Too HIGH to LIE!

  • 67 Replies
  • 8905 Views
*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #30 on: November 04, 2014, 03:49:57 AM »
As i have already pointed out several times, concave earth idiotic theory is obviously utilized with purpose of drawing parallels with FET in order to discredit FET and distract and confuse thoughts of a sincere thinkers. In fact, we should make parallels between concave earth idiotic theory and RET which is evenly idiotic theory as it is Concave Earth theory!

One more thing: as long as you (mr Sungenis and other geocentrists) are not brave enough to say the whole truth, you are just going to make things worse...

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Film Shocker! Does the Universe Revolve Around Earth?

That is why i pose this question: Are geocentrists even much greater and much more dangerous mischief-makers than all heliocentrists and all concave earthers together?

I think they are!
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #31 on: November 04, 2014, 05:34:22 AM »
As i have already pointed out several times, concave earth idiotic theory is obviously utilized with purpose of drawing parallels with FET in order to discredit FET and distract and confuse thoughts of a sincere thinkers. In fact, we should make parallels between concave earth idiotic theory and RET which is evenly idiotic theory as it is Concave Earth theory!

One more thing: as long as you (mr Sungenis and other geocentrists) are not brave enough to say the whole truth, you are just going to make things worse...

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Film Shocker! Does the Universe Revolve Around Earth?

That is why i pose this question: Are geocentrists even much greater and much more dangerous mischief-makers than all heliocentrists and all concave earthers together?

I think they are!

Who are you talking about? I asked Sculelos a question, and I am still waiting for his reply. Who is Mr Sungenis and what exactly he has to do with this thread? Please don't water down the discussion by placing the focus somewhere else.

By the way, if you haven't noticed most people here don't believe in Concave Earth, Geocentrism, or even flat Earth even though that is the forum's name. I would say this is a place for people who like arguing and skepticism.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2014, 05:45:05 AM by Saros »

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #32 on: November 04, 2014, 06:00:25 AM »
Do you want to know the horizon is always in the center of the frame in most of these pictures at the edge of space? Because the photographer put the horizon in the center of the frame. You can put the horizon anywhere you want as a photographer. Bottom of the frame, top, hey, even the side. All you have to do is move the camera. Considering that lots of pictures take from the edge of space have the horizon as the primary subject of the photograph then it makes plenty of sense that the subject is centered.

Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #33 on: November 04, 2014, 06:13:16 AM »
Do you want to know the horizon is always in the center of the frame in most of these pictures at the edge of space? Because the photographer put the horizon in the center of the frame. You can put the horizon anywhere you want as a photographer. Bottom of the frame, top, hey, even the side. All you have to do is move the camera. Considering that lots of pictures take from the edge of space have the horizon as the primary subject of the photograph then it makes plenty of sense that the subject is centered.

Very good point! It is the same principle when we see the horizon at eye level without a camera. The eye acts like a "camera" and the 'horizon' is simply lined up with the pupil, that is why it is at eye level. If we look up, the horizon will be below the 'eye level' and so on.

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #34 on: November 04, 2014, 07:07:56 AM »
« Last Edit: November 04, 2014, 07:12:22 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #35 on: November 04, 2014, 07:13:07 AM »
That's anything but a good point, that's rubbish: http://www.energeticforum.com/258305-post198.html ....http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za13.htm ....  http://www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen2/full22.html  .... http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za20.htm .... http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za15.htm

Why does rowbotham think the sides of an image should be lower than the middle? The horizon is equidistant from the observer in all directions. He has no clue what he is talking about.

In any case, are you suggesting that you can't move the horizon in an image by simply moving (by rotating up or down) the camera?
« Last Edit: November 04, 2014, 07:14:59 AM by rottingroom »

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #36 on: November 04, 2014, 08:16:47 AM »
Put this together in my free time for people who think this concept is confusing.



*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #37 on: November 04, 2014, 08:36:03 AM »
I think for him to retain one last shred of credibility, cikljamas needs to refrain from repeatedly citing two sources for his so-called "evidence".

