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: 5290
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
Comments (1-1) not displayed.
.
.
.
#2. To: All (#1)
(Edited)
The actual convo begins at about 14:00.
The earth is round. You sound like a gullible fool pushing this retarded theory. Get back to reality.
I certainly didn't but the wachos have come out of the woodwork since the subject was mentioned. Haven't these people seen the pictures taken from various space probes looking back to the Earth? why are the other planets spheres and the Earth not? Antartica does not circle the Earth, who could possibly believe that particularly after men have walked across it? The whole subject is so rediculous
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.)
This has been addressed several times: HOAX. CGI. Photoshop. Trick Photography. NASA Fakery. NONE of those photos of "The Blue Marble" Earth is legit. A low-orbit craft allegedly took photos after countless passes. And... it was admitted BY it's "author" that it's a composite had to be "stitched" together in order to create a "Globe." https://qz.com/192700/the-guy-who-created-iphones-earth-image-explains-why-he-needed-to-fake-it/ Antartica does not circle the Earth, who could possibly believe that particularly after men have walked across it? You mean one side to the other? Who exactly "walked across" the Antarctica? (WARNING: You'll not find any entry of a person, org or nation who has performed such a feat. Don't believe me? Look it up.)
AND...you know this be-cause....of "photos of the Earth"? Or because that's what you've been taught via "science" books, movies, Star Trek, etc? Look -- I get it...But have you put even 5 minutes into looking into FE theory and the case(s) made that de-bunk Globe-Earth? (Flip the script and prove IT.) Prepare for disappointment. The "reality" is that the "Earth" "photos" are bogus. Not only that, but it's admitted that the "gaps" had to be filled in, aka "created" in order to "stitch" the earth into a ball. This story and actual interview with the NASA "artist" is all over the web and youtube. Here's just one article: https://qz.com/192700/the-guy-who-created-iphones-earth-image-explains-why-he-needed-to-fake-it/
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.
Hold up a piece of paper and match it up with the horizon at Antarctica. Is it even with the horizon? Or curving? Just sayin'.
ROTFL
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.
In your case, just hold up a piece of Zig-Zag rolling paper.
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.
That video demo proves absolutely nothing about the earth being flat. Nothing whatsoever. So it gets dark around 6-9 PM, and lights back up around 6 AM. Does that actually contradict the idea that the earth is a globe? The only thing that vid contradicts is the observation that the sun drops below the horizon in the evening. As far as tracking time goes, the 24 hour day was invented by man to match the daily solar cycle. Likewise, the period of time we know as "month" was also invented by man to match the moon cycles. Could it be that the two terms are similar in spelling for that very reason?
Your opinion and perception is appreciated. I don't even know if *I* agree with all 200 claims. However, even if 50 of all 200 points offered are tossed out, it still leaves a solid 150 to disprove. 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. Regarding restriction to Antarctica? (Btw, "cold" is never an issue with travel over Arctic regions.) The single logical reason all nations fly their flag at Antarctica and all maintain the same consensus on restrictions of access, may well be because they consider it the private domain of the elites' One World Government (along with the secrets it holds.) With all due respect, I'm sorry. Any and all suspicion of motive and mistrust distrust and jaded eye of our institutions are wholly and entirely justified. Why take the word of a Globalist Machine and it's One World/UN centralized institutions that Deny sovereignty, Impose and never asks for Consent, lie for reasons of war; of "refugees"; of gender; of "privilege"; of Chemtrails & "Global Warming"; of 911; of "Evolution"; of the "official count" of age of "dinosaurs," Universe and earth, distances, of stars and black holes, of NASA of a declared New World Order; of Politics, and on & on. Often I wish I'd remained in a state of unknowing bliss with respect to man's world. In this Information Age, it's just not possible. Nor in the interest of one's welfare (just ask those whose sovereignty and safety are now just a memory in Muslimized/Mexified Europe, South Africa, and in many cosmopolitan areas of North America and Australia.)
Interesting comment. According to you, The Flat World Society is cruel and unjust to those seeking TRUTH about the world around us.
