Re: Space Travel, the Firmament & God

Says the moron who thinks we can’t take images of stars at all

So yourself?
Because I know you can take images of stars from Earth, and from space. But you need the correct exposure.

Take a look at how stupid you are that they’ve never taken images of stars

Who is "They"?
You are aware the Hubble Space Telescope is in space, and has taken countless images of stars?

Again, you are just looking for excuses to reject reality, even when you know those excuses are pure BS.
It shows how pathetic, dishonest and desperate you are.

Of course I’m aware of how you’re so ignorant and blind to believe whatever they tell you, when you’ll never know or see what you want to believe is true, with no clue about any of it being true or complete bs.

Nobody can ever prove their claims or images are valid, or not valid, except when some images have obvious flaws showing they’re faked.

Faked images can’t prove everything is faked, but it certainly indicates it’s all faked, if it was real, they’d have no reason to fake anything at all.

If all of the images are faked, then how do you know what the genuine images are supposed to look like?

Of course I’m aware of how you’re so ignorant and blind to believe whatever they tell you

No, I'm not so ignorant and blind that I would accept your pathetic BS.

Nobody can ever prove their claims or images are valid, or not valid, except when some images have obvious flaws showing they’re faked.

You mean plenty of other groups can and have, but that doesn't match your pathetic fantasy, so you desperate dismiss it all as fake. Because that is how utterly pathetic you are and how little you care for the truth.

Meanwhile, you still have no evidence of your magic snow globe.
And no evidence of anything being faked.
What you have are examples of things clearly stated to be artist renditions, or things clearly stated to be composites.
They are not fakes, as they are not being presented as images of it.
And there are reasons to have them.

And again, look at how desperately you are flailing around.
You started with the claim that they can't take pictures of stars. And had that utterly destroyed, and now need to desperately act like all the images are fake.
And why did you make that claim that they can't? Because you effectively you are a worthless, lying, subhuman POS, with absolutely no interest in the truth, when you were acting like the rockets not showing stars in footage of Earth was  a problem but then effectively admitted you understand it is not a problem.

You are truly pathetic and desperate.


How about you stop with all the pathetic BS, and instead try to provide proof of your magic snow globe or admit you can't?

What you have are examples of things clearly stated to be artist renditions, or things clearly stated to be composites. They are not fakes, as they are not being presented as images of it. And there are reasons to have them. ... And why did you make that claim that they can't? Because you effectively you are a worthless, lying, subhuman POS, with absolutely no interest in the truth...

Look at the Total System Failure, Jack. When you are forced to admit that your "images of Earth" are just "artist renditions" or "composites" (which is a fancy word for CGI manipulation), you lose your grip on reality and resort to calling people "subhuman POS." This is the ultimate white flag. You’ve moved from "Science" to Tribal Fanaticism.

You claim these "renditions" aren't fakes because they are labeled as such—yet you use these very same cartoons as your primary proof for the Globe. If you have to draw your world because you can't photograph it in its entirety without "stitching" and "interpreting" data, then your world exists only in a Digital Sandbox. You are defending a religion of pixels, Jack, and your only weapon left is a dictionary of insults.

When you are forced to admit

I'm not forced to admit anything.
Lying scum such as yourself take things clearly indicated to be artist renditions or composites, and then wilfully lie to everyone by claiming they are fake photos.
It is the ultimate red flag that you are lying scum.

Lying scum Bundles such as yourself take things clearly indicated to be artist renditions or composites, and then wilfully lie to everyone by claiming they are fake photos.

 Jack, you are literally admitting the "Globe" is an Illustration while calling me a liar. Think about the Intellectual Suicide you just committed. If your model were a physical reality, we would have millions of raw, unedited, full-disk photos of Earth from every angle—just like we do for every other object on Earth. Instead, we have Composites (data points stitched together by a computer) and Artist Renditions (paintings). Stop the Fraud.

 

• The CGI Confession: You call it a "red flag" to point out they are fake? Robert Simmon, the NASA lead data visualizer for the 2002 "Blue Marble," literally admitted it was "Photoshopped because it has to be." He explained that they took strips of data and wrapped them around a sphere. That is the definition of a Fake Photo, Jack. You are defending a digital creation and calling it reality. Dishonesty: Exposed.

 

• The Cloned Clouds: In your "composite" masterpieces, we see the exact same cloud patterns copy-pasted across the entire Earth. Does the atmosphere have a "Copy-Paste" function, Jack? Or is it more likely that an artist got lazy with their brush tool? If they were real photos, there would be no need for "composites" or "renditions." The fact that you have to build the Earth in a computer proves you can't find it in space. Scientific Bankruptcy: Confirmed.

