Flat Earth Theory

[Shalomhalom]

I do appreciate what you're saying. The only reason I'm only quoting this part is because of time purposes (at our first doctor appt. for wife's pregnancy - everything is going great!).

Apparently, our world is not built on the assumption of being a globe. There are apparently (seem real to me, but how would I really know?) several government/military documents that teach to assume a flat, non-moving earth. This would mean, in a sense, the world is built on the assumption of being flat.

Will reshare a link to those documents later today, and look forward to furthering our conversations later.

First of all, may the Lord bless your family.

Secondly, I am aware of the documents. What I meant by “assumption” is just that every part of every country in the whole world practically takes our current world-system (globe, space etc.) for granted, and builds and acts upon it. You can easily see it in all kinds of scientific and educational apartments. Denying that model makes you a “fool”, so much it is taken for granted.

It’s hard for me sometimes to put into words what I really think. English also isn’t my mother’s tongue. All in all it’s just such a stable system that is moreover not only taught since space travel was possible, but even before that time our heliocentric model, although with some variations, was already being taught almost universally or at least in many parts of the world, and even from antiquity sometimes.

If that all really is a conspiracy, then that would have to mean that the scientific and educational apartments of the whole world are so intelligently connected and interrelated, that practically the very way they are structured is only to further this cause. And all that under government polity and rule. You would really have to control all the cornerstones of the world that govern human thinking. So if I was responsible to make such a thing happen, I would first of all make sure to centralise all the important apartments of the world which are responsible for the way humans think, so that in the end I would only have to control and lead this centralisation, because this alone in turn would spread its doctrine and polity to all its many members. This would make sense, again, if one could prove to me that such a thing exists.

 

[amigo de christo]

Too Big to be believable:

a.) God came to earth as a man = the Word was God
b.) All things were created thru the Word that was God
c.) Jesus never sinned
d.) Jesus healed all manner of sickness
e.) Jesus is the Way the Truth the Life
f.) No one comes to the FATHER but thru the only Savior = JESUS the CHRIST
g.) Jesus raised the dead/Lazurus and others
h.) Jesus took on Himself the Sins of the Entire Human Race(who BELIEVE the WORD) from Adam to the very last soul that will believe on Him for Salvation
i.) Jesus rose from the Dead and Ascended back to Heaven from where He Came

******** The BAPTISM in/of the HOLY SPIRIT *******

j.) Jesus is Coming Again to Raise the Dead in Him
k.) Satan is the god of this age/world
l.) No one can escape the power of Satan and Death except thru the LORD Jesus Christ
m.) No one can come to God unless the FATHER Calls them to CHRIST
n.) All have sinned = there is none good, no not one!!!
o.) Satan will soon bring about the MARK that will unite those who receive it with Satan
p.) NO FORGIVENESS for anyone who takes the MARK
R.) Resurrection unto Immortal Glorified Bodies in the Likeness of CHRIST = Only for those who are in CHRIST
s.) Satan is loosed from prison AFTER the 1,000 Literal Years of the Glorified Saints Ruling with Christ
t.) Final Destination, Lake of Fire, for Satan and all who did not receive the Love of God given in the Lord Jesus Christ

@amigo de christo

Trench time . The mystery of inquity rises to the full and all not in the lambs book of life
will merge under one love and one god they believe to be GOD . We go out faithful no matter the cost my friend .
JESUS preaching time in the building and bring all biblical doctrine for ammo by which to stir one another up daily .
The nations are angry and rebellion to GOD has become the love of even much of christendom .
This path ends with much blood against the saints , but remember ITS WE WHO HAVE ALL HOPE
for JESUS IS OUR HOPE and our Salvation . No matter what be allowed to come against us
THE LORD is with us and paradise awaits all who were faithful .

 

[Adventageous]

I have begun to write my book on this topic (and it will be some time, by God's grace, and my own health recovery), and would like to know from any persons, what general terms would they like to see defined at the beginning of the book material (ie., velocity, heavens, dome, &c.)? The list does not have to be indepth, but a general listing would be appreciated so that all may have easy access to definitions at the outset of the book's material. I am only looking for words / terms / ideas that are to be defined from generally accepted sources (ie scripture, webster's 1828 dictionary (or other like Oxford's E.D.), etymology, &c. as needful). Alphabetical would be helpful but not necessary as I will make sure they are listed as such in the book.

