Jump to content

Flat Earth: the last thread about this subject on this forum


 Share

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, zArk said:

and we've seen that the Solar Eclipse 2017 destroyed the heliocentric model

So what is your reasoning behind that statement, once again we see a conclusion without the why, I hope you aren't referring to the axial speed of the earth and the orbital speed of the moon and the direction of the eclipse shadow. You asked me to explain that to you back in the Bflat FE thread which I did and you had a bit of a tizzi fit and wouldn't accept the explanation then,so if that's it I guess you still haven't. I thought this thread was supposed to showcase new FE EVIDENCE anyway

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, zArk said:

and we've seen that the Solar Eclipse 2017 destroyed the heliocentric model

 

we constantly see helios using chalkboards, graphs, calculations, cgi, models to prove their own delusion.

 

 

 

Ive seen a solar eclipse in London 11 August 1999, I was sat having a drink at the apprentice pub next to Zion Park on the Thames, sounds very masonic lol. Most definitely wasent transparent.

 

I asked you to about a crescent waxed moon Zark,,for your 2d moon.

As I see it, the shadow on a 2d moon would look nothing like a sphere.

You could easily demonstrate with a light & a bit of card.

 

If you cant answer basic obvious questions from a dropout like me, how do you expect serious people to take you seriously?

Prove you arnt trolling this forum for Bitcoin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, alexa said:

This still doesn't explain why we see Blue through a full moon in the day and darkness through a full moon at night. This should really tell us something, maybe the moon is a kind of a transparent plasma looking glass reflecting earth upon it. But still ..... I believe the moon disc gives off her own light.

 

But why is the sky 'blue'?

 

The sky on Mars appears to be 'red'. Why is that?

 

The moon does not give off its own 'light', what we see is it reflecting sunlight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

But why is the sky 'blue'?

 

The sky on Mars appears to be 'red'. Why is that?

 

The moon does not give off its own 'light', what we see is it reflecting sunlight.

 


It is programming.

 

In other dimensions, we will not see colours, we will see reality as something else. 

 

Colour, light, heat, cold are limited to this trap. 

 

Even if we use telescopes or other sensory enhancements we cannot see beyond this dimension and beyond this 5 sense limitation. 

 

We can see only within a limited light spectrum as David Icke has often said. 

 

We do not know that moon is not the original ‘light’ source --we have been taught those things... Reality might be different.

 

Perception of limited light spectrum defines  the limits of this prison/trap.

 

In other dimensions we can see the moon & sun for what they are, not interpret them as colours or shapes or defined by our current human perception of distance. 


So sky is not just blue or grey and mars is not just red.

 

Sky, mars etc. are more than just their colour, ---colour is one of the few attributes we can see.  

 

As an analogy---Dogs and other animals hear and see different things. Their reality would be very different even though living within the confines of this very same realm. 

 

Likewise the sky, moon, cosmic beings are more than what we can see but we are trapped within the limitation of being able to see only a couple of their attributes, so we conclude that they have a certain shape and certain way of functioning and play a certain role vis a vis the earth we live on, and reach a conclusion that this is what they must be because this is what we see and what we have tested with  instruments. 


All perception of shape and colour is dependent on who is viewing the object that is being viewed, ie the sensory limitations of perceiver.

 

Reality itself is far more than shapes and colours.

 

Certain colours could possibly have been connected to certain frequencies in the original simulation.  But now we cannot see the whole picture, we are only able to see what appears as colours eg. red or blue in the limited spectrum we have access to. A tiny part of the whole picture.

Edited by m754
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have nothing better to do but post here, just for a bit of talk.

The earth is round.

The main argument is that if the moon is a sphere so is the earth since the moon is the natural satelite of earth.

 

I use to look when I was younger with binoculars at the moon every night, I had a good pair of binocuars, I could actually see valleys on the moon with it, not see clear but you could tell the geoligical shapes.

 

Now the moon appears round in the night sky, I looked hours later the land scape would change, I would sit all night work on my computer, I found the night calm so I worked at night and slept in the morning till 1 in the afternoon, while I worked I did have breaks and I would  go for a cigarette on my balcony and look again and the view changed with other land scapes many hours later towards the morning compared to the evening moon.

 

So the moon spins and reveals it's other parts, gets exposed as things revolve and the earth and moon spin and you can see different angles of the moon that were not visible before. So the moon is a globe then so is the earth, this is simple logic.

