North - South

[ethan]

Nature isn't a book that requires reading.

It doesn't require faith to know that no one has ever seen the "ice rim" at the edge of the earth.
It doesn't require faith to know satillites from dozens of privately owned corporations are revolving the globe.
It doesn't require faith to know that rocketships can leave the atmosphere and have recorded video evidence of a round earth.

You label people as having their head in the sand and chastise them for not using their own minds...
How ironic coming from the person who believes what someone wrote in a "holy" book.
You are the person with your head in the sand. I suggest you buy a mirror.

Your last two links are more distorted nonsense.
Kansas is flat...They took a reading from a distance of 90 meters (300 feet)....lmao
That's no bigger than a football field...I guess every state is flat because every state has a football field...PURE NONSENSE.

View from mount Everest? Is that supposed to show the earth is flat?
You cant even see the ground level on the horizon because of the clouds, and not to mention...Its a mountain Range. Obviously your not going to see the perfect curvature of the earth inside a mountain range!

Get your head out of the sand Cikljamas. Do something productive with your life.

[cikljamas]

7 pages of real evidences and you are still deliberately blind... Too pity!

It doesn't require faith to know that no one has ever seen the "ice rim" at the edge of the earth.

High Jump expedition (1947.) that was under commandment of Admiral Byrd has always been linked to "Hollow Earth" stupidity and "Aliens" stupidity, wonder why...

It doesn't require faith to know satellites from dozens of privately owned corporations are revolving the globe

They are revolving FE, not a globe, since the Earth is not a globe.

It doesn't require faith to know that rocket ships can leave the atmosphere and have recorded video evidence of a round earth.

I saw a lot of abundant fake evidences of that kind, so please, spare me of them...

Kansas is flat...They took a reading from a distance of 90 meters (300 feet)

Please, don't embarrass yourself, you know better that that...

I can only repeat what has already been written in #146:

All i have to do is to challenge you on one single issue:

1. It has been proven by numerous experiments that there is no rotation of the Earth whatsoever!!!

Put forward one single experiment that has proved that contrary is the case!

As simple as that!

I don't even have to do anything more than to prove to you that the Earth doesn't spin on it's "axis", and just for the record: i already have done that.

As soon as it becomes obvious that the Earth is immovable everything else immediately fall to pieces...

As soon as you get rid of the Earth's rotation you have to answer to the next question:

How in the world on the round UNTILTED globe you could have (anywhere-at any degree of latitude) for instance 15 hours of daylight???

In this chapter of Rowbotham's "Earth not a globe" one really powerful FET argument was elaborated and described:

MOTION OF STARS NORTH AND SOUTH

Just one short excerpt:

Wherever the experiment is made the stars in the zenith do not rise, culminate, and set in the same straight line, or plane of latitude, as they would if the earth is a globe.

The Southern Cross is not at all times visible from every point of the southern hemisphere, as the "Great Bear" is from every point in the northern, and as both must necessarily and equally be visible if the earth is globular. In reference to the several cases adduced of the Southern Cross not being visible until the observers had arrived in latitudes 8°, 14°, and 16° south, it cannot be said that they might not have cared to look for it, because we are assured that they "had long wished for it," and therefore must have been strictly on the look out as they advanced southwards. And when the traveller Humboldt saw it "the first time" it was "strongly inclined," and therefore low down on the eastern horizon, and therefore previously invisible, simply because it had not yet risen.

The Earth IS FLAT

Philosophy proves it
Science proves it
Mariners prove it
Engineering proves it

Once more time on NASA:

NASA did't even put an appropriate delay between the astronauts in the LEM and mission control to account for the moon's distance. The astronauts and Huston are communicating faster than the speed of light.

And on the space station we find bubbles and lights which proves that the ISS is a big fake.

Virtually no one begins with the conspiracy and develops a belief in the FET. A zetetic starts with the knowledge that the earth is flat, as they believe that all the evidence they are personally able to collect and verify confirms this. As a consequence they assume the evidence to the contrary, much of which they are unable to personally test/verify as being false. The existence of such a huge quantity of false information indicates the existence of the conspiracy.

