Medium of space image distortion.

Fellow advocates of truth, I have been viewing more and more posts from a fellow advocate, (Iwanttobeliev) who has  been continuously reposting essentially the same idea.  That the pictures and video capture or produced by NASA and other is actually how the disc earth appears through the  medium of space.  Ignoring the visible curvature in many of the pictures and footage (which is generous) a major point of contention would be the fact that in some of the photographs the (disc) shows only the continents of say, asia, the mid east, and a portion of africa.  While in another photo or video, it is clearly the north and south american continents which are only visible.  So the disc is constantly rearranging our continents?  Even if this is explained to other FE advocates satisfaction, we still must then throw away the orbit footage which effectively demonstrates this 'continent shifting', if the footage is in fact depicting a disc.  I have asked Iwanttobelieve about this in other threads and to no avail.  I hope to hear more about this here.  To ensure this thread gains  the  appropriate attention by the supporters of this idea.  I will private messege the dedicated fellow whom I believe first proposed this theory. 

Add. Also, I am speaking specifically of thosse photos and video depicting the eartth in its entirety.  I understand the edge of a disc is curved and would logically appear curved when observing the horizon from great altitude.  My contention is not with this fact.


                        Thank you all who submit comments. 

            Yours in truth.....Archibald Kleaver Kadysheski

It is really so much simpler with a RE!

Fellow advocates of truth, I have been viewing more and more posts from a fellow advocate, (Iwanttobeliev) who has  been continuously reposting essentially the same idea.  That the pictures and video capture or produced by NASA and other is actually how the disc earth appears through the  medium of space.

This is correct.

  Ignoring the visible curvature in many of the pictures and footage (which is generous)

And unnecessary

a major point of contention would be the fact that in some of the photographs the (disc) shows only the continents of say, asia, the mid east, and a portion of africa.  While in another photo or video, it is clearly the north and south american continents which are only visible.  So the disc is constantly rearranging our continents?  Even if this is explained to other FE advocates satisfaction, we still must then throw away the orbit footage which effectively demonstrates this 'continent shifting', if the footage is in fact depicting a disc.  I have asked Iwanttobelieve about this in other threads and to no avail.  I hope to hear more about this here.  To ensure this thread gains  the  appropriate attention by the supporters of this idea.  I will private messege the dedicated fellow whom I believe first proposed this theory. 

The apparent curvature of the earth is due to light being "bent" by the space medium.  More accurately it is not bent but that is beside the point of this discussion.

The aether above our locality is cycling in two cycles: one roughly a day and one roughly a year.  Also to take into account is centre-distance and altitude.

When you look down at the earth, the light from areas you cannot see (for example areas that would be an antipode to the center of your view of the earth in the round earth model)  are "bent" out of sight.   This is also the cause of the rotating heavens, different views of the heavens from various places on earth, and a host of other phenomenae.  Unfortunately, for the mathematical definition of this model one will have to wait until I finish my blasted book.

Add. Also, I am speaking specifically of thosse photos and video depicting the eartth in its entirety.  I understand the edge of a disc is curved and would logically appear curved when observing the horizon from great altitude.  My contention is not with this fact.

Quote from: Archibald on November 29, 2011, 02:31:29 PM

Fellow advocates of truth, I have been viewing more and more posts from a fellow advocate, (Iwanttobeliev) who has  been continuously reposting essentially the same idea.  That the pictures and video capture or produced by NASA and other is actually how the disc earth appears through the  medium of space.

This is correct.

Quote

  Ignoring the visible curvature in many of the pictures and footage (which is generous)

And unnecessary

Quote

a major point of contention would be the fact that in some of the photographs the (disc) shows only the continents of say, asia, the mid east, and a portion of africa.  While in another photo or video, it is clearly the north and south american continents which are only visible.  So the disc is constantly rearranging our continents?  Even if this is explained to other FE advocates satisfaction, we still must then throw away the orbit footage which effectively demonstrates this 'continent shifting', if the footage is in fact depicting a disc.  I have asked Iwanttobelieve about this in other threads and to no avail.  I hope to hear more about this here.  To ensure this thread gains  the  appropriate attention by the supporters of this idea.  I will private messege the dedicated fellow whom I believe first proposed this theory. 

The apparent curvature of the earth is due to light being "bent" by the space medium.  More accurately it is not bent but that is beside the point of this discussion.

The aether above our locality is cycling in two cycles: one roughly a day and one roughly a year.  Also to take into account is centre-distance and altitude.

When you look down at the earth, the light from areas you cannot see (for example areas that would be an antipode to the center of your view of the earth in the round earth model)  are "bent" out of sight.   This is also the cause of the rotating heavens, different views of the heavens from various places on earth, and a host of other phenomenae.  Unfortunately, for the mathematical definition of this model one will have to wait until I finish my blasted book.

Quote

Add. Also, I am speaking specifically of thosse photos and video depicting the eartth in its entirety.  I understand the edge of a disc is curved and would logically appear curved when observing the horizon from great altitude.  My contention is not with this fact.

It is bent light which accounts for what I have expediently labeled as 'continent shifting'?  If so, please explain the difference from celestial bending and  bendy light, which seems to be such a proverbial topic these days.

Bendy light is a crude theory that talks almost specifically about light near the earths surface to explain sinking ship.

Aetheric alterations on light takes into account your rimdistance, the cycle of the heavens, and your altitude.   Aetheric alterations could explain what bendy light claims to explain, as well as the heavens and our view of the earth from the heavens.

It is bent light which accounts for what I have expediently labeled as 'continent shifting'?

In my opinion, it is. The "border" of the visible disc is not the edge of the earth, but the border of the area from where light rays can reach the observer:



Light rays from this border start actually tangentially to the earth plane and are bent upwards. This also explains the apparrent "curvature" of earth, which is actually an optical illusion.