 

It is the ultimate red flag that you are lying scum.

 

• The Red Flag of Reality: The real red flag is that after 60+ years of "space travel," we still don't have a live, 24/7, high-definition unedited feed of the rotating ball that isn't a CGI composite or a Fish-eye lens distortion. You call us "scum" because you are terrified of the fact that your entire worldview depends on the Graphic Design Department of NASA. Stop the Spam.

 

• The Challenge: Show us ONE single, raw, full-disk photo of Earth that hasn't been "stitched," "enhanced," or "rendered." You can't. You will just retreat into more "composite" excuses because the Stationary Plane is the only thing that actually exists to be photographed. Grow up.

 Jack, if you have to paint your model to show it to the world, your model isn't science—it’s Modern Art. You are defending a gallery of digital lies while shouting at people who point out the brush strokes. Stop the Dishonesty and address the Cloned Clouds for once.

Jack, you are literally admitting the "Globe" is an Illustration while calling me a liar.

No. I am not.
I am honestly stating that specific examples are illustrations, which have been presented as illustrations.
While lying scum like you want to pretend that means all are.

It would be like taking a painting of a person to claim all photos of that person, and the person themselves are fake.
It is pathetic and extremely dishonest.
So stop with the BS.

If your model were a physical reality, we would have millions of raw, unedited, full-disk photos of Earth from every angle—just like we do for every other object on Earth.

Firstly, no we don't have that for every other object on Earth.
Secondly, Earth is not on Earth. It is much harder to take a photo of a very large portion of Earth, that to take a photo of an object on Earth.
Thirdly, why would we?
Fourthly, we have loads of photos, such as those from the GEOS series, those from Himawari and those from EPIC on DSCOVR.
Real, unedited, full-disk photos.

You call it a "red flag" to point out they are fake?

I call it a red flag to claim an image presented as a rendering/composite is fake as if it was presented as a real photo.

They aren't fakes. They were not presented as a real photo. Lying scum like you need to set up that strawman to pretend to expose fakes.
It shows how pathetic and dishonest you are.

They aren't fakes. They were not presented as a real photo. ... Lying scum like you need to set up that strawman to pretend to expose fakes.

 Jack, your attempt to redefine "Fake" as "Presented as an Illustration" is a Desperate Retreat. For decades, NASA pushed the Blue Marble as the definitive look of our world. When we pointed out the copy-pasted clouds and inconsistent continent sizes, then you switched the script to "it's a composite." If you have to stitch data together to "visualize" a ball, you don't have a photo—you have a Digital Painting. Stop spreading BS and face the visual fraud.

 

• The DSCOVR/Himawari Hoax: You claim EPIC on DSCOVR gives us "real, unedited full-disk photos"? Then explain why the clouds never change their formation over hours of footage, or why the Moon in the "Lunar Transit" photos looks like a grey sticker with no surface detail change. These are data-driven renders, Jack. If they were real, we’d see the Atmospheric Fluctuations and star backgrounds that your "perfect" sensors always seem to miss. Dishonesty: Exposed.

 

• The "Earth is not on Earth" Excuse: This is the most pathetic line yet. You say it's "harder" to take a photo of Earth because of its size? We have thousands of satellites supposedly orbiting at various altitudes. A simple wide-angle lens from a high-orbit satellite would produce a raw, high-resolution Optical Image instantly. Instead, we get "composites" and "data visualizations." You are making excuses for a Lack of Physical Evidence. Scientific Bankruptcy: Confirmed.

 

It would be like taking a painting of a person to claim all photos... are fake.

 

• The False Analogy: No, Jack. It’s like someone showing me a painting of a "person" with three arms, and when I call it out, they say: "It’s just an illustration, but trust me, the real person has three arms too, I just can't take a photo of them." Your "illustrations" are used to Indoctrinate, not to inform. Without the CGI, your model has no visual legs to stand on. Leave the FVEY script behind.

 

• The Missing Stars: Why is it that in your "real, unedited" full-disk photos, the background is always a pitch-black void? Exposure settings? That’s the standard excuse. In reality, a composite is easier to mask against a black background. A real photo would show the Luminiferous Aether and the stars of the firmament. Wake up to the simulation.

 Jack, stop crying like a baby who had his pacifier taken away and answer this: If the Earth is a physical sphere, why do we have zero raw, unedited, high-altitude videos of a full rotation that aren't time-lapses made of "stitched data"? Return to the truth and explain why your "real" photos have duplicated clouds.

your attempt to redefine "Fake" as "Presented as an Illustration"

The only attempt at a redefinition here is by you and other lying scum like you.

