North - South

[aljhoa]

Flight Time Christchurch to Rio - Flat Earth proof

Flight Path - The Proof of Spherical Earth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJoMDq4AyLc




On a sphere, the sum of the angles of a triangle is not equal to 180°.
A sphere is not a Euclidean space, but locally the laws of the Euclidean
geometry are good approximations. In a small triangle on the face of the
earth, the sum of the angles is very nearly 180. The surface of a sphere can
be represented by a collection of two dimensional maps.
Spherical geometry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Spherical trigonometry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




According to spherical calculations,
a Muslim praying from Anchorage,
Alaska would pray almost due north if determining the Qiblah.
Qibla - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Al

[cikljamas]

Al, Al, Al...

@ Al, do you even read texts that you paste here???

Actually the map may seem strange, since the South Pole is placed at the middle of a glacial sea and is surrounded by two wide islands that form a huge austral continent. In this case the similarity with Antarctic is really poor but the fans of mysteries do not discourage because of this and say that this map represent Antarctic before it was covered by glaciers, hundred thousand years ago.

Even in this case the truth is simpler and gives evidence to the way of proceeding of these archeology-fiction-best-sellers writers. For example they do not even care about the great variety of text, descriptions, notes present in the cart of Buache, which, once red, explain clearly what the cartographer intended to represent. Moreover these writers hide to the reader a very important information: the fact that two different versions of this cart do exist.

The former version contains only the real information about the new lands recently discovered at the far south of the world: Australia,Tasmania, New Zeland, Bouvet island with Cape of Circumcision, another land south of the Tierra del Fuego (maybe one of the Shetlands).

In the latter version on the contrary the author draws an imaginary continent by joining together the few parts of coast effectively explored at that period (traced in red), thus creating the latest descent of the mythical “Terra Australis Incognita” as also represented in many renaissance carts and globes.

Buache did not represent Antarctic as it were hundred thousand years ago but simply tried to join together the few extremes available of an unknown land to figure out how it could look like.

On the other hand, if there is Great Ice Rim around the Earth, it is logically to conclude that there would also be a lobby of a Great Ice Rim of the Earth, which "Antartica" only can be...

What was the point of putting here links to Flat Earth youtube videos??? Maybe you think that you could use FET videos as a proof against it (FET), i just don't see how? Maybe you could explain it to us with your own words?.

[cikljamas]

Let's do one interesting compilation:

NO 1:

[QUOTE]

We debunked heliocentricity as brash fraud and we did it beyond any reasonable doubt, didn't we? Now, there could be still doubts and questions like this (post #181):

Once again you wrongly assume that if the Earth doesn't spin it must be flat.

There is no reason to believe any of this.

If it is not heliocentric then it is geocentric, but flat Earth is no where to be found in this.

Now I am not claiming the universe is geocentric, but if we assume the Earth doesn't spin, then it would be geocentric. Anyway, even if it is geocentric it doesn't mean it is flat. Do you understand that?

At this solemn feast let me show you one really powerful "heliocentric" proof in favor of FET and contrary to round-geocentric theory:

This proof is HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT in the next picture:



Would you be able to see that proof without my assistance?

So, let me help you:

In above heliocentric fraudulent figure there is also one big truth:

All you have to do is to understand that Sun is revolving around the Earth, not the other way around. edit...Better to say, the Sun is circling above the Earth...edit (Al, thanks for your continuous surveillance and detailed scrutiny of my english grammar!) (Nice animation also!)

After we made it clear you can see that in above figure heliocentrists admit that the orbital speed of the Earth (which is in fact the speed of the Sun) is highest during winter solstice when the Sun is above tropic of capricorn, then the Sun is slowing down when arrives vertically above equator (during equinoxes), and the lowest speed of the Sun is when the Sun is hovering above the tropic of cancer (summer solstice).

This is completely consistent with FET, and absolutely in contradiction with geocentric round Earth model, because there in no possible compelling RET explanation for different speeds of the Sun regarding it's different positions above the equator, the tropic of capricorn and the tropic of cancer.

Can it be more obvious than that?

As it was with UN flag, now it is the same thing with above heliocentric fraudulent diagram:

HIDING FLAT EARTH TRUTH IN YOUR PLAIN SIGHT!!!

NO 2:

Beside maintaining the Earth's alleged rotation at a constant speed they should also adjust (which they can't) Earth's orbital speed so to be constant (not variable) as well.

