New World Order
See other New World Order Articles
Title: Is the Earth Flat? Conversation with DITRH (Interesting, civil convo between Skeptic and Flat Earther)
Source:
YouTube
URL Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L0eoCMm9Ds
Published: Apr 24, 2019
Author: Owen Benjamin
Post Date: 2019-04-26 06:57:18 by Liberator
Keywords: Flat-Earth, Globe-Earth, Questions
Views: 5247
Comments: 41
Poster Comment: You'll find Owen Benjamin viewpoints and style refreshing and entertaining on this subject or others no matter what. He's very outspoken, but well-grounded. Some background on Owen Benjamin: A comedian and musician who hob-nobbed in the Hollywood scene and inner-sanctum for a while before getting kicked out and ostracized for being a Closet-Conservative and not accepting their "trans"-world and Bizarro-World. He now operates far from Hollywood, tending to his "farm" out West. He's gone on to participate with Steven Crowder and has guested on several podcasts like Alex Jones and Joe Rogan (about whom he also has plenty to say.) Once he began to gain popularity, Twitter banned him, as have other social media outlets. This particular video and exchange was a podcast, a tone that was respectful, rational, and engaging. Who knew the subject of Flat Earth was so compelling and explosive on both sides of the ledger; 7,000 guests tuned in...(real-time Comments were also interesting.)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 28.
#1. To: Pinguinite, Deckard, Hank Rearden, A K A Stone, All (#0)
You might find this convo compelling.
If the earth was flat, the sun would rise and set for the whole earth at the same time every day. And the flat model showing the sun spinning in a circle above a flat earth would mean the sun would never be seen touching the horizon. Can the flat earth theory be debunked in a simpler way than that?
And the flat model showing the sun spinning in a circle above a flat earth would mean the sun would never be seen touching the horizon. Not on the models I've been seeing, nor of the complimentary explanation of the dynamic. Can the flat earth theory be debunked in a simpler way than that? Sure. IF that was actually the case. But it's not been nor being debunked. What *is* being debunked is a whole lotta "Globe Earthism." Like this simple rhetorical question: How is the earth spinning at 1000 MPH at the equator? But...planes don't have to compensate either way? (Is the atmosphere glued to the earth?) OR...Why is exploration, travel TO or OVER Antarctica via plane strictly verboten? But most people need desperately to accept the reality of the world with which they are presented. OR...they have neither have the patience or interest to listen in or watch demonstrations like below...OR above. I keep saying this -- I FULLY UNDERSTAND. Below is a link to '200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball'. It is extremely chock full of demonstrations and explanations by Eric Dubay who happened to have jump-started this whole curiosity movement, which exploded back in 2014. Anyway, besides addressing world travel quirks in the Southern Hemisphere (which I believe you'd mentioned regarding a Santiago to NZ trip.) At about the 21:38 mark, the discussion is about distortions of mapping, distance, and travel time. At about the 3:44 mark, Dubay upon explaining the phenomena of perspective, which I've touched on and riffing on the non-curvature of canals, bridges, etc, there's a straight railroad track. It disappears eventually...NOT because of any supposed curvature; It disappears because of "perspective" -- our ability to view an object shrinks the focal point down to nothing, well beyond our vision. At dusk the sun also eventually drifts well beyond our sight-line during its 24 hour revolution of the earth, accounting for it's approximate 12-hour disappearance. Below is Antarctica. Looks flat as a pancake to me. I see no curvature. (yes, those are people you see.)
