A minor update in the FAQ

I just made a few modifications on General, Physics, and Geography. I will make additional changes later on. Feel free to list anything that should be added to the FAQ.

A minor point, but perhaps you could mention that the "greater icewall" also has precedent in the diagrams of Rowbotham. It's not merely some invention of my imagination. As for ice wall composition, I'm not convinced that the mountain theory should be considered "standard". Who believes it?

All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness.

Now, I know Rowbotham is not the final authority on geography, but I was under the impression that most FE proponents had accepted that we had no further knowledge than the above at this point (walls composed of ice, of increasing extension, beyond comprehension) except where additional zetetic derivation has been performed (such as by Tom Bishop) thanks to an increased understanding of the laws of heat and pressure.

As for the 150 ft figure, I am not sure where the basis for that comes from. Is it the supposed height of the Ross Ice Shelf?

A minor point, but perhaps you could mention that the "greater icewall" also has precedent in the diagrams of Rowbotham. It's not merely some invention of my imagination. As for ice wall composition, I'm not convinced that the mountain theory should be considered "standard". Who believes it?

This is absolutely correct. Rowbotham clearly shows an ice wall of enormous height.  I tend to lean towards a ring of mountains as depicted in so many ancient cosmologies.

I apologize for my late reply, as I have been thinking about FET for quite some time. It is my dream to witness detailed explanations and mathematical formulations in every aspect of FET (I believe the equivalence between FET and RET is a possibility) and perhaps a unification of all FE models. Currently, I see a McIntyre-Bishop model forming because both the McIntyre and the Bishop model use Photoelectric Suspension and Universal Accelerator. I think it is a great leap towards a unified FET.

A minor point, but perhaps you could mention that the "greater icewall" also has precedent in the diagrams of Rowbotham. It's not merely some invention of my imagination.

Okay, I added that to the FAQ.

As for ice wall composition, I'm not convinced that the mountain theory should be considered "standard". Who believes it?

There were references to the mountain theory on the forums, although I am aware not all FE proponents favor it. The Ice Wall is a mountain range in that it is not composed of only ice from top to bottom and that it aligns with the Antarctic plate. At any rate, I renamed the model to "dark energy model", as I agree that labeling it "standard" or "classical" is rather biased given that no consensus has reached yet within the Zetetic community.

Quote from: Earth Not a Globe, p. 91

All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness.

Now, I know Rowbotham is not the final authority on geography, but I was under the impression that most FE proponents had accepted that we had no further knowledge than the above at this point (walls composed of ice, of increasing extension, beyond comprehension) except where additional zetetic derivation has been performed (such as by Tom Bishop) thanks to an increased understanding of the laws of heat and pressure.

I see. So the consensus is that the size of the Earth is unknown? If that is the case, is the Earth finite or infinite, and do we still accept these figures?

Circumference: 125,891 km (78,225 miles)
Diameter: 40,073 km (24,900 miles)

Or, do these figures only cover the known range of the Earth?

As for the 150 ft figure, I am not sure where the basis for that comes from. Is it the supposed height of the Ross Ice Shelf?

I think so, although I could be wrong. The figure was referenced by members in the past. It is currently stated in the Wiki: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Ice+Wall

Isn't it strange that our FES members do support the view of a flat earth (as they should, of course) but use as an explanation for the orbits of the planets/stars the concept of photoelectric suspension? The very notion of the photon was invented by the same conspirators who came up with the hoax concerning the shape of the earth (and much more, as they modified radically the chronology of history).

Here is someone who chose to think carefully about the concept of the photon:

www.wbabin.net/science/schreiber12.pdf

Also the fact that light IS related closely to magnetism (the research done by Faraday) was carefully concealed from our views:

http://skullsinthestars.com/2009/03/02/faraday-brings-light-and-magnetism-together-1845/


Now we know that the speed of light is actually a variable and not a constant; the medium through which it travels is the aether itself, as documented and proved carefully the classic experiment of G.B. Airy (1871).

Isn't it strange that our FES members do support the view of a flat earth (as they should, of course) but use as an explanation for the orbits of the planets/stars the concept of photoelectric suspension? The very notion of the photon was invented by the same conspirators who came up with the hoax concerning the shape of the earth (and much more, as they modified radically the chronology of history).