A listing might look like the following (briefly):

Atmosphere:​

Cis-Lunar:​

Cis-Solar:​

Direction:​

Dome:​

Earth​

Firmament:​

Flat:​

Gravity:​

Heaven/s:​

Jesuits:​

Latitude:​

Level:​

Longitude:​

Lunar:​

Moon:​

N.A.S.A.:​

Oblate Spheroid:​

Orbit:​

Planet/s:​

Solar:​

Speed​

Sphere:​

Stars:​

Sun:​

Velocity:
&c:​

Any assistance would be much appreciated. I will of course, when the book is completed, offer a free link to the completed material, for all who assist, and have my thanks in advance, irrespective of your present world-view position.

 

[Rudometkin]

I have begun to write my book on this topic (and it will be some time, by God's grace, and my own health recovery), and would like to know from any persons, what general terms would they like to see defined at the beginning of the book material (ie., velocity, heavens, dome, &c.)? The list does not have to be indepth, but a general listing would be appreciated so that all may have easy access to definitions at the outset of the book's material. I am only looking for words / terms / ideas that are to be defined from generally accepted sources (ie scripture, webster's 1828 dictionary (or other like Oxford's E.D.), etymology, &c. as needful). Alphabetical would be helpful but not necessary as I will make sure they are listed as such in the book.

A listing might look like the following (briefly):

Atmosphere:​

Cis-Lunar:​

Cis-Solar:​

Direction:​

Dome:​

Earth​

Firmament:​

Flat:​

Gravity:​

Heaven/s:​

Jesuits:​

Latitude:​

Level:​

Longitude:​

Lunar:​

Moon:​

N.A.S.A.:​

Oblate Spheroid:​

Orbit:​

Planet/s:​

Solar:​

Speed​

Sphere:​

Stars:​

Sun:​

Velocity:​

&c:​

Any assistance would be much appreciated. I will of course, when the book is completed, offer a free link to the completed material, for all who assist, and have my thanks in advance, irrespective of your present world-view position.

Please, present some arguments occasionally that will be in the book, so that they can have a chance to be rebutted here, so the book can also address or at least highlight those rebuttals as well.

 

[Adventageous]

Please, present some arguments occasionally that will be in the book, so that they can have a chance to be rebutted here, so the book can also address or at least highlight those rebuttals as well.

I may have to start another thread for that, just to keep this thread on the book seperate, but will keep it under advisement, and do not at the moment see a reason not to do so as you have suggested. I will keep rebuttal type arguments anonymous however, though I may use direct quotes (with permission of course).

Since it will be a PDF type book, I may include things like various links (but they have to be relatively stable, or at least Internet Archived - Wayback Machined, or otherwise stable archived, since the internet changes a lot) to video material, but still thinking about that. I may keep that to a minimum. It will be mostly text, some images as needful, so that goes for images as well, preferrable non-copyrighted images, or unlicensed images.

If I do create a new thread, I will link to it here, so people can crosslink to it. Still undecided on that.

 

[Shalomhalom]

Any assistance would be much appreciated.

You have to include and dismantle the long-distance-photograph proofs, which is what keeps me interested in the topic, since I don't know any answer to that. This is such a simple proof without the requirements of further presuppositions.

 

[Jericho]

Frankly, that doesn’t make any sense. If this really is the case, that would have to mean that all the higher officials, statesmen, scientists, all the people who had any sort of power or influence, would have to be united in some form of secret society, from where they could, together, plan this whole thing in such a way as to get through with it, without any disturbance from the outsiders, without any suspicion or whatever.

I have brought this up before, and it's one of the biggest issues I have with it. For it to be true, it would require a massive global conspiracy of epic proportions. The logistics of such an operation alone would be staggering and costly. It would mean that governments, scientists, politicians, journalists, and astronauts around the world have had to be in on it for at least the past 64 years, if not much, much longer. It would mean that privately owned space corporations and citizens who have been on commercial space flights, like William Shatner and Katy Perry, are in on it. How would you keep that many people quiet about it? You mean to tell me in all that time, nobody with any credibility has ever risked talking about it? And for what? I fail to see the net gain in hiding the shape of the earth. Even if it were flat, so what? There is no satisfactory reason why such a thing would be kept secret. But to the true believers, no amount of evidence or reason will ever suffice.

 

[Shalomhalom]

You mean to tell me in all that time, nobody with any credibility has ever risked talking about it?