1)   Samuel Rowbotham
2)   energeticforum.com

The first guy—and his "experiments" of 150 years ago—have been more than totally debunked on these forum pages.  No more need be said.

The second (forum) is part of something known as the "Energetic Science Ministries" which is run by some whack-job named Aaron Murakami who describes himself as a "Spiritual Entrepreneur".  The only purported "qualification" he lays claim to (a phony Bachelor of Science in Natural Health) was obtained from what's known in the trade as a diploma mill;  in this case the Clayton College of Natural Health, in Alabama, and which was shut down in July 2010 after a massive class-action (5,000+ plaintiffs) case of fraud was brought to court.

However... if you want a good laugh to brighten up a dull work day, and marvel at some gullible people's stupidity, by all means check out the site HERE.  You won't believe some of the pseudo-scientific drivel they publish... and charge for LOL.


?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #38 on: November 04, 2014, 08:53:19 AM »
The second (forum) is part of something known as the "Energetic Science Ministries" which is run by some whack-job named Aaron Murakami who describes himself as a "Spiritual Entrepreneur".  The only purported "qualification" he lays claim to (a phony Bachelor of Science in Natural Health) was obtained from what's known in the trade as a diploma mill;  in this case the Clayton College of Natural Health, in Alabama, and which was shut down in July 2010 after a massive class-action (5,000+ plaintiffs) case of fraud was brought to court.

The worst part is that his links to energetic forum are to his own posts.

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #39 on: November 04, 2014, 09:39:36 AM »
Right after spitting on "150 years" "argument" we won't have to wait too long to see how you and your round-head friends welcome "2500 years" (Eratosthenes & Pythagoras & co.) old "arguments"... :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

Now, without help of Eratosthenes & co., how would you answer to this 150 years old question:

A line stretched horizontally before the observer would not only show the various elevations of the land, but would also show the declination of the horizon H, H, below the cross-line S, S. The fifty miles length of the Welsh coast seen along the horizon in Liverpool Bay, would have a declination from the centre of at least 416 feet (252 x .8 inches = 416 feet 8 inches). But as such declination, or downward curvation, cannot be detected, the conclusion is logically inevitable that it has no existence. Let the reader seriously ask whether any and what reason exists in Nature to prevent the fall of more than 400 feet being visible to the eye, or incapable of detection by any optical or mathematical means whatever. This question is especially important when it is considered that at the same distance, and on the upper outline of the same land, changes of level of only a few yards extent are quickly and unmistakably perceptible.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za13.htm
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #40 on: November 04, 2014, 10:09:37 AM »
Right after spitting on "150 years" "argument" we won't have to wait too long to see how you and your round-head friends welcome "2500 years" (Eratosthenes & Pythagoras & co.) old "arguments"... :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

Now, without help of Eratosthenes & co., how would you answer to this 150 years old question:

A line stretched horizontally before the observer would not only show the various elevations of the land, but would also show the declination of the horizon H, H, below the cross-line S, S. The fifty miles length of the Welsh coast seen along the horizon in Liverpool Bay, would have a declination from the centre of at least 416 feet (252 x .8 inches = 416 feet 8 inches). But as such declination, or downward curvation, cannot be detected, the conclusion is logically inevitable that it has no existence. Let the reader seriously ask whether any and what reason exists in Nature to prevent the fall of more than 400 feet being visible to the eye, or incapable of detection by any optical or mathematical means whatever. This question is especially important when it is considered that at the same distance, and on the upper outline of the same land, changes of level of only a few yards extent are quickly and unmistakably perceptible.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za13.htm

You really have this concept wrong. Again, the horizon is equidistant from the observer in every direction. There should be no declination on a round earth. If you need proof then grab a basketball and put your eyeball right next to the ball and try to look out to the horizon of the basketball as if you were an ant. In every direction, that horizon is the same height.

Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #41 on: November 04, 2014, 10:44:40 AM »
252 x .8 inches = 416 feet 8 inches

 ???