While I am no advocate of PES, I find it hard to believe photons don't exist (if that is what you are implying here.)

Now we know that the speed of light is actually a variable and not a constant; the medium through which it travels is the aether itself, as documented and proved carefully the classic experiment of G.B. Airy (1871).

I don't agree with the statement that Airy's experiment proved aether, however you are quite right that light travels through the aether.

Photons do NOT exist; the particles of light consist of Higgs bosons, see the material I presented at the alternative faq, the exact shape of the subquarks, through which the Higgs bosons travel, in various densities/arrangements of these subquarks (tachyons).

Now, to fully understand the significance of Airy's experiment, you must read this first:

http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/van_der_Togt_stellarab-final.pdf
http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/?page_id=38
http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/Stellar-Parallax
http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no115/par-ab-rev.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20110128095901/http://geocentricperspective.com/Negative%20parallax.htm

G. B. Airy's experiment (1871)

'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.)

It is interesting that the original short two page report merely lists the results and discusses the accuracy of the telescope used. There is not the slightest reference to the astonishing result that this experiment demonstrates - that the stars are moving round the stationary earth.

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

See also:  https://web.archive.org/web/20120206194913/http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Airy.htm (a must read)

In order to fully understand what an atom actually looks like please read:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg967040#msg967040

This is the actual configuration of a subquark (tachyon):

http://kendalastronomer.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/anu.jpg

We have a central column (the neutral part) which consists of a stream of Higgs bosons; these bosons, according to their vibrational speed, constitute what we call magnetism, light, levitation.

We also have two large groups of outer strings (the caduceus principle), made up of seven spirals each; seven ascending spirals, seven descending spirals (electricity, telluric currents, radiowaves, infrared waves, UV waves); this is the ACTUAL unified field theory.

There are four kinds of ethers (density):

E1 (anu): sub-quark level particles

E2: quark-level particles

E3: vector (spinning) and scalar (non-spinning) mesons

E4: protons

What these look like: http://www.alliancesforhumanity.com/matter/matter.htm

That is why the conspirators had to invent a very complicated theory (space-time, relativity) in order to hide these facts; they also created the concept of the photon, which does not actually exist at all.

Daniel wrote to me on Pm, this was my reply:



Daniel, I need to see what was posted there in the Moderators Forum, and offer a last answer there.

What I did to geekdhafi was in response to the long list of insults proliferated against me; you still did not offer to me a real or good enough reason for demodding me.

Is it because wilmore and jack and roundy can only offer some half-assed performances in the main forums, and have round earth supporters walk all over them? It doesn't take long, Daniel, to see what is going on; the mistakes in the official faq make it impossible for even Tom to properly defend flat earth theory.

I brought to this site, for the first time, the best data and information, so that any round earth proponents' arguments could be immediately crushed.

Without me here, you have NO WAY to defend or to argue the facts as they are listed in the main faq; RE have managed to prove that the sun cannot be 32 miles in diameter, that stratellites do not exist, that both UA and Infinite Earth gravity are but pipe dreams, and much more.

This should be your REAL concern, Daniel, the fact that it is my work which can be used to properly defend flat earth theory, while your other mods/admin cannot convince an amoeba that the earth is flat. While most of you here have strong emotional attachments to this forum, I do not mind or care if I am banned, or if my messages are deleted forever.

Please read again my messages in that thread at the Moderators Forum: you will see that I was right to attack geekdhafi, and that your admin staff DID NOT delete those two threads, which did include flaming, BECAUSE they wanted to eliminate my presence here, as my messages are a constant reminder of their own catastrophic understanding of flat earth/round earth theory.

Colonel daffy, wilmore, jack, roundy (to mention just these guys, I could include here some others) CANNOT help you to defend flat earth theory, as they are not qualified to argue the facts in the main faq; you can see daily the tremendous beating they are taking from RE, that is why they wanted to get rid of my presence here.


FOR JOHN DAVIS

You have really disappointed me, I expected much more from you; I attacked geekdhafi for some very right reasons, and what I wrote there about the flat earth movement is completely true.

