Flat Earth Theory

[Biblica]

Airplanes . . . could you show me a map of a flat earth, and tell me how long it takes to fly from New York to Berlin (3,980 miles on a globe), and how long it takes to fly from Rio de Jineiro to Naimey, Niger (3,962 miles on a globe)?

On a flat earth, isn't the trip from Rio to Niger significantly longer than from NY to Berlin? Doesn't this effect magnify the further south you go?

Much love!

I am not an expert on this, but to me it seems logical that the flights on a flat earth would be shorter because there is no curve adding distance?

 

[marks]

I am not an expert on this, but to me it seems logical that the flights on a flat earth would be shorter because there is no curve adding distance?

You can see here how the "southern" lands are much further apart compared to the "northern" lands, as opposed to on a globe.

Consider that the most direct route from Argentina to Australia is accross the north pole. Is that right? I don't think so!

Much love!

 

[PeterAndroz]

Since i believe God at His word, then that leaves you on the outside looking in:
where WATER is WET
always seeks it's own LEVEL
WATER does not curve on a ball

You can stay with the foolish or you can join us under GOD in Genesis, under the Rainbow of Promise

It was a polite question deserving of a polite explanation.
Please try again.
If the earth is FLAT :-
Why cant Australia, Sth America, Sth Africa see all the stars that Sweden, Canada etc can ?
Why does the Equator see ALL the stars from the whole world yet Sth Afr, Sth Amer, Sweden, Canada etc ?
If you can't explain it logically then politely & humbly say so :)
..

 

[doctrox]

You said nothing was labeled as a photograph, and I showed that to be incorrect in a matter of minutes.

To see the way you are parsing your words gave me a good chuckle with my morning coffee!

As explained and demonstrated, the parsing is all NASA's; the chuckling is the programmed response.

Back a few pages at post #2014, this vid was posted:

Due to the pressure NASA's been receiving, Dave mentions that NASA has recently published its one and only so-called 'official' "photograph" (because "NASA doesn't like to lie"); listen at the 13-min. mark.

Are any of you able to acknowledge the simplicity of this fact, that one fellow asserted that there are no pictures of the earth as seen from space that are labeled a photograph, while another fellow showed that there are pictures of the earth taken from space that are in fact labeled photographs? Showing that assertion to be in fact false?

As was explained to you, when NASA makes statements such as, "This is the first time the Apollo trajectory made it possible to photograph the south polar ice cap", you need to be wise as to how you are being manipulated with mere grammar. You would assume NASA photographed the ice cap; but that is not what NASA said.

It doesn't matter what they're called. They are still fake. From one year to the next, they aren't the same ... except for the same cloud formations copy and pasted on them.

Ya gotta luv the fake clouds. BTW, I took a quick look at NASA's infamous "Blue Marble" and noted the countless subliminal embeds. Below are just a few; I got bored and stopped early on. Perhaps you recognize some of the embeds:

Why is it so difficult for you people to just take God's Word for what it says? Why would you rather believe satanic organizations like NASA over the Word of God?

This is the mind control programming; it's lifelong and starts with a globe on the kindergarten teacher's desk. There is simply no polite way to tell people they've dedicated their lives to an illusion. In other words, it's as good as saying that people don't wish to be told that they're totally wrong, and will go to any length to cling to their belief, no matter what.

Planar earth is easily provable with the preponderance of the Holy Bible (over 200 scriptures). But again, the programmed aren't interested in the truth.



When the ad hominems and name-calling start, you know right away where their head is at. Forgive them for they know not what they do. They are not truth lovers; they, at some point, must will to know the truth. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

There is no "outer space" or "space exploration" and there are no "satellites" as we've been programmed to believe. There is, however, CGI and balloons.

EARTH PHOTOGRAPHY FROM HIGH-ALTITUDE BALLOONS - NASA 1971

There may very well be objects in the atmosphere that perform the functions of what are today called satellites. But these satellites are not in outer space; they are actually tethered beneath massive helium balloons, floating very high in the atmosphere. Indeed, a little-known fact is that NASA annually consumes millions of cubic feet of gaseous helium that it uses to fill balloons to carry satellites into the upper atmosphere.

High altitude balloons, under the firmament, are floating the satellite psyop:



NASA consumes more than twice the helium consumption of the entire U.S. Military.

There is no mention from NASA of using helium for balloon projects. But in the 2015 report to Congress, the Secretary of the Interior explained in detail one of the reasons NASA needed helium. It was a reason that NASA did not mention in its public notice of the helium contract. The 2015 Congressional report states that “Helium is used at all NASA Field Centers, as well as at NASA’s Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility (CSBF) for their balloon campaigns in Antarctica and in the United States.” The real reason NASA needs helium is to fill balloons for floating objects in the upper atmosphere that they falsely portray as satellites located in outer space.