As for celestial bending, I'm not yet familiar with this concept (as I'm new here).

This is a very crude and basic depiction of what is happening but I suppose it serves to get hte point across a bit better than my babble.  Serves me right for spending a few hours the other day trying to draw this a bit more accurately and failing

Quote from: Lightbender on November 30, 2011, 11:25:55 AM

This is a very crude and basic depiction of what is happening but I suppose it serves to get hte point across a bit better than my babble.  Serves me right for spending a few hours the other day trying to draw this a bit more accurately and failing

What then of those photographs and video of the earth while the sun is located behind the earth?  Those beautifully depicted scenes of the earth while there is no direct light on the portion being  observed.  Then in real time we watch as the light from the sun is cast over to illuminate the earth from one side to the other.  What type of bending allows for this?

What then of those photographs and video of the earth while the sun is located behind the earth?  Those beautifully depicted scenes of the earth while there is no direct light on the portion being  observed.  Then in real time we watch as the light from the sun is cast over to illuminate the earth from one side to the other.  What type of bending allows for this?

That happens when the observer enters the illuminated zone :

The aether above our locality is cycling in two cycles: one roughly a day and one roughly a year.  Also to take into account is centre-distance and altitude.

When you look down at the earth, the light from areas you cannot see (for example areas that would be an antipode to the center of your view of the earth in the round earth model)  are "bent" out of sight.   This is also the cause of the rotating heavens, different views of the heavens from various places on earth, and a host of other phenomenae.  Unfortunately, for the mathematical definition of this model one will have to wait until I finish my blasted book.

Is this an exceprt from the book? Wow, we are privileged. One might almost believe the book really existed.

You can find that by doing a simple forum search.  Of course, I could care less if you believed it existed or not.

Of course, I could care less if you believed it existed or not.

So what you're saying is that you could care less than you do now? In other words, you do care about what I believe? How heartwarming.

Quote from: Lightbender on November 30, 2011, 11:25:55 AM

This is a very crude and basic depiction of what is happening but I suppose it serves to get hte point across a bit better than my babble.  Serves me right for spending a few hours the other day trying to draw this a bit more accurately and failing

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51849.0

You are supposed to have read this already.

Quote from: John Davis on November 30, 2011, 12:09:33 PM

Quote from: Lightbender on November 30, 2011, 11:25:55 AM

This is a very crude and basic depiction of what is happening but I suppose it serves to get hte point across a bit better than my babble.  Serves me right for spending a few hours the other day trying to draw this a bit more accurately and failing

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51849.0

You are supposed to have read this already.

That has nothing to do with my work.  I don't read every thread on the forums, sorry.  I'll take a look at it later.

Quote from: John Davis on December 01, 2011, 06:16:45 AM

Of course, I could care less if you believed it existed or not.

So what you're saying is that you could care less than you do now? In other words, you do care about what I believe? How heartwarming.

Apologies for the mistake.  You are right, I did mean couldn't.

Did an experiment ever showed the bendy nature of light?

Did an experiment ever showed the bendy nature of light?

Yes, the Bedford Levels Experiment as performed by Parallax (Samuel Birley Rowbotham).  Oh, wait.  It showed the other thing.

I wish Daniel would post the results of his recreation of the experiment.

Why, did Daniel's results support the notion of bendy light?

Why, did Daniel's results support the notion of bendy light?

I don't know, that's why I'm interested in it. 

So, under whatever this theory of light distortion is called, are the distances from earth to the moon, sun, ect are what NASA and others claim them to be? 

As far as we can know, they are similar.

If light (and therefore radar) is bendy, then the optical distance from the Earth to the Moon would be different than the physical distance. Our most accurate measurements of the distance from the Earth to the moon are based on radar, as shown below...

http://www.k3pgp.org/1946eme.htm

As far as we can know, they are similar.

Is the distance between the Earth and the Moon 3,000 miles (FET) or 384 400 km (RET)?

Why are you saying similar?

Quote from: John Davis on December 04, 2011, 09:30:03 PM

As far as we can know, they are similar.

Is the distance between the Earth and the Moon 3,000 miles (FET) or 384 400 km (RET)?

Why are you saying similar?

Excellent  question brother, I was wondering  the same thing.

As far as we can know, it seems to be similar to RET.  I say similar, because the numbers for round earth theory are based off of round earth theory, and therefore have some inherent issues with them.  However, its a lot closer to 384,400 km than to 4,828 km.

How does a moon some 384,000 km high set below the horizon?

How does a moon some 384,000 km high set below the horizon?

Excellent question brother, I was wondering the same thing.

The same way the sun does.  Through the regular distortion of lights path via the space medium.

The same way the sun does.  Through the regular distortion of lights path via the space medium.

Care to show how that happens?

If light (and therefore radar) is bendy, then the optical distance from the Earth to the Moon would be different than the physical distance. Our most accurate measurements of the distance from the Earth to the moon are based on radar, as shown below...

http://www.k3pgp.org/1946eme.htm

This gives us another interesting disproof of bendy light.
If a radar beam is pointed at the moon, unless the moon is directly overhead then the radar beam would curve to get there. When it arrives at the moon's surface, it is travelling at a different angle to that we sent it at. The beam would reflect off the moon perpendicularly to the average shape of its surface, or directly perpendicularly from a retroreflector suach as placed by astronauts. This means on the way back, since it didn't leave the moon at the same angle it left earth, it will be bent by a different amount of curvature and therefore not arrive back at its starting point. It leaves the moon at an angle nearer to vertical, since the claimed curve is upwards, and therefore suffers less bending.
This is like shooting fish in a barrel.