Why They Lie To Us About The Flat Earth

Yes, great job Shpankme!

The cables prove beyond any doubt that the Earth is flat. This evidence absolutely stumps people when I show it to them; you can see that even cognitive dissonance isn't strong enough to overcome evidence like this.

The Month of Fools

April 1   - Fools Day



April 15 - Tax Day (within US INC)
Income Tax means a Corporate Profit



April 22 - Earth Day

Some good flat Earth truth including a well-expressed answer to "why the deception?" on Freeman TV starting around 1:15:00

Ask them - What do you worship, and Where do you live?

Do you worship the pretend theoretical [G]od called [G]RAVITY?

Do you live on a Spinning Ball that holds water about it's circumference?

Behold the Power of [G]ravity:

x
 (>-|-O
y
Lord Steven Christ
...

x
 )>-|-O
y
Church of Heliocentricism

Euclidean Geometry explains the known world of our senses incredibly well. Euclid basically derived all geometrical theorems, based on five axioms, four of which are „common sense“ (e.g. between two points you can draw a line) whereby the fifth (parallel lines exist) apparently always bothered him. He and many others tried to show that it could be derived from the first four axioms but never succeeded.

We all know the famous railway track picture of perspective. The tracks appear to converge and meet at the vanishing point. However, we know that if we walk down the track and measure the distance of the rails (by touching them), that it is the same. Perspective and our direct vision capabilities only „appear“ to make the rails come together. In reality they do not. So Euclidean geometry correctly defines the real world („parallel lines exist“), whereas perspective („parallel lines appear to converge“) does not, it only describes how we perceive the world around us due to the limitations of our direct vision capabilities. In essence then, parallel lines are needed to correctly describe reality.

Removing parallel lines and creating "mathematical evidence" to describe reality, is like removing one side of a square and still insisting on being able to create a four-sided, equidistant enclosure. :-)

Sometime around when the renaissance painters and artists started to take a great interest in perspective drawing, the mathematicians, started to play with the parallel postulate and introduced extra „points at infinity“ that permitted transformations to Euclidean geometry and vice versa, thereby creating the new branches of geometry.

Throwing away the parallel postulate, or integrating it into new definitions and axioms, led to the wierd and wonderful models of non-euclidean geometry, including elliptical geometry, hyperbolic geometry and others. All of which cannot possibly describe reality, since any metric requirement is effectively relaxed.

The term „Non-euclidean Geometry“ was coined by Gauss. This is the man who „proved“ that curvature could be measured using only intrinsic properties of the surface itself, with no knowledge of the environment in which it is embedded. This tied into work done by Riemann, Bolyai, Lobachevsky, Minkowski, Hilbert, leading to approximately 8 models of geometry in 3 dimensions, but also to curved space time theories and our accepted views of gravity, relativity, in the so-called 4 dimensions of space-time.

Lets have a look at some passages from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry

While Lobachevsky created a non-Euclidean geometry by negating the parallel postulate, Bolyai worked out a geometry where both the Euclidean and the hyperbolic geometry are possible depending on a parameter k. Bolyai ends his work by mentioning that it is not possible to decide through mathematical reasoning alone if the geometry of the physical universe is Euclidean or non-Euclidean; this is a task for the physical sciences.

Yes, lets have some real evidence please from real science :-)

Bernhard Riemann, in a famous lecture in 1854, founded the field of Riemannian geometry, discussing in particular the ideas now called manifolds, Riemannian metric, and curvature. He constructed an infinite family of geometries which are not Euclidean by giving a formula for a family of Riemannian metrics on the unit ball in Euclidean space. The simplest of these is called elliptic geometry and it is considered to be a non-Euclidean geometry due to its lack of parallel lines.

For some of his neat tricks see here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z1fIsUNhO4

The simplest model for elliptic geometry is a sphere, where lines are "great circles" (such as the equator or the meridians on a globe), and points opposite each other (called antipodal points) are identified (considered to be the same). This is also one of the standard models of the real projective plane. The difference is that as a model of elliptic geometry a metric is introduced permitting the measurement of lengths and angles, while as a model of the projective plane there is no such metric.

We can just add metrics as and when we need them ... lol

In these models the concepts of non-Euclidean geometries are being represented by Euclidean objects in a Euclidean setting. This introduces a perceptual distortion wherein the straight lines of the non-Euclidean geometry are being represented by Euclidean curves which visually bend. This "bending" is not a property of the non-Euclidean lines, only an artifice of the way they are being represented.

