1. Improved version of my instrument (made from copper) :
2. From a pen of one another author:
For a period of two years, I have had a tube, 3ft 6ins. in length and ľ in. in diameter, fixed to a stand in my garden. Not the slightest movement can take place. On ascertaining the position of the Pole Star I was able to view the Star continually on any night over that period. The spherical shape earth, we are told, is tearing round on its axis at the rate of 1000 miles per hour, and also in its Orbit it is travelling at a rate of 18 miles per second. What will puzzle the reader and what puzzled me was, how I could view the Star constantly under such conditions. I communicated with several Astronomers at various times, and one of the replies was, that owing to the tremendous distance to the Pole Star, 3,680,000,000,000,000, miles, the tube may continually point to it, in spite of the two terrific movements of the earth. I want to definitely state here, the Astronomers' figures are absurd in the light of practical calculations.
Secondly, size and distance make no difference whatever. The fixed tube, ľ in. in diameter and 3 ft. 6 ins. long, is simplicity itself and absolutely reliable, and it would betray the smallest possible movement of the earth.
3. This is how we can ascertain if there is a slightest movement of the Earth:
Well, i just have finished my meditation on Polaris issue, and here is my conclusion:
Since Polaris declination is 89 degrees 19 ' even if we presumed that the distance between the Earth and Polaris is so idiotically great, we have to notice one problem associated with visibility of Polaris at the Equator:
Let's say that at midnight 1th January from the same point at the Equator we can see Polaris due to 0,8 degree (less) difference between 90 degree and 89 degree 19 ', this very same difference will be at midnight 1th June the reason with counter effect, am i right?
So, how come that there is no difference in visibility of Polaris from the same point at the Equator with respect to the constant half-annualy shifts of angles?
So, when someone says that we can see Polaris 1 or 2 degrees south of the Equator due to refraction, then that someone should take into account this 0,8 degree also!
Let alone seeing Polaris 12 degrees south of the Equator!
4. Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. The following diagram will show the arrangement. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube, as at A, B; and the moment the star appears in the tube A, T, let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the tube B, T, when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star, S, is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight A, S, and B, C, when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the tube, B, C, towards the first tube A, S, would be required for the star, S, to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results--the star, S, will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube, B, C, which the difference in position of one yard had previously required.
5. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645127#msg16451276. A movie clip :
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pay attention to this comment:
placeksue via Google + 6 months ago:
This is a PERFECT movie for those that want to know what TRANSHUMANISM is about.....YOU will be TRUMAN ....and the rest are your actors TODAY on CNN/FOX/presidents/queen/vatican.....but when they get rid of who they want and chip the zombie dumbied down DNA....voila....New World Order. I suppose for many they don't care....mostly because they are already zombies, they actually think their football, baseball, sports are REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well since they already are sleeping, its only for those that don't WANT to go to sleep with Bush Senior and company of nazi's
7. I find it extremely suspicious that when someone believes in aliens it is okay, but if someone doesn't believe the Earth is a sphere he is labelled crazy.
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2008/07/masonic-truth-behind-aliensufos.html8. WAKE UP!!!
9. If you still refuse to wake up, then i must admit that i am very curious about what would be your possible answer to this very question : Why are you still defending such a garbage of a theory??? Or should i let Brad Pitt to put a question to
ausGeoff:
#t=2m46s" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#t=2m46s10. Modern astronomers have lengthened the sun's distance by nearly a hundred millions of miles, which has necessarily increased the earth's supposed orbit more than 300 000 000 of MILES!!! But this extreme alteration is neither acknowledged nor permitted to detract from the great name of Kepler, lest it might also reflect upon the "science" of astronomy;
for in this exact "science" the alteration of MILLIONS of MILES is "a mere detail!"Does this make any difference?
Copernicus wrote: " It is not necessary that hypotheses be true or even probable ; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation. . . . Neither let any one, as far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from Astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest in case he should adopt for truth things feigned for another purpose, he should leave the science more foolish than when he came.. . .
The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood."
If such was the conviction of Copernicus, the reviver of the old Pagan system of Pythagoras, and of Newton, its chief expounder, what right have Modem Astronomers to assert that a theory, which was given only as a possibility, is a fact, especially when they differ so much among themselves even as regards the very first elements of the problem—the distance of the Sun from the Earth ?
Copernicus computed it as being only three millions, while Meyer enlarged it to one hundred and four millions of miles, and there are many estimates between these two extremes. In my young days it was reckoned to be ninety-five, but in my old it has been reduced to about ninety-two millions of miles. Such discrepancies remind me of the confusion which attended those who in olden days attempted to build the Tower of Babel, when their language was confounded, and their labour brought to nought. But no wonder is it that their calculations are all wrong, seeing they proceed from a wrong basis. They assumed the world to be a Planet, with a circumference of 25,000 miles, and took their measurements from its supposed centre, and from supposed spherical angles of measurement on the surface.
Again, how could such measurements possibly be correct while, as we are told, the Earth was whirling around the Sun faster than a cannon ball, at the rate of eighteen miles per second, a force more than sufficient to kill every man, woman, and child on its surface in less than a minute? Then, the Earth is supposed to have various other motions, into the discussion of which I need not enter here, and will only notice that of its supposed rotation round its imaginary axis at the rate, at the Equator, of a thousand miles per hour, with an inclination of 23^^ degrees. Let me, however, remind our Astronomers of a pertinent remark made by Captain R. I. Morrison, late Compiler of Zadkiel's Almanac, who, from the position he held, ought to be considered a good authority on such subjects
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."Now what confidence can any man place in a science which gives promissory notes of such extravagance as these?
They are simply bankrupt bills, not worth the paper on which they are written. And yet, strange to say, many foolish people endorse them as if they were good, the reason being that they are too lazy to think for themselves, and, to their own sad cost, accept the bogus notes as if they had been issued by a Rothschild."