Adorno. Hello I Love You is a modified All Day And All Of The Night (Kinks). Light My Fire is a modified I Feel Fine (Beatles) which itself was taken from Manuel de Falla's Fire Dance.


January 15, 2019

RHCP's (Red Hot Chili Peppers) biggest hit up until 1992 was, by far, Breaking The Girl; however, for them, this came out of nowhere, since nothing they had done previously was any indication that they were capable of writing such a great song; indeed, Breaking The Girl could have been featured on the Led Zeppelin IV or Houses of the Holy albums, or even on a Beatles b-side of a single. Surprinsingly, critics were quick to point out that Breaking The Girl is a modified Norwegian Wood, however there is more to this story than meets the ear.



Iron Maiden's only ballad, Prodigal Son:



Both are modified versions of this Beatles song:




RHCP's next biggest hit was My Friends:



A beautiful modified version of Dear Prudence:




Pink Floyd's Money is a modified Moondance (Van Morrison):





Moondance is a modified Bouree (Bach's Suite in E Minor for Lute), given by Adorno to Jethro Tull:




Pink Floyd's Brain Damage is a modified Space Oddity given to David Bowie by Adorno:






Therefore, Roger Waters did not write any of the songs on the Dark Side of the Moon album.


Another Brick In The Wall Pt. 2 is a modified And Your Bird Can Sing (Beatles):




In the Flesh is a modified Shine On You Crazy Diamond. Once we figure out where Shine On You Crazy Diamond came from, we will understand that Pink Flody did not write any of their hits, but instead were given these songs to be played by them, just like The Who, Led Zeppelin, Cream, Deep Purple, Stones.


January 22, 2019

Shine On You Crazy Diamond is a modified Dig A Pony (Beatles):

(6:00 - 8:30)



S. Wonder's Living For The City is a modified Riders On The Storm (The Doors).



For those who haven't done their homework on the Coriolis effect issue, it is one of the best proofs that the Earth is stationary:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg953747#msg953747 (the main/official faq does not address this issue properly at all)

« Last Edit: January 23, 2019, 02:00:01 PM by sandokhan »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #93 on: February 08, 2011, 04:47:30 AM »
Notwithstanding Alexander the Great's inner earth journeys, here is another extraordinary argument from classical astronomy...

We are told that the motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Julian calendar assumes that the time between vernal equinoxes is 365.25 days, when in fact it is about 11 minutes less. The accumulated error between these values was about 10 days (starting from the Council of Nicaea) when the reform was made, resulting in the equinox occurring on March 11 and moving steadily earlier in the calendar, also by the 16th century AD the winter solstice fell around December 11.

Byzantine historian Leo Diaconus (ca. 950-994), as he observed the total eclipse of 22 December 968 from Constantinople (now Istanbul, Turkey). His observation is preserved in the Annales Sangallenses, and reads:

"...at the fourth hour of the day ... darkness covered the earth and all the brightest stars shone forth. And is was possible to see the disk of the Sun, dull and unlit, and a dim and feeble glow like a narrow band shining in a circle around the edge of the disk".

NOW READ THIS CAREFULLY:

"When the Emperor was waging war in Syria, at the winter solstice there was an eclipse of the Sun such as has never happened apart from that which was brought on the Earth at the Passion of our Lord on account of the folly of the Jews. . . The eclipse was such a spectacle. It occurred on the 22nd day of December, at the 4th hour of the day, the air being calm. Darkness fell upon the Earth and all the brighter stars revealed themselves. Everyone could see the disc of the Sun without brightness, deprived of light, and a certain dull and feeble glow, like a narrow headband, shining round the extreme parts of the edge of the disc. However, the Sun gradually going past the Moon (for this appeared covering it directly) sent out its original rays, and light filled the Earth again."

Refers to a total solar eclipse in Constantinople of 22 December AD 968.
From: Leo the Deacon, Historiae, Byzantine.

http://www.mreclipse.com/Special/quotes2.html


The winter solstice in the year 968 MUST HAVE FALLEN on December 16, given the 10 day correction instituted by Gregory XIII, as we are told (a very simple calculation - 11 minutes in the length of a solar year amount to a full day for each 134 years).

THEREFORE, the dating of the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 AD could not possibly be true, the true date must be much closer to the year 968 BC; as we have seen already, see http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1124740#msg1124740  the precise astronomical proof does indicate very clearly that the correct date for the Council of Nicaea was in fact the year 876-877 AD, and INDEED, some 90 years later from that date, the winter solstice DID FALL on December 22 (in the year 968 BC; 876 + 134 = 1010). More on the error instituted (the error of the ten days introduced in the calendar), we are told, in the year 1582, the so-called calendar reformation by Gregory XIII, in "The Dating of the First Oecumenical Council of Nicaea and the Beginning of the Christian Era" by G. Nosovsky.


The magnificent article by Dr. Gunnar Heinsohn, Restoration of Ancient History, an extraordinary account of the archaeologically-missing ancient history:

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/heinsohn.html

G. Heinsohn discovered that the period of history between 2100 - 600 BC NEVER EXISTED, and was invented much later in time, his archaeological findings are very well documented also in the books Ghost empires of the past: did the Sumerians really ever exist? and When did the Pharaohs live?



« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 04:37:59 AM by levee »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #94 on: June 14, 2011, 06:39:43 AM »
There have been several interesting topics of discussion lately, including this one:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=48831.0

As I have mentioned before, so many times, chapters III - XII in Earth is not a Globe are the weakest part of that book; some, if not most, of the information posted in the main faq is false, especially that relating to the movement of the sun (sun - earth distance, sun diameter, sun orbit).

The Sun does actually rise and set, and based on the strictest zetetic methods, the ones I always employ, we can figure out the right numbers for the movement of the sun, based on the photographs taken in Antarctica by F. Bruenjes, and the Sun/Moon ISS/Atlantis transit videos, which are included here in my thread.


There have been several new developments, including these ones:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=48357.msg1191815#msg1191815

We can safely say, now, that based on the proofs offered by the new radical chronology theory, that there are NO HISTORICAL RECORDS/DATA/PROOFS relating to any axial precession of the Earth, for the past 2000 years.

The Council of Nicaea could have taken place only after the year 876-877 e.n., as we have demonstrated in several previous messages here; therefore, the reformation of the calendar by Gregory XIII is completely false.

Given the fact that the winter solstice MUST HAVE FALLEN ON DECEMBER 22 at the Council of Nicaea, means that the dates given in the reformation of the calendar in 1582 are wrong.

Moreover, Matthew Vlastar (writing in 1330 e.n.) tells us that the Council of Nicaea could not have happened before the year 722 e.n.

A large part of Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers contains the rules for celebrating Easter. Among other things, it says the following:

“The Easter Rules makes the two following restrictions: it should not be celebrated together with the Judaists, and it can only be celebrated after the spring equinox. Two more had to be added later, namely: celebrate after the first full moon after the equinox, but not any day – it should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the equinox. All of these restrictions, except for the last one, are still valid (in times of Matthew Vlastar – the XIV century – Auth.), although nowadays we often celebrate on the Sunday that comes later. Namely, we always count two days after the Lawful Easter (that is, the Passover, or the full moon – Auth.) and end up with the subsequent Sunday. This didn’t happen out of ignorance or lack of skill on the part of the Elders, but due to lunar motion”

So, why the astronomical context of the Paschalia contradicts Scaliger’s dating (alleged 325 AD) of the Nicaean Council where the Paschalia was canonized?

This contradiction can easily be seen from the roughest of calculations.

1) The difference between the Paschalian full moons and the real ones grows at the rate of one day in 300 years.

2) A two-day difference had accumulated by the time of Vlastar, which is roughly dated 1330 AD.

            3) Ergo, the Paschalia was compiled somewhere around 730 AD, since

1330 – (300 x 2) = 730.

It is understood that the Paschalia could only be canonized by the Council sometime later. But this fails to correspond to Scaliger’s dating of its canonization as 325 AD in any way at all!

Let us emphasize, that Matthew Vlastar himself, doesn’t see any contradiction here, since he is apparently unaware of the Nicaean Council’s dating as the alleged year 325 AD.


From volume 3 of History: Fiction of Science? we can also see that J. Kepler, T. Brahe, N. Copernicus are one and the same person, writing at a time much later (at least after 1750 a.d.) than it is accepted in the conventional chronology.


We have already seen that the eruption of Vesuvius which destroyed both Pompeii and Herculaneum must have occurred at least after the year 1700 a.d.

Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica:

CHAPTER V.
The Last Siege of the Jews after Christ.

AFTER Nero had held the power thirteen years, and Galba and Otho had ruled a year and six months, Vespasian, who had become distinguished in the campaigns against the Jews, was proclaimed sovereign in Judea and received the title of Emperor from the armies there. Setting out immediately, therefore, for Rome, he entrusted the conduct of the war against the Jews to his son Titus.

But E. Johnson was able to prove that the Pauline Epistles were copied and developed from Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica, see:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=48357.msg1191856#msg1191856

Historia Ecclesiastica could not have been written before 1720 a.d., since it mentions both Vespasian and Titus:

Perhaps most important thing about the reign of Titus was his handling of the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. Though the Jews claimed that the disaster that struck was God's vengeance against Rome, Titus' speedy and exhaustive efforts at relief likely went a long way towards winning him a permanent place in the hearts of the people.



 
« Last Edit: June 14, 2011, 06:41:45 AM by levee »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #95 on: August 21, 2011, 04:08:16 AM »
To fully understand the significance of one of the most important scientific experiment ever performed (G.B. Airy, 1871):

Geocentric stellar parallax/stellar aberration:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070808224504/https://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/van_der_Togt_stellarab-final.pdf
http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/Stellar-Parallax
http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no115/par-ab-rev.pdf
http://web.archive.org/web/20100826022827/http://www.realityreviewed.com/Negative%20parallax.htm

The phenomenon of stellar parallax is not what we have been generally led to believe, because in exactly the same way that Eddington 'proved' Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in 1919 by rejecting, omitting or deleting 60% of his measurement data on the bending of starlight, so modern astrophysics maintains the misconception that parallax 'proves' the Kopernikan philosophy of the World hurtling around the Sun, by ignoring and dismissing the entire dataset of negative parallax measurements.


G.B. Airy (one of the most eminent physicists of the 19th century, Airy differential equation, Airy function) and his experiment prove once and for all two things:

1. THE EXISTENCE of an energy layer (of various densities) which fills up the space between the earth and the sun/moon/stars (aether)

2. THE FACT THAT the Earth is completely stationary and does not revolve around its own axis (we only take into account here the geocentric theory, without the details about the shape of the earth, round or flat)


The body of evidence
Truth has a way of being indestructible. It may or may not be popular at any given time, it may even be barely noticeable, but it is always there. And it turns out that the truth actually gets in the way of "science"! Modern theoretical (non-applied a.k.a 'pure') physics is not really science-driven but agenda-driven. It is populated with heavily politicized academia. It has become nothing much more than a sham propaganda-exercise of empty eloquence with false authority. The inventor of the electric world we live in, Nikola Tesla was spot-on when he remarked that modern non-applied science has become nothing more than manipulative indulgence in fancy "thought experiments" and abstract, fuzzy math which have no relation to reality. Instead of the theories being made to fit reality, what we have is the opposite: reality being adjusted or in fact completely overthrown, in order to fit agenda-driven theories and models.

