The Earth is a Sphere!! The Evidence is Here!

Discussion in 'Videos' started by gilius, Dec 2, 2016.

  1. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    Not everyone has this negative view of 'Satan'. To Milton, 'Satan' was a heroic figure, representing the free human spirit in opposition to dull religious bondage, and the rebellion of the Enlightenment and the Reformation against the hidebound Catholic church. To Gnostics, 'Satan' was the knowledge of good and evil, which Yahweh (or the Demiurge) was trying to suppress. See Derek Murphy's site, www.holyblasphemy.net.
     
  2. gilius

    gilius Active Member

    It's like 911 Hidden in Hollywood: the only people who know which 100+ movies feature 911 are the organisation that requested their inclusion in the first place, i.e. the elite who control Hollywood.

    So what's the problem here: are the elite so satanic - or the masses so foolish? Answer: the elite and masses are both satanic; nobody is that foolish.
     
  3. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    I can't agree. "911 Hidden in Hollywood" came out about 2008 (the first reference I could find came from flat earther Eric Dubay, here: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2008/09/911-hidden-in-hollywood-videos.html.) By that time, many researchers were well aware that 9/11 was foreshadowed in the mass media. There was plenty of time for these films to be identified by a conscientious researcher. Thus, I see no basis for the accusation that the producers of "911 Hidden in Hollywood" were "the elite who control Hollywood."

    By the way: one of the tricks in the FBI playbook is to use their planted agents to make false accusations against real progressive activists. As explained here:

    Statement Against Snitch-Jacketing

    There is no place in radical movements for ... unsubstantiated allegations. Such allegations, whether from well-intentioned but misguided individuals or from state agents, have the effect of sowing distrust and division within our movements. They put the accused people in the impossible situation of responding to no one and nothing in particular, or risk seeming to admit guilt by refusing to reply. And they put the rest of us in an uncomfortable position by seeming to demand a verdict of guilt or innocence, without providing any basis for judgment. Such tactics can divide and even destroy movements, as the FBI proved most decisively with its Counter-Intelligence Program, COINTELPRO, against the liberation movements of the 1960s and 1970s. We must learn the lessons of the past and refuse to engage in snitch-jacketing. ....

    If people feel sure enough of their facts to launch public accusations against fellow activists, they should be willing to take personal and/or collective responsibility for such accusations and provide supporting evidence. Otherwise, if we fall into the habit of making accusations unaccountably, and accepting them without question, we have to assume that our enemies will observe the resulting divisions and exploit our weaknesses.
    As related to the topic of this thread: I'm very comfortable accusing Flat Earth advocates of being lazy, because they can't be bothered to think about the scientific evidence.

    Perhaps they are so consumed by their anger and disappointment with mainstream thought, that they reject everything mainstream on a wholesale basis.

    Flat Earthers who engage in snitch-jacketing attacks against non-Flat Earthers and other activists, are giving further evidence that they've lost any semblance of common sense.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2018
  4. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

  5. gilius

    gilius Active Member

    Back to original topic:

    [​IMG]

    Spot the difference:

    Air Force 1 with JFK
    [​IMG]

    Admiral Byrd - Freemason who visited the edge of the flat earth:
    [​IMG]

    Admiral Byrd interview:


    The edge of the Flat Earth:


    Soundtrack to the above video:

    [​IMG]
     
  6. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    Giles: as to your first slide, we've discussed this before. The moon does not appear to be exactly the same size as the sun, it's only approximately the same. The exact ratio is variable depending on the course of the moon in its orbit. Craters at the edge of the moon do not appear to be round (like pepperoni slices) but rather they're clearly ellipsoids, which is good evidence that the moon is in fact spherical. (That is, unless you think for some reason that meteors make elliptical craters at the edge of the flat disk.)

    In the 2nd and 3rd images (JFK and Byrd), two different flat projections of the spherical earth are seen. So what??

    Admiral Byrd seems to take for granted that the earth is spherical, with north and south poles at symmetrical locations at the "top" and "bottom" of the earth. He doesn't speak of Antarctica as a ring around a flat earth.

    It appears to me that the ice extends as far as the eye can see, beyond the antarctic glacier in the 2nd video.

    You've never replied to proofs #1, #3, #4, #5, and #7 from this Popular Science article which I posted way back at post #4 of this thread. And, your replies to the other five proofs are lame as can be.

    http://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round
     
  7. gilius

    gilius Active Member

    The edge of the moon is lens effect based on it being an independent light source or Luminary - probably concave - not because it's a ball since it doesn't appear to be moving in 3D.


    So what? Just more evidence for the flat earth to add to the collection.

    [​IMG]
     
  8. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    So now you're saying that the moon is not flat, but it's concave, or with a lens around the edge?? The sun, and other planets and moons in our Solar System, may all be seen as rotating balls which are visible from all sides at various times. So why would the earth be the only flat object? And if the earth is flat, why would the moon be concave?

    If the moon is an independent light source or luminary, then how does the earth ever cast a shadow on it? Why isn't it always bright? What is the cause of the phases of the moon?

    What makes you say the moon doesn't appear to be moving in 3D? I see nothing to the contrary when I look at the moon.

    Captain James Cook encountered the Antarctic glacier in 1774, and deemed it prudent not to go further south. How is that evidence that the earth is flat, or that this was the edge of the world?
     
  9. gilius

    gilius Active Member

    No, I'm saying it's a luminary projecting off the dome/firmament - like all the other stars and planets moving around us - but we are stationary.

    Check out the double ring of Arcturus:


    Hold a magnifying glass under the light of the full moon - it gives out cold light.
     
  10. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    You just defined "luminary" above as "independent light source". And then you said the moon is probably concave. Now you say -- what?? As I explained above, the other planets and the sun can be clearly seen as round objects, rotating from time to time, so that different sides or aspects come into view. The moon is unique in that it always presents the same side, but it's similar in that it appears to be a round object, moving around us.

    The sun is an independent light source, it is always bright whenever it is in view. The moon and planets are not independent sources: they are illuminated by the sun. In the case of the moon, this is easily proven, as I mention above.

    I can't make head or tail of that "Arcturus" video. It says it's shot with a Nikon snapshot camera. Who knows what that lens is doing? How are we supposed to know it's really Arcturus? Could just as easily be a snowflake out of focus.

    What do you mean by "cold light"? Do you know the definition of color temperature?

    If you mean that the light is not able to impart much heat to an object, well, of course not. The intensity is a tiny fraction of daylight solar intensity.
     

Share This Page