Again, these were presented as illustrations.
The specific blue marble you are referring to was presented as a composite.

But lying scum like you falsely pretend it was presented as a real photo to claim it is fake.

Showing an illustration is an illustration is not showing it is fake.
Showing a composite is a composite is not showing it is fake.

Pretending to do so shows how pathetic and desperate you are.

explain why

Given you aren't providing any evidence at all, or any demonstration of any problem, what is there to explain?
Your worthless baseless claims are just that, worthless.

A simple wide-angle lens from a high-orbit satellite would produce a raw, high-resolution Optical Image instantly.

So go put one of them in orbit.
No one is obligated to do it for you.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of real images. You just look for pathetic excuses to dismiss them as fake.

The False Analogy

There is nothing false about it.

You are appealing to specific composite images and illustrations, to pretend every photo is fake and the RE itself is fake.

Why is it that in your "real, unedited" full-disk photos, the background is always a pitch-black void? Exposure settings?

You already know the answer to your question.
But like the lying scum you are, you need to pretend it isn't an answer.
Go get a camera which is set to manual exposure, etc.
Set it to take a photo during the day.
Make sure nothing is overexposed.
Then with the exact same settings, take a photo at night showing the absence of stars in the photo.

Showing an illustration is an illustration is not showing it is fake. Showing a composite is a composite is not showing it is fake.

 Jack, your semantic gymnastics are impressive, but they don't change the Physical Fraud. If I sell you a "diamond" and later admit it’s a "composite of glass shards presented as an illustration," you would call it a scam. NASA presents these images to the public as "The Earth," not as "A digital painting based on data points." If you can't show a Raw, Unedited, Single-Shot photo of the full disk, it’s because the object doesn't exist in that form. Calling a fake "an illustration" is just a Public Relations Mask for scientific bankruptcy. Dishonesty: Exposed.


 

So go put one of them in orbit. No one is obligated to do it for you.

 

• The Burden of Proof Shuffle: You claim to have billions of dollars in funding, thousands of satellites, and "mountains of evidence," yet when asked for a simple, non-CGI photograph, your response is "do it yourself"? This is the ultimate admission that you have nothing. If the globe were real, raw optical footage would be the Standard, not the exception. You are defending an invisible empire. Scientific Bankruptcy: Confirmed.

 

You already know the answer to your question... Go get a camera... set it to take a photo during the day... take a photo at night showing the absence of stars.

 

• The Exposure Smokescreen: Your "daylight exposure" excuse fails the Geometric Audit. Even in high-contrast shots, modern sensors have the dynamic range to capture bright objects and faint lights simultaneously if the optics are real. But more importantly, why is the background ALWAYS a perfect, sterile black void in every "official" photo? No dust, no debris, no atmospheric haze, no galactic glow—just a digital "Alpha Channel" mask. It’s not "exposure," Jack; it’s a Green Screen Limitation. Hardware Audit: Failed.

 

There is nothing false about it [the analogy]. You are appealing to specific composite images... to pretend every photo is fake.

 

• The Systematic Fraud: We don't "pretend" they are fake; we observe the Digital Fingerprints. "Cloned clouds" in the 2012 Blue Marble, inconsistent landmass sizes between "official" releases, and the admission that they are "wrapped" around a sphere. If you find one counterfeit bill in a stack, you audit the whole stack. Every single full-disk image released to the public has been admitted to be a Data Visualization, not a photograph. Why can't the "most advanced agency" on Earth provide a simple, raw, high-res optical image from 22,000 miles? Dishonesty: Exposed.

 Jack, you are defending a gallery of Digital Art while calling us "pathetic" for demanding Physical Proof. You’ve reached the point where you’re literally arguing that an illustration of reality is better than reality itself.

Actually, it’s quite simple: if the globe were real, the "composites" wouldn't be necessary. You only use an artist when the camera can't find the subject.

Stop the Semantic Fraud and explain why the clouds in your "official" Earth are copy-pasted, Jack.

your semantic

Again, the one appealing to semantics here is you.

You want to lie to everyone by claiming the images are fake.
Even look at your crap here:

If I sell you a "diamond" and later admit it’s a "composite of glass shards presented as an illustration,"

That is not what is happening.
Instead, you were sold a "composite of glass shards presented as an illustration" which was clearly labelled as "composite of glass shards presented as an illustration"; but then you wilfully lie to everyone by falsely claiming it was presented to you as a diamond and that it is a fake.

That is what you are doing.
YOU are trying to scam people.