Then sometime later one George Biddle Airy decided to try out Boscovich's idea of a water filled telescope in order to test Bradleys heliocentric aberration theory a about a century after it was first proposed. He discovered that there was no change in the aberration through the refracting water in a supposedly "moving" earth. Airy didn't observe a larger eclipse and subsequently the experiment was declared a "failure". So that's why it is now commonly called Airy's Failure. Funny that - it was of course a failure in terms of failing to prove heliocentrism. So what did it show then? It showed that only one side was moving and since that was the star side, it means the earth was stationary all along!


Many think it proven long ago that the World orbits the Sun. However, the results of two simple experiments, both performed in the nineteenth century, showed that it is the stars which move, and not the World.

An experiment with a water-filled telescope was performed by the then Astronomer Royal, George Airy (after whom the Airy disc of diffraction theory is named), in 1871, which can be considered to be a variation of an earlier investigation by François Arago, performed with a moving slab of glass in 1810.

Arago showed that either light itself or the luminiferous aether is
dragged along by a moving piece of glass. Fresnel explained the effect
by assuming it was the light-carrying medium (this is called Fresnel
drag). George Stokes explained it via compression of the aether, but
the important point is whether we can tell which one is doing the
moving - the light source or the transparent material. When Arago
investigated this effect with starlight, he concluded that the World
(with respect to which the glass plate was stationary in this instance)
was at rest and that it was the stars that were moving.

The experiment subsequently performed by Airy was first proposed by
Ruggiero Boscovich for testing James Bradley's heliocentric aberration.
This, in turn, was thought up to explain the elliptical
motion of the star Gamma D., as observed by James Bradley and
Samuel Molyneux.



What was the result of Airy's experiment? Exactly the opposite outcome
to that predicted in the rotating-World scenario. (Note that the
experiment is usually referred to as "Airy's failure" for this reason.)



Just like Arago before him, George Airy proved that the World was
stationary and the stars are moving. It does not matter whether there
exists a luminiferous aether or not, because the dragging of starlight,
as demonstrated initially by Arago, is real, irrespective of how we try
to explain it. Both Arago and Airy showed that it is the stars, and not
the World, which move (although Airy did not actually go so far as to
admit this). In addition, we can say that Michelson-Morley,
Trouton-Noble and many, many others have consistently demonstrated no
motion of the World.


Airy's experiment thus does not confirm the World to be just a piece of rock that hurtles through infinite space in who knows how many contorted motions, as Mikolaj Kopernik (aka 'Copernicus'), Johannes Kepler, Carl Sagan, et al., so zealously maintained.


"Airy's failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's "speed around the sun". Airy filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the original measured angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

(Imagine the telescope like a tube, sloped so that the light from one star hits the bottom of the tube. Even if the starlight is slowed down inside the tube (using water), it will still hit the bottom of the tube because its direction is already determined. If it were the tube that was moving, slowing down the starlight would mean that the angle of the tube would have to change for the light to hit the bottom of the tube.)


Airy's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether.

http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Airy.htm


Rotating Earth: Theory or Fiction?

http://web.archive.org/web/20090209060811/http://sites.google.com/site/abafte/geo



NOW, we take into account the shape of the earth...



We need to find the segment BD; first, by using the law of cosines, we get:

ED^2 = OE^2 + OD^2 - 2(OE)(OD)(cos s/R)

Then, immediately, we obtain:

BD = (R + h)/{RAD[2Rh + h^2](sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R

RAD = SQUARE ROOT OF []

R = 6378.164 km

h = AE = height of observer/photographer

s = distance at the surface, for example 34 km between England and France across the English Channel

BD = height of observable visual target on a round earth


NO CURVATURE ACROSS THE ENGLISH CHANNEL:

The original webpages as they appeared on flickr.com about four years ago:




The photographers are located right on the Cap Gris Nez beach, at an altitude of about 2-3 meters...the small rectangle in the photo is Cap Blanc Nez:



SHIPSPOTTING ON CAP GRIZ NEZ, ZERO CURVATURE ALL THE WAY TO ENGLAND, WHITE CLIFFS, DOVER:



No curvature whatsoever, a completely flat surface of the English Channel


white cliffs dover


Another photograph taken from Cap Gris Nez:

http://www.expedition360.com/journal/archives/2007/09/



To meet the requirements of the RE, here are the numbers for different altitudes (we will go all the way to 20 meters, that is, the height of a five-story building):


h = 3 m BD = 60.6
h = 5 m BD = 53
h = 10m BD = 40.4
h = 20m BD = 25.5

That is, from an altitude of 20 meters, we would not see anything below 25.5 from the other side; the White Cliffs are in full view...





« Last Edit: May 01, 2018, 10:08:40 PM by sandokhan »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #96 on: September 14, 2011, 01:57:38 AM »
ORIGINAL MAP REGNUM NEAPOLITANUM (THEATRUM ORBIS) SIGNED ABRAHAM ORTELIUS, OFFICIAL CHRONOLOGY 1570 AD:

http://www.bergbook.com/images/22775-01.jpg (using zoom-in we can clearly see Pompeia right next to mount Vesuvius)



All the maps created by Ortelius:

http://www.bergbook.com/cgi-bin/demo10.cgi/Search

REGNUM NEAPOLITANUM WITH IMAGE NAVIGATOR:

http://www.antiquarius-sb.com/Catalogue_c.asp?page=4&area=115&subarea=27

http://www.antiquarius-sb.com/Details_c.asp?ID=8669 (with image navigator, we can zoom-in on any portion of the map, including Pompeii/Pompeia, right next to mount Vesuvius)


(Campania region, mount Vesuvius)



POMPEII, CITY IN FULL ACTIVITY IN THE YEAR 1570 AD, OFFICIAL CHRONOLOGY



http://bloggingpompeii.blogspot.com/2010/02/review-features-of-domenico-fontanas.html


Abraham Ortelius' biography, the most famous cartographer of the Renaissance:

http://www.answers.com/topic/abraham-ortelius


MEDIEVAL ARMOURS (HELMETS WITH MOBILE VISORS) FOUND IN POMPEII GRAFITTI (HELMETS WITH MOBILE VISORS WERE INVENTED, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL CHRONOLOGY, IN THE XVth CENTURY):








ALL THE ARTIFACTS FOUND AT POMPEII BELONG TO THE RENAISSANCE:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.ilya.it/chrono/pages/pompejigallerydt.htm


As we saw earlier, the flat glass technology used at Herculaneum was first used in history at St. Gobain, in 1688 ad.


In view of these proofs, to talk about Alexander the Great and other Latin cosmographers is both silly and a sign of ignoring the clear evidence presented here.

Please read the first two volumes of History: Fiction or Science? that can be found on www.books.google.com (includes the fact that the Parthenon was built during the Renaissance)

Earlier I presented volume 3 of the same work, in which the most precise proofs were presented which do show that Almagest by Ptolemy was created in fact at least after the year 1350 ad...


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #97 on: September 15, 2011, 12:59:14 AM »
Let us examine now some of the consequences of the fact that both Pompeii and Herculaneum were destroyed by the eruption of the volcano Vesuvius at least after 1700 AD:


Eusebius is an admirer of Josephus...

According to my mind Eusebius, who first cites this passage, was its author. Eusebius himself was a historian who admired Josephus very much and made a thorough study of him...
Eusebius mentions Plinius the Elder:

Eusebius tells us in the name of Tertullian that when Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia, wrote to Trajan asking for instructions about the Christian race...

But according to the official chronology, Pliny the Elder (uncle of Pliny the Younger) died in the year 79 AD, at Misenum, right next to mount Vesuvius...

http://www.christianorigins.com/zeitlin.html


Josephus mentions clearly the fact that the eruption which destroyed Pompeii occurred in the year 79 AD:

According to Josephus, the temple was destroyed in August of 70 CE and Vesuvius destroyed Pompeii in August of 79 CE.

 
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/71712928/DrusilladaughterofHerodAgrippaI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drusilla_(daughter_of_Herod_Agrippa_I)

Their son perished together with his mother Drusilla, along with noted Roman historian Pliny the Elder plus most of the populations of Pompeii and Herculaneum in the AD 79 eruption of Mount Vesuvius.

Drusilla, eruption of Vesuvius mentioned by Josephus in Antiquities, xx 7.2

http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/index.htm#aoj (Jewish Antiquities by Josephus)

Chapter XX, section 7:

http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-20.htm (Agrippa, Drusilla, eruption of Vesuvius)


Josephus was a fictional character invented at least after the year 1750 AD (see also http://www.revisedhistory.org/classical.htm )


Plutarch mentions the destruction of both Pompeii and Herculaneum in the year 79 a.d.:

http://www.lacma.org/eduprograms/EvesforEds/PompeiiandtheRomanVillaEssay.pdf

In the aftermath of the eruption, Greek historian and biographer Plutarch wrote: “Those who went there by daylight felt ignorance and uncertainty as to where Pompeii and Herculaneum had been situated.”

Isaac Newton mentions Plutarch:

http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/fomenko/inewton.htm (A SHORT
CHRONICLE From the First Memory of things in Europe to the Conquest of Persia by Alexander the great, paragraf 3)


Georgius Syncellus based his Extract of Chronography on Historia Ecclesiastica and Chronicles written by "Eusebius"..
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06463a.htm

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2004/2004-10-27.html


The work of Eusebius written and invented at least after the year 1500 AD:

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm


J. Kepler in the work De Vero Anno (chronology of antiquity), is following the works of Josephus:

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/Dating%20the%20Birth%20of%20Jesus%20of%20Nazareth.htm

http://books.google.ro/books?id=0r68pggBSbgC&pg=PA228&lpg=PA228&dq=kepler+de+vero+anno+chronology&source=bl&ots=UvGKnxjzKK&sig=eNKCwN2jvlP19kP8-zNo50nbr5g&hl=ro&ei=JIwqTvq0BcbDtAa2x8yGDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=kepler%20de%20vero%20anno%20chronology&f=false (pg. 228)


Letters between Galilei and Kepler:

http://www.catholicintl.com/noncatholicissues/personal_lives.htm


Letters between Galilei and F. Bacon (disciple of John Dee):

http://www.sirbacon.org/mcompeer2.htm


Galilei, Kepler, and Newton were fictional characters invented at least after 1750 AD...


And here you can find the rest of the proofs that Handel, Monteverdi, Telemann, Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Munster were invented in the period 1750 - 1800 AD:

The first mathematicians we can believe in are Cauchy, Gauss and Weierstrass, with some minor modifications of their dates of birth, and first musicians who really lived in the XIXth century are Schumann, Wagner and Brahms)

The music attributed to Bach, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven was actually created using special formulas requiring Fibonacci numbers and number sequences...

Bach, Mozart and the Golden Section:

http://www.artofrecordproduction.com/content/view/195/22/

http://whosemusicisit.blogspot.com/2009/07/fibonacci-sequence-in-music-is-music.html


Evidence suggests that classical music composed by Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach embraces phi.


In a 1996 article in the American Scientist, for example, Mike Kay reported that Mozart’s sonatas were divided into two parts exactly at the Golden Mean point in almost all cases. Inasmuch as Mozart’s sister had said that Amadeus was always playing with numbers and fascinated by mathematics, it appears that this was either a conscious choice or an intuitive one. Meanwhile, Derek Haylock noted that in Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony (possibly his most famous one), the famous opening “motto” appears in the first and last bars, but also at the Golden Mean point (0.618) of the way through the symphony, as well as 0.382 of the way (i.e., the Golden Mean squared). Again, was it by design or accident? Keep in mind that Bartók, Debussy, Schubert, Bach and Satie may have also deliberately used the Golden Mean in their music.