The video demo was merely a simple but clever visual demonstration/"clock" that mimics the solar and lunar movement that I thought was interesting. It wasn't intended to be "proof" of anything. The only thing that vid contradicts is the observation that the sun drops below the horizon in the evening. How can the demonstration "contradict" anything since it's not a working "virtual reality" model to scale? There's obviously no perspective demonstrated either. As far as tracking time goes, the 24 hour day was invented by man to match the daily solar cycle. Likewise, the period of time we know as "month" was also invented by man to match the moon cycles. Could it be that the two terms are similar in spelling for that very reason? Moon = "month"? Lunar also could mean "loony" ;-) More like man "discovered" the cycles. Pretty amazing that the sun and moon happened to be created the same visual size in the sky while making it fairly simple to track daily and monthly time via tracking the sun and moon. It reinforces our Creator and Purpose.
If you mean "Flat *Earth* Society," they aren't at all interested in "Truth". Controlled Oppo Group. Are you still interested in seeking truth, Buck? Back in the old FR days, weren't you often banging heads with the status quo?
I do believe the terms "lunar" and "lunatic" are related from a time when people seemed to observe others exhibit more than average strange behavior during full moons. Seriously, I think there's a historical connection there.
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
I went to listen to the one you pointed out and another caught my attention so I tore into it a little bit. #40. He claims the distance between Melbourne Australia and Cape Horn Chile to be 10,500 miles. So I did some fact checking and found this page: www.easysurf.cc/circle.htm#dla1lo1tola2lo2 It purports to give distances on a global earth, including between two points given their longitude and latitude coordinates. It also gives the circumference of the global earth at various latitudes. But first, various other sites give the distance as being 5600 miles to 7000 miles. Both are substantially less than claimed by Dubay. So I put in the long & lat coordinates on the global earth calculator. Melbourne is at 37 degrees south and 144 degrees E, and a separate site gave Cape Horn at -55 lat and -67 long. So I put in 37/144 for Melbourne and -55/-67 for Cape Horn. And what do you know? The global earth calc came out with a 10,500 mile figure, consistent with the claim by Dubay in #40. Did I do something wrong? Oh, but of course I did. Both Melbourne and Cape Horn are in the S hemisphere, I realized, which means that both lat coordinates should be negative. Melbourne should not have a positive lat coordinatate. Correcting that and putting in -37 for melbourne, it gives a distance of 5752 miles. By putting in a positive value for Melbourne, the calculator was giving me the distance to Cape Horn from a point somewhere off the coast of northern Japan. Double checking the circumference of the earth at the Melborne latitude, this calculator says it's about 19,600 miles. I didn't check further than that but it seems to be to reasonable scale. And so, why is Dubay saying the 2 points are 10,500 miles apart? Could it be he made the same mistake I did? Did he do it on purpose? Apparently it's not been corrected, as this page came up in my search results as well: flatearthofficial.com/201...port-philip-in-melbourne/ Here's a map of the south pole which should illustrate better how the shortest distance between Melbourne and Cape Horn would take it close to Antarctica. www.etsy.com/listing/6929...f47bb7a%3A692929779&cns=1 It's really hard for me to spend much time on arguments for theories like this when the supposed experts don't even have their basic facts correct, especially when it seems they are, at best, being negligent, if not intentionally deceiving.
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??
