So the very precise equations required to keep satellites in orbit, which depend entirely on the diameter of the earth, are based on what exactly? And out of the numerous studies on the diameter of the earth, that predated NASA by thousands of years and have been done by parties of scientists from about every corner of the world, all colluded to obscure or blatantly lie about a factor that is as important to everyday people as the speed of light, but which is as important and probably the most important to numerous professionals and their field of study, and they obscured or blatantly lied about this factor without any such professionals blowing the whistle and for no discernable objective than to lie?
The earth is most certainly spherical, or a ball as you crudely refer to it, and it's obvious from the horizon and lunar eclipse to anyone who has the ability to reason well. Light does travel in a straight line, and this is undisputed as numerous disciplines hold that factor as pivotal to their own area of study, just like the precise shape of the earth is pivotal to numerous disciplines. Light can bend because it is a particle, it can scatter and refract but it does not travel in a curve, like the path an object takes as it's launched into the air and it falls back down to the earth.
You say that "every attempt to measure curvature has failed". The only obvious reason for a "measurement to fail" is if it does not reproduce a supposed measurement that is theorized or if the equipment that is used to make the measurement is faulty or flawed.
The curvature from eye level is 160+ miles. So lighthouses 50 miles away are not something to contend at all, especially when lighthouses aren't a measly 6 feet tall.
Pictures being taken across a great lake with undisclosed distance from an undisclosed height is not revelation. Neither is the claim that "islands have been seen that should not be able to be seen". The number of factors that need to be considered are absent, such as the location of the moon, the exact distance and the elevation and the latitude. These factors are always absent seemingly. The fact that the earth is not a perfect sphere has been known for over a century. The Russians depended on that, as did the Americans to put satellites, dogs and even people into orbit, and this required a level of precision that any such blatant lie or obscured estimates would invalidate all efforts to orbit.
Being given information, like you have, is tantamount to swallowing without careful consideration fiction as fact, roundabout as precise and obscuring of the obscure as of interest to people who have nothing to gain and everything to lose from such lies. So what "red" pill when you are neither skeptical of such things or critical, you seemingly want people to conclude what you uncritically and unquestionably concluded for yourself and if not, you think you can assert that they "don't believe their own eyes" when there was never anything to do with observation and everything with beliefs you hold. Your beliefs are not observations. Your as critical of the things you supposedly "saw" as someone who swallows anything and everything they read that is counter to established facts, and why would you extend the same skepticism that you have of established facts, as you do of this utterly absurd conspiracy, you are red pilled, not.
Posted using Partiko Android
Yes, i have heard all of this before.
The distance seen from eye level, 6 feet tall, is only THREE miles
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=3&h0=5&unit=imperial
The curvature is 8" * distance² (distance in miles)
At 50 miles, the lighthouse would have to be 1,500 feet tall to be seen.
And longer distances have been recorded.
So, if the light house is only a few hundred feet tall, and it is seen at over 50 miles away, then the earth is not a sphere of the stated size, or light doesn't travel in a straight line.
After that, we either have to say, we didn't see what we saw, or we start looking at all of other variables.
I am not here to argue about all the other points. All of that gets into conjecture. There is other people who have done a much better job of debunking all of the points you have brought up.
Now, if you would like to discuss theories, mine is that we live on the inside of a toroid like shape. That the earth is painted on the inside of the toroid.
That the earth that we see and know is flat. As in two dimensional. And this two dimensional (or even three dimensional, but you really get into weird maths) is painted onto a further 3 dimensional space time. So, from our perspective, everything is flat, but it is also curved and enclosed.
Future scientists will look back and... not laugh, their thoughts will be more of pity.
You are correct about the curvature but still discount numerous other observations that go into determining wherever an object should be visible or not. These measurements predate the United States, they certainly predate NASA, and these measurements are pivotal to keeping satellites in orbit. You don't want to go into conjecture but you offer a hare brain theory that posits we never explored the solar system with satellites. It's got no explanation of the spheres we can observe, the sun, and the moon so in it's hole ridden premise it has nothing to offer but a vast conspiracy.
Posted using Partiko Android
In the post, i do not offer a theory.
I merely state a fact.
That objects can be seen over what should be the edge of the horizon.
And there is enough of these photos/sightings to warrant investigation to any thinking person. I have seen enough of them to be looking for a new theory.
The measurements you were taught about in school... amazing how they dovetail with all of the other NASA theories. Did you know that there are other theories and measurements (in really old writings too) that do not coincide with what NASA says?
There are anomalies with the, so called, spheres that we can see.
We only have NASA to state that the moon is a sphere and that the earth is a sphere. No, really.
We see only one side of the moon.
And there are many other shapes that would be more accurate for showing the oddities we have seen of the moon.
The images from NASA of the earth are... not consistent. And many of them are confirmed photoshopped images.
Of satellites we again only have NASA to confirm that those "precise formulas" are what is used to place them ... wherever they place them.
Ever get out a telescope and locate one of them?
There are too many anomalies in the official story for me to believe them.
And, of course, my theory is really weird. But, it has a lot of proof, but only if you believe in, and know of the structure of auras.
There are scientists who believe that the toroid is the building block of the universe.
Facts have figures and specific factors that they consider. You merely state things, they could be fiction or fact.
How you think your theory has any proof when it cannot explain the horizon is ridiculous as fuck. You whine about nasa when the figures are from the world over and predate nasa and America. You say we hadn't seen the other side of the moon but Galileo observed the sun, in its 28 day revolution around it's axis and there are gigabytes of lunar imagery from the Clementine satellite, plus we can observe it is a sphere by the shadows of the craters and from lunar liberation. Your theory has no way to explain how we mapped dozens of moons, out if the almost 200 moons in our solar system, and gigabytes of imaging data from all the planets. How satellites are geostationary, or how the model of the earth being spherical predates Nasa by millenia. Why don't you post some pictures and offer all relevant data and prove that it's not possible and then offer an illustration of your theoretical model?
Posted using Partiko Android
I will offer illustrations, but as you have pointed out, you need a ton of evidence, an air tight case, reams of supporting data, and then... scientific type people might look at it, and not reject it out of hand.
So, i'm working on it.
Here is an image that is half a toroid, imagine completing the rest.
How can you explain that we have mapped the surface of mars, and in all of those images, there is a base there? You know, a square compound, with hangers and parking spaces laid out just like you would find in many of the army bases on earth.
When you look into any of these things, the anomalies just get weird.
Now, i do not believe that the sun is a huge, gravitational/fusion engine. The electric universe model makes far more sense in explain all kinds of things like the solar winds increasing speed as they get further from the sun.
And such, taking images of the sun are not showing a rotation but more like the plasma bubble of a plasma torch.
The sunspots were what Galileo used to record the 28 day revolution. The model does not explain the horizon. Why are objects, like the sun and moon, falling behind the horizon.. You can get a telescope, I have a very cheap one, and look at the lunar surface and observe the shadow to confirm that it's a sphere. All the images I've seen of the horizon from airplanes show curvature, and it's easy to verify with any paint program, the bulge always in the middle and it falls off on either side equally. Your model does not explain where the data came from, from satellites that have been independently verified by radio signals and from telescopes. You also cannot explain why lie about the most obscure thing in the world?
I didn't ask for airtight case, only for your own illustration of how an inside of a toroid creates a horizon.
BTW, the electric universe does not challenge the shape of these easily observable factors, such as the sun rotating and lunar liberation.
Posted using Partiko Android
BTW I have looked at the numerous anomalies in the mapping data. Have you seen the Clementine Project dragon? The shipwreck and the footage of the Russian astronauts exploring it? Then there are deep space anomalies. The whole fe is a cover for the hollow earth expanding earth, for which there is plenty of evidence to substantiate it, from the way earthquakes travel along the surface to the growth oceanic crust but no sign of it's subtraction, and it seems the moon might also be hollow. The best analogy I read was of Seeds in the book Myths and Deceptions of The Bible. None of that works in an enclosed toroid. None of that explains satellites or why have such a grand conspiracy that predates the United States. None of that explains the horizon, lunar eclipse, solar eclipse. None of that explains any of that, besides making allegations of the largest conspiracy over the most banal and obscure thing to everyday folk.
Watch the documentary Beyond Majestic, it explains in very simple terms exactly why bases exist. Even better, read anything you can get your hands on about and from Billy Meyer, there are about three documentaries that pretty much corroborate the stuff in Beyond Majestic, I can't recall the titles but one is The Silent Revolution and the latest one I saw was And Did They Listen.
You suggest "Above Majestic" and you believe NASA about what the shape of our world is, so much so that you use disparaging words against me?
Sorry, doesn't add up.
From my view, everything in our current science books is wrong, EVERYTHING! It is all one big, centuries old, psyop.
And you never question it because you don't ever see conflicting theories.
How did you reach this conclusion?
I fail to come up with one reasonable hypothesis for why governments and scientific communities across the earth would agree to conspire to such a degree, which most probably would be impossible to cover up for even a year, let alone centuries, and to what avail (just think of all the resources that would have to be sunk into hiding the truth, keeping all in the know from speaking out and any who come to figure it out quiet - with billions of people in the world, not likely - it certainly doesn't hold up to Occam's Razor as I see it)?
How do they profit from us believing in an incorrect model? The risk/ reward (R/R) doesn't add up for me, as the reward is... quite frankly, I don't see it (maybe you can fill me in, here?), and the risk is somewhere along the lines of being a victim to firing squads of liberated peasants or much, much worse.
Beyond Majestic and what words did you take personally?
Your loaded question aside, I asked you for your illustrations of the horizon. You think that this is a vast centuries old conspiracy, for what end? What purpose does it serve and how come no one blew the whistle on this? You want me to believe in a vast conspiracy predating nasa about the shape of the world yet you offer nothing, absolutely nothing and call me unquestionable? I not only referenced numerous things that NASA would never dare mention, but I also pointed out that the reason for this fe nonsense is to hide the conflicting information that does not line up with a static size earth and which points to an expanding, hollow earth, models that predate the solid earth and as far as I can tell is airtight.
Posted using Partiko Android
You declare "everything is a lie". You declare that you speak about facts, and offered nothing when asked to substantiate your talk. You think that the sunspots aren't good enough to be used as reference for determining the shape of the sun and instead offer nothing that explains observations such as that or the numerous mapping data, the satellites that are in orbit and voyager one and two, the numerous gigabytes of data, they are a vast conspiracy without any end but to deceive, even though it's kept up by conflicting parties across the world, like the Russian and United States Space Programs. You claim that the shape of the world is decided by nasa when the shape and it's measurements predate nasa. You live in a world where everything is a lie and think that makes your understanding as correct or true but where is the data, what is your explanation for the horizon, the most basic thing that you have to explain is missing from your theory, and you get attacked by my words? Everything is an attack when you think that everything is a lie. The point of bringing up Beyond Majestic and the other documentaries is to question the narrative we've been sold. The point of bringing up Billy Meyer also was to question and corroborate the information from the documentary. You can't sit there and tell me I don't question any of it. You can't sit there and talk about facts but offer only hare brain conjecture and theory that doesn't account for basic observation like the horizon or the bulge of the curvature. You don't seem to have any regard for truth or fact, or for questioning, especially when you maintain that a vast conspiracy exist over the most mundane things, and even more so when you are neither critical or considerable of what you are saying.
Posted using Partiko Android
Posted using Partiko Android