Exploding the Myth of Mozart:
http://www.rense.com/general45/mozrt.htm

http://www.shoshone.k12.id.us/greek/fibo1.htm#mozart


Biography of Claudio Monteverdi:

http://www.answers.com/topic/claudio-monteverdi


Relationship between Galileo Galilei and Monteverdi:

Monteverdi and Galileo were exact contemporaries and near the end of their lives Galileo arranged for Monteverdi to procure a beautiful Cremonese violin (probably built by Nicolo Amati) for his nephew Alberto Galilei, the son of Galileo’s brother Michelangelo who composed the lute solo in the first half of our program.
http://www.ljms.org/Performances-and-Tickets/Program-Notes/Tafelmusik.html


The same people who falsified the official history and chronology are actually the very ones who invented the round earth concept and heliocentrical planetary system...

« Last Edit: December 24, 2017, 04:42:44 AM by sandokhan »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #98 on: October 11, 2011, 01:24:16 AM »


At around 7:15 a.m., Tungus natives and Russian settlers in the hills northwest of Lake Baikal observed a column of bluish light, nearly as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky. About 10 minutes later, there was a flash and a loud "knocking" sound similar to artillery fire that went in short bursts spaced increasingly wider apart.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php

That is when Tungus natives and others living in the hills northwest of Russia's Lake Baikal reported seeing a column of bluish light, that they described as being almost as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky.

A few minutes later they reported a flash and a sound that many said resembled artillery fire. The accompanying shock wave broke windows thousands of miles away from the impact zone, and knocked countless numbers of people to the ground.


Even if we take a 560 km distance to Tunguska, and a 1 km altitude (although Lake Baikal is located at some 435 meters in elevation), the visual obstacle will measure 15.5 km, no way for anybody located at Lake Baikal to have seen the explosion itself.

Let us ascend to 1,6 km in altitude at Lake Baikal; even then, the visual obstacle will measure 13.66 km.


The authors of the very well documented work on Tunguska mention:

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r05/

The inhabitants of Central Siberia saw the fall and explosion of the meteorite over an area with a radius of 600-1000 km.


Another eyewitness account:

Nizshne-Karelinskoye (465 km). Extremely bright (it was impossible to look at it) luminous body was seen rather high in the north-western sky soon after 8 a.m. It looked like a tube (cylinder) and for 10 minutes moved down to the ground. The sky was clear, but only in the side, where the body was seen, a small dark cloud was present low above the horizon. While coming to the ground, the body dispersed (flattened) and at this place a large puff of black smoke appeared. Then a flame emanated from this cloud.

500 meter altitude - 11.6 km visual obstacle
800 meter altitude - 10.4 km visual obstacle
1000 meters altitude - 9.7 km visual obstacle


http://www.halexandria.org/dward232.htm

Herdsman in the Gobi desert to the south described a fireball streaking across the sky along a flight path (based on a later reconstruction) at about 10o, just slightly east of true north.  Along this direction, the object approached Keshma from the south.  Then the object was observed by others moving very nearly due east toward Preobrazhenka.  This was followed by the object moving slightly north of due west toward Vanavara.  The explosion itself was oval shaped, suggesting a prior motion in the westerly direction.     

With a distance of 2000 km, and an altitude of 2 km, the visual obstacle will measure 275 km, nothing could have been seen from that distance (the explosion itself occurred at an altitude of 7 km).


The object, nearly "as bright as the Sun", caused the following reports from Europe:

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.

In Berlin, the New York Times of July 3rd reported unusual colors in the evening skies thought to be Northern Lights:
"Remarkable lights were observed in the northern heavens ... bright diffused white and yellow illumination continuing through the night until it disappears at dawn."

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_tunguska02.htm

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html


The visual obstacle from Tunguska measures 7463 km; we are told that the rays of light from the Sun (and it was morning over Siberia on June 30, at 7:20 am) cannot reach, for example, London, at the same time, due to the curvature; then NOTHING could have been observed/seen from Tunguska as well on a globe; an explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.

Newspapers could be read at midnight in London, photographs could be taken outdoors in Stockholm without flash apparatus; no other meteorological/astronomical phenomenon occurred at that time in the world, no such records exist.

That is why this is the very best proof that the surface of the Earth is actually flat.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 12:14:01 AM by levee »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #99 on: October 15, 2011, 02:41:26 AM »
TELLURIC CURRENTS - GYROSCOPES ANTIGRAVITATIONAL EFFECTS (HARNESSING TORSIONAL ETHER WAVES BY ROTATION)

Aether = universal, cosmic fluid pervading all space (Cymatics - activating the latent line forces of the aether through the application of sound / Airy's experiment of 1871)

Ether = dextrorotatory and laevorotatory waves which travel through the aether

Existence of ether waves proven by the Dayton-Miller ether drift experiments:


http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm


"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."

Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.) See citations below for Silberstein 1925 and Einstein 1926.

"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."

Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)


A closely related subject is gps time deformation frame dragging; the real cause, is, of course, called aether frame dragging, here are best works:


http://www.cellularuniverse.org/R1RelativityofTime.pdf

http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_1130.pdf

http://www.treurniet.ca/physics/framedragging.htm

http://www.wbabin.net/weuro/agathan5.pdf


Ether waves proven by the existence of telluric batteries:

http://www.icehouse.net/john1/stublefield1.html


Hans Coler's device, confiscated by the British Secret Service after 1945, which runs on ether waves:

http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/Research/HansColer/HansColer.htm

http://www.rexresearch.com/coler/colerb~1.htm


Telluric currents discovered by two of the greatest scientists of the 20th century: Gustave Le Bon and T. Henry Moray:

http://johnbedini.net/john34/eternal%20lanterns.htm (one of the best works ever written on the subject of telluric currents)

T. Henry Moray:

"I started my experiments with the taking of electricity from the ground, as I termed it, during the summer of 1909. By fall of 1910 I had sufficient power to operate a small electrical device, and I made a demonstration of my idea to two friends... This demonstration in the early stages consisted of operating a miniature arc light... It soon became evident that the energy was not static and that the static of the universe would be of no assistance to me in obtaining the power I was seeking...

During the Christmas Holidays of 1911, I began to fully realize that the energy I was working with was not of a static nature, but of an oscillating nature. Further I realized that the energy was not coming out of the earth, but instead was coming to the earth from some outside source. These electrical oscillations in the form of waves were not simple oscillations, but were surgings --- like the waves of the sea --- coming to the earth continually, more in the daytime than at night, but always coming in vibrations from the reservoir of colossal energy out there in space. By this time I was able to obtain enough power to light the old 16-candlepower carbon lamp for about one half capacity, and I did not seem to make any further improvement until the spring of 1925."

These peculiar waves did not arrive with "clock precision". Just like ocean waves, they arrived in schedules of their own. Dr. Moray was convinced that these were world-permeating waves. He came to believe that they represented the natural "cadence of the universe". This intriguing characteristic suggested that small amounts of pulsating electrostatic charge might be used to induce large oscillations in a large "tank" of charge. The resultant oscillating power would be applied to industrial use.

The idea of obtaining and using "ground energy" is covered in secrecy. What would happen to fossil fuel companies were it even suspected that vast electrical energy could be simply pulled from the ground at specific points? These energies began "making their appearance" during the years of telegraphy. Well placed telegraphic ground plates were able to operate with energy simply taken from the ground. Several early telegraph lines historically continued signaling among stations, though their batteries had been "dry and dead" for several years! I spoke to an engineer who saw this kind of system operation when yet a teenager. Seeing this strange system in full working order so impressed him that, developing that rare taste, he forever sought such anomalies as a lifelong passion. Numerous articles from the last century retell exact details concerning these phenomena.

Tesla defined true cosmic rays as an entrant light-like effluve having incredible penetrating power. These were in no way similar to the conventional cosmic rays detected by Gockel (1910), Hess (1912), Kohlhorster (1913) or Robert Millikan (1925). Tesla viewed his discovery of these light-like effluves as holding the only promise for energy application. According to Tesla, the energy of these effluves greatly exceeded those of cosmic ray "particles".



Dr. Gustav Le Bon, a Belgian physicist, examined and compared ultraviolet rays and radioactive energies with great fascination. Concluding from experiments that energetic bombardments were directly responsible for radioactivity, he was able to perform manipulations of the same. He succeeded in diminishing the radioactive output of certain materials by simple physical treatments. Heating measurably slowed the radioactive decay of radium chloride, a thing considered implausible by physicists.

In each case, Le Bon raised the radium temperature until it glowed red-hot. The same retardation of emanations were observed. He found it possible to isolate the agent, which was actually radioactive in the radium lattice, a glowing gaseous "emanation" which could be condensed in liquid air. Radium was thereafter itself de-natured. Being exposed to the external influence of bombarding rays, the radium again became active. The apparent reactivation of radium after heating required twenty days before reaching its maximum value.

Dr. Le Bon was utterly dumbfounded when; forcing theory into fact, other colleagues announced the "immutability of radioactive decay". He also perceived where their erroneous logic would ultimately lead when they cited "internal instability" as the source of radioactivity. Separating themselves once more from the external world of energy, they would lose more than they imagined themselves gaining.

Le Bon disagreed when physicists began isolating the heavy metals as "the only radioactive elements. He had already distinctly demonstrated for them that "all matter was to a degree radioactive". He was first to write books on the conversion of ordinary matter into rays, an activity he claimed was constant. He showed that this flux from ordinary matter could be measured. Le Bon stated that the reason why all matter was spontaneously emanating rays was not because they were contaminated with heavy radioactive elements. Ordinary matter was disintegrating into rays because it was being bombarded by external rays of a peculiar variety.


TORSION ETHER PHYSICS

NIKOLAI KOZYREV'S GYROSCOPE EXPERIMENTS

http://www.rexresearch.com/torsion/torsion1.htm

Theoretical results were obtained that let spin-spin interactions be considered as the manifestation of an independent fundumental characteristic of matter. These investigations showed that numerous phenomena which were hard or impossible to explain, had a rigorous theoretical interpretation in the framework of torsion field theory. The convincing theoretical results which allowed understanding of the mechanism of Tam-Happer effect were first obtained by P.C.Naik and T.Pradhan in the USA [43] and then by P.I.Pronin, Yu.N.Obukhov and I.V.Yakushin in the USSR. Later De Sabbata and C.Sivaram in Italy [44] and then E.A.Gubarev, A.N.Sidorov and G.I.Shipov in Russia [45] with the use of torsion theories, gave a theoretical interpretation of experimental results obtained by A.D.Krish [32,33] and others [42].

Probably the first researcher to establish that the behaviour of gyroscopic systems cannot be explained in the frame work of Newton's mechanics was russian astrophysicist N.A.Kozyrev. In the 50s, N.A.Kozyrev cunducted a large series of experiments with gyroscopes and found that variations of the gyroscope's weight exists depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation [1,2]. Later, Kozyrev's results were completely confirmed by a member of the Belarus Academy of Sciences A.I.Veinik, who in the 60s - 80s conducted a major research of the anomalies demonstrated by gyroscopic systems [8]. In 1989 H.Hayasaka and S. Takeuchi published results of their experiments in which the fall-time of freely falling spinning gyroscope was measured. These experiments showed that the fall-time varies depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation [48]. The unusual behaviour of spinning gyroscopes was observed by S.M.Polyakov in the USSR [24] and many others, and basically was interpreted as a manifestation of antigravitation. In 1991, G.I.Shipov showed that the violation of Newton's mechanics demonstrated by gyroscopic systems was caused by the appearance of torsion fields generated by spinning masses [49].


http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/tors1a.html

Torsion fields are generated by spin (considering classical spin [22,23]) or by angular momentum. There exist both right and left torsion fields (depending on the spin orientation). Since all substances (except amorphous materials) have their own stereochemistry which determines not only the location of atoms in molecules but also determines their mutual spin orientation, then the superposition of torsion fields generated by the atomic and nuclear spins of each molecule determines the intensity of torsion field in the space surrounding each molecule. The superposition of all these torsion fields determines the intensity and spatial configuration of the characteristic torsion field of that substance. Thus each substance possesses its own characteristic torsion field.


