LF: *One-Stop Complete Resource Directory For Flat-Earth EvidenceHERE*

Title: *One-Stop Complete Resource Directory For Flat-Earth EvidenceHERE*
Source: Flat Earth Science And The Bible
URL Source: https://flatearthscienceandbible.co ... t-works-and-why-we-believe-it/
Published: Mar 31, 2019
Author: Flat Earth Science and the Bible
Post Date: 2019-03-31 15:02:34 by Liberator
Keywords: FLAT-EARTH, RESOURCE, DIRECTORY
Views: 5921
Comments: 78

Introduction to the Flat Earth, How it Works, and Why We Believe It

If this is your first time hearing about the flat earth, your first reaction may be like most people: shock, laughter, scoffing, and avoidance. But the Flat Earth Movement is exploding like wildfire and it’s not because it’s just cool or a good distraction. Surprisingly the Flat Earth belief is backed by solid science and undeniable visual evidence.
So what is the Flat Earth all about and how does it work?

INTRODUCING THE FLAT EARTH:

The Earth

The Flat Earth is set on a flat non-moving stationary foundation (1 Samuel 2:8; 1 Chronicles 16:30; Psalms 93:1; Psalms 96: 9-11). All the continents center around the North Pole and are surrounded by Ocean. Surrounding the flat earth 360 degrees on all sides is Antarctica. It is also known as the Antarctic ice wall and has been measured at 200 ft high and and thousands of miles long. Captain Cook sailed along the ice wall for 60,000 miles and never found an inlet. Bet you never heard about that in your history books.
The "South Pole" does not exist.

The Dome

There are different opinions on what is above the flat earth, but the general flat earth belief is that the earth’s sky is surrounded by a sky dome the holds in the air and protects us. The Bible says it is made of glass (Job 37:18). The Bible clearly describes a firm dome (firmament) IN which the sun and moon were placed (Genesis 1:14-19).

(Below are typical "Planetariums, which coincidentally utilize their own respective "Dome" which precisely mirrors the Firmament as described in the Bible, along with its depiction of the stars, Moon, Sun, and planets.):

The Sun and Moon The sun and moon are close and small and are located inside the dome/Firmament. They circle around and above the flat earth creating day and night and the seasons.

This is the most spectacularly extensive and comprehensive online site I've seen with respect to Flat Earth. Categorized and sub-categorized neatly, Flat Earth issues are addressed, examined, explained both scientifically and Biblically.

1) FLAT EARTH PROOF
2) HOW IT WORKS
3) GLOBE DECEPTION
4) BIBLICAL PROOF
FLAT EARTH FAQ:

http://flatearthscienceandbible.com/2016/02/10/flat-earth-frequently-asked-questions/

Many links are available -- although many have been purged and are still being removed as Flat Earth information is considered dangerous to the Powers That Be.

Bookmark the site for present/future reference. We don't know when this site or others which are deemed "dangerous conspiracy theories" may suddenly be erased.

"And the teachers and those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament, and those who turn many to righteousness shall give forth light like the stars forever and ever.

But you, O Daniel, shut up the words and seal the Book until the time of the end. Then many shall run to and fro and search anxiously through the Book, and knowledge of God's purposes as revealed by His prophets shall be increased and become great. ~ Daniel 12:3-4

See any other flat planets out there?
Ever see the edge-on view of ours from the ISS? (You can watch it in realtime with any browser.)
How does the physics work to keep a flat planet from tearing itself apart?

This may p*ss you off AND make you think I'm even crazier, but unfortunately from the International Space Station footage I've seen it's included sloppy CGI, stunts, and smoke & mirror theater. The web is chock full of what's below:

The whole Mars "lander" shtick is also not real. Then again NASA must keep on justifying it's budget of $52 mil. ( I'd better stop now before you believe I'm a CTer. Oh wait...)

The "planets" aren't according the Flat Earth/Bible-based doctrine. The stars, planets, Moon and Sun are not 3D contructs; They are contained within the Firmament/Dome. (Just as depicted in a typical Planetarium if you've ever been in one.)

Typically, the "chromaky" screens (that term is new to me, I admit) are a single solid color, usually green as that's the color people are least likely to wear. They are often used for weather reporters as they have full size maps they want people to see in the backdrop.