It's certainly on the models shown on youtubes you posted, and more than one. One supposedly showed how the moon phases work on a flat earth and showed the sun and moon going in circles above a flat earth, never moving below the plane of the flat earth surface. Basically, yes, the atmosphere is "glued" to the earth. That's generally correct. Take a golf ball, attach it to a drill and spin it in a glass of water at a reasonable speed and you'll see the water start to spin with the ball. It's friction of the air against the surface of the earth. The air is a fluid and moves with the spinning globe for the same reason the ocean water does: friction. Keep in mind how extremely thin the atmosphere is (50-100 miles) compared to the global earth diameter of 8000 miles, and it should be apparent that there is a rather high ratio of friction to atmospheric content. I've never heard of it being forbidden, but there are only 3 inhabited continents at that southern latitude and I suspect Africa is relatively undeveloped and the other two few economic ties, given the distance between them so there's about no reason for many commercial flights to go over the South pole. In regards to the sun setting at night, my challenge is NOT that the sun disappears for 12 hours every day because it moves too far away. I point out that the sun can be clearly seen >>>dropping below the horizon<<< in the evening and rising above it in the morning, and the apparent trajectory of the sun in both cases shows it's not just skimming below the horizon but going completely under it.
Maybe you're not taking into account the thousands of miles both the sun and moon travel while rotating around the earth. Or unable to conceptualize. Again -- the "plane" of the Flat Earth disappears due to limitation of our sightline and perspective. At 26:34 of Dubay's demonstration (Truth #49) perhaps he addresses your questions better than I. yes, the atmosphere is "glued" to the earth. That's generally correct. Take a golf ball, attach it to a drill and spin it in a glass of water at a reasonable speed and you'll see the water start to spin with the ball. It's friction of the air against the surface of the earth. The air is a fluid and moves with the spinning globe for the same reason the ocean water does: friction. Keep in mind how extremely thin the atmosphere is (50-100 miles) compared to the global earth diameter of 8000 miles, and it should be apparent that there is a rather high ratio of friction to atmospheric content. Interesting theory. Doesn't the spinning golf ball also produce artificial mass? If we do assume this theory is true, what of the drill removed from the density of the water medium and pulled from the glass; As the water left on the spinning golfball is flung off the ball, should all objects from planet earth spinning at 1000 MPH? (If "gravity" is cited," how are birds, flying creatures and particulates floating and soaring despite the strong gravitation pull? I've never heard of it being forbidden, but there are only 3 inhabited continents at that southern latitude and I suspect Africa is relatively undeveloped and the other two few economic ties, given the distance between them so there's about no reason for many commercial flights to go over the South pole. Yes, strictly verboten and fully restricted from Antarctica without expressed authority by (odd, isn't it?) a consortium of nations who ALL concur on absolute restrictions. Isn't there a huge difference between continental areas like Africa and Australia that are merely isolated, but still allowed access, and the likes of Antarctica-- which as a matter of fact restricts *any* movement to, upon, or over via air -- whether commercial or private. Yes, most travel is obviously within the Northern Hemisphere, but it is claimed that flight time can be saved by flying over the alleged continent of Antarctica in certain cases. That said, shouldn't the greater puzzle be about the actual reasons for such internationally enforced restrictions? In regards to the sun setting at night, my challenge is NOT that the sun disappears for 12 hours every day because it moves too far away. I point out that the sun can be clearly seen >>>dropping below the horizon<<< in the evening and rising above it in the morning, and the apparent trajectory of the sun in both cases shows it's not just skimming below the horizon but going completely under it. Any given "horizon" is just a finite, limited sigh-line, isn't it? The Sun may appear to be to be traveling "beneath" the earth. Attributed to perspective. And well beyond our sight-line as both the Sun and Moon loop back around. Obviously not all models you've seen convince you. All that said, we're still left with a staggering amount of info that disproves global earth IF we discount our own blind-trust what I'd characterize as Programmed Scientific Dogma. Rhetorically speaking -- why don't we trust our own eyes (Plane Earth) and sense of (no) motion and Still Earth? We know what we've been told, how the "Science" of gravity, friction, and centrifugal force is explained...BUT.