252 x .8 inches = 201.6 inches = 16 feet 9.6 inches.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #42 on: November 04, 2014, 11:05:07 AM »
50miles * 50miles = 2500 * 8inches = 20 000 * 2,5 cm = 50 000 / 100 = 500 meters

500 meters / 4 = 125 meters

416 feets * 30 cm = 12480 cm = 125 meters

416 feets = 125 meters
« Last Edit: November 04, 2014, 11:19:44 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #43 on: November 04, 2014, 11:06:25 AM »
The poster accidentally posted the picture right side up, I mean, upside down. ( from the poster's perspective) making stuff up get's confusing when your mind knows the correct information, so the picture got placed the way the poster realizes is true. Also, all FEs are Geocentric by default, you don't get a choice on that one. That would make the North Pole the true center of the universe and thus, likely, special to this theology. Why do the FEs not move to the North Pole if this is so ? Finally, there is no model for FE or Concave Earth that explains "heavenly " objects rising from the horizon, appearing to come out of the ground, which are visible from any point on Earth. There isn't enough physical room. There would always be a visible gap between the horizon and the first star. Very imaginative work though. If this energy were channeled into science fiction, I would definitely read your work. Sorry about the FE thing though.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #44 on: November 04, 2014, 11:17:14 AM »
What are the units of 252? Where does that come from?

Also, why does it matter, there is no reason to assume there should be an declination.

Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #45 on: November 04, 2014, 11:24:04 AM »
Sculelos, since when do you believe the ISS is real? That image from space looks totally like CGI. Even if it were authentic, you can't possibly know where the true horizon should be, because you don't know how the camera is pointed or the ISS itself for that matter, as it has been already suggested by others here.

Furthermore, when you said that if 'if it is up it bends down, and if it is down it bends up' you basically said that what we see in images is not real, and we cannot base any conclusions on them even if they are genuine and not fake.

Also, about the concave Earth theory, there is no meaningful explanation why we can see the Moon above the horizon, but we cannot see land which is 1000 km away in the sky above the horizon. What allows us to see the Moon, but prevents us from seeing continental land masses in the sky?

Not to mention that if Earth were concave you would be able to extend a pipe up into the sky and reach another city eventually.

Why would I believe that the ISS is fake? I also believe we landed on the Moon and also that NASA sent two rovers to Mars as well. Space travel actually isn't incompatible with concave Earth theory like some say it is.

As for the reasons why we can see the Moon in the Sky, well probably the same reason we can see the Stars in the sky, it's because firstly we can see about 50% of the stars in the sky at any given point in time from one single angle. This should prove that either the sky is a concentric sphere and rotating inside the Earth or that the Earth is a concentric sphere and rotating itself. It can not be a concentric sphere which is not rotating nor can it be flat unless the sky itself is flat and also rotating in two opposite directions but even then it still doesn't line up with a flat earth. If you believe in any flat Earth map then you also must believe that you physically grow in size the closer you get to the poles, plus I'm pretty sure the idea of an Ice-Wall surrounding the Earth is a pretty rediculas notion seeing as how we have actually mapped the entire Earth and have not seen anything and with the thousands of satellites orbiting the Earth in every direction (East, West, North, South) I'm pretty sure we would have satellites fly off into the universe every day if it was flat. Simply put satellites are an impossibility if you believe in the flat Earth theory.

As for the ISS photo, I suppose you are right in that I do not in-fact know what angle the ship was pointing at. I leveled the camera assuming the horizon should be below the thrusters assuming the thrusters were level with the Earth as they almost always are. However I have done my own test to measure the curvature of the Earth and have personally determined the Earth to curve up. Cyrus Teed of course did the same thing over 100 years ago and found out the same thing.

As for light itself I am a little unsure of how it works, for starters light only works be reflection off surfaces of objects so if the angle is up then the reflection angle will bounce at an upward angle if the Earth is concave so to your perspective any light rays that are higher then your eye level will also be higher then your eyes so you would not be able to see them but that would also explain why you can in-fact see further when you go on higher ground. If Earth was flat/convex then the horizon should go significantly lower then eye level at very low altitudes because light always travels in straight lines away from the surface it bounces off of if the object it hits is concave it will travel higher then a level observers sight where if it is a convex or flat surface it should always be lower then it is. True objects should always therefore be subjectively lower then level if they are flat or convex and right at eye level if it is concave.