Somebody wrote on the main forums:

John is also developing a model to explain phenomona associated with light, currently known as Aetheric Eddification Theory


Please do not use any of my ideas, theories, messages to build up your "aether" theory. Until I came here, YOU HAD NO IDEA whatsoever about the aether, what it is, how to refute special/general relativity and much more. Therefore, I will check carefully to see if you do use anything from my messages...please rely upon your own work to present an aether theory...

FOR JOHN DAVIS

You have really disappointed me, I expected much more from you; I attacked geekdhafi for some very right reasons, and what I wrote there about the flat earth movement is completely true.

I am one of the only ones that defended your moderator actions.  I have always defended your position as moderator and am largely responsible for you being put into place as moderator.  The situation quickly grew out of hand and so I attempted to talk to you reasonably.  You declined the offer and decided to continue posting in the same manner.  I noted that it was unacceptable to me and left the thread.  I don't think your insults were justified to be honest in respect to Gayer. 

Your behavior and attacks are not suited to someone of your obvious intellect and vision.  It hurts the image of this prestigious society if you are to act in a way like those who attack you.  You should be better than the plebs.  You say you are the one who is disappointed, but it is actually me.  I stood by your decisions, your work, and pretty much everything short of your insults and put myself in the line of fire.  I understand you are attacked personally constantly rather than your arguments and I hate it and have tried to stop it myself on multiple occasions.  The fact that you are trying to pin this on me is frankly ludicrous.  What happened was a result of your actions and your actions alone.  The entire staff was against them.  Its time to take responsibility for them.

I am one of the few people who did defend you and still does despite the huge amount of trouble it has caused me.  I put my name on the line to Daniel, the Flat Earth Society, and the members of this forum when I stood up for you every single time. And I would again.

I feel your work is extremely important and some of the most worth while reading on this site.  That however does not permit one to act like a savage uncultured animal or to attack others and break the rules of the site.

I would gladly defend a movement to reinstate you as a moderator, but only under the circumstances that you discontinue acting like the brutes you wish to refute.  Without that, there is no reason for you to be a moderator.  The position of moderator is to police the site.  It has nothing to do with beliefs or theories.

I also feel it is fair to note that the other moderators defended you in the thread.  There is no reason to think it was some scheme to demoderator or rid you from this site.  We don't want you banned.

Somebody wrote on the main forums:

John is also developing a model to explain phenomona associated with light, currently known as Aetheric Eddification Theory


Please do not use any of my ideas, theories, messages to build up your "aether" theory. Until I came here, YOU HAD NO IDEA whatsoever about the aether, what it is, how to refute special/general relativity and much more. Therefore, I will check carefully to see if you do use anything from my messages...please rely upon your own work to present an aether theory...

I have no interest in refuting relativity as they fit perfectly in my work and your theories on the aether are not of any particular interest to me as my findings show they are largely incorrect and at times misinterpret the data.  My revelations with aether predates reading your work as can be noted by simply doing a search of your posts.  However, if you feel I have encroached on your work feel free to message me in a civil manner and I'd be happy to discuss it and amend my work or cite you if they are valid.

I had hoped you would not try to take this out on me and we could maintain our current standings.  I wish this will be the case.

John has said pretty much everything. I respect your ideas and theories levee, and I have always defended your right to express them here at FES. You have made a huge contribution to this site in terms of content, and I thank you for both your work and your passion for Flat Earth Theory.


However, as a moderator it is not enough to defend Flat Earth Theory; you must also uphold and enforce the rules in a fair and consistent manner, even if it sometimes goes against your gut instinct. Furthermore, it is simply unacceptabel to insult members or your fellow moderators in the way you have. Not only are such insults against the rules (meaning you have repeatedly broken the rules you are supposed to enforce), but when used against other moderators it creates an unteneble situation. Moderators may enforce the site rules, but they are not above them, and must be held to the same standards as the members, if not higher.


I genuinely hope you will stay levee, and I can tell you that your posts will not be deleted, nor will your views be censored (provided they are expressed in a manner which conforms with the rules). Nobody here has any wish to ban you or "eliminate" your presence from this site. On the contrary, I think you bring ideas to FES that no-one else can, and that your contributions are unique and of great value. I have no wish to see you leave, and would much prefer if you remained as a contributing Believer.