Artificial "mass"? I've never heard of that term before. I don't understand your question/point. Surely you are not suggesting that birds cannot fly, and surely you are not saying that gravity does not exist. No, it shouldn't, if the issue being questioned is the shape of the earth. You ascribe too much mind to suspicions and ulterior motives and not enough to raw observation. Such restrictions, to whatever extent they might exist, could be for safety or other reasons. Perhaps the extreme cold poses a threat to airline engine mechanics. Perhaps there's a secret alien base down there. Neither case, even if conspiratorial or deceiving, would require the earth be flat. To the contrary, what you consider staggering amounts of info is what I see as all flawed conjecture. I started watching the 200 "Proofs" planning to stop when I could found something substantive to counter, and it was #2. The idea that as you go up in height you should have to look down more and more to see the horizon. The vid shown is that of a rocket and contrary to the narration, the shown horizon DOES in fact drop lower as the rocket increases in altitude. Put the mouse on the horizon when it becomes firmly visible and you'll see the horizon drop. The rocket is rotating slowly showing the full 360 degree view so it can't very well be attributed to the rocket tilting. This shows the incredibly ability of people to NOT be critical in their evaluations. I find it amazing and disturbing at the same time.
This model does not explain why there is six months darkness at the north pole
Yes it does if you've checked out the demonstrations. And...Don't forget the 6 months of relative darkness at the South Pole (though who knows? No one has ever been a witness to what is seen at the alleged South Pole other than what's seen at the outer fringe of Antarctica military and "science" bases.)
https://www.facebook.com/untolduniversenow/photos/a.1352727731422245/26 90816934279978/?type=3&theater
Sorry. I don't "Facebook." The darkness at the North Pole for six months seems to be one of the least in-explicable Flat/Plane Earth answers. Admittedly, not all FE models and issues can be sufficiently explained at this time. Some are theory and presumption. (A license "Science" is given and fully exploits.) However, it's the Globe Earth proponents who must now prove ITS model (which MUST necessarily rely on NASA photos "from space" and "settled science" of geology, archaeology, cosmology and astronomy (which in many cases is or may actually be more theoretical in nature.) How far on their heels are defenders of NASA and "Globe Earth" these days? Back in 2017 some RAPPER (B.O.B -- whoever HE is) said he was going to start raising money to send a satellite into space in order to prove the Earth is flat. NASA Astronauts, scientists, and others immediately and aggressively responded. Their cage was rattled. OVER A RAPPER?? WHY??!? Countless media outlets reported it (go ahead -- look it up.) Think about this; For something that's claimed to be absurd, "ridiculous and silly, much of the MSM and Establishment was up in arms and responded en masse, desperate to nip the momentum in the bud. This INCLUDED: NASA astronauts, Neil De Grasse, National Geographic, LA Times, WaPo, Forbes, HuffPo and countless others (just use your own search engine.) Ask yourself -- IF "Flat Earth" theory is so absurd, insane and already discredited as many claim, WHY THEN did a Rapper's simple opinion and proposal to investigate it from space make NASA's astronauts, Neil de Grasse-Tyson, Bill Nye, and much of the MSM go crazy? Makes no sense. Unless. YES, UNLESS. Here's one simple observation and question for you and anyone else who believe the alleged "Globe" is spinning on its axis at 66,666 MPH (btw, notice that number, folks? 666 = Beast. Just sayin'.) Anyhoo... The question is with respect to a video of a supposed Space Station filming itself doing robotic stuff. What I find compelling is the coincidentally filming of the "Globe" down below. (It is presumably outside of the earth's "velcro" atmospheric magnetic pull.) Question: IF the earth indeed is spinning at 66,666 MPH (as we are told), shouldn't the earth be a blue-ish-white blur? And shouldn't the "Night-lights" of earth also be a blur?? Instead, the earth is depicted as spinning at so slow a speed, one is be able to easy spot continental land masses. This kind of leisurely spin of "planet" earth is the view that's constantly filmed from NASA. BONUS RHETORICAL QUESTION: Why doesn't a Space Station or satellite ever cruise on over either the Arctic or Antarctica regions? I mean EVER. Wouldn't THAT video be compelling and completely shut down quite a few of the Antarctica skeptics?) But they haven't up till now. WHY NOT??