As far as images go, yes we cannot exclusively base our opinions based on visual imagery. Of course the only thing I really have to compare Earth to is footage of the Moon and Mars and based on what I have seen the Moon seems to curve downward based on what I have seen of their horizon, like take this image, it definitely looks like the Moon curves downward as the horizon line is well below eye level compared to the Earth where the horizon is always at eye level.



About this bit
Quote from: Saros
Not to mention that if Earth were concave you would be able to extend a pipe up into the sky and reach another city eventually.

I think this is actually impossible because your pipe would shrink the further and further it went into space. In fact space is big, like 6 light days across by my measurements where Earth is literally only about .134 light seconds across on the surface. Of course this is also why you can't in fact see contents above your eye-line because light only travels so far and the reflections of light after travelling 12 days from one end of the Universe to the other would literally only appear like points of light in the heavens or stars after it would have been diminished quite badly. I'm not exactly sure how far light can travel anyways before it diminishes into the invisible background radiation level though. Probably not very long, only the most reflective points on Earth become stars in the heavens, all other energies seem to be absorbed by these point light sources. Of course planets are layers.






 

Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #46 on: November 04, 2014, 11:29:18 AM »
Finally, there is no model for FE or Concave Earth that explains "heavenly " objects rising from the horizon, appearing to come out of the ground, which are visible from any point on Earth. There isn't enough physical room.

Well said, however, if those celestial bodies are not real, tangible, solid objects what then?

Is it reasonable to base our understanding of the Earth on sky observations?


?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #47 on: November 04, 2014, 11:29:50 AM »
As far as images go, yes we cannot exclusively base our opinions based on visual imagery. Of course the only thing I really have to compare Earth to is footage of the Moon and Mars and based on what I have seen the Moon seems to curve downward based on what I have seen of their horizon, like take this image, it definitely looks like the Moon curves downward as the horizon line is well below eye level compared to the Earth where the horizon is always at eye level.

The explanation for that is simple. The moon curves more per unit distance because it is smaller than the earth.

Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #48 on: November 04, 2014, 11:49:37 AM »
As far as images go, yes we cannot exclusively base our opinions based on visual imagery. Of course the only thing I really have to compare Earth to is footage of the Moon and Mars and based on what I have seen the Moon seems to curve downward based on what I have seen of their horizon, like take this image, it definitely looks like the Moon curves downward as the horizon line is well below eye level compared to the Earth where the horizon is always at eye level.

The explanation for that is simple. The moon curves more per unit distance because it is smaller than the earth.

It seems to me that you can't see very far on the Moon either. Perhaps only a few hundred feet before the horizon levels off your sight, so why is it that you can't see very far on the Moon and that the Moon also appears like a sphere from your point of view but the Earth always appears like the inside of a bowl no matter even if you are 200 miles above the surface? Theory should be that yea at ground level you should be able to see about .72 miles at least (at about 5.5 ft high) on the Moon, why can't you see more then say 707 ft in this photo (.133 of a mile) by Earth curvature calculations you should be able to see about 5.28 times further.


?

blnjms

  • 162
  • Just another RE'er
Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #49 on: November 04, 2014, 11:50:46 AM »
As far as images go, yes we cannot exclusively base our opinions based on visual imagery. Of course the only thing I really have to compare Earth to is footage of the Moon and Mars and based on what I have seen the Moon seems to curve downward based on what I have seen of their horizon, like take this image, it definitely looks like the Moon curves downward as the horizon line is well below eye level compared to the Earth where the horizon is always at eye level.

The explanation for that is simple. The moon curves more per unit distance because it is smaller than the earth.

How can you believe in space travel and think that the earth isn't simply round??? I don't get it!