NASA presents these images to the public

These particular ones as composites or artist renditions.
But lying scum like you instead pretend they present them as a single photo of Earth.

If you can't show a Raw, Unedited, Single-Shot photo of the full disk

We can, and have.

Dishonesty: Exposed.

Your own.
Repeatedly.

The problem is that NASA presented these ‘ball Earth from space images’ as genuine and true ‘images’, said nothing about them as edited or altered in any way. They simply showed them to us, described them as images of Earth,  taken on various space missions….

They were obviously trying to pass them all off to us as being genuine, untouched, 100% true images of a ball Earth from ‘space’!

Only when we studied them closer up and saw areas of ‘ball Earth’ that matched up perfectly in other areas of ‘ball Earth’, which couldn’t happen at all on any real image, we knew it was altered and faked for sure, at very least, or entirely faked, perhaps!

They would’ve told us they’re edited or altered or tweaked images of ball Earth taken from ‘space’, but they never did.

Everyone thought they were genuine images of a ball Earth, for all those years, afterwards…

All that changed later on, when people looked and studied the images, compared them to other ball Earth images, and saw the proof of being faked or not genuine images, as they presented them to be, and got caught showing us fakes, because they are fakes…

These particular ones as composites or artist renditions. But lying scum like you instead pretend they present them as a single photo of Earth.

 Jack, stop trying to hide behind Turbo’s distraction posts. Using someone else’s spam as a smokescreen only shows that you lack the Intellectual Power to stand your ground alone. Let’s refocus the lens on your "composite" excuses.

• The Visual Fraud Audit: You claim NASA clearly labels these as composites. Then why are they used in every textbook, news broadcast, and classroom as "Photos of Earth"? If I show a child a cartoon of a dragon and tell them it’s a biological study, the "label" doesn't change the fact that the Visual Data is Synthetic. You admit they are "artist renditions," yet you use those same renditions to prove the ball exists. Circular Logic: Detected.
• The Single-Shot Mirage: You claim "we have" single-shot photos. Show us, Jack. Every "full disk" image from 1972 onward has been exposed as a composite, a mosaic, or a CGI render. Whether it’s the "Blue Marble" 2012 (where clouds are copy-pasted in Photoshop) or the EPIC "photos" (which are monochromatic channels combined digitally), you cannot produce a Raw, Analog, Single-Exposure frame of a rotating ball. Hardware Audit: Missing Data.
• The Scam Narrative: You say I am the one "scamming." Jack, an auditor doesn't sell anything; an auditor just points out the Missing Assets. If you claim to have a trillion-dollar asset (the Globe) but all you can show the shareholders are "artist renditions," you are the one running the Ponzi scheme. Financial Integrity: 0%.

 

If you can't show a Raw, Unedited, Single-Shot photo... We can, and have.

 Where is it, Jack? Stop pointing at Turbo’s coat-tails and provide the link. If it were real, it would be the most famous file in human history. Instead, we get "composites" because you can't take a photo of something that doesn't exist in the physical domain.


 The "Diamond" you’re selling is just glass shards glued together with tax dollars. The audit continues, and the resolution is getting higher every day. Stop hiding, start proving.

wise, your so called science is totally BS. You can't even use it to predict the apparent elevation angle of the Sun at particular latitude, say 45 degrees North, at Solar Noon at the Vernal Equinox.

wise, your so called science is totally BS. You can't even use it to predict the apparent elevation angle of the Sun at particular latitude, say 45 degrees North, at Solar Noon at the Vernal Equinox.

 Erland, I see you’ve wandered into the wrong room again. After being corrected in the QA section, you’ve arrived here only to attempt the same "Red Herring" fallacy. This thread is about Space Travel, the Firmament, and God. Your obsession with forcing me to do your solar trigonometry homework is not only Off-Topic, it’s a desperate attempt to deflect from the fact that Jack just admitted NASA’s images are "artist renditions."

• The Ethics Audit: In a real academic environment—something you seem to struggle with—you stay on the subject of the Original Post (OP). The OP asks about the Firmament and Space Travel. My previous audit exposed the visual fraud of the "Globe" images. Instead of addressing the Missing Data of the single-shot photo, you jump to "Equinox angles" like a panicked student. Protocol Failure: Detected.
• The "Order-Based" Delusion: I’ve told you before: I don’t take orders. I calculate what interests me as a hobby. If you want someone to validate your "54.2 degree" SciManDan worship, hire a tutor. My refusal to spend my time on your specific distraction doesn't validate your model; it just confirms your inability to defend the Visual Fraud currently being discussed. Integrity Audit: 0%.
• The Space Reality Check: If you cannot prove that anyone has actually traveled through the Firmament with a single, raw, unedited photo, then your "solar angles" are just math applied to a projection. You are measuring the light on the ceiling and claiming it proves the shape of the floor. That isn't science, Erland; that’s Geometric Superstition.