Essentially the reasoning boils down to:

P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an
obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated

P2) The Flat Earth is an obvious truth

P3) There is personally unverifiable evidence that
contradicts the FET

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

C1) The unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET
is fabricated evidence

P4) If there is large amounts of fabricated evidence then
there must be a conspiracy to fabricate it

P5) There is a large amount of fabricated evidence (see C1)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

C2) There must be a conspiracy to fabricate it.

There is a Space Travel Conspiracy. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space. That was the purpose of NASA's creation from the very start: To put ICBMs and other weapons into space (or at least appear to). The motto "Scientific exploration of new frontiers for all mankind" was nothing more than a front.

See this quote from president Lyndon Johnson:

"Control of space means control of the world. From space, the masters of infinity would have the power to control the earth's weather, to cause drought and flood, to change the tides and raise the levels of the sea, to divert the gulf stream and change temperate climates to frigid. There is something more important than the ultimate weapon. And that's the ultimate position. The position of total control over the Earth that lies somewhere in outer space."

-President Lyndon Johnson, Statement on Status of Nation's Defense and Race for Space, January 7, 1958

One month later, Lyndon Johnson and the Senate Special Committee on Space and Astronautics drafted a resolution to change the name of the US Army's Ballistic Missile Arsenal to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Get your head out of the sand Cikljamas. Do something productive with your life.

You mean something like rediscovering Stan Mayer dune buggy and solving the problem of energy and as a consequence of that achievement stopping the middle-east wars for oil?

But you have to remember why you are not allowed to posses and enjoy benefits of Stan Mayer dune buggy, and once that you recall this fact don't forget it again-so soon...

And don't forget these words so soon also: http://www.energeticforum.com/258073-post180.html

Cheers!

[ethan]

I didn't say anything about NASA...
You do realize NASA isn't the only one that has been to space...right?

List of private spaceflight companies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SpaceX for example is a private corporation that has been to space and back numerous times.

You think every single person involved with processing the images from outerspace is looking to control the world?
Non governmental people want to rule the world too?

Your wasting your life my friend. Good luck on your endless journey to nowhere.
Its like a fourth dimension staircase, you will keep climbing and climbing while ending up right where you started.
PS. Please focus more on energy, your a smart person, and that will be more beneficial and productive.

[cikljamas]

UN Flag and Emblem

UN EU Satanic Symbols and Intentions

Guillotines in the U S Update Jan 2014

The best information documentary maker was assassinated by CIA

Why don't they (UN) protect children of Palestine?
Why don't they (UN) protect children of the 4 corners of the World from starving, from slavery, from sexual abuse, from wars and other atrocities?
Who are they really, whom do they serve, whom they worship?

The Children of the Devil
…43"Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. 44"You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45"But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.…

The Temptation of Jesus
…7Jesus said to him, "On the other hand, it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.'" 8Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; 9and he said to Him, "All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me."…

View from Everest

[cikljamas]

Soviet Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin was never in Space

A Soviet propaganda hoax has been revealed in the former communist countries (for example Hungary, Estonia and Poland). It was a myth that everyone had really believed in, that the Soviet Air Force officer Yuri Gagarin had made a space-flight. Many Western governments were aware of this Soviet bluff but did not want to reveal the truth. It was not intended for the people to know that the Soviet Union was a backward state.

One interesting book about this is "Gagarin: A Cosmic Lie" ("Gagarin - kozmikus hazugsig," Budapest, 1990) by the Hungarian journalist Istvin Nemere. Not one word about the contradictions surrounding Gagarin's "journey into space" have been published in Sweden, where the Soviet Union is still regarded with a great deal of respect. Such a revelation would be far too embarrassing.

Until 1961, the United States had managed to send up 42 satellites, the Soviet Union only 12. The United States also informed the world that Alan Shepard would make a space journey in the spacecraft Freedom 7 on 5 May, 1961.

The Soviet Union was forced to do something to save face. For this reason a Soviet cosmonaut, Vladimir Ilyushin, was sent up into space on 7 April, 1961. The Americans intercepted several radio communications between him and the space centre in the Soviet Union. Ilyushin's landing failed and he was seriously injured. He could not be shown to the public. It was claimed that he had been injured in a car accident. He was sent to China to receive better medical treatment.