I'm uncertain of the specifics but it seems a grid pattern screen would be less useful as a backdrop for chromaky purposes. I would speculate the grid pattern to be useful in being able to visually measure the distances things move in a zero G environment. That's assuming it wouldn't have a more mundane purose of simply acting as a curtain of sorts.

Another thought looking at the flat earth map... is the distance from Chile to New Zealand. It seems I can book a flight from Santiago Chile to Auckland New Zealand that is about a 13 hour flight non stop. The shortest route on that flat earth map would take that flight up the US west coast and Alaska, and roughly using the width of the USA as a 3000 mile measure, it would seem that distance would be about 18,000 miles, give or take.

Covering that distance in 13 hours would require a speed of about 1380 MPH, close to mach 2, which is far above the speeds conventional airline aircraft are capable of.

I'm sure you are aware of the enormity of contradictions that a flat earth model must explain. What ever information is on that comprehensive web site, I'm sure it will need much more.

Yes, many of us have been familiar with the Green Screen for what? 20 years plus? Yup, routinely used as the backdrop for news reporters and weather.

Your theory that the blue grid is used for measurements and precision in a Zero G environment is both logical and sensible.

The reason and function for it can be explained far more precisely and specifically by someone far more familiar with the technology at Post #23. IMO its an excellent rebuttal to "It's fake!!"

Covering that distance in 13 hours would require a speed of about 1380 MPH, close to mach 2, which is far above the speeds conventional airline aircraft are capable of.

I agree with your assessment of that particular map and how it would drastically distort time/distance as the crow flies. But again, the map is not to scale.

I'm sure you are aware of the enormity of contradictions that a flat earth model must explain. What ever information is on that comprehensive web site, I'm sure it will need much more.

The site is as "comprehensive" as I've seen thus far in that it categorizes subjects, issues, and FAQ more than any thus far. Only the patient or those with sufficient interest will access it.

There is a vast expanse of new knowledge and information on the Flat earth subject. I am still digesting the logical, probable, plausible and proven. At the same time I have been trying to vet, discard, and sift through the opposites. I've also had to be discerning about disinfo/misinfo sites and its individuals.

I see no appreciable curvature from the air (high altitude balloon with no convex lens (The rebuttal is obvious that "from Space" the earth appears curved/round. The author and source of all those photos are one and the same: NASA.)

I will say (from my honest perspective) that the more I research the subject, stronger the evidence for Flat Earth becomes. In one video, the subject addressed was your forte: "Geometry."

I accept that it may not be to scale. However, my estimate of the distance would have to be off by more than double in order to bring the required speed down to what conventional airline jets are reputed to be capable of flying. And if the distance from Santiago to Auckland is only 9000 miles via the northern Pacific ocean, then it means the distance of everything else is also, more or less, halved.

I would press you on this particular contradiction as to me it's a glaring clear fact that seems to singlehandedly destroy the flat earth theory. I searched for an airline ticket from Santiago, Chile to Auckland, New Zealand. and found one advertising a 13 hour flight, non stop.

This site, which presumably bases this distance on a spherical earth, claims the distance as 6010 miles. Covering that distance in 13 hours (I recall the time being 12:55 but 13 is close enough) would yield a speed of about 462 MPH, well within the speed a standard airline is reputed to be capable.

Maybe the properly scaled flat earth map shows these 2 cities far closer than I estimated.

Maybe commercial airlines are secretly capable of mach 2 speeds (and also have enough fuel to sustain that speed for 13 hours).

Whatever. Take your pick, but no more posts about NASA being a fake entity. That is immaterial to your flat earth case.

Ping, I would absolutely concede that I don't possess nearly all of the technical knowledge and answers to questions that Flat Earth presents; By the same token, I can also say the same of explaining much this world and its geography (not to mention explaining the physics and mechanics of "Space Travel"/"Moon Landing.")

Our lower Southern Hemisphere, especially the entire continent of Antarctica remains mysterious. But I digress.

It should be noted that many contemporary scientists and astro-physicists still cannot either understand nor explain technical dynamics of say...dealing space travel, landing a man on the moon, then somehow returning him to earth a half-century ago. That knowledge, THAT "technology" was literally said to have been "lost." HOW can THAT be explained rationally??

As usual, you are contemplating and analyzing the subject at hand and issues you see as the biggest problems in the implausibility of Flat Earth. As well as it should be scrutinized as much as any theory.