 

You can't even use it to predict... [/color]

 Erland, if Swedish academia actually taught Logic instead of just Recitation, you’d know that a model's validity isn't based on my willingness to perform calculations for you on command. If you want to talk about "BS science," start with why you believe in a vacuum existing next to a pressurized atmosphere without a container.


 Back to the topic, doctor: Jack admitted the images are "composites." If the "cool photographs" Celest Eal's grandchildren bring back are also "artist renditions," then the Firmament remains untouched and your "Space Travel" remains a CGI fantasy. Audit: Still Stationary. Focus: Still Flat.

Erland[/b][/color], if Swedish academia actually taught Logic instead of just Recitation, you’d know that a model's validity isn't based on my willingness to perform calculations for you on command. If you want to talk about "BS science," start with why you believe in a vacuum existing next to a pressurized atmosphere without a container.]

No, but a model's validity is dependent upon the existence of the model, and there is none. If you had one, you would be able to use it to make predictions of, among other things, apparent solar positions in the sky at different times seen from different locations, and it is obvious that you can't do that.
As for pressure and vacuum etc: surely you know that air pressure and density decrease by altitude. No problem there.

No, but a model's validity is dependent upon the existence of the model, and there is none. As for pressure and vacuum etc: surely you know that air pressure and density decrease by altitude. No problem there.

 Erland, it’s fascinating how a PhD in mathematics can be used as a blindfold to ignore basic Physics and Logic. You claim there is "no model," while standing on a stationary plane that has been the standard for human navigation and engineering for millennia. Let’s audit your "no problem" dismissal.

• The Container Audit: You say "no problem" to air pressure decreasing with altitude. Erland, that is not the question. The question is: How can you have a pressure gradient in an open system next to an infinite vacuum? Even 0.0000001 PSI of pressure is still pressure. According to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, gas fills the available volume. Without a physical container (The Firmament), your atmosphere would have equalized with the 10
  −17
    Torr vacuum of space instantly. Your "math" doesn't change the laws of entropy. Hardware Audit: No container = No pressure. Period.
• The Predictive Model Mirage: You claim we can't make predictions. Erland, the Antikythera Mechanism and the Sextant were built on a Geocentric, Stationary Earth model. We can predict solar and lunar positions with extreme precision using the celestial clockwork (the stars and luminaries moving above us). You’ve just rebranded these ancient, flat-earth-based observations as "Globe Science." You are using a stolen map and claiming you drew it. Software Audit: Predictions work because the Sky is a clock, not because the Earth is a ball.
• The Scientific Method Failure: You say a model's validity depends on a chalkboard. No, Erland. In Real Science, validity depends on Physical Evidence. We can measure a lack of curvature over 100 miles. We can measure cold moonlight. We can measure gas needing a container. Your "model" is just a set of equations designed to ignore these physical measurements. You have a mathematical simulation, not a reality. System Integrity: 0%.

 

it is obvious that you can't do that.

 Erland, I "can't do that" because I am not a 19th-century observatory clerk. I am an auditor. If I show you that your "Globe" bank account has zero funds (no physical curvature), it doesn't matter if you have a very complex "mathematical model" showing why you should be a billionaire. The account is still empty.


 The "Model" is the ground you walk on and the ceiling that holds your air in. You don't need a PhD to see the floor is flat; you only need one to convince yourself it's a ball. Audit: The Container is required. Reality: 100% Flat.

You claim we can't make predictions. Erland, the Antikythera Mechanism and the Sextant were built on a Geocentric, Stationary Earth model.

But not a Flat Earth model. The ancient Greeks knew that the Earth is a sphere.

But not a Flat Earth model. The ancient Greeks knew that the Earth is a sphere.

Erland, is this how a PhD handles a logic audit? By hiding behind what a few ancient Greeks supposedly "knew"? Whether they believed it was a sphere, a cube, or a lotus flower is irrelevant to the Physical Hardware we are discussing today.