Who knew that NASA had such an extensive balloon program? NASA seems to be keeping the wraps on its balloon program. No doubt, they are concerned that people will add 2+2 together and realize that the NASA balloon program is actually the NASA satellite launch program, which is why they did not mention it in their publicly posted helium contract. All of the gee-whiz rocket launches of alleged satellites are just theater to be shown on the nightly news to convince the public that satellites are being launched into space. There have been hundreds of NASA rocket launches of satellites reported in the news. But there is never any mention of NASA balloon launches.

Google, which is a company with a market capitalization of more than 700 billion dollars, with deep ties to the CIA, is certainly capable of launching space satellites, if space were real. Google has, instead, decided to forgo the facade of launching space satellites. Instead, Google has embarked on a program to launch atmospheric satellites tethered to helium balloons to provide worldwide internet service. Google explains its balloon strategy, which it calls Project Loon:

"We aim to launch and maintain a fleet of balloons to provide Internet coverage to users on the ground, with our Autolaunchers capable of safely and consistently launching a new balloon every 30 minutes. We have flown over 25 million km of test flights to date since the project began – with one of our record-breaking balloons surviving for 190 days aloft in the stratosphere."

According to Google, “transceivers transmit connectivity from ground stations, across balloons, and back down to users’ LTE phones.” And just like the satellites that are supposed to be traveling in mythical outer space, “solar panels power the equipment during the day and charge an onboard battery to allow for nighttime operation.” The technology for the Loon balloon satellites is essentially that of cell towers. Google explains that “Project Loon has taken the most essential components of a cell tower and redesigned them to be light enough and durable enough to be carried by a balloon 20 km up in the stratosphere.”

Notice that there would be a regular need for balloon assisted satellites, as each atmospheric satellite could only, at most, last 190 days. Under that program, there would be a constant need for replacement balloon satellites. Google is one of the few companies to publicly announce a balloon satellite program, but it is not the only player in the balloon satellite game. Satellite company OneWeb has entered into a joint venture with Airbus to construct the manufacturing capacity to build up to 15 satellites per week. “The initial production of 900 satellites is planned for launch into low Earth orbit beginning in 2018, to deliver affordable Internet access globally.” OneWeb portrays the satellites as being placed in low Earth orbit in space; but it is incredible to suggest that they would have 900 rocket launches in 2018. It is quite clear that OneWeb’s planned manufacturing capacity is for low atmospheric satellites tethered on helium balloons.

 

[TLHKAJ]

Back a few pages at post #2014, this vid was posted:


Due to the pressure NASA's been receiving, Dave mentions that NASA has recently published its one and only so-called 'official' "photograph" (because "NASA doesn't like to lie"); listen at the 13-min. mark.

I need to finish watching the video. I know there's more relevant and valid information in there. I can reject the bad and glean the truth.

 

[PeterAndroz]

As explained and demonstrated, the parsing is all NASA's; the chuckling is the programmed response.

Back a few pages at post #2014, this vid was posted:

Due to the pressure NASA's been receiving, Dave mentions that NASA has recently published its one and only so-called 'official' "photograph" (because "NASA doesn't like to lie"); listen at the 13-min. mark.


As was explained to you, when NASA makes statements such as, "This is the first time the Apollo trajectory made it possible to photograph the south polar ice cap", you need to be wise as to how you are being manipulated with mere grammar. You would assume NASA photographed the ice cap; but that is not what NASA said.


Ya gotta luv the fake clouds. BTW, I took a quick look at NASA's infamous "Blue Marble" and noted the countless subliminal embeds. Below are just a few; I got bored and stopped early on. Perhaps you recognize some of the embeds:

View attachment 87813


This is the mind control programming; it's lifelong and starts with a globe on the kindergarten teacher's desk. There is simply no polite way to tell people they've dedicated their lives to an illusion. In other words, it's as good as saying that people don't wish to be told that they're totally wrong, and will go to any length to cling to their belief, no matter what.

Planar earth is easily provable with the preponderance of the Holy Bible (over 200 scriptures). But again, the programmed aren't interested in the truth.

View attachment 87812

When the ad hominems and name-calling start, you know right away where their head is at. Forgive them for they know not what they do. They are not truth lovers; they, at some point, must will to know the truth. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

There is no "outer space" or "space exploration" and there are no "satellites" as we've been programmed to believe. There is, however, CGI and balloons.

EARTH PHOTOGRAPHY FROM HIGH-ALTITUDE BALLOONS - NASA 1971

There may very well be objects in the atmosphere that perform the functions of what are today called satellites. But these satellites are not in outer space; they are actually tethered beneath massive helium balloons, floating very high in the atmosphere. Indeed, a little-known fact is that NASA annually consumes millions of cubic feet of gaseous helium that it uses to fill balloons to carry satellites into the upper atmosphere.