The structure of the torsion field of every object can be changed by the influence of an external torsion field. As a result of such an influence, the new configuration of the torsion field will be fixed as a metastable state (as a polarized state) and will remain intact even after the source of the external torsion field is moved to another area of space. Thus torsion fields of certain spatial configuration can be "recorded" on any physical or biological object.


KOZYREV TORSION BALANCE EXPERIMENTS:

http://www.chronos.msu.ru/EREPORTS/levich_substan_inter/levich_substan_inter.htm


Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the DNA structure, describes this strange characteristic of the molecules of living organisms:

    It has been well known for many years that for any particular molecule only one hand occurs in nature.  For example the amino acids one finds in proteins are always what are called the L or levo amino acids, and never the D or dextro amino acids.  Only one of the two mirror possibilities occurs in proteins.

Living tissue (with the exception of some bacteria) contains only L-amino acids (laevorotatory-left handed); dead tissue only D-amino acids (dextrorotatory-right handed).


Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate in chemistry:

        This is a very puzzling fact . . . . All the proteins that have been investigated, obtained from animals and from plants, from higher organisms and from very simple organisms bacteria, molds, even viruses are found to have been made of L-amino acids.

Ether waves of the dextrorotatory kind cause decay/decomposition/inertia; the laevorotatory waves provide antigravitational effects.


BRUCE DEPALMA SPINNING BALL EXPERIMENT

Bruce DePalma graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1958. He attended graduate school in Electrical Engineering and Physics at M.I.T. and Harvard University. At M.I.T. he was a lecturer in Photographic Science in the Laboratory of Dr. Harold Edgerton and directed 3-D color photographic research for Dr. Edwin Land of Polaroid Corporation. He commenced his work in Free Energy through his studies on the gyroscope and the nature of motion.

http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm

Throwing Experiments
DePalma and his assistants were experts for photograph recording of high speed motions. In 1974 they studied parabolic curves of bodies thrown upward, using ball bearings and catapults. Ball bearings were put into rotation before start and also not-rotating likely objects were used for comparison. In 1977 these experiments were repeated by most precisely working equipment and Bruce DePalma published paper entitled ´Understanding the Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment´. His astonishment clearly is expressed, e.g. by this section:

Actually the experiment has two parts, the spinning ball going up, and the spinning ball falling. Since I would be rather thought a fool than misrepresent results of experiments I only attempted to analyze the portion of the experiment I thought I understood. Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.

A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart. Those who attribute this to an aerodynamic or atmospheric effect, please note that it works just as well in a vacuum. Also note, this effect has since been verified by other [enlightened] researchers. The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can
explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.

Is this a harnessing of torsional ether waves by rotation? Both balls draw energy into themselves from an unseen source, but the rotating ball absorbs more of this ethereal energy than its counterpart - energy that would be manifest as gravity, moving down into the Earth. With a decrease in torsional ether above the ball, there is a slight decrease in gravity, the ball gets slightly lighter. Needless to say, this effect defies standard theories.




ASPDEN GYROSCOPE EFFECT

http://www.padrak.com/ine/NEN_4_8_1.html

The aether was detected some years earlier by Sagnac in France and is detected in modern navigation technology by the ring laser gyro. How can the speed of a laser beam traveling around a closed path inside an optical instrument detect rotation of that instrument if the beam is not keeping a fixed speed relative to something inside that instrument that does not share its rotation? That something is the aether! No amount of book learning or mathematics can avoid that simple truth, and even though the word aether is seen as something magical, it is that something that delivers free energy once we have decoded the combination of the magnetic lock which restrains its release. Note also, that the aether reveals its existence when we have rotation and we have rotation in the Adams motor.





Northern/Southern circumpolar and Regular constellation orbits FLAT EARTH MAP

In order to avoid situations like this ( http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38120.0 ) the FAQ must be modified to include the latest and best proofs provided in the alternative FAQ, re: flat earth maps, orbit/size of the sun, movements of the satellites, and much more.

As I have mentioned before, S. Rowbotham made several mistakes when discussing the secondary (supporting) flat earth theory (earth-sun distance, solar eclipse, circumpolar constellations)...

There are three kinds of stellar orbits: southern/northern circumpolar and regular.

Here is the photograph to prove it:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0903/5hOHPsanterne900.jpg

See the following links for complete explanations:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33520#p34143
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33520#p33509
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33520#p33520

« Last Edit: October 15, 2011, 03:23:59 AM by levee »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #100 on: December 01, 2011, 02:23:23 AM »
Regarding the Cavendish experiment...

http://web.archive.org/web/20071021071531/http://www.s-line.de/homepages/keppler/elot.htm

Sometime prior to 1901, the French Government, wishing to determine more accurately the actual size of the Earth, so that they could revise and refine their calculations regarding the distance to the sun, hit on a way to measure the difference in distance apart at the top of two lines perpendicular to the surface of the Earth and the bottom of those same two lines. They wanted a pair of lines long enough to give them an appreciable measurement . Obviously they could not erect two parallel poles a mile high, but they did feel they could suspend two plumb bobs a mile deep into a mine shaft, and thus be able to measure the distance apart at the top and the distance apart at the bottom, which would be slightly less. They wanted to know exactly how much less.

The result of these tests was very strange. So strange that the French Geodetic scientists contacted the scientists of the American Geodetic Survey and conveyed their results to them, with the request that similar tests be conducted in this country. Officially, nothing was done for some years. But in 1901, one of the Geodetic surveyors happened to be working in the vicinity of the Tamarack mines near Calumet, Michigan. He contacted the chief engineer at Tamarack, and informed him of the information transmitted by the French government.

Two mine shafts were selected, and plumb lines exactly 4,250 feet long were suspended in each mine. At the end of these lines a sixty pound bob was hung. In order to prevent movement through a horizontal direction, each bob was suspended in a tank of oil placed at the bottom of the mine shafts.
In this way, it was reasoned, magnetic forces could not effect them. The lines used to suspend the bobs were No. 24 piano wires. For twenty-four hours the lines were allowed to hang, so that there would be no possibility of movement from putting them in place still remaining in the lines.
The measurements were begun.

It was then that it was discovered that the French Geodetic engineers had not made a mistake.
Careful re-checking proved that the lines, contrary to expectations, were farther apart at the bottom than at the top!

There can be only one implication to such strange result – the center of gravity is not, as previously believed, at the center of the Earth, but in fact, it must be above the surface of the Earth, somewhere in Space! If these two lines, formed by the suspended plumb lines, were to be extended upward, they would meet somewhere in the void away from the Earth, and that point, by all the rules of gravitational attraction, should be the center of gravity of this planet!



http://www.davidpratt.info/aethergrav.htm (aetherometry, gravity)


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_gravity01.htm (aether and gravity experiments)


http://milesmathis.com/caven.html (about the errors in the Cavendish experiment)


http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm (the extraordinary experiments of Dr. Francis Nipher; how to modify gravity by applying electrical tension)


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #101 on: December 02, 2011, 01:40:50 AM »
HISTORY: FICTION OR SCIENCE? VOLUME 3 - A. FOMENKO/G. NOSOVSKY



http://new-chrono-book.livejournal.com/

HISTORY: FICTION OR SCIENCE? VOLUME 3, DATING PTOLEMY'S ALMAGEST

mediafire.com 2ljuudrjdnt

Pg. 209 - 214

Tycho Brahe = N. Copernicus


Pg. 248 - 259

Who actually wrote the works attributed to Hipparchus, T. Brahe and C. Ptolemy


Pg. 302 - 327

J. Kepler = N. Copernic = T. Brahe = C. Ptolemy the most extraordinary analysis

The other pages include one of the best ever discussion on the new chronology of the times of J. Kepler, C. Ptolemy, T. Brahe, N. Copernicus, who were actually one and the same person.


Dating Ptolemy's Almagest (a more technical work):

mediafire.com qnmmdljvxkm

The coverings of the stars, and the lunar eclipses described in Almagest, could have occurred ONLY during the period 800 - 1350 a.d. and not one thousand years earlier. Archimedes' Palimpsest was also forged after 1750 AD.

HIPPARCHUS = TYCHO BRAHE




THE WORKS OF COPERNICUS WRITTEN AT LEAST AFTER 1600 E.N.; HISTORICAL FIGURE J. KEPLER AUTHOR OF DE REVOLUTIONIBUS ORBIUM COELESTIUM


ANCIENT GREEK ASTRONOMERS: INVENTED DURING THE RENAISSANCE



SEE - http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1643860#msg1643860



New address for the alternative faq:

http://web.archive.org/web/20100418162809/http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/



« Last Edit: December 05, 2014, 05:04:35 AM by sandokhan »

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15679
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #102 on: December 04, 2011, 09:30:59 PM »
I'll put back up the forums in the next few weeks levee so your posts are preserved outside of the archive.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #103 on: December 07, 2011, 03:36:17 AM »
Your forum, the .net website, includes many other valuable discussions, in addition to some of my messages...many topics which actually were discussed in more details than it was done here.


*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15679
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #104 on: December 08, 2011, 01:19:36 PM »
Your forum, the .net website, includes many other valuable discussions, in addition to some of my messages...many topics which actually were discussed in more details than it was done here.
It was never my intention to remove the site completely and will have the forums up for archive purposes.  I humbly apologize.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2011, 10:01:14 PM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #105 on: December 14, 2011, 04:48:35 AM »
Confirmation of the vortex/tachyon model of the atom:

Preons = quarkels

An advanced knowledge of Quantum Gravity indicated in 1995, quarks and *quarkels would be found to comprise of the electric particle energy of gravity photons. Robert Wood-Smith (RWS) discussed this with Albert Mantiziba who, in July 1995 and with indirect help from Max Planck, established:-
the proton comprised of 2.2674 x 10^23 gravity photons:
the neutron comprised of 2.2705 x 10^23 " "
the electron comprised of 1.2349 x 10^20 " " .
These combine to form respectively the quarks of the proton and neutron, and the quarkels of the electron.

[*Quarkels: the term is applied by the Partners to the components of the electron: which RWS predicted in 1994/95, together with their values. Note. The 1998 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three scientists for their discovery of "quasiparticles" that carry an impossible amount of charge: the reference was to the fractional charges of the electron.]

Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.”


https://web.archive.org/web/20110116175908/https://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44784


http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1998/press.html

https://www.llnl.gov/str/Laughlin.html (fractional quantum effect)


Preon-quarkel structure of the electronS:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quarter-electrons-may-enable-quantum-computer


Every science student is taught that the indivisible unit of charge is that of the electron. But 2 years ago, scientists found that charge sometimes shatters into "quasi-particles" that have one-third the fundamental charge. And in this week's issue of Nature, researchers announce they have spotted one-fifth-charge quasi-particles--a decisive finding suggesting that its time to change any physics textbooks still claiming that electron charge is indivisible.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130621182913/http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/1999/05/19-01.html


http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v55/i5/pR2521_1

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9608279.pdf

http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf99/ps/teraz.pdf

It can be taken as an exciting and already intriguing historical
discovery of the substructure of quarks (and leptons), which has been long predicted, or as the first evidence for the composite model of quarks (and leptons), which has been long proposed since the middle of 1970’s [3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. It may dramatically change not only the so-called “common sense” in physics or science but also that in philosophy, which often states that quarks (and leptons) are the smallest and most fundamental forms (or particles) of matter in the “mother nature”.