The Earth's orbit is not perfectly circular. As a result its velocity changes slightly over the course of the year. At its closest to the Sun in January, the Earth is moving 30,300m/s, while at its furthest it is moving 29,300m/s.

Although 1km/s is a large change of velocity, it occurs gradually over 6 months, so we feel no real acceleration from it. The acceleration that is present is dwarfed by that of Earth's gravitational pull.

Now, let's do some math:

January (perihelion): 30,300 km/s * 3600 = 109,080 km/h
July (aphelion): 29,300 km/s * 3600 = 105,480 km/h

January: 109,080 * 24 = 2,617,920 km per day
July: 105,480 * 24 = 2,531,520 km per day

Difference: 86,400 km per day * 30 = 2,592,000 km per month

Now, compare this difference with next excerpt:

A sidereal day is the amount of time it takes for the stars to go once around the sky, equal to 23 hours and 56 minutes. The word sidereal means "relating to the stars." The difference in length between the solar and sidereal day causes the rising and setting times of stars to change throughout the year. If the star Rigel, for example, rises at noon today, it will rise at 11:56 tomorrow. In six months, it will rise at midnight. Because the difference between solar days is tied to the orbit of the Earth, there is exactly one more sidereal day in a year than there are solar days.

So, we are off for one whole day (4 min) per month! HC is really tragically funny theory with no basis in reality whatsoever!!!

But, how much we are really off per month? That's a good question, ain't it?

Can this help us to have better insight into this issue:

Longyearbyen experiences midnight sun from 19 April through 23 August, polar night from 27 October through 14 February and civil polar night from 14 November through 29 January.

So, these numbers are very interesting:

1. Midnight sun from 19 April through 23 August = 123 days

2. Polar night from 27 October through 14 February = 110 days

3. Civil polar night from 14 November through 29 January = 76 days

123 - 110 = 13 days

NO 3:

[QUOTE]

Let A C B D represent the “ globe,” rotating upon its “ axis ” A 1 ]. (see next page). T h e line C D will represent the circle of the equator
midway between the “ poles ” A and B.The line F G will shew the position of the tropic of Cancer said to be 23^° north of the equator, which is the highest north declination the sun attains on or about midsummer day, June 24th. Let P represent the position of the sun directly vertical over this tropical line at this period. In this position it would be mid-day on the side of the earth next the sun along the meridian L F N ; and it would be midnight on the opposite side along the meridian M D O. Let L.M. represent the Arctic Circle said to be 23^° from the North “ Pole ’’ A, or about 66^° of north latitude ; which latitude, or circle, runs across the northern parts of Norway and Sweden or Scandinavia. The horizon is a straight line tangential to the surface of the sphere at the point of observation, and it must therefore be placed at right angles to the dotted line E M running from the centre of the sphere to the latitude and position of the observer.The sun is never seen directly over any part of the earth north of the tropic of Cancer ; that is, the sun is never more than 23^° north of the equator. Persons living further north than this have always to look in a southerly direction for the sun at noon ; and it ought therefore never to be seen to the north of them at any time, so we must place the sun in the diagram somewhere on the line P F G. Let it be placed at any point P. Now it is manifest that for an observer at M, near the latitude of Haparanda, to see the sun at midnight at P, over the tropic at Cancer, he would have to to look downwards and be able to see right through the "Globe" for about five or six thousand miles along the dotted line MR!! I am not aware of any traveller who claims this ability ; nor yet that the “globe” to oblige the astronomers, becomes transparent at this period.
I am not aware that any spectator of the phenomenon of the midnight- sun has to look down at all upon this gorgeous spectacle.

[aljhoa]

@ Al, do you even read texts that you paste here???
On the other hand, if there is Great Ice Rim around the Earth, it is logically to conclude that there would also be a lobby of a Great Ice Rim of the Earth, which "Antartica" only can be...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKVH2nKoX6s

Maybe you think that you could use FET videos as a proof against it (FET), i just don't see how?

Flight Path - The Proof of Spherical Earth

The shortest direction to Kaaba in Mecca from all over the World
Qibla - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Al

[cikljamas]

Al, Al, Al...

Here we go again...Why don't you say something?

NO 1: The Earth: Flat or Round? What does the Qur'an Say?

NO 2: The Earth: Flat or Round? What does the Bible Say?