I was not banned from the MF for insulting quackdaffy, we all know that; gayer had it coming for a long time...

The reason had more to do with the fact that you did everything possible to make me feel an outsider, someone who doesn't quite belong to your group.

Perhaps, wilmore, you do not realize what is going on here. Your FAQ is almost completely trash, and cannot be used to defend anything, let along flat earth theory.

Without my videos, my photographs, my research, the idea concerning the Tunguska explosion, the ISS solar transits, you have NOTHING here; it is my work which can be used to prove any facts or points concerning the flat earth theory.


John, you are part of a group that does not accept outsiders; also it is time to start a brand new FES, one which does away with the official faq, as it cannot be used for anything. Quackdaffy used some words which needed a very strong correction; but that is not the reason I was told to leave from there, it has more to do with the fact that none of you here can defend flat earth theory properly, that is why, should someone from outside come here and really show how to do it, all kinds of problems will arise.

Your wording re: the material you plan to use for the aether theory makes it very clear that you have NOTHING at your disposal aside from MY WORK here. Again, DO NOT USE any theories, research I presented here, let us see you start a brand new theory, and develop it to suit your purposes.

I was not banned from the MF for insulting quackdaffy, we all know that; gayer had it coming for a long time...

The reason had more to do with the fact that you did everything possible to make me feel an outsider, someone who doesn't quite belong to your group.

Perhaps, wilmore, you do not realize what is going on here. Your FAQ is almost completely trash, and cannot be used to defend anything, let along flat earth theory.

Without my videos, my photographs, my research, the idea concerning the Tunguska explosion, the ISS solar transits, you have NOTHING here; it is my work which can be used to prove any facts or points concerning the flat earth theory.


John, you are part of a group that does not accept outsiders; also it is time to start a brand new FES, one which does away with the official faq, as it cannot be used for anything. Quackdaffy used some words which needed a very strong correction; but that is not the reason I was told to leave from there, it has more to do with the fact that none of you here can defend flat earth theory properly, that is why, should someone from outside come here and really show how to do it, all kinds of problems will arise.

Your wording re: the material you plan to use for the aether theory makes it very clear that you have NOTHING at your disposal aside from MY WORK here. Again, DO NOT USE any theories, research I presented here, let us see you start a brand new theory, and develop it to suit your purposes.

My wording says no such thing.

your theories on the aether are not of any particular interest to me as my findings show they are largely incorrect and at times misinterpret the data.

I am only interested in creating local groups at the time and uniting them through the IAFEG.  I don't have the resources at this time to start up additional projects beyond this and my book.

Very well, DO NOT USE any research, theories, work which can be found in my messages, start your own research.

I have no interest in refuting relativity as they fit perfectly in my work and your theories on the aether are not of any particular interest to me as my findings show they are largely incorrect and at times misinterpret the data.

Reguardless of any personal interpretations he may have, I do concur with levee's interest in refuting relativity, and I do think that he at least has a legitimate motivation for most every position he takes.  Since I have not surveyed all your posts, I do have a question for John Davis.  Would you say that your work is to any significant part dependent upon relativity theory or would you merely say that relativity theory does not invalidate your work?  As to relativity theory, I think levee has the correct general idea.

I also think that levee's assertion that photons do not exist is correct.  (Like atoms and molecules,) They are only a model utilized to explain a phenomenon (in this case, light).  How good this model works is a matter of opinion, but photons are not visible.  Only the effects of such alleged photons are visible.

"The effects of this force are easily observable at both the microscopic and macroscopic level, because the photon has no rest mass"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

Thanks to levee for this excellent reference which I will print out tonight:
http://www.wbabin.net/science/schreiber12.pdf

I am also sympathetic to levee's call for another flat earth society, but I do have a word about what such a society should be based upon.  Ultimately, the only difference I really have with levee is his insistence upon his own personal analysis to be the only one acceptable for others (a problem which I also had with much of modern so-called scientists in university).  I honestly do not know even a single person whom I know for a fact agrees with me in every single detail about everything imaginable.  It is not good for people to be robots.  God gave us ALL a mind, and it is good for each of us to realize that as good as it is, the human mind also has limits.  I only know one other flat earth believer on these forums who has my own faith, and he has not been the source of any cosmological knowledge.  Therefore, if any flat earth society were not based upon faith, then it should I believe give preeminence to Euclid's policy of raw observable facts (as opposed to Baconian hypotheses which are sophisticated excuses for passing off one's own opinion as fact).  This is not singling levee out.  An abundance of opinions as opposed to raw observable facts is the source of every technical disagreement I have with levee or with anyone else.  I consider Daniel's upwardly moving earth theory to be at least as erroneous as levee's aether theory.

