Jump to content

The Flat Earth Thread: The reality of our physical plane (v2)


bflat
 Share

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, Carlos said:

 

No, not a tough crowd at all. You put up two videos that are quite absurd in their claim. I didn't address the other stuff you said:

 

NASA is not involved in the occult, there are numerous other space agencies, thousands of privately owned satellites and I'm not sure what Von Braun has to do with anything. As far as I can tell he was the baby eating Nazi who helped build the big rocket. If you really want to discuss in good spirit, list what bits you found compelling. I watched and flicked and found it daft.

What did I find compelling..... Hmmmm, well I thought the fact that the land mass of the earth fit perfectly in the crater being one.

The idea that the moon is a reflection of this realm was another. 

The idea, potentially backed by Admiral Byrd in that there is a land mass larger than the United States beyond Antarctica was another was demonstrated within the video. 

The idea that there is potentially two suns. 

 

Back to what I originally said, which you chose to ignore, was that I am not a flat earther, I do believe in the heliocentric model, but I always leave the door open for other ideas. That's not to say I believe in it, it just makes one wonder if other possibilities. I think that's fair, don't you? 

 

As for NASA not being linked to the occult, I'm sorry, but that is not the case. There's tonnes of evidence that Jack Parsons who had links to Alistair Crowley, in addition to the fact that Von Braun was linked to operation paperclip and the Nazis were of occult origin, which is again provable by a lot of material. I mean the actual emblem of NASA itself is laced with occult symbolism on its own. We'll have to agree to disagree on that. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

What did I find compelling..... Hmmmm, well I thought the fact that the land mass of the earth fit perfectly in the crater being one.

 

 

That makes no sense at all. They conjure up some fantasy "crater" and then claim the Earth fits in it??

 

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

The idea that the moon is a reflection of this realm was another. 

 

 

Yet it never changes, you can zoom in with a powerful telescope and see features on it. It changes phases from solar reflection and changes orientation by  hemisphere.

 

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

The idea, potentially backed by Admiral Byrd in that there is a land mass larger than the United States beyond Antarctica was another was demonstrated within the video. 

 

 

Where did he make such a claim?? Antarctica has numerous bases all around it. Ships circumnavigate it. So do drones:

https://www.noaa.gov/news/saildrone-is-first-to-circumnavigate-antarctica-in-search-for-carbon-dioxide#:~:text=The 196-day voyage was,in search of carbon dioxide.

 

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

The idea that there is potentially two suns. 

 

Cue Jackie Chan WTF image. Preposterous idea.

 

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

Back to what I originally said, which you chose to ignore, was that I am not a flat earther, I do believe in the heliocentric model, but I always leave the door open for other ideas. That's not to say I believe in it, it just makes one wonder if other possibilities. I think that's fair, don't you? 

 

I didn't choose to ignore it. I chose to address the 2 videos as you requested. You may believe in anything that takes your fancy. When you present it on a debate forum, it becomes fodder to discuss.

 

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

As for NASA not being linked to the occult, I'm sorry, but that is not the case. There's tonnes of evidence that Jack Parsons who had links to Alistair Crowley,

 

That links Parsons to the occult. Does the presence of Christians link them to Jesus, or jews to Moses? NASA is a massive organisation with original history strongly influenced by suspect expert help, but that crap died out post Apollo. Once America had cracked the rocket thing, the hired help was mainly farmed out.

 

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

in addition to the fact that Von Braun was linked to operation paperclip and the Nazis were of occult origin, which is again provable by a lot of material.

 

I don't doubt it. But the nazis who were brought over were mainly scientists and not blood sucking vampires. Von Braun had suspicious links to a death camp but nothing provable. As I said once NASA had tapped them up for all their knowledge, they were mainly discarded. Certainly today modern NASA bears no resemblance to the early questionable beginnings.

 

  

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

I mean the actual emblem of NASA itself is laced with occult symbolism on its own. 

 

Nah - that's a bizarre claim. I've heard some daft stuff about the red bit being a snake tongue:

 

nasa-logo-web-rgb.png?itok=uDhKSTb1

The round red, white and blue insignia, nicknamed the "meatball," was designed by employee James Modarelli in 1959, NASA's second year. The design incorporates references to different aspects of the mission of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The round shape of the insignia represents a planet. The stars represent space. The red v-shaped wing represents aeronautics. The circular orbit around the agency's name represents space travel.