Is that so? Just an artifice you say? Whale oil beef hooked.

Before the models of a non-Euclidean plane were presented by Beltrami, Klein, and Poincaré, Euclidean geometry stood unchallenged as the mathematical model of space. Furthermore, since the substance of the subject in synthetic geometry was a chief exhibit of rationality, the Euclidean point of view represented absolute authority.

Yeah, well that sure changed.

The discovery of the non-Euclidean geometries had a ripple effect which went far beyond the boundaries of mathematics and science. The philosopher Immanuel Kant's treatment of human knowledge had a special role for geometry. It was his prime example of synthetic a priori knowledge; not derived from the senses nor deduced through logic — our knowledge of space was a truth that we were born with. Unfortunately for Kant, his concept of this unalterably true geometry was Euclidean. Theology was also affected by the change from absolute truth to relative truth in the way that mathematics is related to the world around it, that was a result of this paradigm shift.

Absolute vs relative truth? What a lot of shite. The truth is the truth.

Non-Euclidean geometry is an example of a scientific revolution in the history of science, in which mathematicians and scientists changed the way they viewed their subjects. Some geometers called Lobachevsky the "Copernicus of Geometry" due to the revolutionary character of his work.

Well done Lobotomy, you blinded us with science.

The existence of non-Euclidean geometries impacted the intellectual life of Victorian England in many ways and in particular was one of the leading factors that caused a re-examination of the teaching of geometry based on Euclid's Elements. This curriculum issue was hotly debated at the time and was even the subject of a book, Euclid and his Modern Rivals, written by Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (1832–1898) better known as Lewis Carroll, the author of Alice in Wonderland.

Oops I meant fiction....

„Non-Euclidean geometry often makes appearances in works of science fiction and fantasy.“

The UPs and DOWNs

Passages from sources are in italics. I have only highlighted certain words or sections a different color for emphasis.
My comments are bold

Whilst researching direct vision, the following document took me from optics to gravity.

The fire that comes from the eye.
https://www.princeton.edu/~cggross/neuroscientist_5_99_fire.pdf

An interesting little short paper on the historical development of the Theory of Vision, and specifically theories of Extramission vs Intramission (something leaves the eye vs something enters the eye). The author dismisses ancient beliefs of Extramission or any combination of both. The dismissals generally go something like this...

"In general it is unreasonable to suppose that seeing occurs by something issuing from the eye; that the ray of vision reaches as far as the stars“

Note the reliance on an a-priori assumption (stars that are far, far, away) already deemed proven.

We are generally told that the sun, moon, stars are far, far away. However we only see luminous orbs of various smaller sizes, unless of course you count the NASA CGI big balls :-) Size-distance invariance means that the ratio of angular size to distance remains the same. This is approximately = 100. We are told that this is = 107 if we believe the distance to the Earth from the sun is 149,000,000 km = 1 AU = 107 times the diameter of the Sun. If we use a 30 mile wide sun at 3000 miles distance the ratio is also 3000/30 = 100. The same ratio applies to a 3 mile wide sun at 300 miles distance.

However, that the sun is a locally illuminating orb whose light does not go on forever, but has a limited penetration/reach is obvious to anyone who looks daily at sunset/twilight. Also the lack of a consistent terminator line, where the far away sun should always illuminate one half of the globe (since the rays are effectively parallel) is another obvious fallacy linked to direct vision theory.

But I digress. Nowadays, Extramission has been „scientifically dismissed“, but it would appear that this is contrary to the experience and senses of many people. Despite all the „scientific evidence“, there remains a widespread belief in the „Evil Eye“, in „Love darts“ (cupids arrows shooting from the eyes), and that people believe they can „feel someone staring“ at them. Extramission belief is highest in children.

Now „cloud zapping“ (dissolving small clouds by focussing on them with your eyes), is in my own experience, a repeatable experiment with consistent results for about 30 minutes at a time. See Reich, Constable, etc for more information. Intramission theory alone does not adequately explain such things. I suspect there is more to this "than meets the eye" ;-)

Also briefly discussed in the paper, is that „Naive“ or Intuitive ideas in Physics (e.g. motion of objects), apparently closely resembles theories of ancient science. For example the motion of an object dropped by a moving person or the path of an object emerging from a curved tube very closely resemble the „impetus“ theory of 14th century Aristotelians. More of that later ...