The Russian TV documentary "Cosmonaut Cover-Up" (2001) also claims that on 7 April, 1961, Vladimir Ilyushin left for space, got into trouble during the first orbit, and crash-landed in China during the third orbit. Ilyushin was badly injured. He was returned to the Soviet Union a year later. Ilyushin was killed in an engineered car accident in 1961.

The Soviet Union did not have a spare capsule at that time and in Moscow it was decided to orchestrate a huge bluff, a cosmic lie.

Radio Moscow claimed that a Soviet cosmonaut, Yuri Gagarin, had been sent up into space on the morning of 12 April, 1961 with the space-rocket Vostok. According to the official announcement, he had already landed and was in fine health. The whole world believed this except for the Western intelligence services. They had not managed to register any radio communication between Gagarin and the space centre.

This hoax was sloppily orchestrated. (They should have asked NASA how to do it...) Polish newspapers announced already on the morning of 12 April that a Soviet cosmonaut had been in space. Newspapers in other countries did not report Gagarin's flight until 13 April.

In a book written for the West, Soviet propagandists claimed that simple peasants recognized Yuri Gagarin soon after he landed in a field and enthusiastically shouted: "Gagarin, Gagarin!" But nothing about his "space journey" had been reported at that time, no pictures of him had been published and his name had not been mentioned. The message from radio and TV was sent out 35 minutes after the alleged journey. Were the peasants psychic?

The newspaper Sovetskaya Rossiya claimed that Gagarin was wearing a blue flightsuit when he landed. In his memoirs, Gagarin himself claimed he was dressed in an orange flightsuit.

At his press conference, Gagarin read from notes when he "related" his journey. During the press conference, he made several crucial mistakes. Gagarin stated that weightlessness was no problem. Everything seemed just normal. We now know that this is not the case. The cosmonaut German Titov, for example, had difficulties with his balance and had heart problems.

Gagarin then made his most serious mistake, despite the fact that he was constantly assisted by experts, who often spoke about discoveries in space. He said: "Then I saw South America".

This is impossible. At that time it was night in South America, which meant that it could not be seen at all. According to the official reports, Gagarin began his "space journey" at 9:07 Moscow time. He was supposed to have flown over South America at 9:22 Moscow time. In Chile, the time would have been 2:22, in Brazil 3:22. He could never have reached South America in 15 minutes.

Foreign journalists wondered: "When will the photographs that Gagarin took in space be published?" Gagarin was silent, thought for a moment and answered: "I didn't have a camera with me!"

Even unmanned Soviet space probes had photographic equipment on board. It would have been an important propaganda triumph to publish Gagarin's pictures from space. The Soviet Union would never have missed an opportunity like that.

His plane exploded on 27 March the same year. The official report concerning this event contained many contradictions. The report was classified during the communist period. It claimed that there was not much left of Gagarin's body after the crash. In that case, how did his flightsuit come to land in the top of a tree?

There are far too many questions surrounding Gagarin's spaceflight in April 1961. A British team of researchers who questions the propaganda surrounding manned journeys to the moon also confirms this information. When will the truth be admitted officially?

On 12 April 2001, the Russian senior engineer Mikhail Rudenko, at the Experimental Design Office 456, in Khimki in the Moscow region, admitted in Pravda that three cosmonauts had died in space before Gagarin was sent up, namely Alexei Ledovskikh (1957), Serenti Zhaborin (February 1958), and Andrei Mitkov (flight attempt January 1959).

The Russian journalist and cosmonaut candidate (June 1965) Yaroslav Golovanov (1932-2003) wrote in his book "Cosmonaut One" that on 10 November 1960, another cosmonaut, Byelokonyev, also died on board a space-ship in orbit. Several sources reveal that 7-11 cosmonauts have died before Gagarin.

The CIA knew about the Gagarin bluff but said nothing. Instead they have come up with more and more ridiculous lies themselves. (Juri Lina, Architects of Deception. The Concealed History of Freemasonry. Referent Publishing Stockholm, 2004. p. 26-29).

Space program = International LIE UPON LIE program

[cikljamas]

View from Everest

As introduction i am going to use these words of mine written in the post #160 (page 6):

The true fact is that you can see airplanes after sunset glowing in the sky only within short period of time while on the surface of the Earth is still twilight, but as soon as twilight turns to dark, you can't see nothing of that kind (reflection of the airplane which fly in high altitudes) any more....