 

 

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. 

 

Why? Have you made your mind up on it?

Edited by Carlos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah you're one of them, nice chatting bro, I won't be engaging further. If you want to dissect every word I use then I'm not the person you want to be speaking with as I am not interested in engaging in this diatribe. As for have I made my mind up? I don't think anything is definitive but you haven't presented anything, despite your best efforts, to change my mind. 👍🏻

My final words to you are to watch the following video, the guy himself says exactly what I said above. 

https://youtu.be/dDGL-UhaRV0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Morpheus said:

Ah you're one of them, nice chatting bro, I won't be engaging further. If you want to dissect every word I use then I'm not the person you want to be speaking with as I am not interested in engaging in this diatribe. As for have I made my mind up? I don't think anything is definitive but you haven't presented anything, despite your best efforts, to change my mind. 👍🏻

My final words to you are to watch the following video, the guy himself says exactly what I said above. 

https://youtu.be/dDGL-UhaRV0

 

1. I'm not "one of them" - ad hominem noted. I am a realist and look at all evidence not just the bits that confirm my opinion.

2. You made numerous points I responded to them all in good faith.

3. I wasn't trying to "change your mind" , the one you then say is not made up.

4. That wasn't even close to my best efforts.

5. You didn't offer a single thing back on any of the numerous points I made.

6. Perhaps you would have felt more comfortable if I had agreed with all those daft claims.

 

1 minute ago, Morpheus said:

My final words to you are to watch the following video, the guy himself says exactly what I said above. 

https://youtu.be/dDGL-UhaRV0

 

Couldn't your "final words" have at least had a time reference! The video is about the "secret land". That would be the largely unexplored Antarctica.

 

Kindly make your last words where it says what you "said above" on the video timeline and what specifically that was. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's in my previous post and he says there is a land mass larger than the US beyond Antarctica. As for the point in the video, I'm not sure you will have to watch it to find out I'm afraid, I don't think it's that far into the video from memory. 

 

I now want to change compelling to interesting from my first post and that should clear it all up. Clearly I've used the wrong choice of word and that's my fault. There was no intention to cause confusion or a ruse and I apologise for the incorrect use of grammar. 

 

As for as hominem, I didn't attack any part of your post at all or even try, so I'm sorry, I don't agree with you that I have engaged in any such actions. I just suspect you have an alternative agenda by engaging with me in the manner that you have, intentionally or unintentionally remains to be seen. 

 

 

In my opinion, you haven't posted in good faith and have instantly come out all guns blazing, despite me saying right at the beginning that I'm not a flat earther and there was zero, yes zero evidence to back up what was in the video. It's funny, despite that fact, you seem to think that I do and I'll repeat I don't. It doesn't mean I cannot consider other possibilities in any subject and find it interesting.

 

Yet, despite that declaration you have addressed me like some kind of moron and I don't appreciate it. Now for something I am certain of is that the sun's visible light is not the dominant force that shapes our weather. Now try taking that apart. 

 

Edited by Morpheus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Carlos said:

NASA is not involved in the occult

I will have to disagree with you unfortunately , all government agencies are involved with the occult, but not for the reason everyone thinks ,I maybe wrong and that's not unusual but it is my understanding the literal meaning of the word occult simply means hidden and they hide shit from us constantly. I always thought NASA stood for never a straight answer😉

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Carlos said:

@zArk To summarise:

 

1. We have two lines showing the Full eclipse from YOUR video.

2. We have a screen shot showing the points your video is claiming to analyse time wise.

3. These clearly show the full eclipse shadow.

4. We have a video showing the Moon starting/ending to cast its full shadow on the times claimed.

 

NONE of this is unlikely. The major errors are your video and your automatic belief of such bad errors.

