Flat Earth

[Astargath]

^^^ Space race, the fix is in on that one. The US and Russia have collaborated secretly behind the scenes since the start of the cold war. If you don't agree with this statement then surely you can provide scientific proof that outer space is real? I'm not fooled by the puppet show they put on and neither should anybody else.

^^^ Pickled Earth hahaha

... [text not relevant to comment goes here]...

Eclipses prove the earth is not flat as well.

".. A selenelion or selenehelion occurs when both the Sun and an eclipsed Moon can be observed at the same time. ..." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_eclipse

That's right folks, during a selenelion eclipse you can observe both the sun and the moon in the sky above you while the earth below you passes between them. This is some hard evidence that we live on globe, how could the earth possibly be flat in light of this evidence? I guess I should just give up and admit I'm wrong.

You claim the sun and the moon are projections (with absolutely no proof btw) how does your model explain the 2 different eclipses? Just more projections?

[notbatman]

...

You claim the sun and the moon are projections (with absolutely no proof btw) how does your model explain the 2 different eclipses? Just more projections?

Au contraire mon ami! I've provided video from CRROW777 that shows the moon suffering from aliasing effects during the solstice; this effect is indicative of an electro-mechanical image projection system. I've also noted that the moon is evenly lit, hard evidence the image you're seeing is a projected one. I'm sure I've posted more proof than just that and, I'm also sure I could expand on it with a bit of work.

You keep referring to my descriptions as a model as if I'm working from a theoretical structure that I have. There's no flat earth model, what I do have are my observations, the documented observations of others and, an honest description of the world around me and how it works. I don't have access to the source of the projections and the jews aren't going to share their observations, so I'm really limited here on what I can state as fact.

However, I can theorize that there's a 3rd shadowy celestial object; the projector itself probably causes the appearance of a hidden celestial object that can eclipse the sun and moon. It's possibly a filter or a lens overlapping the projection but I'm really taking shots in the dark here. It's often referred to as the Black Sun in various esoteric text.

[af_newbie]

...
I've also noted that the moon is evenly lit, hard evidence the image you're seeing is a projected one. ...

Jesus Christ man, have you even look at the Moon?  Evenly lit my ass.  How can you be so deluded?  Just fucking look at it, you can see dark craters with the naked eye. 

You do have eyes, don't you?

[notbatman]

^^^ Your concept/definition of evenly lit is in error.

[notbatman]

^^^ Space race, the fix is in on that one. The US and Russia have collaborated secretly behind the scenes since the start of the cold war. If you don't agree with this statement then surely you can provide scientific proof that outer space is real? I'm not fooled by the puppet show they put on and neither should anybody else.

I have to rely on others to provide some of the proof since I cannot afford a Virgin Galactic flight yet.

I do however use satellites to view TV and have used a satellite finder to set up my satellite dish.

Also I met a scientist that worked on satellites.  I think he would be very disappointed if his skills were used as a mere horse and pony show.
It would mean that the conspiracy would extend to not just fooling the general public but the employees working on space related technology as well.

It would mean that a large amount of highly intelligent people are working on meaningless tasks without their knowledge.

The technology used to receive signals from Satellites appears sound to me. Unless technology exists like a skyhook I tend  to believe that satellites orbit around the earth in space.

For the transmitted signal not to be coming from space would defy any logic that I can think of.

https://i.imgur.com/W1sZ5Kf.png

https://i.imgur.com/NMX6ykf.png

The first "satellite" launched by the US/NASA (before Sir Arthur C. Clarke sci-fi bullshit was adopted) was in a project called "project echo". They used a real rocket (Wernher Von Braun) to launch a payload that contained a giant mylar balloon and a radio reflector. They launched the balloon into a 1,000 mile orbit above the earth then bounced radio signals from ground stations off of the reflector. The giant mylar balloon reflecting sunlight is the light or "sattelite" seen in the sky at night as it passes by.

Another way to bounce radio signals is off of the ionosphere. High altitude aircraft and drones are also used as "satellites".



Project Echo



Wernher Von Braun



"Hubble Space Telescope"

[Astargath]

^^^ Your concept/definition of evenly lit is in error.

Have you ever looked up?

[xtraelv]

^^^ Space race, the fix is in on that one. The US and Russia have collaborated secretly behind the scenes since the start of the cold war. If you don't agree with this statement then surely you can provide scientific proof that outer space is real? I'm not fooled by the puppet show they put on and neither should anybody else.

I have to rely on others to provide some of the proof since I cannot afford a Virgin Galactic flight yet.

I do however use satellites to view TV and have used a satellite finder to set up my satellite dish.

Also I met a scientist that worked on satellites.  I think he would be very disappointed if his skills were used as a mere horse and pony show.
It would mean that the conspiracy would extend to not just fooling the general public but the employees working on space related technology as well.

It would mean that a large amount of highly intelligent people are working on meaningless tasks without their knowledge.

The technology used to receive signals from Satellites appears sound to me. Unless technology exists like a skyhook I tend  to believe that satellites orbit around the earth in space.

