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

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

  1. gilius

    gilius Active Member

    Apparently all astronauts and historical proponents of the spinning globe theory were all Freemasons? Any thoughts?
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 5, 2017
  2. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    Hi Giles,

    The idea that the earth is spherical dates back to the 5th century BC, when the Pythagoreans became convinced it's true. In the 2nd century BC, the earth's circumference was measured to a reasonable degree of accuracy by Eratosthenes. Of course these dates are subject to possible chronological revision, but this Greek literature is certainly very old. And, describing Pythagoras and Eratosthenes as Freemasons seems to be a bit of a stretch.

    In general, though, Freemasons are very interested in the latest scientific progress. So it's no surprise to me if they were in the forefront of re-discovery as medieval Europe recovered the ancient knowledge of the Greeks. In general we've made a lot of scientific and technological progress over the centuries, and I'm sure that Freemasonry has always been deeply embedded among scientists, and in scientific institutions. But that doesn't invalidate the discoveries.

    Today, the credibility of all our modern institutions such as the media, government and academia are in shambles. With all the lies that they tell on a regular basis, it's hard to tell what the truth is. It's all too easy to just assume that whatever they tell us, the truth is just the opposite.

    But I do believe there are some basic facts that are accessible to every human being. The fact that the earth is round, is one of those basic realities. The curvature of the earth can be verified by watching a ship (or, for that matter, a satellite in the sky) disappear over the horizon. Or, from an airplane, the curvature is directly visible. Air flight schedules for intercontinental flights also depend on a correct understanding of the earth's shape. The schedules would be thrown into chaos, and no pilot could ever navigate to a distant airport, without tools dependent on this theory.

    I don't have six hours to watch Dubay's "best" documentary, but I've watched one of his shorter ones, and visited his website. I find myself completely unconvinced. His flat-earth arguments strike me as sophistry and trickery.

    My question is, what is motivating Dubay to push this agenda? Basically, it's the idea that Freemasonry is more or less identical to Judaism, and that the Jews are ultimately responsible for all evil. It's very ugly stuff.

    And it seems like a bizarre strategy, to try to sell this anti-Semitism as an adjunct to Flat Earth pseudo-science. But I suppose it's probably working to some degree.

    We have a Wwoofer staying with us at the house. He saw one of Dubay's videos, and was asking me questions about Flat Earth. I think I was able to convince him that the earth really is spherical. But it was definitely touch-and-go for awhile.

    Sadly, I haven't been able to convince Jan Irvin that quantum mechanics also belongs in the books of certain knowledge. Even though cell phones and computers would be just bricks, without quantum effects in silicon.
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2016
  3. gilius

    gilius Active Member

    Hi Jerry,

    If science wasn't part of the same government vanity projects that we all agree on then 9/11 Cold Fusion technology would be more transparent instead of being encoded in movies and cartoons. I think most of the government's true discoveries and technologies remains top secret since before Tesla even - coinciding with the Jesuit takeover of the Vatican.

    "The curvature of the earth can be verified by watching a ship (or, for that matter, a satellite in the sky) disappear over the horizon. Or, from an airplane, the curvature is directly visible. Air flight schedules for intercontinental flights also depend on a correct understanding of the earth's shape. The schedules would be thrown into chaos, and no pilot could ever navigate to a distant airport, without tools dependent on this theory."
    This is all covered in-depth in the documentary. The ship disappears over the horizon due to perspective - but re-appears with a telescope. From an airplane or hot air balloon there is no curvature visible, and pilots don't take into account the curvature during flights nor have to dip their nose down all the time - again, all covered in detail in the video above.

    I know 6 hours is very long for a docu, but the information content never lets up - the evidence presented and arguments made are sound. Every aspect of the theory vs. mainstream education is completely covered, including it's history, the Freemasons, and symbolism.

    If you get a chance please just give it 1-2 hours max and see if you feel it's worth watching the rest... the best part is the history of the exploration of Antarctica and that the flat-earth is surrounded by a thick wall of ice - that's where all the water comes from - or about the fixed rotation of the stars around the pole star - or that we only ever see one side of the moon. There cannot be 4-5 different rotations happening at once as in in the universe model. And previously, astronomers failed to explain the source of water as part of the big bang, etc. Also covers Prince Harry's visit to Antarctica. Obama has been shown to use flat-earth symbolism. The list of highlights goes on and on...
  4. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    Hi Giles,

    It's flattering that you take my 9/11 cold fusion theory so seriously. I think it might be true, and I don't see anything provably wrong with it from where I sit. But it's in the realm of (pretty wild) speculation, there are a million ways it could turn out to be wrong.

    Really? Have you checked with your own telescope, or are you just believing what it says in the documentary?

    Have you been on an airplane lately? I confess I haven't since this flat-earth thing became popular, so I'm working from memory. But there are lots of testimonials you can see on the Internet from people who have been on planes, and say they've checked and it's curved. Not very much of a curve, but unmistakable.

    The curvature is slight enough that there isn't much nose-down required. I'm referring to choosing a compass direction that will define a correct great-circle path from origin to destination, and then navigating along that path.

    It might have some good insights about Freemasonry, or maybe I'll get some better idea about Dubay's agenda. I'll start in on it, and see how far I can handle it.

    Meanwhile, please consider --
  5. Plot twist...
  6. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    Which universe, the Witch Universe?

    I have it on good authority that the original plan for the Milky Way, at least, was to be shaped like a taco, but certain effete fallen angels decided they liked French style pizzas with an egg in the middle much better. The egg, of course, symbolically represents the bulge around the galactic black hole, which isn't really a black hole, but rather something more akin to an imploded microwave oven.

    They say there are other universes out there, and so I am certain that one of them (in addition to galaxies) is in the shape of a taco.

    To get back on topic, the irony is that when we go visit a planetarium, we are really inside a planetarium which is mimicking the real planetarium outside the man-made planetarium. When we think we are outside, we are really inside the 'real' planetarium, where they tell us that the universe is flat and the Earth is a sphere. Ha, ha, ha.

    When you think you are on an airplane, it is not any different than going on the 'submarine' ride at Disneyland. Oh, yes, look at the curvature of the Earth. And then there is Sharknado. These latter make pretty darn good tacos BTW. Yes, the sharks taught the Mexicans how to make tacos. And then the Mexicans taught Jack Box (from Jack-in-the-Box) how to make Monster Tacos.

    I should have been a freaking cosmologist. Ironically, I'm pet-sitting for a friend who is camping in the freezing cold at Death Valley this weekend, along with a retired cosmologist (not a freaking cosmologist) in the party.
  7. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    I watched the first 10 minutes of the video "Best Flat Earth Documentary". I found it very disorienting to watch, because the visual images presented a series of statements and arguments that were completely disconnected from the audio narration. The images were supposedly obviously fake, but when I looked at them carefully, I felt that the problems could be explained -- for example, by considering perspective. Whereas the narration was basically variations on the theme "They tell us the earth is round! That it revolves around the Sun!" as if it was all a bunch of manifestly obvious nonsense which did not need to be seriously debated in any way.

    So I skipped ahead to try to find something I could sink my teeth into. At about 1:44:00, I found that they were talking about the distances between locations in the southern hemisphere. They claimed that according to some almanac, the distance between Sydney (Australia) and Nelson (New Zealand) is 1633 statute miles. The two cities are at 22 degrees of longitude apart. So, they suggest the computation that the effective circumference around a meridian at Sydney's latitude is (360/22)*1633, which is about 27,000 miles. They say that this is larger than the great circle distance around the earth at the equator.

    WRONG!! According to at least two sources on the Internet, the actual distance between Sydney and Nelson is ~1,313 miles, corresponding to a typical flight time of 2 hrs 4 minutes in modern jets. And, the two cities aren't anywhere close to the same latitude. If we take the distance from Sydney to Nelson's longitude at Sydney's latitude, it's about 1225 miles. The meridian circumference is then about 20,000 miles.

    If "Flat Earth" theory were correct, and the circumference at the equator is 24,900 miles, then the meridian at Sydney's latitude (~35 degrees) should be (215/180)*24900 = 29,471 miles, right? That means according to Flat Earth, it should take closer to 3 hours to fly between Sydney and Nelson, rather than two hours. Think anyone would notice?
  8. gilius

    gilius Active Member

    Let's say we want to travel from Cape Town, Africa to Melbourne, Australia....



    it's only 10,000 km! But there are no direct flights... 30 hours minimum via Abudhabi or Qatar!



    By Airplane it's TWICE the distance!!!!!


    But for good reason....



  9. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    I wrote the argument below, and then discovered this:

    Qantas flight 64 goes from Sydney to Johannesburg, six times a week, <12 hours flight time.

    But if this flight didn't exist, I wouldn't be convinced that the earth is flat. Here's why:

    This is an interesting case to apply Bayesian reasoning.

    H1=Round earth
    H2=Flat earth

    We are trying to discriminate between H1 and H2 based on the evidence that there are no direct commercial flights between Cape Town and Melbourne.

    Here's some additional evidence I would like to be allowed:

    With Melbourne and Cape Town separated by 10,000 km of ocean, I would expect most of Cape Town's trade relationships to be with other African towns and nations, while Melbourne's trade would be mostly with other Australian locations. Both places would also have extensive trade with European and American trading partners for manufactured goods, and trade with Middle Eastern countries for oil. But not so much business trade between the two. It's not so easy to imagine why tourists from South Africa would want to vacation in Australia or vice versa, either. Accordingly, there would be relatively little business for direct Melbourne to Cape Town flights.

    It's getting harder and harder to find direct flights anywhere -- most airlines tend to route traffic through a few hub locations.

    Typical commercial jets only have a range without refueling of about 5,700 km. To make the flight at all would require a special jet like a 777-200LR, or one of the long-range trunk line versions of 747. With extra fuel in the tanks, such jets have less payload and are more expensive to operate. See:

    So, we have:

    P(H1|E) proportional to P(E|H1)P(H1)/[P(E|H1+P(E|H2)]

    P(H2|E) proportional to P(E|H2)P(H2)/[P(E|H1+P(E|H2)]


    Under the hypothesis of a round earth, it seems at least plausible that there will be no direct flights from Cape Town to Melbourne, given all the evidence. Say P(E|H1)=0.5.

    Under the hypothesis of a flat earth, it is impossible that there could be any direct flights, because the required range would be ~19,000 km, and such commercial aircraft do not exist. So, P(E|H2)=1.0.

    We still need numbers for the priors, P(H1) and P(H2). Based on evidence like Eratosthenes, etc., I would argue that the prior for a flat earth is astronomically low. But for the sake of argument, let's say there is no prior evidence, so the two hypotheses are equally likely a priori, P(H1)=P(H2)=0.5, neglecting options such as that the earth might be football-shaped, etc.


    So given our evidence, H1 is half as likely as H2. Normalizing, we get that the probability of H1 is 0.33 and the probability of H2 is 0.66, given the evidence we've allowed. If the only evidence we have is that there is no direct flight between Cape Town and Melbourne, we can only conclude that it's slightly more likely that the earth is flat rather than round, with an odds ratio around 2 to 1, more or less.

    This is not what I would call decisive. Or in other words: we can give a reasonable explanation for the evidence, without requiring the hypothesis that the earth is flat.

    Same situation with the UN symbol. Another possible explanation (besides flat earth) is that they chose to use an azimuthal projection map centered on the north pole, as a symbolic representation of Earth.

    As long as there are plausible explanations under either hypothesis, such evidence cannot be decisive.

    Now if you want to settle the matter by this method, here's an experiment you could try. Call this charter jet company: and see if they can schedule your flight. Then take the flight. If they schedule your flight, you take the flight, and it's completed on schedule, then we have proven the earth is round. If the jet runs out of fuel and falls into the ocean, then we've proven that the earth is flat.

    I am so confident that the earth is round, that I will offer you this bet: If you schedule the flight, take it, and crash into the ocean because the earth is flat, then I will pay for your ticket!!
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2016
  10. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    What happens if you fly off the end of the Earth?
  11. Van Allen radiation belts zap you
  12. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    In the current context, would those be 'belts' or 'suspenders'?
    Marcilla Smith likes this.
  13. Yes, sorry. I guess I was thinking of the Van Heusen belts
    Richard Stanley likes this.
  14. gilius

    gilius Active Member

    According to the theory, the known edge of the earth is the Antarctic ice wall that encircles the flat earth, but a 1000 year old map was published in 1907 in a newspaper that shows more possible continents further out:

    I guess it got there by way of a Freemason or whoever knew about the flat earth back then and possibly explored beyond our prison walls. This was before the UN adopted the map for their logo in the 1940s.

    But if you watch this segment of the 6 hour docu, Antarctica is meant becomes increasingly darker with extreme storms the further out one travels beyond the ice wall that holds in our oceans:

    And just remember: a ship "falling" over the horizon from the ocean suddenly taking a drop due to the curvature of earth and the magic velcro properties of gravity is more far-fetched than that of the flat-earth. But the ship doesn't actually fall over the horizon - it just reaches the vanishing point due to the law of perspective and even looks like it's sinking - but brought back into full view with a telescope or binoculars. Since the name of the game has always been deception you need to be very careful trusting people on your TV screen. You already know the Hollywood movie industry is completely controlled via the Oligarchs - NASA is just the same. It's all showbiz remember.. you ain't got mates down the local pub who have careers as astronauts. You might be allowed to visit the kitchen of your local Indian restaurant - but you won't get past the security guard of the NASA complex. Generally, any authority we come into contact with simply looks down on us like slaves to cut a long digression short... our working lives are very simple... you could own a piece of the moon yet never get to see your real estate nor even get to verify that it even exists as a sphere.
  15. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    Giles, you are helping me have empathy for people who think we're crazy with our Roman origins theory, and various other aspects of "Postflaviana".

    Eric Dubay's book is available for free download here:

    The problem with Dubay's flat-earth model is that it doesn't actually deal with the simple observations that lead to the conclusion that the earth is round. Instead, there are a series of alleged proofs that the earth is flat, and each one of them is transparently wrong. There's only one argument that's even partly correct. So, I learned something: the results of the experiment of watching a ship sail off over the horizon can vary a little bit, owing to refraction of light in the atmosphere, if there's a strong thermal gradient just above the surface. Most days it works as the round-earth theory predicts (more or less). The idea that "perspective" causes objects to be hidden at the bottom, is not true.

    Dubay's book also includes a laundry list of complaints across the broad spectrum of modern science. It backs creationism and "intelligent design", trashes the theory of evolution, claims that dinosaurs never existed, and discusses evidence of giants. None of this has anything to do with flat-earth, except as a general hatchet job on science broadly construed. As expected, it's all rooted in a fundamentalist, literalist reading of the Old Testament.

    Giles and I have been carrying on a discussion about this at his facebook page, and I despair of ever convincing him that this flat-earth theory is going off in the wrong direction. Giles mentioned that Ralph Ellis banned him for broaching the topic. I'm not a huge fan of blocks.

    But I will say, Giles, that your naive acceptance of this "Flat Earth" material brings shame and discredit to our Postflavian movement. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop doing anything you might be doing to promote us. We don't need the guilt by association.
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2016
  16. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    According to this nonsense the Sun must traverse generally over the North Pole most every day, and two portions of the South P P P P P P P Pole.

    There is no way that the easily observed, every day motion of the Sun (and Moon) can fit this model.
  17. gilius

    gilius Active Member

    Hi Jerry, sorry you feel that way, but remember: I'm not part of any group, movement or culture - never have been - I've always been an individual. I have never been associated with Postflaviana per se or any comfort-seeking cultism. When I asked Jan Irvin if he was working for the Jesuits and he threatened to tell Joe Atwill about me in order to ruin my reputation, do I really care? I have no ego. I have no reputation. And I do not need respect from anyone. I only seek the truth and nothing else. It's clear that Joe is a Jesuit, hence he always starts his podcasts with his Jesuit background - who else has that kind of knowledge to expose such a conspiracy? Regardless of Joe being under oath or his personal views on these matters or whether he has freedom to openly discuss them, he has never communicated with me outside of the podcast we did despite all my research and help in promoting his work. The same goes for Jan Irvin and you too, Jerry. We don't know what is appropriate for each of you to discuss - but I know that when I was pointing out the Jesuits and the all-seeing eye symbolism that you deliberately responded in the same vain as the flat-earth. Ralph Elllis is a self-confessed Freemason even. If I am mistaken about any of this then I apologise. And no amount of discussion or arguing is going to resolve this - so I would rather just say my peace and not discuss this contentious issue further.

