FLAT EARTH

[Scott_Fisher]

If this is/was intended for me, then I suggest you severely misunderstood post #2018 -- I agree with you!

I was merely inserting the words you left out of your post - go back and read post #2016 to see what I mean.

I am glad you are here and willing to speak the truth concerning what the Bible says about the true nature of the Earth.

I am sorry, my brother. Upon further review, I saw my misunderstanding. That is the problem with Social Media, easy misperception. But, thank you, I hold in high regard that which the Bible says, neither man nor NASA. The Biblically inspired earth model makes much more sense than the Heliocentric speeding model. Thank you for your patience and I anticipate more fruitful conversations. Because to find an ally in this truth is a great treasure indeed 😊

 

[GaryA]

Because to find an ally in this truth is a great treasure indeed 😊

"You got that right!"

 

[Reborn]

I am a more serious mentor of mind, your humor is light and tasteful. I bet you are a crack up in person, like Robbin Williams, a laugh a second. But, you are right in this politically correct society, opinions are important and needed. Opinions shaped the great Constitution, and assisted the great endeavor to form more perfect union. I like opinions, as long as opinion do not violate the Word of GOD, then that becomes heresy. Keep that light spirit, I am positive it has helped you win friends.

(I meant to be a little more specific on my “opinions” statement)
Indeed they are important, but can be dangerous if it’s thrown around from an uneducated stance. I believe people’s beliefs/stances on issues/etc are all really important to getting info out. Let people help decide on what’s news worthy.

Too much Sheeple Food news and journalism is why it’s such a mess out there. We need a Smorgasbord of Info to choose from so we don’t get cleverly fed 2 or 3 biased articles that only give the illusion of variety and truth. It reeks of garbage juice in the MSM. I always look to forums and diff platforms to see how people think and what interesting buried news they may have found online.

Aah, Yes, thank you for the compliments, Sir. Very kind of you to say.
(Although l know a few people who are around me everyday , in real life...that would strongly disagree with you. 🤣)

My humor is like the food that I mentioned above. I only give the illusion of funny, but in reality
....l just say odd and really weird things.*

*Odd is always strangely funny to read and we really don’t know why we crackup. (you can test this by reading any one of the many headlines that are made up on CNN‘s website)



oh well, my Mom thinks I’m pretty neato. I can’t always count on her to hit the like button on FB.

 

[Fundamental]

Has anyone seen or heard about that anomaly in earth’s magnetic field? It’s growing and splitting into two.
We worry about the changing weather, but how would a geomagnetic storm look like on a global scale?
Satellites and shuttles flying over it and being exposed by its radiation can crash; that’s why it is being monotored so closely.
I think we will witness something in our lifetime no generation before us has witnessed before. If our globe’s magnetic field gets weakened on global scale you better not have a solar flare heading your way. If it does happen, would that mean it was planned by design or just a coincidence?

Flat earthers would explain this anomaly by a hole in the dome?
When we start witnessing aurora in places we should not, that may be the beginning of the end (of this generation)

 

[GaryA]

I would explain it as a figment of someone's imagination...

 

[Fundamental]

I would explain it as a figment of someone's imagination...

If you’re talking about the South Atlantic anomaly, it seems to be very real.
A theory is that this will cause a (mini) ice age. Because our earth is one giant magnetic dynamo it catches particles of our sun. This creates our protecting magnetic field and the Van Ellen radiation band.

But our magnetic field decays drasticly when solar minimum extends her normal time period (grand solar minium); because it has no incoming particles. So basicly the sun is the fuel of our magnetic field. You can buy cheap telescopes with solar filters and watch for sunspots yourself. There should be more, lucky if you count 2.

Scientists from around the world are investigating how much the magnetic field and the sun (in relation) affect climate on earth. Their research shows interesting data. So climate change might be caused by our decaying magnetic field.

And even if you believe in a flat earth, the direction of your compas can be misleading when entering that zone, electronics can suddenly give up and flashes of light are observed.

 

[Moses_Young]

I would explain it as a figment of someone's imagination...

In case you haven't guessed, this one is my new-most-favourite conspiracy theorist, although I probably shouldn't use the term as it probably makes the CIA feel clever.

Video is in support of Flat Earth, and the programming necessary to sell the globe lie. I'm sure it doesn't contain anything you don't already know, but I learned something interesting that I hadn't realised. Flat Earth is an observation, not a claim. Wherever we look, the Earth is flat - we're not making a claim when saying this, we're stating an observation. However, as Spinning Earth, Ball-Earth etc. are claims (i.e. contrary to observation), the burden of proof is on the people proposing such theories to prove them - not on those who understand the true shape of Earth to disprove the false claims.

She mentions a few of the favourite logical fallacies of the globalists in the video, also - Bandwagon, Appeal to Authority, etc.