No one ever told me that. The global earth is about 25,000 miles in circumference at the equator. One day = 24 hours, so to rotate on its axis means going 25,000 miles in 24 hours or about 1041 MPH (at the equator). 67,000 MPH is the approximate speed the earth is traveling around the sun. And of course, that speed is not even the speed of the earth through the galaxy as the whole solar system is in orbit around the galaxy at an even greater speed, and then the galaxy itself is also moving though the universe at probably a higher speed than that. It's all relative. The speed required to stay in orbit is about 17,000 MPH. Given the circumference of the orbit at about 25,500 miles or so, that means one orbit about every 90 minutes. You need to subtract about 8% off that because the earth is spinning in pretty much the same direction the satellite is moving. All satellites pretty much move in that same direction. Why? The earth spins in an easterly direction at the above given speed. This is why the sun appears to rise over the east coast of the US first and 3 hours later, rises above the horizon on the west coast. The west coast is constantly chasing the east coast as the earth turns. This is why virtually all satellites are launched in an easterly direction, and also why the launch pads for NASA are located in southern Florida, and not in, say, Maine. Being closer to the equator, Florida is moving faster than Maine is, as the earth spins, so that speed serves to give the rockets a free boost of speed in their effort to get into orbit. When the rockets are sitting on the launch pad, they are already moving at maybe 800 MPH because of the earth spin, so by launching them in an easterly direction, they need less fuel to accelerate them to the higher needed speed needed to stay in orbit. If they instead launched them in a westerly direction, they could do that, but that 800 MPH would serve as a penalty, not a bonus, as rockets would need extra fuel to first reverse that velocity to zero, and still more fuel to get it to go 800 MPH in the westerly direction just to get it to the same starting velocity it already has when it's sitting on the launch pad before being launched east. By way of analogy, it's like standing on a flat bed truck moving 50 MPH and trying to throw a baseball off it so it goes 100 MPH relative to the ground. If you throw the ball in the direction you are traveling you only need to throw it 50 MPH to achieve the 100 MPH ground speed. If however, you try to make the ball go 100 MPH in the opposite direction, you'll need to throw it 150 MPH -- 3 times faster, to compensate for the speed of the truck to make the ground speed of the ball be 100 MPH. This gets to your bonus question: Because for the above reasons, sending a satellite on a trajectory that takes it over the polar regions requires more rocket fuel. For the ISS, that means more fuel not only for the satellite itself but also for all resupply rockets as well which would be a needless waste of money and fuel. Their are satellites that have these polar orbits. I think during the cold war with the USSR, a pair of satellites were put on polar orbits to serve as an emergency communications relay between the US president and Moscow to serve as a last ditch communication link in the event one side or the other was about to launch nukes at the other. As both Moscow and D.C are in the N hemisphere, these satillites required polar orbits to ensure one was always able to have both cities in line of site to facilitate communication. So it can be done, but it usually isn't necessary for satellites to have a polar orbit, and it works better logistically to simply have satellites travel in a mostly easterly direction. This image shows the ground path of ISS and as you can see it avoids, (perhaps conveniently, for your argument) the polar regions. I like you Liberator, as you know. But I must say that if what I've described isn't something you can wrap your head around, then you are honestly out of your league in arguing your case in terms of earth speeds and such. When it comes to Bible knowledge, you got me beat, and certainly have me beat in other areas as well. But on geography and orbital mechanics, your arguments come up short.