High altitude balloons, under the firmament, are floating the satellite psyop:

View attachment 87814

NASA consumes more than twice the helium consumption of the entire U.S. Military.

There is no mention from NASA of using helium for balloon projects. But in the 2015 report to Congress, the Secretary of the Interior explained in detail one of the reasons NASA needed helium. It was a reason that NASA did not mention in its public notice of the helium contract. The 2015 Congressional report states that “Helium is used at all NASA Field Centers, as well as at NASA’s Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility (CSBF) for their balloon campaigns in Antarctica and in the United States.” The real reason NASA needs helium is to fill balloons for floating objects in the upper atmosphere that they falsely portray as satellites located in outer space.

Who knew that NASA had such an extensive balloon program? NASA seems to be keeping the wraps on its balloon program. No doubt, they are concerned that people will add 2+2 together and realize that the NASA balloon program is actually the NASA satellite launch program, which is why they did not mention it in their publicly posted helium contract. All of the gee-whiz rocket launches of alleged satellites are just theater to be shown on the nightly news to convince the public that satellites are being launched into space. There have been hundreds of NASA rocket launches of satellites reported in the news. But there is never any mention of NASA balloon launches.

Google, which is a company with a market capitalization of more than 700 billion dollars, with deep ties to the CIA, is certainly capable of launching space satellites, if space were real. Google has, instead, decided to forgo the facade of launching space satellites. Instead, Google has embarked on a program to launch atmospheric satellites tethered to helium balloons to provide worldwide internet service. Google explains its balloon strategy, which it calls Project Loon:

"We aim to launch and maintain a fleet of balloons to provide Internet coverage to users on the ground, with our Autolaunchers capable of safely and consistently launching a new balloon every 30 minutes. We have flown over 25 million km of test flights to date since the project began – with one of our record-breaking balloons surviving for 190 days aloft in the stratosphere."

According to Google, “transceivers transmit connectivity from ground stations, across balloons, and back down to users’ LTE phones.” And just like the satellites that are supposed to be traveling in mythical outer space, “solar panels power the equipment during the day and charge an onboard battery to allow for nighttime operation.” The technology for the Loon balloon satellites is essentially that of cell towers. Google explains that “Project Loon has taken the most essential components of a cell tower and redesigned them to be light enough and durable enough to be carried by a balloon 20 km up in the stratosphere.”

Notice that there would be a regular need for balloon assisted satellites, as each atmospheric satellite could only, at most, last 190 days. Under that program, there would be a constant need for replacement balloon satellites. Google is one of the few companies to publicly announce a balloon satellite program, but it is not the only player in the balloon satellite game. Satellite company OneWeb has entered into a joint venture with Airbus to construct the manufacturing capacity to build up to 15 satellites per week. “The initial production of 900 satellites is planned for launch into low Earth orbit beginning in 2018, to deliver affordable Internet access globally.” OneWeb portrays the satellites as being placed in low Earth orbit in space; but it is incredible to suggest that they would have 900 rocket launches in 2018. It is quite clear that OneWeb’s planned manufacturing capacity is for low atmospheric satellites tethered on helium balloons.

Simple easy FLAT earth question
Why can't Longyearbyen see Sigma Octantis ?
Why can't Ushuaia see Polaris ?
Yet the equator can see both ?

 

[Biblica]

I think this is a better map. https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3201c.ct003146/

 

[doctrox]

Simple easy FLAT earth question
Why can't Longyearbyen see Sigma Octantis ?
Why can't Ushuaia see Polaris ?
Yet the equator can see both ?

Thanks for the attention.

The tit-for-tat questions are standard fare, but virtually no one is interested in changing their beliefs when confronted with the truth. IOW, they are not genuine truth seekers. So I wisely avoid that unsavory arena. I don't cast my pearls before folks who are not genuine in their pursuit of truth. It's a hard stance, but it's often necessary especially in the silicon snakepit that is the internet.

There are a few who do check out the documentation, but only a few.

BTW, the Gleason's map is the most truthful you'll find at this time.

 

[PeterAndroz]

I think this is a better map. https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3201c.ct003146/

That map CLEARLY explains :-
.
Why can't Longyearbyen see Sigma Octantis ?
Why can't Ushuaia see Polaris ?
Yet the equator can see both ?
.
.

 

[PeterAndroz]

Thanks for the attention.

The tit-for-tat questions are standard fare, but virtually no one is interested in changing their beliefs when confronted with the truth. IOW, they are not genuine truth seekers. So I wisely avoid that unsavory arena. I don't cast my pearls before folks who are not genuine in their pursuit of truth. It's a hard stance, but it's often necessary especially in the silicon snakepit that is the internet.

