Is Our Earth FLAT and Motionless, Not a Spinning Globe?

[OutWest]

One of the first things you would learn in law school is to read a statute by looking at "the four corners of the document." That means you read all of it, and construe it in that context. Read sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article VII, and tell me these people are designated only as a sort of compliance police, or whatever the hell you're arguing. The people so designated in Article VII are the ones who get to explore Antarctica, and they are the only ones.

The circumference of the earth is estimated by FEers to be somewhere around 50,000+ miles, which corresponds with Capt. Cook's diary about attempting to sail around it, including sailing from England. Not 100,000, as you say. You're just making shit up.

Hilarious to hear a flat earther talk about making shit up! I double checked, The navigationally useless flat earth fabricated maps tend to depict an Antarctic circumference of 60,000 to 78,000 miles. Tens of thousands of people visit Antarctica every year just from Argentina, New Zealand and Antarctica. No permission from the USA required. More would be coming from those places but they are busy exploring the millions if square miles of additional land that flat earthers created out of thin air. ..making shit up?
A flat earth map should be much easier to create than a globe map...

[gsjackson]

Obviously you didn't read the statute with any care. Argentinians would be required to get permission from their government, New Zealanders from theirs, not the U.S.

Feel free to cite the sources for the thousands of visitors from Argentina, New Zealand and Antarctica (sic), and the scope of their visits.

According to Eric Dubay, probably the most prominent FEer, the circumference of the earth is 50,000 miles and some. But as I said, there is no settled flat earth map.

[HouseMD]

Aside from the relative ease by which one can visit, you can also easily get jobs in Antarctica, as few people want to work there and they are always hiring for everything from janitors to bartenders at the research bases.

How would being a bartender at a research base allow you to test the theory of whether it was the end of the earth?

You'd be in the mythical place they say you can't go. You'd see basically most of what went in there. You could ask about ongoing research, etc. And you'd get to take in the whole journey there.

[Winston]

Have you guys noticed that those "actors" (if they are) on the ISS do not look like high calibre or high quality people? They look kind of goofy and not serious. Like goofballs or hillbillies, the kind of people who will do anything for money. Do you get that feeling from them too? It's as if the ISS has low criteria or low qualifications on who they will accept as a crew member. It's as if the screening process was simply:

Q: Are you willing to participate in a hoax if we pay you? And will you keep it a secret for life under penalty of death and the death of your loved ones?
A: Yeah sure. Why not? Sounds like a good deal! Let's do it!
Q: Ok we will prepare the contracts for you to sign. You will then be briefed further.

If so, then NASA would not try to recruit anyone to be an ISS crew member. Certainly not someone like Adama that gripes about truth and morals and God. They would look at the background of the applicant and pick people who have a history of lying for money and showing no conscience about it. Right?

A man who views things with the simplicity of a tubby alcoholic Chinese farmer that looks the part saying that the PhDs riding on the ISS seem like hillbillies is the most ironic thing I've come across in months. Astronauts are specifically selected to be charismatic ambassadors of science, in addition to having research-level credentials in the sciences and personalities that can handle the isolation of space.

Well then you must be blind, deaf and dumb, or dishonest as well. Most of the Apollo astronauts are bland and lifeless and have no personality or charisma at all. Everyone knows that. Have you seen Neil Armstrong? He was uncomfortable on camera and didn't like to be interviewed and shied away from it. The only astronaut who likes all the publicity is Buzz Aldrin. None of the people on the ISS have any charisma. Do you even know what charisma is? Do you watch good movies? If so you should have an idea. Actors have good charisma yes, such as Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt. But not these ISS bozos. Are you dumber than I thought? No one who has met me considers me to be a hillbilly. You are simply trying to discredit me using dishonest tactics.

[Winston]

Check this out. The first Flat Earth Convention was recently held. It got some attention from the mainstream media too, who sent reporters to cover the event and interview some of its members, including Mark Sargent, one of the leaders of the flat earth movement.