All these results confirm the information presented over a century ago in the Occult Chemistry:


http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf

See also:
http://www.esotericscience.org/article5a.htm

Occult Chemistry, first chapter:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/chaptr01.htm
« Last Edit: August 29, 2018, 01:13:23 AM by sandokhan »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #106 on: December 15, 2011, 02:39:35 AM »
PARTHENON = TEMPLE DEDICATED TO THE  VIRGIN MARY, CONSTRUCTED DURING THE RENAISSANCE

http://books.google.ro/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+science+or+fiction&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=AD2lU_WyLrDa0QWLrYEo&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=parthenon&f=false

HISTORY: FICTION OR SCIENCE? VOLUME 1, ANATOLY FOMENKO

PAGES 415-421 * 425-434


« Last Edit: December 05, 2014, 05:06:35 AM by sandokhan »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #107 on: February 12, 2012, 06:18:25 AM »
Hiroshima: Before and After

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78516104/Liberty-Forum

During the period 2004-2006, on libertyforum.org (deleted from the internet), cactus/no name presented the most extraordinary facts pertaining to the fact that the "nuclear" explosion at Hiroshima was faked; I was able to save some of the pages.

An outline of the main points:

It seems hard to believe that less than 60 years ago we were naive enough to believe everything our government told us without question. It is even harder to imagine that today forces still exist in Washington who will stop at nothing to prevent the dissemination of pure, unadulterated Truth. It is time for the outrageous lies propagated for the past half century to be put to rest, and time for the real story behind one of the United States' greatest cover-ups to be told.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050303172300/www.temple.edu/history/hiroshima.html

Here is a model of the general disposition of the blast area. Observe the water access (if someone wanted to import thousands of tons of TNT quietly) and the structures standing. The second model shows you a representation (I hope they were doing this to exact scale-down) of the damage after the blast. Compare the epicentre of the blast as shown with a red flag in the second model with the blast effects as depicted in the first black and white after photo at the top of this thread. The center is way off and it would be interesting to understand why each model seems to make a point of not showing the structures BEHIND the blast. Take the circle of smoke on the black and white photo on top and transpose it where the blast flag is located on the after model in this set and ask yourself where 40% of the destruction went and why are the blast depicted with such contradiction from one official model to the next?

Also recall that this Allied genocide masquerading as liberation firebombed Desden in February of 1945, firebombed Tokyo in March (100,000) 1945 and wrapped things up with the massive FIREBOMBING masquerading as atomic bomb of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Did you know that Nagasaki was one of the biggest Catholic stronghold in Japan at the time?

Keep an eye on the epicenter of the blast and the radius of damage. Both those models are missing about 40% of the overall blast area. Take another look at the devastation photos, the original black and white I mean, look at the roads.
Do you see what I mean, THEY ARE ALL HIGHLY VISIBLE, how is this possible when debris has been catapulted all over the place? The roads should have been covered in debris. The hoaxsters became negligent and thought they would control the flow of information forever.

Look at the photos depicting the blast. You see a nice column of smoke rising into the sky with a pretty musroom photoshop on top. How do you get such a cloud from an airburst 2000 (1850 to be precise) feet above the ground? Where is the big crater, so characteristic of the hype used to open the cah funnel, in the center of Hiroshima. According to the models you would think they were burning autumn grass or something. I am not prepared to say that the hoax was fabricated entirely, I think those poor people really got the rabbinical lessons GOOD. And I will bet it smarted too. Funny how most of the burn victims photos I have seen never have burnt hair. I someone has a picture something like that award winning picture of that small girl running from US napalm carrying her brother or sister in her arms. You could tell THAT was real because the hair was burned in a way one might think is consistent with intense heat. The Hiroshima survivors have such an astonishing array of burn marks and burn patterns that one could be forgiven for wondering what it was that exploded there. Did the rig the city like a synchronized demolition with conventional fuel bombs spread throughout the buildings.

I invite the curious to examine the buildings in the BEFORE model and see what size buildings would have been suitable storage places to set the charges of such large amounts of fuel explosive.

Also note with regards to the mushroom cloud. Most people were blinded and in shock. Most survivors would agree with whatever the skunk had photoshopped to portray the configuration of the blast and agreed with it. Making people believe the bomb was real was most important, the skunks thought that the world would never believe a test shot with experts. The first choice for the use of the atomic bomb was determined to be Kyoto by the Target Committee. It was believed that the highly literate and intellectual residents there would convey the sophisticated terror and people would believe them MORE, It is my contention that they DID NOT BOMB Kyoto for THAT very REASON. They feared the intellectuals would be believed if they detected clues that it was a hoax. People (did not need to be too smart to display terror) were ritually sacrificed by fire as described in the definition of the word holocaust. The Allies were great at killing holocaust-style, especially if there are zillions of dollars at stake..think about it.

The damage is severely inconsitent with linear shock waves. The damage inspires me to believe the fuels were spread by explosive dispersion and ignited much like the moderbn DAISEYCUTTER incendiary cluster the Army has now. Hiroshima may have been a testing ground for the Daiseycutter, like a scaled down version of the vapour/fuel nightmare they mounted in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Desden, Tokyo and later in Vietnam. Fire is a big preoccupation with these superstitous skunks. Their has to be a big fire componant in the ritual killing. Like 9/11, the Ford Pinto.

The Nuclear Weaponeer narrating parts of the Trinity movie said that the most devastation comes from the low altitude blasts because the pre-cursor wave effect lifts everything off the ground. The simulation offered in T2 judgement day whereby the bomb is going off, you can see the precursor wave lift everything up into the air, cars, busses. You can see in this simulation, a great deal of care in accurately portraying the forces at work. Unlike the Hiroshima model, I find the T2 model more believable. You may have see some of the airbursts tested in the US proving grounds. They don't have much of a mushroom cloud. The mushroom cloud becomes more distinct as the charge gets low to the ground. In Hiroshima the smoke was everywhere. Smoke without wind. Look at the photos of the city after the explosion and ask why the roads are so clear. They never said anything about the bomb they used on Hiroshima as NOT having a wind componant. Look at the depicted damage and ask if this appears more consistant with firebombing then with atomic armaggeddon.

What is the same about Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that they were ALL firebombed (incendiary/holocaust-style).

TriNitroToluene and liquid gas incendiary devices radiate like hell too. The evidence supporting actual radiation sickness in Hiroshima looks more like evidence of cancers and burns consistent with conventional explosions.

I have examined before and after aerial reconnaissance photographs of the damage inflicted on Dresden and Tokyo. I have examined mushroom clouds from napalm bombs.

You see concrete extremely damaged in Dresden and Tokyo and Grozny, Chechnya but you don't see as much concrete in Hiroshima. Which brings me to include building configurations and volatility amongst the Target Committee's priorities. Most of the theatre for the Hiroshima bombing was to be razed to the ground to simulate A-bomb design parameters.They did a very crappy job but the public bought it anyways. For a while that is. Kyoto may have had too many hard targets and hard targets mean high survival rates and more chances for noisy and embarassing leaks. These, I would think, are critical considerations when pulling a hoax of this magnitude.



Neutrons WERE NOT the magic bullet, near-absolute synchronicity in the discharge of the shape charge plastiques HAD to be the cornerstone of that game of numbers.

And guess what happens after that? The chain reaction, if successful at all, consumes the fissionable mass before it can become critical and contribute to the exponential and very rapid expansion of the release of thermonuclear energy. Recall the experts explaining that BARELY ONE GRAM of the so-called weapon's grade uranium in Little Boy was converted to useful energy. In the VERY HEAVY load of 'lead' in Little Boy bomb ONLY ONE GRAM DID ALL THAT DAMAGE. One gram of fissionable uranium converts to 10 million degrees and million pound winds and the equivalent of 20KT of TriNitroToluene. They really wanted to play the Greek Gods.

Here are my reasons for believing the atom bomb and the rest of those clusters are bogus lies and illusions.

Item 1)

The historical seismograms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have mysteriously vanished. If not only for the sake of war-era memorabilia, that information should have been everywhere in the museums and in the press. Hiroshima is located in a highly volcanic zone called the Honshu Arc and those active volcanoes were under constant seismographic surveillance during that period and log before that. The so-called atomic blast at hiroshima was estimated to be the equivalent of 6.2 on the Richter Scale but no seismological outpost in the world appears to have noted it. The Russians said they exploded the biggest atomic bomb ever made (50 megatons) at Novaya Zemlya in northern Russia. That is hundreds of thousands of times more powerful than what they say exploded over Hiroshima yet again, not one seismic needle moved at all. How is that possible I ask?

Item 3)

The so-called nuclear industry, be it weapons or so-called commercially viable nuclear reactors is the hoaxster's paradise. The whole ripoff scheme is shrouded in national security protocols and security bonding which means you can't discuss your work outside the plant if you don't want to incur the wrath of the NSA and risk jailtime for attempted so-called nuclear terrorism. The whole scam is compartmentalized so Sam doesn't know what George is up to.

Item 5)

The mushroom cloud thermodynamics of the atom bomb hoax have also been examined. The first problem the competant examiner notices with the mushroom cloud photographed on the day Hiroshima was attacked is that the sun is shining brightly overhead at the noon position. The bombing was said to have been at 8:15 am. I have heard it argued that this was the Nagasaki cloud but it has been used by the hoaxsters themselves for Hiroshima and Justin Raimondo had this exact cloud for his essay, Hiroshima, Mon Amour. Why would the jews want to say it is Nagasaki if they have nothing to hide? I went to the public library in downtown Montreal as a youth and I looked at microfilm of newspapers for that day in 1945 and the picture I enlarged taken from the microfilm was the cloud at noon and it was Hiroshima indeed. So, more evidence of a hoax?

Item 6)

The firebombing of Tokyo March 9-10, 1945-100,000 dead. M-69 aimable cluster firebombs reduced 26 square kilometers of that city to ash using a few hundred U.S. Air Force B-29 bombers. Aside the cost of the aircraft when initially built the cost of destroying all that section of Tokyo was a little more than a million dollars. So, why build anything that costs billions to destroy a fraction of the land those B-29 bombers could have destroyed in under less than a million dollars? Because the atom bomb was a lie and those cities reduced to ash by M-69 firebombs and that also explains the mysterious vanishing of the historical seismograms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Are they hiding the fact that there was no shock wave? Is that why the trees were still standing charred and many building facades still standing?

Item 7)

Hiroshima was not evacuated and life came back to normal very quickly. This is inconsistent with the models presented by the experts that said nothing would grow for 70 years and nobody could live there for a very long time. One week after the so-called atom bomb, oleanders were growing everywhere. The hoaxsters started stories of a miracle. More contradiction and nonsense from the jewish hoaxsters.