• The Authority Fallacy: Appealing to the "Ancient Greeks" is not a scientific measurement. It’s a historical citation. Science isn't a consensus of dead philosophers; it’s the ability to demonstrate reality. If those same Greeks told you that a vacuum can exist next to a pressurized gas without a container, they would be just as wrong as you are today.
  .
• The Geometric Theft: You claim their model wasn't "Flat Earth." Erland, a geocentric model uses the exact same observable data as a flat earth model. The stars move in circles above us, and the sun and moon travel their circuits. The math for a sextant works precisely because the Baseline (The Earth) is treated as a flat, stationary plane for the calculation. You’ve simply taken geocentric observations and stretched them over a ball using "refraction" and "perspective" as your mathematical glue. Software Audit: You’re using our map and putting a 'Greek' sticker on it.
• The Missing Curvature: If the Greeks "knew" it was a sphere, why hasn't anyone in the thousands of years since been able to provide a single direct, non-composite, non-CGI photograph of the entire globe from "space" that isn't a blatant fabrication? Why do engineering projects (canals, railways, bridges) still ignore the "8 inches per mile squared" drop? Hardware Audit: The Earth doesn't care about Greek philosophy; it remains flat under your feet.

Erland, you’re basically saying, "I believe it's a ball because someone told me the Greeks said so." That’s not a PhD-level argument; that’s a schoolboy recitation.
The Antikythera Mechanism tracks the luminaries in the Dome. It doesn't track a spinning marble. Stop hiding behind history and face the physics: Gas needs a container, and the Earth has no measurable curve. Reality: 100% Flat. System Status: Greek citation rejected.

Erland, is this how a PhD handles a logic audit? By hiding behind what a few ancient Greeks supposedly "knew"? Whether they believed it was a sphere, a cube, or a lotus flower is irrelevant to the Physical Hardware we are discussing today.

You claimed that the Antikythera mechanism could be used to "predict solar and lunar positions with extreme precision". If so, it wouldn't support your position, because the Antikythera mechanism is not based upon a Flat Earth model.

You claimed that the Antikythera mechanism could be used to "predict solar and lunar positions with extreme precision". If so, it wouldn't support your position, because the Antikythera mechanism is not based upon a Flat Earth model.

 Erland, we are witnessing your fascinating transformation from a supposedly impartial "man of science" into a desperate, nitpicking "globe-gangster" searching for any crack in the armor. You are so preoccupied with defending the cult of the sphere that you’ve missed the fundamental point of the hardware: the Antikythera mechanism tracks observed celestial cycles, which are perfectly consistent with a geocentric, flat system where the luminaries move above us.


 The device doesn't care about your "models" or labels; it measures the frequency and rhythm of the sky as seen by a stationary observer. Whether the gears represent a sphere or a disk is a secondary interpretation you’ve superimposed. The "extreme precision" confirms a predictable, structured system of motion—precisely what the clockwork of the Firmament provides. You’re playing word games with history to avoid the fact that the actual data points to a fixed, localized reality.

wise, no matter what you say, the existence of the Antikethyra mechanism is no valid argument for the Earth being flat.

wise, no matter what you say, the existence of the Antikethyra mechanism is no valid argument for the Earth being flat.

 Erland, "no matter what I say" is the motto of someone who has closed their mind to the physical evidence in favor of protecting their credentials. You are obsessed with what the Greeks thought they were building, while I am pointing at what they actually built.

The Geocentric Precision:The Antikythera mechanism is a masterclass in Geocentric engineering. It uses a complex system of differential gears to track the moon's variable velocity and the cycles of the luminaries around a stationary center. If the Earth were a spinning ball hurtling through an infinite void, a fixed mechanical calendar like this would drift into uselessness within a generation.


 It isn't just a "valid argument"; it is a physical testimony that the heavens follow a predictable, clockwork path above a stable foundation. You want to hide behind labels, but the Hardware speaks for itself: the mechanism tracks the sky of a Flat, Stationary Earth because that is the only sky that has remained consistent for thousands of years. Your "spinning ball" math is the ghost in the machine; the gears, however, are real.

wise, how can the Antikythera mechanism make it more plausible that the Earth is flat, when its constructor certainly didn't believe so?

wise, how can the Antikythera mechanism make it more plausible that the Earth is flat, when its constructor certainly didn't believe so?

 Erland,


 You are confusing the beliefs of a craftsman with the mechanics of the device he built. The Antikythera mechanism is a masterpiece of precision engineering that tracks the cycles of the sun, moon, and stars with incredible accuracy. It doesn't track a "spinning ball in a chaotic void"—it tracks a synchronized, clockwork system.


 1. The Clockmaker’s Reality: The device shows that the heavens move in perfect, repeatable patterns over a static observer. Whether the person who built it "believed" in a ball or a plane is irrelevant. The function of the mechanism is based on the assumption that the Earth is the fixed center of these rotations. If the Earth were wobbling, spinning, and hurtling through space at millions of miles per hour, such a gear-based analog computer would be useless within a decade. It is the ultimate proof of a fixed, designed, and enclosed system.