Here is the report from ABC Nightline about the flat earth convention. It's only 7 minutes and the reporter lady was actually nice and didn't ridicule them and tried to act impartial.



BBC News report on the flat earth convention.



Vice News from HBO.

[Winston]

Wow guys check this out. A group of independent scientists from Brazil performed a series of tests and experiments with high tech equipment to test the Earth's curvature. The result was that they found NO CURVATURE on the Earth! How can that be? If the Earth is not flat, then how can this be? This indicates that the ball earth model is very problematic too. So what's the solution? Can light bend around the Earth's curvature due to gravity? They concluded that the Earth is not completely flat either, but has a little convex shape. In addition, they also discovered a new hidden continent beyond the Antarctic ice wall using high altitude test balloon flights from Brazil!

Here is the documentary about their tests and experiments. They speak in Portuguese but it's dubbed in English. The group of researchers gave their websites in the video description where they said their video could be uploaded on other channels.

Description:

"The Terra Convexa Documentary may be republished in another channel as long as the monetization is deactivated and the source is informed as follows:
"Terra convexa is an independent research of Dákila Researches www.dakila.com.br and Centro Tecnológico Zigurats ctzbrasil.com.br originally published in www.terraconvexa.com.br and convexearth.org"

After seven years of research on earth format, scientific experiments carried out by Brazilian researchers at Dakila Research and the Zigurats Technological Center in partnership with professionals from various areas of Brazil and other countries, such as the United States, Russia, Chile, the Netherlands, Spain , have shown that the Earth is not spherical.
The evidence is being presented in the feature film Terra Convexa: The Documentary, available in three languages: Portuguese, English and Spanish and published on the websites terraconvexa.com.br and convexearth.org
Seven scientific experiments were carried out, including the geodesic, which consisted in measuring the distances between the bases and tops of a building in Torres (RS) and another in Natal (RN), with a distance of 3,050 km between them. reference to sea level. "The measurements were the same. If the Earth were spherical, the measure of the distance between the bases should be smaller than the measurement between the upper parts of the buildings because they would be following the curvature of the Earth, "explains Urandir de Oliveira, founder of Dakila Research. Engineers from the National Institute of Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) participated in the action.
A long-range laser was used to measure the flatness and leveling of the waters at the Três Marias Dam (MG); in Lagoa dos Patos (RS), on Lake Titicaca, Peru; and in the seas of Ilhabela (SP) and in the Strait of Gibraltar. The tests performed up to 35 km did not identify any curvature.
Experiments with refracting and reflecting telescopes have proved that boats do not disappear on the horizon, but we lost the ability to observe them due to an optical phenomenon. This phenomenon was studied by the researchers, who formulated a new physical theory, which explains physically and mathematically how this works.
Experiments with plumbing (verticalization) and level (horizontalization) have proved that gravity does not exist, because the physical behavior of water is to seek its original form, that is, flatness. According to Urandir, what holds us firm to the ground is the MDPL (magnetism, density, pressure and light).
Through images obtained through several atmospheric probes launched by the researchers, as well as of incursions made, including in Antarctica, with the collaboration of the Armed Forces of Brazil, as well as other analyzes of materials found in glaciers of Siberia and the shores of the Arctic Glacial Ocean , such as pollen, dust and other fragments, a new continent, known as the "Greater North", was discovered, separated by a large mass of ice.
The trajectory of the stars, including the Sun and the Moon, is totally different from what science says. The new information enabled the correct positioning of the continents.
The complete research information, with regard to equipments, coordinates, images, all techniques, research content, technical reports, scientific papers, mathematical calculations and proposed theories will be available soon on the websites http://www.terraconvexa.com.br and http://convexearth.org
A book with the complete compilation of the research will be released soon."