You should work it out much better than that...

My intuition and reasoning were right, i just didn't do the exact math at that time, so, let's do it now:

1660 km/h(supposed speed of Earth's rotation) : 3600 = 0,46 km/s

0,46 * 60 = 27,6 km/min .... 27,6 : 1,5 = 18,4 miles

Now, using Rowbotham's (verified) formula we calculate like this:
18,4 * 18,4 = 338,56 * 8 (inches) = 2708 * 2,5 = 6771,2 cm = 67 m roughly

So, if the Earth is round the Sun should drop off behind horizon 67m/min which is equivalent of climbing uphill 67m/min...

8880 m (Everest altitude) : 67 = 132,5 min = 2 hours, 12,5 minutes

So, if the Earth is rotund one guy standing on the top of the Everest should be able to see sunrise 2,12 hours earlier/sunset 2,12 hours longer than the other guy who stands at the bottom of the Everest...

As we all very well know it is not the case, not even closely to that...

Disprove it if you can!

[cikljamas]

Falsifying the Geosynchronous Satellite Concept

The rotating earth concept, however, is based entirely on assumptions which not only have never been observed by anyone who has ever lived, but which flatly contradict that which has always been observed by everyone who has ever lived.

Since that question has long been considered settled—and especially since Einstein’s relativity rescued Copernicanism from 20 years of deep trouble it was in—little thought if any is given to whether these satellites rotate geosynchronously with a rotating earth below. There they are right in the same spot any time you look. That is an observable fact. And we all know, don’t we, that the earth rotates; so, there can be only one conclusion, namely, the satellite revolves with it, right?

Wrong! The only fact in that concept is that the satellite is always overhead. We know this is a fact—a scientific truth--no one challenges...

***********************************

d) The ring of geostationary satellites now over the equator has very nearly the maximum permitted number of vacancies filled, i.e., 180 at 2 degrees apart. Because of this limited capacity, the rush is on to get “virtual geostationary satellites” with orbital apogees of 13-16000 miles along certain latitudes no closer than 15 degrees N and S (so as not to interfere with the geostationary ring). These are needed in order to overcome the 2 degree limitation and to augment the amount of information traffic that can be handled through the geostationary satellites.

This technologically exciting operation employs multiple satellites in highly eccentric orbits which are arrayed so that they only power-on when in their apogee arc that is closest to the geostats…. One of the characteristics of the orbits of this new “virtual geostationary satellite” invention actually contains proof that the geosynchronous concept is wrong!

What characteristic?! This: Their orbits can be clockwise OR counterclockwise… while all geostat orbits must be counterclockwise to match the alleged counterclockwise rotation of the earth.

How does that prove the geosynchronous concept is wrong?

It is noted that these “virtual geostat” constellations can make 2 and 3 and 4 orbits a day, and we find, for example, in the three-orbit-a-day model that “…each of the satellites [in the array] is enabled [turned on] near its apogee for a duration of four hours, which is 50% of its total orbit period”. It is further noted that this capability causes these “…satellites to appear to ‘hang’ in the sky because their angular velocity at or near apogee approximates the rotation rate of the earth” [at a given latitude]. (Ibid. p.5)

The point here is that this almost stationary, observable “hanging” satellite over a limited area would not be possible for those “virtual geostats” which are traveling in a clockwise orbit if the earth is rotating. This is obvious because the same observable “hanging” effect could not be produced by “virtual geostats” going in opposite directions over a rotating earth any more than the alleged counterclockwise moving geosynchronous satellites could produce the effect of “hanging” stationary if they were to turn around and go in a clockwise orbit. (Is a stentorian Eureka! in order here?!) (This may also disprove the goofy but necessary assumption that the earth’s atmosphere turns with its alleged rotation, adjusting its speed with every inch from the equator to the poles…and unaffected by an alleged orbital speed of 67,000 MPH.)

*************************************

e) The geostationary satellites have little propulsion jets on them for use now and then to get them back in place when they have moved a little bit. In the old days when one satellite conked out, they would move a good one in the direction of the bad one just far enough so that the traffic from both directions could still be handled. These were re-positionings within the circular geostationary ring that were done to maintain coverage and not to correct a problem within the ring itself. One such case involved a good satellite that was moved 675 miles. Neither it nor the bad one had gotten out of their assigned slots in the ring at 22.236 miles altitude. Both were observable overhead right where they were supposed to be at all times.