Reading this passage ...

„The scientist Alhazen, not only eliminated extratransmission theory, but built a new intramission theory using the gemometric ideas of Euclid / Ptolemy (wo were proponents of extramission). His theory became „enormously influential“ and was the basis of most of the subsequent work in Optics between the 13th and 17th century. Indeed it led directly to Keplers theory of the retinal image and modern visual science.“

... made me want to find our more about the guy who shaped 500 years of science. So in the words of Laurel and Hardy. "You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead“, I dove into the warren ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhazen

Well it seems Alhazen had his fingers in a lot of pies. Here are some highlights.

"Ibn al-Haytham is widely considered to be one of the first theoretical physicists, and an early proponent of the concept that a hypothesis must be proved by experiments based on confirmable procedures or mathematical evidence—hence understanding the scientific method 200 years before Renaissance scientists.“

Proved by „mathematical evidence“. Yeah, right. That would include the geometry theories mentioned before and the many „thought“ experiments, of which none are necessarily true just because they can be dreamed up and/or modeled.

„Alhazen's most famous work is his seven-volume treatise on optics Kitab al-Manazir (Book of Optics), written from 1011 to 1021. This translation was read by and greatly influenced a number of scholars in Catholic Europe including: Roger Bacon, Robert Grosseteste, Witelo, Giambattista della Porta, Leonardo Da Vinci, Galileo Galilei, Christiaan Huygens, René Descartes, and Johannes Kepler.“

He was honoured last year ....

The 2015 International Year of Light celebrated the 1000th anniversary of the works on optics by Ibn Al-Haytham.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1001_Inventions_and_the_World_of_Ibn_Al-Haytham

http://1001inventions.com/world-premiere-2015



There are some interesting memes in the trailer film clip and the celebration of this relatively unknown scientist is probable proof of his service to the „cause“. For thousands of years every ruler employed astronomy priests to gain and conceal knowledge that could be useful in maintaining their power.

Not only did he do work on Vision, Optics, Astronomy, Scientific methods, Projectile motion, Optical Illusions (e.g. moon illusion), Psychology but surprise, surprise he also dabbled in geometry and following good masonic tradition, even tried to „square the circle“ using lunes (crescents). He also explored the parallel postulate of Euclid and we know where that leads.

But back to his Theory of Vision

„The strongest influence on the Book of Optics was from Ptolemy's Optics, while the description of the anatomy and physiology of the eye was based on Galen's account. Alhazen's achievement was to come up with a theory that successfully combined parts of the mathematical ray arguments of Euclid, the medical tradition of Galen, and the intromission theories of Aristotle.  Alhazen's intromission theory followed al-Kindi (and broke with Aristotle) in asserting that "from each point of every colored body, illuminated by any light, issue light and color along every straight line that can be drawn from that point".

Theories of direct vision have as a basis, that light rays are straight lines issuing from points, which seems altogether reasonable and agrees with experience (irrespective of whether they issue from the light source or from the eye or from both).  Whether color also issues in the same way, is an open question for me. In moonlight we see only grey scale. The standard explanation given is that the color is still there, but apparently absent due to the inability of our eye cones/rods to detect the inherent color due to the lesser intensity of the reflected sunlight.

However we know moonlight is not reflected sunlight, so maybe the lack of color has to do with the attributes of moonlight rather than a defect they like to ascribe us.

"This however left him with the problem of explaining how a coherent image was formed from many independent sources of radiation; in particular, every point of an object would send rays to every point on the eye."

We would otherwise see an incoherent image all mixed up? Or are we always viewing all possible permutations at the same time?

"What Alhazen needed was for each point on an object to correspond to one point only on the eye. He attempted to resolve this by asserting that the eye would only perceive perpendicular rays from the object—for any one point on the eye only saw the ray that reached it directly, without being refracted by any other part of the eye, would be perceived.