Full documentary:

[Winston]

Michael Tsarion on his FB page explains why he thinks Eric Dubay is wrong about the flat earth being part of the elite's war on consciousness:

Unslaved FLAT EARTH THEORY REFUTED

A contrived set of theories which don't stand up on close examination, particularly from a philosophical perspective.

For me the flaw is evident from Dubay's concluding remarks about the REASONS for the so-called "Masonic" deception. Dubay wishes us to take for granted that Masonic conspiracy exists. It believe it does exist, but that it has nothing whatever to do with altering man's perception of the planet in relation to the universe. I believe that the idea that this is the Masonic agenda is ludicrous.

The conspiratorial elite aim at controlling MINDS. Everything else is subservient to that process. It follows that once they achieve this goal, they have no reason whatsoever to continue wasting time and resources on highly elaborate and relatively easily refuted conspiracies. They know that once a program of this sort is refuted and exposed (as it is sure to be), their entire agenda is universally undermined. And they are far too smart to leave themselves open to counter-strikes of this kind.

In other words, their primary agenda is to affect minds in ways that minds are highly UNLIKELY to discern. It is in this work that they excel, and anyone who knows anything about "Masonic" conspiracy knows that this is their focus, genius and triumph. The elites do not, and would not, waste time contriving illusions that are easily discerned by those under the spell. There's is too much to lose. The mind-controlled must never be alerted to the fact that he is mind-controlled. Once behavior is controlled, their job is done. And we can be sure that man's thought and behavior has indeed been subject to remote control. However, the project falls apart if the subject awakens to discover that he and his fellows have been victimized by an external fallacy. To find out that one has been duped about a flat earth is a far easier revelation that to find out that one has been psychologically controlled. And to find out that one has been duped as to a physical factor serves to UNDERMINE the agenda of the arch-conspirator. (All competent film editors know they have failed to create a captivating movie if the audience is aware of the techniques employed to make that movie.)

But now to convey the most serious criticism. Around 1:55:00, when summarizing, Dubay gives us the supposed REASONS for the conspirator's elaborate artifice. However, his "philosophical" presumptions or speculations are valueless, and in no way reinforce or prove the apparently science-based remarks throughout the bulk of his monologue. The idea that the Masons have fooled humankind into believing it lives on a globe in order to to "materialize" or despiritualize it is simply preposterous. The reasons why man has spiritual aspirations in the first place are not addressed by Dubay. If they were addressed, his own theory would fall flat on its face.

For example, one of the main reasons for man's spiritual ardor is the beauty that surrounds him - the beauty of nature. Now the phenomenon of beauty exists regardless of whether man lives on a globe, cube or flat plane. Another source of spirituality is man's own ability to convert nature's beauty into art, song and music. Again, this propensity does not change based on whether or not the earth is a globe. Another key underlying reason for man's spiritual or religious sensibility is his innate sense of humanity, a consequence of his living among other humans in tribes and communities. This phenomenon stands whether the earth is a globe or not. Moreover, man's spirituality is partly a consequence of his dream life, that is his inner life or imagination. However, again, the natural activity of man's psyche remains constant regardless of whether the earth is a globe or not.

So given that these roots of spirituality are unaffected by the earth's shape, we see that Dubay cannot turn to spirituality, or its lack, as a proof for flat earth. We see that Dubay's attempt to give a philosophical account of why the "Masons" have gone to the ridiculous lengths to deceive the entire human race - namely, to despiritualize and control them - is extremely weak and spurious when offered as proof for the flat-earth theory. What is more, Dubay tells us nothing about man's own love of enslavement and falsity.

The forces that enslave and dehumanize are not solely from without. They do not solely rain down from the hidden elite. That is a widely held fiction, and is demonstrably false. Man's sorry condition is largely the consequence of his own aberrant relationship WITH HIMSELF. And it is man's own penchant for delusion, violence and self-sadism that leaves him open to control from without. Indeed, man cannot be controlled by any external force unless he has first psychologically and emotionally disempowered himself. Dubay, like so many others with little to no psychological knowledge, has things the wrong way around.

If it was as he says, then the case for humankind would be entirely hopeless. Man would be an will-less automaton unable to awaken and change his state. But bad as things are in our world, this is simply not the case. This means that volition remains a key factor. Sure man can find himself controlled and manipulated, but he is at all times and stages quite capable of freeing himself from that state. If it were, as Dubay contends, a matter of external tyranny only, then there would be no question of man saving himself and turning against the forces of control.

So in short, in my opinion, Dubay's theory of WHY the conspirators have hidden the truth about a "flat earth" (given that such a thing exists) is utterly wrongheaded and inadequate, at least from a philosophical perspective. And once we see that no external force, no matter how factual and tyrannical, would undertake such a bizarre and costly conspiracy, only to be at high risk from being exposed, shows us that we can rightly or logically conclude that the flat earth theory has not been hidden by way of an artful and prolonged conspiracy, and is not plausible.

Indeed, using Dubay’s own statements, false as they are, we can say that Masons are more likely to disorient people by positing FLAT EARTH THEORY. It is this theory that confounds sense and leads man to doubt his position in the universe. It is this theory that perplexes and leads to feelings of meaninglessness. Yes, of the two positions, Masons are more likely to have contrived and disseminated the FLAT EARTH THEORY to bring about a desired despiritualization of humankind

- MTSAR

[gsjackson]

This just seems like word salad -- I can't get any point out of it. It takes no account of momentum that has been building for 400 years. Some people back then, for whatever reasons -- probably religious -- wanted the earth to revolve around the sun. But to account for night and day, the earth couldn't be flat, so it became a revolving globe. But how do you keep water from spinning off a globe? Well, here's Brother Newton with something he calls gravity that magically makes the water stick. So why are the stars in the same place when the earth has traveled to the other side of the sun? Well, the sun must be tens of millions of miles away, and the stars quadrillions of miles away (though perfectly visible), and at those distances everything looks the same wherever earth is in its journey around the sun. Can't demonstrate the earth's motion? Here's Einstein with relativity showing that motion can't be perceived.

The whole thing was jerry-built in this manner, and managed to get itself widely accepted without any proof. Now entire professions and fields of inquiry depend upon its acceptance, which is guaranteed by hundreds of millions of indoctrinated useful idiots who shout down any dissent.

The next flat earth conference is in Denver in mid-November. I may go. It features several people whom Dubay thinks are controlled opposition, but I'm not sure I'm with him on that.

[Adama]

So it has been about three years since I first started this thread. Someone had made a comment on another forum, which piqued my curiosity. Then I began my research.

However, I wish I had not made this thread. If I had it to do over again, I would not make any threads like this. Not because I am afraid of controversy, but now I realize, it is rather pointless to try to awaken people to simple truths such as this. Some people cannot believe what is in front of their eyes, regardless how many proofs they are shown, those proofs will always be rejected.

And another reason is, it doesn't truly matter what other people think or believe. Whether they agree or disagree, it doesn't really matter. I don't really need other people to sign on to this.

As an aside, I have gotten to see the nature of how the human mind works; the nature of deception; the nature of people who cannot believe what is right in front of their eyes; the nature of people who use insults simply because others disagree with them, all of which shows me that conversation is pointless.

For me, this really was for purposes of light-hearted discussion amongst people whom I thought were my comrades, but quickly, the insults made discussion not worth it. Not everything in life is meant to be war or a life and death struggle. It's not that important to make enemies out of other posters.

[Winston]

In response to Adama's question to me:

I am thinking of another proof. The clouds. As far as you can see, whether there is a mountain in the way or not, the clouds are all perfectly even as far as you can see. The bottoms of the clouds are flat. There is some invisible barrier below which clouds can't go. I think the clouds are flat at the bottom and on an even level at the lowest level as far as we can see, because it is a mirror image of the ground. The ground beneath the clouds is relatively flat, and even the clouds are flat, despite having nothing visible which might shape them on the bottom to be flat, and nothing visible which would prevent them from being uneven with each other, and nothing visible beneath them which prevents them from sinking lower in the sky than they are.