If this were not the case I would get the same flat moon with the same geography on the moon.


You can see a bit of the moon sides that were not visible as it spins with the earth.

Get a pair of binoculars and see the moon in it's different phases, mark what you saw on paper and then look again, next days you may see something else.

 

Now the moon you can't see it's dark side at all, the other side in the back but you can see side ways.

This is the moon.

moon_topic_1024.jpg

 

But you can see it's sides as new landscapes show up.

Obvious it's a sphere then so is the earth.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, peter said:

You asked me to explain that to you back in the Bflat FE thread which I did and you had a bit of a tizzi fit and wouldn't accept the explanation then,so if that's it I guess you still haven't. I thought this thread was supposed to showcase new FE EVIDENCE anyway

there is only 1 explanation for the solar eclipse existing off the african coast at 20.55 utc

 

the earth isnt spinning

 

if the earth was spinning it would have turned away from the sun and would have been night time, there is no way an eclipse would have been possible to be seen off the African coast at 20:55 UTC...

 

the earth isnt spinning

the maths do not add up

 

eclipse2017.jpg.7219c09d7c48bd154716e8d68fca34a3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, oddsnsods said:

 

Ive seen a solar eclipse in London 11 August 1999, I was sat having a drink at the apprentice pub next to Zion Park on the Thames, sounds very masonic lol. Most definitely wasent transparent.

 

I asked you to about a crescent waxed moon Zark,,for your 2d moon.

As I see it, the shadow on a 2d moon would look nothing like a sphere.

You could easily demonstrate with a light & a bit of card.

 

If you cant answer basic obvious questions from a dropout like me, how do you expect serious people to take you seriously?

Prove you arnt trolling this forum for Bitcoin.

 

i've seen wind turbines off the coast of blackpool being filmed in incredible HD with a p1000 and theres no curve. it was a video you posted.

the horizon should have been 7 miles away, the wind turbine was 17miles away yet the camera shows the full windturbine pole.

 

its just bizarre

 

where'd that curve go?

did the focal length of the p1000 remove/hide the curve?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, zArk said:

there is only 1 explanation for the solar eclipse existing off the african coast at 20.55 utc

 

the earth isnt spinning

 

if the earth was spinning it would have turned away from the sun and would have been night time, there is no way an eclipse would have been possible to be seen off the African coast at 20:55 UTC...

 

the earth isnt spinning

the maths do not add up

 

eclipse2017.jpg.7219c09d7c48bd154716e8d68fca34a3.jpg

Don't just put that up, explain it to me, so even a dummy such as myself can understand,point form would be great so we can all have a good look, and an English translation on the map please. You  obviously haven't looked through a telescope at the moon, I suggest you do, then you can explain why the moon rolls out of the field of view within a very short time using a manual Dobsonian type mount, if the earth isn't spinning that is,bet you don't though

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zArk said:

there is only 1 explanation for the solar eclipse existing off the african coast at 20.55 utc

Well: 20:55 UTC is the time at Greenwich also known as GMT. Those islands off Africa look to be the Cape Verde Islands, please do tell if you can work out from that tiny pic precisely which islands they are.

Now, the Cape Verde islands are in a different timezone. They are 1 hour behind UTC so the actual time in Cape Verde was 19:55.

 

The leads to - what time does the sunset in the Cape Verde islands? Today the sun sets in Cape Verde at 18:43 local time. On 21st August 2021 sunset was at 18:56.

As you know, there is 'twilight' where you are still aware of light from the sun. Astronomical Twilight on 21st August 2021 ended at 20:10 local time.

So in Cape Verde you would have been aware of something interesting happening in the last 15 minutes of twilight.

 

https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/@3374818?month=8&year=2021

 

and here is an animation of the eclipse at Cape Verde that suggests the timings given in your pic are a bit out:-

https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/in/@3374818?iso=20170821

 

The earth spins!

 

2 hours ago, zArk said:

 

 

the earth isnt spinning

 

if the earth was spinning it would have turned away from the sun and would have been night time, there is no way an eclipse would have been possible to be seen off the African coast at 20:55 UTC...