Item 8-

The pilot of the B-29 they said dropped the so-called atom bomb on Hiroshima is a known Hollywood insider and his B-29 crew was totally segregated on an island with the pilot Commander Tibbits fully in charge of security and everything. He had full autonomy and discretion. I believe his crew of talmudic cowards was near 200 aircraft when they sortie'd on Hiroshima then later on Nagasaki. Another brilliant example of the secrecy and security shroud of compartmentalization over the whole hoax. Why would this dumbass put his mother's name on an instrument of utter genocide if it were not that his mother gloats without end at the hoax accomplishments and mass murder that she would be pleased to figure prominently on the nose of that beast of destruction and mass murder. How can anyone believe such a mess of contradictions when it is obvious they would have been nuts not to exploit the means they had at their disposal under those circumstances. They pulled it off while everyone on earth was in a state of shock and would have believed anything these conspirators said just to stop the ignited gasoline showers?

Item 9)

Items said to be radioactive have in fact been doped with x-ray radiation for periods of time corresponding to the hoax expectations. At the Pantex assembly plant in Amarillo Texas they have a very powerful x-ray machine they say they use to look inside decomissioned so-called atom bombs before they open them up. That is totally rediculous because why would anything be wrong inside a bomb watched by the military night and day. I say the x-ray machine is there to dope the materials they assemble so that the x-ray detectors they call rad meters can read something expected from the mathematical models. When a rad meter is picking up x-ray radiation it is seemlessly and logarithmically converting this sampled energy and reporting the results as rads instead of x-ray energy that it is. When a student examines a sample said to be radioactive it is a sample irradiated prior using a high intensity x-ray machine. Again compartmentalization plays a key role here at the Pantex plant. Coincidentally they are the only plant in the US authorized to make the final assemblies of so-called nuclear bombs. What else could they be using that huge x-ray machine at Pantex if it is not to create illusions of atomic radioactivity?

Item 19)

Mushroom clouds do not grow out of radial airbrust explosions. The mushroom cloud needs to be seeded from the ground. The thermodynamic conditions caused by a circumferential airburst explosion would superheat the air all around and send radial shock waves emanating from the center outwards like the popular festivity fireworks and that would negate the conditions required for a mushroom cloud to grow normally. A mushroom cloud grows from the ground up in a predictable circular pattern that develops and flows through a relatively cool and stable upper air mass because the explosion was at the ground level. Who can deny that mushroom clouds can't grow out of radial airburst explosions?


The people who projected the ILLUSION THEY HAD THIS AWFUL WEAPON hoped they had imagined a weapon that would SELECTIVELY put an end to HUMANITY'S HOPES FOR THE FUTURE. This HOAX, it was hoped, would reap untold treasures for it's authors.

Just ponder the MINDBOGGLING ARRAY of possibilities if one accepts that the ABOMB IS A HOAX. When you accept the idea that it was a HOAX you can fully understand how it changed the world and our lives. Seeing it for the hoax it is gives one a feeling of freedom and understanding. One thing SEEING THE HOAX will not do is MAKE CONVENTIONAL WARFARE GO AWAY.

This confusion on the part of the Japanese was NO CONFUSION AT ALL.

They had been firebombed thousands of times by B-29s raids before, during, and after the HIRO/NAGA combination blasts. The reason the Japanese did not understand the difference IS THAT THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had both likely wreaked the odor of spent gasoline and napalm fumes. I think the Japanese people WERE CONFUSED BY THE A BOMB STORIES, they could not distinguish the damage of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with that of the thousands of other cities bombed to saturation with flammable ordinance. The confusion WAS NOT WITH THE FIREBOMBING, people could SEE THAT, it was the weird ATOM BOMB twist to these stories they could not understand.

Israel is PLAYING DUMB to cover the fact that THE ISRAELI ATOMIC PROGRAM IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN EXPANSION OF THE HOAX ALREADY WELL ROOTED IN THE PUBLIC PSYCH WORLDWIDE. Just opening the HOAX CASH FUNNEL valve a little more and to ACCESS MORE PUBLIC FUNDS AND LUCRATIVE INSECURITY. People NEED TO BE REALLY AFRAID before you can expect them to BUY TONS OF PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS. You can't swell the coffers of drug company predators without creating SOME KIND OF INSECURITY.




*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #108 on: February 12, 2012, 06:22:29 AM »
Hiroshima: Before and After (continued part 2)

It's nearly 8:15 a.m. American B-29 bombers appear overhead. The sirens wail, but Mitsuo and his coworkers ignore them, as usual. The planes are headed in the direction of Tokyo. Then, for the first time ever, Mitsuo sees the planes reappear over Hiroshima. They're in position now. Looking in the sky, Mitsuo sees an object. In the instant it takes for the bomb to drop, he feels no fear, only curiosity about this thing that glistens in the sun.

Mitsuo watches the object fall behind a mountain, Mount Hiji. The exact spot where the bomb explodes is called 'ground zero.' Mitsuo is about two miles away, with the mountain in between. At the moment of explosion, he sees a blinding flash of light. Then the shock wave hits. Mitsuo is blown several feet into the air and knocked briefly unconscious. He awakens to see a giant mushroom cloud rising into the air. Mitsuo is a witness to the first atomic bombing in history. And Mount Hiji, which shields him from the radiation, will help him live to tell about it.

How is this testimonial possible? Mitsuo is 2 miles away from the so-called blast with Mount Hiji in between and Mount Hiji is part of the 1000 meter ranges. 1000 meters is 3280 feet. The so-called atom bomb is reported to have detonated at around 1800 feet. How could Mitsuo feel or see such a blast if the mountain range was blocking the view? How could he feel so-called blast waves if the mountain was shielding him from radiation? One contradiction after the other is what makes up the story that serves as evidence of the existance of atomic bombs. The hallmark of a hoax.

(some of you may recall the first US nuclear tests, which were recreated/forged (because of security fears) using conventional explosives for the media - the classic nuclear mushroom cloud that many websites show is just a conventional TNT explosion.)


The Hiroshima mushroom cloud was actually fabricated in the New Mexico desert by using TNT/liquid gas explosives.

In 1944 the Allies captured a very remarkable weapon from the Germans called Wirbelringkanone, which accounts for the air blasts observed in nuclear tests explosions...


By late 1944 the quantum electron, proton neutron theorist quacks had not
figured out how to build it. Fermi dropped hints to Edward Teller about
Einstien's impact device for disks and spheres. Teller relayed the advice to
Oppenhiemer.

After the war, in a public announcement, the government gave the credit for the
succesful testing of the atomic bomb to Quantum physists and made up a quack
theory containg electrons, protons and neutrons, chain reaction and phony
critical mass information to satisfy the public's curiosity and to convince
them they know about atomic power and so would look no further into fission or
fusion.

Fermi got together with a German scientist and together they fabricated false
cloud chamber drawings showing that they were working on splitting the atom.

Chadwick's Neu(t)rons:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61446.msg1604716#msg1604716


The Oranur experiment of W. Reich showed what the source of the radiation is: the aether.

Reich moved from New York to an area just outside the town of Rangeley in rural southern Maine in the early nineteen fifties. Here he built a new home and laboratory personally designed to integrate home and laboratory into a single, brilliantly practical building, now the home of the Wilhelm Reich Museum. Another laboratory was added soon after for students. This structure was the setting for the so-called Oranur Experiment, a chilling example of the accumulator’s undeniable ability to concentrate energy. The experiment called for the placing of a very small amount of radium in an accumulator, the unexpected result of which was to toxify a surprisingly large area of southern Maine surrounding his home and laboratory, one that took several months to dissipate.

A nuclear reactor is nothing more than a gigantic Reich/Tesla aether box; see the message posted here about telluric currents: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1255899#msg1255899 (the actual cause of "global warming"; the intensity of the dextrorotatory currents has increased greatly, the ice sheets are NOT melting faster, they are disintegrating more swiftly).


R. Khomeini, secret biography:

http://www.venusproject.net/ecs/mullahs_legitimacy.html

Both Ahmadinejad and Khamenei know very well that there are no nuclear weapons, as both are MI6 spies, while the Iranian people have no idea what is going on.


Abiotic Origin of Oil

“The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time.”
Fred Hoyle 1982

http://www.rense.com/general63/staline.htm (best description and facts presented in this article)

http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=63&contentid=2819&page=2

http://ranprieur.com/crash/abiotic.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20100103095143/http://the7thfire.com/peak_oil/peak_oil_is_a_known_fraud.htm

http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/

http://www.oilempire.us/peakoil.html
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/summary.htm










« Last Edit: October 14, 2016, 12:29:27 PM by sandokhan »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #109 on: March 01, 2012, 03:13:15 AM »
Faint Young Sun Paradox

The complete demonstration that the age of the Sun cannot exceed some ten million years (that is, we find ourselves right at the beginning of the main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, when no fluctuations in luminosity could have taken place); over the past 25 years there have been several attempts made to try to explain the paradox, all such efforts have failed, see the six links below.

There is no way a round/spherical earth could have formed within this timespan of some ten million years (best case scenario); without attractive gravity, a spherical earth cannot be explained at all.


http://www.clim-past.net/7/203/2011/cp-7-203-2011.pdf

http://www.clim-past.net/7/203/2011/cp-7-203-2011.html

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=19684&p=149581

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=19684&p=149581#p149562

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/06dat4.htm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7349/full/nature09961.html



Supposedly the Sun has been a main-sequence star since its formation about 4.6 billion years ago. This time represents about half the assumed ten-billion-year main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, so the Sun should have used about half its energy store. This means that about half the hydrogen in the core of the Sun has been used up and replaced by helium. This change in chemical composition changes the structure of the core. The overall structure of the Sun would have to change as well, so that today, the Sun should be nearly 40% brighter than it was 4.6 billion years ago.

This obviously has consequences for the temperatures of the planets. It is generally believed that even small fluctuations in the Sun's luminosity would have devastating consequences on Earth's climate. A 40% change in solar luminosity should have produced dramatic climatic changes.

According to evolution, about four billion years ago when life supposedly first arose on Earth, the temperature had to have been close to what the temperature is today. But if that were the case, the subsequent increase in the Sun's luminosity would have made Earth far too hot for life today. One could naively suggest that Earth began cooler than it is today and has been slowly warming with time. But this is not an option because geologists note that Earth's rock record insists that Earth's average temperature has not varied much over the past four billion years, and biologists require a nearly constant average temperature for the development and evolution of life. This problem is called the early faint Sun paradox.

Evolution proposes that the early atmosphere contained a greater amount of greenhouse gases (such as methane) than today. This would have produced average temperatures close to those today, even with a much fainter Sun. As the Sun gradually increased in luminosity, Earth's atmosphere is supposed to have evolved along with it, so that the amount of greenhouse gases have slowly decreased to compensate for the increasing solar luminosity.

The precise tuning of this alleged co-evolution is nothing short of miraculous. The mechanism driving this would have to be a complex system of negative feedbacks working very gradually, though it is not at all clear how such feedbacks could occur. At any point, a slight positive feedback would have completely disrupted the system, with catastrophic consequences similar to those of Venus or Mars. For instance, the current makeup of Earth's atmosphere is in a non-equilibrium state that is maintained by the widespread diversity of life. There is no evolutionary imperative that this be the case: it is just the way it is. Thus the incredibly unlikely origin and evolution of life had to be accompanied by the evolution of Earth's atmosphere in concert with the Sun.

The implausibility of such a process has caused Lovelock to propose his Gaia hypothesis. According to this, the biosphere (consisting of Earth's oceans, atmosphere, crust, and all living things) constitutes a sort of super organism that has evolved. Life has developed in such a way that the atmosphere has been altered to protect it in the face of increasing solar luminosity. Lovelock's hypothesis has not been generally accepted, largely because of the spiritual implications. Indeed, it does seem to lead to a mystical sort of view.