 

[Dino246]

In case you haven't guessed, this one is my new-most-favourite conspiracy theorist, although I probably shouldn't use the term as it probably makes the CIA feel clever.

Video is in support of Flat Earth, and the programming necessary to sell the globe lie. I'm sure it doesn't contain anything you don't already know, but I learned something interesting that I hadn't realised. Flat Earth is an observation, not a claim. Wherever we look, the Earth is flat - we're not making a claim when saying this, we're stating an observation. However, as Spinning Earth, Ball-Earth etc. are claims (i.e. contrary to observation), the burden of proof is on the people proposing such theories to prove them - not on those who understand the true shape of Earth to disprove the false claims.

She mentions a few of the favourite logical fallacies of the globalists in the video, also - Bandwagon, Appeal to Authority, etc.

It is rather laughable that you mention the logical fallacies of "globalists" (I suggest "spherists" as it doesn't carry political implications), but you employ one yourself: faulty generalization.

You claim to understand the true shape of the earth, but you have no more evidence than the spherists. You claim that you're merely stating observations, but that the spherists are only proposing theories.

Well, I believe that the earth is (roughly) spherical and that it spins because of my own observations and because it is logical and rational and because there is plenty of evidence provided by others. Many of the flat-earth theories are not logical, rational, or sensible. I cannot and will not change my belief from a logical and rationally defensible one to another that violates basic geometry.

Many months ago, I presented two photographs of the Sydney Opera House in Australia, which is at 33 degrees South, ten degrees further South than the most southerly point at which the sun appears at nadir. One shows the sun casting shadows towards the Northwest of the opera house.

In the North-centric flat earth model, that's impossible.

 

[Moses_Young]

It is rather laughable that you mention the logical fallacies of "globalists" (I suggest "spherists" as it doesn't carry political implications), but you employ one yourself: faulty generalization.

You claim to understand the true shape of the earth, but you have no more evidence than the spherists. You claim that you're merely stating observations, but that the spherists are only proposing theories.

Well, I believe that the earth is (roughly) spherical and that it spins because of my own observations and because it is logical and rational and because there is plenty of evidence provided by others. Many of the flat-earth theories are not logical, rational, or sensible. I cannot and will not change my belief from a logical and rationally defensible one to another that violates basic geometry.

Many months ago, I presented two photographs of the Sydney Opera House in Australia, which is at 33 degrees South, ten degrees further South than the most southerly point at which the sun appears at nadir. One shows the sun casting shadows towards the Northwest of the opera house.

In the North-centric flat earth model, that's impossible.

You've outlined your beliefs, but haven't provided substantive proof of any theory to which you subscribe. I don't see how the shadows from the sun necessarily dictate the shape of the Earth, without invoking other unproven theories.

Heliocentrists would be best to stick to Terra-Firma if they hope to convince any Flat Earther of Earth being a ball. I know they can't do this, as the globe lie relies on lack of knowledge, whether from faked photos by space agencies, or an incomplete understanding of the heavens.

 

[Dino246]

You've outlined your beliefs, but haven't provided substantive proof of any theory to which you subscribe. I don't see how the shadows from the sun necessarily dictate the shape of the Earth, without invoking other unproven theories.

Heliocentrists would be best to stick to Terra-Firma if they hope to convince any Flat Earther of Earth being a ball. I know they can't do this, as the globe lie relies on lack of knowledge, whether from faked photos by space agencies, or an incomplete understanding of the heavens.

The shadows don't need to prove any particular theory, but they do disprove the North-centric flat-earth theory.

 

[Socreta93]

 

[GaryA]

I can laugh at a good well-intended joke; however, this does not even make a good joke...

This had to be made by someone with ball-earth thinking - because, flat-earthers would take the short straight route and are not afraid to fly their planes over land...

 

[Dino246]

I can laugh at a good well-intended joke; however, this does not even make a good joke...

This had to be made by someone with ball-earth thinking - because, flat-earthers would take the short straight route and are not afraid to fly their planes over land...

You do understand that the Japanese didn't fly all the way from Japan to Pearl Harbour, don't you?

 

[gb9]

You do understand that the Japanese didn't fly all the way from Japan to Pearl Harbour, don't you?

especially not in 1941.......

 

[GaryA]

I can laugh at a good well-intended joke; however, this does not even make a good joke...

This had to be made by someone with ball-earth thinking - because, flat-earthers would take the short straight route and are not afraid to fly their planes over land...

You do understand that the Japanese didn't fly all the way from Japan to Pearl Harbour, don't you?

I think you missed my "joke"...

Only someone thoroughly steeped in Ball Earth thinking would base a joke on the idea that Flat Earth thinking could not comprehend that the east and west edges of a rectangular map were continuation points of each other in those directions (hence, the short straight route). The 'over land' part was just an extra 'jab' at the "stupidity" of the map - which shows an 'arc' path (ball-earth thinking) instead of a [much more] straight-line path (flat-earth thinking).