Yeah I was asking for testimonial witness, here, too. That would be a beginning at least. On the other hand, if there really is this grand conspiracy, that would also reasonably suggest making some kind of promises or oaths not to talk about any of that stuff. And so the other side would make sure that the oaths are being kept, possibly even with threats before or while the oath is being taken.

There is no satisfactory reason why such a thing would be kept secret.

I wouldn't go that far. There could be many reasons, the most obvious ones are money & control. NASA seems to make big money out of that. I mean, that's a reason, isn't it. Some people also think that all this is part of faking an alien invasion, with the result of the creation a one world government, which otherwise can not be brought about. So, whether those stories are true or not, it would definitely be a "reason".

But as I said, all of this, again, only upon the hypothetical reality of this grand conspiracy.

 

[Rudometkin]

People building the rockets wouldn't even need to know.

 

[Adventageous]

You have to include and dismantle the long-distance-photograph proofs, which is what keeps me interested in the topic, since I don't know any answer to that. This is such a simple proof without the requirements of further presuppositions.

Would telephoto lens photographs (non-Govt. agency related, say amateur or other individual persons' endeavors) of the moon (or sun, or any heavenly body, from starfield, individual planets, falling junk, airplanes, rockets, &c) from the surface of any location on earth be of use to you in that regard?

 

[Adventageous]

You have to include and dismantle the long-distance-photograph proofs, which is what keeps me interested in the topic, since I don't know any answer to that. This is such a simple proof without the requirements of further presuppositions.

I was also merely at this point looking for terms / terminology / words / ideas to include in the simple dictionary, as for instance: Flat Earth Theory

I really wasn't looking to engage in 'proofs' and 'disproofs' yet. I have to start with the basic terminology, to set a ground level to even to begin to discuss the topic in the book. If people disagree on the definitions, then people are simply arguing past one another, would you not agree (or do you disagree)?

 

[Adventageous]

You have to include and dismantle the long-distance-photograph proofs, which is what keeps me interested in the topic, since I don't know any answer to that. This is such a simple proof without the requirements of further presuppositions.

Here is the updated listing so far of Dictionary terms to include in the book, as I am looking for terms in common usage to define at the start of the book:

Air:
Altitude:
Aldrin, Edwin "Buzz"
Antarctic:
Antarctica:
Apollo Moon Missions (aka Apollo 7-17):

Apollo 7:​

Apollo 8:​

Apollo 9:​

Apollo 10:​

Apollo 11:​

Apollo 12:​

Apollo 13:​

Apollo 14:​

Apollo 15:​

Apollo 16:​

Apollo 17:​

Arc:
Arc Minute/s:
Arc Second/s:
Arctic:
Armstrong, Neil:
Assertion/s:
Asteroid/s:
Astronaut/s:
Astrophotography:
Atmosphere:
Atmospheric Pressure:
Aurora Australis (aka “Southern Lights”):
Aurora Borealis (aka “Northern Lights”):
Australia:
Ball:
Barometric Pressure:
Barrier:
Bend:
Bible/s:
Border/s/ing:
Breadth:
Catholic:
Catholicism:
Circle:
Circuit/s:
Circumambulate/s/ing:
Circumference:
Circumnavigate:
Cis-Lunar:
Cis-Solar:
Cloud/s:
Cohesion:
Collins, Michael:
Compass (1):
Compass (2):
Conspiracy/ies:
Context:
Continent/s:
Copernicus, Nicolaus:
Coriolis Effect:
Corners:
Cover/s/ed/ing:
Curtain/s:
Curve/s/d/ing:
Diameter:
Dimension/s:
Direction:
Disney, Walt Elias:
Dome:
Earth:
Eclipse/s:

Solar Eclipse:​

Lunar Eclipse:​

Edge/s:
Ellen G. (Gould) White (née Harmon; November 26, 1827 - July 16, 1915; “E.G.W.”):
Elohiym:
End/s:
Eratosthenes of Cyrene:
Established:
Etymology:
Falling Star/s:
Firmament:
Fisheye Lens:
Flat:
Flat Earth/er (“F.E.”):
Footstool:
Foundation/s:
Four Corners (of the Earth):
Four Quarters (of the Earth):
Four Winds (of Heaven):
Gas:
Globe:
God:
Gospel:
Gravity:
Hang/s/ed/ing:
Heaven/s:

1st Heaven:​

2nd Heaven:​

3rd Heaven:​

Height/h:
Hemi-:
Hemi-Sphere/ical:
Hermeticist:
Horizon/s:
Hydrogen:
Hydrogen Bonds:
Hydrophobicity:
Hypothesis/es:
Ice Wall:
Immobile:
Islam:
JEHOVAH (Elohiym):