But note this: The good satellite was moved “…674.42 statute miles westward!—from 97.45 to 107.2 degrees W Longitude--over a period of 42 days at the precise speed of 16.06 MPDay.”. This maneuver was carried out based on “fixed earth” calculations according to a letter from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.[See: The Earth Is Not Moving (Part IV)]

Given the fact that this successful maneuver was predicated on a fixed earth without mentioning whether the satellite was also fixed in the calculations or whether it continued orbiting eastwardly at 6865 MPH, let us try that option and see what happens: Option #1: The earth is stopped from its alleged rotation and the good satellite and the bad one and all others continue their alleged eastwardly orbits. The propulsion jets slow the speed of the good satellite 16.06 MPDay for 42 days and when the good satellite has lost 675 miles in the 42 day slowdown it is now 675 miles closer to the bad satellite to its west and can handle its responsibilities. Perfect. The deed is done.

But wait…. There is no real model wherein the earth is fixed and the satellite orbits a stationary earth!! So, obviously, this option could not produce the required maneuver, and is ruled out. That leaves only Option #2: Again, the earth is stopped from its alleged rotation and is “fixed”. Along with the others in the ring, the good satellite is stopped in its alleged orbit and also becomes “fixed”. The propulsion jets move the now inert good satellite westward (as was actually done) at 16.06 MPDay for 42 days and it ends up 675 miles closer to the bad satellite than it was before, and the operation is complete. Perfect. The deed is done.

But wait again! This is a geocentric model!! It works and the other one doesn’t! The official admission that “a fixed earth” is required for a successful maneuver is true; but the satellite (and all the others in the ring) must also be fixed for it to work.[See: The Earth Is Not Moving (pp.260-264)]

*************************************

Five things are certain at this point: 1) The ultimate reason for insisting that these satellites are in geosynchronous orbit is based on the unproven and wholly vulnerable assumption that the earth is rotating; 2) This geosynchronous dogma is absolutely and totally sacrosanct to the entire theoretical science establishment now in control of the world’s “knowledge” [See: Knowledge Impact]; 3) If these satellites are not geosynchronous, then the earth is not rotating as the whole world has been led to believe; 4) That conclusion alone will cause the entire false science Idol to implode; 5) The Pharisee Religion’s Big Bang Paradigm of 15 Billion years of evolutionism [See: Kabbala 6]—and all the false science built on the Kabbala’s model of the Origin of the universe [See: Kab.Superstring]—will do the Humpty-Dumpty number…expressed in Biblical terms as The Fall of Babylon (Rev. 14:8; 17:14; 18: 2, 4,10; etc.).

So don’t be surprised when the hounds of hell are unleashed to prevent any serious threat to the rotating earth model, whether on this point about satellites or any other. It is a spiritual battle at bottom and it will be settled “one hour” after the GGG (Global Government Gangsters) get their briefcases open (Rev. 17:12, 14)

A note on GPS Satellites:

"The GPS satellites are not in geo-stationary orbit, but instead orbit twice every time the earth orbits once. This means that for any observer the satellites appear to orbit once overhead each day." (From: GPS Satellites: Wolfram Research)

Fact: #1 - We see and know they orbit overhead once a day.

Fact #2 - One orbit a day will produce Fact #1

Fact #3 - Two orbits are...and must be assumed because...

Fact #4 - The earth's rotation is assumed.

Fact #5 - Unproven assumptions that are required to explain phenomena that are readily explained without the assumptions constitute false science.

Fact #6 - One orbit a day around a stationary earth produces all the known behavior of GPS Satellites.

Fact #7 - Sans contra-scientific assumptions, GPS Satellite behavior proves a non-rotating earth.

@Ethan, you just have watched brand new episode of the series "because you asked for it", did you like it?

[dward]

Warning: Troll thread....

Don't feed the troll people, just dont do it.

That is all.

[cikljamas]

@ dward, what is your problem?

All your arguments are invalid?

I understand that.

Warning: painful thread for those who hate or afraid to think out of the box no matter what...