I know it may be a stretch for you - but - that really was what I was thinking about at the time. The historical details had absolutely nothing to do with it.

The fact that the "whole idea" of the map 'disallowed' the short straight route made the whole thing 'stupid' and nothing else was actually meaningful after that...

I hope that this somehow makes sense...

 

[ripeolive]

My brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ, there is no universe. The word universe is not in the King James version of the bible. We do not live on a planet, in a Solar System, in a galaxy, in a universe, because there are no planets (as huge spherical land masses), there is no Solar System, there are no galaxies, and there is no universe.

The word planets only appears in the King James version of the bible once:

And he put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets, and to all the host of heaven. 2 Kings 23:5

And in that scripture, the people that burned incense to the planets correctly knew that the planets are the lights coming from the inside of bodies, the size of a man, but incorrectly burned incense to them because all praise and worship should go to the Lord God Almighty. Praise God.

So if aliens ever claim to arrive from "outer space", or anyone for that matter, don't believe it, because there is no outer space. There are only the heavens above, with God Almighty seated in the throne of heaven who loves you, and the only way you can be with him forever and ever, to worship him forever and ever, is to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

Glory to God.

 

[PC123]

@GaryA , @Moses_Young. You guys believe in flat earth right?

I had a look at the flat earth arguments a while ago and dismissed the theory because of this; I can catch a plane from Australia to south America and get there in a time that is much too fast to fit the flat earth map.

But i think i may have come across the best argument against the heliocentric model and the more i think about this the more im leaning to wards science being wrong...

According to the heliocentric model the earth is spinning as it rotates around the sun...
The sun, along with our solar system, is orbiting the Milky Way galaxy which is in itself rotating...
Here is a diagram of our solar system moving through space...


The earth is always in a new position in space... How then do we see the same stars doing the same cycles all the time???
Within the gymnastics of earths motion how is it even possible that Polaris is always in the same position???
This is just not possible... Add to this the fact that every star is a sun which is also in motion... So if we are in motion and the stars are in motion then we should be seeing different star configurations every night, not the same ones...

If we take just one of earths motions, the tilt, we can clearly see that it is impossible for Polaris to remain fixed in the center


Now add the rest of earths motions and this heliocentric model fails...
Can anyone explain how it is possible that Polaris remains fixed???

This is really starting to bug me... Its impossible...
What pieces of evidence do I have that supports the spherical earth... Not much really, we're really just told this is a fact at a very young age... But the explorers of the 15th to 18th centuries come to mind... They believed the world was round and they navigated it.

Ive also come across claims that the ISS is actually in water, that low earth orbit is water... They have some compelling evidence...

Then i ask myself why? Why would they keep perpetuating such a lie? I see no benefit in doing so... Only cost, big cost...
And why is science making such a big effort to silence flat earthers... Thats suspicious

So now i see faults with both the flat and spherical earth models... I mite have to do some more digging...

 

[Moses_Young]

@GaryA , @Moses_Young. You guys believe in flat earth right?

I had a look at the flat earth arguments a while ago and dismissed the theory because of this; I can catch a plane from Australia to south America and get there in a time that is much too fast to fit the flat earth map.

But i think i may have come across the best argument against the heliocentric model and the more i think about this the more im leaning to wards science being wrong...

According to the heliocentric model the earth is spinning as it rotates around the sun...
The sun, along with our solar system, is orbiting the Milky Way galaxy which is in itself rotating...
Here is a diagram of our solar system moving through space...
View attachment 223674

The earth is always in a new position in space... How then do we see the same stars doing the same cycles all the time???
Within the gymnastics of earths motion how is it even possible that Polaris is always in the same position???
This is just not possible... Add to this the fact that every star is a sun which is also in motion... So if we are in motion and the stars are in motion then we should be seeing different star configurations every night, not the same ones...

If we take just one of earths motions, the tilt, we can clearly see that it is impossible for Polaris to remain fixed in the center
View attachment 223675

Now add the rest of earths motions and this heliocentric model fails...
Can anyone explain how it is possible that Polaris remains fixed???

This is really starting to bug me... Its impossible...
What pieces of evidence do I have that supports the spherical earth... Not much really, we're really just told this is a fact at a very young age... But the explorers of the 15th to 18th centuries come to mind... They believed the world was round and they navigated it.

Ive also come across claims that the ISS is actually in water, that low earth orbit is water... They have some compelling evidence...

Then i ask myself why? Why would they keep perpetuating such a lie? I see no benefit in doing so... Only cost, big cost...
And why is science making such a big effort to silence flat earthers... Thats suspicious

So now i see faults with both the flat and spherical earth models... I mite have to do some more digging...