The Father​

The Son​

The Holy Ghost / Spirit​

Jet Propulsion Laboratory (aka “JPL”):
Jesuit/s:
King James Bible (“KJB”):
KPH:
Kubrick, Stanley:
Latitude/s:
Law/s:
Length:
Level:
Light:
Line/s:
Liquid:
Literal/ly:
Logic/ical:
Logical Fallacy/ies:
Longitude/s:
Lower Earth Orbit (aka “LEO”):
Lunar:
LXX (aka “Septuagint”):
Metaphor/ic/al/ly:
Meteor/s:
Meteorite/s:
Moon:
Moon Dust:
MPH:
Muslim:
N.A.S.A.:
Oblate Spheroid:
Ocean/s:
Operation Starfish Prime:
Orb/s:
Orbit/s:
Photography:
Photoshop/s/ed/ing:
Physics:
Pillar/s:
Pinching:
Place:
Plane (1):
Plane (2):
Planet/s:
Plateau-Rayleigh instability (aka “Raleigh instability”):
Prophet/ess:
Protestant/s:
Quarter/s:
Qur’an:
Radiation:
Radioactive:
Radioactive Decay:
Radioactive Decay Rate:
Radius:
Redemption:
Reformer/s:
Regolith:
Removed:
Rotate/s/ing:
Round:
Salvation:
Sea/s:
Semi-:
Semi-Sphere/ical:
Septuagint (aka “LXX”):
Seventh-day Adventist (“S.D.A.”):
Shooting Star/s:
Solar:
Solar Radiation:
Solar Winds:
Solid:
Speed:
Sphere/s:
Spheroid:
Spin/s/ing:
Spirit of Prophecy (aka “Testimony of Jesus”):
Stable:
Stablished:
Star/s:
Sun:
Surface/s:
Surface Tension:
Symbol/s/ism/ical/ly:
Telescope/s/y:
Terminator/s:
Testimony of Jesus (aka “Spirit of Prophecy”):
Theory/ies/ize/d/ing:
Under:
Unmoveable:
Upper Earth Atmosphere (aka “UEA”):
Vail/s (aka “Veil/s”):
Van Allen, James A.:
Van Allen Radiation Belt/s:
Van der Waals Force:
Veil/s (aka “Vail/s”):
Velocity/ies:
Width:
Windows of Heaven:
Winds/:
World/s:
World View/s:

 

[Shalomhalom]

Would telephoto lens photographs (non-Govt. agency related, say amateur or other individual persons' endeavors) of the moon (or sun, or any heavenly body, from starfield, individual planets, falling junk, airplanes, rockets, &c) from the surface of any location on earth be of use to you in that regard?

I don’t see how it would. And by the way, you just made another argument for the flat earth, I realise, or maybe not directly the flat earth, but something related to it, the distance and nature of the moon. Because, I use telescopes, and I like to photograph the stars and night sky (Astrophotography), and one thing that doesn’t make any sense is that with a simple telescope-lens (I use the William Optics RedCat 51) you can see ultra-sharp craters of the moon. If the moon is so far away, that shouldn’t be possible. But I may overlook something here, I’m not the best when it comes to the technicals.

But the argument I was referring to is just that we can see objects above the waters which should be hidden, in some instances miles behind the horizon. The way it’s been explained away (at least I am not aware of any other explanations) is that it’s some kind of mirage, and not the actual object. But that’s just an assertion, not proven. So this argument really sticks with me, because, as I said, there aren’t involved any other assumptions here. It’s a simple proof, a simple argument. I like it simple.

 

[Adventageous]

I don’t see how it would. And by the way, you just made another argument for the flat earth, I realise, or maybe not directly the flat earth, but something related to it, the distance and nature of the moon. Because, I use telescopes, and I like to photograph the stars and night sky (Astrophotography), and one thing that doesn’t make any sense is that with a simple telescope-lens (I use the William Optics RedCat 51) you can see ultra-sharp craters of the moon. If the moon is so far away, that shouldn’t be possible. But I may overlook something here, I’m not the best when it comes to the technicals.

But the argument I was referring to is just that we can see objects above the waters which should be hidden, in some instances miles behind the horizon. The way it’s been explained away (at least I am not aware of any other explanations) is that it’s some kind of mirage, and not the actual object. But that’s just an assertion, not proven. So this argument really sticks with me, because, as I said, there aren’t involved any other assumptions here. It’s a simple proof, a simple argument. I like it simple.