There are a few who do check out the documentation, but only a few.

BTW, the Gleason's map is the most truthful you'll find at this time.

If FLAT eathers claim the Bible teaches the earth is FLAT then they will be able to easily & simply answer 3 simple questions :-
.....
Why can't Longyearbyen see Sigma Octantis ?
Why can't Ushuaia see Polaris ?
Yet the equator can see both ?

 

[doctrox]

[the above "2002 physical map of the world"]

About this Item​

Title​

• Physical map of the world, 2002

Names​

• United States. Central Intelligence Agency

Created / Published​

• [Washington, D.C.] : Central Intelligence Agency, [2002]

Simple easy FLAT earth question
Why can't Longyearbyen see Sigma Octantis ?
Why can't Ushuaia see Polaris ?
Yet the equator can see both ?

and

That map CLEARLY explains :-
.
Why can't Longyearbyen see Sigma Octantis ?
Why can't Ushuaia see Polaris ?
Yet the equator can see both ?

and

If FLAT eathers claim the Bible teaches the earth is FLAT then they will be able to easily & simply answer 3 simple questions :-
.....
Why can't Longyearbyen see Sigma Octantis ?
Why can't Ushuaia see Polaris ?
Yet the equator can see both ?

As I intimated, Peter, being argumentatively repetitive and presumptive tells us all we need to know.

 

[PeterAndroz]

About this Item​

Title​

• Physical map of the world, 2002

Names​

• United States. Central Intelligence Agency

Created / Published​

• [Washington, D.C.] : Central Intelligence Agency, [2002]

and

and

As I intimated, Peter, being argumentatively repetitive and presumptive tells us all we need to know.

and what is it that you now know ?
The earth is FLAT or the earth is a SPHERE ?

 

[David in NJ]

It was a polite question deserving of a polite explanation.
Please try again.
If the earth is FLAT :-
Why cant Australia, Sth America, Sth Africa see all the stars that Sweden, Canada etc can ?
Why does the Equator see ALL the stars from the whole world yet Sth Afr, Sth Amer, Sweden, Canada etc ?
If you can't explain it logically then politely & humbly say so :)
..
View attachment 87815

God created the earth moon and stars = Yes, or No?

 

[CrowCross]

Why cant Australia, Sth America, Sth Africa see all the stars that Sweden, Canada etc can ?
Why does the Equator see ALL the stars from the whole world yet Sth Afr, Sth Amer, Sweden, Canada etc ?

That's pretty much a slam dunk.

I've never see a flat earther answer this.

 

[marks]

Simple easy FLAT earth question
Why can't Longyearbyen see Sigma Octantis ?
Why can't Ushuaia see Polaris ?
Yet the equator can see both ?

No one has ever answered this question so far as I can see. Very revealing!

Much love!

 

[marks]

That's pretty much a slam dunk.

I've never see a flat earther answer this.

Just wrote the same thing, then saw this.

Much love!

 

[marks]

As I intimated, Peter, being argumentatively repetitive and presumptive tells us all we need to know.

No one has answered. You cannot see the southern stars from the northern hemisphere, and visa verse. Why is that? Do you have an answer? Is repeating the question because no one answers a sign that the flat earth is true? Is THIS your argument??

Much love!

 

[David in NJ]

That's pretty much a slam dunk.

I've never see a flat earther answer this.

The Sun moon and stars move = not the earth

 

[marks]

The tit-for-tat questions are standard fare, but virtually no one is interested in changing their beliefs when confronted with the truth. IOW, they are not genuine truth seekers. So I wisely avoid that unsavory arena. I don't cast my pearls before folks who are not genuine in their pursuit of truth. It's a hard stance, but it's often necessary especially in the silicon snakepit that is the internet.

I think the truth is that you have no answer and this simple question blows the whole idea of a flat earth out of the water. Likewise the matter of perspective of the sun and moon. Likewise the distances between land masses in the "north" and "south" of the flat earth.

Any one of these things shows the flat earth view false, and shows you to be avoidant of the facts that show you to be in error.

Much love!

 

[Biblica]

That map CLEARLY explains :-
.
Why can't Longyearbyen see Sigma Octantis ?
Why can't Ushuaia see Polaris ?
Yet the equator can see both ?
.
.
View attachment 87819

I just did another map with chatgtp. I asked it to do a flat circle and the first ones it gave me showed a bulge in the middle I had it remove that because I wanted to have a map that matched Piccard's description as he was the first to see earth from a specially designed balloon. In an interview afterwards he said the earth was a "disk with upturned edges." Now if a perfectly flat earth would permit the countries to see all the stars, would a flat earth with a bulge block those views of the stars? I have attached the picture that duplicates Piccard's description. There may be a combination of a flat earth and a bulge that would explain why some science supports a flat earth and why some supports a globe?