The question is really an issue of what kind of cosmology the authors of the various biblical books assume in the course of their writing. When we read the Hebrew scriptures, the few books that have anything to say on the subject never explicitly say 'the earth is flat'. But if we can determine the overall shape of the cosmos as the different writers describe it, we'll be able to know if a 'flat earth' is an accurate label for what the ancient biblical authors believed.

The main biblical texts that describe the cosmos as a whole are Genesis 1, Psalm 74.12-17, Psalm 104, Job 26.5-14, Job 37, Job 38, Proverbs 3.19-20, and Proverbs 8.22-36, along with a few pieces here and there where a particular cosmology is assumed by the writer.

The primeval waters

Ancient Israelite cosmology begins with a mess of waters, representing the pre-creation chaos. The world is created inside of this chaotic sea. These primeval waters are found in:

Genesis 1.2,6-7,9,etc., as 'the deep' and 'the waters', so that the earth was created between 'the waters above' and 'the waters below' when God spoke it so
Psalm 74.13, as 'the sea' and 'the waters' (and metaphorically as 'the sea monsters' and 'leviathan'), which God 'divided', 'broke', and 'crushed' as the first act of creation
Psalm 104.3,6-9, as 'the waters' and 'the deep', which uncovered the earth when God spoke it so
Job 26.8,12, as 'the waters' and 'the sea' (and metaphorically as 'Rahab' the sea 'serpent'), which God 'binds up', 'stilled', 'shattered', and 'pierced'
Job 38.8-11, as 'the sea' with its 'proud waves', which God 'prescribed limits' so that it would 'come no farther' over the earth
Proverbs 3.19-20, as 'the deep', which God 'broke open' when he 'founded the earth'
Proverbs 8.27-29, as 'the deep' and 'the sea', upon which God 'drew a circle' (more below on this 'circle'), and was 'assigned a limit' when God spoke it so

The firmament

Within the primeval waters, God creates a solid dome called (in English) 'the firmament'. This crystalline structure is sometimes compared to sapphire, explaining the blue color of the sky. While some English translations use an ambiguous word like 'expanse' or 'canopy' to make the concept more friendly to modern science, which presents a comparatively 'soft' atmosphere around the earth, the biblical authors consistently portray this firmament as solid. This firmament is found in:

Genesis 1.6-8, where it is given the name 'Heaven', where its express purpose is to 'separate the waters [above] from the waters [below]'; the Hebrew word used is raqiya, drawn from a verb regularly used to describe striking or pounding on an object; the sense is of an object that has been 'pounded' into its present shape
Job 37.18, where it is called 'the sky', and is 'spread out' (the verb root of raqiya), and is described as 'hard as a molten mirror'
Proverbs 8.28, where God 'made firm the sky above'

Numerous passages in the bible describe heaven as a scroll or tent that is 'stretched', or may 'collapse'. The sun, moon, and stars were placed in/on the firmament, and moved upon its surface (e.g. Genesis 1.14-19; Joshua 10.13; Daniel 12.3). The firmament rested upon the mountains/pillars (e.g. Job 26.11), and heaven (as in, God's domain) was conceptualized as resting just above the firmament:

Exodus 24.1-2,9-11 shows us Moses and the elders of Israel invited by God to the top of Mount Sinai, whereupon 'they saw the God of Israel'; the narrator describes the firmament as 'a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very clearness of heaven'
Ezekiel 1.22-28 and 10.1 has the prophet see a vision of the glory of God in heaven, where he describes the firmament as 'shining like a dreadful crystal', above which was 'the likeness of a throne, in appearance like sapphire'
(Revelation 4.6 draws on Ezekiel, describing the firmament as 'a sea of glass, like crystal')

Weather functions are executed through openings that are fixed upon the firmament:

Genesis 7.11, 8.2, Second Kings 7.2,19, Isaiah 24.18, and Malachi 3.10 describe heaven / the firmament as having 'windows' through which 'the waters above' fall as rain, and most significantly as a world-ending flood
Job 37.6,9-12,15-17 describes the weather functions as executed upon God's command, while Job 38.22,35,37 specifies that snow, wind, and rain are found in heavenly 'storehouses' and 'waterskins', with Job 38.28-30 showing their ultimate origin is 'the deep' found above heaven / the firmament

The earth

The earth is then created inside of the primeval waters, underneath the protection of the firmament.