 

no, merely a phrase interpreted as a title  ... total eclipse time or Total Eclipse time

 

oh well, glad we cleared that up

 

the shadow hits the earth at 15:55 and stops hitting the earth at 20:55 UT

 

5hrs but as you pointed out the moons speed creates an equal speed shadow that moves laterally across the diameter of the earth which in spherist terms is 12,500 km

so 3700 km/h calculates the shadow outside the earths diameter after 3 and 1/2 hrs

 

so the 1 1/2 hours are unexplained by globe theory /..... weird shit

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, zArk said:

so 3700 km/h calculates the shadow outside the earths diameter after 3 and 1/2 hrs

 

Well, we appear to be getting there, one final simple diagram might do it.

 

The Lunar speed is constant, only the relative speed of the shadow across a sphere is different.

 

35 minutes ago, zArk said:

so the 1 1/2 hours are unexplained by globe theory /..... weird shit

 

Nothing weird about it all - I explained it in really simple terms and once again you ignored it all.

 

OIP.jpg

 

 

Diagram 1 Partial eclipse, is the Moon before the shadow hits Earth. Reduced light from the Penumbra hits the Earth's surface up to an hour before the FULL eclipse and 1hr before the Moon casts a shadow.

 

Diagram 2 FULL eclipse, is the 3hrs 14 minutes where the Moon travels across the face of the Earth.

 

Diagram 3 Partial eclipse, is the Moon after its shadow has left the Earth's surface. Reduced light from the Penumbra hits the Earth's surface up to an hour after the FULL eclipse and 1hr after the Moon casts a shadow.

 

The reason for this 1hr is that the Moon moves 1/2 a degree per hour and after that time the width of the penumbra 6400km will not be visible, ie. end of partial eclipse.

 

Edited by Carlos
small typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Morpheus said:

It's in my previous post and he says there is a land mass larger than the US beyond Antarctica. As for the point in the video, I'm not sure you will have to watch it to find out I'm afraid, I don't think it's that far into the video from memory. 

 

Couldn't find it. It's a fairly bland boring video.

 

15 hours ago, Morpheus said:

I now want to change compelling to interesting from my first post and that should clear it all up. Clearly I've used the wrong choice of word and that's my fault. There was no intention to cause confusion or a ruse and I apologise for the incorrect use of grammar. 

 

 

I didn't have a problem with either word. I addressed the issues you brought up.

 

15 hours ago, Morpheus said:

As for as hominem, I didn't attack any part of your post at all or even try, so I'm sorry, I don't agree with you that I have engaged in any such actions. I just suspect you have an alternative agenda by engaging with me in the manner that you have, intentionally or unintentionally remains to be seen. 

 

 

Irony. I suggest you look up what an ad hominem is. It's where you target the poster and not their content. You just did it again! I could not care less what you suspect, I have no agenda and I engaged with you in good faith and with nothing more than mild sarcasm. You asked what people thought  of the videos. You made statements about the occult and didn't address my reply properly. You made a list of the things you found of interest and I responded to each one.

 

15 hours ago, Morpheus said:

In my opinion, you haven't posted in good faith and have instantly come out all guns blazing, despite me saying right at the beginning that I'm not a flat earther and there was zero, yes zero evidence to back up what was in the video. It's funny, despite that fact, you seem to think that I do and I'll repeat I don't. It doesn't mean I cannot consider other possibilities in any subject and find it interesting.

 

My guns were not blazing, if anything I held back considerably. I have no interest in your opinion. My responses seem to have caused you some distress which is rather weird considering you didn't believe any of this. I don't care whether you are flat earther or not, I addressed what you presented, not you. 

 

15 hours ago, Morpheus said:

Yet, despite that declaration you have addressed me like some kind of moron and I don't appreciate it. Now for something I am certain of is that the sun's visible light is not the dominant force that shapes our weather. Now try taking that apart. 

 

I haven't addressed you at all! I have addressed the things you found compelling/interesting. Learn to understand the difference.

 

As for the cause of terrestrial weather there is nothing to take apart, it's off topic and is merely your stated opinion. Besides its infra-red anyway so I agree with that statement.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, peter said:

I will have to disagree with you unfortunately , all government agencies are involved with the occult, but not for the reason everyone thinks ,I maybe wrong and that's not unusual but it is my understanding the literal meaning of the word occult simply means hidden and they hide shit from us constantly. I always thought NASA stood for never a straight answer😉

 

No worries. NASA is actually an independent agency and as far as I can tell are the opposite of hidden. They post so much it is impossible to view it all.