At simple, conceptual geometry, I'm adequate; But it's not my forte as it is with you. I can not explain these types of flight measurements, distance/time you've presented.

It's still my opinion having considered countless information and my own eyes (I'm repeating myself, but the earth is demonstratively absolutely flat as seen from high-altitude balloons.) I'd like to present a lot more information, but it's an imposition and not considerate to spam LF with a hundred posts on this subject to make points and other reinforcement.

Again -- I readily concede I cannot answer your question and provide you a sliver-bullet answer. Because I can not, it nor any single issue should relegates Flat Earth into the trash heap. If for some reason things can't be explained, we don't deep six them, do we? That said, your point/questions can't be ignored either.

Many scientists and geo-physicists count themselves at Flat Earthers. So it's not as though they are ignore legit concerns as your flight/distance conundrum and other inconsistencies.

2) The mapping/measurement data that's been established and presumed as an empirical geographical base-line is somehow different and/or erroneous in a mostly oceanic Southern Hemisphere and SW Pacific.

*Thorough investigation of the continent of Antarctica just doesn't exist. Exploration of the Northern Hemisphere and entire area surrounding the North Pole *has* been been thoroughly investigated.

(We haven't even access to validating exactly what lies within the inaccessible interior of 5,000,000+ sq mi of inaccessible continent Antarctica.)

At a discussion board link below, the subject you raised is hashed out on both sides of the flight/distance argument, titled 'Flight Time On Flat Earth'. If ever you carve out a few minutes:

Take your pick, but no more posts about NASA being a fake entity. That is immaterial to your flat earth case.

I beg to differ strongly, Hoss. NASA is more de-legitimized the closer it's scrutinized. NASA actually *is* material to Flat Earth in that it's the biggest *active* advocate of the Globe and geocentric system we've all been taught. It's supposed "photos" depicting a round globe, images that serve as constant reminders and reinforced mental imprinting. It's inculcated pop-culture, history books, mapping, geography, "space-culture."

Flights over the Antarctica that shorten flights appreciably are FULLY RESTRICTED. Reason: "Weather is too cold."

People have sailed around the world. Are they lying. In the 1500's. Have they been making this stuff up for 500 years?

Your position is just insane. I don't respect it and there is no need to debate it. It is just nonsense.

As a reminder, there can be no "debate" of anything if one side refuses to listen to the others case.

But first tell me why you fully believe Flat Earth theory is "nonsense"? And I'm "insane." AND...why you feel it's "unnecessary to debate" the subject?

Is it because since you were a child you have seen nothing but "round earth" images? The "moon landings"? Books? Scientists? Schools? TV, movies, advertising images?

IF you or anyone else hasn't the time, determination or curiosity to bypass all the usual roadblock and gate-keepers of the Powers That Be, I understand. BUT...you will never find any real truth of this physical world; So much has been hidden. Like most people, you will merely succumb to what you've been told, and fully accept the world in which you are presented.

95% of all people fall into this category, so I'm not going to criticize your position or deride your attitude.

As to my coming to learn the truth about a "reality" to which we've all been presented...It does NOT happen over night.

....whether it is me or others, there are many stages that must necessarily must occur. My particular revelation or discovery that the earth is NOT globe (as we have been led to believe) was fairly recent. There are innumerable observations and increasing circumstantial AND scientific evidence to support a Flat Earth. But if you continue to remain blindfolded, fully determined to be obstinate about the case made by the other side, there's no budging you an inch off your belief system. That is what it is.

Q: Do you believe the world's governments and authorities have conspired to manipulate, mask or hide human history and the truth?

Q2: Do you believe in "Evolution"? Do you believe man has "evolved" from apes? If not, and you instead believe in Creationism, "Science" considers IT "nonsense" and you a "kook."

Q3: Do you believe Jesus Christ is God? Born of a virgin birth? Believe in His miracles? Believe He rose from the dead and returned?

(If so, the vast number of "Scientists" believe IT is "nonsense," "impossible" ergo, you are a "kook.")

Q4: Do you believe Genesis is true? Noah's Flood? The Bible is "God's Word"? If so, "Science" considers YOU a "kook" and the Bible "nonsense."