He argued using a physical analogy that perpendicular rays were stronger than oblique rays; in the same way that a ball thrown directly at a board might break the board, whereas a ball thrown obliquely at the board would glance off, perpendicular rays were stronger than refracted rays, and it was only perpendicular rays which were perceived by the eye. As there was only one perpendicular ray that would enter the eye at any one point, and all these rays would converge on the centre of the eye in a cone, this allowed him to resolve the problem of each point on an object sending many rays to the eye; if only the perpendicular ray mattered, then he had a one-to-one correspondence and the confusion could be resolved. He later asserted (in book seven of the Optics) that other rays would be refracted through the eye and perceived as if perpendicular.“

His arguments regarding perpendicular rays do not clearly explain why only perpendicular rays were perceived; why would the weaker oblique rays not be perceived more weakly? His later argument that refracted rays would be perceived as if perpendicular does not seem persuasive. However, despite its weaknesses, no other theory of the time was so comprehensive, and it was enormously influential, particularly in Western Europe: Directly or indirectly, his De Aspectibus inspired much activity in optics between the 13th and 17th centuries. Kepler's later theory of the retinal image (which resolved the problem of the correspondence of points on an object and points in the eye) built directly on the conceptual framework of Alhazen."

As is often the case, a theory does not need to be correct, but only needs to outlive its opponents. lol.

"Alhazen offered an explanation of the Moon illusion, an illusion that played an important role in the scientific tradition of medieval Europe. Many authors repeated explanations that attempted to solve the problem of the Moon appearing larger near the horizon than it does when higher up in the sky, a debate that is still unresolved. Alhazen argued against Ptolemy's refraction theory, and defined the problem in terms of perceived, rather than real, enlargement. He said that judging the distance of an object depends on there being an uninterrupted sequence of intervening bodies between the object and the observer. When the Moon is high in the sky there are no intervening objects, so the Moon appears close. The perceived size of an object of constant angular size varies with its perceived distance. Therefore, the Moon appears closer and smaller high in the sky, and further and larger on the horizon. Through works by Roger Bacon, John Pecham and Witelo based on Alhazen's explanation, the Moon illusion gradually came to be accepted as a psychological phenomenon, with the refraction theory being rejected in the 17th century.“

Yeah, its all in your head, don’t bother with sensory experience.

"In his work, Alhazen discussed theories on the motion of a body. In his Treatise on Place, Alhazen disagreed with Aristotle's view that nature abhors a void, and he used geometry in an attempt to demonstrate that place (al-makan) is the imagined three-dimensional void between the inner surfaces of a containing body."

Similar to interstellar distances, we also need plenty of empty space in the microscopic as well as in the macroscopic to play with :-) If light is a particle, how can two bodies (e.g. light & air or two light rays) occupy the same space? Well only if there is plenty of space in-between and light is composed of mass-less photons, waves, etc.

Anyway, Alhazen was obviously a very influential person, celebrated by the powers that be, and assisted greatly in shaping our current perception of reality. Bear in mind the „perpendicular refraction“ and free mixing of ideas on oblique (left and right movement with horizontal component) and vertical movement, this will crop up again below in the works of fiction called gravity ....

Now to the theory of Impetus ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_impetus

Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

This is the basis of concepts around inertia, momentum and acceleration in classical mechanics and essentially early expressions of Newtons Laws of motion. Without delving to deep into the theology/cosmology, it reminds me that „change is all there is“. Within our domain (dome), the sun, moon and stars are the clock that measure this change. However outside of this, there may exist an unchanging eternal something. If nothing there changes, then time would not exist there, since it is only via change that the „illusion“ of time exists.

Anyway, lets look at the section „Tunnel experiment and oscillatory motion“.

"The Buridan impetus theory developed one of the most important thought-experiments in the history of science, namely the so-called 'tunnel-experiment', so important because it brought oscillatory and pendulum motion within the pale of dynamical analysis and understanding in the science of motion for the very first time and thereby also established one of the important principles of classical mechanics. The pendulum was to play a crucially important role in the development of mechanics in the 17th century, and so more generally was the axiomatic principle of Galilean, Huygenian and Leibnizian dynamics to which the tunnel experiment also gave rise, namely that a body rises to the same height from which it has fallen, a principle of gravitational potential energy.

This imaginary experiment predicted that a cannonball dropped down a tunnel going straight through the centre of the Earth and out the other side would go past the centre and rise on the opposite surface to the same height from which it had first fallen on the other side, driven upwards past the centre by the gravitationally created impetus it had continually accumulated in falling downwards to the centre. This impetus would require a violent motion correspondingly rising to the same height past the centre for the now opposing force of gravity to destroy it all in the same distance which it had previously required to create it, and whereupon at this turning point the ball would then descend again and oscillate back and forth between the two opposing surfaces about the centre ad infinitum in principle. Thus the tunnel experiment provided the first dynamical model of oscillatory motion, albeit a purely imaginary one in the first instance, and specifically in terms of A-B impetus dynamics.