If billions of years were true, the sun would have been much fainter in the past. However, there is no evidence that the sun was fainter at any time in the earth's history. Astronomers call this the faint young sun paradox.

Evolutionists and long-agers believe that life appeared on the earth about 3.8 billion years ago. But if that timescale were true, the sun would be 25% brighter today than it was back then. This implies that the earth would have been frozen at an average temperature of -3 C. However, most paleontologists believe that, if anything, the earth was warmer in the past. The only way around this is to make arbitrary and unrealistic assumptions of a far greater greenhouse effect at that time than exists today, with about 1,000 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today.

The physical principles that cause the early faint Sun paradox are well established, so astrophysicists are confident that the effect is real. Consequently, evolutionists have a choice of two explanations as to how Earth has maintained nearly constant temperature in spite of a steadily increasing influx of energy. In the first alternative, one can believe that through undirected change, the atmosphere has evolved to counteract heating. At best this means that the atmosphere has evolved through a series of states of unstable equilibrium or even non-equilibrium. Individual living organisms do something akin to this, driven by complex instructions encoded into DNA. Death is a process in which the complex chemical reactions of life ceases and cells rapidly approach chemical equilibrium. Short of some guiding intelligence or design, a similar process for the atmosphere seems incredibly improbable. Any sort of symbioses or true feedback with the Sun is entirely out of the question. On the other hand, one can believe that some sort of life force has directed the atmosphere's evolution through this ordeal. Most find the teleological or spiritual implications of this unpalatable, though there is a trend in this direction in physics.

A much higher concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has been suggested to maintain a proper temperature. This is an inferrence supported by no geological evidence whatsoever. Studies of iron carbonates by Rye et al. conclusively show that Earth had at most 20 percent the required amount of CO2. We have evidence that Mars also had temperatures suitable for liquid in its distant past. It is unlikely that CO2 would custom-heat both planets.


Conditions on the very early earth that permit the appearance and early evolution of life seem to be achievable without invoking too many improbabilities. As the sun then became hotter, however, we have a problem; if the greenhouse atmosphere is maintained for too long, as the sun brightens, a runaway greenhouse effect may result from positive feedback, creating a Venus-like situation and rendering the earth uninhabitable. A compensating negative feedback is required.

Some geochemical feedback may be possible, but it appears unlikely to be sufficient. Living organisms, too, started converting carbon dioxide into oxygen and organic matter, substantially decreasing the greenhouse effect as soon as photosynthesis got going. There is, however, no obvious reason for this process to keep exactly in step with the sun's increasing luminosity. It may be that we have simply been lucky, but as an explanation that is not entirely satisfactory. If the tuning did need to be very precise, Faulkner would have a point in calling it 'miraculous'.


As a result of a fainter Sun, the temperature on ancient Earth should have been some 25 C lower than today. Such a low temperature should have kept large parts of Earth frozen until about one to two billion years ago. The case for Mars is even more extreme due to its greater distance from the Sun. Yet there is compelling geologic evidence suggesting that liquid water was abundant on both planets three to four billion years ago.

Earth's oldest rocks, which are found in northern Canada and in the southwestern part of Greenland, date back nearly four billion years to the early Archean eon. Within these ancient rock samples are rounded 'pebbles' that appear to be sedimentary, laid down in a liquid-water environment. Rocks as old as 3.2 billion years exhibit mud cracks, ripple marks, and microfossil algae. All of these pieces of evidence indicate that early Earth must have had an abundant supply of liquid water in the form of lakes or oceans.

This apparent contradiction, between the icehouse that one would expect based upon stellar evolution models and the geologic evidence for copious amounts of liquid water, has become known as the 'faint young sun paradox.'


See also: http://grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/vol_03/chaos_creation_03.htm (collapsing tests of time)

Electrical Sun: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

« Last Edit: March 01, 2012, 03:20:09 AM by levee »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #110 on: March 31, 2012, 02:46:08 AM »
BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT

During the period 1919 - 1923,  Professor Paul Alfred Biefeld outlined to his student, Thomas Townsend Brown, certain experiments which led to the discovery of the phenomenon now known as the Biefeld-Brown effect. Further, these experiments helped to define the inter-relationship of electrical and gravitational fields. This coupling effect parallels electricity and magnetism.

The original experiments concerned the behavior of a condenser when charged with electricity. The first startling result was that if placed in a free suspension with the poles horizontal, the condenser, when electrically charged, showed a forward thrust toward the positive pole !!! When the polarity was reversed, it caused a reversal of the direction of thrust.

The intensity or magnitude of the effect is determined by five known factors, namely:

1) The separation of the plates of the condenser - the closer the plates, the greater the effect.

2) The ability of the material between the plates to store electrical energy in the form of elastic stress. A measure of this ability is called the 'K' factor of the material. The higher the 'K', the greater the Biefeld-Brown effect.

3) The area of the condenser plates - the greater area giving the greater effect.

4) The voltage difference between the plates - the greater the voltage, the greater the effect.

5) The mass of the material between the plates - the greater the mass, the greater the effect.

http://montalk.net/science/84/the-biefeld-brown-effect

Dr. Brown experimented with umbrella and disk shaped gravitators. The umbrella devices consisted of two electrodes, one positive and one negative, with one electrode shaped like a large bowl and the other like a smaller bowl. Overall, this formed an open-air capacitor but with asymmetric electrodes, whose asymmetric electric fields generated unbalanced gravitational divergences and increased acceleration. The disk gravitators, described earlier, did the same except one electrode formed the leading edge of the disk, while the other electrode formed the body and trailing edge.

Nevertheless, for those wishing to debunk the Biefeld-Brown effect by attributing it entirely to ion wind, it must be pointed out that closed capacitors, the cellular gravitators, also self-accelerate without any ion wind effects. Electrogravity arises primarily from the gravitational component of the electric field, harnessed for propulsion via the asymmetrical gravitational field of electric dipoles. Brown also experimented with disk gravitators in vacuum chambers and observed them accelerating nearly as quickly as when run at atmospheric pressure.

The Biefeld-Brown effect demonstrates a link between electricity and gravity.


Dr. Townsend Brown patents:

http://www.rexresearch.com/gravitor/gravitor.htm



Video of the Biefeld-Brown effect:

(at least 27KV used in the experiment)


High voltage Biefeld-Brown experiments (very well documented):

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm


Dr. Townsend Brown and his Gravitor:





http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Thomas_Townsend_Brown

http://www.doctorkoontz.com/Antigravity/Townsend_Brown/page90.html



Dr. Francis Nipher experiments of 1917: electricity can alter gravitation attraction -

http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm


Dr. Charles Brush experiments of 1922: weight depends on the atomic structure of the substance -

http://www.rexresearch.com/brush/brush.htm

Dr. Charles Brush, in a series of reports in the PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY around 1922 found, in some well-thought-out experiments, that weight was not only proportional to mass, but was affected by the atomic structure of the substances. For example, he found that for a given unit of mass and shape, BISMUTH falls faster than zinc or aluminum.


Furthermore, the Biefeld-Brown effect shows immediately that the Earth is absolutely stationary, that is, it does not rotate around its own axis. The antigravitational effect means that gravity is annulled for the duration of the experiments: we are told that the Earth orbits through space, around the Sun, at a speed of approximately 29 km/s, since an experiment lasts for at least 5 seconds, the metal object subjected to the Biefeld-Brown effect should smash itself against one of the four walls of the laboratory in no time at all (29 x 5 = 145 km).


Another experiment which could be used to prove the Earth is stationary involves a vertically fired projectile (for the Biefeld-Brown effect, the Coriolis force formula does not apply of course; gravity is annulled completely, as can be seen from the videos above and the description of the effect itself):




T = period of rotation, 24h x 3600x/h = 86,400 s

g = 32 ft/s^2

t = time spent in the air (the projectile)

cos@ (cosine of latitude of experiment)


To understand the physics behind the Biefeld-Brown effect:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/chaptr01.htm

http://www.alliancesforhumanity.com/matter/matter.htm

And especially:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf


« Last Edit: March 31, 2012, 02:57:50 AM by levee »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #111 on: April 10, 2012, 01:52:55 AM »
I feel it is of some relevance to the principles of Zeteticism and the ideals of our Society.

Preface to the Critique of Pure Reason:

I have, writes Kant, therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith.


I. Kant (official chronology - or the writers who created the works attributed to him at the end of the 18th century, radical new chronology) is the father of anti-Zeteticism, anti-science, anti-reason, nihilism, and much more, please read the Ominous Parallels, chapters: The Totalitarian Universe, Ethics of Evil, Kant versus America, The Culture of Hatred, America Reverses Direction, Convulsion and Paralysis.


The following excerpts are from chapter 2, The Totalitarian Universe:

Kant places his primary emphasis on epistemological issues. His method of attack is to wage a campaign against the human mind. Man's mind, he holds, is unable to acquire any knowledge of reality.

In any process of cognition, according to Kant, whether it be sense experience or abstract thought, the mind automatically alters and distorts the evidence confronting it.

The world that men perceive, therefore--the world of orderly, spatiotemporal, material entities--is essentially a creation of man's consciousness. Reason cannot discover anything about reality; if it tries, it can only bog down in impenetrable contradictions. Logic is merely a subjective human device, devoid of reference to or basis in reality.



Christoph Pfister archive:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg998158#msg998158 (other works signed C. Pfister, including Matrix of Ancient History: http://www.dillum.ch/html/dillum_buecher_von_christoph_pfister.htm )
« Last Edit: April 10, 2012, 01:54:27 AM by levee »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #112 on: April 23, 2012, 09:51:15 AM »
It is very easy to prove that the Earth is absolutely stationary; that is, it does not rotate around its own axis. Perhaps then the RE will be asking themselves the question: if the Earth is indeed stationary, what is its real shape?

Of course it would really help if the official faq would be replaced completely with the data I have amassed here; ISS/Atlantis do really orbit, as do the satellites, the sun rises and sets, the real sun-earth distance, the heavenly body which actually causes the solar eclipses, the northern/southern stellar circumpolar constellations/regular stellar paths and the REAL FE map, and much more.


http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1143#p34382

The most complete, up-to-date demonstration of the fact that the trajectories of the clouds are absolutely incompatible with an Earth that would rotate around its own axis; it includes the data from the freelists archive on the angular momentum, boundary layer and much more.


http://www.realityreviewed.com/Restoring%20forces.htm

Restoring Forces Paradox by Dr. Neville Jones, one of the most superb arguments for the fact that the Earth is actually stationary.


From Cosmos without Gravitation:

The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.”

This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:

“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.”

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?


The atmospheric pressure does not obey an attractive gravitational law:

SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN BAROMETRIC PRESSURE

The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

The lowest pressure is near the equator, in the belt of the doldrums. Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles.


Foucault's Pendulum explained:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=11374#p11374


Geocentric Coriolis force:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg953747#msg953747


G.B. Airy experiment, stellar parallax/aberration:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1231580#msg1231580

"Airy's failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's "speed around the sun". Airy filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the original measured angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

(Imagine the telescope like a tube, sloped so that the light from one star hits the bottom of the tube. Even if the starlight is slowed down inside the tube (using water), it will still hit the bottom of the tube because its direction is already determined. If it were the tube that was moving, slowing down the starlight would mean that the angle of the tube would have to change for the light to hit the bottom of the tube.)


Airy's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether.