Genesis 1.9-10 has 'dry land' created upon 'the waters under the heavens'
Psalm 104.5, where God sets 'the earth' on its 'foundations' (i.e. 'pillars', as in Psalm 75.3) and removes the covering of the deep, so that 'the mountains rose' and 'the valleys sank down'
Job 26.7,10, where God 'suspends the earth over nothing' and 'inscribed a circle on the face of the waters'
Job 38.4, where God 'laid the foundation of the earth'
Proverbs 3.19-20, where God 'founded the earth'
Proverbs 8.27, where God 'drew a circle on the face of the deep'

Two verses above describe a 'circle' being 'drawn' on the surface of the deep (Job 26.10, Proverbs 8.27). The only other time this specific Hebrew word 'circle' is used outside of these two verses is in Isaiah 40.22, where it describes 'the circle of the earth'. However, a closely related word is used in Isaiah 44.13, where it is often translated as 'compass'. The word 'circle' in the three verses does not describe a sphere, it describes a round, disc-like shape.

Conclusion

To recap the above: the earth was a disc-like mass that rested on 'the water below', and was contained underneath a crystalline dome, which in turn held back 'the waters above'. While none of the biblical texts describe the act of creation in exactly the same way or shape, they are in general agreement and complement each other quite well. The final picture we are left with is something similar to this:



While we should definitely take the time to lend some nuance to the phrase, the Hebrew scriptures certainly describe a 'flat earth'.

[ethan]

Its just funny to me what kind of stuff religious people believe.

You think the world is flat based on faith books written by other humans.
You think the sun, moon, and stars are holograms.
You think the edge of the earth is held in place by some magical dome
You think people today are lying about the truth...to control the world...

Suicide bombers think they will get to meet Allah and have 40 virgins.
Just goes to show how crazy "faith" makes people become.

[aljhoa]

... the Hebrew scriptures certainly describe a 'flat earth'.

The above is irrelevant because,
if you fly from Mecca, "the center of the world",
in any direction more than 5,000 km and
make two 90 degrees turns you’ll be back where you started.

Mecca-to-Mecca, "three-leg flight" is not possible on Flat Earth.


Al

[cikljamas]

Al, what are you talking about?

Its just funny to me what kind of stuff religious people believe.

Truly religious people are those who believe in the theory of relativity!

And i am not joking, i am deadly serious about that, and i am deadly serious because it is a flat out truth (above assertion).

You think the world is flat based on faith books written by other humans.

I know the world is flat based on 100 % irrefutable facts and scientific evidences which i have presented in this very thread! Truly religious people read books written by other humans as if these books were written by deity!

If you have any reasonable objections to presented evidences why don't you speak up and (at least once) refer strictly to evidences instead of mumbling words which meanings you yourself don't understand either?

You think the sun, moon, and stars are holograms.

Put yourself together and keep your own words and thoughts for yourself, O. K.? It seems you use to put your own words into others mouth? Behave yourself!

You think people today are lying about the truth...to control the world...

No, i don't think, i know! And you could easily know it also, just if you would pull your head out of the hole which your idol Einstein dug for you and your friends who are relativistic atheistic religious fanatics. Does your hairstyle resemble to his (Einstein) also?

Suicide bombers think they will get to meet Allah and have 40 virgins.

Those guys (who recruit people to do such a dirty job) are looking for brain washed people, and this whole thread is one big "how NOT to" allow them to wash your brains.

But when someone brains are already completely washed out, then we are powerless to help them out no matter what we do because they are not able (anymore) to discern the truth from lie.

Just goes to show how crazy "faith" makes people become.

You hit the nail on the head, it was just your own head this time.

How to put FET in RET mind

[cikljamas]

Few more FET figures

Figure 1:



Figure 2:



Figure 3:



Figure 4:



Figure 5:

[aljhoa]

Mecca-to-Mecca, "three-leg flight" is not possible on Flat Earth.

Al, what are you talking about?

@cikljamas,
where is the proof that 30,000 kilometers journey,
as shown in the above rendering, is not possible on Earth?


Al

[cikljamas]

@ Al, just watch this video once again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blQH711JRYs If there is anything that you don't understand just ask, O.K.?

Now, we should recall us to these colored words:

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
[I]

People do notice something isn't right up there. They just have to look up once in a while.

Example 1:

My fiancee was standing in our room last night looking at a a crescent moon in the sky. she told me to come and check it out because it looked like a Cheshire Cat smile. So I go up to see what it looked like, and indeed it did look like a Cheshire Car smiling. Now here is where I got a little confused.