#34. To: Pinguinite (#28)
No one ever told me that...67,000 MPH is the approximate speed the earth is traveling around the sun. My bad. Yup. Ok, so I got this one number of the earth spinning wrong. We are told the earth is spinning at its equatorial axis at 1000 MPH. Still not exactly slow, is it? Right -- the 66,666 MPH number (rounded off to 67,000) is the speed *we are told* the earth is spinning around the sun. Q: Did you check out that video from "space" as the ISS was supposedly filming the earth? Does *that* video appear as though the earth is spinning at 1000 MPH per hour?? The possibility of taking video gets even more ridiculous if we consider the orbit velocity you cited in which satellites must maintain at 17,000 MPH. And of course, that speed is not even the speed of the earth through the galaxy as the whole solar system is in orbit around the galaxy at an even greater speed, and then the galaxy itself is also moving though the universe at probably a higher speed than that. It's all relative. Again, you are basing these assumptions that the entire universe revolves around each other purely on scientific THEORY. The very sources of the very same theories that tells us the earth is spinning @1000 MPH, -- yet, if the video is to be believed from the ISS, the "Earth" is spinning...SLOWLY. Videotaped from a satellite whizzing by at 17,000 MPH. How do you or anyone else explain that? Was it CGI, OR is Planet Earth spinning leisurely as shown from ISS video? You still haven't answered why any video from the ISS *isn't* a blur, and is portrayed at slow cruising speed. OR how a still shot can be taken from "space" when both the earth AND satellite are allegedly spinning so fast. The speed required to stay in orbit is about 17,000 MPH. Given the circumference of the orbit at about 25,500 miles or so, that means one orbit about every 90 minutes. You need to subtract about 8% off that because the earth is spinning in pretty much the same direction the satellite is moving. All satellites pretty much move in that same direction. Why? Ok, in the Globe Earth and its Revolving-Solar System/Universe model (which is still nothing but theory), yes, the numbers you cite are the numbers are told satellites must deal with. That is IF one subscribes to them while also still buying into the notion of "orbiting." IF we indeed buy the entire model/theory of an earth that spins east as the satellites *must* orbit in the same direction, it *necessarily* feeds the same notion and model. I don't believe it. I never even considered the whole crazy dynamic even when I still believed in a Global Earth -- I just accepted it without scrutinizing the claims. Look -- if the earth is spinning 1000 MPH and as is claimed, satellites must orbit earth at 17,000 MPH, then again -- how is it possible to get a still photo OR actual video of the planet?? (as it slowly turns?) This is why virtually all satellites are launched in an easterly direction, and also why the launch pads for NASA are located in southern Florida, and not in, say, Maine. Being closer to the equator, Florida is moving faster than Maine is, as the earth spins, so that speed serves to give the rockets a free boost of speed in their effort to get into orbit. When the rockets are sitting on the launch pad, they are already moving at maybe 800 MPH because of the earth spin, so by launching them in an easterly direction, they need less fuel to accelerate them to the higher needed speed needed to stay in orbit. Sure. Yours is the standard explanation/theory for NASA bases at lower latitudes. But it little to do with taking advantage of the slight acceleration "head start" Florida or Houston might give space ships and everything to do with "hiding the evidence" as space ships arc into the sky...then splash down into the water undetected after launching, far away from prying eyes. (I don't expect you to believe all this, but this is THE alternative theory and explanation of the hoax that is NASA.) (cont.)
The image shows the ground path of ISS and as you can see it avoids, (perhaps conveniently, for your argument) the polar regions. But...avoidance of polar regions (especially Antarctica) still makes no sense. Why not then send a special launch up to survey the Antarctica and lower Southern Hemisphere? That said, if depictions like below are to be believed, there appears the opportunity to snap some video or pix of Antarctica. Based on a data archive, each miniature sphere in the image represents an existing object orbiting in space. Overall, it is estimated that there are as many as 370,000 pieces of space junk floating in Earth's orbit, travelling at speeds of up to 22,000 mph. (Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2523271/Image-reveals-disused-rockets-abandoned-satellites-orbit-Earth.html) Another more official source cites 4,987 satellites said to still be orbiting around earth. Yet, no one ever sees a single piece of junk or satellite one via hi-powered telescopes? (And why doesn't the Hubble ever send back photos of Earth?) FWIW, we are also told another 7 satellites are orbiting around other planets. (If NASA is going to lie, Lie Big.) As to the numbers and formulas you've cited, you're basing your above numbers on what we've all been told as "fact" from either "Science" or NASA. Most people would cite those same standard numbers. The problem for NASA and "Science" is the lack of cred. AND...the *assumption* the earth is in fact ball. (IF it's not, there is no "orbit," is there?) The circumference of the earth itself is *still* conjecture from north to south. Moreover, if the Antarctica hasn't yet been physically surveyed (and it has NOT), we again are compelled to believe ONLY the word