 2. The Real "Dangerous" Idea: You’ve often mentioned that the Flat Earth theory is "dangerous" or a threat to global stability. But let’s look at who is actually causing the danger. The "Glober" establishment you defend is the same one that siphons hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into the black holes of NASA and other military-industrial agencies.


 The real danger to our world is not an idea; it is the funding of terror. If the world woke up and realized the globe-space narrative is a trillion-dollar stage play, the funding for these "space programs" would evaporate. With less money going into these opaque globalist institutions, there would be significantly fewer resources available to fund proxy wars and organizations like ISIS or Al-Qaeda.


 3. Safety vs. Globalism: Is a safer, more transparent world a "threat" to you, Erland? Is it dangerous to stop the flow of money to terror organizations? You seem to believe that maintaining the "globalist" status quo is more important than the actual security of human beings. To us, the Flat Earth is about reclaiming reality and resources from those who use the "infinite space" myth to launder the world's wealth.


 The Antikythera mechanism proved we live in a clock. We are just pointing out who is stealing the gears and using the profits to burn the world.


 So tell me, Erland: Why do you think a safer, more peaceful world—free from the financial drain of the "space" hoax—is such a dangerous idea?

Quote from: Erland on February 05, 2026, 06:51:13 AM

wise, how can the Antikythera mechanism make it more plausible that the Earth is flat, when its constructor certainly didn't believe so?

You are confusing the beliefs of a craftsman with the mechanics of the device he built.

So the mechanism just happened to fit a Flat Earth, although that was not the constructor's intention? How very lucky for you Flat Earthers!

 The real danger to our world is not an idea; it is the funding of terror. If the world woke up and realized the globe-space narrative is a trillion-dollar stage play, the funding for these "space programs" would evaporate. With less money going into these opaque globalist institutions, there would be significantly fewer resources available to fund proxy wars and organizations like ISIS or Al-Qaeda.


 3. Safety vs. Globalism: Is a safer, more transparent world a "threat" to you, Erland? Is it dangerous to stop the flow of money to terror organizations? You seem to believe that maintaining the "globalist" status quo is more important than the actual security of human beings. To us, the Flat Earth is about reclaiming reality and resources from those who use the "infinite space" myth to launder the world's wealth.


 The Antikythera mechanism proved we live in a clock. We are just pointing out who is stealing the gears and using the profits to burn the world.


 So tell me, Erland: Why do you think a safer, more peaceful world—free from the financial drain of the "space" hoax—is such a dangerous idea?

We will not get a safer, more peaceful world if conspiracy theories are spread (of which Flat Earth is just a small part). Donald Trump and his adminstration is a typical example of this. He lied about voter fraud which led to the January 6 2021 insurrection and violence, and the U.S. seems to be on its way to a fascist dicatorship.  He lies about immigrants which leads to the ICE violence (among ither things). He believes climate change is a hoax and counters efforts to address the problem; who knows how many millions who will die because of that? And with the anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy in his administration, children will die unnecessarily. And going back in history, the idea of Jewish world conspiracy, spread in the fake "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" contributed to the Holocaust.
The best way to counteract this is enlightenment, education and knowledge of facts, and you do NOT achieve this by spreading your pseudo-scientific ideas of a Flat Earth and massive conspiracy promoting the opposite idea.

The best way to counteract this is enlightenment, education and knowledge of facts...

 Erland, you are the one who initially labeled Flat Earthers as "dangerous" in your video, and now you’re desperately trying to justify that label by linking us to every political boogeyman in your script.

What does Donald Trump’s administration or the events of January 6th have to do with the physical shape of the Earth? You are using these political triggers to deflect from the fact that your "globalist" status quo is crumbling under the weight of its own corruption.

We have dozens of studies proving that the "climate change" narrative is a manufactured scam designed for carbon-tax control, funded by the same international organizations and "philanthropists" like the pedophile Bill Gates who pushed experimental vaccines on the world.

The Epstein documents have laid bare the reality of how these "enlightened" institutions actually function: they are a blackmail-fueled network of child predators and power brokers who hold politicians on a leash to ensure they never act against the globalist agenda. You talk about "knowledge of facts" and "enlightenment" while you are literally playing the fool, ignoring a documented global blackmail ring and a trillion-dollar space hoax that launders public wealth into opaque military and private accounts.

Real danger doesn't come from people pointing out that the horizon is flat; it comes from the people you defend, who use "science" as a shield to implement biological and economic warfare against the population.