 

the earth isnt spinning

the maths do not add up

 

eclipse2017.jpg.7219c09d7c48bd154716e8d68fca34a3.jpg

 

Edited by gregory-peccary
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, zArk said:

 

i've seen wind turbines off the coast of blackpool being filmed in incredible HD with a p1000 and theres no curve. it was a video you posted.

the horizon should have been 7 miles away, the wind turbine was 17miles away yet the camera shows the full windturbine pole.

 

its just bizarre

 

where'd that curve go?

did the focal length of the p1000 remove/hide the curve?

 

 

 

Isnt the horizon meant to be 3 miles away for a 6ft person?

You dont understand refraction maybe..or maybe you were right the 1st time about the cameras focal range.

The video I posted of Ranty debunking himself as per usual..clearly shows the curve for any sane person.

 

But why cant you answer a simple question about your 2d oval transparent projection in the sky, above our heads..explain a waxing crescent moon to me, or any phase we witness. Explain a lunar eclipse or solar eclipse..why do we clearly see a shadow of a sphere.

 

Just admit you are a professional bullshit artist or dying for attention.

Like the other flerther trolls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oddsnsods said:

Just admit you are a professional bullshit artist or dying for attention.

Like the other flerther trolls.

Come on odds back it off a bit, I for one would hate us to be accused of causing the thread to be closed, personally though I think you are a bit light on. My bottom lip is as sore as shit at the moment from me biting it , but if I can do it so can you😉😇

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, peter said:

Come on odds back it off a bit, I for one would hate us to be accused of causing the thread to be closed, personally though I think you are a bit light on. My bottom lip is as sore as shit at the moment from me biting it , but if I can do it so can you😉😇

 

He wont even show me how moon shadows work, but just changes the subject or tries to take me down culdesacs.

 

image.png.69778dba8273fbb2e8b4df5ec3701986.png

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSCqceTQoQAdiVpYyDICSL

Edited by oddsnsods
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2021 at 2:08 AM, alexa said:

Rare sight of a star behind the moon in broad daylight! Aldebaran occultation.

 

 

The star is not behind the moon, it appears from behind the moon.

Surely you can tell the difference? What you are trying to 'conjure' here is very dishonest or TROLLISH..I dont see any other words for it.

 

This video debunks your Genesis light bulb, Zacs 2d moon (waxing crescent moon in its own shadow, not above head, from west to east, not 2d oval shaped.) Clearly not transparent either.

Also shows a star passing behind the moon then reappearing. So debatably debunks the geocentric model.

You can see shadows in the craters to show the moon is a sphere & angles of the impacts of course.

 

If you cant admit it & you wont of course, you are a deceiver in plain site Alexa.

 

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, alexa said:

 

Is there anything that would convince you otherwise ? 

 

Some pretty conclusive evidence would be useful, as well as some plausible scientific explanation.

 

None of which I am seeing in this topic.

 

We 'see' things in this five-sense reality when light reflects off them. Sunlight reflects off the surface of the earth, and it refracts because of the composition of the atmosphere, which is why during daylight the sky appears to be blue. Anything in the sky above us, which is 'in shadow' also appears to have a 'blue shadow'. And that is why a 'partial phase' moon doesn't have a 'black' shadow during the daytime.

 

At night, the moon appears to 'glow' because it has no atmosphere and the light from the sun just reflects straight off it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Grumpy Owl said:

Some pretty conclusive evidence would be useful, as well as some plausible scientific explanation.

 

None of which I am seeing in this topic.

 

That's b/c there is none to support this, their so called faked evidence & theories always supports in favor of a ball earth hurtling through space & a solid moon which can be landed on. I'm sorry but I go on what I can see & sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, oddsnsods said:

 

The star is not behind the moon, it appears from behind the moon.

Surely you can tell the difference? What you are trying to 'conjure' here is very dishonest or TROLLISH..I dont see any other words for it.

 

This video debunks your Genesis light bulb, Zacs 2d moon (waxing crescent moon in its own shadow, not above head, from west to east, not 2d oval shaped.) Clearly not transparent either.

Also shows a star passing behind the moon then reappearing. So debatably debunks the geocentric model.

You can see shadows in the craters to show the moon is a sphere & angles of the impacts of course.

 

If you cant admit it & you wont of course, you are a deceiver in plain site Alexa.

 

 

 

I admit I may get it wrong at times but this doesn't make me a deceiver or a troll. I would never deliberately deceive anyone.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ummm.....

 

Grumpy should trust their senses.