However, this thought-experiment was then most cunningly applied to the dynamical explanation of a real world oscillatory motion, namely that of the pendulum, as follows. The oscillating motion of the cannonball was dynamically assimilated to that of a pendulum bob by imagining it to be attached to the end of an immensely cosmologically long cord suspended from the vault of the fixed stars centred on the Earth, whereby the relatively short arc of its path through the enormously distant Earth was practically a straight line along the tunnel. Real world pendula were then conceived of as just micro versions of this 'tunnel pendulum', the macro-cosmological paradigmatic dynamical model of the pendulum, but just with far shorter cords and with their bobs oscillating above the Earth's surface in arcs corresponding to the tunnel inasmuch as their oscillatory midpoint was dynamically assimilated to the centre of the tunnel as the centre of the Earth.

Hence by means of such impressive literally 'lateral thinking', rather than the dynamics of pendulum motion being conceived of as the bob inexplicably somehow falling downwards compared to the vertical to a gravitationally lowest point and then inexplicably being pulled back up again on the same upper side of that point, rather it was its lateral horizontal motion that was conceived of as a case of gravitational free-fall followed by violent motion in a recurring cycle, with the bob repeatedly travelling through and beyond the motion's vertically lowest but horizontally middle point that stood proxy for the centre of the Earth in the tunnel pendulum. So on this imaginative lateral gravitational thinking outside the box the lateral motions of the bob first towards and then away from the normal in the downswing and upswing become lateral downward and upward motions in relation to the horizontal rather than to the vertical.

Thus whereas the orthodox Aristotelians could only see pendulum motion as a dynamical anomaly, as inexplicably somehow 'falling to rest with difficulty' as historian and philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn put it in his 1962 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,[16] on the impetus theory's novel analysis it was not falling with any dynamical difficulty at all in principle, but was rather falling in repeated and potentially endless cycles of alternating downward gravitationally natural motion and upward gravitationally violent motion. Hence, for example, Galileo was eventually to appeal to pendulum motion to demonstrate that the speed of gravitational free-fall is the same for all unequal weights precisely by virtue of dynamically modelling pendulum motion in this manner as a case of cyclically repeated gravitational free-fall along the horizontal in principle."

So Aristotlean ideas were re-shaped to equate principles of pendulum (horizontal) motion to a thought experiment on vertical motion. lol.

"In fact the tunnel experiment, and hence pendulum motion, was an imaginary crucial experiment in favour of impetus dynamics against both orthodox Aristotelian dynamics without any auxiliary impetus theory, and also against Aristotelian dynamics with its H-P variant. For according to the latter two theories the bob cannot possibly pass beyond the normal. In orthodox Aristotelian dynamics there is no force to carry the bob upwards beyond the centre in violent motion against its own gravity that carries it to the centre, where it stops.

Thus pendulum motion was dynamically impossible for both orthodox Aristotelian dynamics and also for H-P impetus dynamics on this 'tunnel model' analogical reasoning. But it was predicted by the impetus theory's tunnel prediction precisely because that theory posited that a continually accumulating downwards force of impetus directed towards the centre is acquired in natural motion, sufficient to then carry it upwards beyond the centre against gravity, and rather than only having an initially upwards force of impetus away from the centre as in the theory of natural motion. So the tunnel experiment constituted a crucial experiment between three alternative theories of natural motion.

On this analysis then impetus dynamics was to be preferred if the Aristotelian science of motion was to incorporate a dynamical explanation of pendulum motion. And indeed it was also to be preferred more generally if it was to explain other oscillatory motions, such as the to and fro vibrations around the normal of musical strings in tension, such as those of a zither, lute or guitar. For here the analogy made with the gravitational tunnel experiment was that the tension in the string pulling it towards the normal played the role of gravity, and thus when plucked i.e. pulled away from the normal and then released, this was the equivalent of pulling the cannonball to the Earth's surface and then releasing it. Thus the musical string vibrated in a continual cycle of the alternating creation of impetus towards the normal and its destruction after passing through the normal until this process starts again with the creation of fresh 'downward' impetus once all the 'upward' impetus has been destroyed."