I'm glad you delved a bit into Dubay's vid. Respect. It's too much to digest at any one sitting, of course any kind of investigation of his claims and validation does take time as well. Unless they are simple observations. Yeah, I thought #40 may interest you; It interests me as well. This issue of travel in the Southern Hemisphere seems to arouse the most curiosity given those routes are the one most affected by a Flat Earth model/theory. (I'm still investigating others' theories.) So I did some fact checking and found this page: www.easysurf.cc/circle.htm#dla1lo1tola2lo2 It purports to give distances on a global earth, including between two points given their longitude and latitude coordinates. It also gives the circumference of the global earth at various latitudes. Interesting link. (The Home page is also helpful. I bookmarked it.) But first, various other sites give the distance as being 5600 miles to 7000 miles. Both are substantially less than claimed by Dubay. So I put in the long & lat coordinates on the global earth calculator....And what do you know? The global earth calc came out with a 10,500 mile figure, consistent with the claim by Dubay in #40. Did I do something wrong? Oh, but of course I did. Both Melbourne and Cape Horn are in the S hemisphere, I realized, which means that both lat coordinates should be negative. Melbourne should not have a positive lat coordinatate. Correcting that and putting in -37 for melbourne, it gives a distance of 5752 miles... And so, why is Dubay saying the 2 points are 10,500 miles apart? Could it be he made the same mistake I did? Did he do it on purpose? Apparently it's not been corrected, as this page came up in my search results as well: flatearthofficial.com/201...port-philip-in-melbourne/ Nice research. Great questions. Dubay either innocently made the same miscalculation as you...OR purposely fudged the calculation...OR knows he messed up the calculation. However, the owner of the 'Flat Earth' site you accessed which mapped out that Cape Horn to Melbourne route is not Eric Dubay's site. This guy is a Christian; Dubay is not. (I do like his guy's channel FWIW. Good stuff there.) Here's a map of the south pole which should illustrate better how the shortest distance between Melbourne and Cape Horn would take it close to Antarctica. www.etsy.com/listing/6929...f47bb7a%3A692929779&cns=1 Very cool. 1906 Map of Antarctic? I love maps, have always. That said, my problem with this is...credibility and validation. Before the year 1906, and given the obvious lack of technology and means (not to mention, impossible task for the time), how was anyone able to survey all 5,000,000 million square miles of Antarctica? I'd ask who the source of authority was that validated the Antarctica Map as its true and actual geography? Ping, no, not all the FE answers will be sufficiently explained. I don't have all the answers as I am still learning what is obviously a very broad subject. While learning Flat Earth Theory, one must necessarily simultaneous learn/un-learn much of the previous Global earth dogma we've been taught as a given. The latter seems to be easier than thought since Science teachers never really explained the dynamics to begin with other than tossing out "GRAVITY!" and the Global Earth assumption from the get-go. The rest of our Globe Earth "education" come from a lifetime of culture imagery and supposed feats and photos from NASA. As I'd mentioned, even if say #40 is dismissed...or another 50 "reasons" of a FE are as well, there are still another 150 that may hold water. IF that's the case, Globe Earth dogma is truly leaking scientific credibility. There are just TWO simple observations that seriously damage "Globe" Earth (the formula: 1) 1000 MPH "Spinning Ball" (that appears stationary from the surface and from the air -- as well as from the ISS.) 2) Observational Plane-Earth/Large bodies of water as having NO measurable curvature. Speaking of geometric calculations, this "Earth Curvature Calculator" ( http://earthcurvature.com/ ) may interest you -- especially in the context of the videos taken by a gentleman who often photographs and calculates measurements of unbelievable expanses of land through a high-powered telescopic lens and infrared camera (below.) Hmmm....
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.
Then tell me how to post an image on this site
www.tutorialspoint.com/How-to- Insert-an-Image-in-HTML-Page
Link has 404 error
They must not like direct links to their articles. Try googling. Post html image.
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.
Yes, and the footage is consistent with the speeds and circumference of a global earth. First, as I pointed out, the earth and ISS are generally moving in the same direction -- to the east -- so subtracting the speed if the earth from the ISS speed gives a relative speed of ISS over the earth is roughly 16,000 MPH. The orbital diameter is about 25,500 or so, which means to travel 1 orbit around the earth takes about 90 minutes, as claimed, so the observed movement of the earth should be consistent with what it would be to go around the globe 1 time in an hour and a half. If you picked up a basket ball in your hands and turned it at a slow enough speed that would take 1.5 hours to rotate the ball 1 time, that should match the same apparent movement of the earth shown in the ISS video (and would hardly be a blur). That in spite of the 16K/17k MPH speed the ISS is going. True, I've offered no calcs or observational criteria to support the 67K speed. I merely accept and echo that figure. But I do expect the figures I gave on orbital speeds to match the video evidence allegedly from ISS.