Ring Laser Gyroscopes and the Telluric Currents/Ether:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1255899#msg1255899






*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #113 on: May 09, 2012, 05:31:39 AM »
Cosmic Serpent by Jeremy Narby (best work on genetics, molecular biology and the fact that life could not have appeared by chance in a "prebiotic soup").

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2011/04/17/cosmicserp.pdf

Robert Wesson (Beyond Natural Selection): "By Mayr's calculation, in a rapidly evolving line an organ may enlarge about 1 to 10 percent per million years, but organs of the whale-in-becoming must have grown ten times more rapidly over 10 million years. Perhaps 300 generations are required for a gene substitution. Moreover, mutations need to occur many times, even with considerable advantage, in order to have a good chance of becoming fixed.
Considering the length of whale generations, the rarity with which the needed mutations are likely to appear, and the multitude of mutations needed to convert a land mammal into a whale, it is easy to conclude that gradualist natural selection of random variations cannot account for this animal" (p. 52). Wesson’s book is a catalogue of biological improbabilities—-from bats' hypersophisticated echolocation system to the electric organs of fish—and of the gaping holes in the fossil record.

"By what devices the genes direct the formation of patterns of neurons that constitute innate behavioral patterns is entirely enigmatic. Yet not only do animals respond appropriately to manifold needs; they often do so in ways that would seem to require something like forethought" (p. 68). R. Wesson adds: "An instinct of any complexity, linking a sequence of perceptions and actions, must involve a very large number of connections within the brain or principal ganglia of the animal. If it is comparable to a computer program, it must have the equivalent of thousands of lines. In such a program, not merely would chance of improvement by accidental change be tiny at best. It is problematic how the program can be maintained without degradation over a long period despite the occurrence from time to time of errors by replication" (p. 81).


Antoine Tremolilre (La vie plus tetue que les etoiles): "We know that more than 90% of the changes affecting a letter in a word of the genetic message lead to disastrous results; proteins are no longer synthesized correctly, the message loses its entire meaning and this leads purely and simply to the cell’s death. Given that mutations are so frequently highly unfavourable, and even deadly, how can beneficial evolution be attained?" (p. 43).


M. Frank-Kamenetskii (Unraveling DNA): "It is clear, therefore, that you need a drastic refitting of the whole of your machine to make the car into a plane. The same is true for a protein. In trying to turn one enzyme into another, point mutations alone would not do the trick. What you need is a substantial change in the amino acid sequence. In this situation, rather than being helpful, selection is a major hindrance. One could think, for instance, that by consistently changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually prove possible to change the entire sequence substantially and thus the enzyme's spatial structure. These minor changes, however, are bound to result eventually in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but it has not yet begun its 'new duties.' It is at this point that it will be destroyed—together with the organism carrying it" (p. 76).

In the early 1980s, researchers discovered that certain RNA molecules, called "ribozymes,"
could cut themselves up and stick themselves back together again, acting as their own
catalysts. This led to the following speculation: If RNA is also an enzyme, it could perhaps
replicate itself without the help of proteins. Scientists went on to formulate the theory of the "RNA world," according to which the first organisms were RNA molecules that learned to synthesize proteins, facilitating their replication, and that surrounded themselves with lipids to form a cellular membrane; these RNA-based organisms then evolved into organisms with a genetic memory made of DNA, which is more stable chemically. However, this theory is not only irrefutable, it leaves many questions unsolved. Thus, to make RNA, one must have nucleotides, and for the moment, no one has ever seen nucleotides take shape by chance and line up to form RNA. As microbiologist JamesShapiro writes, the "experiments conducted up until now have shown no tendency for a plausible prebiotic soup to build bricks of RNA. One would have liked to discover ribozymes capable of doing so, but this has not been the case. And even if one were to discover any, this would still not resolve the fundamental question: where did the first RNA molecule come from?". He adds: "After ten years of relentless research, the most common and remarkable property of ribozymes has been found to be the capacity to demolish other molecules of nucleic acid. It is difficult to imagine a less adapted activity than that in a prebiotic soup where the first colony of RNA would have had to struggle to make their home".


The contents of this famous soup are problematic. In 1952. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey
did an experiment that was to become famous; they bombarded a test tube containing water, hydrogen, ammonia, and methane with electricity, supposedly imitating the atmosphere of the primitive earth with its permanent lightning storms; after a week, they had produced 2 of the 20 amino acids that nature uses in the construction of proteins. This experiment was long cited as proof that life could emerge from an inorganic soup. However, in the 1980s, geologists realized that an atmosphere of methane and ammoniac would rapidly have been destroyed by sunlight and that our planet’s primitive atmosphere most probably contained nitrogen, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and traces of hydrogen. When one bombards the latter with electricity, one does not obtain biomolecules. So the prebiotic soup is increasingly considered to be a "myth".

Microbiologist James Shapiro writes: "In fact, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject—evolution—with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity."

During the 1980s, it became possible to determine the exact sequence of amino acids in given proteins. This revealed a new level of complexity in living beings. A single nicotinic receptor, forming a highly specific lock coupled to an equally selective channel, is made of five
juxtaposed protein chains that contain a total of 2,500 amino acids lined up in the right order. Despite the improbability of the chance emergence of such a structure, even nematodes, which are among the most simple multicellular invertebrates, have nicotinic receptors.
Confronted by this kind of complexity, some researchers no longer content themselves with the usual explanation. Robert Wesson writes in his book Beyond natural selection: "No simple theory can cope with the enormous complexity revealed by modern genetics."
Other researchers have pointed out the improbability of the mechanism that is supposed to be the source of variation — namely, the accumulation of errors in the genetic text. It seems
obvious that "a message would quickly lose all meaning if its contents changed continuously in an anarchic fashion." How, then, could such a process lead to the prodigies of the natural
world, of which we are a part?


Another fundamental problem contradicts the theory of chance-driven natural selection.
According to the theory, species should evolve slowly and gradually, since evolution is caused by the accumulation and selection of random errors in the genetic text. However, the fossil record reveals a completely different scenario. J. Madeleine Nash writes in her review of recent research in paleontology: "Until about 600 million years ago, there were no organisms more complex than bacteria, multicelled algae and single-celled plankton.... Then, 543 million years ago, in the early Cambrian, within the span of no more than 10 million years, creatures with teeth and tentacles and claws and jaws materialized with the suddenness of apparitions. In a burst of creativity like nothing before or since, nature appears to have sketched out the blueprints for virtually the whole of the animal kingdom.
Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geological time all around the world.
Throughout the fossil record, species seem to appear suddenly, fully formed and equipped with all sorts of specialized organs, then remain stable for millions of years. For instance, there is no intermediate form between the terrestrial ancestor of the whale and the first fossils of this marine mammal. Like their current descendants, the latter have nostrils situated atop their heads, a modified respiratory system, new organs like a dorsal fin, and nipples surrounded by a cap to keep out seawater and equipped with a pump for underwater suckling. The whale represents the rule, rather than the exception. According to biologist Ernst Mayr, an authority on the matter of evolution, there is "no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty."


In the middle of the 1990s, biologists sequenced the first complete genomes of free-living
organisms. So far, the smallest known bacterial genome contains 580,000 DNA letters. This
is an enormous amount of information, comparable to the contents of a small telephone
directory. When one considers that bacteria are the smallest units of life as we know it, it
becomes even more difficult to understand how the first bacterium could have taken form
spontaneously in a lifeless, chemical soup. How can a small telephone directory of information
emerge from random processes?
The genomes of more complex organisms are even more daunting in size. Baker’s yeast is a
unicellular organism that contains 12 million DNA letters; the genome of nematodes, which are rather simple multicellular organisms, contains 100 million DNA letters. Mouse genomes, like human genomes, contain approximately 3 billion DNA letters.


The book also includes several flat earth maps, such as this one:





« Last Edit: June 28, 2014, 12:41:34 AM by sandokhan »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #114 on: June 25, 2012, 01:46:37 AM »
GYRO DROP EXPERIMENT - inexistence of attractive gravity, UA acceleration

http://www.depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html

In this experiment a fully enclosed, electrically driven gyroscope is released to fall freely under the influence of gravity. The elapsed time taken to fall a measured distance of 10.617 feet was measured, with the rotor stopped and also with the rotor spinning at approximately 15,000 RPM.

Data was gathered on a Chronometrics Digital Elapsed Dime Clock measuring 1/10,000 second, actuated by two phototransistor sensors placed in the paths of two light beams which were consecutively interrupted by the edge of the casing of the falling gyroscope.

The gyroscope, of total weight 7.23 lbs (rotor weight 4.75 lbs, case weight 2.48 lbs) was released to fall along its axis. Electrical leads supplying power to the 41/4" diameter rotor were disconnected just prior to release.


Conclusion: a fully encased, spinning gyroscope drops faster than the identical gyroscope non-spinning, when released to fall along its axis.



A.N. KOZYREV GYROSCOPE EXPERIMENTS - inexistence of attractive gravity, UA acceleration

According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, the greatest astrophysicist of the former Soviet Union, time and rotation are closely interconnected.

In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning.

N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".

The results were published in the work The Pendulum of the Universe.

Kozyrev torsion fields: http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/tors1a.html


Aether, time, Kozyrev torsion fields:

http://web.archive.org/web/20081010174600/http://divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=334&Itemid=30


More information on the existence of telluric currents (ether), here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1255899.html#msg1255899 (includes Dr. Bruce DePalma spinning ball experiment)

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #115 on: July 11, 2012, 02:28:34 AM »
One of the very best proofs that the surface of the Earth is actually flat:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x42v7ip

Between 38:28 and 38:35, no curvature whatsoever across the strait of Gibraltar (on a round earth, the curvature would measure some 3.35 meters, with a visual obstacle of some 5 meters on the other side of the strait), no ascending slope, just a perfectly flat surface of the water.


From the same spot, we even have a photograph to go along with the video, zero curvature across a distance of 13 km:




And of course there is the explosion of Tunguska, which was seen all the way from London...
« Last Edit: February 01, 2018, 10:00:21 AM by sandokhan »

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1295
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #116 on: July 12, 2012, 11:22:50 AM »
Hiroshima: Before and After

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78516104/Liberty-Forum

During the period 2004-2006, on libertyforum.org (deleted from the internet), cactus/no name presented the most extraordinary facts pertaining to the fact that the "nuclear" explosion at Hiroshima was faked; I was able to save some of the pages.

This is good stuff.  Thanks for preserving it.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12089
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #117 on: July 12, 2012, 07:26:30 PM »
Sandokhan, I am doing some research at the moment, and I was wondering if you would give me some of your time. What are your views of the Templars, and what role (if any) do you assign them within your revised historiography?
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #118 on: July 13, 2012, 02:09:08 AM »
There are three secret societies at the present time which control all governments: the Jesuits, the worshippers of Akhenaton, and the descendants of Canaan.

The legend of the Templars has been invented to somehow demonstrate that there was some historical basis to these secret societies.

Read the Dating of the Nicaea Council and how we have been led to believe that this Council took place in the year 325 AD, when it could not have taken place at all before the year 876-877 AD.  The dating of the Council is crucial in D. Brown's The Da Vinci Code...

There was no Inquisition, no Galilei, no Copernicus, or Kepler; a falsified history has been constructed in order to make us believe in heliocentrism.

Is there something specific re: the Templars' history you wanted to know?

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12089
Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #119 on: July 13, 2012, 10:08:16 AM »
Not really, though I am doing a bit of reading on the subject. I was mostly just curious to know what you thought of them. My own views are very much in the formative stage; at this point I am just collecting information.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord