What makes the world go around?

[Stravinsk]

Are the great majority of pilots and astronauts in on a great Global conspiracy or merely all deceived? Air Force, Navy, etc.? From competing , warring countries? All working together to hide the flat earth? In a Global effort? To hide this important info from the Earth dwellers? For what?

If you were to look into this, you would know that there are a number of pilots and even air traffic controllers that have come out as flat earthers. Most keep silent though, for fear of losing their jobs do to the general public.

Most people are just deceived, not in on a conspiracy. The conspirators are those that know they are lying, like astronauts and various others in the "space program". But most others have just been taught the Globe model and Heliocentric model since a very young age, and much of the popular entertainment they enjoy is tied to it. I remember reading a comment by someone (can't remember where) that when he looked at the moon and only the clouds around it being brightly illuminated said "The moon's light doesn't look right". He doubts his own eyes because he has been indoctrinated with the myth that the moon is 237,000 miles away.

In short, the easiest way to control the masses is to feed them lies about reality. They therefore have to depend on their various Authority Figures for their truth. A slave that doesn't think he's a slave will not try to be a free man.

It's also the easiest way to steal from them. There are trillions of dollars to be made from the Globe Lie. In fake missions to the moon and Mars. In science fiction entertainment tied to the fake missions. In all the products associated with the science fiction. In Global warming. In protecting us from a giant asteroid. In a fake alien invasion where all humanity must unite under a world government.

There are flat earthers that are likely atheists. They hold on to the idea of an "infinite plane" - that is - a cosmology where we are just one flat plane among others on some sort of ice sheet. I reject this cosmology for a number of reasons.

Most flat earthers come to the shocking awareness of God, and it is both a terrifying and wonderful experience.

 

[Stravinsk]

 

[user1234]

Stravinsk
I cant believe the first thing I was going to do was to thank you for your level-headed response, and honestly, I caught myself, because I had no pun intended or forethought of malice, I actually thought it was a level-headed, or shall I say, soundly reasoned and expressed, response.
I only include that in the hopes that you and anyone else reading, would get the same chuckle out of it as I did, not out of any mean-spiritedness or offense intended.

Anyway, in spite of how well-thought and 'level-headed' the reply may have been, I still can't agree with the premise. I want to say, 'Didnt Magellan disprove a flat earth long ago' but I'm guessing that is too easy and probably has been dealt with many times already in these kind of debates.
I'm brand new to the topic being discussed with any seriousness at all, so I'm sure any counterpoints I'd try to make have already been covered, and I wont waste our time repeating them.
I will also try to refrain from any mockery, in a personal sense, in the future, as I've done a bit in the past (in ignorance of knowing how seriously some ppl take the flat earth position) and I apologize for that.
Personally, yes, it's wrong for me to ridicule, but the position itself I still find absurd.
And to say pilots and controllers have come out ..... To what percentage?
If flat earth was true and round false, wouldnt the majority be flatters, with the rather few being rounders? And again, across international boundaries? They're all so afraid of being laughed at or losing their jobs, when the vast majority would be in agreement that the earth is flat?! It doesnt make sense.

And we're not just talking local amateur pilots, but the Top Guns of the world. Air Force pilots in F-16s, 18s, 22s, those new 35s, these guys that soar at heights and speeds that boggle the mind ... They oughta know, no question.
As well as commercial pilots. And the Navy.

And why would Russia, for instance, care a bit about American Star Wars fans? In fact, you'd think they'd want to expose the silly Americans with their silly round-earth silliness in favor of their flat-earth superiority, if it were true.
Their govt would probably demand it of their own pilots. If it were true.

The whole thing just doesnt hold up under scrutiny.
Plus, Magellan. But we'll see.
No big deal when Jesus makes a new heaven and earth anyway, right?

 

[Stravinsk]

Oh, there are plenty of pilots that do believe the earth is a sphere/Globe. There are some that do not.

The majority of public opinion does not a truth make. For most of human history, people believed the earth was flat - that doesn't make it true. Now, because of government schooling and mass indoctrination with entertainment, they think it's a Globe - that doesn't make the Globe true either.

I'll preface this video by saying I AM NOT A FAN OF Mark Sargent. I am not a fan primarily because he has said some really silly things in the past and he has a web page that asks for money for "secret knowledge". This subject is too important to be ruined by commercializing it. That being said - he does have some good content sometimes.

Here is an example of a pilot that thinks the earth is a Globe - and WHY he thinks it's a globe. Enjoy:

As for being new to flat earth, Snerfle - I do understand. Like I have said previously, I was not a flat earther 2 years ago. The first video I watched on it contained a lot of great information, but still the cognitive dissonance was so great I found it difficult to question my long held beliefs in the Globe Earth.

It took me a year, and when I accepted it, I physically broke down in tears. It is unlike anything else in conspiracy realm.

Edit: Btw, Magellan didn't circumnavigate the earth from North to South, but on an East/West route. Flat earther's don't deny the earth can be circumnavigated - just that it can't be done from North to South.

 

[MoreCoffee]

But claiming that the earth is a flat plate shaped object is absurd

 

[Stravinsk]

But claiming that the earth is a flat plate shaped object is absurd

MoreCoffee apparently thinks the prophet Isaiah is absurd, since he knew the Hebrew word for Ball and used Circle instead.

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Careful with your words, sir. You will have to give account for them.

 

[MoreCoffee]

MoreCoffee apparently thinks the prophet Isaiah is absurd, since he knew the Hebrew word for Ball and used Circle instead.

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Careful with your words, sir. You will have to give account for them.

Yes, Isaiah's description would be absurd if it was intended to say that the earth is a flat plate like object.

 

[Stravinsk]

Question for spinning Ball Believers:

On the spinning ball you believe in, the moon, also said to be a spinning ball, travels around the spinning ball earth once every 27.322 days.

What that means is people on opposite sides of the earth should not be able to see it at the same time, because they would have to be looking through the earth to see it.

And yet...tonight, this 2nd of April 2017:

Perth, Australia: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/australia/perth
Los Angeles, USA: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/usa/los-angeles
Birmingham, England: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/uk/birmingham
Beijing, China: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/china/beijing
Johannesburg, South Africa: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/south-africa/johannesburg
Quebec, Canada: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/canada/quebec-province
Amsterdam, Netherlands: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/netherlands/amsterdam
Santiago, Chile: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/chile/santiago

Type in any location you want, if the sky is clear and the moon hasn't set yet in your location, that's the moon you'll see.

Earth can't be a globe if people from all these places can see the moon within the same 24 hour period.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Question for spinning Ball Believers:

On the spinning ball you believe in, the moon, also said to be a spinning ball, travels around the spinning ball earth once every 27.322 days.

What that means is people on opposite sides of the earth should not be able to see it at the same time, because they would have to be looking through the earth to see it.

And yet...tonight, this 2nd of April 2017:

Perth, Australia: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/australia/perth
Los Angeles, USA: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/usa/los-angeles
Birmingham, England: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/uk/birmingham
Beijing, China: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/china/beijing
Johannesburg, South Africa: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/south-africa/johannesburg
Quebec, Canada: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/canada/quebec-province
Amsterdam, Netherlands: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/netherlands/amsterdam
Santiago, Chile: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/chile/santiago

Type in any location you want, if the sky is clear and the moon hasn't set yet in your location, that's the moon you'll see.

Earth can't be a globe if people from all these places can see the moon within the same 24 hour period.

The earth rotates once every 24 hours so everybody can see the moon in a 24 hour period.

 

[user1234]

The earth rotates once every 24 hours so everybody can see the moon in a 24 hour period.

That seemed easy enough.
Also, how is a lunar eclipse explained, flat-earth vs round-earth ?

 

[Stravinsk]

The earth rotates once every 24 hours so everybody can see the moon in a 24 hour period.

But not at the same time they can't if the earth is a globe.

The current time difference between Melbourne, Australia and Birmingham, UK is 9 hours. Melbourne is 9 hours ahead of Birmingham.

According to the chart, the moon in Melbourne was visible from 11:56am to 10:19pm today, Melbourne time. In Birmingham time, the moon was visible from 10:18am through 2:23am.

Melbourne is 9 hours ahead of Birmingham.

Melbourne Moon times: 11:56am-10:19pm, Melbourne time.
Birmingham Moon times: 10:18am through 2:23am, Birmingham time.

Subtract 9 hours from Melbourne's moon times to align the times with Birmingham's moon times:

Melbourne's adjusted times become 2:56am - 1:19pm
Birmingham: 10:18am - 2:23am

The moon is visible from both locations for several hours at the exact same time when accounting for time differences.

Sorry - can't happen on a globe.

 

[MoreCoffee]

They do not all see the moon at the same instant in time.

 

[user1234]

Wouldnt other things factor in , besides time zones, to make it possible to see the moon from various areas/locations/vantage points?
Far Southern Hemisphere vs North Atlantic? Rotation/revolution? Axis tilt? How tall you are? ( jk )

 

[Stravinsk]

In one hours time from now, the moon will start to rise so that people in the Netherlands can see it:

https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/netherlands/amsterdam

Meanwhile, I've been looking up at the moon since this afternoon, and it will not set until a little after 11pm Melbourne time.

https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/australia/melbourne


That means that for a number of hours, people in Australia and people in Holland can see the moon - at the same time.

Can't happen on a globe.

Flat Earth wins again.

 

[MoreCoffee]

In one hours time from now, the moon will start to rise so that people in the Netherlands can see it:

https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/netherlands/amsterdam

Meanwhile, I've been looking up at the moon since this afternoon, and it will not set until a little after 11pm Melbourne time.

https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/australia/melbourne


That means that for a number of hours, people in Australia and people in Holland can see the moon - at the same time.

Can't happen on a globe.

Flat Earth wins again.

The moon sets in Perth at 23:29 Perth time. Isn't that two hours later than it sets in Melbourne?

 

[Stravinsk]

The moon sets in Perth at 23:29 Perth time. Isn't that two hours later than it sets in Melbourne?

Yes, so? Your time is 5:05pm right? My time is 7:05pm

You still have around 6.5 hours where you can see the moon today. In around 40 minutes from the time of this post, it will just start to be visible to the people in the Netherlands.

In a few hours time, both you in Perth, me in Melbourne area and Rens in Netherlands will be able to see the moon - all at the same time.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, so? Your time is 5:05pm right? My time is 7:05pm

You still have around 6.5 hours where you can see the moon today. In around 40 minutes from the time of this post, it will just start to be visible to the people in the Netherlands.

In a few hours time, both you in Perth, me in Melbourne area and Rens in Netherlands will be able to see the moon - all at the same time.

Yes, but not people in New York city. They will see it after it is no longer visible in Perth.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Here's a clock that I use to tell when the sun is up and what time it is in various cities around the world.

 

[tango]

Possible reasons are assumptions until they are shown to be true. I don't know the numbers of people where flights over Antarctica would facilitate trade that would be beneficial to both the airlines and the travelers. I'm inclined to think there are enough to justify it, given that it's the shortest distance between many points on "the globe"

Btw - nearly all the flights between Australia and South Africa have stopovers that are way out of the way on the Globe projection. Must cost airlines a fortune.

Firstly, exploring other possible reasons is about as far from making an assumption as it's possible to get.

Your assertion was that flights not going over Antarctica supported your flat earth theory. That's far more of an assumption than exploring the possibility that there are other reasons for flights not going there. Hence looking at other possible reasons, rather than merely stating that one such possibility is the reason.

As for flights between Australia and South Africa, how many people do use those flights? How are you looking at the routing of the flights? I wouldn't have thought that the flight from London to New York would go over Greenland but they often do. Great circles and all that.

That thread "NASA and Facebook Tricked you" - has a video in the opening post. So initially the thread was about the video. If I recall, you didn't even want to watch it. Then the subject turned to flat earth. I did the best I could at that time with the knowledge I had at that time to answer various points brought up by different posters here, yourself included. Again, it is rather dishonest of you to characterize my statements as "all I've got is watch these videos or read this book". That is simply not true.