Or maybe you do understand the true importance of this subject, but you just have no courage to face the truth?

I could accept that too, but whatever it is, how come you don't know at least how to save last bit of your dignity staying away from this thread?

[dward]

No actually, Unlike your arguments and proof, which are mere fundamentalist ignorance in action; what I see on earth today and in my research work continues to confirm the opposite of what you say.

My research into the orgone envelop of the earth, and the galaxy would not be possible if earth were not 3 dimensional and more or less as everyone has noted for the last few thousand years, namely, that the earth is round. orbits are more or less ellipses(ignoring that last little bit that makes them egg shaped which Kepler could not calculate...) that the earth goes round the sun and the sun moves in relation to the galactic core etc etc etc etc.

I'm simply warning others not to get wrapped up with you as page after page of your own drivel is spewed out against others on this forum. . . and i'm sure elsewhere.

Many others have responded to you and you continue to site poorly worded, poorly written articles claiming to be scientific, but which are in fact religious. Now there's nothing wrong with religion but there is definitely something wrong with believing a religious doctrine over an observed fact.

With that we are through here.

[ethan]

Everything is spherical.
Atoms, fields, electromagnetic waves, everything propagates spherically.
Its weird to think anything would naturally form in a plate like structure.
But that's the point...cikljamas thinks its god not nature that made the world flat.
He has to, because nature doesn't do things like that.

I just hope he realizes he's not changing anyone's mind and puts his efforts into something more constructive.
Free energy needs all the help it can get.

[cikljamas]

It doesn't bother me if you are deliberately blind on this (geocentric vs heliocentric) issue, but it bothers me when you are deliberately blind on this subject. So i ask you, is it realistic to expect of you to be sensitive to Israel's war crimes over innocent civillians in Gaza, is ti realistic to expect of you to be sensitive to what is happening right now (persistent merciless slaughter over innocent Palestinian children by Israel's criminals) if you are deliberately blind to the so obvious and so elementary physical truth as is truth that the Earth is absolutely motionless?

And if the answer is NO, it is not realistic, then we have to continue with this thread...

Question No 1: Why does the Earth seem motionless?

GC (geocentricity): Because it is motionless.

HC (heliocentricity): It only seems motionless because it's spinning at a perfectly uniform speed with no acceleration or deceleration ever and the atmosphere is magically velcroed to it. Actually the Earth is spinning on it's axis at 1,000 mph, rotating around the Sun at 67,000 mph, which is orbiting the Milky Way at 500,000 mph and shooting through the known Universe at 67,000,000 mph. We don't feel even the slightest bit of this motion because all the centrifugal, gravitational, and inertial forces somehow perfectly cancel out.

"Most people who accept that the Earth is in motion believe it is a proven fact. They do not realize that not only has the motion of the Earth never been proven, but by the constructs of modern physics and cosmology cannot be proven. Again, even modern cosmology does not claim to be able to prove that the Earth is in motion. In fact the very best argument for Earth’s motion is based on pure ‘modesty’ not logic, observation and experience. If anyone could prove the Earth’s motion, that someone would become more famous than Einstein, Hawking and others. They may all be fools but even they would not make such an ignorant claim to proof of Earth’s motions, and those who do so don’t realize just how ignorant of physics they really are! Before folks go demonstrating how ignorant they are, they should consider: 1. The relationship between Mach’s principle and relativity. 2. The relationship between Gravity and Inertia, and Gravity and Acceleration (and the paradoxes that exist). 3. Relativity does not claim to prove Earth’s motions, in fact it ‘dictates’ the ridiculous idea that motion cannot be proven period. 4. Relativity proposes motion, it does not nor can it claim to disprove that the Earth is the center of the universe! 5. Only those who are ignorant of physics attempt to make arguments based on weather patterns, ballistic trajectories, geosynchronous satellites, and Foucault’s pendulums for evidence of Earth’s motions! For all those ‘geniuses’ out there, not even Einstein would claim such stupidity." -Allen Daves

Question No 2: Why do the Sun, Moon, and Stars all appear to revolve around a stationary Earth?

GC: Because they do.

HC: The Moon does revolve around the Earth, but the Earth actually revolves around the Sun, and all the stars only seem to revolve around the Earth because the Earth itself is spinning beneath your feet!