 

Do you feel anything like the phenomenal combined movement were supposed to be going at? Lots of 666's in the numbers.

 

Do you see ANY variation in the positions of the stars year on year even though we're hurtling, spinning, twisting at who knows how many millions of miles an hour through infinite space?

 

Have you tried to verify for yourself the supposed curvature? 8" per mile squared (66.6% of a foot). I have.

 

Do you think the glob tilts (like NASA does) at 23.4 degrees? 90 degrees minus 23.4 = 66.6 degrees, noticing a theme here?

 

And the evidence you have is what? Seriously, what is your evidence that we're on a spinning glob, in infinite space.

 

Making us monkey boy nothings. Is that what you think?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys please explain. Or give a reasonable response, not weather balloons please.🤦‍♂️

Apart from the obvious answers for proof earth spinning, like Corealis effect or Foucault pendulum, we have something more practical, as in Satellite detectors & apps, can be verified in the sky if you really tried, as well as geo orbit sats orbiting different times. Im sure could be quite easily proven, as well as the ISS of course can be tracked. Hard for some to believe, but theyde never try anyway.😭

 

Yes Star link aka skynet sats are visible..& can easily be tracked & visualised.

 

 

 

 

🍿

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, gregory-peccary said:

Well: 20:55 UTC is the time at Greenwich also known as GMT. Those islands off Africa look to be the Cape Verde Islands, please do tell if you can work out from that tiny pic precisely which islands they are.

Now, the Cape Verde islands are in a different timezone. They are 1 hour behind UTC so the actual time in Cape Verde was 19:55.

 

The leads to - what time does the sunset in the Cape Verde islands? Today the sun sets in Cape Verde at 18:43 local time. On 21st August 2021 sunset was at 18:56.

As you know, there is 'twilight' where you are still aware of light from the sun. Astronomical Twilight on 21st August 2021 ended at 20:10 local time.

So in Cape Verde you would have been aware of something interesting happening in the last 15 minutes of twilight.

 

https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/@3374818?month=8&year=2021

 

and here is an animation of the eclipse at Cape Verde that suggests the timings given in your pic are a bit out:-

https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/in/@3374818?iso=20170821

 

The earth spins!

 

 

dont think so fella

GMT is a time zone

UTC is a time standard

mixing the standard with a zone causes error

 

the eclipse was 5 hours in duration

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, oddsnsods said:

 

Isnt the horizon meant to be 3 miles away for a 6ft person?

You dont understand refraction maybe..or maybe you were right the 1st time about the cameras focal range.

The video I posted of Ranty debunking himself as per usual..clearly shows the curve for any sane person.

 

But why cant you answer a simple question about your 2d oval transparent projection in the sky, above our heads..explain a waxing crescent moon to me, or any phase we witness. Explain a lunar eclipse or solar eclipse..why do we clearly see a shadow of a sphere.

 

Just admit you are a professional bullshit artist or dying for attention.

Like the other flerther trolls.

i am really fixated upon that Blackpool video now.

i see the distortion of the sea and the air just above the sea

and i assume that for the sphere that light is bending through the apparent horizon (is the horizon apparent at 17 miles?)

the sphere real horizon is 10miles+ previous

 

P1000.jpg.89938c58e623012c6724d404a8a1b9d2.jpgP1000MARKED.jpg.aac91f6b6d65d973545e4fb6a3886ade.jpg

 

does the lower red line hit the actual sphere horizon at 3-7miles (6ft - 15ft viewer?)

and the sea and image between the red lines is the mirage

 

but the problem then is that the poles are pretty much inline with the mirageand the height of the poles is roughly correct 150m total height including blade tips

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The heat differentiation between the sun and the moon.

 

The Sun’s light is golden, warm, drying, preservative and antiseptic, while the Moon’s light is silver, cool, damp, putrefying and septic.

 

The Sun’s rays decrease the combustion of a bonfire, while the Moon’s rays increase combustion.

 

Plant and animal substances exposed to sunlight quickly dry, shrink, coagulate, and lose the tendency to decompose and putrify; grapes and other fruits become solid, partially candied and preserved like raisins, dates, and prunes; animal flesh coagulates, loses its volatile gaseous constituents, becomes firm, dry, and slow to decay.

When exposed to moonlight, however, plant and animal substances, tend to show symptoms of putrefaction and decay.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...