These concepts still exist today, as in the fake satellite orbits that continually „fall“ around the earth. This free mixing of UP and DOWN with lateral motion is taken as „mathematical evidence“, that I have yet to see with real eyes.

Vertical motion is entirely different from horizontal motion. If we are within an immobile and grounded, enclosed dome structure, containing different mediums at different densities, then this is sufficient to explain UP & DOWN vertical motion of embedded bodies of different densities without recourse to a fictional gravity. The environment is seeking an equilibrium.

Synchronicity lea:-)d me to an eloquent Phuket Word video, which resonated with this research...



Still much to un-learn ....

Earth–Moon–Earth communication (EME)

"Method to measure Distance to Moon"
"Also known as moon bounce, relies on the propagation of radio waves from an Earth-based transmitter directed via reflection from the surface of the Moon back to an Earth-based receiver."
"1946, The Communication Moon Relay project included a teletype link between the naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and United States Navy headquarters in Washington, DC."
"In the days before communications satellites, a link free of the vagaries of ionospheric propagation was revolutionary."

Lets break it down:

To determine "EME Path Loss" these requirements must be met:

• Moon distance from either the transmitting or receiving station
  
• Transmitter station output in watts, expressed as ERP [roughly transmitter power output (minus feedline loss) x forward antenna gain]
  
• Receive station gain (actual receiver gain minus feedline loss, x antenna gain)
  
• The operating frequency of the transmitter and receiver
  

You will note two things:
 1. They claim to be bouncing radio waves off the Moon in order to Measure Distance from the ground station on Earth to the Moon.

• To determine "EME Path Loss" the Moon distance is required before transmitting.
  
• The whole purpose of the "EME bounce" is to acquire the Moon's Distance based on bounce time.
  
• They've built into the Equation the Heliocentric Moon distance, then they divide the Propagation time, to arrive at travel time.
  

     Debunked - the EME Bounce is completely useless for determining the distance to Moon, but it pacify's NASA fanbois.

 2. They claim this Radio Technique allowed them to link teletype between the naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and Mainland-United States, without the need for Satellites.
   
     The first trans-pacific cables were completed in 1902–03 linking:

• US mainland to Hawaii
  
• Guam to the Philippines
  
• Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Fiji
  
• also the trans-Pacific segment of the All Red Line linking the British Empire
  

The only reason for this story is to promote Fake Space.

Did you ever hear the term, "sending a cable"?

Mercury transit across the Heliocentric Sun, about 93 million miles away.

This event supposedly took place on:            9 May 2016
This event is scheduled to take place again: 11 Nov  2019

"The last trek took place in 2006, according to NASA."

Note the fake NASA Sun showing the customary Fusion Look.

Coincidentally the video is 54 secs long.




"You can also enjoy this NASA animation of the transit."

Polaris is the fixed Pole Sta (stella polaris means pole star), and can be seen by navigators as far South as the Tropic of Capricorn, at more than 20 degrees South of the equator.  Not to be undone by this miscalculation the Church of Heliocentricism in the late 19th century started claiming, that the "Earth Tilt 23.4 degrees from the plane of its orbit around the Sun."

Earth Tilt
 90 - 23.4 = 66.6

Alas, this trickery will not save the Heliocentric Theory (pretend) for they cannot account for the visibility of many of the Northern constellations seen in Southern latitudes, regardless of any tilt or inclination, observers should not logically be able to see this far.

Northern Constellations seen in the Southern latitudes:

• Ursa Major can be seen all the way down to 30 degrees South
  
• Vulpecula constellation can be seen all the way to 55 degrees South
  
• Taurus, Pisces and Leo can be seen all the way to 65 degrees South
  
• Orion can be seen all the way to 75 degrees South
  
• Virgo constellation is visible down to 80 degrees South
  
• Aquarius and Libra can be seen to 90 degrees South
  

ref:  Earth Not a Globe
ref: nasa.gov

Undersea Cable Communication since 1903

In Our Wi-Fi World, the Internet Still Depends on Undersea Cables
Huffington Post Article

"Not many people realize that undersea cables transport nearly 100% of transoceanic data traffic."

"I realized that the cables we all rely on to send everything from email to banking information across the seas remain largely unregulated and undefended."