The lower most level of clouds all hit a lower ceiling beneath which they can't penetrate, which makes them all flattened out, like pancake batter when it hits a pan. And this invisible lower ceiling for the clouds extends everywhere.

If the bottoms of the clouds are flat when there doesn't seem to be a reason why they should be, shouldn't the earth beneath it also be flat? Why not have a bunch of rocky, jagged, uneven, haphazard clouds, with one here and there, but no pancake batter flatness to the lower limit?

And since we can see with our eyes that there is a lower limit, what in the blazes could it be made up? What substance could stop and shape the clouds in the sky? While allowing air, planes, birds are the rest penetrate? How's that possible?

Well the ball earthers would say that you can't see the curvature from ground level or even from a plane. You have to go very high in space to see curvature. Because it's very gradual. Also on a plane I have seen some curvature on clouds before, but it's very slight. I took a photo of it too. You can see a slight curve or dip. I don't think it's due to the window being curved because when the plane is on the runway the ground level looks normal.

I've been studying both sides of the debate. Both have good arguments. So I don't think it's certain what the shape of the earth is. Both the globe and flat earth models have problems. And NASA refuses to take a real photo of earth from space to settle the issue. So we just don't know. See the Brazilian documentary I just posted in this thread above, where a team of scientists test for curvature. It's very interesting.

[Winston]

This just seems like word salad -- I can't get any point out of it. It takes no account of momentum that has been building for 400 years. Some people back then, for whatever reasons -- probably religious -- wanted the earth to revolve around the sun. But to account for night and day, the earth couldn't be flat, so it became a revolving globe. But how do you keep water from spinning off a globe? Well, here's Brother Newton with something he calls gravity that magically makes the water stick. So why are the stars in the same place when the earth has traveled to the other side of the sun? Well, the sun must be tens of millions of miles away, and the stars quadrillions of miles away (though perfectly visible), and at those distances everything looks the same wherever earth is in its journey around the sun. Can't demonstrate the earth's motion? Here's Einstein with relativity showing that motion can't be perceived.

The whole thing was jerry-built in this manner, and managed to get itself widely accepted without any proof. Now entire professions and fields of inquiry depend upon its acceptance, which is guaranteed by hundreds of millions of indoctrinated useful idiots who shout down any dissent.

The next flat earth conference is in Denver in mid-November. I may go. It features several people whom Dubay thinks are controlled opposition, but I'm not sure I'm with him on that.

What are you referring to? You should quote it next time. The copernican principle of heliocentricity wasn't adopted out of religious purposes. It was adopted because it fit the motion of the sun and planets at the time in their elliptical orbit. But what they didn't tell you was that Tychone also proved that the Geocentric model could also explain the sun and planets in orbit too. Even Einstein and Edwin Hubble and many other top astronomers have admitted that BOTH the heliocentric model and geocentric model are EQUALLY valid in explaining the movement of the sun and planets. So the earth doesn't have to be moving.

The theory behind heliocentrism was that smaller objects rotate around larger ones, so the earth had to rotate around the sun, because the sun was bigger. Galileo saw moons moving around Jupiter and concluded that smaller objects move around larger objects. That was the logic behind it. Also, it helps turn people away from religion and God too, so atheists adopted the heliocentric model to prove that we are nothing special and just an accident, so everyone can rely on science and materialism to provide them with all the answers.

See the movie "The Principle" which goes over all this in detail. I started a geocentrism thread about it too.

viewtopic.php?t=28772

Water doesn't spin off the globe because in space there is no up or down, so water would just float without gravity.