For the transmitted signal not to be coming from space would defy any logic that I can think of.

https://i.imgur.com/W1sZ5Kf.png

https://i.imgur.com/NMX6ykf.png

The first "satellite" launched by the US/NASA (before Sir Arthur C. Clarke sci-fi bullshit was adopted) was in a project called "project echo". They used a real rocket (Wernher Von Braun) to launch a payload that contained a giant mylar balloon and a radio reflector. They launched the balloon into a 1,000 mile orbit above the earth then bounced radio signals from ground stations off of the reflector. The giant mylar balloon reflecting sunlight is the light or "sattelite" seen in the sky at night as it passes by.

Another way to bounce radio signals is off of the ionosphere. High altitude aircraft and drones are also used as "satellites".



Project Echo



Wernher Von Braun



"Hubble Space Telescope"

If the earth was flat we wouldn't have to use a satellite or as you suggest "bounce signals off balloons or aircraft". Building a tower higher than any structure would give perfect line of sight and this would allow them to broadcast to anywhere in the world. Because of the curvature of the globe this isn't possible. On a flat earth line of sight radio broadcast would be much easier to achieve and would require lower powered equipment because bouncing it off an active or passive reflector in the sky would require it to travel much further.

[suchmoon]

They launched the balloon into a 1,000 mile orbit above the earth

Ouch, you used a bad word. 50 lashes for you and no dinner today.

Orbit: the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft around a star, planet, or moon, especially a periodic elliptical revolution.

[notbatman]

They launched the balloon into a 1,000 mile orbit above the earth

Ouch, you used a bad word. 50 lashes for you and no dinner today.

Orbit: the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft around a star, planet, or moon, especially a periodic elliptical revolution.

Once the fallacy of "spacecraft" (there is no outer space) and the fallacy of celestial objects as heavy balls in the sky (they're projected lights) is dispelled, all that remains for an artificial satellite (weather balloon) is a circular path that follows the sun.

[suchmoon]

Once the fallacy of "spacecraft" (there is no outer space) and the fallacy of celestial objects as heavy balls in the sky (they're projected lights) is dispelled, all that remains for an artificial satellite (weather balloon) is a circular path that follows the sun.

So not an orbit then. Did you lie to us?

Also, just out of curiosity - what's the air pressure in your flat-earth dome? Assuming it's filled with air there would be 3000 miles of it trying to crush us.

[notbatman]

^^^ Your concept/definition of evenly lit is in error.



https://i.imgur.com/Dp6FY35.jpg

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/graphics/Moon_phases.jpg

Have you ever looked up?

yes.

...

If the earth was flat we wouldn't have to use a satellite or as you suggest "bounce signals off balloons or aircraft". Building a tower higher than any structure would give perfect line of sight and this would allow them to broadcast to anywhere in the world. Because of the curvature of the globe this isn't possible. On a flat earth line of sight radio broadcast would be much easier to achieve and would require lower powered equipment because bouncing it off an active or passive reflector in the sky would require it to travel much further.

I'm sorry but your understanding of radio signal propagation over long distances is flawed, radio waves are the same as light only with longer wavelengths and they suffer from the same limiting effects. For example, the giant mylar weather balloon can reflect the sun's light down to you but you can't see the sun directly due to perspective and other limiting effects. The longer the distance you want to transmit your signal the higher the altitude you need your antenna, that or bounce your signal off the ionosphere or troposphere but that trick only works with certain frequencies.

The DirecTV type "satellite" dish systems that are commonly in use today use troposcatter technology developed by the US military:



   "tropospheric scatter: 1. The propagation of radio waves by scattering as a result of irregularities or discontinuities in the physical properties of the troposphere. [NTIA] [RR] [JP1] 2. A method of transhorizon communications using frequencies from approximately 350 MHz to approximately 8400 MHz. (188) Note: The propagation mechanism is still not fully understood, though it includes several distinguishable but changeable mechanisms such as propagation by means of random reflections and scattering from irregularities in the dielectric gradient density of the troposphere, smooth-Earth diffraction, and diffraction over isolated obstacles (knife-edge diffraction). Synonym troposcatter." -- https://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/dir-038/_5617.htm

Once the fallacy of "spacecraft" (there is no outer space) and the fallacy of celestial objects as heavy balls in the sky (they're projected lights) is dispelled, all that remains for an artificial satellite (weather balloon) is a circular path that follows the sun.

So not an orbit then. Did you lie to us?

Also, just out of curiosity - what's the air pressure in your flat-earth dome? Assuming it's filled with air there would be 3000 miles of it trying to crush us.

No I didn't lie, your definition of orbit is a fallacy and I've redefined it with the justification that it reflects the motion of celestial objects such as the moon. As for the air pressure go buy a barometer and a length of rope, then go rope yourself.

[SenseiT]

If you stick a stick in the (sticky) ground, it will produce a shadow. The shadow moves as time passes (which is the principle for ancient Shadow Clocks). If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow

[notbatman]

If you stick a stick in the (sticky) ground, it will produce a shadow. The shadow moves as time passes (which is the principle for ancient Shadow Clocks). If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow

That's only if you assume the sun is 93 million miles away, the sun is a projected object whose distance can be measured with sextant. The measured distance to the sun is about 3,000 miles and at that distance the sun's light rays are divergent. The shadows cast by sticks are consistent with a close small sun (measured at a diameter of ~32 miles) over a flat and motionless plane.