The backbone for INTERNET CLOUD is actually laying on the Ocean Floor.

Telegeography - 2015 map of 278 in-service and 21 planned undersea cables.
Note: there are NO cables from South America to New Zealand/Australia



The Original Information and Related discussion by reversecourse

OFFICIAL GLOBE-HEAD ANTHEM
by vhsjvc

An education in centrifugal force.

Scientists from Cornell University say, it will be 1,500 years before alien contact becomes likely.

"a new study explains why we shouldn't give up hope just yet – we just need to exercise a little patience."

"the sheer size of the Milky Way means it could be up to 1,500 years before we hear back from extraterrestrials who've picked up our transmissions from Earth, say astronomers."

In the meantime, we should probably all just chill out a little, and not jump to any hasty conclusions about being all alone in the dark.

"we appear to be alone – even if we are not"

Full Heliocentric Bullshit Study

"Solomonides is co-author of a new paper being presented this week at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in San Diego, California. The study is a probabilistic analysis of what's known as the Fermi paradox, using calculations to help shed some light on why we might never have received contact from alien civilizations."

Schpankme wrote:Scientists from Cornell University say, it will be 1,500 years before alien contact becomes likely.

From alien fiction, to alien fact - it's amazing how many people I used to talk to about aliens, and they were all against the idea that they existed - but these days they look at me like an idiot when I tell them it's all propaganda.

Admin wrote:

Excellent summaries Eric. Lucid and eloquent as always ....

Admin wrote:

One of the most powerful pieces of prose I've ever heard. This really did it for me. Your material demands to be shared. Thanks Eric, your wisdom and strength is a godsend.

What we have here is "real CGI video" used to perpetuate NASA in Space and Alien Life coming from other Spaceballs.

  "NASA denies covering up evidence of alien life after [ISS] live footage of UFO suddenly cuts to black"

Here's where NASA and the Media spin the story:

"It is perfect fodder, in short, for a timeless conspiracy"
"Why is NASA -- who shot the clip from the International Space Station on July 9 -- suppressing evidence of alien life?"

“NASA = Never A Straight Answer,”
“They should be made to explain why they are cutting off public information and debate”

"NASA has rebuffed any allegations of a cover-up. “We have never seen UFOs in the popular sense,” a spokesperson told Popular Mechanics last week."
"The sudden video blackout, they added, happened at random."

Sudden CGI blackouts happen all the time, according to NASA.

Spot on Schpankme. When I read this as well, I thought exactly the same thing.
More distraction, to make it seem as if space and aliens are actually true.

The more the bullshit changes, the more it stays the same.

I think the core idea around the fakery of earth shape knowledge, is like the supression of old knowledge and ancient civilizations.
The main idea goes to the deepest metaphysic and religious sense.



See this movie poster, and all the implications (Mary Virgin pregnated).

As we were children all of us had toys, cartoons, and a wonderful feeling of fascination all related to the SPACE FRONTIER, that feeling is not only simply a game or a single
adventure, but THE ADVENTURE, and the FAITH for the needing to belong THE INFINITE. So much ideas on this religious sense has been substituted from the old tradition to
the NEW ERA, UNFORTUNATLEY IT'S ALL ABOUT CARTOONS.......I'm afraid.

​When you "Sail the Globe" you can enter to win the Jules Verne Trophy, this the ultimate prize for the fastest circumnavigation of the globe.

Jules Verne was an author, best known as the "Father of Science Fiction":

• Journey to the Center of the Earth (1864)
  
• Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea (1870)
  
• Around the World in Eighty Days (1873)

This is the circumnavigation path required to win the Jules Verne Trophy.

Schpankme wrote:Earth–Moon–Earth communication (EME)

"Method to measure Distance to Moon"
"Also known as moon bounce, relies on the propagation of radio waves from an Earth-based transmitter directed via reflection from the surface of the Moon back to an Earth-based receiver."
"1946, The Communication Moon Relay project included a teletype link between the naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and United States Navy headquarters in Washington, DC."
"In the days before communications satellites, a link free of the vagaries of ionospheric propagation was revolutionary."