our Science Overlords on this yet un-observable, un-surveyed alleged land they tell us is 5,000,000 million sq mi. (Hmmm...from which there is no magnetic South, ONLY North.) By way of analogy, it's like standing on a flat bed truck moving 50 MPH and trying to throw a baseball off it so it goes 100 MPH relative to the ground. If you throw the ball in the direction you are traveling you only need to throw it 50 MPH to achieve the 100 MPH ground speed. If however, you try to make the ball go 100 MPH in the opposite direction, you'll need to throw it 150 MPH -- 3 times faster, to compensate for the speed of the truck to make the ground speed of the ball be 100 MPH. Now THIS makes logical and provable sense. Because...it's not theory. It can be tested. And observed. On the earth plane. Escape velocity and orbit speed "science" is...what we are TOLD. ...Sending a satellite on a trajectory that takes it over the polar regions requires more rocket fuel. For the ISS, that means more fuel not only for the satellite itself but also for all resupply rockets as well which would be a needless waste of money and fuel. NOT buying that reason for a second. You're discussing the same NASA that sent a man to the moon with enough supposed fuel for FIVE 480,000 mile trips. 50 years ago. Their are satellites that have these polar orbits. I think during the cold war with the USSR, a pair of satellites were put on polar orbits... Are you sure? Should be easy to prove. Especially if there are photos of the polar regions available. ...It usually isn't necessary for satellites to have a polar orbit, and it works better logistically to simply have satellites travel in a mostly easterly direction. This image shows the ground path of ISS and as you can see it avoids, (perhaps conveniently, for your argument) the polar regions. It's a claim of convenience for avoiding polar survey from satellite. But it does create another thought or conundrum: With almost 5,000 satellites supposedly orbiting earth near the equator, one wonders how their paths are so precise, avoiding collisions. I like you Liberator, as you know. But I must say that if what I've described isn't something you can wrap your head around, then you are honestly out of your league in arguing your case in terms of earth speeds and such. When it comes to Bible knowledge, you got me beat, and certainly have me beat in other areas as well. But on geography and orbital mechanics, your arguments come up short. The feeling is mutual, Ping. I also don't take our discussions personally at all if/when we disagree; And we often do. We're just riffing as friends. Has this been an "argument? Maybe in some sense. If the argument is, "Hey -- "Here are considerations and observations NONE of us have ever truly examined, contemplated, or tested." I just put it out there for you and others to look into possibilities and explore beyond what we are told is DEFINITE TRUTH -- whether now or in due time. Never has there been so much info available. I don't look at a discussion like this in the context of a contest or intellectual gauge; it's more like an exercise in riffin' about possibilities, tangible observation, testing the truth, and questioning the logic of what we are told IS a scientific canon. Rhetorical: Why must this canon not even be questioned, lest one's credibly and sanity is doubted? Or be considered a CT!!" Because it's hiding the truth. This stuff is from a field that keeps on upping the lying ante about quote, "Science." Not buying it anymore. Neither are millions, cause panic among the elites. On the issue of "Geography" -- One of the issues we've touched on is...that Antarctica isn't explored, can NOT be explored (except by a tiny elite), and..is not even surveyed. I find all of this bizarre. And you don't? The entire Southern Hemisphere is incompletely surveyed. Why isn't this a compelling "geographical" issue? With respect to "Orbital Mechanics"...Given your forte in geometry, I'd expect you to embrace what are legit formulas and science. If there's actual curvature of a Globe Earth, why are large bodies of water flat? Laser-beam flat. If you get the chance you should access "http://earthcurvature.com/" for its calculations on the earth's curvature and supposed drop-off any given flat horizon. There are too many cases of refutation on You Tube to cite involving lasers and other experiments. (MOST of the YTs on the subject are desperately trying to *refute* this and anything related to FE.) IMO, "Earth and Space Science" is an oxymoron. Scientific formulas, equations and speeds taught in the halls of academia...which like most things once the stratosphere is reached can only be *theory.* You and I can't prove it either way, can we? And neither can Theoretical Physics, which as its moniker implies, advances mathematical models and abstract concepts. But somehow this bogus field gets their theories canonized as actual "proven, accepted science" (as in ALL of cosmology and astronomy.) So yes. Wrapping my head around un-proveable, theoretical "scientific" figures and the same discredited NASA, "Science", and GOVT agencies that are routinely caught lying in deed while masking motive & intent isn't even possible at this point. At the same time, I realize my assertions about our realm of a physical plain of ours is considered outlandish and impossible to wrap *your* head around. But there IS plenty to question of a physical realm (as well as a "scientific") as defined by an elite cadre of PTB with a subversive agenda.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#5. To: Liberator (#1)
#6. To: Pinguinite (#5)
If the earth was flat, the sun would rise and set for the whole earth at the same time every day.