As to levee's aether theory, I perhaps concur more with John Davis.  I have not surveyed levee's posts thoroughly enough to make a sweeping denunciation, but on some occasions it seems to me that levee uses aether as a one-stop explanation for otherwise indefensible positions.  I have stated before the example of Rowbotham's model of a sun about 800 miles overhead the earth.  Given a flat earth, this figure is obtainable via simultaneous observation of the angle of the sun above the horizon at two points along the same longitudinal line followed by elementary trigonometry. 
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm

Levee, however, insists that the sun is located about ten miles above the earth which is not at all corroborated by basic trigonometry, but only by levee's explanation that aether distorts sunlight which accounts for the erroneous observation.  If somebody else believes this, then that is their business, but such an argument is unacceptable as far as I am concerned.

I recommend to the administrators levee as moderator, and I also recommend to levee to relax and perhaps avoid responding to idiots in the regular forums.  Continue to post your unabridged opinions on this forum or John Davis's forum.  Not everyone agrees with your opinions of the information you find on every point, but so what?  I recommend to everyone that levee be reguarded as the greatest researcher - that's is what he is best at - and as good an analyst as any (which is different from infallibility).  To quote our beloved Saint Paul (  ) 'The eye cannot say to the hand that "I have no need of thee."'

Two final questions for levee:

1) What is your opinion of the (1870) Vatican I doctrine of papal infallibility?

I ask this questions for two reasons:

a) You seem to me similar to the papacy in your reliance upon your own reason - both of which tendencies are I believe products of the eighteenth century "enlightenment" although a thread of papal ultramontanism (i.e. dictatorship)(as well as the "renaissance", "enlightenment" and other deformities of the west) can be traced to the eleventh century when the Vatican left the Church.

The following historical analysis is applicable to the rise of darkened human reasoning which is responsible for contradictory and false religions, erroneous ideologies, and pseudo-sciences.


b) You and I are unlike most persons here who are mostly not (yet) too knowledgeable of ancient flat earth belief which leads me to conclude that you to some extent deliberately ignore the prime role of the early Church in reviving and maintaining belief in the true figure of the earth - flat.  This is the same Church which in Oecumenical synods stated that the human mind does have specific limits beyond which it delves into delusion...

Did the Christians of the first millenium come to a belief in a flat earth because someone such as yourself talked to them about atomic analysis, etc. or because of their faith and a simple readiness to believe what they actually observed?

2) Although this is very off topic, I thought it might interrupt a monotonous trend in this thread:
Since thou art Romanian, what is your opinion of Paschalis Kitromilides's analysis of causes of balkan fratricidal nationalism (which he finds in enlightenment ideologies)?  Incidentally, Kitromilides is the founder and president of the Centre For Asia Minor Studies in Athens.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21778058/Κιτρομηλίδης-Εθνικό-ζήτημα-στα-Βαλκάνια

http://www.amazon.com/Enlightenment-Nationalism-Orthodoxy-Political-South-Eastern/product-reviews/0860784436/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

+Dionysios

I don't have the resources at this time to start up additional projects beyond this and my book.

You're writing a book?

By the way, is Clovis yet a member of the True Believer forum?

The Rowbotham illustration of the Earth at a side view actually shows the sun's light fading into blackness.



The little shaded parts give away that it is merely light fading away. It's not an enormous Ice Wall keeping in the atmosphere. I'm not sure why anyone would come to that conclusion.

The only Ice Wall referenced in Earth Not a Globe are the vast 150 foot Ice Shelves along the Antarctic coast. As for what Rowbotham says about what exists beyond the shelves, he states:

All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness.