Dis-Believing in Global Earth has been a cumulative process. But first and foremost, Genesis and God's account of His Creation was a consideration. (Do you believe it literally, or do you dis-believe God's word?) IF you believe the Bible literally, even some "Christians" will consider you a "kook." Government's "school" system refuses to allow it, instead cramming the "Evolution" Big Lie down our throat.

The number of Lies advanced and promoted s dogmatic FACT -- Big and Small, piled up to the sky from "official sources" -- should be questioned altogether, if not discredited or discarded. That is until, unless they can be reasonably verified and validated. Whether politically. BUT ESPECIALLY INCLUDING "SCIENCE."

For 500 years, "Science" has aimed to replace The Bible and its dogma as the official "authority" of "Truth"; Simultaneously, pagan/Lucifarian Man has also aimed to replace God as THE authority of all Truth.

If you agree with my posits, then you may want to reconsider and be more open about some of your positions and become more curious and inquisitive.

Now if you position again is etched in stone -- "I WON'T DEBATE THE CASE OF FLAT EARTH/CASE AGAINST ROUND EARTH", then by all means don't.

It seems from your postings that your primary basis for believing the world is flat is from the Bible. The questions you presented to Stone above challenge someone who is a Bible believer to choose between accepting the Bible as the literal "Word of God" or renouncing it as not having any divine authority whatsoever. That the Bible's story of creation might be metaphorically accurate but not literally accurate (as many Christians take it to be) is not an option, it seems.

As for deriding "science" as though it were a free willed entity capable of an agenda to stamp out truth, I find that biased and disingeuous. Unlike, say, the arts, the goal of science is to discover the truth, not to dictate it. Obviously there are those within the science field that are compromised but most are not. Most scientists would love to be challenged with a near insolvable mystery, as it's the discovery of the truth of the mysteries of the universe is the reward itself. I seem to recall one Bible verse: "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of man to seek out a matter". Seems to me a tacit, implied endorcement for man to seek to understand the universe we are in.

I count myself as a scientist, and as you know, I don't believe the Bible to be of any divine significance. Not because I believe God has lied to us, but because I believe the Bible, while it does contain some theological truths, also has some false things in it. Namely about the origin of life (evolution poses no threat to my theology unlike your own and Stone's) and the implied age of the universe. It does seem the oldest passages at least imply the world is flat. But instead of that being evidence the world is actually flat, it is instead, to me, evidence that the ancient authors were human and not God, and being human, were subject to human error. (At least ot what ever extent one promotes the idea that the earth is flat because the Bible imples/claims it is flat. I.e., the more one advocates that the earth is flat due to Biblical claims, the more inclined I am to argue to that person that, because the world is not flat, their Biblical-based theology is flawed.

Lets face it. If you were to go into a tribe of isolated pigmies who have never heard of either the Bible or any modern claims about the shape of the earth and put the question to them, they would probably find the concept of a spherical earth to be incomprehensible, largely because they would not have any reason to associate gravity, which is a force they would certainly take for granted, as having anything to do with planetary mass. And whomever, many thousands of years ago authored the original story of creation that became what is now Genisis had no more advantage in his understanding the spherical world model than any inhabitant in a modern day, but remote isolated tribe.

You mentioned you have heard a compelling abundance of evidence in favor of a flat earth, and I've mentioned that the challenge for a flat earth advocate in explaining the myriads of phenomenon we see in our universe, from moon phases, planetary retrograde, eclipses and the like -- which are all explained extremely well with the spherical earth in a heleocentric solar system model -- are enormously problematic for a flat earth model to explain. You said you understood the challenges, but I frankly don't think you do. I think they are far, far greater than you appreciate right now. An example is explaining the moon phases. You posted a video purporting to do that, but I assure you the model presented is enormously flawed from a geometric perspective.

I almost think that, for you, the question of the worlds shape is not a matter of science fact, but a matter of faith. It seems as though you have reached a point where the question you put to Stone is one you have put to yourself. That is: Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God, or not? And the only way your faith in the Bible can survive is if the world is flat.

If that is the case, I can appreciate the dilemma of that kind of a choice. If the world is not flat then, for you, it means the Bible is a lie and your whole belief system collapses. If I'm correct in that assessment of your thinking, I unfortunately cannot help you, as each of us is on our own individual path in life. I could only assure you that we are immortal entities in spite of the shape of the earth, the age of the universe, and regardless of whether the human race descended from apes. Everything is okay.