#9. To: Liberator (#6)
If the earth was flat, the sun would rise and set for the whole earth at the same time every day.
And the flat model showing the sun spinning in a circle above a flat earth would mean the sun would never be seen touching the horizon.
Not on the models I've been seeing, nor of the complimentary explanation of the dynamic.
What *is* being debunked is a whole lotta "Globe Earthism." Like this simple rhetorical question: How is the earth spinning at 1000 MPH at the equator? But...planes don't have to compensate either way? (Is the atmosphere glued to the earth?)
OR...Why is exploration, travel TO or OVER Antarctica via plane strictly verboten?
At dusk the sun also eventually drifts well beyond our sight-line during its 24 hour revolution of the earth, accounting for it's approximate 12-hour disappearance.
#12. To: Pinguinite (#9)
It's certainly on the models shown on youtubes you posted, and more than one. One supposedly showed how the moon phases work on a flat earth and showed the sun and moon going in circles above a flat earth, never moving below the plane of the flat earth surface.
#14. To: Liberator (#12)
Interesting theory. Doesn't the spinning golf ball also produce artificial mass?
If we do assume this theory is true, what of the drill removed from the density of the water medium and pulled from the glass; As the water left on the spinning golfball is flung off the ball, should all objects from planet earth spinning at 1000 MPH? (If "gravity" is cited," how are birds, flying creatures and particulates floating and soaring despite the strong gravitation pull?
Yes, most travel is obviously within the Northern Hemisphere, but it is claimed that flight time can be saved by flying over the alleged continent of Antarctica in certain cases. That said, shouldn't the greater puzzle be about the actual reasons for such internationally enforced restrictions?
All that said, we're still left with a staggering amount of info that disproves global earth IF we discount our own blind-trust what I'd characterize as Programmed Scientific Dogma.
#15. To: Pinguinite (#14)
#22. To: Liberator (#15)
#23. To: paraclete (#22)
#24. To: Liberator (#23)
(Edited)
#26. To: paraclete, Pinguinite, A K A Stone, Deckard, Buckeroo (#24)
https://www.facebook.com
#28. To: Liberator (#26)
Question: IF the earth indeed is spinning at 66,666 MPH (as we are told),
shouldn't the earth be a blue-ish-white blur? And shouldn't the "Night-lights" of earth also be a blur?? Instead, the earth is depicted as spinning at so slow a speed, one is be able to easy spot continental land masses. This kind of leisurely spin of "planet" earth is the view that's constantly filmed from NASA.
BONUS RHETORICAL QUESTION:
Why doesn't a Space Station or satellite ever cruise on over either the Arctic or Antarctica regions? I mean EVER. Wouldn't THAT video be compelling and completely shut down quite a few of the Antarctica skeptics?) But they haven't up till now. WHY NOT??
Replies to Comment # 28. "Question: IF the earth indeed is spinning at 66,666 MPH (as we are told)"
#35. To: Pinguinite (#28)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 28.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]