The ISS is sometimes visible with the naked eye from earth. I'm confident I did see a satellite once, though I never confirmed it. There is a web site that can help give you a time when you can see it. It must be near sunrise or sunset when the sky is darker eliminating the blue sky glare from the sun, but at the same time, when the ISS is not in the shadow of the earth and still illuminated by the sun. This is a video purporting to be of the ISS from the ground. Here is a NASA link that supposedly gives times when ISS is visible from a specific geographic area: spotthestation.nasa.gov/home.cfm Again, I believe you'll need to find a time just after dusk or just before dawn to see it, but maybe it's visible during sun up. Required orbital speeds should be computable by knowing the speed at which objects fall and knowing the diameter of the earth, the latter of which, granted is one that I'm unsure how to measure by home observation. But the speed required to be in orbit must be fast enough such that, as an object falls to the ground in continuously misses the earth. If you know both, the speed should be computable from that. Certainly it's been mapped, as I posted a link purporting to be one. But "Surveyed?", perhaps not. But we are talking about a continent that is nearly all covered in ice, and there is little point is surveying an ice sheet that melts moves growns and upon which building things is ill advised. I didn't say launching rockets on polar orbits can't be done or has never been done. Only that it takes more rocket fuel to do so. It's much like suggesting that one routinely take backroads to go to the grocery store when the highway is 20 minutes quicker. You just never bother taking backroads because there is no point. For reaching the ISS, going the "highway" route means smaller rockets and less fuel is required. As you would consider any & all photos to be fake and would not be considered "proof, there's no point is looking for them. There was a collision about 10-20 years ago. I forget when. But while 5000 may seem a huge number, and certainly is in the context of, say 5000 boats motoring around blindly in a body of water, say, 10 miles square (=100 square miles yielding 50 boats per square mile) we could expect collisions on a routine basis. But the orbital space is of course far, far larger than that, and is also 3 dimensional, not 2D as water surface is. Satellites are also smaller than average boat sizes. So with 5000 satellites the chances of collisions are still extremely remote. But there was at least one that occurred. (Not counting cases where the shuttle has allegedly been hit by flecks of paint, as paint flecks as no one knows how many of those are in orbit). Maybe but "argument" has a couple different definitions. If it's an argument, it's a good one -- though I must say I never expected to be engaging a serious one over the shape of the earth. Given the alleged motives of the PTB's I would suggest flat earth theory to, potentially, play right into their hands. What you consider to be "panic" on their part I would suggest may be feigned, perhaps (though I don't see any panic). Consider that we are in the midst of a movement by social media to have fact checkers and censoring of alt news sources. What better supporting argument for censoring free speech would there be than to point out how people believe the ridiculous perpetuated notion that the earth is flat? Freedom of speech can no longer be tolerated, they could say, because if people can be made to believe the earth is flat, then they can be made to believe *anything*, so therefore, we must quash all these alt information sites that talk about flat earth, and, you know, along with that, we might as well quash fake info about vaccines, 911, wikileaks, and all manner of other conspiracy theory. People just cannot, cannot, cannot be trusted to think for themselves as the flat earth movement proves. Now THAT is a conspiracy theory I could believe, because censoring of the net is, in fact, already in progress. Because it's buried in ice? It's kind of like mapping your back yard to show where the grass is tallest, isn't it? Large bodies of water like the ocean? It's not laser beam flat. I have been on boat trips that have gone maybe as much as 30 miles off shore and the land goes out of view. Completely. And I don't think it was because of haze. It disappears over the horizon. Boats similarly drop out of view when watched from shore. I remember seeing one argument that showed something using a canal that was straight and maybe 6-7 miles long or some such. If that is one of them then it's flawed. The body of water must be completely still and cannot be flowing -at all. Not in the least. If the water is flowing, then it means the water surface over that distance is not level. It is higher on the starting point than it is on the ending point. No two ways about it. And if that's the case then yes you *could* get a "laser beam flat" reading over such a canal which would not happen on still body of water over that same distance. If flat earth theory were true, there are *myriads* of observations that must be reexplained, far more than the 200 "proofs" that Dubay has authored that challenge a spherical earth. I see lengths taken to explain things like moon phases, but they don't fully explain the observations. How does flat earth theory explain high & low tides, I've not even asked about that before. There is a barrel full of issues that round earth explains so very well that flat earth theory must bend over backwards, to put it mildly, to explain. Sure, the vids that you posted offer a possible alternative explanation for some observations, but that doesn't mean they are correct as there is no limit to the number of alternate explanations for our observations that could be conjured up. No limit at all. What is required is explanations that offer the opportunity for predictions to be made that prove to be accurate by subsequent experimentation. Global earth has afforded that is spades. I see it as Occam's razor principle applying. The simplest explanation is the likely correct explanation. And that principle doesn't apply more overwhelmingly than it does in spherical vs flat earth theory. Global earth yields simple explanations. Flat earth makes all kinds of things very complicated.