Yes, in relation to the first, and to the second paragraphs, I was referring to the moon in relation to the horizon. Your telescope can (on a full moon) always see the complete and full round moon when in connection to the horizon (ie. it stays always above the horizon)? In other words, the body of the moon, in its fullness, does not in the slightest vanish (become hidden) from sight (become less and less circular)?

As for clarity, I assume your telescope's clarity of the moon's craters is affected by atmospherics between differing points of time and location of the moon in relation to the horizon?

 

[Adventageous]

(Astrophotography), and one thing that doesn’t make any sense is that with a simple telescope-lens (I use the William Optics RedCat 51)

I added Astrophotography, as well as Photography, and Telescope, to the list.

On your W.O.Redcat 51, I assume it is standard "focal length of 250mm and a fast focal ratio of f/4.9,"? Which "mm" eyepiece do you use so I may determine magnification of the moon when you view it:

Magnification = Focal Length of Telescope / Focal Length of Eyepiece

 

[Shalomhalom]

Your telescope can (on a full moon) always see the complete and full round moon when in connection to the horizon (ie. it stays always above the horizon)? In other words, the body of the moon, in its fullness, does not in the slightest vanish (become hidden) from sight (become less and less circular)?

I am sorry, but I have no idea what you’re talking about.

As for clarity, I assume your telescope's clarity of the moon's craters is affected by atmospherics between differing points of time and location of the moon in relation to the horizon?

I don’t know. But let me tell you the “problem”:

At daytime, I can zoom into birds far away in the trees, and see them sharply.
Then at night, I zoom into the moon and see sharp craters.

Do you realize the problem? These two objects are supposedly 380.000 kilometers apart, yet with a little adjustment I see them both very sharply with the very same telescope.

 

[Shalomhalom]

On your W.O.Redcat 51, I assume it is standard "focal length of 250mm and a fast focal ratio of f/4.9,"? Which "mm" eyepiece do you use so I may determine magnification of the moon when you view it:

Magnification = Focal Length of Telescope / Focal Length of Eyepiece

It’s 250mm and ratio 4.9, yes. But I don’t use any eyepiece, it’s directly connected to my camera, a simple DSLR Canon 80D.

I also have a manual telescope with eyepieces, but I don’t know the technicals by heart, I got to look them up tomorrow when I am home. But it’s pretty standard, nothing special.

 

[Adventageous]

I am sorry, but I have no idea what you’re talking about.

In your model, where is the moon located? A rough estimate in miles/kilometers would be fine (even a range if you do not know exactly).

Is it under a dome, within Earth atmosphere?
Is it just beyond a dome, outside of Earth atmosphere?
Is it within Earth atmosphere with no dome?
Is it just beyond Earth atmosphere with no dome?
Is it 238,855 miles (384,400 kilometers) away from Earth in a vacuum (far beyond Earth atmosphere)?

I am asking if you can always see the moon (when full), and what happens as it approaches the horizon, and / or interacts with the horizon. What does the shape of the moon do in your viewing of it from apex/zenith/overhead through its movement as in relation to the horizon?

 

[Adventageous]

It’s 250mm and ratio 4.9, yes. But I don’t use any eyepiece, it’s directly connected to my camera, a simple DSLR Canon 80D.

I also have a manual telescope with eyepieces, but I don’t know the technicals by heart, I got to look them up tomorrow when I am home. But it’s pretty standard, nothing special.

What then is the magnification?

Would you say the following is correct?

Magnification = Focal Length of Telescope / Focal Length of Camera Lens

For the RedCat 51:

• Effective Focal Length: 250 mm

Assuming you use the camera's crop factor (1.6 for APS-C sensors):

• Effective Focal Length of Canon 80D: 250 mm x 1.6 = 400 mm

Resulting Magnification​

• Magnification: 400 mm / 250 mm = 1.6x

 

[Rudometkin]

As far as personal testimony and gravity goes, I have seen saucer craft and unknown orbs in the sky on different occasions. I have witnessed both floating and zig-zagging. The zig-zagging had immediate and precise trajectory change with no slow-down, even going from forward to backward immediately. The zig-zagging seemed obviously impossible. I figure it was either anti-gravity somehow, or gravity does not exist the way the presumptuous tell us it is.