Do you understand how much bullshit you're full of?





edit:

It should be noted that on flat earth atmospheric refraction needs to be accounted for.

[—]

World is a incredibly complex constructed

Earth completes one revolution on Galactic path in one year.
One turn per day on geomagnetic axis.
Because the axis are not aligned earth "wobbles"  and has seasons as sun moves form on to the other max reach.
Sun is electric discharged form poles as there is continues connect-disconnect happening because of rotation and poles offsets.
Moon follows ecliptic path.
“Gravity” (9,81m/s/s) at revolving around the 49271.2 km radius endless loop, like standing in never ending elevator, is time (aging), tying to defy is drying to defy death.

Some updated better visuals, the "pickled" earths diameter reduce to the poles. (not time to adjust)


and in the enclosed Universe Pluto at the center long path


one of the poles

[Astargath]

^^^ Your concept/definition of evenly lit is in error.



https://i.imgur.com/Dp6FY35.jpg

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/graphics/Moon_phases.jpg

Have you ever looked up?

yes.

...

If the earth was flat we wouldn't have to use a satellite or as you suggest "bounce signals off balloons or aircraft". Building a tower higher than any structure would give perfect line of sight and this would allow them to broadcast to anywhere in the world. Because of the curvature of the globe this isn't possible. On a flat earth line of sight radio broadcast would be much easier to achieve and would require lower powered equipment because bouncing it off an active or passive reflector in the sky would require it to travel much further.

I'm sorry but your understanding of radio signal propagation over long distances is flawed, radio waves are the same as light only with longer wavelengths and they suffer from the same limiting effects. For example, the giant mylar weather balloon can reflect the sun's light down to you but you can't see the sun directly due to perspective and other limiting effects. The longer the distance you want to transmit your signal the higher the altitude you need your antenna, that or bounce your signal off the ionosphere or troposphere but that trick only works with certain frequencies.

The DirecTV type "satellite" dish systems that are commonly in use today use troposcatter technology developed by the US military:



   "tropospheric scatter: 1. The propagation of radio waves by scattering as a result of irregularities or discontinuities in the physical properties of the troposphere. [NTIA] [RR] [JP1] 2. A method of transhorizon communications using frequencies from approximately 350 MHz to approximately 8400 MHz. (188) Note: The propagation mechanism is still not fully understood, though it includes several distinguishable but changeable mechanisms such as propagation by means of random reflections and scattering from irregularities in the dielectric gradient density of the troposphere, smooth-Earth diffraction, and diffraction over isolated obstacles (knife-edge diffraction). Synonym troposcatter." -- https://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/dir-038/_5617.htm

Once the fallacy of "spacecraft" (there is no outer space) and the fallacy of celestial objects as heavy balls in the sky (they're projected lights) is dispelled, all that remains for an artificial satellite (weather balloon) is a circular path that follows the sun.

So not an orbit then. Did you lie to us?

Also, just out of curiosity - what's the air pressure in your flat-earth dome? Assuming it's filled with air there would be 3000 miles of it trying to crush us.

No I didn't lie, your definition of orbit is a fallacy and I've redefined it with the justification that it reflects the motion of celestial objects such as the moon. As for the air pressure go buy a barometer and a length of rope, then go rope yourself.

And you are telling me there is no shadow in that photo? Are you blind?

[notbatman]

...

...
And you are telling me there is no shadow in that photo? Are you blind?

That's not the argument I'm supporting here, you have nothing but stawmen. Every area that's lit is illuminated evenly with the exception of the area adjacent to the delimiter line. The moon is not consistent with a sphere illuminted by the sun, go rope yourself.



"The best possible explanation for the Moon is observational error – the Moon doesn’t exist." -- Irwin Shapiro, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics



Folks, this is the very essence of gaslighting.

[Astargath]

...

...
And you are telling me there is no shadow in that photo? Are you blind?

That's not the argument I'm supporting here, you have nothing but stawmen. Every area that's lit is illuminated evenly with the exception of the area adjacent to the delimiter line. The moon is not consistent with a sphere illuminted by the sun, go rope yourself.

How are you measuring it? How do you know every area is illuminated evenly, what measurement tools did you use to make that claim?

[notbatman]

^^^ No you, your claim is observational error. The top-left quarter has an edge, where's waldo?




^{Source: CRROW777}

[Astargath]

^^^ No you, your claim is observational error. The top-left corner has an edge, where's waldo?




^{Source: CRROW777}

I don't claim anything, again, how do you know that's a ''holographic wave'' and not a simple camera defect / effect? How are you measuring all this?

[notbatman]

^^^ The camera pans and the ''holographic wave'' stays with the moon, it's possible the cameras operating frequencies are at play in the generation of the effect but, after some consideration I believe it can be witnessed by eye with a telescope. In either case the moon being a holographic projection from an elctro-mechanical projection system is the most likely cause as objects illumined by the sun don't exhibit this behavior.