 

I often look at that "never a straight answer" bastardised acronym and wonder where it originated from,  but more importantly I haven't ever seen a solid example where this is true. Other space agencies confirm many of the things they come out with. Do you think it's more of "most of the time they give a perfectly straight answer but some of the time I suspect it isn't because I like to believe other stuff"?😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Carlos said:

The Lunar speed is constant, only the relative speed of the shadow across a sphere is different.

 

 

woah there ,

that picture that you posted bears no relation at all to the spherist model

 

 

its all wrong to spherist model and is rejected

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zArk said:

woah there ,

that picture that you posted bears no relation at all to the spherist model

 

 

Bullshit! You are afraid to admit you are wrong. It is a perfectly reasonable explanation for your sad confusion.

 

Explain exactly why it is not relevant.

 

Why the hell are you ignoring so much!? 

 

The Moon penumbra "shadow" which is effectively a varying diminishing of the extremely bright Sun is very big:

https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/35635/during-an-eclipse-how-big-is-the-shadow-of-the-moon-on-the-earth#:~:text=Typically%2C the umbra is 100–160 km wide%2C while,km. Source%3A Geometry of a Total Solar Eclipse

Typically, the umbra is 100–160 km wide, while the penumbral diameter is in excess of 6400 km. Source: Geometry of a Total Solar Eclipse

 

https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/partial-solar-eclipse.html#:~:text=During a partial solar eclipse%2C the Moon's umbra,a place close to one of the poles.

"During a partial solar eclipse, the Moon's umbra or antumbra, the shadow's center portion, is cast into space just above the polar regions, missing

http://xjubier.free.fr/site_movies/TSE_2017_Simulation_1024x768.mp4poles."

 

CAN YOU READ!?

 

You can see the Moon well before it casts a shadow on the Earth and well after it has finished. When it moves across the Sun in such circumstances, that is another scenario when you see a partial eclipse.

 

LookHere2-300x300.png

 

http://xjubier.free.fr/site_movies/TSE_2017_Simulation_1024x768.mp4

 

See the animation showing the visible section of the penumbra  before the FULL shadow! How can anyone be this contrary, you must be so afraid to lose face or something. Nobody can fail to understand this, it's been simplified to allow a child to get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Carlos said:

Bullshit! You are afraid to admit you are wrong. It is a perfectly reasonable explanation for your sad confusion.

well no.  spherist theory says

 

earth spins eastward at 15 degrees an hour

moon orbits earth at 0.5 degrees an hour

sun is 93,000,000 miles from earth at centre of solar system

moon is 240,000 miles from earth

moons orbit is 28 days around earth

earths rotation is 24 hours

 

that picture that you posted bears no relation at all to the spherist model

 

rejected diagram

 

 

 

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carlos said:

 

No worries. NASA is actually an independent agency and as far as I can tell are the opposite of hidden. They post so much it is impossible to view it all.

 

I often look at that "never a straight answer" bastardised acronym and wonder where it originated from,  but more importantly I haven't ever seen a solid example where this is true. Other space agencies confirm many of the things they come out with. Do you think it's more of "most of the time they give a perfectly straight answer but some of the time I suspect it isn't because I like to believe other stuff"?😀

I think they, like other government agencies will give a perfectly straight answer provided it doesn't upset the status quo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, zArk said:

well no.  spherist theory says

 

earth spins eastward at 15 degrees an hour

moon orbits earth at 0.5 degrees an hour

sun is 93,000,000 miles from earth at centre of solar system

moon is 240,000 miles from earth

moons orbit is 28 days around earth

earths rotation is 24 hours

 

that picture that you posted bears no relation at all to the spherist model

 

rejected diagram

 

 

Oh ffs!! It's not a scale model. 

 

It's a simple model for those hard of understanding. It shows how the shadow is NOT on the Earth but the partial eclipse is visible. THAT is where the 5 hours comes from. It isn't shadow duration it is eclipse duration! Shadow duration, time on Earth exactly as detailed 3hrs 14mins. Not 5 hrs. You are wrong, your silly video is wrong but you haven't got the balls to admit it. You ignored the salient parts of that last post, dude, that is so pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, peter said:

I think they, like other government agencies will give a perfectly straight answer provided it doesn't upset the status quo

 

So not "never" then.  And this was more accurate than most would admit - "most of the time they give a perfectly straight answer but some of the time I suspect it isn't because I like to believe other stuff"?