"Whilst we sit drinking our cup of tea or coffee the world is supposedly rotating at 1,039 mph at the equator, whizzing around the Sun at 66,500 mph, hurtling towards Lyra at 20,000 mph, revolving around the centre of the 'Milky Way' at 500,000 mph and merrily moving at God knows what velocity as a consequence of the 'Big Bong.' And not even a hint of a ripple on the surface of our tea, yet tap the table lightly with your finger and ... !" -Neville T. Jones


Question No 3: Why do we never see the rotation of the Moon?

GC: Because it doesn't rotate.

HC: Both the Moon and the Earth are actually rotating but they are doing so in such a way that from our perspective it seems that neither are. The Earth is spinning East to West at 1,000 mph while orbiting the Sun at 67,000 mph. The Moon is spinning West to East at 10.3 mph while orbiting the Earth at 2,288 mph. These motions/speeds perfectly cancel out so that the Moon always only shows us one side.

"They want you to believe that the Moon's rotation is perfectly synchronized with its orbit so that's why we only ever see one side of the Moon, rather than conclude the obvious - that the Moon is simply NOT rotating. Moreover, they had to slow down the Moon's speed by 58,870 mph AND reverse its direction to West-East to successfully sell their phony heliocentricity system to a gullible public. I don't think there is one person in many, many thousands - regardless of education - who knows that the Copernican Model had to turn the Moon's observable direction around and give it a new speed to accommodate the phases and eclipses." -Marshall Hall

“The Moon presented a special math problem for the construction of the heliocentricity model. The only way to make the Moon fit in with the other assumptions was to reverse its direction from that of what everyone who has ever lived has seen it go. The math model couldn’t just stop the Moon like it did the Sun, that wouldn’t work. And it couldn’t let it continue to go East to West as we see it go, either at the same speed or at a different speed. The only option was to reverse its observed East to West direction and change its speed from about 64,000 miles an hour to about 2,200 miles an hour. This reversal along with the change in speed were unavoidable assumptions that needed to be adopted if the model was to have a chance of mimicking reality." -Bernard Brauer


Question No 4: Why do the stars appear to be fixed along a celestial sphere?

GC: Because they are.

HC: The stars only appear to be fixed along a celestial sphere because they are so incredibly far away. Even after hundreds of millions of miles of our (supposed) orbit around the Sun, the stars appear in the exact same positions at the exact same meridian times because they are many "light-years" away. A light-year is approximately 6 TRILLION miles away and that is why they falsely seem fixed from our faulty perspective.

"Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube and the moment the star appears in the first tube let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the second tube when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the second tube towards the first tube would be required for the star to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results--the star will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube which the difference in position of one yard had previously required. But as no such difference in the direction of the tube is required, the conclusion is unavoidable, that in six months a given meridian upon the earth's surface does not move a single yard, and therefore, that the earth has not the slightest degree of orbital motion." -Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy"

Question No 5: How do Heliocentricist's account for the Allais effect, and the results of Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale, Airy's Failure, Sagnac and Kantors experiments proving the aether and a fixed Earth?

GC: Yeah, good question.

HC: (silence)

"I don’t argue or enter into debates, because the issue here is exactly what you would bring to the debate, which is the wealth of erroneous information that allowed our situation to become as dire as it is in the first place. Your argument would consist of phony statistics, historical fables, the newspaper’s latest lies, and profit-driven 'science.' My argument is simple. Discover who controls everything you’ve been told, only believe what you can verify for yourself through original documentation, science and logic, and then look for a political connection between the sources of all the erroneous information. Find the motives behind the lies. If you did that, there would be no debate, and we would all agree on whose head should roll, as the saying goes." -Jolly Roger

Mahalia Jackson vs. "Troubles Of The World"

[cikljamas]

Throughout ancient times it was obvious that the moon went around the earth. This is still accepted today. But in the past it was just as obvious that the sun went around the earth as well. This geostatic and geocentric nature of the earth was repeatedly tested and verified as being factual for a quite some time (going back thousands of years). Then, all of a sudden, just 400 plus years ago, a band of court astrologers started pushing this idea that the earth was orbiting the sun this time, and that the sun was standing still at the center (hence the claim of the system being a ‘solar’ system). Nevertheless this new claim was not accompanied by any new proof. It was simply invoked and declarations were made that the fixed nature of earth needed to be disapproved.