May I resolve this nonsense from personal experience. In the Pacific Ocean, (Tasman Sea) there is a mountain called Ball's Pyramid. I have seen it twice, once as a teen, as a merchant seaman, and later on a world cruise. On both occasions it slowly came into view, rising up and then disappeared again below the horizon. If the Earth was flat as supposed this would not happen https://www.facebook.com/untolduniversenow/photos/a.1352727731422245/26 90816934279978/?type=3&theater
You are in deep kook territory. This is akin to discussing the health benefits of cyanide. Lets debate that.
You aren't capable of debating a baked potato.
??? This is Timothy Leary territory here. Sorry. I don't do LSD. OR cyanide.
#3. To: Liberator (#0)
#4. To: Liberator (#0)
Who knew the subject of Flat Earth was so compelling
#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.
#7. To: paraclete (#4)
Haven't these people seen the pictures taken from various space probes looking back to the Earth?
#8. To: A K A Stone (#3)
The earth is round.
#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.
#10. To: FE Skeptics (#6)
(Edited)
#11. To: Liberator (#10)
Hold up a piece of paper and match it up with the horizon at Antarctica. Is it even with the horizon? Or curving?
#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.
#13. To: buckeroo (#11)
#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)
#16. To: Liberator (#15)
#17. To: Pinguinite (#14)
This shows the incredibly ability of people to NOT be critical in their evaluations. I find it amazing and disturbing at the same time.
#18. To: Liberator (#13)
just hold up a piece of Zig-Zag rolling paper.
#19. To: Pinguinite (#16)
That video demo proves absolutely nothing about the earth being flat. Nothing whatsoever.
#20. To: buckeroo (#18)
According to you, The Flat World Society is cruel and unjust to those seeking TRUTH about the world around us.
#21. To: Liberator (#19)
Lunar also could mean "loony" ;-)
#22. To: Liberator (#15)
#23. To: paraclete (#22)
#24. To: Liberator (#23)
(Edited)
#25. To: Liberator (#12)
#26. To: paraclete, Pinguinite, A K A Stone, Deckard, Buckeroo (#24)
https://www.facebook.com
#27. To: Pinguinite (#25)
#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??
#29. To: Liberator (#26)
Sorry. I don't "Facebook."
#30. To: paraclete (#29)
#31. To: A K A Stone (#30)
#32. To: paraclete (#31)
#33. To: All (#24)
(Edited)
#34. To: Pinguinite (#28)
"Question: IF the earth indeed is spinning at 66,666 MPH (as we are told)"
#35. To: Pinguinite (#28)
#36. To: Liberator (#34)
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.
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,
#37. To: Liberator (#35)
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?)
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),
...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'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.
Has this been an "argument? Maybe in some sense.
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.
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.)
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.
#38. To: Pinguinite (#37)
(Edited)
#39. To: Liberator (#34)
#40. To: A K A Stone (#39)
Lets debate that.
#41. To: A K A Stone (#39)
This is akin to discussing the health benefits of cyanide.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]