Rowbotham clearly states gloom and darkness, not a  80,000 foot wall of ice.

As for what keeps the atmosphere in, it is surely unknown, but I have a hypothesis on the Wiki: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Atmolayer+Lip+Hypothesis

Mr. Tom, I have to say that I respect your tendency to keep to the basics.  Your point about Rowbotham's true and exact stated viewpoints concerning the outer edges of the known world is worthy of consideration.  Although I myself do not infer that such things are impossible to know, you do seem to have an exact grasp of this particular point with reguard to Rowbotham's views. 

In spite of the fact that Rowbotham did not subscribe to the UA theory, Tom Bishop is perhaps the greatest Rowbotham loyalist on these forums and also one of the most astute students of Rowbotham on this website. 

So Rowbotham is apparently not guilty of the ludicrous belief in a 150' wall of ice along the perimitre of the entire world - an error mistakenly and wrongly attributed to him by shallow readers who have made an unwarranted assumption. 

When I get the chance, I might refer to the original smaller 1865 edition of 'Earth Not a Globe' to see if it contains the statement that "All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice, extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness."

It is but a petty point, but if that initial 1865 edition does not contain that statement, then it means that Rowbotham realized its necessity and included it in the expanded 1872 edition in order to clarify that he does not believe that the entire perimetre of the world is enclosed by the aforementioned absurd ice wall.

Tom Bishop has provided an astute analysis which is a much needed vindication of Samuel Rowbotham.

EDIT:  Once again thanks to Tom Bishop, I now see that the 1865 edition which I obtained and photocopied through inter-library loan all those years ago is now online!

http://books.google.com/books?id=oTUDAAAAQAAJ&printsec=titlepage#v=onepage&q&f=false

Currently, I see a McIntyre-Bishop model forming because both the McIntyre and the Bishop model use Photoelectric Suspension and Universal Accelerator. I think it is a great leap towards a unified FET.

Thank you for your interest in all of these things, Jack.

I wanted to mention that Samuel Rowbotham, Samuel Shenton, Charles Johnson, John Davis, levee, and myself (and among others I would imagine "Clovis2" as well) do not subscribe to the UA theory or any notion of a moving earth which seems to have only originated AFTER this website was founded in about May of 2005.  In the consenting opinion of all of the above named individuals, the earth does not move and the notion that it does is an artificial fabrication and falsehood.

This is the truth.  You might have the FAQ otherwise, but do know that it does represent only a minority and not either the current majority nor historical consensus of flat earth believers in this matter.

I was not banned from the MF for insulting quackdaffy, we all know that; gayer had it coming for a long time...

Well, actually that is why you were demodded.

The reason had more to do with the fact that you did everything possible to make me feel an outsider, someone who doesn't quite belong to your group.

I really don't think I have done any such thing, and wish to state for the record that I think you and your theories are an asset to the society, and I hope you stay. That's really all I have to say.

Anyone for tea?  

I just brewed some CHAMOMILE.  
--------------------------------------

As to the perimetre of the world, levee is correct that the 'Book of Enoch' should serve as a guide,
although our interpretations of the Book of Enoch may differ to some extent
(note that I advocated this before he came to the forum).  
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=4233.0

I generally believe in letting texts speak for themselves.  In the case of the Book of Enoch, that implies a rectangular world which includes the twelve storehouses of the winds (three on each side) located along its perimetre.

At any rate, the Book of Enoch is in my opinion the chief of all pre-Christian sources of cosmography.

Quote from: John Davis

I don't have the resources at this time to start up additional projects beyond this and my book.

You're writing a book?

By the way, is Clovis yet a member of the True Believer forum?

CLOVIS is here and most certainly a TRUE BELIEVER!I have been out fighting the globularists on varied sites and offline.But I am with you and a member of FES ! ORTHODOXY OR DEATH!

CLOVIS is here and most certainly a TRUE BELIEVER!I have been out fighting the globularists on varied sites and offline.  But I am with you and a member of FES ! ORTHODOXY OR DEATH!

Welcome!  

It is perhaps rare to come across someone of the such like belief.  We have perhaps more similar beliefs  than any other two flat earth believers on this forum.  