Bertrand Russell admitted that ‘whether the earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west, as his predecessors held, the observed phenomena will be the same; a metaphysical assumption has to be made’. Yet today everybody ‘just knows’ that the Earth goes around the sun (heliocentrism). But simple observational evidence shows us that the Earth is not, in fact, moving at all! Hundreds of experiments have failed to detect even a smidgen of the purported 67,000 mph translational and 1000 mph rotational velocity of the Earth. Not only can it not be disproved that “the Earth stands forever” (Ecc. 1:4) and has no velocity; it cannot be disproved that the Earth is the center of the universe. And the toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre’s induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja’s lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh’s polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous ‘Airy’s Failure’ experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever.

Another bogus argument that some solar system advocates bring up from time to time is inertia and momentum. What is it that the moving-earth theorists believe is the substance (or the vector field) that supposedly exerts a huge gravitational force on air molecules which prevents the atmosphere around the earth from trailing behind the allegedly speeding earth (as is the case for comets)? Their answer?: Nothing. Instead, heliocentrists usually propose a fraudulent analogy of how the earth’s motion is comparable with some person walking inside a moving train. They claim that since the walker inside the train feels more or less the same as he or she feels when walking on the ground that somehow is supposed to reassure us that the earth could also be moving without we feeling it. The problem with this analogy is of course the fact that once the person inside the train opens a window and faces the elements, he or she will feel it soon enough what the real speed is that the train is traveling at! Therefore the only correct analogy for someone walking on the ground of earth is someone walking in an open train or better yet – on the roof of a moving train. What will happens then?

Some scientists admit the truth in their own words. Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz (of the Lorentz translation equations, foundation of the General Theory of Relativity) noted that:

"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…"

His great contemporary Henri Poincare confessed:

"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative..."

Lincoln Barnett agrees:

“No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”

And one of the chief participants in the experiment that bears his name (Albert A. Michelson), stunned by the results that went counter to his own heliocentric reflex:

“This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation… which presupposes that the Earth moves.”

Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle says:

“Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory is “wrong” in any meaningful sense (…) Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published in a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors will turn you down.”

In further startling evidence that the scientific community is stifling dissenting views, Alexander von Humboldt admitted:

“I have known too, for a long time that we have no argument for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Donʼt rush into the waspsʼ nest. You will bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude… to come forth as the first against opinions, which the world has become fond of - I donʼt feel the courage.”

In other words, the notion that the earth revolves around the sun having become dogma, its denial spells automatic excommunication from the scientific establishment. As for the unthinking masses, a lie need only be systematized in textbooks to pass for truth.

[aljhoa]

“No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”

Stellar parallax is parallax on an interstellar scale: the apparent shift of position of any nearby star (or other object) against the background of distant objects. Created by the different orbital positions of the Earth, the extremely small observed shift is largest at time intervals of about six months, when the earth arrives at exactly opposite sides of the sun in its orbit, giving a baseline distance of about two astronomical units between observations.

Stellar parallax is so difficult to detect that its existence was the subject of much debate in astronomy for hundreds of years. It was only first proven in 1838 when Friedrich Bessel made the first successful parallax measurement ever, for the star 61 Cygni, using a Fraunhofer heliometer at Königsberg Observatory.[1][2]

Once a star's parallax is known, its distance from earth can be calculated trigonometrically. But the more distant an object is, the smaller its parallax. Even with 21st-century techniques in astrometry, the limits of accurate measurement make distances farther away than about 100 parsecs (roughly 326 light years) too approximate to be useful when obtained by this technique.
Stellar parallax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Al

[jacwebb]

parallax Angle

(Stellar parallax is parallax on an interstellar scale: the apparent shift of position of any nearby star (or other object) against the background of distant objects. Created by the different orbital positions of the Earth, the extremely small observed shift is largest at time intervals of about six months, when the earth arrives at exactly opposite sides of the sun in its orbit, giving a baseline distance of about two astronomical units between observations.)

Seems the angle would be very acute if adjusted to the dia. of the earth. This is the only the case if the earth is stationary. Would be hard to be accurate with such a small angle.


jac