 

Can you think of a few examples where they didn't give a straight answer that would have upset the status quo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Carlos said:

You can see the Moon well before it casts a shadow on the Earth and well after it has finished.

 

lol, you already established that the moon cant be observed pre and post eclipse because of 'scattering' or summit

fs, stick to the script carlos 🤷‍♂️

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, zArk said:

 

its not about scale , which is indeed an issue, but major errors in sun/moon/earth movement

the errors are glaring

 

It's nothing whatsoever to do with movement!! It is entirely to show how the shadow doesn't hit the Earth but the partial eclipse is visible BEFORE and AFTER the actual shadow passes across the surface. It was meant to simplify this simple thing you are deliberately avoiding. How can you not see this stunningly obvious thing? You are wrong and are afraid to admit it. Which part of this below are you not getting? Partial eclipse visible before shadow reaches Earth. In bright red - be brave address it instead of ignoring it.

 

https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/35635/during-an-eclipse-how-big-is-the-shadow-of-the-moon-on-the-earth#:~:text=Typically%2C the umbra is 100–160 km wide%2C while,km. Source%3A Geometry of a Total Solar Eclipse

Typically, the umbra is 100–160 km wide, while the penumbral diameter is in excess of 6400km Source: Geometry of a Total Solar Eclipse

 

https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/partial-solar-eclipse.html#:~:text=During a partial solar eclipse%2C the Moon's umbra,a place close to one of the poles.

"During a partial solar eclipse, the Moon's umbra or antumbra, the shadow's center portion, is cast into space just above the polar regions, missing

poles."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, zArk said:

 

lol, you already established that the moon cant be observed pre and post eclipse because of 'scattering' or summit

fs, stick to the script carlos 🤷‍♂️

 

 

The scattering is what makes the new moon invisible. It can be seen as it passes partially across the Sun - which is what we are talking about. Stop playing games now, try and show some balls and admit you now understand this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, zArk said:

🤦‍♂️

 

You lost pal and lack the balls to admit it. MY DIAGRAM is nothing to do with movement and is simply to show that which you are afraid to admit - the Moon is visible when it passes in front of the Sun during a partial eclipse, before and after the shadow passes across the Earth.

 

Once again avoiding 90% of the post.

Edited by Carlos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carlos said:

 

 

 

Can you think of a few examples where they didn't give a straight answer that would have upset the status quo?

No I can't ,not off the top of my head, but there lies the conundrum , we can only take what they say as face value, they would never come out and say our moon is an  artificial construct even though there is a large amount of anecdotal evidence to suggest as much, or they wouldn't come out and say we now have  anti gravity propulsion capabilities even if we did , just with those two statements alone we would see  societies  main control systems would go into melt down , meaning energy requirements and religion.

My personal opinion is this leaves us in a rather tricky position  ,do I believe what  NASA says? , mostly, do I believe that they will  always tell  the truth ?, not in the slightest 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, peter said:

No I can't ,not off the top of my head, but there lies the conundrum , we can only take what they say as face value, they would never come out and say our moon is an  artificial construct even though there is a large amount of anecdotal evidence to suggest as much, or they wouldn't come out and say we now have  anti gravity propulsion capabilities even if we did , just with those two statements alone we would see  societies  main control systems would go into melt down , meaning energy requirements and religion.

My personal opinion is this leaves us in a rather tricky position  ,do I believe what  NASA says? , mostly, do I believe that they will  always tell  the truth ?, not in the slightest 

 

OK, no worries. There is no conundrum and forgive me for posting this once more: "most of the time they give a perfectly straight answer but some of the time I suspect it isn't because I like to believe other stuff". And that is all there is suspicion. I suspect they have some secrets they would rather not share, but there is no evidence for this at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Grumpy Owl changed the title to The Flat Earth Thread: The reality of our physical plane (v2)
  • Grumpy Owl locked, unlocked and locked this topic
  • Grumpy Owl unlocked this topic
  • Grumpy Owl locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...