When I got upstairs, the moon was still reasonably high in the night sky, however, as I sat there within a minute or two, it had droped fast and disappeared behind the Rockies, no more moon for th rest of the night. Mind you this was at about 9:30. We both looked at each other remarked at how fast that just happened.

My question is, does anyone know how fast the moon is supposed to move through the night sky? It just seems that the moon shouldnt be gone for the night at 9:30. Shouldnt it be up for longer? And why did it seem to move so fast?

Any thoughts or ideas?

Answer 1:

Got a good chuckle out of this "observation" today! The same person who wants pictures of the sun from exactly the same spot and time everyday so he can prove "It comes up in a different place everyday!!" has a video of the moon and he is amazed at how fast the moon was moving! He couldn't keep it aimed at the same spot with a camera on a tripod...he kept having to move the camera to maintain it in the center of his shot! Oh nos! Surely the moon is moving too fast!!!!
People who feel that anything in the sky is not moving "right" really need to look it up on a real astronomical site and try observing what you learn is happening.

Example 2:

I think I could figure this out if I had some time to reason through it; but I never seem to be able to find the time when I'm thinking of the problem.

So when watching the moon and the sun move across the sky, does the moon "catch up" to the sun once a month (i.e. the moon moves faster); or does the sun "catch up" to the moon (the sun moves faster)?


Answer 2:

The Moon crosses the sky very slightly faster than the Sun, because it orbits the Earth in prograde, that is, it's orbit is in the same direction as the Earth's rotation. We can show this in terms of degrees per second. Ignoring factors like the Earth's orbital speed, the Sun makes a complete transit around the Earth in ~24.25 hours, or 360 degrees in 87,300 seconds (.0041 degrees/sec). To this, we add (because it's in the same direction) the Moon's orbital speed, which is one orbit in ~29 days or 360 degrees in 2,531,700 seconds (.00000039 degrees/sec). Not exactly jaw-dropping, but there you have it.

Comment to Answer 2:

I'll be sitting over here waiting patiently to make notes on how you square that with the moon rising later each day. :dubious:

Question:

What is wrong with Answer 2?

Answer:

This is what is wrong:

The Moon crosses the sky very slightly faster than the Sun, because it orbits the Earth in prograde, that is, it's orbit is in the same direction as the Earth's rotation.

Does this make any sense? Of course it doesn't, the argument is completely wrong. If the Moon orbits the Earth in the same direction as the Earth rotates on it's axis then the 'apparent' velocity of Moon's motion should be slower across the sky than the 'apparent' motion of the Sun.

The problem is that the 'apparent' motion of the Moon is much faster than the 'apparent' motion of the Sun across the sky!

Watch this!

How about this:









In addition:

WORLD MAP WITHOUT DISTORTIONS

THE REAL MAP OF THE WORLD (PETERS PROJECTION)

TRUE SIZE OF AFRICA

Do you really think that racism is the main reason for distorting world maps like this???

[aljhoa]

Flat Earth Hoax



Because the Earth's magnetic field's inclination and intensity vary at different latitudes, compasses are often balanced during manufacture so that the dial or needle will be level, eliminating needle drag which can give inaccurate readings. Most manufacturers balance their compass needles for one of five zones, ranging from zone 1, covering most of the Northern Hemisphere, to zone 5 covering Australia and the southern oceans. This individual zone balancing prevents excessive dipping of one end of the needle which can cause the compass card to stick and give false readings.
Compass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Liquid Filled Ball Style Pin On Compass proves the flat earth hoax.

Figure 4:

@cikljamas,
what is magnetic field's
inclination and intensity
as a function of latitude?

Al

[cikljamas]

Al, haven't i already presented here quite enough evidences in favor of FET and incomparably smaller (than you have been taught all along) geocentric universe? How much more evidences do you need before you become ready to admit inevitable conclusion which comes out from all evidences that have been presented here?

Secondly, why do you jump from one question to another before we bring to an end previous one?

Regarding your latter question see page 1...

But, what was the former question?

Was it something like this: Why would airliners fly from New Zealand to Brasil in wrong direction which means doubling millage, throwing away enormous sums of money and wasting passengers precious time?

Would you be so kind and answer to above question?

Some more food for thought:

Flugzeiten Kalkulation VS Realität auf der flachen Erde

Let see some more evidence:

cikljamas said:

Answer:

This is what is wrong:

Quote:

The Moon crosses the sky very slightly faster than the Sun, because it orbits the Earth in prograde, that is, it's orbit is in the same direction as the Earth's rotation.