Actually the western world believed the world was a globe since the time of Aristotle in ancient Greece. That wasn't the issue in the 1600's. The issue was geocentrism vs heliocentrism, or Ptolemy vs Copernicus.

Btw the globe earthers have an argument that's hard to refute. When you are in Australia in the southern hemisphere, you see different star constellations than you do in the northern hemisphere. On a flat earth, everyone should see the same stars and constellations. But they don't, not even with a telescope. So that supports the globe model. Like I said, both sides have compelling arguments.

You should attend the flat earth conference if you can. I'm sure it'd be interesting. Try to meet Mark Sargent too. He seems like a nice guy. I don't like that Eric Dubay claims he's a shill as though it were a certainty. Dubay should just say "I suspect Mark may be a shill" not state it arrogantly as if it were a fact. That makes him too arrogant and self-righteous to claim he knows something he can't possibly know.

[Winston]

So it has been about three years since I first started this thread. Someone had made a comment on another forum, which piqued my curiosity. Then I began my research.

However, I wish I had not made this thread. If I had it to do over again, I would not make any threads like this. Not because I am afraid of controversy, but now I realize, it is rather pointless to try to awaken people to simple truths such as this. Some people cannot believe what is in front of their eyes, regardless how many proofs they are shown, those proofs will always be rejected.

And another reason is, it doesn't truly matter what other people think or believe. Whether they agree or disagree, it doesn't really matter. I don't really need other people to sign on to this.

As an aside, I have gotten to see the nature of how the human mind works; the nature of deception; the nature of people who cannot believe what is right in front of their eyes; the nature of people who use insults simply because others disagree with them, all of which shows me that conversation is pointless.

For me, this really was for purposes of light-hearted discussion amongst people whom I thought were my comrades, but quickly, the insults made discussion not worth it. Not everything in life is meant to be war or a life and death struggle. It's not that important to make enemies out of other posters.

Well this topic is sort of important. If one concludes that the earth is flat and/or geocentric, then one cannot be an atheist anymore and will be forced to change their beliefs. In fact, the guys that run the podcast on YouTube called ball earth skeptic roundtable, said they've received many emails thanking them from people who were atheists, but came to believe in God again due to the flat earth movement. So it does change people's religious beliefs. The flat earth model and geocentric model means that we were created by a creator and have a purpose here. So it makes one view life and the universe in a totally different way, and more meaningful way as well. It gives life more meaning as well. So it matters in that sense.

[gsjackson]

This just seems like word salad -- I can't get any point out of it. It takes no account of momentum that has been building for 400 years. Some people back then, for whatever reasons -- probably religious -- wanted the earth to revolve around the sun. But to account for night and day, the earth couldn't be flat, so it became a revolving globe. But how do you keep water from spinning off a globe? Well, here's Brother Newton with something he calls gravity that magically makes the water stick. So why are the stars in the same place when the earth has traveled to the other side of the sun? Well, the sun must be tens of millions of miles away, and the stars quadrillions of miles away (though perfectly visible), and at those distances everything looks the same wherever earth is in its journey around the sun. Can't demonstrate the earth's motion? Here's Einstein with relativity showing that motion can't be perceived.

The whole thing was jerry-built in this manner, and managed to get itself widely accepted without any proof. Now entire professions and fields of inquiry depend upon its acceptance, which is guaranteed by hundreds of millions of indoctrinated useful idiots who shout down any dissent.

The next flat earth conference is in Denver in mid-November. I may go. It features several people whom Dubay thinks are controlled opposition, but I'm not sure I'm with him on that.

What are you referring to? You should quote it next time. The copernican principle of heliocentricity wasn't adopted out of religious purposes. It was adopted because it fit the motion of the sun and planets at the time in their elliptical orbit. But what they didn't tell you was that Tychone also proved that the Geocentric model could also explain the sun and planets in orbit too. Even Einstein and Edwin Hubble and many other top astronomers have admitted that BOTH the heliocentric model and geocentric model are EQUALLY valid in explaining the movement of the sun and planets. So the earth doesn't have to be moving.