Lets break it down:

To determine "EME Path Loss" these requirements must be met:

• Moon distance from either the transmitting or receiving station
  
• Transmitter station output in watts, expressed as ERP [roughly transmitter power output (minus feedline loss) x forward antenna gain]
  
• Receive station gain (actual receiver gain minus feedline loss, x antenna gain)
  
• The operating frequency of the transmitter and receiver
  

You will note two things:
 1. They claim to be bouncing radio waves off the Moon in order to Measure Distance from the ground station on Earth to the Moon.

• To determine "EME Path Loss" the Moon distance is required before transmitting.
  
• The whole purpose of the "EME bounce" is to acquire the Moon's Distance based on bounce time.
  
• They've built into the Equation the Heliocentric Moon distance, then they divide the Propagation time, to arrive at travel time.
  

     Debunked - the EME Bounce is completely useless for determining the distance to Moon, but it pacify's NASA fanbois.

 2. They claim this Radio Technique allowed them to link teletype between the naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and Mainland-United States, without the need for Satellites.
   
     The first trans-pacific cables were completed in 1902–03 linking:

• US mainland to Hawaii
  
• Guam to the Philippines
  
• Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Fiji
  
• also the trans-Pacific segment of the All Red Line linking the British Empire
  

The only reason for this story is to promote Fake Space.

Did you ever hear the term, "sending a cable"?

As any HAM radio operator will tell you, radio waves actually bounce of the ionosphere (which can increase transmission distance) via skywave 'scattering'.
As a form of electromagnetic radiation, like light waves, radio waves are affected by the phenomena of reflection, refraction, diffraction, absorption, polarization, and scattering and 'skip distance'
The UK-to-Canada shortwave "Beam Wireless Service" went into commercial operation on 25 October 1926. Beam Wireless Services from the UK to Australia, South Africa and India went into service in 1927.
Amazing how NASA has these super high powered antennas which can over come this skywave 'scattering' and get all the way to the Moon and back regardless of LF, MF, HF VHF or UHF.

FL@T-E@RTH wrote:
HAM radio operator
radio waves bounce off the ionosphere
skywave 'scattering'

Further investigation suggest that:

1) There is no sphere, therefore there is no ionosphere, there can be no skywave.

2) Ham radio antenna's are said to propagate radio waves by "line of sight", across the horizon.



3) Radio-wave propagation take on three major forms: scatter, bending, and ducting


     
Scattering: also called Troposcatter, is an area (Tropo) represented from sea-level up to 53,000 feet (16 Kilometers), all weather
takes place within this area; this is where air molecules along with water droplets and other pollutants will cause radio waves to scatter
as visible light does;  this is why the ocean of air we breath looks blue,  because blue visible light scatters more readily than red visible
light.  We can see the red sky at night or morning when the Sun light is passing through a greater distance of denser air.
   
We can use the old Sailors axiom to make are point, “Red sky at night, sailor's delight. Red sky in morning, sailor's warning.”  

The sailor is most interested in the prevailing winds at his latitude, the red sky in the morning would indicate that weather is moving
towards his location.



Bending:  also called Tropobending, where cool air near the surface, being more dense, warms as it rises;  we see this phenomena
with the Rainbow,  where cold water falls as rain to the Earth's surface,  yet the air above is warmer causing an inversion layer,  causing
a projection of the light spectrum onto (across) a rising column of warm vapor,  thus creating the Rainbow in that general vicinity.

Radio HAM operators take advantage of this bending.



Ducting:  Tropoducting, where an inversion layer of warm air sits between layers of cold air, creating a conduit between to identical points.  
Was HAARP trying to create this heated layer for communication purposes?

When I said skywave 'scattering' I was referring to the so-called mainstream explanation and the fact the waves bounce off the ionosphere, The exact same phenomenon can be explained if there is a firmament on a flat Earth.
Much like how the Heliocentric model can be explained to allegedly debunk the Geocentric model.

Yes, HAM radio is generally done by line of sight, due to the low power aka shortwave, but they can be fired up almost vertically and use reflection on the firmament (or as science calls it, the ionosphere) to transmit over much greater distances than would be possible by line-of-sight

FL@T-E@RTH wrote:
skywave 'scattering' [when] waves bounce off the ionosphere
The exact same phenomenon can be explained if there is a firmament on a flat Earth.

As stated, without the flat Earth there would be no Rainbow and no Radio Waves to bend against.

I get why they would want to keep the FE down today but why 500 years ago? Maybe I missed something in all I have read in the last couple of months...can someone tell me?