Does this make any sense? Of course it doesn't, the argument is completely wrong. If the Moon orbits the Earth in the same direction as the Earth rotates on it's axis then the 'apparent' velocity of Moon's motion should be slower across the sky than the 'apparent' motion of the Sun.

The problem is that the 'apparent' motion of the Moon is much faster than the 'apparent' motion of the Sun across the sky!

Now, how about the apparent motion of the Sun???

The time standard is to set our clocks to 12:00 when the Sun is highest in the sky on March 21st, since this is when it crosses the equator, also known as vernal equinox. But as you check the Sun's position at the same time, by your watch, on subsequent days, it appears to move West. This is because it appears to be moving slower than average West-to-East.

Conversely, in late December the Sun looks like it is turning around from moving South to moving back North again, known as the winter (to people living in the northern hemisphere) solstice. It does not appear to move either North or South, but it is moving faster than average West-to-East.

So, in winter the Sun is moving faster than average. How come?

If it were to have any relation to alleged perihelion and accordingly assigned greater velocity of the Earth in it's orbit around the Sun then we would have to face heliocentrists with another major flaw in their theory, because the alleged faster moving of the Earth in it's orbit around the Sun would mean slower (NOT faster) diurnal "apparent" motion of the Sun across the sky!!! Why? The true answer to this (why) question has already been given in the above principally identical (about the "apparent" motion of the Moon) example.



“The Winged Globe is pre-eminently a Rosicrucian symbol, although the Illuminati may lay claim to it, and it may be admitted that it is of Egyptian origin. The Winged Globe is the symbol of the perfected soul making its flight back to the source of its creation in the Elysian fields beyond.”
-Swinburne, Clymer, The Rosicrucians Their Teachings



What is the point of inserting occult symbols in logos? Is it an arrogant display of power by the elite or a way to celebrate Mystery Religions? Esoteric scholars affirm that symbols have deep reaching magical effects on the masses:

“It is known that the Unconscious, whether personal or collective works by means of pictures or images, speech being a comparatively recent development. [...] Magic [...] speaks to the subconscious mind of man through the archaic images of its symbols and rituals, and thereby produces those “changes in subconscious” which the magician seeks.”
- W. E. Butler, Magic; It’s Ritual, Power and Purpose

Considering the fact that members of occult societies like the Freemasons study Magic and the power of symbols, there is little doubt that many corporate logos apply this ancient knowledge. Some logos are even suspected to be sigils, symbols that have been magically charged to focus the subconscious to perform particular tasks. In other words, they’re more powerful than you think.



Earth is the center of the universe. Copernicus was wrong.

[aljhoa]

Al, haven't i already presented here quite enough evidences in favor of FET ....?

The following image is an unprecedented star trail image taken from the Equator
(this imaginary line that splits the Earth into the two hemispheres) in Ecuador (the country).
If you stand on the Equator line you can see the Southern Pole at the horizon to the South (left of the image) and
the Northern pole at the horizon on the opposite direction.
The Earth rotation will make all the sky and stars look like they rotate around these two points,
making them appear as concentric circles (which look like ellipses on this distorsioning fish eye image).
Note that on this image, that cumulates 10 hours of exposure starting 1 hour after sunset and
finishing 1 hour before sunrise (nights and days always last 12 hours on the Equator, it is a permanent equinox),
more than 90% of the sky is 'visible', this is another particularity of being on the ecuator line : you can observe the largest part of the sky during any night.
An extremely bright meteor appeared during that night and seems to be pointing at the Southern Pole (extreme left of the image).
Image processing done with Prism software.
Los Cielos del Ecuador, From Southern Pole to Northern Pole






Where on your "flat earth navigation chart"
the counter rotating star trails can be taken?