The theory behind heliocentrism was that smaller objects rotate around larger ones, so the earth had to rotate around the sun, because the sun was bigger. Galileo saw moons moving around Jupiter and concluded that smaller objects move around larger objects. That was the logic behind it. Also, it helps turn people away from religion and God too, so atheists adopted the heliocentric model to prove that we are nothing special and just an accident, so everyone can rely on science and materialism to provide them with all the answers.

See the movie "The Principle" which goes over all this in detail. I started a geocentrism thread about it too.

viewtopic.php?t=28772

Water doesn't spin off the globe because in space there is no up or down, so water would just float without gravity.

Actually the western world believed the world was a globe since the time of Aristotle in ancient Greece. That wasn't the issue in the 1600's. The issue was geocentrism vs heliocentrism, or Ptolemy vs Copernicus.

Btw the globe earthers have an argument that's hard to refute. When you are in Australia in the southern hemisphere, you see different star constellations than you do in the northern hemisphere. On a flat earth, everyone should see the same stars and constellations. But they don't, not even with a telescope. So that supports the globe model. Like I said, both sides have compelling arguments.

You should attend the flat earth conference if you can. I'm sure it'd be interesting. Try to meet Mark Sargent too. He seems like a nice guy. I don't like that Eric Dubay claims he's a shill as though it were a certainty. Dubay should just say "I suspect Mark may be a shill" not state it arrogantly as if it were a fact. That makes him too arrogant and self-righteous to claim he knows something he can't possibly know.

I was referencing the article you linked directly above my post -- the word salad by Chef Tsarion. Maybe if I had said "irreligious purpose" you would get the point. Most flat earthers believe that helio-centrism was in large measure an effort to de-throne God and move man out of his central place in the universe. I don't think any of them accept that the only agenda was objective science.

I believe you're flatly wrong (pun intended) about helio-centrism being widely accepted in the West going back to ancient Greece. See Dubay's lengthy video on the history of flat earth.

Now that the millions to quadrillions of miles away for astral bodies is rejected, it's time for flat earthers to give some thought to just what the limits of human vision are, with and without magnification, and just how far away the sun, moon and stars really are. I think it's likely that they are hundreds, not thousands of miles away. That's certainly what it looks like. Thus as you move away from the center of the earth towards the southern hemisphere you are less likely to see constellations over the center, such as northern polaris. Just like the sun and moon, they move out of your field of vision because of distance, not sloping away on a ball.

I agree with you that Dubay has gotten out of line with the shill calling out. In some cases he's accusing people who are professed devout admirers of his, such as Jeran Camponella. Jeranism does yeoman work, both with the Globebusters panel and by himself with his wife. I expect to go to the conference, and am looking forward to it. I believe these people are genuine truth seekers.

[Winston]

gsjackson,
You misunderstood me. I said the idea that the earth is round or a globe goes back to ancient greece. You can look that up on Wikipedia even. The idea of heliocentricity though, that the earth goes around the sun, is the concept that's relatively new and only goes back 400 years. You got those two mixed up.

How do you find out about the flat earth convention schedule? Is there a link that announces when and where it will be? If so can you post it?

Yeah I suspect the stars may be closer than they claim too. There are now many videos on YouTube where they zoom in on the stars and show them to be translucent and like plasma balls in water. Nothing like suns at all. See here for a list of many videos of stars being zoomed in.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... e+not+suns

Also, some of the videos show how stars can be created in a water tank, using sound waves. They've done it at UCLA already and have shown it on video. You can see clips of it at the videos above. This means that somehow, sound waves could be creating the stars above in the firmament, and the stars could be inside water above the dome firmament too, just as the Bible and many ancient texts say.

[Cornfed]

Pretty sure the idea that the earth orbits the sun goes back to Ancient Greece as well.