You are hiding behind the Holocaust and Trump to avoid addressing the fact that your system views humanity as "subhuman" assets to be managed, medicated, and lied to. It’s time to stop pretending that your blind obedience to authority is "education." If you can't see the connection between the fake "infinite vacuum" and the real-world tyranny of those who fund it, then you aren't looking for facts—you're just looking for a master to follow.

Quote from: Erland on February 06, 2026, 03:48:33 AM

The best way to counteract this is enlightenment, education and knowledge of facts...

Erland, you are the one who initially labeled Flat Earthers as "dangerous" in your video, and now you’re desperately trying to justify that label by linking us to every political boogeyman in your script.

What does Donald Trump’s administration or the events of January 6th have to do with the physical shape of the Earth? You are using these political triggers to deflect from the fact that your "globalist" status quo is crumbling under the weight of its own corruption.

Conspiracy theories is the common denominator.

We have dozens of studies proving that the "climate change" narrative is a manufactured scam designed for carbon-tax control, funded by the same international organizations and "philanthropists" like the pedophile Bill Gates who pushed experimental vaccines on the world.

I suppose then that everyone of all the many scienists behind all the studies the IPCC reports are based on are parts of the hoax.

The Epstein documents have laid bare the reality of how these "enlightened" institutions actually function: they are a blackmail-fueled network of child predators and power brokers who hold politicians on a leash to ensure they never act against the globalist agenda. You talk about "knowledge of facts" and "enlightenment" while you are literally playing the fool, ignoring a documented global blackmail ring and a trillion-dollar space hoax that launders public wealth into opaque military and private accounts.

Sad, yes, but I would suspect that also oil company executives desperately wanting all talk about climate change go away are mentioned in the Epstein files.

You are hiding behind the Holocaust and Trump to avoid addressing the fact that your system views humanity as "subhuman" assets to be managed, medicated, and lied to. It’s time to stop pretending that your blind obedience to authority is "education." If you can't see the connection between the fake "infinite vacuum" and the real-world tyranny of those who fund it, then you aren't looking for facts—you're just looking for a master to follow.

I just wanted to point out the danger with conspiracy theories. Still, very few of the rich and powerful promote the Flat Earth conspiracy theory, though, but Flat Earth is the subject of this forum.
If you really want to fight for a better world, base the struggle on facts, not pseudoscience and conspiracy theories!

Erland,

Let’s be clear again: issuing single-sentence decrees is not a scientific debate, it is a dogmatic lecture. In a technical forum, you don't get to act as the supreme judge of reality. You present a physical mechanism or you admit you are simply reciting a creed. Your tone isn't that of a scientist, but of a man desperately clinging to a collapsing narrative.

**1. The "Curved Water" Oxymoron:**
You say "water finds its level, even when the level is curved." Read that again, slowly. "Level" and "Curved" are mutually exclusive geometric terms. A level surface is a horizontal plane. You are butchering the English language and the fundamental properties of physics to save your globe. Water is the ultimate tool for leveling because it is physically incapable of maintaining a convex shape on its surface. Show me a single lab experiment where water curves around the exterior of a sphere. You can’t.

**2. The "Conspiracy" Fallacy:**
For years, people like you called the dangers of certain vaccines a "conspiracy theory." Then the health ministries released the data. We see a global decrease in the male population due to heart attacks; science has now confirmed that these products affect men disproportionately. I truly hope you followed the "science" you believe in so blindly and took every shot offered to you. At least your side would be clearly defined. We warned for years that Bill Gates was manipulating climate and health sectors, and now the evidence is surfacing. We have worked through the data to show how the "climate change" narrative is a calculated deception. To you, it’s a conspiracy; to us, it’s a verified reality. When Noah was building the Ark, they called the flood a conspiracy theory—until it started raining.

**3. Admission by Evasion:**
Notice how you conveniently ignored the points on the vacuum-pressure interface, the Marconi signal, and the Curie Temperature of your supposed core.

* You cannot explain how gas stays pressurized next to a vacuum without a container.
* You cannot explain how radio waves bypass a 126-mile water bulge.
* You cannot explain how a molten iron core remains magnetic.

By dismissing these with single-sentence deflections, you have effectively accepted defeat on the technical merits. You aren't debating physics; you are performing an exorcism on ideas that threaten your religious devotion to the globe.

I don't know what your role is. You are either someone profiting from this globalist cabal—meaning your hands are tied to the same system that exploits the most vulnerable, from organ trafficking to child exploitation—or you are simply too blind to see what is right in front of you.

Choose one. But stop pretending your empty decrees constitute science.