@cikljamas, answer all previous questions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IVqMXPFYwI


Al

[cikljamas]

IT has often been urged that the earth must be a globe, because the stars in the southern "hemisphere" move round a south polar star; in the same way that those of the north revolve round "Polaris," or the northern pole star. This is another instance of the sacrifice of truth, and denial of the evidence of our senses for the purpose of supporting a theory which is in every sense false and unnatural. It is known to every observer that the north pole star is the centre of a number of constellations which move over the earth in a circular direction. Those nearest to it, as the "Great Bear," &c., &c., are always visible in England during their whole twenty-four hours' revolution. Those further away southwards rise north-north-east, and set south-south-west; still further south they rise east by north, and set west by north. The farthest south visible from England, the rising is more to the east and south-east, and the setting to the west and south-west. But all the stars visible from London rise and set in a way which is not compatible with the doctrine of rotundity. For in-stance, if we stand with our backs to the north, on the high land known as "Arthur's Seat," near Edinburgh, and note the stars in the zenith of our position, and watch for several hours, the zenith stars will gradually recede to the north-west. If we do the same on Woodhouse Moor, near Leeds, or on any of the mountain tops in Yorkshire or Derbyshire, the same phenomenon is observed. The same thing may be seen from the top of Primrose Hill, near Regent's Park, London; from Hampstead Heath; or Shooter's Hill, near Woolwich. If we remain all night, we shall observe the same stars rising towards our position from the north-east, showing that the path of all the stars between ourselves and the northern centre move round the north pole-star as a common centre of rotation; just as they must do over a plane such as the earth is proved to be. It is undeniable that upon a globe zenith stars would rise, pass over head, and set in the plane of the observer's position. If now we carefully watch in the same way the zenith stars from the Rock of Gibraltar, the very same phenomenon is observed. The same is also the case from Cape of Good Hope, Sydney and Melbourne in Australia, in New Zealand, in Rio Janeiro, Monte Video, Valparaiso, and other places in the south. If then the zenith stars of all the places on the earth, where special observations have been made, rise from the morning horizon to the zenith of an observer, and descend to the evening horizon, not in a plane of the position of such observer, but in an arc of a circle concentric with the northern centre, the earth is thereby proved to be a plane, and rotundity altogether disproved--shown, indeed, to be impossible.

Here, however, we are met with the positive assertion that there is a very small star (of about the sixth magnitude) in the south, called Sigma Octantis, round which all the constellations of the south revolve, and which is therefore the southern polar star. It is scarcely polite to contradict the statements made, but it is certain that persons who have been educated to believe that the earth is a globe, going to the southern parts of the earth do not examine such matters critically. They see the stars move from towards the east towards the west, and they are satisfied. But they have not instituted special experiments, regardless of results, to ascertain the real and absolute movements of the southern constellations. Another thing is certain, that from and within the equator the north pole star, and the constellations Ursa Major, Ursa Minor, and many others, can be seen from every meridian simultaneously; whereas in the south, from the equator, neither the so-called south pole star, nor the remarkable constellation of the Southern Cross, can be seen simultaneously from every meridian, showing that all the constellations of the south--pole star included--sweep over a great southern arc and across the meridian, from their rise in the evening to their setting in the morning. But if the earth is a globe, Sigma Octantis a south pole star, and the Southern Cross a southern circumpolar constellation, they would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude, as is the case with the northern pole star and the northern circumpolar constellations.

We have seen that wherever the motions of the stars are carefully examined, it is found that all are connected, and move in relation to the northern centre of the earth. There is nowhere to be found a "break" in the general connection. Except, indeed, what is called the "proper motion" of certain stars and groups of stars all move in the same general direction, concentric with the north pole, and with velocities increasing with radial distance from it. To remove every possible doubt respecting the motions of the stars from the central north to the most extreme south, a number of special observers, each completely free from the bias of education respecting the supposed rotundity of the earth, might be placed in various southern localities, to observe and record the motions of the well known southern constellation, not in relation to a supposed south pole star, but to the meridian and latitude of each position. This would satisfy a certain number of those who cannot divest themselves of the idea of rotundity, but is not at all necessary for the satisfaction of those who are convinced that the earth is a plane, and that the extreme south is a vast circumference instead of a polar centre. To these the evidence already adduced will be sufficiently demonstrative.

The points of certainty are the following:--

1st.--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.

2nd.--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.

3rd.--The earth is a plane, with a northern centre, over which the stars (whether fixed in some peculiar substance or floating in some subtle medium is not yet known) move in concentric courses at different radial distances from the northern centre as far south as and wherever observations have been made. The evidence is the author's own experiments in Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, and many other places; the statements of several unbiassed and truthful friends, who have resided in New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Rio Janeiro, Valparaiso, and other southern localities, and the several incidental statements already quoted.

4th--The southern region of the earth is not central, but circumferential; and therefore there is no southern pole, no south pole star, and no southern circumpolar constellations; all statements to the contrary are doubtful, inconsistent with known facts, and therefore not admissible as evidence.