It seems to me that you can't see very far on the Moon either. Perhaps only a few hundred feet before the horizon levels off your sight, so why is it that you can't see very far on the Moon and that the Moon also appears like a sphere from your point of view but the Earth always appears like the inside of a bowl no matter even if you are 200 miles above the surface? Theory should be that yea at ground level you should be able to see about .72 miles at least (at about 5.5 ft high) on the Moon, why can't you see more then say 707 ft in this photo (.133 of a mile) by Earth curvature calculations you should be able to see about 5.28 times further.



Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #50 on: November 04, 2014, 11:52:28 AM »
Sculelos, big thanks for the elaborate post.

Now if you believe the Earth is concave, but the planets and the Moon are real, solid objects inside the sphere, could you please share your ideas about their size? Obviously, if you're right they must be much smaller than officially claimed. But if they are much smaller how come we see them consistently with the RE model? The Moon is seen over large territories simultaneously. If it were much smaller that wouldn't be possible, at least not in the way it is currently seen. The same thing goes for the Sun. If the Sun was inside the sphere, it would be really difficult to do its job the way it does now. I haven't seen a meaningful working model for that yet. Wild Heretic pretends to have figured it out, but in my impression the results are far from conclusive and convincing. That is why he suggests a lot of what we see in the sky is an illusion. At least he realizes the astronomical observations don't really support concave Earth, but you seem to be oblivious to that. I don't see how the planets and the Moon can be real and the Earth is concave or flat. Anyone who believes in flat or concave Earth should necessarily try to destroy the current belief that the celestial bodies are real objects. Otherwise, it will never make any sense.

« Last Edit: November 04, 2014, 11:55:24 AM by Saros »

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #51 on: November 04, 2014, 11:56:32 AM »
why is it that you can't see very far on the Moon and that the Moon also appears like a sphere from your point of view but the Earth always appears like the inside of a bowl no matter even if you are 200 miles above the surface?

Well, it doesn't. We can calculate the distance to the horizon using the known curvature and you can verify that the distance is correct.

I understand that YOU THINK it looks concave but you have to understand that when you say that, it makes me think you are blind.

Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #52 on: November 04, 2014, 12:23:26 PM »
50miles * 50miles = 2500 * 8inches = 20 000 * 2,5 cm = 50 000 / 100 = 500 meters

500 meters / 4 = 125 meters

416 feets * 30 cm = 12480 cm = 125 meters

416 feets = 125 meters

What does any of this mean?

50 miles * 50 miles = 2500 miles2 (this is an area)

2500 miles2 * 8 inches = 20,000 in mi2 (this is a volume)

20,000 in mi2 * 2.5 cm/in = 50,000 cm mi2 (still a volume)

50,000 cm mi2 / (100 cm/m) = 500 m mi2 ( " )

500 m mi2 / 4 = 125 m mi2  (still a volume, but why divide by 4?)

If you want the answer in feet instead of meters, why not just convert 20,000 inches to feet by dividing by 12?

20,000 in mi2 / (12 in/ft) = 1666.67 ft mi2

1666.67 ft mi2 / 4 = 416.67 ft mi2 = (416 ft 8 in)mi2 (still a volume)

What does this volume represent?

If this is in reply to:
252 x .8 inches = 416 feet 8 inches

 ???

252 x .8 inches = 201.6 inches = 16 feet 9.6 inches.

Then where is the relationship? What does 252 represent? What is the significance of .8 inches?


"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #53 on: November 04, 2014, 02:01:19 PM »
Finally, there is no model for FE or Concave Earth that explains "heavenly " objects rising from the horizon, appearing to come out of the ground, which are visible from any point on Earth. There isn't enough physical room.

Well said, however, if those celestial bodies are not real, tangible, solid objects what then?