    Getting back on topic, I would like to point people to the voice of reason even if they don't have 6 hours to learn about the theory in more depth - I would hope that readers just watch this at the bare minimum regardless of how ridiculous it might seem:
  18. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    Right. The "Flat Earth" also denies the uniform conception of the universe based on the simple force of gravity. The sphere of rock in space is replaced with a bizarre, intricate clockwork. If you read further into these "Flat Earth" theories, how do they explain that objects are held to the surface of the earth? They propose a uniform acceleration of the planet. But where is the energy coming from, to cause a uniform acceleration? Nobody knows. They propose that the earth is covered by a "firmament" or huge dome. What moves the sun, moon and planets on this dome? Some say a huge projection system is responsible. Who runs the projector? Or is there someone driving a chariot around on the surface?

    Giles, above, calls gravity "Magic Velcro". I guess that makes electricity "Magic Superglue"? Can you make the basic properties of matter go away by making fun of them?

    He asks, why are people stuck to the ground while butterflies and the like are not? Lift-to-mass ratio, perhaps? In other words, the butterfly has wings to generate an aerodynamic force which is sufficient to overcome the force of gravity generated by its few grams of mass. Can winged flight be achieved by small insects? No shit, Sherlock?

    Did I, really? As I remember, I pointed out that the Jesuits are not the only secret society. I also showed that the all-seeing eye predates the Jesuits.

    Apparently not. Presented with evidence of a direct regularly-scheduled flight between Australia and South Africa, Giles argued that maybe the airplane somehow goes supersonic. How is that supposed to work? A shape-shifting lizard airplane?

    Giles claims that according to perspective, the bottom part of a ship should disappear first below the horizon. What law of perspective is that? The law of perspective I know, simply says that the size of objects (that is, the portion of the field of view subtended) decreases linearly with distance.

    But you didn't. Instead you post another 1-hour video to waste everyone's time.
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2016
  19. gilius

    gilius Active Member

    All of Jerry's questions are covered in the 6 hour documentary, including the accompanying book (see PDF Jerry linked above). The best overview is the 1 hour documentary above "Closed system explained".

    Jerry and Richard still refuses to accept the obvious: the eye outside of the pyramid is NOT the same symbol as the eye inside the pyramid - regardless of whether the latter symbol was influenced in any way by the older one. It's my opinion that this is a deliberate obfuscation of the truth - intentionally or otherwise. Remember: only one symbol has a pyramid - the other does NOT have a pyramid as part of the logo/symbol.

    It's clear that it's appropriate to discuss CM, 911 and OT @ Postflaviana - but Flat-Earth & All-Seeing Eye truth is outside the allowed scope without prompting Richard Carrier-style responses to try to play them down. That's fine; as I said - I understand Jerry's position here. I feel all my original responses to Jerry's opposing evidence (as discussed on FB mainly) have been smeared and paraphrased in a derogatory manner - spun, basically. I understand this is a conspiracy theory of the highest order, so everyone is much more prone to Cognitive Dissonance and highly charged emotional responses; as Jerry said, this affects us each and every day compared to one-off events like 911. So it's really not healthy for us to continue debating this right now I feel - perhaps we should take a breather to let things sink in more?

    Single proof that the Jesuits are controlling the world via the Freemasons: find the all-seeing eye symbol in 90% of Hollywood movies (always enclosed within a pyramid). Search online for "All-Seeing Eye within Equilateral Triangle, Jesuit Church at Landsberg-am-Lech, Bavaria, Germany". Since the Illuminati were from Bavaria - but the all-seeing eye is being promoted by mostly the Jesuits instead (sometimes the Freemasons) then this shows without a shadow of a doubt that it cannot be the Illuminati who is in control - but the Society of Jesus/Freemasons.
  20. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    Giles, if you want to stop debating then let me have the last word.

    I'm sorry you feel that my responses are derogatory, but the core of my argument has always been fact-based. I do feel an emotional reaction, namely hopelessness at the realization that you are so easily swayed by bullshit, or have no core understanding of physics whatsoever. And, having to argue with Richard over whether this is proof that you're some sort of intelligence agent, paid to waste our time.

    If you want to talk about illuminati, freemasons, Jesuits, the distinctions between them, and their symbolism, let's take that up in a different thread. Maybe we could find that old thread. Here, we're discussing Flat Earth.

Share This Page