And in honesty, Tango - I don't see what you have about videos - and an unwillingness to watch them - especially when they are short like some of the ones showing the sun shrinking I have linked to.

I did watch some of the shorter videos. What I have against videos is when people expect me to sit through a video that is either very long (indicating they can't be bothered to write a summary of what they want me to watch) or when the video is little more than watching somebody speak when I could read a transcript many times faster.

You introduced the idea of the sun going "under the earth" in posts 187 and 192 of that thread.

From what I recall (I don't really have time to go and dig out the thread) I was trying to explore what your flat earth model believed in terms of what the sun did. I figured that the sun going under a flat earth would result in the entire face of the earth being dark at once and so also figured you probably didn't believe that. Hence I asked what you did believe, and how you saw the sun's movement.


So here's my concern. You're presenting an idea that, if true, would require every one of us to totally rethink just about everything we've been taught about the earth and space. That calls for convincing proof. What I'm seeing is a succession of observations, backed by videos (although often not things that a lot of us could observe for ourselves), paired with little more than something of an assumption to link them to your flat earth theory. Antarctica is the most obvious example - you seem to be assuming that a lack of commercial flights over there proves it's not possible to fly over there, while then complaining that I'm making assumptions when I'm looking at other possible reasons for flights not going there.

If people aren't allowed into restricted areas of Antarctica that also doesn't mean the earth is flat. It might mean the powers that be don't want the little people seeing the edge of the earth and staring into whatever lies beyond. It may be there's some kind of top secret base there they don't want discovered. Or maybe the silly tabloids are right and there's a WWII-era bomber embedded in the ice. When all we have is "you're not allowed there" to draw any conclusion as to the reasons why requires assumption.

 

[Stravinsk]

Firstly, exploring other possible reasons is about as far from making an assumption as it's possible to get.

Your assertion was that flights not going over Antarctica supported your flat earth theory. That's far more of an assumption than exploring the possibility that there are other reasons for flights not going there. Hence looking at other possible reasons, rather than merely stating that one such possibility is the reason.

Yes, that is my assertion, and no, it is not an assumption. You are confusing support with proof. It is just one support. And I don't need to assume it - I know flights don't go all the way over Antarctica - nor has there ever been circumnavigation of the Globe from a North/South route. The newspaper article quoted in the other thread by another member was pure Freemason garbage. 3,333 first class fare. Freemason lies.

As for flights between Australia and South Africa, how many people do use those flights? How are you looking at the routing of the flights? I wouldn't have thought that the flight from London to New York would go over Greenland but they often do. Great circles and all that.

The difference between flights on the Globe projection and on a Flat map is that they make a lot more sense on the flat map - because they aren't wasting fuel going way out of the way for a stopover.

I did watch some of the shorter videos. What I have against videos is when people expect me to sit through a video that is either very long (indicating they can't be bothered to write a summary of what they want me to watch) or when the video is little more than watching somebody speak when I could read a transcript many times faster.

Neither the first video in that thread is very long, nor is the second video. You asked for a something you could read at your leisure. I provided you with a link to a free copy of Eric Dubay's book.

Then, after meeting your requirement, you then turned it around to make it look like I only said "look at these videos and these books" without addressing your points. Disingenuous then, as now.

So here's my concern. You're presenting an idea that, if true, would require every one of us to totally rethink just about everything we've been taught about the earth and space. That calls for convincing proof. What I'm seeing is a succession of observations, backed by videos (although often not things that a lot of us could observe for ourselves), paired with little more than something of an assumption to link them to your flat earth theory. Antarctica is the most obvious example - you seem to be assuming that a lack of commercial flights over there proves it's not possible to fly over there, while then complaining that I'm making assumptions when I'm looking at other possible reasons for flights not going there.

I laugh at the person who describes videos as lacking in repeatable observations yet also admits not having watched most of them.

Get real, Tango.

If you were really interested in the subject, you could at least watch all the videos presented and have a look at Dubay's "200 proofs" - instead it just seems you want to throw strawmen around, mislabel and mis-characterize positions.