Is it reasonable to base our understanding of the Earth on sky observations?
This is absolutely a valid point. I personally believe it is valid to base our Earth on sky observations. I am a firm believer in the existence of a physical reality that can be understood by observation and comparison. To consider otherwise, IMHO, opens the theistic side of this issue which says if none of this is how we perceive it, then there can neither be a valid goal, nor a method for " winning " the game. It also makes  it look conspicuously close to determinism as that would mean Earth is a manufactured place and not a naturally occurring phenomenon. This implies, as a species, choices were made for us and we are doomed to exist as a direct result of those prior descisions. If the Earth and universe are contrary to what we observe, there is truly no point in continuing as a species. We have an awareness which is totally unusable in fabricated existence. When I observe the moons of Jupiter ( through a telescope ) orbiting a sphere shaped planet, and all the other planets appear to be spheroid, and all the stars and moons appear to be spheroid, assuming Earth is NOT a spheroid is, to me, falling off the logical train tracks. If there is no purpose for Earth to be flat and most other observable objects are not, why would it be such.

*

The Ellimist

  • 538
  • "Let us play a game, Crayak."
Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #54 on: November 04, 2014, 03:48:18 PM »
I am utterly disappointed that no one has made a joke about Scuelos being "too high"
Additionally, we cannot entirely rule out the nefarious effects of demons, spirits, gnomes, and wizards on our society's ability to comprehend our flat earth as it really is. 

?

blnjms

  • 162
  • Just another RE'er
Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #55 on: November 04, 2014, 03:53:54 PM »
Sculelos: forget about concavity. I'd rather believe that the earth is flat than concave, and I'm a round-earther. Please, PLEASE go back to the hole you crawled out of!

Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #56 on: November 04, 2014, 04:23:37 PM »
why can't you see more then say 707 ft in this photo (.133 of a mile) by Earth curvature calculations you should be able to see about 5.28 times further.


Because that picture is a rather poor photoshop attempt.

?

blnjms

  • 162
  • Just another RE'er
Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #57 on: November 04, 2014, 05:58:31 PM »
why can't you see more then say 707 ft in this photo (.133 of a mile) by Earth curvature calculations you should be able to see about 5.28 times further.


Because that picture is a rather poor photoshop attempt.

FE'ers HAVE to call this photoshopped because if they didn't, it would blow their theory out of the water. I don't see any reason to believe it is photoshopped. There's no atmosphere on the moon, so everything is much crisper and clearer than on earth.

*

sokarul

  • 18689
  • Extra Racist
Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #58 on: November 04, 2014, 06:18:00 PM »
why can't you see more then say 707 ft in this photo (.133 of a mile) by Earth curvature calculations you should be able to see about 5.28 times further.


Because that picture is a rather poor photoshop attempt.

FE'ers HAVE to call this photoshopped because if they didn't, it would blow their theory out of the water. I don't see any reason to believe it is photoshopped. There's no atmosphere on the moon, so everything is much crisper and clearer than on earth.
Search Google for "earth from moon" pictures to see what they really look like.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Too HIGH to LIE!
« Reply #59 on: November 04, 2014, 09:07:35 PM »
Sculelos, big thanks for the elaborate post.

Now if you believe the Earth is concave, but the planets and the Moon are real, solid objects inside the sphere, could you please share your ideas about their size? Obviously, if you're right they must be much smaller than officially claimed. But if they are much smaller how come we see them consistently with the RE model? The Moon is seen over large territories simultaneously. If it were much smaller that wouldn't be possible, at least not in the way it is currently seen. The same thing goes for the Sun. If the Sun was inside the sphere, it would be really difficult to do its job the way it does now. I haven't seen a meaningful working model for that yet. Wild Heretic pretends to have figured it out, but in my impression the results are far from conclusive and convincing. That is why he suggests a lot of what we see in the sky is an illusion. At least he realizes the astronomical observations don't really support concave Earth, but you seem to be oblivious to that. I don't see how the planets and the Moon can be real and the Earth is concave or flat. Anyone who believes in flat or concave Earth should necessarily try to destroy the current belief that the celestial bodies are real objects. Otherwise, it will never make any sense.

About the size of celestial objects which are planets. I'm not sure the true size of any planets, some concave earth believers say they are very tiny but I say size mostly doesn't matter much as you shrink down considerably the closer you get to any planet so obviously the planets are going to look much smaller from Earth then they will then if you get up close to the planets. It's one of the reasons I think the Earth looks much smaller then it really is from the Moon photos. (I can also make the Moon look huge if I use forced perspective and optical zoom in photographs)