Hey! Welcome back! I thought the cops might have done unto you as they did unto Ned Kelly.

First look into geocentricity. That's like heliocentricity, but after it got over its addiction to LSD. You'll find geocentricity makes more sense than heliocentricity, as it does away with the unobserved belief in spinning Earth. Malcolm Bowden makes a good case for geocentricity, but he seems to denigrate flat-Earthers, so ignore the hate. He has a few good vids, one on the Airy's failure, and another (from memory) on Michelson-Morley.

Then, when you are convinced that the Earth is fixed as it says in Joshua, move onto flat Earth. The way to approach flat Earth is this - it is an observation, not a theory. We observe the Earth being flat. So, if the Earth were a ball, there should be evidence of this. The only evidence of ball-Earth is NASA photos (and other scam organisation photos, now that NASA is in disrepute). Any other "proofs" of ball-Earth can easily be refuted using some basic science and Occam's razor. What you end up with is flat (also possibly round).

One of my favourite Youtube conspiracy-theorists has this to say on the topic. It's a philosophical/religious argument rather than a scientific one, but you must get your priorities right in order to understand this subject.

 

[PC123]

Hey! Welcome back! I thought the cops might have done unto you as they did unto Ned Kelly.

Hi... I've been busy turning a van into a camper... I get my license back in 5 weeks and im escaping from this dystopian hell hole called Victoria to move to NSW or QLD.

First look into geocentricity. That's like heliocentricity, but after it got over its addiction to LSD. You'll find geocentricity makes more sense than heliocentricity, as it does away with the unobserved belief in spinning Earth. Malcolm Bowden makes a good case for geocentricity, but he seems to denigrate flat-Earthers, so ignore the hate. He has a few good vids, one on the Airy's failure, and another (from memory) on Michelson-Morley.


Then, when you are convinced that the Earth is fixed as it says in Joshua, move onto flat Earth. The way to approach flat Earth is this - it is an observation, not a theory. We observe the Earth being flat. So, if the Earth were a ball, there should be evidence of this. The only evidence of ball-Earth is NASA photos (and other scam organisation photos, now that NASA is in disrepute). Any other "proofs" of ball-Earth can easily be refuted using some basic science and Occam's razor. What you end up with is flat (also possibly round).

One of my favourite Youtube conspiracy-theorists has this to say on the topic. It's a philosophical/religious argument rather than a scientific one, but you must get your priorities right in order to understand this subject.

Ok so geocentricity is basically a stationary globe. I would say that my priorities are right in order to try and understand this subject...
My priority is truth regardless of whose toes i step on or who gets offended...

I find it impossible that the earth is in motion while the Polaris star remains fixed and all the celestial bodies move in cycles...

The more i look into it the more i find lies and deception including fabricated evidence in what seems like a desperate attempt to withhold the truth... But im really struggling to understand some key points...

A/ The motive behind such a cover up...
B/ How they successfully navigated earth using heliocentric mathematics and techniques. Or maybe it was geocentric knowledge

They say that they are covering up God but the Portuguese have always been people of Christ, same as the Spanish, the French and the English... They wouldn't of been trying to suppress God. They were in the crusade wars against the Muslims. One of their missions was to spread the Gospel around the world...

Chistopher Columbus tried to reach India by going west. He proposed that the world was 4 times smaller than they thought while the Portuguese were confident that they knew the size of the globe and succeeded in their mission of reaching Asia by sea...

How do u explain that???

 

[Moses_Young]

Hi... I've been busy turning a van into a camper... I get my license back in 5 weeks and im escaping from this dystopian hell hole called Victoria to move to NSW or QLD.

Good luck. I fear Australia may not be far enough, friend. The people are sheep, and love their servitude.

A/ The motive behind such a cover up...

It get's philosophical, but my hypothesis is that it's a switch from God being the authority, to someone or something else being the authority. But someone else can't pretend to be God, because he's not, and people would likely quickly pick up on that. He - or they - seem to want to be aliens. But you can't have aliens without evolution. You can't have evolution without big bang. You can't have big bang if the universe is small. You can't have big universe if the Earth is flat.

Sure, there will always be those who believe in God and evolution (or combinations of the above), but it's not consistent, and I believe the thinkers will reject such positions, as they do today.

B/ How they successfully navigated earth using heliocentric mathematics and techniques. Or maybe it was geocentric knowledge

Did they? Particularly in the Southern Hemisphere, they lost a lot of ships. Parallax says it was because they were working to heliocentric maps, so the distances were wrong. I am not sure. This guy got some things wrong, but he also got plenty right. Worth a read.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Earth Not a Globe (Samuel Rowbothan).pdf

Don't be tricked by the Flat Earth Society (or similar societies). It's a psyop designed to make Flat Earth look crazy. There is some truth present, but lotsa shills.