I must say out of respect for Levee (Sandokhan) that although our spiritual beliefs are irreconcilable with his positions, what I believe about science on the whole is probably closer to his (and vice-versa) than anyone else on the website - although they are not identical as you can tell from this thread.

I wanted to draw your attention to the possibility that an english translation of an important early Christian flat earth text is waiting to be published most probably by Oxford Medieval Texts.  I am referring to the 'Cosmography' of Aethicus of Istria translated (but so far unpublished) by Michael W. Herren.

Might you be so good as to mention or recommend one of the websites to which you refer to (at least via PM)?

Also, I would be amiss if I did not announce to everyone else the fact that 'Clovis2' is a former subscriber of Charles Johnson's Flat Earth News from at least as far back as the early 1980's.  He has to my knowledge been a flat earth believer longer than anyone on this forum including myself, Daniel, FlatEarth88, Levee, or anyone else.  
All hail the senior member!  

And indeed, CHRISTIAN ORTHODOXY OR DEATH.

Quote from: 17 November on July 10, 2010, 11:50:30 PM

Quote from: John Davis

I don't have the resources at this time to start up additional projects beyond this and my book.

You're writing a book?

By the way, is Clovis yet a member of the True Believer forum?

CLOVIS is here and most certainly a TRUE BELIEVER!I have been out fighting the globularists on varied sites and offline.But I am with you and a member of FES ! ORTHODOXY OR DEATH!

Do you happen to be a member of a local group?  I'm working on a movement to unite Flat Earthers world wide. 

I ... wish to state for the record that I think you and your theories are an asset to the society, and I hope you stay.

Levee's theories in his posts are initially a lot to wade through.  And it has errors, but these errors are a few which are often repeated.  Thus, once an error is identified (like his aether theory which serves as a one stop explanation when math doesn't support him), such erroneous ideas can be automatically discounted when searching his posts for "gems."

Reguardless of some of his ideas, Levee is quite a researcher.

Among other things, two of the chief gems which I have found so far in Levee's posts are:

1) Dr. Peter Beter, the late attorney and financier of the U.S. Export-Import Bank who back in the 1980's explained the basic details of how the space shuttle missions are rigged

2) While recognizing the falsity of the hollow earth movement's basic premise, Levee identified that many of those guys are experts at refuting modern cartography of the arctic north.

Levee and his research (not to mention passion) are a treasure to the movement. And while I agree that much time can be spent separating the wheat from the chaff, he undeniably is zealous. The current schism is regrettable.

Levee and his research (not to mention passion) are a treasure to the movement. And while I agree that much time can be spent separating the wheat from the chaff, he undeniably is zealous. The current schism is regrettable.

I agree.  If there is anything I could do to help bring him back to the fes, I would.  The only issue I see is his attitude.

Levee and his research (not to mention passion) are a treasure to the movement. And while I agree that much time can be spent separating the wheat from the chaff, he undeniably is zealous. The current schism is regrettable.

While I hope the best for him whatever he does, the material Levee already posted has enough mistakes to sort through.  Acceptance of bad information can be as harmful as ignorance.  In my opinion, the value of levee's posts took a nosedive before his sabbatical.  I am especially referring to Levee's "the world is literally 300 years old" theory of history which in my opinion ties globular theory as the most false concept ever posted on this website.

Quote from: Ski on October 21, 2010, 08:25:46 PM

Levee and his research (not to mention passion) are a treasure to the movement. And while I agree that much time can be spent separating the wheat from the chaff, he undeniably is zealous. The current schism is regrettable.

While I hope the best for him whatever he does, the material Levee already posted has enough mistakes to sort through.  Acceptance of bad information can be as harmful as ignorance.  In my opinion, the value of levee's posts took a nosedive before his sabbatical.  I am especially referring to Levee's "the world is literally 300 years old" theory of history which in my opinion ties globular theory as the most false concept ever posted on this website.

I don't bother much with the alternate history junk.  I'm interested in hard sciences.  Not social sciences.  Trying to dig apart history is a waste of time.  Its better to find real truth than the memory of the truth of inconsequential events.

His other work shows promise in some areas but as you point out it has a lot of bad information.